Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal 

Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2009–10

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5021

Prepared in cooperation with Bureau of Reclamation 

acting as fiscal agent for the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program

Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal 

Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2009–10
Cover, Upstream view of the Rio Grande from a location about 1 mile southwest of the Montaño Bridge. 

Photograph was taken January 24, 2016, by Nathan Myers.
Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation 

of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from 

the Rio Grande at Selected Locations in 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2009–10

By Dale R. Rankin, Gretchen P. Oelsner, Kurt J. McCoy, Geoff J.M. Moret, 

Jeffrey A. Worthington, and Kimberly M. Bandy-Baldwin

Prepared in cooperation with Bureau of Reclamation 

acting as fiscal agent for the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species 

Collaborative Program

Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5021

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2016

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Rankin, D.R., Oelsner, G.P., McCoy, K.J., Moret, G.J.M., Worthington, J.A., and Bandy-Baldwin, K.M., 2016, 

Groundwater hydrology and estimation of horizontal groundwater flux from the Rio Grande at selected locations 

in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2009–10: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5021, 89 p., 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20165021.

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)
iii

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to recognize the efforts of others who contributed to the completion of 

this study. The City of Albuquerque’s Open Space Division granted permission for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to install and maintain piezometers in the Rio Grande riparian area along 

the river. The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District granted permission for the USGS to install 

and maintain surface-water gages at various locations in the Corrales, Atrisco, and Albuquerque 

Riverside Drains. The Bernalillo County Commission granted permission for the USGS to install 

and maintain piezometers at various locations near the I-25 bridge and the Barelas Bridge. 

The authors wish to recognize the support of committees associated with the Middle Rio Grande 

Endangered Species Collaborative Program, including the Executive Committee, the Science 

Subcommittee, and, in particular, members of the Species and Water Management Committee. 

We wish to acknowledge the assistance and guidance provided by Charles Fischer and Valda 

Terauds of the Bureau of Reclamation. In addition, we would like to thank the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers for the initial funding of the monitoring network, the installation of which preceded 

the interpretive work done in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Middle Rio 

Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program.

We would also like to acknowledge the technical assistance provided by Jeb Brown and 

Anthony Cox, hydrologic technicians in the USGS New Mexico Water Science Center, who 

performed the discharge measurements for the seepage investigation.

v

Contents

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

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................2

Purpose and Scope ...........................................................................................................................13

Description of the Study Area .........................................................................................................13

Inner Valley Alluvial Aquifer ....................................................................................................13

Santa Fe Group Aquifer ...........................................................................................................13

Previous Investigations .....................................................................................................................13

Methods of Data Collection and Analysis ..............................................................................................14

Piezometer Installation and Core Descriptions ............................................................................14

Water-Level and Temperature Data ...............................................................................................24

Slug Tests ............................................................................................................................................24

Horizontal Hydraulic Gradients .......................................................................................................25

Darcy Flux ............................................................................................................................................27

Suzuki-Stallman Method for Estimating Heat Flux .......................................................................27

Limitations and Assumptions of Suzuki-Stallman Method .........................................................29

Range of Applicability ..............................................................................................................29

Flow Direction ............................................................................................................................29

Aquifer Heterogeneity ..............................................................................................................29

Variable Recharge ....................................................................................................................29

Spatial Aliasing ..........................................................................................................................29

Surface-Temperature Variations ............................................................................................30

Temperature Dependence of Hydraulic Conductivity .........................................................30

Uncertainty in Thermal Properties .........................................................................................30

Data Error ...................................................................................................................................30

Groundwater Hydrology .............................................................................................................................30

Groundwater Levels and Temperatures .........................................................................................31

Horizontal Hydraulic Gradients .......................................................................................................67

Hydraulic Conductivity ......................................................................................................................68

Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande .......................................................71

Darcy Flux ...................................................................................................................................71

Heat-Flux Modeling ..................................................................................................................74

Horizontal Groundwater-Flux Model Comparison ...............................................................81

Riverside Drain Seepage Investigations ...............................................................................81

Variability of Horizontal Hydraulic Gradients and Groundwater Fluxes ............................................84

Summary ......................................................................................................................................................86

References ...................................................................................................................................................87
vi

Figures

1. Map showing location of study area and transects in the Albuquerque area, 

New Mexico .................................................................................................................................3

2. Map showing potentiometric-elevation contours, 2002, in the Santa Fe Group 

aquifer in the Albuquerque area and estimated groundwater-level declines 

from 1960 to 2002 ..........................................................................................................................4

3. Aerial photographs showing location of piezometer nests and surface-water 

gages, hydraulic head and water-table contours based on data collected 

during 2009, and the direction of groundwater flow at the A, Alameda 

(August 15, 2009); B, Paseo del Norte (September 26, 2009); C, Montaño 

(August 15, 2009); D, Central (August 15, 2009); E, Barelas (March 15, 2009); 

F, Rio Bravo (August 15, 2009); G, Pajarito (July 26, 2009); and H, I-25 (July 26, 

2009) transects .............................................................................................................................5

4. Diagram showing how piezometer triangles were defined to compute daily 

mean hydraulic gradients on the west side of the Rio Grande at the I-25 

transect .......................................................................................................................................26

5. Graph showing type curves developed using equations 8 and 9 showing values 

of the parameters a and b as a function of specific flux, qs ...............................................28

6. Hydrographs showing daily mean water-level altitude for stage of the Rio 

Grande and riverside drains and for groundwater levels in piezometers at 

A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; 

D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; F, Montaño transect 2; 

G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas 

transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito 

transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2 ....................32

7. Daily mean water temperatures in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and 

daily mean groundwater temperatures in piezometers at A, Alameda 

transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo 

del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central 

transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; 

K, Rio Bravo transect 1; L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; 

N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2 ........................................49

8. Graphs showing monthly vertical temperature profiles in piezometers, 2008–9 ............65

9. Boxplots of hydraulic conductivities estimated from slug tests conducted 

at selected locations in the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico ...............................................................................................................................70

10. Graphs showing daily mean Darcy flux calculated from daily mean hydraulic 

gradients and slug-test derived hydraulic conductivities, daily mean Darcy flux 

calculated from daily mean hydraulic gradients and a plausible range of hydraulic 

conductivities, and daily mean Rio Grande stage for the Alameda, Paseo del 

Norte, Montaño, and Central transects and the Barelas, Rio Bravo, Pajarito, and 

I-25 transects, Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, 2009–10 ......................................72

11. Boxplots showing summary of annual Darcy flux through the Rio Grande 

inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New Mexico, calculated using the 

Suzuki-Stallman method. ..........................................................................................................80
vii

Tables

1. Site data for piezometers and surface-water data collection sites, Rio Grande 

inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New Mexico ....................................................15

2. Annual mean magnitude of groundwater horizontal hydraulic gradient and 

direction of groundwater flow at piezometer transects, Rio Grande inner 

valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2009–10 ..............................................67

3. Summary of slug-test results from piezometers in the Rio Grande inner valley 

alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New Mexico ..........................................................................68

4. Annual flux between individual time-series pairs and depths in the Rio Grande 

inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2009–10 ....................................75

5. Comparison of Darcy’s Law and Suzuki-Stallman method results for horizontalgroundwater flux in the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, 

 Mexico ........................................................................................................................................81

6. Seepage investigation discharge measurements and estimated uncertainty in 

Rio Grande riverside drains, Albuquerque, New Mexico, February 10–12, 2010 ............82

7. Comparison of annual mean horizontal hydraulic gradient and annual median 

flux at selected locations calculated for Report 1 (2003–9) and Report 2 (the 

current report, 2009–10) ............................................................................................................85
viii

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to International System of Units

 Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) 

Flow rate

foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meter per day (m/d)

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

cubic foot per day (ft3/d) 0.02832 cubic meter per day (m3/d)

Thermal Conductivity

British thermal unitIT per 

hour foot degree Fahrenheit 

(BTUIT hr-1 ft-1 °F-1)

1.730 watt per meter Kelvin (W m-1 

K-1)

Volumetric Heat Capacity

British thermal unit IT cubic foot 

degree Fahrenheit (BTUIT 

ft-3 °F-1)

67,070 joule per cubic meter Kelvin 

(J m-3 K-1)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as °F = (1.8 × 

°C) + 32.

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as °C = (°F – 

32) / 1.8.

Datum

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88) or National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 
Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal 

Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected 

Locations in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2009–10

By Dale R. Rankin,1 Gretchen P. Oelsner,1 Kurt J. McCoy,2 Geoff J.M. Moret,3 Jeffrey A. Worthington,1 and 

Kimberly M. Bandy-Baldwin4

Abstract 

The Albuquerque area of New Mexico has two principal 

sources of water: (1) groundwater from the Santa Fe Group 

aquifer system, and (2) surface water from the Rio Grande. 

From 1960 to 2002, pumping from the Santa Fe Group 

aquifer system caused groundwater levels to decline more 

than 120 feet while water-level declines along the Rio Grande 

in Albuquerque were generally less than 40 feet. These 

differences in water-level declines in the Albuquerque area 

have resulted in a great deal of interest in quantifying the 

river-aquifer interaction associated with the Rio Grande. 

In 2003, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation 

with the Bureau of Reclamation, acting as fiscal agent for 

the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative 

Program, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, began a 

study to characterize the hydrogeology of the Rio Grande 

inner valley alluvial aquifer in the Albuquerque area of 

New Mexico. The study provides hydrologic data in order 

to enhance the understanding of rates of water leakage from 

the Rio Grande to the alluvial aquifer, groundwater flow 

through the aquifer, and discharge of water from the aquifer to 

riverside drains. The study area extends about 20 miles along 

the Rio Grande in the Albuquerque area. Piezometers and 

surface-water gages were installed in paired transects at eight 

locations. Nested piezometers, completed at various depths 

in the alluvial aquifer, and surface-water gages, installed in 

the Rio Grande and riverside drains, were instrumented with 

pressure transducers. Water-level and water-temperature data 

were collected from 2009 to 2010.

Water levels from the piezometers indicated that 

groundwater movement was usually away from the river 

towards the riverside drains. Annual mean horizontal 

groundwater gradients in the inner valley alluvial aquifer 

ranged from 0.0024 (I-25 East) to 0.0144 (Pajarito East). 

The median hydraulic conductivity values of the inner valley 

alluvial aquifer, determined from slug tests, ranged from 

30 feet per day (ft/d) (Montaño) to 120 ft/d (Central) for 

paired transects, with a median hydraulic conductivity for 

all transects of 50 ft/d. Daily mean groundwater fluxes from 

the river through the inner valley alluvial aquifer computed 

using Darcy’s Law and the slug test results ranged from about 

0.01 ft/d (Montaño West) to between 1.0 and 2.0 ft/d (Central 

East). Median annual groundwater fluxes from the river 

through the inner valley alluvial aquifer determined using 

the Suzuki-Stallman method was greatest at Alameda East 

(0.50 ft/d) and lowest at Alameda West (0.25 ft/d). The results 

from both methods agreed reasonably well. 

Seepage investigations conducted by measuring 

discharge in the east and west riverside drains provided 

information for computing changes in flow within the drains 

and for evaluating results from Darcy’s Law and SuzukiStallman method flux calculations. Discharge measured 

in the east riverside drain between the Barelas Bridge and 

the I-25 bridge indicated that the flow in the east riverside 

drain increased by an average of 56.5 cubic feet per day per 

linear foot (ft3/d/ft) of drain. Discharge measured in the west 

riverside drain between the Central bridge and the I-25 bridge 

indicated that flow increased between west drain miles 0 and 

4, an average of 53.8 ft3/d/ft of drain, and that flow increased 

between west drain miles 7 and 10, an average of 44.9 ft3/d/

ft of drain. In comparison to the seepage measurement results, 

the groundwater fluxes from the river through the inner valley 

alluvial aquifer calculated from Darcy’s Law (qslug) and by 

the Suzuki-Stallman method (qheat) would account for 20–36 

percent or 53–95 percent, respectively, of the total flow in 

the east riverside drain and 22–31 percent or 19–26 percent, 

respectively, of the total flow in the west drain. These results 

indicate that the drains likely also receive water from outside 

the inner valley.

1

U.S. Geological Survey, New Mexico Water Science Center, 5338 

Montgomery Blvd. NE, Albuquerque, NM, 87059.

2

U.S. Geological Survey, Virginia Water Science Center, 1730 East Parham 

Road, Richmond, VA, 23228.

3

University of Idaho, Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, P.O. Box 

441136, Moscow, ID, 83844.

4

Colorado School of Mines, Department of Geology and Geological 

Engineering, 1516 Illinois St., Golden, CO, 80401.
2 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

The spatial variability of horizontal hydraulic gradients 

and groundwater fluxes can be primarily attributed to 

variability in the distances between the river and riverside 

drains throughout the study area and geologic heterogeneities 

in the alluvial aquifer. Temporal variability in the water levels, 

which control the horizontal hydraulic gradients and fluxes 

between the Rio Grande and the riverside drains, can be 

primarily attributed to seasonal fluctuations in river stage and 

irrigation practices. 

Introduction

The Albuquerque area (fig. 1) is the major population 

center in New Mexico and covers about 400 square miles 

(mi2). With a population of about 535,000 people in 2000, 

the Albuquerque area accounts for 29 percent of the State’s 

population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Currently (2015), 

there are two principal sources of water for municipal, 

domestic, commercial, and industrial uses in this area: 

(1) groundwater from the Santa Fe Group aquifer system, 

and (2) surface water from the Rio Grande. The Rio Grande, 

which flows from north to south through New Mexico, is 

the principal source of water for irrigated agriculture in the 

State (McAda, 1996). Estimates indicated that from 1960 

to 2002, pumping from the Santa Fe Group aquifer system 

caused groundwater levels in eastern Albuquerque to decline 

more than 120 feet (ft) while water-level declines along the 

Rio Grande in Albuquerque were generally less than 40 ft 

(Bexfield and Anderholm, 2002; fig. 2). These differences in 

water-level declines in the Albuquerque area have resulted 

in a great deal of interest in quantifying the river-aquifer 

interaction associated with the Rio Grande.

The aquifer system in the Albuquerque area consists 

of the Santa Fe Group (middle Tertiary to Quaternary age) 

and the post-Santa Fe Group (Quaternary age) alluvium 

and is hereafter referred to as the “Santa Fe Group aquifer 

system.” The Rio Grande is hydraulically connected to 

the Santa Fe Group aquifer system (McAda, 1996) where 

fluvial gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposits of the post-Santa 

Fe Group alluvium form a thin but extensive aquifer zone 

below the Rio Grande flood plain (Hawley and Whitworth, 

1996), referred to as the “inner valley alluvial aquifer” in 

this report. The inner valley alluvial aquifer is composed of 

channel, flood-plain, and tributary deposits that are as much 

as 120 ft thick. Previous researchers have used streambed 

permeameters (Gould, 1994), the transient response of the 

aquifer to a flood pulse (Roark, 2001), vertical profiles of 

temperature measurements (Bartolino and Niswonger, 1999), 

and calibrated numerical models (Kernodle and others, 1995; 

Tiedeman and others, 1998; McAda and Barroll, 2002) to 

estimate the flux between the Rio Grande and the Santa Fe 

Group aquifer system. Currently, basin-scale groundwater 

models are used for water-resource administration purposes 

(Barroll, 2001) and for assessing stream depletion (Tiedeman 

and others, 1998; Barroll, 2001; McAda and Barroll, 2002). 

As compared to previous more regional-scale studies, this 

study was designed to focus on the shallow part (about the 

upper 50 ft) of the inner valley alluvial aquifer and provide 

spatially detailed information about the amount of water that 

discharges from the Rio Grande to the adjacent aquifer in the 

Albuquerque area.

In 2003, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in 

cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), acting as 

fiscal agent for the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species 

Collaborative Program (MRGESCP), and the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE), began a study to characterize 

the hydrogeology of the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial 

aquifer in the Albuquerque area of New Mexico. Study results 

provide hydrologic data and enhance the understanding of 

rates of water leakage from the Rio Grande to the inner valley 

alluvial aquifer, groundwater flow through the aquifer, and 

discharge of water from the aquifer to the riverside drains. 

Beginning in late 2003 through 2008, a total of 16 east-west 

trending hydrologic transects were installed along both sides 

of the Rio Grande through the Albuquerque area at 8 selected 

locations (fig. 1). Each location consists of paired transects of 

piezometers installed between the river and riverside drains to 

evaluate the rate of leakage from the river to riverside drains. 

In some cases (fig. 3A–H), piezometers were installed at 

various distances outside the drains. Surface-water gages also 

were installed in the river and in the east and west riverside 

drains. Lithologic information collected during drilling and 

hourly groundwater-level and water-temperature data and 

vertical temperature profile data collected during the study 

were used to define a conceptual model of flow in the Rio 

Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer adjacent to the river. 

As part of the ongoing study of water leakage from the 

Rio Grande to the inner valley alluvial aquifer, the USGS, 

in cooperation with BOR acting as fiscal agent for the 

MRGESCP, used two methods to quantify groundwater flux 

at depths less than 30 ft below land surface (bls) with data 

collected during 2009 and 2010. In the first method, Darcy’s 

Law and estimates of hydraulic conductivity from slug tests 

and the literature are used to assess the variability in river 

leakage attributed to temporal changes in hydraulic gradient. 

In the second method, the Suzuki-Stallman one-dimensional 

analytical solution to the heat-transport equation (Suzuki, 

1960; Stallman, 1965) is used to model annual groundwatertemperature changes within the aquifer that result from river 

leakage. Temperature models provide additional detail on 

groundwater flux with depth and distance from the river in the 

Albuquerque area.
Introduction 3

Base from New Mexico Geospatial Data Acquisition Coordination Committee 

Digital Orthophoto Quarter-Quadrangles, 1:12,000, 2006

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, zone 13

North American Datum of 1983

0 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS

0 1 2 3 4 5 MILES

l l l

7

Approximate boundary of the

 Rio Grande inner valley

Transect

Mile marker and discharge

 measurement location

EXPLANATION

3

0

4

6

9

4

7

10

0

l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l

l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l

l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l

l l l l l l l l l l l l l

COORS BOULEVARD Alameda transects Transect 2

Transect 1

Transect 2

Transect 1

Transect 2

Transect 1

Montaño

transects

Transect 2

Transect 1

Transect 2

Transect 1

Transect 1

Transect 2

Transect 2

Transect 1

Transect 2

Transect 1

I–25 transects

Rio Bravo

transects

Barelas

transects

Paseo del Norte

transects

Pajarito

transects

Central

transects

Tijeras Arroyo North Diversion Channel

INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25

CENTRAL AVENUE

PASEO DEL NORTE

MONTAÑO ROAD

ALAMEDA BOULEVARD

Corrales

Drain

Riverside

Rio Grande

NEW

MEXICO

Bernalillo

County Study

area

Albuquerque

area

Upper Corrales

Riverside Drain

Bernalillo

Cochiti

San Acacia

Rio Grande

RIOBRAVO BOULEVARD Albuquerque Riverside Drain

Atrisco Riverside Drain

COORS BOULEVARD

BRIDGE BOULEVARD

INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 40

INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25

Calabacillas Arroyo

RIO

GRANDE BOULEVARD

AVENIDA CESAR CHAVEZ

Interstate

Highway 25

(I–25) bridge

Atrisco

Lateral

RIO GRANDE

 INNER VALLEY 

RIO GRANDE

 INNER VALLEY 

RIO GRANDE

 INNER VALLEY 

Rio Bravo bridge

Paseo del Norte 

bridge

Montaño bridge

Barelas bridge

Alameda

bridge

Central bridge

106°42' 106°39' 106°36'

35°12'

35°09'

35°06'

35°03'

35°00'

34°57'

Figure 1. Location of study area and transects in the Albuquerque area, New Mexico.
4 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

0 2 4 6

0 2 4 6

MILES

KILOMETERS

m

4,930 Potentiometric contour—Shows altitude at which water

 level would have stood in tightly cased wells. Dashed 

 where approximately located. Contour interval 20 feet. 

 Datum is National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

Generalized direction of groundwater flow

Transect

Decline not estimated

More than 120

101 to 120

81 to 100

61 to 80

41 to 60

21 to 40

0 to 20

No decline

Estimated water-level decline, in feet, 1960 to 2002

EXPLANATION

SANDOVAL COUNTY

BERNALILLO COUNTY

40

40

25

25

4,890

5,010

4,990

4,970

4,970

4,950

4,950

4,930

4,890

4,910

4,870

4,930

4,910

4,890

4,870

4,850

4,870

4,890

4,910

4,930

4,870

4,890

4,890

4,890

4,910

4,910

4,930

4,950

Montaño

transects

Central

transects

Paseo del Norte

transects

Alameda

transects

Barelas

transects

Rio Bravo

transects

Pajarito

transects

I–25

transects

Albuquerque

Rio Rancho

Corrales

Sandia Pueblo

SANDIA

INDIAN

RESERVATION

CIBOLA

NATIONAL

FOREST

KIRTLAND

AIR FORCE BASE

ISLETA INDIAN RESERVATION

CIBOLA NATIONAL FOREST

CIBOLA

NATIONAL FOREST

Tijeras Arroyo

Arroyo de las Calabacillas

Rio Grande

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m m

m m

m

35°00’ m

5’

10’

35°15’

106°45’ 40’ 35’ 106°30’

Base compiled from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000,

1977, 1978, and City of Albuquerque digital data, 1:2,400, 1994

Figure 2. Potentiometric-elevation contours, 2002, in the Santa Fe Group aquifer in the Albuquerque area and estimated groundwaterlevel declines from 1960 to 2002 (modified from Bexfield and Anderholm, 2002).
Introduction 5

ALAMEDA BOULEVARD

Rio Grande

Upper Corrales Riverside Drain

Corrales Riverside Drain

Albuquerque Riverside Drain

Transect 2

4,995

Transect 1

4,994

4,996

4,997

4,997

4,996

4,995

4,994

4,993

4,992

4,991

4,990

4,989

4,995

4,994

4,996

4,997

4,997

4,996

4,995

4,994

4,993

4,992

4,991

4,990

4,989

A18a

4993.47

A17a

4994.13

A16a,b,c

4995.86

A15a,b

4996.89

A9a

4993.85

A8a

4994.79

A7a,b,c

4995.54

A6a,b

4997.12

A14a,b

4992.50

A13a,b,c

4991.35

A12a

4988.45

A11a

4988.09

A2a

4988.75

A3a

4989.23

A4a,b,c

4992.63

A5a,b,c

4993.00

AS3

4998.82 AS2

4997.72

AS1

4988.28

AS4

4994.35

106° 38' 40" 106° 38' 30" 106° 38' 20" 106° 38' 10"

35° 12' 10"

35° 12'

35° 11' 50"

Base from New Mexico Geospatial Data Acquisition Coordination

Committee digital orthophoto data, 2006, 1:12,000

Universal Transverse Mercator, zone 13

North American Datum of 1983 

0 100 200 300 400 500 FEET

0 50 100 METERS

EXPLANATION

Transect

Water-table contour—Shows altitude of water table. Dashed where

 approximately located. Contour interval 1 foot. Datum is North

 American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

Direction of groundwater flow

Surface-water gage, identifier, and hydraulic head, in feet

 above NAVD 88

Piezometer, identifier, and mean daily hydraulic head in shallow

 piezometer, in feet above NAVD 88

 Shallow

 Mid-depth

 Deep 

a

b

c

AS1

4,988.28

A4

4,992.63

4,994

A

Figure 3. Location of piezometer nests and surface-water gages, hydraulic head and water-table contours based on data collected 

during 2009, and the direction of groundwater flow at the A, Alameda (August 15, 2009); B, Paseo del Norte (September 26, 2009); 

C, Montaño (August 15, 2009); D, Central (August 15, 2009); E, Barelas (March 15, 2009); F, Rio Bravo (August 15, 2009); G, Pajarito (July 

26, 2009); and H, I-25 (July 26, 2009) transects.
6 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Albuquerque

 Riverside 

 Drain

Corrales 

Riverside 

Drain

Albuquerque

 Riverside 

 Drain

Corrales 

Riverside 

Drain

PS3

4,984.81

PS1

no data

PS2

4,989.35

P9a,b

4,984.43

P3a

4,979.60 P6a,b

4,987.65

P5a,b

4,988.03

P4a,b

no data

P8a

4,984.91 P7a,b

4,986.71

P2a,b

no data

P11a,b

P12a 4,981.25

4,982.00

P13a,b,c

P14a,b 4,985.35

4,988.54

P15a,b

P16a,b 4,988.12

4,987.32 P18a,b

4,985.52

P17a

4,985.99

P10a,c

4,978.85

4,981

4,980

4,985

4,984

4,983

4,982

4,986

4,987

4,988

4,980

4,981

4,982

4,983

4,984

4,985

4,986

4,987

4,979

4,989

4,988

4,981

4,980

4,985

4,984

4,983

4,982

4,986

4,987

4,988

4,980

4,981

4,982

4,983

4,984

4,985

4,986

4,987

4,979

4,989

4,988

Transect 2

Transect 1

106°39'40" 106°39'30" 106°39'20" 106°39'10" 106°39' 106°38'50"

35°11'

35°10'50"

PASEO DEL NORTE BOULEVARD

Rio Grande

0 50

200

100

0 400 600 FEET

150 METERS

Base from New Mexico Geospatial Data Acquisition Coordination 

Committee digital orthophoto data, 2006, 1:12,000

Universal Transverse Mercator, zone 13

North American Datum of 1983 

a

b

c

PS2

4,989.35

P8

4,984.91

4,992

Transect

Water-table contour—Shows altitude of water table. Dashed where

 approximately located. Contour interval 1 foot. Datum is North

 American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

Direction of groundwater flow

Surface-water gage, identifier, and hydraulic head, in feet

 above NAVD 88

Piezometer, identifier, and mean daily hydraulic head in shallow

 piezometer, in feet above NAVD 88

 Shallow

 Mid-depth

 Deep 

EXPLANATION

B

Figure 3. Location of piezometer nests and surface-water gages, hydraulic head and water-table contours based on data collected 

during 2009, and the direction of groundwater flow at the A, Alameda (August 15, 2009); B, Paseo del Norte (September 26, 2009); 

C, Montaño (August 15, 2009); D, Central (August 15, 2009); E, Barelas (March 15, 2009); F, Rio Bravo (August 15, 2009); G, Pajarito (July 

26, 2009); and H, I-25 (July 26, 2009) transects.—Continued
Introduction 7

M9a,b

4,968.70

M8a

4,968.07

M7a,b

4,971.25

M17a

4,968.85

M18a,b

4,968.88

M16a,b,c

4,972.59

M6a,b

4,974.14

M15a,b

4,974.33

M14a,b

4,973.09

M13a,b,c

4,971.80

M12a,b

4,969.92

M3a,b

4,969.85

M4a,b,c

4,972.01 M5a,b

4,972.78

MS1

4,969.59

MS2

no data

MS3

4,974.34

4,970

4,971

4,972

4,973

4,974

4,973

4,972

4,971

4,970

4,969

4,970

4,971

4,972

4,973

4,974

4,973

4,972

4,971

4,970

4,969

MONTAÑO BOULEVARD

Rio Grande

Transect 2

Transect 1

106°41' 106°40'50" 106°40'40" 106°40'30"

35°09'

35°08'50"

35°08'40"

0 50

0 100 200 300 400 500 FEET

100 METERS

Base from New Mexico Geospatial Data Acquisition Coordination 

Committee digital orthophoto data, 2006, 1:12,000

Universal Transverse Mercator, zone 13

North American Datum of 1983 

a

b

c

MS3

4,974.34

 M5

4,972.78

4,974

Transect

Water-table contour—Shows altitude of water table. Dashed where

 approximately located. Contour interval 1 foot. Datum is North

 American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

Direction of groundwater flow

Surface-water gage, identifier, and hydraulic head, in feet

 above NAVD 88

Piezometer, identifier, and mean daily hydraulic head in shallow

 piezometer, in feet above NAVD 88

 Shallow

 Mid-depth

 Deep 

EXPLANATION

Corrales Riverside Drain

Albuquerque

Riverside Drain

C

Figure 3. Location of piezometer nests and surface-water gages, hydraulic head and water-table contours based on data collected 

during 2009, and the direction of groundwater flow at the A, Alameda (August 15, 2009); B, Paseo del Norte (September 26, 2009); 

C, Montaño (August 15, 2009); D, Central (August 15, 2009); E, Barelas (March 15, 2009); F, Rio Bravo (August 15, 2009); G, Pajarito (July 

26, 2009); and H, I-25 (July 26, 2009) transects.—Continued
8 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Rio Grande

Albuquerque Riverside Drain

Atrisco Lateral

Transect 2

Transect 1

4,949

4,950

4,951

4,952

4,952

4,951

4,950

4,949

4,948

4,949

4,950

4,951 

4,952 

4,952 

4,951 

4,950

4,949

4,948

C13a,b,c

4,949.83

C12a

4,947.56

C4a,b,c

4,949.83

C3a

4,947.44

C5a,b

4,951.12

C11a

4,947.45

C14a,b

4,951.40

C15a,b

4,951.67

C16a,b,c

4,950.68

C6a,b

4,951.95

C7a,b,c

4,951.04

C8a

4,949.27

C9a

4,949.04

C17a

4,948.87 C18a

4,948.65

C2a

4,947.31

CS1

4,946.97

CS2

4,952.01

CS3

4,954.54

106°41'10" 106°41' 106°40'50"

35°05'20"

35°05'30"

Base from New Mexico Geospatial Data Acquisition Coordination

Committee digital orthophoto data, 2006, 1:12,000

Universal Transverse Mercator, zone 13

North American Datum of 1983 

0 100 200 300 400 500 FEET

0 50 100 METERS

4,949

a

b

c

CS3

4,954.54

C8

4,949.27

Transect

Water-table contour—Shows altitude of water table. Dashed where

 approximately located. Contour interval 1 foot. Datum is North

 American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

Direction of groundwater flow

Surface-water gage, identifier, and hydraulic head, in feet

 above NAVD 88

Piezometer, identifier, and mean daily hydraulic head in shallow

 piezometer, in feet above NAVD 88

 Shallow

 Mid-depth

 Deep 

EXPLANATION

CENTRAL AVENUE

D

Figure 3. Location of piezometer nests and surface-water gages, hydraulic head and water-table contours based on data collected 

during 2009, and the direction of groundwater flow at the A, Alameda (August 15, 2009); B, Paseo del Norte (September 26, 2009); 

C, Montaño (August 15, 2009); D, Central (August 15, 2009); E, Barelas (March 15, 2009); F, Rio Bravo (August 15, 2009); G, Pajarito (July 

26, 2009); and H, I-25 (July 26, 2009) transects.—Continued
Introduction 9

Albuquerque Riverside Drain

Atrisco Riverside Drain

BRIDGE BOULEVARD

Rio Grande

Transect 2

Transect 1

4,933

4,934

4,935

4,936

4,937

4,938

4,939

4,939

4,938

4,937

4,936

4,935

4,934

BS3

4932.61

BS2

4939.93

BS1

4938.48

B9a

no data

B18a

no data

B17a,b

4932.78

B16a,b,c

4935.76

B15a,b

no data

B14a,b

4938.77

B13a,b,c

4936.51

B12a,b

4934.34

B11a

4933.88

B2a

4934.92 B3a,b

4935.92

B4a,b,c

4937.04

B5a,b

4939.30

B6a,b

4938.14 B7a,b,c

4936.37

B8a,b

4933.39

B10a,b

no data

Base from New Mexico Geospatial Data Acquisition Coordination

Committee digital orthophoto data, 2006, 1:12,000

Universal Transverse Mercator, zone 13

North American Datum of 1983 

0 100 200 300 400 500 FEET

0 50 100 METERS

106°39'50" 106°39'40" 106°39'30" 106°39'20"

35°04'10"

35°04'00"

4,932.78

B17

BS3

4932.61

4,934

a

b

c

Transect

Water-table contour—Shows altitude of water table. Dashed where

 approximately located. Contour interval 1 foot. Datum is North

 American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

Direction of groundwater flow

Surface-water gage, identifier, and hydraulic head, in feet

 above NAVD 88

Piezometer, identifier, and mean daily hydraulic head in shallow

 piezometer, in feet above NAVD 88

 Shallow

 Mid-depth

 Deep 

EXPLANATION

E

Figure 3. Location of piezometer nests and surface-water gages, hydraulic head and water-table contours based on data collected 

during 2009, and the direction of groundwater flow at the A, Alameda (August 15, 2009); B, Paseo del Norte (September 26, 2009); 

C, Montaño (August 15, 2009); D, Central (August 15, 2009); E, Barelas (March 15, 2009); F, Rio Bravo (August 15, 2009); G, Pajarito (July 

26, 2009); and H, I-25 (July 26, 2009) transects.—Continued
10 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Albuquerque Riverside Drain

Atrisco Riverside Drain

RIO BRAVO BOULEVARD

Rio Grande

4,923

4,925

4,924

4,923

4,924

4,922

4,925

4,923

4,925

4,924

4,923

4,924

4,922

4,925

Transect 2

Transect 1

Base from New Mexico Geospatial Data Acquisition Coordination

Committee digital orthophoto data, 2006, 1:12,000

Universal Transverse Mercator, zone 13

North American Datum of 1983 

0 200 400 600 800 FEET

0 100 200 METERS

4,918.42

4,921.59

4,923.86 4,924.53

4,921.81

4,921.93 4,925.66 4,924.41

4,925.12

4,924.54

4,923.44

4,921.31

4,923.29

4,925.67

4,925.18

4,924.04

R17a,b

R16a,b,c

R15a,b

R14a,b

R4a,b,c

R5a,b,c

R6a,b

R13a,b,c

R11a

R8a,c

R9a

R10a,c

R12a,b

R2a

R1a,c

R7a,b,c

R3a,c

no data

R18a

4,923.67

RS4

4,922.92

RS5

4,923.27

RS3

4,925.79

 RS2

4,921.87

RS1

4,921.71

a

b

c

4,924.53

R5

RS3

4,925.79

4,925

Transect

Water-table contour—Shows altitude of water table. Dashed where

 approximately located. Contour interval 1 foot. Datum is North

 American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

Direction of groundwater flow

Surface-water gage, identifier, and hydraulic head, in feet

 above NAVD 88

Piezometer, identifier, and mean daily hydraulic head in shallow

 piezometer, in feet above NAVD 88

 Shallow

 Mid-depth

 Deep 

EXPLANATION

106°40'40" 106°40'30" 106°40'20" 106°40'10" 106°40' 106°39'50"

35°01'50"

35°01'40"

F

Figure 3. Location of piezometer nests and surface-water gages, hydraulic head and water-table contours based on data collected 

during 2009, and the direction of groundwater flow at the A, Alameda (August 15, 2009); B, Paseo del Norte (September 26, 2009); 

C, Montaño (August 15, 2009); D, Central (August 15, 2009); E, Barelas (March 15, 2009); F, Rio Bravo (August 15, 2009); G, Pajarito (July 

26, 2009); and H, I-25 (July 26, 2009) transects.—Continued
Introduction 11

Atrisco Riverside Drain

PJS3 Albuquerque Riverside Drain

4,906.78

PJS2

4,912.55

PJ5a,b

4,911.04

PJ11a

4,905.00

PJ12a

4,905.37

PJ13a,b,c

4,909.11

PJ14a,b

4,911.52

PJS1

4,905.14

PJ2a

4,905.61

PJ3a

4,905.95 PJ4a,b,c

4,909.61

PJ6a,b

4,912.42 PJ7a,b,c

4,910.20

PJ15a,b

4,911.82

PJ16a,b,c

4,910.80

PJ17a

4,906.83

PJ8a

4,907.14

PJ9a

4,907.12

4,907

4,908

4,909

4,910

4,911

4,912

4,912

4,911

4,910

4,909

4,908

4,907

4,906

4,905

Rio Grande

Transect 2

Transect 1

106°41'30" 106°41'20" 106°41'10" 106°41'

34°59'10"

34°59'

0 50

0 100 200 300 400 500 FEET

100 METERS

Base from New Mexico Geospatial Data Acquisition Coordination 

Committee digital orthophoto data, 2006, 1:12,000

Universal Transverse Mercator, zone 13

North American Datum of 1983 

Transect

Water-table contour—Shows altitude of water table. Dashed where

 approximately located. Contour interval 1 foot. Datum is North

 American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

Direction of groundwater flow

Surface-water gage, identifier, and hydraulic head, in feet

 above NAVD 88

Piezometer, identifier, and mean daily hydraulic head in shallow

 piezometer, in feet above NAVD 88

 Shallow

 Mid-depth

 Deep 

4,912

a

b

c

PJS2

4,912.55

 PJ13

4,909.11

EXPLANATION

G

Figure 3. Location of piezometer nests and surface-water gages, hydraulic head and water-table contours based on data collected 

during 2009, and the direction of groundwater flow at the A, Alameda (August 15, 2009); B, Paseo del Norte (September 26, 2009); 

C, Montaño (August 15, 2009); D, Central (August 15, 2009); E, Barelas (March 15, 2009); F, Rio Bravo (August 15, 2009); G, Pajarito (July 

26, 2009); and H, I-25 (July 26, 2009) transects.—Continued
12 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Atrisco

Riverside

Drain

Atrisco

Albuquerque

Riverside

Drain

Riverside

Drain

Albuquerque

Riverside

Drain

4,900

4,900

4,901

4,901

4,902

4,902

4,899

4,899

Rio Grande

Transect 2

Transect 1

IS1

4,899.28

I2a,b

4,898.72

I11a,b

4,899.60

I1a,b,c

4,898.60 I3a

4,898.72

I12a

4,898.92

I13a,b,c

4,899.85 I14a,b

I15a,b 4,900.48

I16a,b,c 4,902.53

no data

I17a,b

4,900.01

I10a,b,c

4,898.94

I8a,b

4,899.70 I7a,b,c

4,900.72

I6a,b

4,901.75

I5a,b

4,900.02

I4a,b,c

4,899.33

IS2

4,902.08 IS3

4,898.48

0 50

0 100 200 300 400 500 FEET

100 METERS

Base from New Mexico Geospatial Data Acquisition Coordination 

Committee digital orthophoto data, 2006, 1:12,000

Universal Transverse Mercator, zone 13

North American Datum of 1983 

a

b

c

IS2

4,902.48

 I4

4,899.33

4,902

Transect

Water-table contour—Shows altitude of water table. Dashed where

 approximately located. Contour interval 1 foot. Datum is North

 American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

Direction of groundwater flow

Surface-water gage, identifier, and hydraulic head, in feet

 above NAVD 88

Piezometer, identifier, and mean daily hydraulic head in shallow

 piezometer, in feet above NAVD 88

 Shallow

 Mid-depth

 Deep 

EXPLANATION

106°41'10" 106°41' 106°40'50" 106°40'40" 106°40'30"

34°57'10"

34°57' INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 25

H

Figure 3. Location of piezometer nests and surface-water gages, hydraulic head and water-table contours based on data collected 

during 2009, and the direction of groundwater flow at the A, Alameda (August 15, 2009); B, Paseo del Norte (September 26, 2009); 

C, Montaño (August 15, 2009); D, Central (August 15, 2009); E, Barelas (March 15, 2009); F, Rio Bravo (August 15, 2009); G, Pajarito (July 

26, 2009); and H, I-25 (July 26, 2009) transects.—Continued
Introduction 13

Purpose and Scope

This report documents the groundwater hydrology of the 

Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer based on groundwater 

and surface-water data collected from February 2009 to 

February 2010 in the Albuquerque area of New Mexico. 

Horizontal groundwater flux from the Rio Grande to the inner 

valley alluvial aquifer was estimated using two methods: 

(1) Darcy’s Law, and (2) the Suzuki-Stallman method of heat 

transport. The scope of this study included collection of data 

from 16 transects at 8 locations in the Albuquerque area: 

the Alameda, Paseo del Norte, Montaño, Central, Barelas, 

and Rio Bravo bridges, Pajarito, and the I-25 bridge (fig. 1). 

Data collected from the first 10 paired transects installed at 

the Paseo del Norte, Montaño, Barelas, Rio Bravo, and I-25 

bridges between December 2003 and February 2009 are 

presented in Rankin and others (2013) (hereafter referred to 

as “Report 1”). Report 1 also presented a simple conceptual 

model of groundwater flow and groundwater-flux results. 

This report presents groundwater and surface-water levels, 

temperature, slug-test data, and seepage measurements 

collected from February 2009 through February 2010 at all 16 

transects. Additionally, this report compares the results from 

Report 1 to the results presented in this report for February 

2009 through February 2010.

Description of the Study Area

The study area extends about 20 miles (mi) along the Rio 

Grande in the Albuquerque area from the Alameda bridge to 

the I-25 bridge (fig. 1). The Rio Grande inner valley (fig. 1) 

is approximately 2–3 mi wide and slopes about 5–6 feet per 

mile (ft/mi) southward through the Albuquerque area. The east 

and west edges of the study area are limited to areas within 

the inner valley adjacent to the Upper Corrales, Corrales, 

Albuquerque, and Atrisco Riverside Drains (fig. 1). The Rio 

Grande has a densely vegetated riparian area that supports 

a variety of biological communities. The riverside drains 

are ditches located east and west of the river, are generally 

separated from the river by levees, and are designed to 

intercept lateral groundwater flow from the river and prevent 

waterlogged-soil conditions east and west of the river in the 

inner valley. Seepage to the riverside drains constitutes one 

of the main sources of groundwater discharge from the inner 

valley alluvial aquifer (Kernodle and others, 1995). Snowmelt 

runoff and irrigation seasons influence the hydrology of the 

study area. There are roughly four hydrologic seasons in 

the study area: (1) snowmelt and irrigation (March–April), 

(2) post snowmelt and irrigation (May–June), (3) monsoon 

and irrigation (July–October), and (4) nonirrigation 

(November–February). 

Inner Valley Alluvial Aquifer

The inner valley alluvial aquifer consists of post-Santa 

Fe Group river-valley and basin-fill sediments that underlie 

the present-day Rio Grande flood plain (Hawley and Haase, 

1992). In the Albuquerque area, the alluvium consists of 

unconsolidated to poorly consolidated, fine- to coarse-grain 

sand and rounded gravel with subordinate, discontinuous lensshaped interbeds of fine-grain sand, silt, and clay (Connell 

and others, 2007). These deposits represent the last cut-andfill cycle of the expansion of the Rio Grande fluvial system 

(Connell and others, 2007) and form an extensive shallow 

aquifer along the Rio Grande in the Albuquerque area. Hawley 

and Haase (1992) indicate that these channel and flood-plain 

deposits may be as much as 130-ft thick with an average 

thickness of 80 ft. Connell and others (2007) suggest that the 

inner valley probably was excavated during the Pleistocene 

epoch (about 1.8 million to 11,500 years before present) and 

subsequently was filled to near its present level by the middle 

Holocene epoch (about 8,000 to 5,000 years before present). 

Santa Fe Group Aquifer

The middle Tertiary to Quaternary-age Santa Fe Group 

aquifer, which underlies the inner valley alluvial aquifer, is 

composed primarily of gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Most of 

these sediments were transported into fault-bounded basins 

of the Rio Grande by rivers and drainages from surrounding 

areas (Bartolino and Cole, 2002). The spatial distribution 

of sedimentary facies in these deposits tends to be complex 

and three-dimensional rather than a simple, layered system 

(Bartolino and Cole, 2002; Engdahl and others, 2010). 

Approximately 14,000-ft thick in parts of the basin, 

the Santa Fe Group is divided into upper, middle, and 

lower hydrostratigraphic units (Hawley and Haase, 1992). 

Sediments in the upper Santa Fe unit were deposited during 

the development of the ancestral Rio Grande and contain 

intertongued piedmont-slope and fluvial basin-floor deposits 

as thick as 1,200 ft (Hawley and Haase, 1992). Coarse-grain 

sediments compose the ancestral Rio Grande axial-channel 

deposits contained in the upper unit of the Santa Fe Group. 

Sediments in the middle Santa Fe unit include piedmontslope deposits, fluvial basin-floor deposits, and basin-floor 

playa deposits (Hawley and Haase, 1992). This middle unit 

contains the largest accumulation of sediment and is as much 

as 10,000-ft thick. Sediments in the lower Santa Fe unit are 

predominantly piedmont-slope, eolian, and basin-floor playa 

deposits and are as much as 3,500-ft thick (Hawley and Haase, 

1992). 

Previous Investigations

The interaction of groundwater and surface water in 

the Albuquerque area has been the focus of a number of 

investigations. McAda (1996) described the components 

of the Rio Grande and Santa Fe Group aquifer system in 

the Albuquerque area and prioritized activities to better 

understand groundwater and surface-water interaction. Peter 

(1987) compared differences in the configuration of the water 

table near the Rio Grande in the Albuquerque area from 1936 
14 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

to 1986 and briefly described groundwater and surface-water 

interaction. Engdahl and others (2010) examined the effects of 

lithologic heterogeneity on the exchange of water between the 

surface and subsurface near the Rio Bravo bridge. Using the 

same dataset and high-resolution groundwater-flow modeling, 

Engdahl and Weissmann (2010) showed that the rate of 

simulated contaminant transport in heterogeneous realizations 

of the alluvial aquifer is dependent on the direction of 

groundwater flow relative to bedding and is sensitive to scale. 

Bartolino (2003) used groundwater levels and temperature 

data to evaluate groundwater fluxes in a single piezometer 

transect near the Paseo del Norte bridge. Bartolino and 

Niswonger (1999) measured groundwater levels and vertical 

temperature profiles near the Paseo del Norte and Rio Bravo 

bridges to simulate vertical groundwater flux and estimate 

vertical hydraulic conductivity. Bartolino and Sterling (2000) 

delineated specific areas on both sides of the river between 

the Paseo del Norte bridge and Rio Bravo bridge that contain 

hydrologically significant clay-rich layers. Moret (2007), 

using an analytical method developed by Suzuki (1960) and 

Stallman (1965), estimated groundwater flux from the river to 

the aquifer near the Paseo del Norte bridge to be 1.2-1.6 cubic 

meters per day per meter of riverbank (12.9 to 17.2 cubic feet 

per day per linear foot [ft3/d/ft] of riverbank).

The projected movement of groundwater in the 

Albuquerque area has been described by Kernodle and 

others (1995) and Bexfield and McAda (2003); these authors 

simulated historic and hypothetical groundwater flow in the 

Santa Fe Group aquifer system. The direction of groundwater 

flow prior to widespread development of the Santa Fe Group 

aquifer (about 1961) in the Albuquerque area generally 

was from north-northeast to south-southwest (Bexfield and 

Anderholm, 2000). Water-level declines and directions of 

groundwater flow resulting from development of the Santa Fe 

Group aquifer since 1961 have been estimated by Bexfield and 

Anderholm (2002), Falk and others (2011), and Powell and 

McKean (2014); the authors reported groundwater declines 

in the Albuquerque area of as much as 120 ft and shifts in 

groundwater-flow direction away from the Rio Grande and 

towards clusters of supply wells in the east, north, and west of 

the area shown in figure 2. 

McAda and Barroll (2002) simulated groundwater 

flow using a three-dimensional groundwater-flow model 

of the Santa Fe Group aquifer system from Cochiti to San 

Acacia. Sanford and others (2003) used environmental 

tracers to estimate aquifer parameters for a predevelopment 

groundwater-flow model in the Middle Rio Grande Basin.

Kues (1986) described the movement of shallow 

groundwater near the Rio Grande between the Barelas Bridge 

and the I-25 bridge based on water-level measurements 

from 44 wells. Anderholm and Bullard (1987) described 

the installation of piezometers in the Albuquerque area and 

provided lithologic descriptions from monitoring wells 

drilled along Rio Bravo Boulevard and Montaño Road. Roark 

(2001) evaluated river flood pulses to estimate hydraulic 

characteristics of the Santa Fe Group aquifer system. 

In general, the studies discussed above have been 

conducted at either a local scale (Kues, 1986; Bartolino and 

Niswonger, 1999) or basin scale (McAda and Barroll, 2002). 

The study described in this report was designed to develop 

hydrogeologic data and interpretations at an intermediate scale 

with higher spatial and temporal resolution over a longer reach 

of the Rio Grande than has been provided by previous studies. 

Additionally, this study focuses on the hydrogeology of the 

shallow part of the alluvial aquifer.

Methods of Data Collection and 

Analysis

Groundwater-level, temperature, and slug-test data along 

with stream-stage data were collected along 16 transects in 

the Albuquerque area from February 2009 to February 2010, 

and the data were used to estimate horizontal groundwater 

flux from the Rio Grande to the inner valley alluvial aquifer 

using Darcy’s Law and the Suzuki-Stallman method of heat 

transport.

Piezometer Installation and Core Descriptions

Piezometers and surface-water gages were installed in 

paired transects at eight locations in the Albuquerque area 

(fig. 1; table 1). Each transect included nested piezometers 

(multiple monitoring wells with screened intervals at different 

depths) and surface-water gages (stage only) configured in 

roughly straight lines and oriented perpendicular to the river 

and riverside drains (fig. 3A–H). At each location, transects 

extended from the Rio Grande to just outside the riverside 

drains on both sides of the river and were spaced about 500 

ft apart. The paired-transect configuration was chosen to 

facilitate definition of horizontal and vertical gradients at each 

location. 

Piezometer nests generally were installed with the 

deep piezometer screen at 45–50 ft bls and the mid-depth 

piezometer screen at 30–35 ft bls. The shallow piezometer 

screen typically was installed at 5–10 ft bls to intersect the 

expected range of seasonal depths to the water table. The deep 

piezometer of each nest was installed first. The water level 

measured in the deep piezometer was then used to determine 

the depths for the mid-depth and shallow piezometer screens. 

Each piezometer is labeled according to the following 

convention of (1) the capital letter and number indicate 

location, and (2) the small letter indicates piezometer depth 

(a, shallow; b, mid-depth; and c, deep). Each surface-water 

gage is labeled according to the following convention of 

(1) the first capital letter and number indicate location, and 

(2) the second capital letter (S) indicates a surface-water gage 

(fig. 3A–H).
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 15

Table 1. Site data for piezometers and surface-water data collection sites, Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico.—Continued

[NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988; A, Alameda; a, shallow; b, mid-depth; c, deep; S, surface-water stage gage; NA, not applicable; P, Paseo 

del Norte; M, Montaño; C, Central; B, Barelas; R, Rio Bravo; PJ, Pajarito; I, I-25]

Other 

identifier

Piezometer 

depth

Screened 

interval

Land surface1

or measuringpoint2

elevation

Period of record 

presented in this report

Type of transducer in 

well for period of this 

report or for period 

indicated

(figs. 

3A–H)

Site 

identifier

(feet below 

land surface, 

rounded to 

nearest foot)

(feet 

below land 

surface, 

rounded 

to nearest 

foot)

(feet above 

NAVD 88) Start date End date Vented Nonvented

A2a 351205106381201 20 10–15 4,999.71 02/17/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A3a 351205106381202 20 10–15 4,998.05 02/17/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A4a 351204106381601 14 4–9 5,001.36 02/17/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A4b 351204106381602 29 19–24 5,001.36 02/17/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A4c 351204106381603 49 39–44 5,001.36 02/17/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A5a 351205106381601 14 4–9 5,002.32 02/17/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A5b 351205106381602 29 19–24 5,002.32 02/17/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A5c 351205106381603 46 36–41 5,002.32 02/17/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A6a 351208106382701 14 4–9 5,001.51 02/13/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A6b 351208106382702 29 19–24 5,001.51 02/13/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A7a 351209106383001 14 4–9 5,000.95 02/13/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A7b 351209106383002 29 19–24 5,000.95 02/13/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A7c 351209106383003 44 34–39 5,000.95 02/13/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A8a 351211106383301 20 10–15 5,000.68 02/13/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A9a 351211106383501 20 10–15 4,998.41 02/13/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A11a 351200106381601 20 10–15 4,998.79 02/17/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A12a 351200106381701 20 10–15 4,996.07 02/17/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A13a 351159106381901 14 4–9 5,001.63 02/17/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A13b 351159106381902 29 19–24 5,001.63 02/17/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A13c 351159106381903 45 35–40 5,001.63 02/17/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A14a 351200106382001 14 4–9 5,002.14 02/17/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A14b 351200106382002 29 19–24 5,002.14 02/17/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A15a 351203106383001 14 4–9 5,001.23 02/13/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A15b 351203106383002 29 19–24 5,001.23 02/13/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A16a 351204106383201 14 4–9 4,999.98 02/13/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A16b 351204106383202 29 19–24 4,999.98 02/13/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A16c 351204106383203 49 39–44 4,999.98 02/13/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A17a 351205106383601 20 10–15 5,000.45 02/13/09 02/28/10 No Yes

A18a 351206106383801 20 10–15 4,996.51 02/13/09 02/28/10 No Yes

AS1 351202106381601 NA NA 4,992.72 02/17/09 02/28/10 No Yes

AS2 351208106382601 NA NA 5,001.41 02/13/09 02/28/10 No Yes

AS3 351207106383501 NA NA 5,001.26 02/13/09 02/28/10 No Yes

AS4 351208106383601 NA NA 4,998.17 02/13/09 02/28/10 No Yes

Table 1. Site data for piezometers and surface-water data collection sites, Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico.

[NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988; A, Alameda; a, shallow; b, mid-depth; c, deep; S, surface-water stage gage; NA, not applicable; P, Paseo 

del Norte; M, Montaño; C, Central; B, Barelas; R, Rio Bravo; PJ, Pajarito; I, I-25]
16 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Table 1. Site data for piezometers and surface-water data collection sites, Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico.—Continued

[NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988; A, Alameda; a, shallow; b, mid-depth; c, deep; S, surface-water stage gage; NA, not applicable; P, Paseo 

del Norte; M, Montaño; C, Central; B, Barelas; R, Rio Bravo; PJ, Pajarito; I, I-25]

Other 

identifier

Piezometer 

depth

Screened 

interval

Land surface1

or measuringpoint2

elevation

Period of record 

presented in this report

Type of transducer in 

well for period of this 

report or for period 

indicated

(figs. 

3A–H)

Site 

identifier

(feet below 

land surface, 

rounded to 

nearest foot)

(feet 

below land 

surface, 

rounded 

to nearest 

foot)

(feet above 

NAVD 88) Start date End date Vented Nonvented

P2b 351055106385102 40 30–35 4,994.53 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

P3a 351054106385401 25 15–20 4,992.11 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

P4a 351054106390101 16 6–11 4,993.29 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

P4b 351054106390102 35 25–30 4,993.29 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

P5a 351054106390401 16 6–11 4,993.53 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

P5b 351054106390402 35 25–30 4,993.53 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

P6a 351055106391101 16 6–11 4,992.03 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

P6b 351055106391102 31 21–26 4,992.03 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

P7a 351054106391301 16 6–11 4,993.47 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

P7b 351054106391302 31 21–26 4,993.47 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

P8a 351052106391701 16 6–11 4,990.86 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

P9a 351053106391701 23 13–18 4,996.34 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

P9b 351053106391702 27 17–22 4,996.34 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

P10a 351050106394001 22 12–17 4,991.09 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

P10c 351050106394002 46 36–41 4,991.09 12/22/09 02/28/10 Yes No

P11a 351059106385201 22 12–17 4,991.37 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

P11b 351059106385202 37 27–32 4,991.37 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

P12a 351059106385301 22 12–17 4,991.77 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

P13a 351058106385901 17 7–12 4,993.36 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

P13b 351058106385902 32 22–27 4,993.36 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

P13c 351058106385903 52 42–47 4,993.36 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

P14a 351058106390301 15 5–10 4,993.76 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

P14b 351058106390302 30 20–25 4,993.76 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

P15a 351058106391001 16 6–11 4,992.33 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

P15b 351058106391002 31 21–26 4,992.33 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

P16a 351058106391101 16 6–11 4,993.26 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

P16b 351058106391102 40 30–35 4,993.26 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

P17a 351058106391501 16 6–11 4,989.73 02/01/09 02/28/10 01/25/10–

02/28/10

02/01/09–

01/25/10

P18a 351058106391601 20 10–15 4,991.50 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

P18b 351058106391602 35 25–30 4,991.50 02/01/09 02/28/10 12/21/09–

02/28/10

02/01/09–

12/21/09

PS1 351054106385310 NA NA 4,984.21 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PS2 351055106390810 NA NA 4,993.49 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 17

Table 1. Site data for piezometers and surface-water data collection sites, Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico.—Continued

[NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988; A, Alameda; a, shallow; b, mid-depth; c, deep; S, surface-water stage gage; NA, not applicable; P, Paseo 

del Norte; M, Montaño; C, Central; B, Barelas; R, Rio Bravo; PJ, Pajarito; I, I-25]

Other 

identifier

Piezometer 

depth

Screened 

interval

Land surface1

or measuringpoint2

elevation

Period of record 

presented in this report

Type of transducer in 

well for period of this 

report or for period 

indicated

(figs. 

3A–H)

Site 

identifier

(feet below 

land surface, 

rounded to 

nearest foot)

(feet 

below land 

surface, 

rounded 

to nearest 

foot)

(feet above 

NAVD 88) Start date End date Vented Nonvented

PS3 351053106391710 NA NA 4,989.62 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

M3a 350843106402801 17 7–12 4,974.14 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

M3b 350843106402802 31 21–26 4,974.14 12/22/09 02/28/10 Yes No

M4a 350842106403101 15 5–10 4,978.85 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

M4b 350842106403102 30 20–25 4,978.85 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

M4c 350842106403103 49 39–44 4,978.85 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

M5a 350842106403201 15 5–10 4,978.20 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

M5b 350842106403202 32 22–27 4,978.20 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

M6a 350848106404703 13 3–8 4,978.86 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

M6b 350848106404704 28 18–23 4,978.86 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

M7a 350848106404701 15 5–10 4,977.89 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

M7b 350848106404702 30 20–25 4,977.89 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

M8a 350852106405601 16 6–11 4,980.23 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

M9a 350853106405701 15 5–10 4,977.39 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

M9b 350853106405702 30 20–25 4,977.39 02/01/09 02/28/10 01/27/10–

02/28/10

06/13/05–

01/27/10

M12a 350847106402501 17 7–12 4,977.26 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

M12b 350847106402502 32 22–27 4,977.26 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

M13a 350846106402801 16 6–11 4,977.37 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

M13b 350846106402802 31 21–26 4,977.37 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

M13c 350846106402803 47 37–42 4,977.37 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

M14a 350846106402804 18 8–13 4,979.83 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

M14b 350846106402805 33 23–28 4,979.83 02/01/09 02/28/10 02/01/09–

06/12/09

06/12/09–

02/28/10

M15a 350851106403801 13 3–8 4,977.80 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

M15b 350851106403802 28 18–23 4,977.80 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

M16a 350854106404201 17 7–12 4,978.62 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

M16b 350854106404202 32 22–27 4,978.62 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

M16c 350854106404203 46 36–41 4,978.62 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

M17a 350855106405401 18 8–13 4,978.65 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

M18a 350857106405401 18 8–13 4,978.17 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

M18b 350857106405402 33 23–28 4,978.17 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

MS1 350846106402510 NA NA 4,972.61 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

MS2 350841106403510 NA NA 4,978.52 04/15/09 02/28/10 Yes No
18 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Table 1. Site data for piezometers and surface-water data collection sites, Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico.—Continued

[NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988; A, Alameda; a, shallow; b, mid-depth; c, deep; S, surface-water stage gage; NA, not applicable; P, Paseo 

del Norte; M, Montaño; C, Central; B, Barelas; R, Rio Bravo; PJ, Pajarito; I, I-25]

Other 

identifier

Piezometer 

depth

Screened 

interval

Land surface1

or measuringpoint2

elevation

Period of record 

presented in this report

Type of transducer in 

well for period of this 

report or for period 

indicated

(figs. 

3A–H)

Site 

identifier

(feet below 

land surface, 

rounded to 

nearest foot)

(feet 

below land 

surface, 

rounded 

to nearest 

foot)

(feet above 

NAVD 88) Start date End date Vented Nonvented

MS3 350854106405610 NA NA 4,979.11 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

C2a 350534106405502 22 12–17 4,956.23 02/18/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C3a 350534106405501 22 12–17 4,954.70 02/18/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C4a 350531106405801 16 6–11 4,956.13 02/18/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C4b 350531106405802 31 21–26 4,956.13 02/18/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C4c 350531106405803 51 41–46 4,956.13 02/18/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C5a 350529106410401 16 6–11 4,957.29 02/18/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C5b 350529106410402 31 21–26 4,957.29 02/18/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C6a 350524106410401 16 6–11 4,956.66 02/19/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C6b 350524106410402 31 21–26 4,956.66 02/19/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C7a 350522106410501 16 6–11 4,955.70 02/19/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C7b 350522106410502 31 21–26 4,955.70 02/19/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C7c 350522106410503 51 41–46 4,955.70 02/19/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C8a 350520106410701 22 12–17 4,958.09 02/19/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C9a 350519106410701 22 12–17 4,957.82 02/19/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C11a 350530106404802 22 12–17 4,954.78 02/18/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C12a 350530106404801 22 12–17 4,955.44 02/18/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C13a 350527106405101 16 6–11 4,954.70 02/18/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C13b 350527106405102 31 21–26 4,954.70 02/18/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C13c 350527106405103 51 41–46 4,954.70 02/18/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C14a 350525106405301 16 6–11 4,956.19 02/18/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C14b 350525106405302 31 21–26 4,956.19 02/18/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C15a 350521106405501 16 6–11 4,954.32 02/19/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C15b 350521106405502 31 21–26 4,954.32 02/19/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C16a 350519106405701 16 6–11 4,957.11 02/19/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C16b 350519106405702 31 21–26 4,957.11 02/19/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C16c 350519106405703 49 39–44 4,957.11 02/19/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C17a 350516106410001 22 12–17 4,956.90 02/19/09 02/28/10 No Yes

C18a 350516106410002 22 12–17 4,957.78 02/19/09 02/28/10 No Yes

CS1 350530106404803 NA NA 4,951.72 02/18/09 02/28/10 No Yes

CS2 350521106405503 NA NA 4,955.09 02/19/09 02/28/10 No Yes

CS3 350516106410003 NA NA 4,956.98 02/19/09 02/28/10 No Yes

B2a 350403106392201 16 6–11 4,940.68 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 19

Table 1. Site data for piezometers and surface-water data collection sites, Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico.—Continued

[NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988; A, Alameda; a, shallow; b, mid-depth; c, deep; S, surface-water stage gage; NA, not applicable; P, Paseo 

del Norte; M, Montaño; C, Central; B, Barelas; R, Rio Bravo; PJ, Pajarito; I, I-25]

Other 

identifier

Piezometer 

depth

Screened 

interval

Land surface1

or measuringpoint2

elevation

Period of record 

presented in this report

Type of transducer in 

well for period of this 

report or for period 

indicated

(figs. 

3A–H)

Site 

identifier

(feet below 

land surface, 

rounded to 

nearest foot)

(feet 

below land 

surface, 

rounded 

to nearest 

foot)

(feet above 

NAVD 88) Start date End date Vented Nonvented

B3a 350403106392301 15 5–10 4,941.86 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

B3b 350403106392302 30 20–25 4,941.86 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

B4a 350402106392601 16 6–11 4,942.18 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

B4b 350402106392602 31 21–26 4,942.18 Uninstrumented NA NA NA

B4c 350402106392603 52 42–47 4,942.18 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

B5a 350402106392901 15 5–10 4,943.08 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

B5b 350402106392902 30 20–25 4,943.08 Uninstrumented NA NA NA

B6a 350400106393701 17 7–12 4,942.40 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

B6b 350400106393702 32 22–27 4,942.40 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

B7a 350359106393901 17 7–12 4,943.03 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

B7b 350359106393902 32 22–27 4,943.03 Uninstrumented NA NA NA

B7c 350359106393903 52 42–47 4,943.03 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

B8a 350359106394401 16 6–11 4,940.23 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

B8b 350359106394402 34 24–29 4,940.23 Uninstrumented NA NA NA

B9a 350359106394501 20 10–15 4,943.21 12/21/09 02/28/10 Yes No

B10a 350354106395201 17 7–12 4,940.77 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

B10b 350354106395202 32 22–27 4,940.77 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

B10c 350354106395203 48 38–43 4,940.77 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

B11a 350358106392201 16 6–11 4,939.91 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

B12a 350358106392301 16 6–11 4,939.88 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

B12b 350358106392302 31 21–26 4,939.88 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

B13a 350358106392601 15 5–10 4,941.91 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

B13b 350358106392602 30 20–25 4,941.91 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

B13c 350358106392603 40 30–35 4,941.91 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

B14a 350357106392901 15 5–10 4,943.41 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

B14b 350357106392902 30 20–25 4,943.41 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

B15a 350356106393601 16 6–11 4,943.14 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

B15b 350356106393602 31 21–26 4,943.14 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

B16a 350356106393901 16 6–11 4,943.59 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

B16b 350356106393902 31 21–26 4,943.59 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

B16c 350356106393903 51 41–46 4,943.59 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

B17a 350354106394201 16 6–11 4,939.60 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

B17b 350354106394202 31 21–26 4,939.60 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No
20 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Table 1. Site data for piezometers and surface-water data collection sites, Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico.—Continued

[NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988; A, Alameda; a, shallow; b, mid-depth; c, deep; S, surface-water stage gage; NA, not applicable; P, Paseo 

del Norte; M, Montaño; C, Central; B, Barelas; R, Rio Bravo; PJ, Pajarito; I, I-25]

Other 

identifier

Piezometer 

depth

Screened 

interval

Land surface1

or measuringpoint2

elevation

Period of record 

presented in this report

Type of transducer in 

well for period of this 

report or for period 

indicated

(figs. 

3A–H)

Site 

identifier

(feet below 

land surface, 

rounded to 

nearest foot)

(feet 

below land 

surface, 

rounded 

to nearest 

foot)

(feet above 

NAVD 88) Start date End date Vented Nonvented

B18a 350353106394301 20 10–15 4,943.14 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

BS1 350403106392410 NA NA 4,942.04 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

BS2 350402106392810 NA NA 4,942.86 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

BS3 350359106394410 NA NA 4,935.89 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

R1a 350137106395101 27 17–22 4,931.35 02/01/09 02/28/10 12/18/09–

02/28/10

12/11/03–

12/18/09

R1c 350137106395102 59 49–54 4,931.35 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

R2a 350141106400701 16 6–11 4,927.27 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

R3a 350141106400801 17 7–12 4,927.51 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

R3c 350141106400802 57 47–52 4,927.51 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

R4a 350138106401102 22 12–17 4,929.91 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

R4b 350138106401104 30 20–25 4,929.91 02/01/09 02/28/10

R4c 350140106401701 56 46–51 4,929.91 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

R5a 350140106401704 19 9–14 4,930.49 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

R5b 350140106401703 30 20–25 4,930.49 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

R5c 350140106401702 54 44–49 4,930.49 02/01/09 02/28/10 12/18/09–

02/28/10

12/12/03–

12/18/09

R6a 350143106402401 15 5–10 4,928.75 02/01/09 02/28/10 12/04/09–

02/28/10

07/12/05–

12/04/09

R6b 350143106402402 30 20–25 4,928.62 02/01/09 02/28/10 12/04/09–

02/28/10

10/05/05–

12/04/09

R7a 350143106402503 15 5–10 4,928.79 02/01/09 02/28/10 12/04/09–

02/28/10

07/12/05–

12/04/09

R7b 350143106402501 35 25–30 4,928.99 02/01/09 02/28/10 12/04/09–

02/28/10

12/17/03–

12/04/09

R7c 350143106402502 54 44–49 4,928.99 02/01/09 02/28/10 12/04/09–

02/28/10

12/17/03–

12/04/09

R8a 350142106402701 15 5–10 4,928.32 02/01/09 02/28/10 12/04/09–

02/28/10

12/17/03–

12/04/09

R8c 350142106402702 50 40–45 4,928.32 02/01/09 02/28/10 12/04/09–

02/28/10

12/17/03–

12/04/09

R9a 350142106402801 14 4–9 4,927.73 02/01/09 02/17/10 No Yes

R10a 350137106403501 30 20–25 4,925.90 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

R10c 350137106403502 49 39–44 4,925.90 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

R11a 350144106400703 18 8–13 4,926.48 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

R12a 350144106400701 16 6–11 4,929.06 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 21

Table 1. Site data for piezometers and surface-water data collection sites, Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico.—Continued

[NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988; A, Alameda; a, shallow; b, mid-depth; c, deep; S, surface-water stage gage; NA, not applicable; P, Paseo 

del Norte; M, Montaño; C, Central; B, Barelas; R, Rio Bravo; PJ, Pajarito; I, I-25]

Other 

identifier

Piezometer 

depth

Screened 

interval

Land surface1

or measuringpoint2

elevation

Period of record 

presented in this report

Type of transducer in 

well for period of this 

report or for period 

indicated

(figs. 

3A–H)

Site 

identifier

(feet below 

land surface, 

rounded to 

nearest foot)

(feet 

below land 

surface, 

rounded 

to nearest 

foot)

(feet above 

NAVD 88) Start date End date Vented Nonvented

R12b 350144106400702 31 21–26 4,929.06 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

R13a 350144106401101 15 5–10 4,929.13 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

R13b 350144106401102 30 20–25 4,929.13 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

R13c 350144106401103 56 46–51 4,929.13 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

R14a 350146106401801 15 5–10 4,929.92 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

R14b 350146106401802 30 20–25 4,929.69 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

R15a 350147106402601 15 5–10 4,929.77 02/01/09 02/28/10 12/04/09–

02/28/10

10/05/05–

12/04/09

R15b 350147106402602 30 20–25 4,929.77 02/01/09 02/28/10 12/04/09–

02/28/10

06/02/05–

12/04/09

R16a 350147106402501 15 5–10 4,928.70 02/01/09 02/28/10 12/04/09–

02/28/10

10/05/05–

12/04/09

R16b 350147106402502 30 20–25 4,928.70 02/01/09 02/28/10 12/04/09–

02/28/10

06/02/05–

12/04/09

R16c 350147106402503 54 44–49 4,928.70 02/01/09 02/28/10 12/04/09–

02/28/10

06/02/05–

12/04/09

R17a 350147106402801 16 6–11 4,928.18 02/01/09 02/28/10 12/04/09–

02/28/10

10/05/05–

12/04/09

R17b 350147106402802 31 21–26 4,928.18 02/01/09 02/28/10 12/04/09–

02/28/10

10/05/05–

12/04/09

R18a 350147106402701 15 5–10 4,929.11 02/01/09 02/28/10 12/04/09–

02/28/10

10/29/08–

12/04/09

RS1 350141106400810 NA NA 4,925.22 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

RS2 350145106400810 NA NA 4,926.52 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

RS3 350143106402301 NA NA 4,934.74 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

RS4 350142106402810 NA NA 4,927.49 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

RS5 350147106402810 NA NA 4,928.69 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

PJ2a 345904106410501 20 10–15 4,909.79 02/19/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ3a 345904106410601 20 10–15 4,912.53 02/20/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ4a 345904106410901 14 9–14 4,915.55 02/23/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ4b 345904106410902 29 19–24 4,915.55 02/23/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ4c 345904106410903 49 39–44 4,915.55 02/23/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ5a 345904106411001 14 4–9 4,916.21 02/23/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ5b 345904106411002 29 19–24 4,916.21 02/23/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ6a 345905106411501 14 4–9 4,915.80 02/20/09 02/28/10 No Yes
22 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Table 1. Site data for piezometers and surface-water data collection sites, Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico.—Continued

[NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988; A, Alameda; a, shallow; b, mid-depth; c, deep; S, surface-water stage gage; NA, not applicable; P, Paseo 

del Norte; M, Montaño; C, Central; B, Barelas; R, Rio Bravo; PJ, Pajarito; I, I-25]

Other 

identifier

Piezometer 

depth

Screened 

interval

Land surface1

or measuringpoint2

elevation

Period of record 

presented in this report

Type of transducer in 

well for period of this 

report or for period 

indicated

(figs. 

3A–H)

Site 

identifier

(feet below 

land surface, 

rounded to 

nearest foot)

(feet 

below land 

surface, 

rounded 

to nearest 

foot)

(feet above 

NAVD 88) Start date End date Vented Nonvented

PJ6b 345905106411502 29 19–24 4,915.80 02/20/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ7a 345906106412001 14 4–9 4,915.91 02/20/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ7b 345906106412002 29 19–24 4,915.91 02/20/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ7c 345906106412003 49 39–44 4,915.91 02/20/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ8a 345908106412501 20 10–15 4,913.60 02/19/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ9a 345908106412601 25 15–20 4,916.32 02/19/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ11a 345859106410601 20 10–15 4,911.19 02/19/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ12a 345859106410701 20 10–15 4,913.10 02/20/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ13a 345859106411001 14 4–9 4,915.12 02/23/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ13b 345859106411002 29 19–24 4,915.12 02/23/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ13c 345859106411003 45 35–40 4,915.12 02/23/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ14a 345900106411201 14 4–9 4,915.91 02/23/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ14b 345900106411202 29 19–24 4,915.91 02/23/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ15a 345901106411801 14 4–9 4,915.27 02/20/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ15b 345901106411802 29 19–24 4,915.27 02/20/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ16a 345903106412001 14 4–9 4,915.56 02/20/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ16b 345903106412002 29 19–24 4,915.56 02/20/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ16c 345903106412003 49 39–44 4,915.56 02/19/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJ17a 345904106412601 20 10–15 4,913.34 02/20/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJS1 345902106410701 NA NA 4,909.47 02/20/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJS2 345904106411501 NA NA 4,916.41 02/20/09 02/28/10 No Yes

PJS3 345906106412601 NA NA 4,909.48 02/19/09 02/28/10 No Yes

I1a 350358106391301 16 6–11 4,904.92 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

I1b 350358106391302 31 21–26 4,904.92 Uninstrumented NA NA NA

I1c 350358106391303 56 46–51 4,904.92 02/01/09 02/28/10 03/02/10–

02/28/10

06/01/05–

03/02/10

I2a 345703106403901 16 6–11 4,902.76 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

I2b 345703106403902 31 21–26 4,902.76 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

I3a 345703106404001 16 6–11 4,902.35 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

I4a 345701106404501 14 4–9 4,903.47 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

I4b 345701106404502 29 19–24 4,903.47 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

I4c 345701106404503 54 44–49 4,903.47 Uninstrumented NA NA NA

I5a 345701106404601 14 4–9 4,904.60 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

I5b 345701106404602 29 19–24 4,904.60 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 23

Table 1. Site data for piezometers and surface-water data collection sites, Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico.—Continued

[NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988; A, Alameda; a, shallow; b, mid-depth; c, deep; S, surface-water stage gage; NA, not applicable; P, Paseo 

del Norte; M, Montaño; C, Central; B, Barelas; R, Rio Bravo; PJ, Pajarito; I, I-25]

Other 

identifier

Piezometer 

depth

Screened 

interval

Land surface1

or measuringpoint2

elevation

Period of record 

presented in this report

Type of transducer in 

well for period of this 

report or for period 

indicated

(figs. 

3A–H)

Site 

identifier

(feet below 

land surface, 

rounded to 

nearest foot)

(feet 

below land 

surface, 

rounded 

to nearest 

foot)

(feet above 

NAVD 88) Start date End date Vented Nonvented

I6a 345707106410101 14 4–9 4,905.91 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

I6b 345707106410102 29 19–24 4,905.91 12/18/09 02/28/10 Yes No

I7a 345706106410201 14 4–9 4,905.12 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

I7b 345706106410202 29 19–24 4,905.12 02/01/09 02/28/10 09/25/09–

02/28/10

06/01/05–

09/25/09

I7c 345706106410203 49 39–44 4,905.12 09/25/09 02/28/10 No Yes

I8a 345704106410701 15 5–10 4,901.90 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

I8b 345704106410702 30 20–25 4,901.90 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

I10a 345703106411201 13 3–8 4,900.97 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

I10b 345703106411202 28 18–23 4,900.97 Uninstrumented NA NA NA

I10c 345703106411203 48 38–43 4,900.97 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

I11a 345707106404101 13 3–8 4,902.27 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

I11b 345707106404102 28 18–23 4,902.27 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

I12a 345707106404103 13 3–8 4,902.28 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

I13a 345706106404701 14 4–9 4,904.21 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

I13b 345706106404702 29 19–24 4,904.21 Uninstrumented NA NA NA

I13c 345706106404703 49 34–39 4,904.21 02/01/09 02/28/10 12/12/06–

06/12/09

06/12/09–

02/28/10

I14a 345706106404704 14 4–9 4,904.06 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

I14b 345706106404705 29 19–24 4,904.06 Uninstrumented NA NA NA

I15a 345713106410604 14 4–9 4,906.50 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

I15b 345713106410605 29 19–24 4,906.50 02/01/09 02/28/10 No Yes

I16a 345713106410601 16 6–11 4,908.22 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

I16b 345713106410602 31 21–26 4,908.22 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

I16c 345713106410603 49 39–44 4,908.22 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

I17a 345713106411001 13 3–8 4,903.46 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

I17b 345713106411002 28 18–23 4,903.46 02/01/09 02/28/10 06/12/09–

02/28/10

01/23/06–

06/12/09

IS1 345703106404010 NA NA 4,903.63 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

IS2 345705106405810 NA NA 4,906.66 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

IS3 345705106410810 NA NA 4,903.23 02/01/09 02/28/10 Yes No

1

Land-surface elevation for piezometers only.

2

Measuring-point elevation for surface-water stage gages only.
24 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Piezometers were installed using direct-push drilling 

technology (Lapham and others, 1997). Piezometers were 

constructed of 1-inch diameter, flush-threaded schedule 40 

polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. Each piezometer, from the 

bottom up, consists of a 5-ft long blank section of casing 

capped at the bottom (the sump), a 5-ft long screen with 

0.010-inch wide screen slots, and blank casing to the land 

surface. Each piezometer was completed by backfilling the 

outside annulus surrounding the PVC with soil to a depth of 

about 5 ft below land surface. Bentonite pellets were then 

placed in the annulus from the top of the backfill to land 

surface. Each piezometer was developed using compressed air 

to pump water out of the casing and establish a good hydraulic 

connection between the piezometer and the aquifer. 

Continuous subsurface core samples were collected at 

five transects (Paseo del Norte, Montaño, Barelas, Rio Bravo, 

and I-25) from 2004 to 2006 by using direct-push drilling. 

Core samples were obtained to (1) ensure that piezometer 

screens were placed in sand and gravel, and not clay; and 

(2) identify and locate any substantial changes in subsurface 

lithology that could potentially affect either horizontal or 

vertical groundwater movement. In total, 36 locations were 

cored within the study area. Coring locations generally 

corresponded to piezometer sites and included locations 

adjacent to the river, between the river and riverside drains on 

both sides of the river, and adjacent to both riverside drains. 

Coring depths ranged from 25 to 55 ft bls, depending on the 

depth of the deepest piezometer. 

Cores were collected in acetate tubes; each tube was 

capped and labeled. Cores were described in the field at the 

time of collection. The core descriptions, on file with the 

USGS New Mexico Water Science Center, Albuquerque, N. 

Mex., include the depth interval that was cored, the amount of 

recovery from each interval, the lithology (grain size, sorting, 

rock type, and color), and miscellaneous remarks. The cores 

are stored in the New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral 

Resources core library in Socorro, N. Mex. 

Water-Level and Temperature Data

Groundwater and surface-water levels were measured 

in piezometers and surface-water bodies, respectively. 

Submersible water-pressure sensors (transducers) were 

installed in each piezometer and at each surface-water gage to 

measure and record groundwater levels on an hourly schedule; 

some of the transducers also were capable of recording 

hourly temperatures. Surface-water gages were constructed 

to measure and record water levels in the Rio Grande and 

in the riverside drains; streamflow was not computed for 

these gages. A total of 252 piezometers and 27 surface-water 

gages were installed; the number of piezometers and surfacewater gages in each set of transects varied for each location 

(fig. 3A–H). Groundwater-level data are available in the USGS 

National Water Information System (http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/

F7P55KJN).

Groundwater-level data were measured using vented and 

nonvented transducers (table 1). Transducers with vented cable 

are automatically compensated for changes in barometric 

pressure, but transducers with nonvented cable are not. With 

nonvented transducers, a calculation is required to correct 

the recorded water levels for changes in barometric pressure 

(Freeman and others, 2004). Unvented transducers record 

total pressure (water plus air) and convert this value to a 

water level. Any change in air pressure needs to be subtracted 

from an initial barometric pressure (pressure at the start of 

the water-level data set being corrected), and the result is 

subtracted from the recorded total water level in order to attain 

a corrected water level. Hourly barometric pressure values 

from the Albuquerque airport (National Climatologic Data 

Center, various dates) were used to correct all water-level data 

collected using nonvented transducers. Barometric water-level 

corrections ranged from 0.0 to about 0.5 ft.

Hourly temperature data were recorded at sites using 

pressure transducers that also recorded water levels. 

Temperature data are available in the USGS National Water 

Information System (http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/F7P55KJN). 

Vertical temperature profiles were measured at selected sites; 

temperature values were recorded at 5-ft intervals from the 

water table to the bottom of the piezometer using a calibrated 

temperature/water-level meter. Vertical-temperature profile 

data are on file with the USGS New Mexico Water Science 

Center, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Slug Tests

The spatial variability of aquifer properties at each 

of the transect locations was estimated by conducting slug 

tests, a type of aquifer test. Analytical results from slug tests 

need to be interpreted carefully because the continuity and 

distribution of hydrologically distinguishable lithologies are 

unique to different parts of the alluvial aquifer. Type-curve 

matching methods are the most common analytical techniques 

used for slug-test analysis and provide an estimate of aquifer 

characteristics in different parts of the aquifer.

Slug tests were conducted by the rapid introduction of 

a 60-inch long weighted PVC slug, with a diameter of 0.75 

inch, into a 1-inch diameter piezometer to induce a positive 

displacement of water in the piezometer of 1 ft or more. 

Water levels were recorded prior to and during the slug tests 

to record initial head, slug insertion, and water-level recovery 

to static conditions. After water levels recovered to within 

5 percent of initial water levels (Butler, 1998), the slug 

was removed, and the subsequent water-level recovery was 

recorded at 1-second intervals by using pressure transducers. 

Slug tests were performed at 15 shallow piezometers, 31 middepth piezometers, and 1 deep piezometer at the Alameda, 

Paseo Del Norte, Montaño, Central, Barelas, Rio Bravo, 

Pajarito, and I-25 transects. 
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 25

Hydraulic-conductivity estimates were determined by 

the Bouwer and Rice (1976) and Butler (1998) methods for 

slug-test analysis in unconfined aquifers. The Butler (1998) 

method is an extension of the Bouwer and Rice (1976) method 

to account for oscillatory responses during recovery from slug 

testing, observed in some highly permeable aquifers. For both 

methods, the recovery data are analyzed by using a family 

of type curves to determine the hydraulic conductivity of the 

aquifer near the screened intervals of the piezometers. The 

Bouwer and Rice (1976) method is used to estimate hydraulic 

conductivity through the following equation:

( ) 2

0 ln 1

ln

2

c e w

t

r R r y K

L t y = (1)

where

K is hydraulic conductivity (length/time),

rc is casing radius (length),

Re is effective radius of influence (length),

rw is borehole radius (length),

L is length of open interval of the well (length),

t is time (time),

y0 is initial water level (length), and

yt is water level at time t (time).

The Butler (1998) method for an unconfined, highly 

permeable aquifer is used to estimate hydraulic conductivity 

through the following equation:

( ) * 2

* *

ln

2

d c e w

r s D

t r R r K

t b C = (2)

where

Kr is radial hydraulic conductivity (length/time);

t

d

* is dimensionless time parameter 1/2 ( )

e

g t

L , 

where g is gravitational acceleration, and 

Le is effective length of water column in 

well, and t is time;

t

* is time (t);

rc is casing radius (length);

Re is effective radius of influence (length);

rw is borehole radius (length);

bs is screen length (length); and

CD

* is dimensionless damping parameter.

Use of either method assumes (1) the aquifer is 

unconfined and infinite in areal extent; (2) the aquifer is 

homogeneous, isotropic, and uniform in thickness; (3) the 

water table is initially horizontal; (4) the well is fully or 

partially penetrating; (5) the water level in the well is stable; 

(6) the slug is introduced rapidly into the well; and (7) the 

screened interval is completely saturated during testing.

Assumptions regarding the extent, homogeneity, isotropy, 

and thickness of the aquifer were satisfied because the area 

of influence of the tests was relatively small. Water-table 

conditions, piezometer geometry, and test procedures satisfy 

the remaining assumptions. Slug-test results represent the 

hydraulic conductivity of the area immediately surrounding 

the well and may not be representative of the average 

hydraulic conductivity of the area. Complete documentation 

of the slug tests is in the USGS New Mexico Water Science 

Center aquifer-test archive, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Horizontal Hydraulic Gradients

Horizontal hydraulic gradients used in the Darcy flux 

calculations were calculated using the three-point method 

(Heath, 1983). Daily hydraulic gradients were calculated by 

using the three-point method and 2009–10 daily mean water 

levels to compute the slope of the water table between selected 

sets of shallow piezometers. Daily mean water levels were 

not uniformly available at all transects from 2009 to 2010 

(table 1), but for most piezometers, there were 13 months of 

data. The average of the daily values over the 13-month period 

is referred to as “an annual mean” in this report. For each of 

the paired transects, hydraulic gradients were calculated for 

three-piezometer combinations of adjacent, triangle-forming 

piezometers (piezometer triangles) between the river and 

the riverside drain. For example, a total of eight piezometer 

triangles were defined for the set of six piezometers on the 

west side of the Rio Grande at the I-25 transect (fig. 4). 

Similar piezometer triangles were defined on both sides of the 

Rio Grande at each transect. After the daily mean hydraulic 

gradient was calculated for each of the eight piezometer 

triangles, the daily mean hydraulic gradient for each side 

of the river was calculated as the average of the daily mean 

hydraulic gradients of the eight piezometer triangles.

Along with the horizontal hydraulic gradients, direction 

of groundwater flow also was calculated for each of the 

paired transects. Gradient directions were calculated using 

the coordinates of the piezometers (converted to feet from 

Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 13 coordinates in meters) 

and the depth-to-water measurements. The gradient directions 

were then corrected to the direction of river flow at each 

transect. River azimuth, or the orientation with respect to 

north of a line drawn along the center of the river channel, was 

obtained by examining digital aerial photographs in Google 

Earth (Google, Inc., 2011) along an approximate mid-river 

line through each 500-ft reach. Gradient directions presented 

in this report are the absolute difference from river azimuth at 

each transect. 
26 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex. Drain Drain River River

Four more triangles can be defined for the same set of six piezometers

Four triangles can be defined for a set of six piezometers

I17a

I8a I7a I6a

I16a I15a

I17a

I8a I7a I6a

I16a I15a

2 4

1 3

5

6

7

8

Figure 4. Piezometer triangles were defined to compute daily mean hydraulic gradients on the west side of the Rio Grande at the I-25 

transect.
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 27

Darcy Flux

Temporal changes in the rate of Rio Grande leakage 

to the alluvial aquifer were computed using Darcy’s 

Law. Darcy’s Law defines the flow of groundwater in a 

homogeneous, saturated aquifer under laminar-flow conditions 

as proportional to the cross-sectional area and hydraulic 

gradient (Fetter, 1994). In equation form, Darcy’s Law is:

dh Q KA

dl = − (3)

where

Q is volumetric groundwater flow (length3/time), 

K is hydraulic conductivity (length/time), 

A is cross-sectional area through which 

groundwater flow occurs (length2), and dh

dl is hydraulic gradient (dimensionless, but is 

negative, by convention, in the direction of 

groundwater flow).

Dividing both sides by the cross-sectional area (A), 

and setting q=Q/A, the Darcy flux (also called specific flux) 

through a unit cross-sectional area of the aquifer can be stated 

as:

dh

q K

dl = − (4)

where

q is the Darcy flux of water through the aquifer 

(length/time).

The hydraulic-conductivity values used in the Darcyflux calculations in this report are considered bulk values 

that characterize the aquifer as a homogeneous mixture of 

sediments and represent average conditions in the aquifer. 

Hydraulic-conductivity estimates were determined by 

analyzing the results of slug tests conducted for this study 

at each of the transect locations and were compared to the 

published reasonable range for hydraulic conductivity in 

undifferentiated Rio Grande alluvium (Tiedeman and others, 

1998).

Suzuki-Stallman Method for Estimating Heat 

Flux

Specific fluxes also were computed from the temperature 

data collected at 10- and 20-ft depths in the alluvial aquifer 

using the analytical method developed by Suzuki (1960) and 

Stallman (1965) that was applied to horizontal flux by Moret 

(2007). Suzuki (1960) developed an equation and approximate 

analytical solution for one-dimensional (vertical) advective 

and conductive heat transport into rice paddy soils assuming 

saturated, vertical, steady-state flow in a homogenous medium 

with a sinusoidal daily surface temperature. Later, on the 

basis of Suzuki’s work, Stallman (1965) developed an exact 

analytic solution for one-dimensional (vertical) advective 

and conductive heat transfer in an aquifer. The SuzukiStallman method relies only on temperature data, providing an 

independent method that can be used to check the Darcy-flux 

estimates generated using measured hydraulic-conductivity 

values and hydraulic gradients. For a more complete 

discussion of using heat as a groundwater tracer see Anderson 

(2005), Blasch and others (2007), or Constantz and others 

(2008). 

The equation describing one-dimensional, vertical heat 

transport (Suzuki, 1960) is:

2

2 w w s

T T T k c q c z z t

∂ ∂ ∂

+ ρ = ∂ ∂ ∂ ρ (5)

where

k is the thermal conductivity of the saturated 

aquifer (sediment and water) (British 

Thermal Unit [International Steam Table 

Calorie] per time foot-degrees Fahrenheit),

T is the temperature in the aquifer (°F),

w w ρ c is the heat capacity of the water (British 

Thermal Unit [International Steam 

Table Calorie] per cubic foot-degrees 

Fahrenheit),

qs is the specific flux of water through the 

aquifer (length/time),

ρc is the heat capacity of the saturated aquifer 

(sediment and water) (British Thermal Unit 

[International Steam Table Calorie] per 

cubic foot-degrees Fahrenheit),

z is vertical distance (length), and 

t is time (time).

Moret (2007) adapted the heat-transport equation 

(Suzuki, 1960) and analytical solution (Stallman, 1965) to 

use annual temperature variations in river temperature and 

their propagation into the adjacent aquifer to estimate rates of 

horizontal river leakage. For the horizontal flux, Moret (2007) 

used equation 5 but substituted horizontal distance x for the 

vertical distance z. Temperature variations in the river affect 

the solution to equation 5; consequently, Moret (2007) adapted 

Stallman’s (1965) method for incorporating diurnal heating 

and cooling of the land surface to correct for changes in river 

temperature. To use the solution proposed by Stallman, it is 

necessary to assume that the aquifer is bounded at x=0 by a 

fully penetrating river, and all flow is uniform and horizontal 

in the positive x direction. Following Suzuki (1960) and 

Stallman (1965), Moret (2007) states that the temperature of 

the river, Triver, varies sinusoidally with a period of 1 year:
28 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

0

2

sin Triver Tavg T t   = +  +   

π

φ

τ (6)

where

Tavg is the average river temperature (degrees 

Fahrenheit), 

T0 is the magnitude of temperature oscillation in 

the river (degrees Fahrenheit), 

τ is the period of the oscillation (time), 

φ is the phase lag in temperature signal of the 

river (time), and 

t is time (time). 

If the temperature dependence of the viscosity of water is 

ignored, the analytical solution for advective and conductive 

heat transport proposed by Suzuki (1960) and further 

developed by Stallman (1965) (eq. 6) can be used to model 

the temperature oscillations in groundwater (Tosc) that are 

attributable to oscillations in river water temperature (Triver):

0

2

sin ax Tosc T e t bx −   =  − +   

π

φ

τ (7)

where T0, τ , t, x (z in eq. 5), and φ are as previously defined 

for equations 5 and 6, 

1

4 2 2

2

4 2 T

V V

a K V

  =  + +  −    

, and (8)

1

4 2 2

2

4 2 T

V V b K

  =  + −     

(9)

The parameter a, with units of ft-1, controls the 

attenuation of the temperature wave. The spatial frequency 

parameter b, with units of radians per foot (rad/ft), controls the 

propagation of the wave through space. The parameters KT and 

V are constants and are defined by:

T

c K

k = πρ

τ

, and (10)

2

w w s c q V

k = ρ (11)

where ρc, k, τ , w w ρ c , qs, and k are as previously defined in 

equations 5 and 6.

Figure 5 shows how theoretical values of a and b, 

calculated through use of equations 8 and 9, vary as a 

function of changes in the flux term (qs) in equation 11. Type 

curves in figure 5 were constructed by using the average of the 

four values obtained by Bartolino and Niswonger (1999) for 

the thermal conductivity (1.25 BTUIT/hr ft °F) and saturated 

heat capacity (48 BTUIT/ft3 °F) of the inner valley alluvial 

aquifer. 

For parameters a and b determined from observations, 

the specific flux through the aquifer, qs, can be estimated from 

type curves such as those in figure 5. The parameters a and b 

can be estimated by using temperature records from two wells 

a

b

EXPLANATION

Parameter

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Specific flux, qs, in feet per day

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

Parameters a, in one per foot, and b, in radians per foot

Figure 5. Type curves developed using equations 8 and 9 showing values of the parameters a and b as a function of specific flux, qs.
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 29

at distances x1 and x2 from the river (Stallman, 1965; Moret, 

2007). The differences between the maximum and minimum 

temperatures in these records, ΔTx1 and ΔTx2, can be used to 

estimate a:

1

2 1 2

1 log X

X

T

a

x x T

−  ∆  =   −  ∆  (12)

The phase lag between the two temperature records, Δt, yields 

b:

( 2 1 )

2 t b

x x

∆ = −

π

τ (13)

Moret (2007) found that the best way to estimate specific 

flux, qs, is to plot the measured values of a and b on type 

curves (fig. 5). With this method, the user can determine 

whether a and b are physically realistic and consistent with 

each other and assess the sensitivity of qs to measurement 

error. The Suzuki-Stallman method can only be used to 

estimate flux in regions of the curves where a and b vary as a 

function of qs (fig. 5). 

In this study, four steps were used to estimate flux 

from temperature data: (1) two type curves (a and b) were 

developed using thermal properties of the aquifer and 

equations 8–11 for a range of specific-flux values (fig. 5), 

(2) the values for a and b were calculated using equations 

12 and 13 and temperatures measured in the piezometers, 

(3) the values for a and b calculated in the previous step were 

plotted on their respective type curves and matched with the 

corresponding flux (qa and qb), and (4) the qa and qb estimates 

were averaged to obtain qheat.

Limitations and Assumptions of Suzuki-Stallman 

Method

According to Moret (2007), the Suzuki-Stallman method 

used in this study does not fully represent all of the factors 

that contribute to aquifer-temperature signals. However, the 

method sufficiently represents the system to produce a useful 

estimate of groundwater flux. Some of the limitations and 

assumptions with this method are described in the following 

sections. A complete discussion of data limitations associated 

with use of the Suzuki-Stallman method is found in Moret 

(2007).

Range of Applicability

The Suzuki-Stallman method can only be used to 

estimate flux in regions of the curve where a and b vary 

detectably as a function of specific flux (qs). Figure 5 shows 

how the values of a and b vary as a function of specific 

flux using average thermal properties of the aquifer that 

were determined by Bartolino and Niswonger (1999). The 

exact limits of detectability depend on the accuracy of the 

temperature data, the magnitude of the original temperaturesignal oscillation, and the distance between measuring points; 

for the aquifer parameters used in this study, fluxes between 

10-3 and 1 ft/d should be detectable. 

Flow Direction

The Suzuki (1960) equation was developed to measure 

vertical infiltration in fields and assumes that the flux is one 

dimensional and calculated along the flow path. However, 

leakage of water from the Rio Grande into the adjacent aquifer 

is not one dimensional. The hydraulic gradients are primarily 

horizontal, but vertical gradients also exist. The paired 

piezometer transects in this study are not oriented directly 

along the flow paths of river seepage, and qheat was calculated 

between pairs of wells along each individual transect. Based 

on these limitations, the qheat calculations likely systematically 

underestimate the flux. 

Aquifer Heterogeneity 

The Suzuki (1960) equation assumes a uniform flow 

field, a condition not met in a heterogeneous aquifer. If 

temperature signals measured at points with different flow 

rates are compared, then the estimated fluxes will be incorrect. 

Moret (2007) advises measuring the temperature at a number 

of depths in as many observation wells as are available to limit 

the effect of time-series data recorded in nonrepresentative 

locations.

Variable Recharge

Bartolino and Niswonger (1999) determined that the 

flux through the riverbed at the Paseo Del Norte site varied 

by roughly an order of magnitude over the course of the year, 

whereas the Suzuki (1960) equation assumes a constant flux. 

Moret (2007) modeled aquifer temperature using variable 

monthly recharge estimates and a constant annual flux. The 

Bartolino and Niswonger (1999) and Moret (2007) models 

agreed reasonably well, and Moret (2007) concluded that 

the Suzuki-Stallman method represents aquifers with annual 

variations in river recharge reasonably well.

Spatial Aliasing

The spatial wavelength, λ, of a temperature wave 

described by equation 7 is defined by: 

2

b = π λ (14)

By using figure 5, fluxes of 10-3 and 1 ft/d result 

from b values of 0.117 and 0.0132 rad/ft, respectively, and 

wavelengths of about 54 and 476 ft, respectively. For example, 

if qs=10-3 ft/d, then b=0.117 (fig. 5) and λ=2π/0.117, or 54 ft; 
30 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

if qs=1 ft/d, then b=0.0132 (fig. 5), and λ=2π/0.0132, or 476 ft. 

When the wells used to measure temperature are separated 

by more than one wavelength, the apparent lag between the 

temperature series will be incorrect. This phenomenon is 

known as spatial aliasing. In this situation, b will be greatly 

underestimated. A measured value of b can be evaluated by 

plotting it with the measured a value for the same time-series 

pair on a plot generated by using equation 9 (for example, 

fig. 5). If the qs values that correspond to a and b (qa and 

qb, respectively) do not agree reasonably well, then 1-year 

increments can be added to the measured lag.

Surface-Temperature Variations

Temperatures in shallow parts of the alluvial aquifer 

can be affected by the annual variation in the ground-surface 

temperature. The ground-surface temperature generally is 

an attenuated version of the atmospheric-temperature signal 

(Smerdon and others, 2004). Because of the exponential decay 

of ground-surface temperature signals with depth (Carslaw 

and Jaegar, 1959), groundwater temperatures measured 

more than approximately 5 ft below ground surface may not 

be substantially affected by surface warming (Silliman and 

Booth, 1993; Moret, 2007).

At the Paseo del Norte site, Bartolino (2003) recorded 

temperatures at 7 or 10, 13 or 15, 20, 26, and 33 ft below 

ground surface in eight piezometers installed in an east-west 

configuration between the east and west riverside drains. In 

piezometers P06 and P07 from the Bartolino (2003) dataset, 

Moret (2007) found no substantial difference between 

the temperatures recorded at depths of 7 or 10 ft and the 

temperatures recorded at 13 or 15 ft, indicating that the 

effect of atmospheric temperature is small. There was a 6.5 

°F difference in the magnitudes of the temperature waves 

recorded at 7 and 15 ft in piezometer P08 (Bartolino, 2003). 

This difference, however, is greater than what would be 

expected if it was attributable to the atmospheric-temperature 

effect and is likely because of lower hydraulic conductivity 

of the sediments at the 7-ft depth than the deeper sediments 

(Moret, 2007). 

Temperature Dependence of Hydraulic 

Conductivity

Hydraulic conductivity depends inversely on fluid 

viscosity and directly on fluid density, while both viscosity 

and density depend on temperature. The viscosity of liquid 

water at 32 °F is twice that of water at 77 °F (Vennard and 

Street, 1982). Surface-water recharge fluxes can thus vary 

substantially with the temperature of the water (Constantz 

and others, 1994). A fundamental limitation of the SuzukiStallman method is that it does not consider the effect of 

temperature on groundwater viscosity and thus hydraulic 

conductivity. Moret (2007) evaluated this limitation by using 

a two-dimensional finite-element model and concluded that 

if temperature time-series data appear to be sinusoidal, then 

the temperature dependence of hydraulic conductivity does 

not limit the applicability of the Suzuki-Stallman method for 

determining general estimates of specific flux. For additional 

details see Moret (2007).

Uncertainty in Thermal Properties 

The thermal properties of the aquifer, k (thermal 

conductivity) and ρc (heat capacity), are generally not well 

known, but for aquifers consisting of unconsolidated 

sediments, the range of k values reported in the literature 

is small (Moret, 2007). Moret (2007) found that if sitespecific measurements are not readily available, a thermal 

conductivity, chosen based solely on aquifer lithology, will 

introduce an uncertainty into the estimate of qs of a few tens of 

percent. In this study, the average of the four values obtained 

by Bartolino and Niswonger (1999) were used for the thermal 

conductivity (2.16 W m-1 °C-1). Saturated heat capacity 

(3.2×106 J m-3 °C-1) of the inner valley alluvial aquifer was 

determined using values for the heat capacity of dry solids and 

porosity presented by Bartolino and Niswonger (1999) and the 

heat capacity of water (4.184×106 J m-3 °C-1).

Data Error

Another possible limitation in the interpretation of 

temperature oscillations using the Suzuki-Stallman method 

is uncertainty in the estimation of best-fit sinusoids for the 

observed data series, which would result in uncertainty in a

and b. Errors in sinusoid fitting are likely to be greatest closer 

to the source of the surface-water recharge (Moret, 2007). 

Groundwater Hydrology

The hydrologic characteristics of groundwater movement 

in the study area were examined using hydraulic head 

measurements, water temperatures, slug-testing results, and 

horizontal groundwater-flux estimates. Slug-test data from 47 

sites were used to determine the hydraulic conductivity of the 

alluvial aquifer (USGS New Mexico Water Science Center 

aquifer-test archive, Albuquerque). Daily mean hydraulichead data were used to establish groundwater gradients at 

transect locations, and vertical water-temperature profile data 

were collected at selected piezometers to evaluate the depth 

of penetration of river recharge into the aquifer. Horizontal 

groundwater fluxes from the Rio Grande through the inner 

valley alluvial aquifer to the riverside drains were estimated 

using the horizontal hydraulic gradients and hydraulicconductivity values. A seepage investigation in the riverside 

drains was then conducted to evaluate the accuracy of flux 

estimates.
Groundwater Hydrology 31

Groundwater Levels and Temperatures

Hourly groundwater-level data were recorded from 252 

piezometers screened at different intervals within the alluvial 

aquifer. Daily mean water levels are shown in figures 6A–P.

Groundwater-level data were used to evaluate waterlevel trends, measure response to increases or decreases in 

river stage, and calculate horizontal hydraulic gradients. In the 

study area, diurnal and seasonal fluctuations in water levels 

were common, but no substantial upward or downward longterm water-level trends were discernable from 2009 to 2010 

(fig. 6A–P). Groundwater-level responses to stage changes in 

the river were measurable; water levels in piezometers closest 

to the river showed a more pronounced response to change in 

river stage than did piezometers next to or outside the drains, 

which are farther from the river. Vertical hydraulic gradients 

from nested piezometers typically were small (fig. 6A–P). 

Heads measured in the shallow and mid-depth piezometers 

typically were similar, however, there were exceptions, most 

notably at piezometers B16a, b, and c; R4a, b, and c; and R5a, 

b, and c, where clay-rich sediments were observed in sediment 

cores. 

The groundwater-flow paths between the drains and the 

surrounding shallow aquifer are variable, and the water levels 

and generalized flow lines (fig. 3A–H) are only representative 

of the specific date indicated. Water levels were selected 

for August 15, 2009, because this represented a time when 

water-level data were available from most piezometers. For 

example, sometimes a drain will gain water from both sides 

of the alluvial aquifer while other times the drain might gain 

groundwater from the river side of the alluvial aquifer and lose 

water to the alluvial aquifer away from the river. Some of this 

variation is seasonal, and some of the variation is likely related 

to irrigation operations. However, water levels indicated that 

groundwater movement was usually away from the river 

toward the drains (fig. 3A–H). This direction of groundwater 

movement is reasonable because the riverside drains were 

designed to extend below the groundwater table, except near 

the downstream ends of the drains, where they empty back 

into the river.

While drain-water levels generally were lower than 

adjacent groundwater levels, there were instances where the 

water level in a drain was substantially higher than adjacent 

groundwater levels. For example, at the Montaño transects, the 

water level at MS3, near the downstream end of the Corrales 

Riverside Drain, was about 5 ft higher than the water levels 

at M9a and M18a on August 15, 2009 (fig. 3C). The depth 

of water in the drain at this location was about 3–4 ft, so the 

bottom of the drain probably was higher than the water table. 

These data indicate that the hydraulic interaction between 

the drain and groundwater at this location is minimal; this 

condition is likely to persist from one year to the next. At the 

Barelas transects, the water level at BS1 in the Albuquerque 

Riverside Drain was about 2.5 ft higher than the water levels 

in piezometers B3a and B12a on March 15, 2009 (fig. 3E). 

These water-level differences are attributable to a point of 

diversion structure in the drain about 900 ft downstream from 

B12a that obstructs flow and elevates the water level in the 

drain so that the water level in the drain upstream from the 

diversion structure was substantially higher than downstream 

from the diversion structure. At the Central transects, water 

levels in the Atrisco Lateral at CS3 are from 2 to 6 ft higher 

than the water levels in the adjacent piezometers C17a and 

C18a (fig. 3D and fig. 6H). The Atrisco Lateral is used to 

deliver water for irrigation and therefore is designed to have 

higher water levels than the surrounding groundwater. It is 

likely that the Atrisco Lateral is losing some water to the 

surrounding aquifer.
32 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Date

2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

4,986

4,988

4,990

4,992

4,994

4,996

4,998

5,000

5,002

4,986

4,988

4,990

4,992

4,994

4,996

4,998

5,000

Daily mean water-level altitude, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

EXPLANATION

Surface-water gage Piezometer, by depth

Piezometer a, shallow

Piezometer b, mid-depth

Piezometer c, deep

Rio Grande, AS2

Albuquerque Riverside Drain, AS1

Upper Corrales Riverside Drain, AS3

Corrales Riverside Drain, AS4

A2a

A3a

A4a,b,c

A5a,b,c

A9a

A8a

A7a,b,c

A6a,b

AS1

AS2, Rio Grande

AS3

AS4

Piezometers

Surface-water gages

A. Alameda transect 1

Figure 6. Daily mean water-level altitude for stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and for groundwater levels in piezometers 

at A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.
Groundwater Hydrology 33

Date

2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

4,986

4,988

4,990

4,992

4,994

4,996

4,998

5,000

5,002

4,986

4,988

4,990

4,992

4,994

4,996

4,998

5,000

Daily mean water-level altitude, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

EXPLANATION

Surface-water gage Piezometer, by depth

Piezometer a, shallow

Piezometer b, mid-depth

Piezometer c, deep

Rio Grande, AS2

Albuquerque Riverside Drain, AS1

Upper Corrales Riverside Drain, AS3

Corrales Riverside Drain, AS4

AS1

AS2, Rio Grande

AS3

AS4

A11a

A12a

A13a,b,c

A14a,b

A18a

A17a

A16a,b,c

A15a,b

Piezometers

Surface-water gages

B. Alameda transect 2

Figure 6. Daily mean water-level altitude for stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and for groundwater levels in piezometers 

at A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
34 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Date

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

Daily mean water-level altitude, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

4,976

4,978

4,980

4,982

4,984

4,986

4,988

4,990

4,992

4,976

4,978

4,980

4,982

4,984

4,986

4,988

4,990

4,992

EXPLANATION

Surface-water gage Piezometer, by depth

Piezometer a, shallow

Piezometer b, mid-depth

Piezometer c, deep

Rio Grande, PS2

Albuquerque Riverside Drain, PS1

Corrales Riverside Drain, PS3

PS1

PS2, Rio Grande

PS3

P10a,c

P3a

P2b

P9a,b

P8a

P4a,b

P7a,b

P6a,b

P5a,b

Piezometers

Surface-water gages

C. Paseo del Norte transect 1

Figure 6. Daily mean water-level altitude for stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and for groundwater levels in piezometers 

at A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
Groundwater Hydrology 35

Date

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

Daily mean water-level altitude, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

4,976

4,978

4,980

4,982

4,984

4,986

4,988

4,990

4,992

4,976

4,978

4,980

4,982

4,984

4,986

4,988

4,990

4,992

EXPLANATION

Surface-water gage Piezometer, by depth

Piezometer a, shallow

Piezometer b, mid-depth

Piezometer c, deep

Rio Grande, PS2

Albuquerque Riverside Drain, PS1

Corrales Riverside Drain, PS3

PS1

PS2, Rio Grande

PS3

P11a,b

P12a

P13a,b,c

P18a,b

P17a

P16a,b

P15a,b

P14a,b

Piezometers

Surface-water gages

D. Paseo del Norte transect 2

Figure 6. Daily mean water-level altitude for stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and for groundwater levels in piezometers 

at A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
36 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Date

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

Daily mean water-level altitude, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

4,966

4,968

4,970

4,972

4,974

4,976

4,978

4,966

4,968

4,970

4,972

4,974

4,976

4,978

EXPLANATION

Surface-water gage Piezometer, by depth

Piezometer a, shallow

Piezometer b, mid-depth

Piezometer c, deep

Rio Grande, MS2

Albuquerque Riverside Drain, MS1

Corrales Riverside Drain, MS3

M3a,b

M9a,b

M8a

M6a,b

M5a,b

M7a,b

M4a,b,c

MS1

MS2, Rio Grande

MS3

Piezometers

Surface-water gages

E. Montaño transect 1

Figure 6. Daily mean water-level altitude for stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and for groundwater levels in piezometers 

at A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
Groundwater Hydrology 37

Date

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

Daily mean water-level altitude, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

4,966

4,968

4,970

4,972

4,974

4,976

4,978

4,966

4,968

4,970

4,972

4,974

4,976

4,978

EXPLANATION

Surface-water gage Piezometer, by depth

Piezometer a, shallow

Piezometer b, mid-depth

Piezometer c, deep

Rio Grande, MS2

Albuquerque Riverside Drain, MS1

Corrales Riverside Drain, MS3

MS1

MS2, Rio Grande

MS3

M12a,b

M18a,b

M15a,b

M16a,b,c

M14a,b

M13a,b,c

M17a

Piezometers

Surface-water gages

F. Montaño transect 2

Figure 6. Daily mean water-level altitude for stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and for groundwater levels in piezometers 

at A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
38 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Date

2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

Daily mean water-level altitude, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

4,944

4,946

4,948

4,950

4,952

4,954

4,956

4,944

4,946

4,948

4,950

4,952

4,954

4,956

EXPLANATION

Surface-water gage Piezometer, by depth

Piezometer a, shallow

Piezometer b, mid-depth

Piezometer c, deep

Rio Grande, CS2

Albuquerque Riverside Drain, CS1

Atrisco Lateral, CS3

CS1

CS2, Rio Grande

CS3

C2a

C3a

C9a

C8a

C4a,b,c

C6a,b

C7a,b,c

C5a,b

Piezometers

Surface-water gages

G. Central transect 1

Figure 6. Daily mean water-level altitude for stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and for groundwater levels in piezometers 

at A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
Groundwater Hydrology 39

Date

2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

Daily mean water-level altitude, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

4,944

4,946

4,948

4,950

4,952

4,954

4,956

4,944

4,946

4,948

4,950

4,952

4,954

4,956

EXPLANATION

Surface-water gage Piezometer, by depth

Piezometer a, shallow

Piezometer b, mid-depth

Piezometer c, deep

Rio Grande, CS2

Albuquerque Riverside Drain, CS1

Atrisco Lateral, CS3

CS1

CS2, Rio Grande

CS3

C11a

C12a

C18a

C17a

C13a,b,c

C15a,b

C16a,b,c

C14a,b

Piezometers

Surface-water gages

H. Central transect 2

Figure 6. Daily mean water-level altitude for stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and for groundwater levels in piezometers 

at A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
40 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Date

2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

Daily mean water-level altitude, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

4,932

4,934

4,936

4,938

4,940

4,942

4,944

4,932

4,934

4,936

4,938

4,940

4,942

EXPLANATION

Surface-water gage Piezometer, by depth

Piezometer a, shallow

Piezometer b, mid-depth

Piezometer c, deep

Rio Grande, BS2

Albuquerque Riverside Drain, BS1

Atrisco Riverside Drain, BS3

BS3

BS2, Rio Grande

BS1

B5a

B6a,b

B4a,c

B7a,c

B10a,b,c

B8a

B2a

B3a,b

B9a

Piezometers

Surface-water gages

I. Barelas transect 1

Figure 6. Daily mean water-level altitude for stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and for groundwater levels in piezometers 

at A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
Groundwater Hydrology 41

Date

2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

Daily mean water-level altitude, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

4,932

4,934

4,936

4,938

4,940

4,942

4,944

4,932

4,934

4,936

4,938

4,940

4,942

EXPLANATION

Surface-water gage Piezometer, by depth

Piezometer a, shallow

Piezometer b, mid-depth

Piezometer c, deep

Rio Grande, BS2

Albuquerque Riverside Drain, BS1

Atrisco Riverside Drain, BS3

BS3

BS2, Rio Grande

BS1

B14a,b

B13a,b,c

B16a,b,c

B17a,b

B11a

B12a,b

B15a,b

B18a

Piezometers

Surface-water gages

J. Barelas transect 2

Figure 6. Daily mean water-level altitude for stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and for groundwater levels in piezometers 

at A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
42 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Date

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

Daily mean water-level altitude, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

4,918

4,920

4,922

4,924

4,926

4,916

4,918

4,920

4,922

4,924

4,926

4,928

4,928

4,920

4,922

4,924

4,926

4,928

EXPLANATION

Surface-water gage

Rio Grande, RS3

Albuquerque Riverside Drain, RS1

Atrisco Riverside Drain, RS4

Piezometer, by depth

Piezometer a, shallow

Piezometer b, mid-depth

Piezometer c, deep

PS1

RS3, Rio Grande

RS4

RS1

R1a,c

R8a,c

R4a,c

R3a

R2a

R6a,b

R5a,b,c

R7a,b,c

R9a

R10a,c

East piezometers

West piezometers

Surface-water gages

K. Rio Bravo transect 1

Figure 6. Daily mean water-level altitude for stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and for groundwater levels in piezometers 

at A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
Groundwater Hydrology 43

Date

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

Daily mean water-level altitude, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

4,922

4,924

4,926

4,928

4,920

4,922

4,924

4,926

4,928

4,930

4,922

4,924

4,926

4,928

EXPLANATION

Surface-water gage

Rio Grande, RS3

Albuquerque Riverside Drain, RS2

Atrisco Riverside Drain, RS5

Piezometer, by depth

Piezometer a, shallow

Piezometer b, mid-depth

Piezometer c, deep

PS1

RS3, Rio Grande

RS5

RS2

R11a

R12a,b

R18a

R17a,b

R13a,c

R16a,b,c

R14a,b

R15a,b

East piezometers

West piezometers

Surface-water gages

L. Rio Bravo transect 2

Figure 6. Daily mean water-level altitude for stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and for groundwater levels in piezometers 

at A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
44 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Date

2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

Daily mean water-level altitude, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

4,904

4,906

4,908

4,910

4,912

4,914

4,916

4,904

4,906

4,908

4,910

4,912

4,914

4,916

EXPLANATION

Surface-water gage

Rio Grande, PJS2

Albuquerque Riverside Drain, PJS1

Atrisco Riverside Drain, PJS3

Piezometer, by depth

Piezometer a, shallow

Piezometer b, mid-depth

Piezometer c, deep

PJS1

PJS2, Rio Grande

PJS3

PJ6a,b

PJ5a,b

PJ7a,b,c

PJ4a,b,c

PJ2a

PJ3a

PJ9a

PJ8a

Piezometers

Surface-water gages

M. Pajarito transect 1

Figure 6. Daily mean water-level altitude for stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and for groundwater levels in piezometers 

at A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
Groundwater Hydrology 45

Date

2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

Daily mean water-level altitude, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

4,904

4,906

4,908

4,910

4,912

4,914

4,916

4,904

4,906

4,908

4,910

4,912

4,914

4,916

EXPLANATION

Surface-water gage

Rio Grande, PJS2

Albuquerque Riverside Drain, PJS1

Atrisco Riverside Drain, PJS3

Piezometer, by depth

Piezometer a, shallow

Piezometer b, mid-depth

Piezometer c, deep

PJS1

PJS2, Rio Grande

PJS3

PJ11a

PJ12a

PJ17a

PJ13a,b,c

PJ16a,b,c

PJ14a,b

PJ15a,b

Piezometers

Surface-water gages

N. Pajarito transect 2

Figure 6. Daily mean water-level altitude for stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and for groundwater levels in piezometers 

at A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
46 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Date

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

Daily mean water-level altitude, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

4,896

4,898

4,900

4,902

4,904

4,906

4,896

4,898

4,900

4,902

4,904

4,896

4,898

4,900

4,902

4,904

EXPLANATION

Surface-water gage

Rio Grande, IS2

Albuquerque Riverside Drain, IS1

Atrisco Riverside Drain, IS3

Piezometer, by depth

Piezometer a, shallow

Piezometer b, mid-depth

Piezometer c, deep

IS2, Rio Grande

IS1

IS3

I5a,b

I4a,b

I1a,c

I2a,b

I10a,c

I6a

I7a,b,c

I8a,b

I3a

East piezometers

West piezometers

Surface-water gages

O. I–25 transect 1

Figure 6. Daily mean water-level altitude for stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and for groundwater levels in piezometers 

at A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
Groundwater Hydrology 47

Date

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 1/1/10 2/1/10 3/1/10

Daily mean water-level altitude, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

4,896

4,898

4,900

4,902

4,904

4,906

4,898

4,900

4,902

4,904

4,906

4,898

4,900

4,902

4,904

4,906

EXPLANATION

Surface-water gage

Rio Grande, IS2

Albuquerque Riverside Drain, IS1

Atrisco Riverside Drain, IS3

Piezometer, by depth

Piezometer a, shallow

Piezometer b, mid-depth

Piezometer c, deep

IS2, Rio Grande

IS1

IS3

I13a,c

I12a

I11a,b

I14a

I15a,b

I16a,b,c

I17a,b

East piezometers

West piezometers

Surface-water gages

P. I–25 transect 2

Figure 6. Daily mean water-level altitude for stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and for groundwater levels in piezometers 

at A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
48 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Hourly groundwater temperatures were recorded at 

depths of 10 and 20 ft bls in selected piezometer nests. 

Daily mean water temperature for all measurement points 

are shown in figure 7A–P. Large seasonal ranges in surfacewater temperature are apparent; surface-water temperatures 

ranged from 29 °F in the winter to 81 °F in the summer. 

Surface-water temperatures in the drains typically were 

similar to temperatures measured in the Rio Grande, but 

the magnitudes of temperature fluctuations in the river were 

somewhat greater than in the drains. Maximum and minimum 

water temperatures in piezometers generally indicate a 

decrease in amplitude and an increase in time lag of the 

temperature signal with increasing depth and distance from 

the river. High-frequency temperature fluctuations of a few 

degrees in shallow piezometers installed adjacent to the river 

rapidly dissipated with depth and distance from the river. For 

example, the high-frequency temperature fluctuations that are 

evident in piezometer P5a, next to the river, are not evident 

in piezometers P4a and P3a (fig. 7C), which are farther away 

from the river (fig. 3B). The high-frequency fluctuations 

were not recorded in mid-depth piezometers or shallow 

piezometers located more than a few hundred feet from the 

river. Dampening of lower-frequency temperature signals can 

result from local-scale heterogeneities. For example, shortterm (daily to weekly) temperature variations recorded in 

piezometer nests M14a and C6a, shallow piezometers adjacent 

to the river, are substantially attenuated 400–500 ft to the west 

in piezometer nests M13 and C7 (figs. 3C and 3D and figs. 7F 

and 7G, respectively).

Monthly vertical temperature profiles were collected 

during the months of October 2008 through November 2009 

(with the exception of November 2008 and September 2009) 

in the deepest piezometer at selected piezometer nests (fig. 8). 

Temperature-profile data were collected to evaluate the depth 

of the alluvial aquifer that is influenced by leakage from 

the river. Temperatures were recorded at 5-ft intervals from 

about 0.5 ft below the water surface to the bottom of each 

piezometer. Although piezometers were constructed with a 

screened interval of 5 ft near the bottom of the piezometer, 

the temperature of water in blank (nonscreened) casing was 

assumed to be the same as the temperature of water outside 

the casing. Groundwater-temperature profiles in figure 8 form 

envelopes that bracket the warmest temperatures from August 

to October and coolest temperatures from February to April. 

Groundwater temperatures recorded between October 2008 

and November 2009 were most variable at depths less than 30 

ft and generally ranged from 40 to 70 °F.

Temperature envelopes in figure 8 generally can be 

qualitatively classified as fan- or tulip-shaped reflecting the 

direction and velocity of groundwater flow (Stonestrom and 

Constantz, 2003). At piezometers A7, A8, M7, C3, C4, C8, 

R3, R8, PJ8, I3, I4, and I5, the fan-shape of the temperature 

envelope shows that the seasonal temperature extinction 

depth (the depth at which seasonal temperature variations 

are not observed) ranges from 20 to 30 ft bls. Piezometers 

with fan-shaped temperature envelopes are indicated with 

an “F” in the lower right corner of the temperature profile 

in figure 8. Temperature fluctuations near the water table in 

these fan-shaped envelopes generally are 20 °F or less for 

the period between October 2008 and November 2009. The 

compressed nature of fan-shaped temperature envelopes is 

indicative of areas where (1) vertical groundwater flow is 

limited, (2) horizontal advective transport of heat is relatively 

uniform, or (3) groundwater is upwelling to discharge points. 

At the remaining piezometer nests, temperature fluctuations 

near the water table generally are greater than 30 °F for the 

period between October 2008 and November 2009. These 

temperature envelopes generally are more tulip-like in shape 

with seasonal temperature-extinction depths below the depths 

of observation and broad changes in temperature throughout 

the depths of observation. Temperature inflections with depth 

in tulip-shaped temperature envelopes show sharp changes in 

heat fluxes associated with heterogeneous groundwater-flow 

patterns (Constantz and others, 2003). Tulip-shaped envelopes 

in figure 8 (indicated by a “T” in the lower right corner) show 

inflections between 10 and 30 ft bls that suggest heat fluxes 

from the Rio Grande are greatly reduced below about 30 ft bls. 

Exceptions occur on the east side of the Rio Grande between 

Paseo del Norte and Barelas where geological heterogeneities 

and/or regional pumping may induce groundwater flux from 

the river to greater depths. Local-scale heterogeneities result 

in large ranges of groundwater flux and may reduce flux 

rates where clay- or silt-rich low-permeability sediments are 

present. Temperature-profile curves presented by Bartolino 

and Niswonger (1999, fig. 2) indicate that heat flux from the 

Rio Grande penetrated to depths ranging from 9 to 15 meters 

(about 29 to 49 ft) bls. 

The relative importance of horizontal or vertical 

temperature fluxes can be visually evaluated by using 

temperature profiles in figure 8. To distinguish between 

horizontal and vertical flow from the river, Reiter (2001) 

presented temperature profiles in the Albuquerque area that 

alluded to the importance of cool horizontal flow; vertical flow 

alone could not cool water deep in the aquifer to temperatures 

below those observed at the shallowest depths. Reiter’s 

(2001) conclusions can be applied to temperature profiles 

at piezometer nest I6 (fig. 8), for example, where a negative 

temperature gradient to a depth of about 20 ft bls in January 

2009 is shown. At 20 ft bls, the temperature is from 4 to 5 °F 

cooler than is observed at the shallower depths, indicating 

that cool horizontal flow is needed to reduce groundwater 

temperatures below those observed near the water table. 

Similarly, the importance of horizontal flux from the Rio 

Grande can be qualitatively noted in temperature profiles from 

piezometer nests A4, A6, P3, P4, P5, P6, M3, M4, C7, B4, B6, 

B7, B8, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, PJ4, PJ5, PJ7, I6, and I7 (fig. 8). 

These piezometers are indicated with boldface font labels in 

figure 8.
Groundwater Hydrology 49

Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.

2009 2010

55

25

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

Daily mean water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

EXPLANATION

Surface water

 Rio Grande

 Albuquerque Riverside Drain

 Upper Corrales Riverside Drain

 Corrales Riverside Drain

Piezometer nest

 Piezometer a

 Piezometer b

 Piezometer c

Rio Grande and riverside drains

A3

A2

A4

A5

A6

A7

A8

A9

A. Alameda transect 1

Figure 7. Water temperatures in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperatures in piezometers at 

A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2. 
50 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.

2009 2010

55

25

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

Daily mean water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

EXPLANATION

Surface water

 Rio Grande

 Albuquerque Riverside Drain

 Upper Corrales Riverside Drain

 Corrales Riverside Drain

Piezometer nest

 Piezometer a

 Piezometer b

 Piezometer c

Rio Grande and riverside drains

A12

A11

A13

A14

A15

A16

A17

A18

B. Alameda transect 2

Figure 7. Water temperatures in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperatures in piezometers at 

A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
Groundwater Hydrology 51

Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.

2009 2010

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

Daily mean water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

EXPLANATION

Surface water

 Rio Grande

 Albuquerque Riverside Drain

 Corrales Riverside Drain

Piezometer nest

 Piezometer a

 Piezometer b

 Piezometer c

Rio Grande and riverside drains

P3

P4

P5

P8

P2

P10

P9

C. Paseo del Norte transect 1

Figure 7. Water temperatures in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperatures in piezometers at 

A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
52 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.

2009 2010

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

Daily mean water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

EXPLANATION

Surface water

 Rio Grande

 Albuquerque Riverside Drain

 Corrales Riverside Drain

Piezometer nest

 Piezometer a

 Piezometer b

 Piezometer c

Rio Grande and riverside drains

P15

P12

P11

P13

P14

P16

P17

P18

D. Paseo del Norte transect 2

Figure 7. Water temperatures in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperatures in piezometers at 

A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
Groundwater Hydrology 53

Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.

2009 2010

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

Daily mean water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

EXPLANATION

Surface water

 Rio Grande

 Albuquerque Riverside Drain

 Corrales Riverside Drain

Piezometer nest

 Piezometer a

 Piezometer b

 Piezometer c

Rio Grande and riverside drains

M4

M3

M5

M6

M7

M8

M9

E. Montaño transect 1

Figure 7. Water temperatures in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperatures in piezometers at 

A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
54 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.

2009 2010

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

Daily mean water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

EXPLANATION

Surface water

 Rio Grande

 Albuquerque Riverside Drain

 Corrales Riverside Drain

Piezometer nest

 Piezometer a

 Piezometer b

 Piezometer c

Rio Grande and riverside drains

M13

M12

M14

M15

M16

M17

M18

F. Montaño transect 2

Figure 7. Water temperatures in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperatures in piezometers at 

A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
Groundwater Hydrology 55

Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.

2009 2010

55

25

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

Daily mean water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

EXPLANATION

Surface water

 Rio Grande

 Albuquerque Riverside Drain

 Atrisco Lateral

Piezometer nest

 Piezometer a

 Piezometer b

 Piezometer c

Rio Grande and riverside drains

C3

C2

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8

C9

G. Central transect 1

Figure 7. Water temperatures in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperatures in piezometers at 

A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
56 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.

2009 2010

55

25

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

Daily mean water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

EXPLANATION

Surface water

 Rio Grande

 Albuquerque Riverside Drain

 Atrisco Lateral

Piezometer nest

 Piezometer a

 Piezometer b

 Piezometer c

Rio Grande and riverside drains

C12

C11

C13

C14

C15

C16

C17

C18

H. Central transect 2

Figure 7. Water temperatures in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperatures in piezometers at 

A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
Groundwater Hydrology 57

Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.

2009 2010

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

Daily mean water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

EXPLANATION

Surface water

 Rio Grande

 Albuquerque Riverside Drain

 Atrisco Riverside Drain

Piezometer nest

 Piezometer a

 Piezometer b

 Piezometer c

Rio Grande and riverside drains

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B9

I. Barelas transect 1

Figure 7. Water temperatures in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperatures in piezometers at 

A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
58 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.

2009 2010

55

25

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

Daily mean water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

EXPLANATION

Surface water

 Rio Grande

 Albuquerque Riverside Drain

 Atrisco Riverside Drain

Piezometer nest

 Piezometer a

 Piezometer b

 Piezometer c

Rio Grande and riverside drains

B12

B11

B13

B14

B15

B16

B17

B18

J. Barelas transect 2

Figure 7. Water temperatures in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperatures in piezometers at 

A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
Groundwater Hydrology 59

Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.

2009 2010

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

Daily mean water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

EXPLANATION

Surface water

 Albuquerque Riverside Drain

 Atrisco Riverside Drain

Piezometer nest

 Piezometer a

 Piezometer b

 Piezometer c

Riverside drains

R1

R5

R6

R7

R8

K. Rio Bravo transect 1

Figure 7. Water temperatures in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperatures in piezometers at 

A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
60 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.

2009 2010

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

Daily mean water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

EXPLANATION

Surface water

 Albuquerque Riverside Drain

 Atrisco Riverside Drain

Piezometer nest

 Piezometer a

 Piezometer b

 Piezometer c

Riverside drains

R12

R13

R15

R16

R17

R18

L. Rio Bravo transect 2

Figure 7. Water temperatures in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperatures in piezometers at 

A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
Groundwater Hydrology 61

Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.

2009 2010

55

25

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

Daily mean water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

EXPLANATION

Surface water

 Rio Grande

 Albuquerque Riverside Drain

 Atrisco Riverside Drain

Piezometer nest

 Piezometer a

 Piezometer b

 Piezometer c

Rio Grande and riverside drains

PJ3

PJ2

PJ4

PJ5

PJ6

PJ7

PJ8

PJ9

M. Pajarito transect 1

Figure 7. Water temperatures in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperatures in piezometers at 

A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
62 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.

2009 2010

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

Daily mean water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

EXPLANATION

Surface water

 Rio Grande

 Albuquerque Riverside Drain

 Atrisco Riverside Drain

Piezometer nest

 Piezometer a

 Piezometer b

 Piezometer c

Rio Grande and riverside drains

PJ12

PJ11

PJ13

PJ14

PJ15

PJ16

PJ17

N. Pajarito transect 2

Figure 7. Water temperatures in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperatures in piezometers at 

A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
Groundwater Hydrology 63

Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.

2009 2010

55

25

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

Daily mean water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

EXPLANATION

Surface water

 Rio Grande

 Albuquerque Riverside Drain

 Atrisco Riverside Drain

Piezometer nest

 Piezometer a

 Piezometer b

 Piezometer c

Rio Grande and riverside drains

I2

I1

I3

I5

I6

I7

I8

I10

O. I–25 transect 1

Figure 7. Water temperatures in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperatures in piezometers at 

A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
64 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.

2009 2010

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

25

55

85

Daily mean water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

EXPLANATION

Surface water

 Rio Grande

 Albuquerque Riverside Drain

 Atrisco Riverside Drain

Piezometer nest

 Piezometer a

 Piezometer b

 Piezometer c

Rio Grande and riverside drains

I12

I11

I13

I14

I15

I16

I17

P. I–25 transect 2

Figure 7. Water temperatures in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperatures in piezometers at 

A, Alameda transect 1; B, Alameda transect 2; C, Paseo del Norte transect 1; D, Paseo del Norte transect 2; E, Montaño transect 1; 

F, Montaño transect 2; G, Central transect 1; H, Central transect 2; I, Barelas transect 1; J, Barelas transect 2; K, Rio Bravo transect 1; 

L, Rio Bravo transect 2; M, Pajarito transect 1; N, Pajarito transect 2; O, I-25 transect 1; and P, I-25 transect 2.—Continued
Groundwater Hydrology 65

EXPLANATION

05/2009

06/2009

07/2009

08/2009

10/2009

11/2009

10/2008

12/2008

01/2009

02/2009

03/2009

04/2009

Boldface labels indicate piezometers show horizontal flux. 

T, Tulip-shaped temperature profile F, Fan-shaped temperature profile

30 40 50 60 70 80 30 40 50 60 70 80 30 40 50 60 70 80 30 40 50 60 70 80 30 40 50 60 70 80 30 40 50 60 70 80

Temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit Temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

Depth, in feet below land surface

0

10

20

30

40

60

50

0

10

20

30

40

60

50

0

10

20

30

40

60

50

0

10

20

30

40

60

50

T T F F F T

T F T T T T

T T T T T T

F F T T T T

A8a A7c A6b A3a A4c A5c

P6b P7b P8a P3a P4b P5b

M6b M9b M5b

C6b C7c C5b

M7b M3b M4c

C8a C3a C4c

Alameda West Alameda East

Paseo del Norte West Paseo del Norte East

Montaño West Montaño East

Central West Central East

Figure 8. Monthly vertical temperature profiles in piezometers, 2008–9.
66 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

EXPLANATION

05/2009

06/2009

07/2009

08/2009

10/2009

11/2009

10/2008

12/2008

01/2009

02/2009

03/2009

04/2009

Boldface labels indicate piezometers show horizontal flux. 

T, Tulip-shaped temperature profile F, Fan-shaped temperature profile

30 40 50 60 70 80 30 40 50 60 70 80 30 40 50 60 70 80 30 40 50 60 70 80 30 40 50 60 70 80 30 40 50 60 70 80

Temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit Temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

Depth, in feet below land surface

0

10

20

30

40

60

50

0

10

20

30

40

60

50

0

10

20

30

40

60

50

0

10

20

30

40

60

50

PJ3a PJ4b PJ5b

PJ6b

PJ7b PJ8a

R4c R5c R6b R7c R8c R3c

B6b B7c B8b B3b B4c B5b

I6b I7c I8b I3a I4b I5b

I–25 West I–25 East

Pajarito West Pajarito East

Rio Bravo West Rio Bravo East

Barelas West Barelas East

T T F F T T

F

F F F

T T T T T T

T T T T T

T T T

Figure 8. Monthly vertical temperature profiles in piezometers, 2008–9.—Continued
Groundwater Hydrology 67

On both sides of the river, temperature profiles indicate 

that the seasonal temperature-extinction depth is below the 

depth of observation. The shape of the temperature envelope 

at piezometer nest A4, M4, R7, PJ4, and PJ7 indicates that 

heat from the Rio Grande is transported to depths greater than 

50 ft bls, and that horizontal flux from the Rio Grande must be 

substantial to account for a range of 10 °F at that depth. The 

curvature of the M4 profiles indicates that multiple zones of 

horizontal flow exist at depths from 10 to 20 ft and 45 ft bls. 

These zones may be separated by less permeable material in 

the interval from 30 to 40 ft bls. The compressed nature of the 

temperature profiles at Montaño West (M7 and M9), Central 

East (C3 and C4), and I-25 East (I3, I4, and I5) provides a 

sharp contrast to the variability in temperature profiles on the 

east side of the Rio Grande at Montaño. Compressed profiles 

generally indicate the presence of a discharge zone or low 

rates of groundwater flux (Reiter, 2001; Anderson, 2005).

Horizontal Hydraulic Gradients 

Water-level data from shallow piezometers indicated 

that the annual mean magnitude of horizontal-hydraulic 

gradients in the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer 

ranged from 0.0024 (I-25 East) to 0.0144 (Pajarito East) 

(table 2). Generally, horizontal gradients on the east side of 

the river were more variable and greater than those on the 

west side of the river. Horizontal gradients were not constant 

at any of the transects, and there were noticeable variations 

that could be attributed to seasonal fluctuations in water levels 

in the river or drains and irrigation operations. Barelas and 

Rio Bravo transects are the only locations where the difference 

in gradient is less than 40 percent from one side of the river 

to the other. Horizontal gradients on the east side of the 

river decreased in a downstream direction through the study 

area. An exception occurred at the Pajarito transect, where 

the east-side gradient was equal to or greater than gradients 

at the northern locations. Horizontal gradients on the west 

side of the river were generally greater at the four downstream 

locations than the four upstream locations. Geologic 

heterogeneities in the aquifer sediments likely contribute to 

the spatial variability in the horizontal-hydraulic gradients. 

Groundwater pumping contributing to a cone of depression 

(fig. 2) also could affect the gradients on the east side of 

the river. 

Table 2. Annual mean magnitude of groundwater horizontal hydraulic gradient and direction of groundwater flow at piezometer 

transects, Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2009–10. Range of values is given in parentheses next to 

gradient and direction averages. Groundwater-flow direction is relative to the downstream direction of the Rio Grande channel at each 

transect where zero degrees is parallel to the channel and 90 degrees is perpendicular to and away from the channel.

[Site locations shown in figures 3A–H; ft/ft, foot per foot]

West East

Transect location

Azimuth of 

Rio Grande at 

transect

Annual mean 

horizontal hydraulic 

gradient (range) 

(ft/ft)

Annual mean 

downstream 

direction relative to 

Rio Grande (range) 

(degrees)1

Annual mean 

horizontal hydraulic 

gradient (range) 

(ft/ft)

Annual mean 

downstream 

direction relative to 

Rio Grande (range) 

(degrees)1

Alameda 214 0.0045 (0.004–0.006) 76 (72–80) 0.0137 (0.010–0.024) 87 (79–92)

Paseo Del Norte 191 0.0053 (0.004–0.010) 81 (73–95) 0.0109 (0.009–0.012) 57 (47–93)

Montaño 216 0.0033 (0.003–0.006) 64 (32–86) 0.0103 (0.008–0.015) 95 (91–101)

Central 112 0.0040 (0.003–0.006) 88 (81–94) 0.0062 (0.005–0.011) 78 (75–80)

Barelas 175 0.0078 (0.007–0.009) 73 (70–78) 0.0087 (0.007–0.011) 83 (78–87)

Rio Bravo 181 0.0070 (0.005–0.008) 81 (78–83) 0.0048 (0.004–0.007) 70 (61–82)

Pajarito 203 0.0072 (0.006–0.009) 77 (71–83) 0.0144 (0.012–0.019) 100 (97–101)

I-25 163 0.0050 (0.003–0.009) 60 (41–70) 0.0024 (0.002–0.004) 69 (58–85)

1

Orientation relative to downstream direction of Rio Grande.
68 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

The annual mean direction of horizontal groundwater 

flow ranged from 57 to 100 degrees relative to the downstream 

direction of the Rio Grande (groundwater flow at a direction 

of 90 degrees would be orthogonal to the river) (table 2). 

At most of the transects, there are noticeable differences in 

gradient directions between the east and west sides of the 

Rio Grande (table 2). There is more variability in the average 

direction of horizontal groundwater flow on the east side 

of the river than on the west side. Flow is more orthogonal 

to and away from the river than parallel to the river at most 

transect locations, which may be the result of a combination 

of factors such as the close proximity of the piezometers 

to the river, short distances between the river and drains, 

aquifer geology, and groundwater pumping by the City of 

Albuquerque. 

Hydraulic Conductivity

During slug tests, the water-level responses in 17 

piezometers were nonoscillatory and were analyzed using 

the Bouwer and Rice (1976) slug-test analysis method. The 

water-level responses at 30 piezometers exhibited oscillatory 

behavior and were analyzed using the Butler (1998) slugtest analysis method (table 3). Results from 47 slug tests 

performed in the alluvial aquifer for this study indicate 

the spatial variability of hydraulic properties in the inner 

valley alluvial aquifer is limited (fig. 9). Median hydraulicconductivity values were evaluated for each pair of transects 

and ranged from 30 ft/d (Montaño) to 120 ft/d (Central) 

(fig. 9). The median hydraulic-conductivity value for all 

transects was 50 ft/d. Slug-test results from piezometers on 

the east side of the river were not substantially different from 

those on the west side.

Table 3. Summary of slug-test results from piezometers in the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

[K, hydraulic conductivity; ft/d, foot per day; ft, foot; bls, below land surface; A. Alameda; b, mid-depth piezometer; n.d., no data; P, Paseo del Norte; a, shallow 

piezometer; M, Montaño; C, Central; B, Barelas; R, Rio Bravo; c, deep piezometer; PJ, Pajarito; I, I-25]

Site identifier

Other 

identifier 

(figs. 3A–H)

Test date

Slug 

test K 

(ft/d)

Method of 

analysis

Piezometer 

depth 

(ft)

Screened 

interval 

(ft)

Lithology of 

screen

interval

Water 

level 

(ft bls)

351204106381602 A4b 3/27/2010 40 Butler (1998) 29 19–24 n.d. 8.69

351205106381602 A5b 3/27/2010 70 Butler (1998) 29 19–24 n.d. 10.29

351208106382702 A6b 3/27/2010 140 Butler (1998) 29 19–24 n.d. 3.27

351209106383002 A7b 3/27/2010 50 Butler (1998) 29 19–24 n.d. 4.56

351054106390101 P4a 2/2/2009 50 Bouwer and 

Rice (1976)

16 6–11 silty sand 6.81

351054106390102 P4b 2/2/2009 40 Butler (1998) 35 25–30 silty sand 7.47

351054106390401 P5a 2/2/2009 40 Bouwer and 

Rice (1976)

16 6–11 silty sand 4.95

351054106390402 P5b 2/2/2009 40 Butler (1998) 35 25–30 silty sand 5.08

351055106391101 P6a 1/30/2009 70 Butler (1998) 16 6–11 n.d. 4.03

351055106391102 P6b 1/30/2009 20 Butler (1998) 31 21–26 n.d. 4.10

351054106391301 P7a 1/30/2009 60 Bouwer and 

Rice (1976)

16 6–11 sand 6.17

351054106391302 P7b 1/30/2009 70 Butler (1998) 31 21–26 sand 6.08

350842106403101 M4a 1/28/2009 30 Bouwer and 

Rice (1976)

15 5–10 sand 7.70

350842106403102 M4b 1/28/2009 160 Butler (1998) 30 20–25 silty sand 7.80

350842106403201 M5a 1/28/2009 20 Bouwer and 

Rice (1976)

15 5–10 n.d. 5.79

350842106403202 M5b 1/28/2009 60 Butler (1998) 32 22–27 clayey sand 6.40

350848106404703 M6a 1/28/2009 30 Bouwer and 

Rice (1976)

13 3–8 n.d. 7.35

350848106404704 M6b 1/28/2009 10 Bouwer and 

Rice (1976)

28 18–23 n.d. 5.42
Groundwater Hydrology 69

Site identifier

Other 

identifier 

(figs. 3A–H)

Test date

Slug 

test K 

(ft/d)

Method of 

analysis

Piezometer 

depth 

(ft)

Screened 

interval 

(ft)

Lithology of 

screen

interval

Water 

level 

(ft bls)

350848106404702 M7b 1/28/2009 10 Bouwer and 

Rice (1976)

30 20–25 sand 6.71

350531106405802 C4b 3/26/2010 100 Butler (1998) 31 21–26 n.d. 5.05

350529106410402 C5b 3/26/2010 240 Butler (1998) 31 21–26 n.d. 5.33

350524106410402 C6b 3/26/2010 90 Butler (1998) 31 21–26 n.d. 3.62

350522106410502 C7b 3/26/2010 140 Butler (1998) 31 21–26 n.d. 3.62

350402106392601 B4a 1/30/2009 20 Bouwer and 

Rice (1976)

16 6–11 sand 5.27

350402106392602 B4b 1/30/2009 10 Bouwer and 

Rice (1976)

31 21–26 silty sand 5.79

350402106392902 B5b 1/30/2009 60 Butler (1998) 30 20–25 silty sand 3.98

350400106393701 B6a 1/30/2009 60 Butler (1998) 17 7–12 n.d. 4.53

350400106393702 B6b 1/30/2009 90 Butler (1998) 32 22–27 silty sand 4.84

350359106393901 B7a 1/30/2009 60 Butler (1998) 17 7–12 silty sand 6.42

350359106393902 B7b 1/30/2009 50 Butler (1998) 32 22–27 silty sand 6.46

350143106402401 R6a 1/29/2009 50 Bouwer and 

Rice (1976)

15 5–10 silty sand 2.81

350143106402402 R6b 1/29/2009 50 Butler (1998) 34 24–29 silty sand 3.05

350143106402503 R7a 1/29/2009 30 Bouwer and 

Rice (1976)

15 5–10 silty sand 3.35

350143106402501 R7b 1/29/2009 20 Bouwer and 

Rice (1976)

35 25–30 silty sand 4.31

350144106401101 R13a 2/6/2009 10 Butler (1998) 15 5–10 silty sand 3.98

350144106401102 R13b 2/6/2009 90 Butler (1998) 30 20–25 silty sand 4.02

350144106401103 R13c 2/6/2009 40 Butler (1998) 56 46–51 sand gravel 4.19

345904106410902 PJ4b 3/26/2010 4 Bouwer and 

Rice (1976)

29 19–24 n.d. 4.54

345904106411002 PJ5b 3/26/2010 90 Butler (1998) 29 19–24 n.d. 5.70

345905106411502 PJ6b 3/26/2010 60 Butler (1998) 29 19–24 n.d. 2.93

345906106412002 PJ7b 3/26/2010 3 Bouwer and 

Rice (1976)

29 19–24 n.d. 5.39

345701106404501 I4a 1/29/2009 30 Bouwer and 

Rice (1976)

14 4–9 silty sand 3.81

345701106404502 I4b 1/29/2009 60 Butler (1998) 29 19–24 sand 4.52

345701106404601 I5a 1/29/2009 5 Bouwer and 

Rice (1976)

14 4–9 n.d. 4.18

345701106404602 I5b 1/29/2009 80 Butler (1998) 29 19–24 n.d. 4.76

345707106410102 I6b 1/29/2009 100 Butler (1998) 29 19–24 silty sand 4.38

345706106410202 I7b 1/29/2009 40 Butler (1998) 29 19–24 silty sand 4.41

Table 3. Summary of slug-test results from piezometers in the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New Mexico.—

Continued

[K, hydraulic conductivity; ft/d, foot per day; ft, foot; bls, below land surface; A. Alameda; b, mid-depth piezometer; n.d., no data; P, Paseo del Norte; a, shallow 

piezometer; M, Montaño; C, Central; B, Barelas; R, Rio Bravo; c, deep piezometer; PJ, Pajarito; I, I-25]
70 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Paired transects

Alameda Paseo del

Norte

Montaño Central Barelas Rio Bravo Pajarito I-25 All

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

Hydraulic conductivity, in feet per day

60

45

30

120

60

40

32

50 50

(4)

(8)

(7)

(4)

(7) (7) (4)

(6)

(47)

Number of values

Far outlier—Value is greater than 2 

 times the interquartile range

Outlier-–Value is between 1.5 and 2 

 times the interquartile range

1.5 times the interquartile range

 or largest value

Upper quartile line—

 75th percentile

Median line and value—

 50th percentile

Lower quartile line—

 25th percentile

-1.5 times the interquartile range

 or smallest value

Individual observation for sample set with

 less than six values

(7)

EXPLANATION

Interquartile

range

60

Figure 9. Hydraulic conductivities estimated from slug tests conducted at selected locations in the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial 

aquifer, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande 71

Slug tests performed for this study hydraulically 

stressed only a limited portion of the aquifer surrounding 

each piezometer; however, the range of estimated hydraulic 

conductivities used in previous investigations (10 to 150 

ft/d [Kernodle and others, 1995; Tiedeman and others, 1998; 

McAda, 2001]) was similar to the range of median hydraulicconductivity values estimated in this study. Lithologic 

variability, attributable to complexly interfingered gravels, 

sands, silts, and clays in the alluvial aquifer, was noted in 

cores over distances of a few tens of feet or less (Rankin 

and others, 2013). Because coring was performed, in part, 

so the screened interval of each piezometer was placed in 

sandy material to ensure communication with the aquifer, the 

slug-test results provide a measurement of the heterogeneity 

of sandy zone hydraulic conductivities within the alluvial 

aquifer but do not provide an overall measurement of the 

heterogeneity of hydraulic conductivity in the aquifer. 

The range of literature-cited hydraulic conductivity values 

determined from regional-scale modeling (Sanford and 

others, 2003), aquifer tests (McAda, 2001), and well-to-well 

heat-transport modeling (Moret, 2007) provide a basis for 

comparison to the range of hydraulic conductivities in the 

current study (see following section “Darcy Flux”). 

Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater 

Flux from the Rio Grande

Horizontal groundwater flux from the Rio Grande to the 

inner valley alluvial aquifer east and west of the river was 

estimated by using results from calculations of horizontalhydraulic gradients (determined from analysis of water-level 

data), analysis of slug-test data, and heat-transport modeling. 

In the following report sections, the portion of transects 1 and 

2 that are east of the river are referred to as the “east transects” 

and the portion of transects 1 and 2 that are west of the river 

are referred to as the “west transects.”

Darcy Flux

Darcy flux (qslug on fig. 10) through the inner valley 

alluvial aquifer at each of the eight transect locations was 

calculated using daily mean hydraulic gradients (calculated 

using shallow piezometer hydraulic-head data) and the median 

hydraulic conductivity for each transect from slug-test results 

(fig. 9). These qslug flux values were compared to qTiedeman flux 

values(fig. 10), which were calculated by using a plausible 

range of hydraulic conductivity for the inner valley alluvial 

aquifer reported by Tiedeman and others (1998). The periods 

for which qslug and qTiedeman fluxes were calculated varied from 

transect to transect, depending on the availability of waterlevel data, from February 2009 through January 2010 (fig. 10).

Darcy-flux values calculated using the shallow 

piezometer data represent average fluxes through the upper 

30 ft of the aquifer, or to the approximate base of the screened 

interval of mid-depth piezometers. Bartolino (2003) indicated 

that vertical gradients in the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial 

aquifer can be minor to these depths. These results are 

generally corroborated by the hydrographs of shallow and 

mid-depth piezometers (fig. 6A–P) and temperature profiles 

(fig. 8). 

Daily mean groundwater fluxes (qslug) through the inner 

valley alluvial aquifer calculated by using median hydraulic 

conductivities from slug tests (fig. 9) and daily mean 

hydraulic gradients ranged from about 0.01 ft/d (Montaño 

West) to between 1.0 and 2.0 ft/d (Central East) (fig. 10). The 

range in qslug fluxes through the Albuquerque area primarily 

depended on variations in hydraulic gradients (table 2) and 

slug-test hydraulic-conductivity values (fig. 9 and table 3), 

in accordance with Darcy’s Law (eqs. 3 and 4). With the 

exception of the Central bridge location, results indicated a 

general decrease in qslug fluxes downstream from Alameda to 

I-25 on the east side of the river, corresponding to a decrease 

in the magnitude of computed gradients. At Central, however, 

the median slug-test hydraulic conductivity was 120 ft/d 

(fig. 9), resulting in a qslug flux which was roughly three times 

that of the qslug flux at Montaño where the median slug-test 

hydraulic conductivity was 30 ft/d (fig. 9). Hydrologically 

significant clay layers (Bartolino and Sterling, 2000) likely 

reduced the rate of qslug flux through the inner valley alluvial 

aquifer in downstream parts of the study area. 

The range of daily mean qslug fluxes at the Paseo del 

Norte and Rio Bravo transects generally were similar on both 

sides of the river (fig. 10). At most transects, however, the qslug

fluxes were higher on the east side of the Rio Grande than 

on the west side (fig. 10). In these cases, the differing values 

of qslug flux can be attributed to lesser gradients on the west 

side of the river than on the east side. All locations showed an 

increase in qslug flux corresponding to periods of high flow in 

the Rio Grande, although qslug fluxes were more responsive to 

changes in river flow in transects on the east side of the Rio 

Grande. 
72 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

EXPLANATION

qslug

qTiedeman Range in Darcy flux calculated using a plausible range of hydraulic conductivities

 from Tiedeman and others (1998)

Darcy flux calculated using hydraulic conductivities from slug-test results

River stage, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

Feb. 2009 May 2009 July 2009 Oct. 2009 Jan. 2010 Feb. 2009 May 2009 July 2009 Oct. 2009 Jan. 2010

Feb. 2009 May 2009 July 2009 Oct. 2009 Jan. 2010 Feb. 2009 May 2009 July 2009 Oct. 2009 Jan. 2010

Feb. 2009 May 2009 July 2009 Oct. 2009 Jan. 2010 Feb. 2009 May 2009 July 2009 Oct. 2009 Jan. 2010

Feb. 2009 May 2009 July 2009 Oct. 2009 Jan. 2010 Feb. 2009 May 2009 July 2009 Oct. 2009 Jan. 2010

Date

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Daily mean river stage, in feet above NAVD 88

5,000

4,995

4,990

4,985

4,980

Daily mean Darcy flux, in feet per day

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4 4,992

4,987

4,982

4,977

4,972

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4,980

4,975

4,970

4,965

4,960

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4,960

4,955

4,950

4,945

4,940

Alameda West Alameda East

Paseo del Norte East

Montaño West Montaño East

Central West Central East

Paseo del Norte West

Figure 10. Daily mean Darcy flux calculated from daily mean hydraulic gradients and slug-test derived hydraulic conductivities, daily 

mean Darcy flux calculated from daily mean hydraulic gradients and a plausible range of hydraulic conductivities (Tiedeman and others, 

1998), and daily mean Rio Grande stage for the Alameda, Paseo del Norte, Montaño, and Central transects and the Barelas, Rio Bravo, 

Pajarito, and I-25 transects, Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, 2009–10.
Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande 73

EXPLANATION

qslug

qTiedeman Range in Darcy flux calculated using a plausible range of hydraulic conductivities

 from Tiedeman and others (1998)

Darcy flux calculated using hydraulic conductivities from slug-test results

River stage, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

Feb. 2009 May 2009 July 2009 Oct. 2009 Jan. 2010 Feb. 2009 May 2009 July 2009 Oct. 2009 Jan. 2010

Feb. 2009 May 2009 July 2009 Oct. 2009 Jan. 2010 Feb. 2009 May 2009 July 2009 Oct. 2009 Jan. 2010

Feb. 2009 May 2009 July 2009 Oct. 2009 Jan. 2010 Feb. 2009 May 2009 July 2009 Oct. 2009 Jan. 2010

Feb. 2009 Feb. 2009 May 2009 May 2009 July 2009 July 2009 Oct. 2009 Oct. 2009 Jan. 2010 Jan. 2010 Feb. 2009 Feb. 2009 May 2009 May 2009 July 2009 July 2009 Oct. 2009 Oct. 2009 Jan. 2010 Jan. 2010

Date

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4,945

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Daily mean river stage, in feet above NAVD 88

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4,915

4,910

4,905

4,900

4,895

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4,885

4,890

4,895

4,900

4,905

4,910

Daily mean Darcy flux, in feet per day

4,920

4,925

4,930

4,935

4,940

4,910

4,915

4,920

4,925

4,930

4,935

-

Barelas East

Rio Bravo East

Pajarito East

I–25 East

Barelas West

Rio Bravo West

Pajarito West

I–25 West

Figure 10. Daily mean Darcy flux calculated from daily mean hydraulic gradients and slug-test derived hydraulic conductivities, daily 

mean Darcy flux calculated from daily mean hydraulic gradients and a plausible range of hydraulic conductivities (Tiedeman and others, 

1998), and daily mean Rio Grande stage for the Alameda, Paseo del Norte, Montaño, and Central transects and the Barelas, Rio Bravo, 

Pajarito, and I-25 transects, Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, 2009–10.—Continued
74 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

The daily mean qTiedeman fluxes (fig. 10) through the 

alluvial aquifer were calculated using a plausible range 

of hydraulic conductivities (20 to 150 ft/d) compiled by 

Tiedeman and others (1998) and the daily mean hydraulic 

gradients calculated in this study (fig. 10). Daily mean qslug flux 

values (fig. 10) generally plot near the lower end of the daily 

mean qTiedeman flux range because the qslug flux was constrained by 

site-scale hydraulic conductivities, ranging from 30 to 120 ft/d 

(fig. 9). The difference between qslug flux values relative to the 

range of qTiedeman flux values was likely the result of differences 

in bulk aquifer properties measured at different scales. Inverse 

modeling, also at basin scale, by Tiedeman and others (1998), 

resulted in a slightly larger range of hydraulic conductivities 

(73 to 209 ft/d) than those estimated from slug-test data. 

Simulated hydraulic gradients produced when Tiedeman and 

others (1998) used a hydraulic conductivity of 73 ft/d best 

match the hydraulic gradients calculated for this study. Other 

simulations at a basin scale have used hydraulic conductivities 

of 24 ft/d (Sanford and others, 2003) and 45 ft/d (McAda 

and Barroll, 2002). The refinement of scale offered by the 

present study indicates that the magnitude of computed flux 

in the alluvial aquifer based solely on hydraulic-conductivity 

estimates from slug tests generally is consistent with that 

computed in large-scale models. 

Heat-Flux Modeling

Results of calculations of horizontal groundwater flux 

in the alluvial aquifer using the Suzuki-Stallman method of 

heat-transport modeling are listed in table 4. Application of the 

Suzuki-Stallman method yields one set of qa and qb specificflux values for each temperature time-series pair analyzed. 

A temperature time-series pair consists of concurrent daily 

mean water-temperature data from two piezometers or from 

a surface-water gage and a piezometer. Because the water 

temperatures were observed to have a wavelength of about a 

year, qa and qb specific-flux values are considered to represent 

the annual flux. Some variance in the annual qa and qb specific 

fluxes probably resulted from analyzing temperature datasets 

with differing time spans (table 4). Only one temperature 

time-series pair was available for analysis at the Rio Bravo 

East and Rio Bravo West paired transects; three temperature 

time-series pairs were available for analysis from the Paseo 

Del Norte West paired transect. Values of a (the attenuation 

of the temperature wave) calculated from temperatures 

collected at 10 ft and 20 ft bls ranged from 7.0×10-5 to 1.7×10-2 

and 2.0×10-4 to 4.8×10-2 ft-1, respectively. Similarly, values 

of b (the spatial frequency) calculated from daily mean 

temperatures collected at both the 10- and 20-ft depths ranged 

from 0.01 to 1.05 rad/ftfor both depths. 

Values of a and b were transformed to specific-flux 

values of qa and qb by using type curves in figure 5; qa and qb 

were then averaged to obtain the qheat specific flux (table 4). 

At 10 ft bls, the specific-flux values of qa and qb, collectively, 

ranged from 0.05 to 1.88 ft/d. At 20 ft bls, values of qa and 

qb, collectively, ranged from 0.04 to 1.67 ft/d. The standard 

deviation from the mean of all specific-flux (qheat) values 

calculated with the Suzuki-Stallman method was 0.17, which 

indicates a relatively small range of qa and qb and lends 

confidence to the results in table 4. Of some concern is the 

fact that the estimates of qb were systematically less than 

the estimates of qa. Moret (2007) suggests this may indicate 

that temperature-signal phases were slightly distorted by 

the effects of temperature on water viscosity (cold water 

moves more slowly through the aquifer than warm water so 

the timing of the arrival of temperature peaks and troughs at 

various locations in the aquifer would be slightly different 

than predicted by Stallman’s [1965] equations). 

The one-dimensional Suzuki-Stallman method assumes 

that groundwater flow in the alluvial aquifer was oriented 

orthogonal to the Rio Grande channel for all temperature timeseries pairs used in this study. Gradient orientations (table 2), 

however, indicate groundwater flow was not orthogonal to the 

channel, so the assumption of orthogonality likely introduced 

some error into the analytical results for paired transects 

summarized in figure 11. This error can be accounted for by 

adjusting the distance between measuring points in equations 

12 and 13. 

In addition, all of the temperature time-series pairs used 

in this study were spatially aliased. The values of a and b

were determined by iteratively adding 1-year increments to 

measured time lags until modeled sinusoidal curves matched 

observed data. In general, observed and modeled data fit well. 

Results of temperature time-series pair analyses (table 4) were 

rejected if temperature time-series curves were not sinusoidal 

or if the specific flux values of qa and qb disagreed by more 

than 50 percent. 

Specific-flux values of qa and qb determined for each 

temperature time-series pair were averaged to get a mean 

Suzuki-Stallman qheat flux (table 4). Box plots of qheat flux show 

the greatest median annual value at Alameda East (0.50 ft/d) 

and, excluding the single value for Rio Bravo West, the lowest 

median annual value at Alameda West (0.25 ft/d) (fig. 11). 

Overall, qheat fluxes on the east side of the river are greater 

than fluxes on the west side of the river and generally decrease 

in a downstream direction (fig. 11). The larger sample sizes, 

which capture more variability, from both sides of the Barelas, 

Alameda, Central, and Pajarito paired transects, indicate that 

local-scale geologic heterogeneities may produce a range 

of Suzuki-Stallman qheat fluxes. The ranges of heterogeneity 

observed at the Barelas, Alameda, Central, and Pajarito 

transects are likely present at all paired transect locations, but 

the ranges are not as well characterized because sample sizes 

were smaller at the other four transect locations. 
Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande 75

Table 4. Annual flux between individual time-series pairs and depths in the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico, 2009–10. Transducers were set about 10 feet below land surface in shallow (“a”) wells and were set at about 20 feet in middepth (“b”) wells.—Continued

[Site locations shown in figures 3A–H; a temperature time-series pair consists of concurrent daily mean water-temperature data from two piezometers or from a 

surface-water gage and a piezometer; a, temperature wave attenuation parameter (eq. 12); ft, foot; qa, flux determined using value of a and curve a on figure 5; 

ft/d, foot per day; b, spatial frequency parameter (eq. 13); rad/ft, radians per foot; qb, flux determined using value of b and curve b on figure 5; qheat, average of qa

and qb; —, not reported]

Transect 

location

Temperature 

time-series 

pair

Time series 

location 

(relative to 

river)

Year a

(1/ft)

qa

(ft/d)

b

(rad/ft)

qb

(ft/d)

qheat

(ft/d)

Alameda AS2/A5a east 2009 6.1E-4 0.51 0.03 0.46 0.49

Alameda AS2/A5b east 2009 6.6E-4 0.50 0.03 0.46 0.48

Alameda AS2/A4a east 2009 4.9E-4 0.55 0.02 0.59 0.57

Alameda AS2/A4b east 2009 7.5E-4 0.48 0.02 0.59 0.54

Alameda AS2/A3a east 2009 7.5E-4 0.48 0.02 0.56 0.52

Alameda A5a/A4a east 2009 7.0E-5 1.06 0.09 0.12 0.59

Alameda A5a/A3a east 2009 8.0E-4 0.47 0.04 0.34 0.41

Alameda A5b/A4b east 2009 7.2E-4 0.49 0.03 0.43 0.46

Alameda A4a/A3a east 2009 6.4E-4 0.51 0.02 0.53 0.52

Alameda AS2/A14a east 2009 4.3E-4 0.58 0.02 0.61 0.60

Alameda AS2/A14b east 2009 5.9E-4 0.52 0.02 0.61 0.57

Alameda AS2/A13a east 2009 4.5E-4 0.57 0.02 0.57 0.57

Alameda AS2/A13b east 2009 6.5E-4 0.50 0.02 0.53 0.52

Alameda AS2/A12a east 2009 9.4E-4 0.45 0.03 0.50 0.47

Alameda A14a/A13a east 2009 4.5E-4 0.57 0.07 0.18 0.37

Alameda A14b/A13b east 2009 7.7E-4 0.48 0.07 0.18 0.33

Alameda A14a/A12a east 2009 1.9E-3 0.35 0.03 0.44 0.40

Alameda A13a/A12a east 2009 2.1E-3 0.34 0.04 0.35 0.35

Alameda AS2/A6a west 2009 2.6E-3 0.32 0.06 0.21 0.26

Alameda AS2/A6b west 2009 4.3E-3 0.26 0.06 0.21 0.23

Alameda AS2/A7a west 2009 6.3E-3 0.23 0.05 0.24 0.24

Alameda AS2/A7b west 2009 5.4E-3 0.24 0.05 0.24 0.24

Alameda AS2/A8a west 2009 3.6E-3 0.28 0.04 0.29 0.29

Alameda A6a/A8a west 2009 3.8E-3 0.28 0.05 0.24 0.26

Alameda A6a/A7a west 2009 7.6E-3 0.22 0.05 0.25 0.24

Alameda A6b/A7b west 2009 5.7E-3 0.24 0.05 0.25 0.24

Alameda A7a/A8a west 2009 — — — — —

Alameda AS2/A15a west 2009 2.0E-3 0.35 0.11 0.05 0.20

Alameda AS2/A15b west 2009 6.2E-3 0.23 0.11 0.04 0.14

Alameda AS2/A16a west 2009 2.0E-3 0.35 0.05 0.25 0.30

Alameda AS2/A16b west 2009 3.2E-3 0.29 0.05 0.25 0.27

Alameda AS2/A17a west 2009 4.0E-3 0.27 0.06 0.23 0.25

Alameda A15a/A16a west 2009 1.9E-3 0.35 0.04 0.36 0.36

Alameda A15b/A16b west 2009 1.9E-3 0.35 0.04 0.36 0.36

Alameda A15a/A17a west 2009 3.6E-3 0.28 0.06 0.21 0.25

Alameda A16a/A17a west 2009 5.7E-3 0.24 0.06 0.20 0.22

Alameda AS2/A17a west 2009 4.0E-3 0.27 0.06 0.23 0.25

Table 4. Annual flux between individual time-series pairs and depths in the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico, 2009–10. Transducers were set about 10 feet below land surface in shallow (“a”) wells and were set at about 20 feet in middepth (“b”) wells.

[Site locations shown in figures 3A–H; a temperature time-series pair consists of concurrent daily mean water-temperature data from two piezometers or from a 

surface-water gage and a piezometer; a, temperature wave attenuation parameter (eq. 12); ft, foot; qa, flux determined using value of a and curve a on figure 5; 

ft/d, foot per day; b, spatial frequency parameter (eq. 13); rad/ft, radians per foot; qb, flux determined using value of b and curve b on figure 5; qheat, average of qa

and qb; —, not reported]
76 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Table 4. Annual flux between individual time-series pairs and depths in the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico, 2009–10. Transducers were set about 10 feet below land surface in shallow (“a”) wells and were set at about 20 feet in middepth (“b”) wells.—Continued

[Site locations shown in figures 3A–H; a temperature time-series pair consists of concurrent daily mean water-temperature data from two piezometers or from a 

surface-water gage and a piezometer; a, temperature wave attenuation parameter (eq. 12); ft, foot; qa, flux determined using value of a and curve a on figure 5; 

ft/d, foot per day; b, spatial frequency parameter (eq. 13); rad/ft, radians per foot; qb, flux determined using value of b and curve b on figure 5; qheat, average of qa

and qb; —, not reported]

Transect 

location

Temperature 

time-series 

pair

Time series 

location 

(relative to 

river)

Year a

(1/ft)

qa

(ft/d)

b

(rad/ft)

qb

(ft/d)

qheat

(ft/d)

Alameda A15a/A16a west 2009 1.9E-3 0.35 0.04 0.36 0.36

Alameda A15b/A16b west 2009 1.9E-3 0.35 0.04 0.36 0.36

Alameda A15a/A17a west 2009 3.6E-3 0.28 0.06 0.21 0.25

Alameda A16a/A17a west 2009 5.7E-3 0.24 0.06 0.20 0.22

Paseo Del 

Norte

P5a/P4a east 2009 4.9E-4 0.55 0.03 0.44 0.50

Paseo Del 

Norte

P5b/P4b east 2009 1.0E-3 0.43 0.03 0.43 0.43

Paseo Del 

Norte

P5a/P3a east 2009 6.7E-4 0.50 0.03 0.42 0.46

Paseo Del 

Norte

P4a/P3a east 2009 7.4E-4 0.48 0.03 0.41 0.45

Paseo Del 

Norte

P14a/P13a east 2009 4.1E-4 0.59 0.02 0.61 0.60

Paseo Del 

Norte

P14b/P13b east 2009 8.2E-4 0.46 0.03 0.37 0.42

Paseo Del 

Norte

P14a/P12a east 2009 5.0E-4 0.55 0.02 0.53 0.54

Paseo Del 

Norte

P13a/P12a east 2009 5.6E-4 0.53 0.03 0.48 0.51

Paseo Del 

Norte

P15a/P16a west 2009 1.6E-3 0.37 0.04 0.30 0.34

Paseo Del 

Norte

P15a/P17a west 2009 8.2E-4 0.47 0.03 0.45 0.46

Paseo Del 

Norte

P16a/P17a west 2009 6.8E-4 0.50 0.03 0.45 0.48

Montaño M5b/M4b east 2009 — — — — —

Montaño M14b/M12b east 2009 1.2E-3 0.41 0.04 0.29 0.35

Montaño M13a/M12a east 2009 4.7E-4 0.56 0.03 0.43 0.50

Montaño M7a/M8a west 2009 — — — — —

Montaño M6a/M7a west 2009 3.2E-3 0.29 0.04 0.32 0.31

Montaño M6a/M8a west 2009 6.1E-4 0.51 0.03 0.47 0.49

Montaño M6b/M7b west 2009 5.1E-3 0.25 0.05 0.24 0.24

Montaño M15a/M16a west 2009 3.8E-3 0.28 0.05 0.25 0.26

Montaño M15a/M17a west 2009 8.9E-4 0.45 0.03 0.42 0.44

Montaño M16a/M17a west 2009 — — — — —

Montaño M15b/M16b west 2009 4.0E-3 0.27 0.05 0.25 0.26

Montaño M15b/M17b west 2009 1.4E-3 0.39 0.04 0.37 0.38

Montaño M16b/M17b west 2009 5.4E-4 0.54 0.02 0.55 0.54
Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande 77

Table 4. Annual flux between individual time-series pairs and depths in the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico, 2009–10. Transducers were set about 10 feet below land surface in shallow (“a”) wells and were set at about 20 feet in middepth (“b”) wells.—Continued

[Site locations shown in figures 3A–H; a temperature time-series pair consists of concurrent daily mean water-temperature data from two piezometers or from a 

surface-water gage and a piezometer; a, temperature wave attenuation parameter (eq. 12); ft, foot; qa, flux determined using value of a and curve a on figure 5; 

ft/d, foot per day; b, spatial frequency parameter (eq. 13); rad/ft, radians per foot; qb, flux determined using value of b and curve b on figure 5; qheat, average of qa

and qb; —, not reported]

Transect 

location

Temperature 

time-series 

pair

Time series 

location 

(relative to 

river)

Year a

(1/ft)

qa

(ft/d)

b

(rad/ft)

qb

(ft/d)

qheat

(ft/d)

Central CS2/C5a east 2009 2.2E-3 0.33 0.05 0.27 0.30

Central CS2/C5b east 2009 2.9E-3 0.30 0.05 0.27 0.29

Central CS2/C4a east 2009 — — — — —

Central CS2/C4b east 2009 — — — — —

Central CS2/C3a east 2009 — — — — —

Central CS2/C14a east 2009 2.7E-3 0.31 0.01 1.67 0.99

Central CS2/C14b east 2009 7.9E-4 0.47 0.01 1.58 1.03

Central CS2/C13a east 2009 9.4E-4 0.45 0.04 0.33 0.39

Central CS2/C13b east 2009 1.9E-3 0.35 0.04 0.33 0.34

Central C5a/C4a east 2009 — — — — —

Central C5b/C4b east 2009 — — — — —

Central C5a/C3a east 2009 — — — — —

Central C4a/C3a east 2009 — — — — —

Central C14a/C13a east 2009 1.3E-3 0.40 0.03 0.47 0.43

Central C14b/C13b east 2009 2.1E-3 0.34 0.05 0.26 0.30

Central CS2/C6a west 2009 2.7E-3 0.31 0.01 1.88 1.10

Central CS2/C6b west 2009 2.7E-3 0.31 0.01 1.67 0.99

Central CS2/C7a west 2009 1.2E-3 0.41 0.04 0.35 0.38

Central CS2/C7b west 2009 1.1E-3 0.42 0.04 0.35 0.39

Central CS2/C8a west 2009 2.2E-3 0.33 0.04 0.29 0.31

Central CS2/C15a west 2009 2.8E-3 0.31 0.01 1.59 0.95

Central CS2/C15b west 2009 3.1E-3 0.30 0.01 1.10 0.70

Central CS2/C16a west 2009 2.3E-3 0.33 0.04 0.30 0.31

Central CS2/C16b west 2009 2.9E-3 0.30 0.04 0.29 0.30

Central CS2/C17a west 2009 3.8E-3 0.28 0.05 0.27 0.27

Central C6a/C7a west 2009 2.0E-3 0.34 0.04 0.30 0.32

Central C6b/C7b west 2009 1.4E-3 0.39 0.04 0.30 0.35

Central C6a/C8a west 2009 2.6E-3 0.32 0.05 0.27 0.30

Central C7a/C8a west 2009 2.9E-3 0.31 0.04 0.36 0.33

Central C15a/C16a west 2009 1.9E-3 0.35 0.04 0.31 0.33

Central C15b/C16b west 2009 1.8E-3 0.36 0.04 0.30 0.33

Central C15a/C17a west 2009 4.1E-3 0.27 0.05 0.26 0.27

Central C16a/C17a west 2009 7.1E-3 0.22 0.07 0.18 0.20

Barelas B5a/B4a east 2009 2.2E-3 0.33 0.04 0.32 0.33

Barelas B14a/B13a east 2009 8.8E-4 0.45 0.03 0.40 0.43

Barelas B14b/B13b east 2009 1.3E-3 0.40 0.03 0.46 0.43

Barelas B14a/B12a east 2009 1.1E-3 0.42 0.03 0.45 0.44
78 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Table 4. Annual flux between individual time-series pairs and depths in the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico, 2009–10. Transducers were set about 10 feet below land surface in shallow (“a”) wells and were set at about 20 feet in middepth (“b”) wells.—Continued

[Site locations shown in figures 3A–H; a temperature time-series pair consists of concurrent daily mean water-temperature data from two piezometers or from a 

surface-water gage and a piezometer; a, temperature wave attenuation parameter (eq. 12); ft, foot; qa, flux determined using value of a and curve a on figure 5; 

ft/d, foot per day; b, spatial frequency parameter (eq. 13); rad/ft, radians per foot; qb, flux determined using value of b and curve b on figure 5; qheat, average of qa

and qb; —, not reported]

Transect 

location

Temperature 

time-series 

pair

Time series 

location 

(relative to 

river)

Year a

(1/ft)

qa

(ft/d)

b

(rad/ft)

qb

(ft/d)

qheat

(ft/d)

Barelas B14b/B12b east 2009 7.4E-4 0.48 0.04 0.31 0.40

Barelas B13a/B12a east 2009 1.3E-3 0.40 0.03 0.49 0.45

Barelas B13b/B12b east 2009 2.1E-4 0.73 0.03 0.49 0.61

Barelas BS2/B5a east 2009 1.4E-3 0.39 0.06 0.21 0.30

Barelas BS2/B4a east 2009 6.4E-3 0.23 0.09 0.12 0.18

Barelas BS2/B3b east 2009 8.8E-3 0.20 0.06 0.20 0.20

Barelas BS2/B14a east 2009 2.2E-3 0.33 — — 0.33

Barelas BS2/B14b east 2009 7.4E-3 0.22 0.08 0.15 0.18

Barelas BS2/B13a east 2009 1.5E-3 0.38 0.05 0.27 0.32

Barelas BS2/B13b east 2009 3.5E-3 0.28 0.05 0.24 0.26

Barelas BS2/B12a east 2009 1.4E-3 0.39 0.04 0.33 0.36

Barelas BS2/B12b east 2009 1.9E-3 0.35 0.04 0.33 0.34

Barelas B16a/B17a west 2009 1.9E-3 0.35 0.04 0.33 0.34

Barelas B16b/B17b west 2009 1.4E-3 0.39 0.04 0.35 0.37

Barelas B6a/B7a west 2009 7.7E-4 0.48 0.03 0.46 0.47

Barelas BS2/B6a west 2009 1.5E-2 0.17 0.06 0.22 0.19

Barelas BS2/B6b west 2009 3.7E-2 0.10 0.06 0.20 0.15

Barelas BS2/B7a west 2009 2.4E-3 0.32 0.05 0.24 0.28

Barelas BS2/B16a west 2009 3.2E-3 0.29 0.06 0.22 0.26

Barelas BS2/B16b west 2009 5.1E-3 0.25 0.06 0.22 0.24

Barelas BS2/B17a west 2009 2.6E-3 0.31 0.05 0.28 0.29

Barelas BS2/B17b west 2009 3.1E-3 0.30 0.05 0.27 0.28

Rio Bravo R13a/R12a east 2009 6.3E-3 0.52 0.29 0.48 0.50

Rio Bravo R15a/R16a west 2009 1.7E-2 0.38 1.05 0.10 0.24

Pajarito PJS2/PJ5a east 2009 3.2E-3 0.29 0.01 1.57 0.93

Pajarito PJS2/PJ5b east 2009 3.2E-3 0.29 0.01 1.39 0.84

Pajarito PJS2/PJ4a east 2009 6.6E-4 0.50 0.04 0.32 0.41

Pajarito PJS2/PJ4b east 2009 6.6E-4 0.50 0.04 0.32 0.41

Pajarito PJS2/PJ3a east 2009 7.2E-4 0.49 0.02 0.60 0.54

Pajarito PJS2/PJ14a east 2009 8.0E-3 0.21 0.02 0.67 0.44

Pajarito PJS2/PJ14b east 2009 4.8E-2 0.08 0.03 0.40 0.24

Pajarito PJS2/13a east 2009 1.8E-4 0.78 0.03 0.38 0.58

Pajarito PJS2/PJ13b east 2009 3.0E-3 0.30 0.03 0.38 0.34

Pajarito PJS2/PJ12a east 2009 1.7E-3 0.36 0.03 0.41 0.39

Pajarito PJ5a/PJ4a east 2009 3.9E-4 0.60 0.05 0.26 0.43

Pajarito PJ5b/PJ4b east 2009 2.0E-4 0.75 0.05 0.26 0.50

Pajarito PJ5a/PJ3a east 2009 1.2E-3 0.41 0.04 0.34 0.38
Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande 79

Table 4. Annual flux between individual time-series pairs and depths in the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico, 2009–10. Transducers were set about 10 feet below land surface in shallow (“a”) wells and were set at about 20 feet in middepth (“b”) wells.—Continued

[Site locations shown in figures 3A–H; a temperature time-series pair consists of concurrent daily mean water-temperature data from two piezometers or from a 

surface-water gage and a piezometer; a, temperature wave attenuation parameter (eq. 12); ft, foot; qa, flux determined using value of a and curve a on figure 5; 

ft/d, foot per day; b, spatial frequency parameter (eq. 13); rad/ft, radians per foot; qb, flux determined using value of b and curve b on figure 5; qheat, average of qa

and qb; —, not reported]

Transect 

location

Temperature 

time-series 

pair

Time series 

location 

(relative to 

river)

Year a

(1/ft)

qa

(ft/d)

b

(rad/ft)

qb

(ft/d)

qheat

(ft/d)

Pajarito PJ4a/PJ3a east 2009 1.6E-3 0.37 0.03 0.40 0.39

Pajarito PJ14a/PJ13a east 2009 7.8E-4 0.47 0.04 0.36 0.41

Pajarito PJ14a/PJ12a east 2009 2.0E-3 0.35 0.05 0.28 0.31

Pajarito PJ13a/PJ12a east 2009 2.8E-3 0.31 0.06 0.23 0.27

Pajarito PJS2/PJ6a west 2009 4.0E-3 0.27 0.01 1.25 0.76

Pajarito PJS2/PJ6b west 2009 4.0E-3 0.27 0.01 1.06 0.66

Pajarito PJS2/PJ7a west 2009 1.7E-3 0.36 0.03 0.43 0.40

Pajarito PJS2/PJ7b west 2009 1.7E-3 0.36 0.03 0.42 0.39

Pajarito PJS2/PJ8a west 2009 2.0E-3 0.34 0.04 0.37 0.35

Pajarito PJS2/PJ15a west 2009 1.6E-3 0.37 0.10 0.09 0.23

Pajarito PJS2/PJ15b west 2009 5.4E-3 0.24 0.10 0.09 0.16

Pajarito PJS2/PJ16a west 2009 1.3E-3 0.40 0.04 0.31 0.36

Pajarito PJS2/PJ16b west 2009 2.1E-3 0.34 0.04 0.30 0.32

Pajarito PJS2/PJ17a west 2009 3.0E-3 0.30 0.05 0.29 0.29

Pajarito PJ6a/PJ7a west 2009 2.1E-3 0.34 0.05 0.29 0.31

Pajarito PJ6b/PJ7b west 2009 1.9E-3 0.35 0.03 0.41 0.38

Pajarito PJ6a/PJ8a west 2009 2.2E-3 0.34 0.04 0.34 0.34

Pajarito PJ7a/PJ8a west 2009 2.2E-3 0.33 0.04 0.36 0.35

Pajarito PJ15a/PJ16a west 2009 2.3E-3 0.33 0.03 0.39 0.36

Pajarito PJ15b/PJ16b west 2009 1.5E-3 0.38 0.03 0.38 0.38

Pajarito PJ15a/PJ17a west 2009 3.7E-3 0.28 0.04 0.29 0.29

Pajarito PJ16a/PJ17a west 2009 4.1E-3 0.27 0.05 0.26 0.26

I-25 IS2/I3a east 2009 3.0E-3 0.30 0.04 0.31 0.30

I-25 IS2/I14a east 2009 1.0E-3 0.44 0.03 0.49 0.46

I-25 IS2/I13a east 2009 5.8E-3 0.24 0.06 0.20 0.22

I-25 I14a/I13a east 2009 6.3E-3 0.23 0.08 0.15 0.19

I-25 IS2/I6a west 2009 6.9E-4 0.49 0.03 0.40 0.45

I-25 IS2/I7a west 2009 2.4E-3 0.32 0.05 0.25 0.29

I-25 IS2/I8a west 2009 8.7E-4 0.46 0.03 0.49 0.47

I-25 IS2/I8b west 2009 1.6E-3 0.37 0.03 0.49 0.43

I-25 IS2/I16b west 2009 2.2E-3 0.33 0.05 0.24 0.29

I-25 IS2/I17a west 2009 9.5E-4 0.44 0.03 0.45 0.45

I-25 I6a/I7a west 2009 3.4E-3 0.29 0.04 0.30 0.30

I-25 I6a/I8a west 2009 1.1E-3 0.42 0.03 0.39 0.40
80 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Alameda

Paseo del Norte

Montaño

Central

Barelas

Rio Bravo

Pajarito

I–25

Alameda

Paseo del Norte

Montaño

Central

Barelas

Rio Bravo

Pajarito

I–25

Paired transects, west of Rio Grande Paired transects, east of Rio Grande

Annual Darcy flux, in feet per day

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

(18)

0.25

0.46

0.34 0.33

0.28

0.24

0.35

0.42

0.50

0.48

0.42

0.36

0.34

0.50

0.41

0.26

(2)

(22)

(3)

(8)

(18)

(10)

(1)

(18)

(8) (8)

(16)

(1)

(17)

(4)

(8)

Far outlier—Value is greater than 2 

 times the interquartile range

Outlier-–Value is between 1.5 and 2 

 times the interquartile range

1.5 times the interquartile range

 or largest value

Upper quartile line—

 75th percentile

Median line and value—

 50th percentile

Lower quartile line—

 25th percentile

-1.5 times the interquartile range

 or smallest value

Number of values

Individual observation for sample set with

 less than six values

(62)

EXPLANATION

Interquartile

range

0.34

Figure 11. Summary of annual Darcy flux through the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New Mexico, calculated 

using the Suzuki-Stallman method.
Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande 81

Horizontal Groundwater-Flux Model Comparison

Annual median qslug flux values computed from Darcy’s 

Law ranged from about 0.10 ft/d at Montaño West to 0.82 

ft/d at Alameda East (table 5); annual median qheat flux values 

computed using the Suzuki-Stallman method ranged from 

0.24 ft/d at Rio Bravo West to 0.50 ft/d at Alameda East and 

Rio Bravo East (table 5). The two methods of computing 

flux agreed reasonably well (table 5). By using annual mean 

gradients (table 2) and annual median qheat fluxes computed 

by using the Suzuki-Stallman method (table 4), the horizontal 

hydraulic conductivity of the alluvial aquifer was estimated 

at each paired transect by using equation 4 and solving for 

hydraulic conductivity. Hydraulic-conductivity values from 

this analysis ranged from 28 ft/d (Alameda East) to 109 ft/d 

(I-25 East). The hydraulic conductivities calculated from 

the results of temperature analysis are very similar to the 

median hydraulic-conductivity results (30 to 120 ft/d) from 

the slug tests (fig. 9). The results computed using Darcy’s 

Law and results computed using the Suzuki-Stallman method 

(table 5) showed that while a majority of transects had greater 

groundwater fluxes east of the Rio Grande than those west of 

the river, groundwater fluxes are generally variable throughout 

the inner valley alluvial aquifer. 

Riverside Drain Seepage Investigations

Riverside drain seepage investigations were conducted 

to compute changes in flow within the drains and to evaluate 

results from Darcy’s Law and Suzuki-Stallman method flux 

calculations. The seepage investigations were conducted by 

measuring discharge in the east riverside drain between the 

Table 5. Comparison of Darcy’s Law and Suzuki-Stallman method results for horizontal-groundwater flux in the Rio Grande inner valley 

alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

[Site locations shown in figures 3A–H; q, horizontal groundwater flux; ft/d, foot per day; qslug, flux determined from slug tests and Darcy’s Law; qheat, flux 

determined by using the Suzuki-Stallman method]

Annual median q (ft/d)

Transect location Darcy’s Law

(qslug)

1

Suzuki-Stallman method

(qheat)

Alameda

East 0.82 0.50

West 0.27 0.25

Paseo del Norte

East 0.49 0.48

West 0.24 0.46

Montaño

East 0.31 0.42

West 0.10 0.34

Central

East 0.75 0.36

West 0.53 0.33

Barelas

East 0.52 0.34

West 0.47 0.28

Rio Bravo

East 0.19 0.50

West 0.28 0.24

Pajarito

East 0.46 0.41

West 0.23 0.35

I-25

East 0.12 0.26

West 0.25 0.42

1

Calculated by using median value of hydraulic conductivity (fig. 9) from results of slug-test analyses.
82 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Barelas Bridge and the I-25 bridge and in the west riverside 

drain between the Central bridge and the I-25 bridge (fig. 1) 

during a period of low flow on February 10–12, 2010 (table 6). 

On the east drain, measurements were made near the Barelas 

Bridge (east drain mile 0), near the Rio Bravo bridge (east 

drain mile 3), between the Rio Bravo bridge and Pajarito (east 

drain mile 4), at Pajarito (east drain mile 6), and near the I-25 

bridge (east drain mile 9). Two seepage investigations were 

conducted on the west drain. The first seepage measurements 

were taken near the Central bridge (west drain mile 0) to near 

the Rio Bravo bridge (west drain mile 4). The second seepage 

measurements were taken at Pajarito (west drain mile 7) and 

near the I-25 bridge (west drain mile 10). The flow in the 

Rio Grande was not measured while seepage was measured. 

Estimates of the portion of river leakage returned to the drains 

could not be constrained in the absence of measurements of 

river flow through this reach. 

The accuracy of each seepage measurement was 

assessed according to hydrographer evaluations of streamflow 

conditions at the time of measurement for each measured 

location. The accuracy of measurements for the east and 

west drain-seepage investigations was estimated to be “fair” 

(Anthony Cox, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 

2013). Sauer and Meyer (1992) indicate that the uncertainty 

of a measurement rated as fair is ±8 percent or less of the 

total measured streamflow. Using ±8 percent, the uncertainty 

calculated for the individual seepage measurements ranged 

from ±0.85 to ±4.0 (table 6). Uncertainty (Taylor, 1997, p. 60) 

for two or more seepage measurements was calculated as:

2 2 2

1 2 ... CU n = u + u + + u (15)

where

CU is the cumulative uncertainty, in cubic feet per 

second; and

un is the uncertainty for an individual seepage 

measurement, in cubic feet per second.

The east and west riverside drains had similar average 

increases in flow during the seepage investigation. The east 

riverside drain increased in flow from 10.6 cubic feet per 

second (ft3/s) (east drain mile 0) to 40.9 ft3/s (east drain 

mile 9) over a distance of about 8.8 mi. The increase in flow 

between east drain mile 0 and east drain mile 9 was 30.3 ft3/s 

Table 6. Seepage investigation discharge measurements and estimated uncertainty in Rio Grande riverside drains, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico, February 10–12, 2010.

[DDMMSS, degrees minutes seconds; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; ft3/d/ft, cubic feet per day per foot; ft, foot; ±, plus 

or minus; NA, not applicable]

 Measurement 

location1

(fig. 1)

Latitude 

(DDMMSS; 

NAD 83)

Longitude 

(DDMMSS; 

NAD 83)

Discharge at 

measurement location 

and estimated 

uncertainty2 (ft3/s)

Gain and estimated 

cumulative 

uncertainty3 (ft3/s) 

Flux and estimated 

cumulative 

uncertainty4 (ft3/d/ft)

Distance 

between 

measurement 

points (ft)

east drain mile 0 350407.9 -1063925.1 10.6 ±0.85 NA NA NA NA NA

east drain mile 3 350135.5 -1064008.9 16.2 ±1.3 5.6 ±1.6 29.5 ±8.4 16,418

east drain mile 4 350043.6 -1064015.0 17.8 ±1.4 1.6 ±1.9 26.1 ±31 5,305

east drain mile 6 345905.0 -1064105.8 31.2 ±2.5 13.4 ±2.9 96.8 ±21 11,961

east drain mile 9 345703.9 -1064040.9 40.9 ±3.3 9.7 ±4.1 66.1 ±28 12,680

east drain mile 0 

to mile 9

NA NA NA NA 30.3 ±4.6 56.5 ±8.6 46,364

west drain mile 0 350450.2 -1064032.2 10.6 ±0.85 NA NA NA NA NA

west drain mile 4 350132.2 -1064028.4 24.8 ±2.0 14.2 ±2.2 53.8 ±8.3 22,825

west drain mile 7 345907.7 -1064125.2 43.2 ±3.5 NA NA NA NA NA

west drain mile 10 345656.2 -1064105.8 50.4 ±4.0 7.2 ±5.3 44.9 ±33 13,864

1

Mile marker location is approximate. Actual distance between measurement points is shown in final column.

2

Measurement uncertainty was estimated to be 8 percent or less of measured discharge (Anthony Cox, U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Technician, written 

commun., 2013).

3

Cumulative estimated uncertainty is computed as the square root of the sum of the squares of the individual flow measurement estimated uncertainty terms 

(eq. 15 in text).

4

Uncertainty in flux is computed by converting the estimated cumulative uncertainty in gain to units of cubic feet per day and dividing the result by the 

distance between measurement points.
Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande 83

over 46,364 ft, or an average of 56.5 ft3/d/ft of drain. The 

west riverside drain increased in flow from 10.6 ft3/s (west 

drain mile 0) to 24.8 ft3/s (west drain mile 4) over a distance 

of 4.3 mi. In a 2.6-mi reach, the flow in the west riverside 

drain increased from 43.2 ft3/s (west drain mile 7) to 50.4 

ft3/s (west drain mile 10). The increase in flow between west 

drain mile 0 and west drain mile 4 was 14.2 ft3/s over 22,825 

ft, or an average of 53.8 ft3/d/ft of drain. The increase in flow 

between west drain mile 7 and west drain mile 10 was 7.2 

ft3/s over 13,864 ft, or an average of 44.9 ft3/d/ft of drain. On 

the dates of measurement, the measured flow increases in the 

east and west riverside drain reaches could only be attributed 

to groundwater inflow from the river or from areas outside 

the drain; no surface-water inputs or overlapping drains were 

observed.

Temperature profiles at Rio Bravo East (fig. 8) indicate 

that seasonal transport of heat from the Rio Grande during the 

nonirrigation period (November-February) is primarily within 

the upper 40 ft of the inner valley alluvial aquifer. Using 

(1) the median Darcy flux (qslug) for Rio Bravo East of 0.19 ft/d 

(table 5), (2) a 1-ft width of aquifer measured parallel to the 

river, and (3) an assumption that 100 percent of leakage from 

the Rio Grande is contained in the upper 40 ft of the aquifer 

at Rio Bravo East, the total flux was calculated to be 7.6 ft3/d/

ft of river. Under the same assumptions and using the median 

flux calculated from the Suzuki-Stallman method (qheat) for 

Rio Bravo of 0.50 ft/d (table 5), the total flux is 20 ft3/d/ft of 

river. On February 10, 2010, discharge at east drain mile 0 was 

10.6 ft3/s and at east drain mile 3 was 16.2 ft3/s, an increase of 

5.6 ft3/s, or 483,840 ft3/d over a distance of 16,418 ft (table 6); 

in this section, the drain was gaining 29.5 ft3/d /ft of drain. If 

the east riverside drain intercepted all of the river leakage from 

the upper 40 ft of the aquifer, and considering the cumulative 

uncertainty in the flux between miles 0 and 3 (table 6), the 

calculated qslug and qheat fluxes would account for 20–36 

percent or 53–95 percent, respectively, of the total flow in the 

drain on February 10, 2010. Given an average annual gradient 

of 0.0048 at Rio Bravo East (table 2) and considering the 

cumulative uncertainty in the flux between miles 0 and 3 (table 

6), the hydraulic conductivity of the 40 ft of alluvium would 

have to be in the range of 110 to 197 ft/d for river leakage to 

account for 100 percent of the gain in flow in the riverside 

drain during the seepage investigation. At Rio Bravo transect 

1, the east drain gains water from river leakage west of the 

drain and from the alluvial aquifer east of the drain. However, 

at Rio Bravo transect 2 and Barelas transect 1, the east drain 

gained water from river leakage west of the drain and lost 

water to the alluvial aquifer to the east; therefore, it is possible 

that some of the flow increase in the east drain between 

Barelas and Rio Bravo could be attributed to seepage from the 

alluvial aquifer on the east side of the drain and river leakage 

from the west. Alternatively, if the east drain loses water to the 

alluvial aquifer to the east for a majority of the reach studied 

during the seepage investigation, the flux estimated from qslug

and qheat would account for even less than 20–36 percent or 

53–95 percent, respectively, of the flow increase observed in 

the drain.

At Rio Bravo West, the qslug and qheat fluxes were 0.28 

and 0.24 ft/d, respectively. Temperature profiles at Rio Bravo 

West during the nonirrigation period (November-February) 

indicate seasonal transport of heat from the Rio Grande 

extends to depths greater than 50 ft. The total flux through a 

vertical slice of the inner valley alluvial aquifer of 1-ft width 

and 50-ft depth using qslug or qheat would be 14 ft3/d and 12 

ft3/d, respectively. If the west riverside drain intercepted all of 

the flow from the upper 50 ft of aquifer and considering the 

cumulative error in the flux between miles 0 and 4 (table 6), 

total qslug or qheat flux would only account for 22–31 or 19–26 

percent, respectively, of the flow in the drain on February 10, 

2010. Given an annual mean horizontal hydraulic gradient 

of 0.0070 at Rio Bravo West (table 2) and considering the 

cumulative error in the flux between miles 0 and 4 (table 6), 

the hydraulic conductivity of the upper 50 ft of aquifer would 

have to be in the range of 130 to 177 ft/d for river leakage to 

account for 100 percent of the increase in flow in the west 

riverside drain during the seepage investigation. At Rio Bravo 

transects 1 and 2, the west riverside drain gains water from 

river leakage from the east and the alluvial aquifer to the west; 

therefore, it is likely that the increase in flow measured during 

the seepage investigation is because of river leakage and 

seepage from the alluvial aquifer. 

On the east and west sides of the Rio Grande, 

groundwater outside of the riverside drains can flow towards 

or away from the drains, depending on the transect location, 

season, and irrigation operations. However, it is likely that 

discharge to the riverside drains occurs primarily from the 

river through the riparian area. Veenhuis (2002) determined 

that leakage from the river accounts for 79 percent of the flow 

in the riverside drains between Bernalillo and Rio Bravo. The 

present estimates of only 20–36 percent or 22–31 percent 

of the riverside drain flow being accounted for by the qslug 

flux through the alluvial aquifer indicates that either (1) the 

estimates provided by Veenhuis (2002) are too high because 

they include all sources of seepage, not just river seepage, and 

additional water is entering the drains from the alluvial aquifer 

outside the drains, (2) hydraulic-conductivity values estimated 

from slug tests in this study are too low, (3) the estimates 

provided by Veenhuis (2002) were calculated over a larger 

distance in an area that extended further north than the present 

study, or (4) the assumed aquifer thickness in the riparian 

area that transmits river water to the drains is greater than that 

indicated by vertical temperature profiles. Increasing hydraulic 

conductivities by a factor of 2 or 3 would result in the qslug flux 

still being within the plausible range of qTiedeman flux values 

determined using Tiedeman and others (1998) hydraulic 

conductivities (fig. 10). 

For all locations, annual median qslug and qheat fluxes 

ranged from 0.10 to 0.82 ft/d (table 5). Assuming a uniform 

aquifer thickness through the Albuquerque area of 40 ft, the 

range of leakage from the river through the alluvial aquifer is 
84 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

from 4.0 to 32.8 ft3/d/ft of aquifer. At Rio Bravo, Roark (2001) 

calculated river leakage to be from 0.47 to 2.1 ft3/d/ft of 

aquifer, and at Paseo del Norte, Moret (2007), using the 

Suzuki-Stallman method, estimated river leakage to be from 

12.9 to 17.2 ft3/d/ft. Previous seepage investigations indicate 

river leakage to average 74 ft3/d/ft (Thorn, 1995) and 123 ft3/d/

ft (Veenhuis, 2002) along river reaches of 12.4 and 21.9 mi, 

respectively. The large variations in river leakage found in 

this study and previous investigations suggest that estimates 

of flux through the inner valley alluvial aquifer are strongly 

dependent on scale, location, and time. 

Variability of Horizontal Hydraulic 

Gradients and Groundwater Fluxes

The volume of water seeping from the Rio Grande 

into the inner valley alluvial aquifer that is intercepted by 

the riverside drains depends on the local gradient, aquifer 

properties, and configuration of the groundwater-flow field. 

In the Albuquerque area, the hydrology of the alluvial aquifer 

beneath the Rio Grande riparian area is complicated by 

heterogeneous aquifer properties and anthropogenic influences 

on the system. Groundwater data collected at each transect in 

this study were used to evaluate geologic and anthropogenic 

influences and present a general understanding of groundwater 

flow in the riparian area.

Water-level and temperature data have been collected at 

these eight paired transects for varying lengths of time since 

2003. Report 1 (Rankin and others, 2013) included data from 

2003 to 2009 and Report 2 (this report) presents data from 

2009 to 2010. Table 7 compares the annual mean horizontal 

hydraulic gradients and annual median fluxes calculated in 

both reports. Annual mean horizontal hydraulic gradients 

calculated in Report 1 and in Report 2 were similar, and the 

range of horizontal hydraulic gradients calculated for each 

transect were similar over the two time periods (table 7). 

The qslug and qheat fluxes calculated in Report 1 were similar 

to the qslug and qheat fluxes calculated in Report 2 on both 

sides of the river (table 7). At transects where the fluxes 

calculated in the two reports were different, the fluxes from 

one report (and time period) were not consistently greater or 

less than the other. Water-level fluctuations in all piezometers 

in both reports were more variable during irrigation season 

(March-October) than during the nonirrigation season 

(November-February). 

Spatial variability in the horizontal hydraulic gradients 

and fluxes (table 2 and table 7) can be primarily attributed to 

variability in distances between the river and riverside drains 

throughout the study area and geologic heterogeneities of 

the alluvial aquifer. Transects where the river and riverside 

drains are close together will have steeper horizontal hydraulic 

gradients than transects where the river and riverside drains 

are farther apart, assuming other conditions are constant. The 

inner valley alluvial aquifer is composed of heterogeneous 

deposits overlying the better cemented and coarser material 

of the Santa Fe Group aquifer (Hawley and Haase, 1992). 

In general, core descriptions from the Rio Grande riparian 

area indicate the inner valley alluvium grades from cobbles, 

gravels, sands, and silts to gravels, sands, silts, and clays in 

a downstream direction through the Albuquerque area. Clay 

layers can be hydrologically influential between the Barelas 

and Rio Bravo bridges (Bartolino and Sterling, 2000) where 

clay-layer thicknesses of 13 ft have been observed (Roark, 

2001). The influence of these local-scale heterogeneities is 

dependent on the continuity of the deposit and its location 

within the groundwater-flow system. Whereas highly 

permeable sands and gravels may facilitate infiltration from 

the river, low-permeability sediment can locally impede the 

rates of horizontal flow or reduce the rates of horizontal flow 

through the alluvial aquifer. In addition, the orientation of 

high- and low-permeability sediment deposits with respect 

to the direction of groundwater flow can influence the rate of 

groundwater flow (Engdahl and Weissman, 2010). Because 

of these complicating factors and their variable effects on 

groundwater flow, there is no clear pattern to the spatial 

variability of horizontal hydraulic gradients or fluxes.

Temporal variability in the water levels which control 

the horizontal hydraulic gradients (table 2 and table 7) and 

fluxes between the Rio Grande and the riverside drains can 

be primarily attributed to seasonal fluctuations. Water levels 

in the Rio Grande increase in spring because of snowmelt 

runoff and in the summer because of monsoon-season storms. 

Water levels in the riverside drains increase markedly at the 

beginning of the irrigation season in March and decrease 

markedly at the end of irrigation season in October. Water 

levels in the riverside drains may also be influenced by 

monsoon-season storms and by local irrigation practices. 

River stages are generally higher than riverside drain stages 

except where the drains were designed to maintain water-level 

elevation above the river. Following Darcy’s Law, and given 

constant hydraulic-conductivity values, the horizontal fluxes 

at each transect will be greatest when the difference between 

water levels in the Rio Grande and riverside drains produce 

the greatest hydraulic gradients. 

The Rio Grande generally loses water to the surrounding 

alluvial aquifer, but the drains have more complicated 

hydraulic interactions with the alluvial aquifer because of 

the way they were designed to facilitate irrigation practices. 

Drains capture river leakage, transport water for irrigation, and 

capture return flows from nearby irrigation. At all transects, 

water seeps away from the river into the inner valley alluvial 

aquifer as indicated by the water-level data (fig. 6A–P). 

However, the water levels and hydraulic gradients exhibit 

spatial and temporal variability near both the east and west 

riverside drains. Water-level data at the transects indicate that 

drains gain water from the river side of the alluvial aquifer, 

although there are exceptions at some transects (I-25 East, 

Central West, Montaño West, and Alameda West). Most 

transects exhibit short periods each year when they do not 

gain water from the river side of the alluvial aquifer. There 
Table 7. Comparison of annual mean horizontal hydraulic gradient and annual median flux at selected locations calculated for Report 1 (2003–9) and report, 2009–10).[Site locations shown in figures 3A–H; ft/ft, foot per foot; q, horizontal-groundwater flux; ft/d, foot per day; qslug, flux determined from slug tests and Darcy’s Law; qheat, flux deteStallman method; —, not calculated, insufficient data]

West East

Annual mean 

horizontal 

hydraulic 

gradient 

(ft/ft)

Range 

of daily 

horizontal 

hydraulic gradients 

(ft/ft)

Downstream 

direction 

relative to 

Rio Grande 

(range) 

(degrees)1

Annual median q (ft/d) Annual mean 

horizontal 

hydraulic 

gradient (ft/ft)

Range 

of daily 

horizontal 

hydraulic gradients 

(ft/ft)

Downstream 

direction 

relative to Rio 

Grande (range) 

(degrees)1

Report Darcy’s Law 

(qslug)

Suzuki-Stallman 

method (qheat)

Da

 Alameda

2 0.0045 0.004–0.006 76 (72–80) 0.27 0.25 0.0137 0.010–0.024 87 (79–92) 

Paseo del Norte

1 0.0050 0.005–0.006 — 0.23 — 0.0130 0.009–0.049 — 2 0.0053 0.004–0.010 81 (73–95) 0.24 0.46 0.0109 0.009–0.012 57 (47–93) 

Montaño

1 0.0030 0.003–0.004 — 0.09 0.24 0.0100 0.008–0.015 — 2 0.0033 0.003–0.006 64 (32–86) 0.10 0.34 0.0103 0.008–0.015 95 (91–101) 

Central

2 0.0040 0.003–0.006 88 (81–94) 0.53 0.33 0.0062 0.005–0.011 78 (75–80) 

Barelas

1 0.0100 0.007–0.013 — 0.66 0.47 0.0090 0.007–0.013 — 2 0.0078 0.007–0.009 73 (70–78) 0.47 0.28 0.0087 0.007–0.011 83 (78–87) 

Rio Bravo

1 0.0070 0.004–0.013 — 0.25 0.27 0.0050 0.003–0.007 — 2 0.0070 0.005–0.008 81 (78–83) 0.28 0.24 0.0048 0.004–0.007 70 (61–82) 

Pajarito

2 0.0072 0.006–0.009 77 (71–83) 0.23 0.35 0.0144 0.012–0.019 100 (97–101) 

I-25

1 0.0050 0.004–0.008 — 0.25 0.34 0.0030 0.001–0.005 — 2 0.0050 0.003–0.009 60 (41–70) 0.25 0.42 0.0024 0.002–0.004 69 (58–85) 
86 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

is also considerable variability in the horizontal hydraulic 

gradients on the outside of the drains (east of the east riverside 

drain and west of the west riverside drain) as indicated by the 

water-level data (fig. 6A–P). At some transects, the east and 

west drains almost always lose water to the east and west, 

respectively (Barelas West and Rio Bravo East). At other 

transects, the riverside drains usually gain water from both 

sides (Central East, Rio Bravo West, Pajarito East and West). 

There are two transects (Central West and I-25 East) where 

the drain loses water to both the east and west sides because 

of the way the drains are constructed. In addition, at Alameda 

West and Montaño West, it appears that the drains are above 

the elevation of the water table and so have little interaction 

with groundwater. The spatial and temporal variability in the 

horizontal gradients around the riverside drains makes it very 

difficult to generalize the interaction of the riverside drains 

with the surrounding alluvial aquifer.

Summary 

The Albuquerque area is the major population center 

in New Mexico and has two principal sources of water for 

municipal, domestic, commercial, and industrial uses in 

this area: (1) groundwater from the Santa Fe Group aquifer 

system, and (2) surface water from the Rio Grande. Estimates 

indicated that from 1960 to 2002, pumping from the Santa Fe 

Group aquifer system caused groundwater levels in eastern 

Albuquerque to decline more than 120 feet (ft) while waterlevel declines along the Rio Grande in Albuquerque were 

generally less than 40 ft. These differences in water-level 

declines in the Albuquerque area have resulted in a great 

deal of interest in quantifying the river-aquifer interaction 

associated with the Rio Grande. 

The Santa Fe Group aquifer system in the Albuquerque 

area consists of the middle Tertiary to Quaternary-age 

Santa Fe Group and the Quaternary-age post-Santa Fe 

Group alluvium (inner valley alluvial aquifer). The inner 

valley alluvial aquifer consists of river-valley and basin-fill 

sediments that underlie the present-day Rio Grande flood plain 

with an average thickness of 80 ft. The alluvium consists of 

unconsolidated to poorly consolidated, fine- to coarse-grain 

sand and rounded gravel with subordinate, discontinuous 

lens-shaped interbeds of fine-grain sand, silt, and clay. The 

underlying Santa Fe Group is composed primarily of gravel, 

sand, silt, and clay deposits and is approximately 14,000-ft 

thick in parts of the basin.

In 2003, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation 

with the Bureau of Reclamation, acting as fiscal agent for 

the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative 

Program, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, began a 

study to characterize the hydrogeology of the Rio Grande 

inner valley alluvial aquifer in the Albuquerque area of 

New Mexico. Previous researchers have used streambed 

permeameters, the transient response of the aquifer to a flood 

pulse, vertical profiles of temperature measurements, and 

calibrated numerical models to estimate the flux between 

the Rio Grande and the Santa Fe Group aquifer system. As 

compared to previous more regional-scale studies, this study 

was designed to provide spatially detailed information about 

the amount of water that discharges from the Rio Grande to 

the adjacent aquifer. Study results provide hydrologic data and 

enhance the understanding of rates of water leakage from the 

Rio Grande to the inner valley alluvial aquifer, groundwater 

flow through the aquifer, and discharge of water from the 

aquifer to the riverside drains. 

The study area extends about 20 miles along the Rio 

Grande in the Albuquerque area, and the east and west edges 

of the study area are limited to areas within the inner valley 

adjacent to the Upper Corrales, Corrales, Albuquerque, and 

Atrisco Riverside Drains. The riverside drains are ditches 

located east and west of the river and generally separated from 

the river by levees. The drains are designed to intercept lateral 

groundwater flow from the river and prevent waterlogged-soil 

conditions in the inner valley. Seepage to the riverside drains 

constitutes one of the main sources of groundwater discharge 

from the inner valley alluvial aquifer. 

Piezometers and surface-water gages were installed in 

paired transects at eight locations in the Albuquerque area. 

Each transect included nested piezometers and surfacewater gages configured in roughly straight lines and oriented 

perpendicular to the river and riverside drains. At each 

location, transects extended from the Rio Grande to just 

outside the riverside drains on both sides of the river and are 

spaced about 500 ft apart. The paired-transect configuration 

was chosen to facilitate definition of horizontal and vertical 

gradients at each location. Nested piezometers, completed 

at various depths in the alluvial aquifer, and surface-water 

gages installed in the Rio Grande and riverside drains were 

instrumented with pressure transducers, and water-level and 

water-temperature data were collected from 2009 to 2010. 

Horizontal groundwater flux from the Rio Grande to the inner 

valley alluvial aquifer was estimated from Darcy’s Law using 

hydraulic-gradient values estimated from water-level data 

and hydraulic-conductivity values estimated from slug tests. 

The Suzuki-Stallman one-dimensional analytical solution to 

the heat-transport equation also was used to model annual 

groundwater temperature changes within the aquifer and 

the results were used to provide additional detail on rates of 

groundwater flux with depth and distance from the river.

Water levels from the piezometers indicate that 

groundwater movement was usually away from the river 

towards the riverside drains. Hourly groundwater temperatures 

were recorded at 10 and 20 ft below land surface in selected 

piezometer nests. Large seasonal ranges in surface-water 

temperature are apparent; surface-water temperatures ranged 

from 29 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in the winter to 81 °F in the 

summer. Surface-water temperatures in the drains typically 

were similar to temperatures measured in the Rio Grande, but 

the magnitudes of temperature fluctuations in the river were 

somewhat larger. Maximum and minimum water temperatures 
References 87

in piezometers generally indicate a decrease in amplitude 

and an increase in time lag of the temperature signal with 

increasing depth and distance from the river.

Monthly vertical temperature profiles qualitatively show 

that heat transport is primarily within the upper 30 ft of the 

inner valley alluvial aquifer. Exceptions occur on the east side 

of the Rio Grande between Paseo del Norte and Barelas where 

geological heterogeneities and regional pumping may induce 

groundwater flux from the river to greater depths. Local-scale 

heterogeneities result in large ranges of groundwater flux and 

may reduce flux rates where clay- or silt-rich low-permeability 

sediments are present.

Annual mean horizontal groundwater gradients in the 

inner valley alluvial aquifer ranged from 0.0024 (I-25 East) 

to 0.0144 (Pajarito East). The median hydraulic-conductivity 

values of the inner valley alluvial aquifer determined from 

slug tests ranged from 30 feet per day (ft/d) (Montaño) 

to 120 ft/d (Central) for pairs of transects, with a median 

hydraulic conductivity for all transects of 50 ft/d. These 

values are close to the range of estimates (from 10 to 150 

ft/d) determined by previous investigations. Daily mean 

groundwater fluxes computed using Darcy’s Law and the 

slug-test results ranged from about 0.01 ft/d (Montaño West) 

to between 1.0 and 2.0 ft/d (Central East). By using the 

Suzuki-Stallman method, median annual groundwater flux 

was determined to be greatest at Alameda East (0.50 ft/d) and 

lowest at Alameda West (0.25 ft/d). The results from both 

methods agreed reasonably well. 

Seepage investigations conducted by measuring 

discharge in the east and west riverside drains provided 

information for computing changes in flow within the drains 

and for evaluating results from Darcy’s Law and SuzukiStallman method flux calculations. Discharge measured in the 

east riverside drain between the Barelas Bridge (east drain 

mile 0) and the I-25 bridge (east drain mile 9) indicated that 

the flow in the east riverside drain increased by an average 

of 56.5 cubic feet per day per linear foot (ft3/d/ft) of drain. 

Discharge measured in the west riverside drain between the 

Central bridge (west drain mile 0) and the I-25 bridge (west 

drain mile 10) indicated that flow increased between west 

drain miles 0 and 4, an average of 53.8 ft3/d/ft of drain, and 

that flow increased between west drain mile 7 and mile 10, 

an average of 44.9 ft3/d/ft of drain. In comparison to the 

seepage measurement results, the groundwater fluxes from 

the river through the inner valley alluvial aquifer calculated 

from Darcy’s Law (qslug) and by the Suzuki-Stallman method 

(qheat) would account for 20–36 percent or 53–95 percent, 

respectively, of the total flow in the east riverside drain and 

22–31 percent or 19–26 percent, respectively, of the total flow 

in the west drain. These results indicate that the drains likely 

also receive water from outside the inner valley.

The spatial variability of horizontal hydraulic gradients 

and groundwater fluxes can be primarily attributed to 

variability in the distances between the river and riverside 

drains throughout the study area and geologic heterogeneities 

in the alluvial aquifer. Temporal variability in the water levels, 

which control the horizontal hydraulic gradients and fluxes 

between the Rio Grande and the riverside drains, can be 

primarily attributed to seasonal fluctuations in river stage and 

irrigation practices. 

References 

Anderholm, S.K., and Bullard, T.F., 1987, Description of 

piezometer nests and water levels in the Rio Grande Valley 

near Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 87–122, 51 p.

Anderson, M.P., 2005, Heat as a ground water tracer: Ground 

Water, v. 43, no. 6, p. 951–968.

Barroll, Peggy, 2001, Documentation of the administrative 

groundwater model for the Middle Rio Grande Basin: Santa 

Fe, New Mexico, Office of the State Engineer, Hydrology 

Bureau Report 99–3, 22 p.

Bartolino, J.R., 2003, Chapter 2—the Rio Grande—

Competing demands for a desert river, in Stonestrom, D.A., 

and Constantz, J., eds., Heat as a tool for studying the 

movement of ground water near streams: U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1260, p. 8–16.

Bartolino, J.R., and Cole, J.C., 2002, Ground-water resources 

of the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1222, 132 p.

Bartolino, J.R., and Niswonger, R.G., 1999, Numerical 

simulation of vertical ground-water flux of the Rio 

Grande from ground-water temperature profiles, central 

New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 99–4212, 34 p.

Bartolino, J.R., and Sterling, J.M., 2000, Electromagnetic 

surveys to detect clay-rich sediment in the Rio Grande inner 

valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 00–4003, 45 p.

Bexfield, L.M., and Anderholm, S.K., 2000, Predevelopment 

water-level map of the Santa Fe Group aquifer system in 

the Middle Rio Grande Basin between Cochiti Lake and 

San Acacia, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 00–4249, 1 sheet.

Bexfield, L.M., and Anderholm, S.K., 2002, Estimated waterlevel declines in the Santa Fe Group aquifer system in the 

Albuquerque area, central New Mexico, predevelopment 

to 2002: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 02–4233, 1 sheet.

Bexfield, L.M., and McAda, D.P., 2003, Simulated effects 

of ground-water management scenarios on the Santa Fe 

Group aquifer system, Middle Rio Grande Basin, New 

Mexico, 2001–40: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 03–4040, 39 p.
88 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Blasch, K.W., Constantz, Jim, and Stonestrom, D.A., 2007, 

Thermal methods for investigating ground-water recharge, 

in Stonestrom, D.A., Constantz, Jim, Ferré, T.P.A., and 

Leake, S.A., eds., Ground-water recharge in the arid and 

semiarid southwestern United States: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1703, appendix 1, p. 351–373.

Bouwer, Herman, and Rice, R.C., 1976, A slug test for 

determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers 

with completely or partially penetrating wells: Water 

Resources Research, v. 12, no. 3, p. 423–428.

Butler, J.J., 1998, The design, performance, and analysis of 

slug tests: Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis Publishers, 252 p.

Carslaw, H.S., and Jaeger, J.C., 1959, Conduction of heat in 

solids (2d ed.): New York, Oxford University Press, 510 p.

Connell, S.D., Love, D.W., and Dunbar, N.W., 2007, 

Geomorphology and stratigraphy of inset fluvial deposits 

along the Rio Grande Valley in the central Albuquerque 

Basin, New Mexico: New Mexico Geology, v. 29, no. 1, 

p. 31.

Constantz, Jim, Thomas, C.L., and Zellweger, G.W., 1994. 

Influence of diurnal variations in stream temperature on 

streamflow loss and groundwater recharge: Water Resources 

Research, v. 30, no. 12, p. 3253–3264.

Constantz, Jim, Tyler, S.W., and Kwicklis, Edward, 2003, 

Temperature-profile methods for estimating percolation 

rates in arid environments: Vadose Zone Journal, v. 2, p. 

12–24.

Constantz, J.E., Niswonger, R.G., and Stewart, A.E., 2008, 

Analysis of temperature gradients to determine stream 

exchanges with ground water, in Rosenberry, D.O., and 

LaBaugh, J.W., eds., Field techniques for estimating water 

fluxes between surface water and ground water: U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 4, chap. 

D2, 128 p.

Engdahl, N.B., Vogler, E.T., and Weissmann, G.S., 2010, 

Evaluation of aquifer heterogeneity effects on river loss 

using a transition probability framework: Water Resources 

Research, v. 46, no. 1, 13 p.

Engdahl, N.B., and Weissmann, G.S., 2010, Anisotropic 

transport rates in heterogeneous porous media: Water 

Resources Research, v. 46, issue 2, 12 p.

Falk, S.E., Bexfield, L.M., and Anderholm, S.K., 2011, 

Estimated 2008 groundwater potentiometric surface and 

predevelopment to 2008 water-level change in the Santa Fe 

Group aquifer system in the Albuquerque area, central New 

Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Map 3162, 1 sheet.

Fetter, C.W., 1994, Applied hydrogeology (3d ed.): New 

Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 690 p.

Freeman, L.A., Carpenter, M.C., Rosenberry, D.O., Rousseau, 

J.P., Unger, Randy, and McLean, J.S., 2004, Use of 

submersible pressure transducers in water-resources 

investigations: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 8, chap. A, 65 p.

Google Inc., 2011, Google Earth (version 6.1) [Software]: 

Available at http://www.google.com/earth/index.html.

Gould, Jaci, 1994, Middle Rio Grande channel permeameter 

investigations: Albuquerque Area Office, Bureau of 

Reclamation Middle Rio Grande Water Assessment 

Supporting Document No. 11, variously paged.

Hawley, J.W., and Haase, C.S., 1992, Hydrogeologic 

framework of the northern Albuquerque Basin: New 

Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Open-File 

Report 387, 176 p.

Hawley, J.W., and Whitworth, T.M.,1996, Hydrogeology and 

potential recharge areas for the basin and valley-fill aquifer 

systems and hydrogeochemical modeling of proposed 

artificial recharge of the Upper Santa Fe aquifer, northern 

Albuquerque Basin, New Mexico: New Mexico Bureau of 

Mines and Mineral Resources, Open-File Report 402–D, 

68 p. 

Heath, R.C., 1983, Basic ground-water hydrology: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2220, 86 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.

Kues, Georgianna, 1986, Ground-water levels and direction of 

ground-water flow in the central part of Bernalillo County, 

New Mexico, summer 1983: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 85–4325, 24 p.

Lapham, W.W., Wilde, F.D., and Koterba, M.T., 1997, 

Guidelines and standard procedures for studies of groundwater quality—Selection and installation of wells, and 

supporting documentation: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 96–4233, 110 p.

McAda, D.P., 1996, Plan of study to quantify the hydrologic 

relations between the Rio Grande and the Santa Fe Group 

aquifer system near Albuquerque, central New Mexico: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

96–4006, 58 p.

McAda, D.P., 2001, Simulation of a long-term aquifer test 

conducted near the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, New Mexico: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 99–4260, 58 p.
References 89

McAda, D.P., and Barroll, Peggy, 2002, Simulation of 

ground-water flow in the middle Rio Grande Basin between 

Cochiti and San Acacia, New Mexico: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4200, 

81 p.

Moret, G.J.M., 2007, Annual variations in groundwater 

temperature as a tracer of river-aquifer interactions: State 

College, Pennsylvania State University, Ph.D. dissertation, 

153 p.

National Climatologic Data Center, various dates, NCDC 

climate data online: accessed on various dates at http://

www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/cdopoemain.cmd?datasetabbv=

DS3505&countryabbv=&georegionabbv=&resolution=40.

Peter, K.D., 1987, Ground-water flow and shallow-aquifer 

properties in the Rio Grande inner valley south of 

Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

87–4015, 29 p.

Powell, R.I., and McKean, S.E., 2014, Estimated 2012 

groundwater potentiometric surface and drawdown from 

predevelopment to 2012 in the Santa Fe Group aquifer 

system in the Albuquerque metropolitan area, central New 

Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Map 3301, 1 sheet. (Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/

sim3301.)

.Rankin, D.R., McCoy, K.J., Moret, G.J.M., Worthington, J.S., 

and Bandy-Baldwin, K.M., 2013, Groundwater hydrology 

and estimation of horizontal groundwater flux from the Rio 

Grande at selected locations in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 

2003–09: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2012–5007, 75 p.

Reiter, Marshall, 2001, Using precision temperature logs 

to estimate horizontal and vertical groundwater flow 

components: Water Resources Research, v. 37, no. 3, 

p. 663–674.

Roark, D.M., 2001, Estimation of hydraulic characteristics 

in the Santa Fe Group aquifer system using computer 

simulations of river and drain pulses in the Rio Bravo study 

area, near Albuquerque, New Mexico: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01–4069, 

52 p.

Sanford, W.E., Plummer, L.N., McAda, D.P., Bexfield, L.M., 

and Anderholm, S.K., 2003, Use of environmental tracers 

to estimate parameters for a predevelopment-ground-waterflow model of the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 03–4286, 102 p.

Sauer, V.B., and Meyer, R.W., 1992, Determination of error in 

individual discharge measurements: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 92–144, 21 p.

Silliman, S.E., and Booth, D.F., 1993, Analysis of time-series 

measurements of sediment temperature for identification of 

gaining vs. losing portions of Juday Creek, Indiana: Journal 

of Hydrology, v. 146, p. 131–148.

Smerdon, J.E., Pollack, H.N., Cermak, Vladimir, Enz, J.W., 

Kresl, Milan, Safanda, Jan, and Wehmiller, J.F., 2004, Airground temperature coupling and subsurface propagation 

of annual temperature signals: Journal of Geophysical 

Research, v. 109, no. D21, 10 p.

Stallman, R.W., 1965, Steady one-dimensional fluid flow 

in a semi-infinite porous medium with sinusoidal surface 

temperature: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 70, no. 12, 

p. 2821–2827.

Stonestrom, D.A., and Constantz, Jim, 2003, Heat as a tool for 

studying the movement of ground water near streams: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1260, 96 p.

Suzuki, S., 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.

Taylor, J.R., 1997, An introduction to error analysis—The 

study of uncertainties in physical measurements (2d ed.): 

Sausalito, Calif., University Science Books, 332 p.

Thorn, C.R., 1995, Surface-water discharge and 

evapotranspiration rates for grass and bare soil along a reach 

of the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1989–95: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95–419, 23 p.

Tiedeman, C.R., Kernodle, J.M., and McAda, D.P., 1998, 

Application of nonlinear-regression methods to a groundwater flow model of the Albuquerque Basin, New Mexico: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 98–4172, 90 p.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, Census of population and 

housing—New Mexico 2000: Summary population and 

housing characteristics, PHC–1–33, 114 p. 

Veenhuis, J.E., 2002, Summary of loss between selected 

cross sections on the Rio Grande in and near Albuquerque, 

New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 02–4131, 30 p.

Vennard, J.K., and Street, R.L., 1982, Elementary fluid 

mechanics (6th ed.): New York, N.Y., John Wiley & Sons, 

Inc., 700 p.
Publishing support provided by

Lafayette Publishing Service Center
Rankin and others—Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, N. Mex.—SIR 2016–5021

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20165021