Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal 

Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected 

Locations in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2003–9

Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation acting as fiscal agent for the Middle 

Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program

Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5007

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation 

of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from 

the Rio Grande at Selected Locations in 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2003–9

By Dale R. Rankin, Kurt J. McCoy, Geoff J.M. Moret, Jeffrey A. Worthington, 

and Kimberly M. Bandy-Baldwin

Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation acting as fiscal agent 

for the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program

Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5007

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2013

This and other USGS information products are available at http://store.usgs.gov/

U.S. Geological Survey

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

To learn about the USGS and its information products visit http://www.usgs.gov/

1-888-ASK-USGS

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

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

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, 2003–9: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5007, 75 p.
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 USGS to 

install and maintain piezometers in the Rio Grande riparian zone along the river. The Middle Rio 

Grande Conservancy District granted permission for the USGS to install and maintain surfacewater 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 

(SWM). 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 Endangered 

Species Collaborative Program.

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

hydrologic technician in the New Mexico Water Science Center, who performed the discharge 

measurements for the seepage investigation.
iv

Contents

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

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

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................2

Description of the Study Area ..........................................................................................................10

Rio Grande Inner Valley Alluvial Aquifer................................................................................10

Santa Fe Group Aquifer System ..............................................................................................10

Previous Investigations......................................................................................................................10

Methods of Data Collection 

and Analysis....................................................................................................................................11

Piezometer Installation and Core Descriptions .............................................................................11

Water-Level and Temperature Data ................................................................................................11

Slug Tests .............................................................................................................................................19

Darcy’s Law..........................................................................................................................................19

Suzuki-Stallman Method ...................................................................................................................20

Limitations and Assumptions...................................................................................................23

Range of Applicability ......................................................................................................23

Flow Direction ...................................................................................................................23

Aquifer Heterogeneity .....................................................................................................24

Variable Recharge ............................................................................................................24

Spatial Aliasing .................................................................................................................24

Surface Temperature Variations ....................................................................................24

Temperature Dependence of Hydraulic Conductivity.................................................24

Uncertainty in Thermal Properties ................................................................................24

Data Error...........................................................................................................................25

Groundwater Hydrology..............................................................................................................................25

Hydraulic Conductivity.......................................................................................................................25

Groundwater Levels and Temperatures..........................................................................................25

Conceptual Model...............................................................................................................................50

Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande........................................................50

Horizontal Hydraulic Gradients .......................................................................................................50

Darcy Flux.............................................................................................................................................51

Heat-Transport Modeling ..................................................................................................................53

Model Comparison .............................................................................................................................58

Riverside Drain Seepage Investigation...........................................................................................58

Summary........................................................................................................................................................60

References ...................................................................................................................................................63
v

Figures

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

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

2. Map showing groundwater-level-elevation contours in the Santa Fe Group

aquifer in the Albuquerque area and estimated groundwater-level declines

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

3a. Map showing location of piezometer nests and surface-water gages and

water-table contours showing direction of groundwater flow at the

Paseo del Norte transects, November 13, 2008.......................................................................5

4. Diagram showing of sets of piezometers used to compute daily mean

hydraulic gradients on each side of the Rio Grande for each paired transect................21

5. Graph showing type curves for the Suzuki-Stallman method, showing values

of the parameters a and b as a function of specific flux......................................................23

6. Boxplot showing summary of hydraulic conductivities estimated from slug

tests conducted at selected locations in the Rio Grande inner valley

alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New Mexico...........................................................................26

7a. Hydrographs showing daily mean stage of the Rio Grande and

riverside drains and daily mean groundwater levels in piezometers

at Paseo Del Norte transect 1 ..................................................................................................28

8a. Graph showing daily mean water temperature in the Rio Grande and

riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperature in piezometers at

Paseo del Norte transect 1 .......................................................................................................39

9. Graph showing vertical temperature profiles in piezometers, winter

nonirrigation season, October 2008, January 2009, and February 2009 ............................49

10. Graph showing conceptual model of groundwater flow from the Rio Grande

through the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer ............................................................51

11. Graph showing daily mean Rio Grande stage and daily mean Darcy fluxes

calculated from hydraulic gradients and hydraulic conductivities from

slug tests,and from hydraulic gradients and a range of hydraulic conductivities ..........52

12. Boxplot showing summary of mean annual specific flux through the Rio Grande

inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New Mexico, calculated

using Suzuki-Stallman method .................................................................................................57
vi

Tables

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

Rio Grande inner valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico............................................................12

2. Summary of Bouwer and Rice (1976) and Butler (1998) slug-test results

from piezometers in the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer,

Albuquerque, New Mexico .......................................................................................................27

3. Median annual magnitude of groundwater horizontal hydraulic gradient

and direction of groundwater flow at piezometer transects, Rio Grande

inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2006–9.......................................38

4. Suzuki-Stallman results for horizontal flux between temperature

time-series pairs in the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer,

Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2006–8.........................................................................................54

5. Comparison of Darcy's law and Suzuki-Stallman calculations

of horizontal groundwater flux in the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial

aquifer, Albuquerque, New Mexico.........................................................................................59

6. Seepage investigation discharge measurements in the Corrales and

Albuquerque Riverside drains, Albuquerque, New Mexico, February 26, 2009...............59
vii

 Conversion Factors and Datums

Multiply 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

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2

)

square mile (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L) 

gallon (gal) 0.003785 cubic meter (m3

) 

cubic foot (ft3

) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) 

Flow rate

foot per day (ft/d)

foot per second (ft/s)

0.3048

0.3048

meter per day (m/d)

meter per second (m/s)

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)

gallon per minute (gal/min) 0.06309 liter per second (L/s)

gallons per day (gal/d) 0.003785 cubic meter per day (m3

/d)

inch per year (in/yr) 25.4 millimeter per year (mm/yr)

Temperature

degree Fahrenheit (o

F) oF-32/1.8 degree Celsius (oC)

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 (International 

Steam Table Calorie) per cubic 

foot degree Fahrenheit (BTUIT

ft-3 °F-1)

67070 joule per cubic meter Kelvin (J m-3 K-1)

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

(NAVD 88) and 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, 2003–9

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

Kimberly M. Bandy-Baldwin4

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, 

PO Box 441136, Moscow, ID, 83844

4

Colorado School of Mines, Department of Geology and Geological 

Engineering, 1516 Illinois St., Golden, CO, 80401

Abstract

The Albuquerque, New Mexico, area has two principal 

sources of water: groundwater from the Santa Fe Group 

aquifer system and surface water from the San JuanChama Diversion Project. From 1960 to 2002, groundwater 

withdrawals from the Santa Fe Group aquifer system have 

caused water levels to decline more than 120 feet in some 

places within the Albuquerque area, resulting 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, the Middle Rio Grande 

Endangered Species Collaborative Program, and the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers began a detailed characterization 

of the hydrogeology of the Rio Grande riparian corridor in 

the Albuquerque, New Mexico, area to provide hydrologic 

data and 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 

the riverside drains. 

A simple conceptual model of flow indicates that the 

groundwater table gently slopes from the Rio Grande towards 

riverside drains and the outer boundaries of the inner valley. 

Water infiltrating from the Rio Grande initially moves 

vertically below the river, but, as flow spreads farther into 

the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, flow becomes 

primarily horizontal. The slope of the water-table surface may 

be strongly controlled by the riverside drains and influenced 

by other more distal hydrologic boundary conditions, such as 

groundwater withdrawals by wells. 

Results from 35 slug tests performed in the Rio Grande 

inner valley alluvial aquifer during January and February 

2009 indicate that hydraulic-conductivity values ranged from 

5 feet per day to 160 feet per day with a median hydraulicconductivity for all transects of 40 feet per day. Median annual 

horizontal hydraulic gradients in the Rio Grande inner valley 

alluvial aquifer ranged from 0.011 to 0.002. 

Groundwater fluxes through the alluvial aquifer 

calculated by using median slug-test results (qslug) and Darcy’s 

law ranged from about 0.1 feet per day to about 0.7 feet per 

day. Groundwater fluxes calculated by using the SuzukiStallman method (qheat) ranged from 0.52 feet per day to 

0.23 feet per day.

Results from the Darcy’s law and Suzuki-Stallman flux 

calculations were compared to discharge measured in riverside 

drains on both sides of the river north of the Montaño Bridge 

on February 26, 2009. Flow in the Corrales Riverside Drain 

increased by 1.4 cubic feet per second from mile 2 to mile 4, 

about 12 cubic feet per day per linear foot of drain. Flow in the 

Albuquerque Riverside Drain increased by 15 cubic feet per 

second between drain miles 0 and 3, about 82 cubic feet per 

day per linear foot of drain. 

The flux of water from the river to the aquifer was 

calculated to be 2.2 cubic feet per day per linear foot of river 

by using the median qslug of 0.09 feet per day at Montaño 

transects west of the river. The total flux was calculated to 

be 6.0 cubic feet per day per linear foot of river by using 

the mean qheat of 0.24 feet per day for the Montaño transects 

west of the river. Assuming the Corrales Riverside Drain 

intercepted all of this flow, the qslug or qheat fluxes account 

for 18 to 50 percent, respectively, of the increase of flow in 

the drain. The flux of water from the river to the aquifer was 

calculated to be 15 cubic feet per day per linear foot of river 

by using the median qslug of 0.30 feet per day at the Montaño 

transects east of the river. The flux of water from the river 

to the aquifer was calculated to be 17 cubic feet per day per 

linear foot of river by using the mean flux calculated from the 
2 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

Suzuki-Stallman method for the Montaño East transects of 

0.34 feet per day. Assuming the Albuquerque Riverside Drain 

intercepted all this flow, the qslug or qheat fluxes would only 

account for 18 to 21 percent, respectively, of the increase in 

flow in the drain. 

The comparison of these results with those of previous 

investigations suggests that calculated flux through the 

Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer is strongly scale 

dependent and that the thickness of aquifer through which 

river water flows may be greater than indicated by the vertical 

temperature profiles. 

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 approximately 

535,000 people in 2000, the Albuquerque area accounts for 

29 percent of the State’s population (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2000). Currently (2009), there are two principal sources of 

water for municipal, domestic, commercial, and industrial 

uses in this area: groundwater from the Santa Fe Group 

aquifer system, and surface water from the San Juan-Chama 

Diversion Project. The Rio Grande, which extends the length 

of New Mexico, is the principal source of water for irrigated 

agriculture (McAda, 1996). Estimates indicated that from 

1960 to 2002, groundwater withdrawals from the Santa Fe 

Group aquifer system have caused water levels to decline 

more than 120 feet (ft) in some places within the Albuquerque 

area (Bexfield and Anderholm, 2002 and fig. 2). This has 

resulted in a great deal of interest in quantifying the riveraquifer interaction associated with the Rio Grande. 

The aquifer system (middle Tertiary to Quaternary age) 

in the Albuquerque area consists of the Santa Fe Group aquifer 

and the post-Santa Fe Group (Quaternary age) Rio Grande 

inner valley alluvial aquifer (alluvial aquifer). The Santa Fe 

Group aquifer system is hydraulically connected to the Rio 

Grande (McAda, 1996) where fluvial gravel, sand, silt, and 

clay deposits form a thin but extensive aquifer zone below 

the Rio Grande flood plain (Hawley and Whitworth, 1996). 

The post-Santa Fe Group Rio Grande inner valley alluvial 

aquifer is composed of channel, flood plain, terrace, 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) to estimate the flux between the Rio Grande and the 

Santa Fe Group aquifer system. Currently, a basin-scale 

groundwater model is used in the assessment of surface 

stream depletion (Barroll, 2001). In contrast to previous 

more regional-scale studies, a study was designed to focus 

on the upper 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), the 

Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative 

Program (MRGESCP), and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) began a detailed characterization of 

the hydrogeology of the Rio Grande riparian corridor in the 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, area to provide hydrologic data 

and 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 the riverside drains. Beginning in late 2003 through 

2006, a total of 10 east-west trending hydrologic transects 

were installed along both sides of the Rio Grande through 

the Albuquerque area at five selected locations (fig. 1). Each 

location consisted 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 

(figs. 3a, 3c-3e), piezometers were installed at various 

distances outside the drains. Surface-water-stage 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. Two 

methods are presented to quantify the rate of groundwater 

flux at depths less than 30 ft. 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 are used to 

model annual groundwater-temperature changes within the 

aquifer resulting from river leakage. Temperature models 

provide additional detail on rates of groundwater flux with 

depth and distance from the river in the Albuquerque area. 

Purpose and Scope

This report documents the collection and analysis of 

geologic, groundwater, and surface-water data from the 

inner valley of the Albuquerque area. The data are used to 

describe the groundwater hydrology of the Rio Grande inner 

valley alluvial aquifer and to estimate horizontal groundwater 

flux from the Rio Grande to the riverside drains. The report 

presents a simple conceptual model of groundwater flow 

and a comparison of groundwater-flux results derived 

from two methods: Darcy’s law and the Suzuki-Stallman 

solution of heat transport in an aquifer. Data used in this report 

were collected from 10 transects located near the Paseo del 

Norte, Montaño, Barelas, Rio Bravo, and I-25 bridges 

(fig. 1). Groundwater and surface-water levels, temperature 

and slug-test data, seepage measurements, and core samples 

were collected from December 2003 to early 2009. 
Introduction 3

106°42' 106°39' 106°36'

35°12'

35°09'

35°06'

35°03'

35°00'

34°57'

0 1 2 3 4 5 MILES

0 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS

Base from New Mexico Geospatial Data Acquisition Coordination Committee 

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

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 13 North,

North American Datum of 1983

Cochiti

San Acacia

Bernalillo

Bernalillo

bridge

crossing

Corrales

Discharge measurement location

EXPLANATION

Approximate boundary of the inner valley

Rio Bravo Bridge

I-25 bridge

Calabacillas

Tijeras Arroyo

North Diversion Channel

Arroyo

I-25

I-40

Coors Blvd.

Central Ave.

Paseo del Norte

Montaño Road

Rio Bravo Blvd.

Rio Grande Blvd.

Bridge Blvd.

Alameda Blvd.

Coors

Bypass

Avenida Cesar Chavez

Coors Blvd.

I-25

Atrisco

Corrales

Drain

Riverside

Albuquerque

Drain

Riverside

Drain

Riverside

I-25 Transects

Rio Bravo 

Transects

Barelas

Transects

 Montaño

 Transects

Paseo del Norte

Transects

Rio Grande

NEW

MEXICO

Bernalillo

Study County area Rio Grande

Albuquerque

area Transect 1

Transect 2

Transect 1

Transect 2

Transect 1

Transect 2

Transect 2

Transect 1

Transect 2

Transect 1

Upper Corrales

Riverside Drain

Paseo del Norte Bridge

Montaño Bridge

Barelas Bridge

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

3

3 Drain mile

C

C

Rio Grande at Alameda, NM

streamflow gaging station

Rio Grande at Albuquerque, NM

streamflow gaging station

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 at Selected Locations

SANDOVAL COUNTY

BERNALILLO COUNTY

Tijeras

Arroyo

Arroyo

de

las Calabacillas

Grande

Rio

MONTAÑO

TRANSECTS

40

40

25

25

SANDIA

INDIAN

RESERVATION

CIBOLA

NATIONAL

FOREST

CIBOLA

NATIONAL

FOREST

KIRTLAND

AIR FORCE

BASE

ISLETA INDIAN RESERVATION

CIBOLA NATIONAL FOREST

Rio Rancho

Corrales

Sandia Pueblo

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

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

ALBUQUERQUE

Water-level contour Interval 20 feet. Dashed where

 inferred. Datum is NGVD 29

4930

EXPLANATION

Estimated water-level decline, 

 in feet, 1960 to 2002

0 to 20

20 to 40

40 to 60

60 to 80

80 to 100

100 to 120

More than 120

No decline

Decline not estimated

Generalized direction of groundwater flow

I-25 TRANSECTS

RIO BRAVO 

TRANSECTS

BARELAS 

TRANSECTS

PASEO DEL NORTE 

TRANSECTS

35°00’

10°’

35°15’

106°45’ 40°’ 35°’ 106°30’

5°’

0 2 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS

4,890

5,010

4,990

4,990

4,970

4,970

4,950

4,950

4,930

4,930

4,910

4,890

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

4,910

4,930

4,950

4,930

Figure 2. Groundwater-level-elevation contours in the Santa Fe Group aquifer in the Albuquerque area and estimated groundwaterlevel declines from 1960 to 2002.
4

98

4,982 4,986 4,985 4,984 4,983 4,987 4,988 4,987 4,986 4,984 4,983 4,982 4,981 4,980 4,9794,9854,988

4,989 

4,989

4,978.84 

4,984.58 4,985.10 4,986.91

4,987.88 

4,985.97 4,988.19

4,985.69 4,986.17

4,987.54

4,988.44

4,988.71 4,985.02 4,98

4,989.00

no data

Corrales 

Riverside 

 Drain

Paseo del Norte Bridge

PS2 

PS3

P10

P9 P8a

P7

P6 P5 P4

P

P18 P17a

P16

P15

P14 P13

ab

ab

ab

ab

ab

ab

ac

abc

ab

ab

ab

Albuquerque 

Riverside Drain

106°39'40" 106°39'30" 106°39'20" 106°39'10" 106°39'00" 

35°11'00"35°10'50"

0 20

0 

Figure 3a. Location of piezometer nests and surface-water gages and water-table contours showing direction of groundwater flow at the Paseo del Norte transects, November 13, 2008.

Transect 1

Transect 2

EXPLANATION

 Direction of groundwater flow Water-table contour—Interval is 1 foot.  Dashed where inferred. Datum is NAVD 88 Surface-water gage, identifier, and mean daily hydraulic head, in feet above NAVD 88 Piezometer(s), identifiers(s), and mean daily  hydraulic head in shallow piezometer, in feet above NAVD 88a Shallowb Mid-depthc Deep

4,980

PS2

4,989.00

P13

4,985.02

Base from New Mexico Geospatial Data Acquisition Coordination Committee digital orthophoto data, 2006, 1:12,000Universal Transverse Mercator projectionZone 13, North American Datum of 1983

Figure 3a. Location of piezometer nests and surface-water gages and water-table contours showing direction of groundwater flow at the Paseo del November 13, 2008.
6 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

106°41'00" 106°40'50" 106°40'40" 106°40'30"

35°9'00"

35°8'50"

35°8'40"

0 200 400 600 FEET

0 100 200 METERS

4,970

4,974

4,973

4,972

4,971

4,972

4,971

4,970

4,969

4,968.68

4,971.09

4,972.10

4,973.87

4,971.70

4,969.38

4,968.84

4,970.70

4,972.18

4,974.21

4,972.96

4,969.57

no data

 no data

4,974.64

no data

4,968.44

Corrales 

Riverside Drain

Albuquerque 

Riverside Drain

MS3

M9

M8a

M7

M6

M5

M4

M3

M12

M18 M17a

M16

M15

M14

M13

a

b

a

b

a

b

a

b

a

b

a

b

a

b

c a

b

a

b

a

b

c

a

b

a

b

c

MS2

MS1

Montaño Bridge

Transect 1

Transect 2

Figure 3b. Location piezometer nests,and surface-water gages and water-table contours showing direction 

of groundwater flow at the Montaño transects, February 7, 2008.

Base from New Mexico Geospatial Data Acquisition 

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

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 13, North American Datum of 1983

EXPLANATION

Direction of groundwater flow

 Water-table contour—Interval is 1 foot. 

 Dashed where inferred. Datum is NAVD 88

 Surface-water gage, identifier, and mean daily

 hydraulic head, in feet above NAVD 88

 Piezometer(s), identifiers(s), and mean daily hydraulic head 

 in shallow piezometer, in feet above NAVD 88

a Shallow

b Mid-depth

c Deep

4,969

MS3

4,974.64

M4

4,971.09

Figure 3b. Location of piezometer nests and surface-water gages and water-table contours showing direction of groundwater flow at 

the Montaño transects, February 7, 2008.
Introduction 7

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

35°4'10"

35°4'00"

0 200 400 600 FEET

0 100 200 METERS

Transect 1

Transect 2

Barelas Bridge

4,934.75 4,939.05

4,937.94 4,933.44 4,936.28

4,933.11

4,936.45

4,935.90 4,933.67 4,938.34 4,938.36

4,935.82

4,932.60

no data

4,937.12

4,940.16

no data

 no data

 no data

4,932.65

Atrisco Riverside Drain

Albuquerque Riverside Drain

4,934

4,937

4,938 4,939

4,935

4,936

4,939

4,938

4,937

4,936

4,935

4,934

4,940

4,940

4,933

4,933

Figure 3c. Location of piezometer nests and surface-water gages and water-table contours showing 

direction of groundwater flow at the Barelas transects, February 7, 2008.

BS1

B10

B9a

B7 B6

B5

B4 B3

B11a

B12

B17

B18a

B16

B15

B14 B13

B2a

a

b

a

b a

b

a

b

a

b

a

b

c

a

b a

b

a

b

c

a

b

c

a

b

c

B8 a

b

a

b

c

BS2

BS3

Base from New Mexico Geospatial Data Acquisition 

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

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 13, North American Datum of 1983

EXPLANATION

 Direction of groundwater flow

 Water-table contour—Interval is 1 foot. 

 Dashed where inferred. Datum is NAVD 88

 Surface-water gage, identifier, and mean daily

 hydraulic head, in feet above NAVD 88

 Piezometer(s), identifiers(s), and mean daily hydraulic head 

 in shallow piezometer, in feet above NAVD 88

a Shallow

b Mid-depth

c Deep

4,933

BS3

4,932.65

B16

4,935.82

Figure 3c. Location of piezometer nests and surface-water gages and water-table contours showing direction of groundwater flow at 

the Barelas transects, February 7, 2008.
106°40'40" 106°40'30" 106°40'20" 106°40'10" 106°40'00" 

35°01'50" 35°01'40" 0 200 

0 10

Transect 2 Transect 1 4,925 4,9244,923 4,9224,921

4,924

4,925

4,923

4,923

4,920 4,919 4,918 4,922

4,925.01

4,924.28

4,923.04

4,921.04

4,925.44

4,924.81

4,923.75

4,921.34

4,923.59

4,924.47 4,921.57

4,925.46

no data,

4,925.76

 no data

no data

4,922.81 4,921.30

no data

4,922.28

4,921.17

4,924.11 

RS1

ab

abc

R2a

ac

R3

R4

R5 a

bc

RS3

R6

R7 a

bc

R9a

RS4

R8 a

c

R10 a

c

R11a

RS2

ab

R13 a R12

b

R14 a c

b

R15 a

b

abc

R16

R17a

b

RS5

R18a

Figure 3d. Location of piezometer nests and surface-water gages and water-table contours showing the direof groundwater flow at the Rio Bravo transects, February 7, 2008.

Base from New Mexico Geospatial Data Acquisition Coordination Committee digital orthophoto data, 2006, 1:12,000Universal Transverse Mercator projectionZone 13, North American Datum of 1983

Rio Bravo Bridge

Atrisco

Riverside Drain Albuquerque Riverside Drain

EXPLANATION

 Direction of groundwater flow Water-table contour—Interval is 1 foot.  Dashed where inferred. Datum is NAVD 88. Surface-water gage, identifier, and mean daily hydraulic head, in feet above NAVD 88 Piezometer(s), identifiers(s), and mean daily hydraulic head in shallow piezometer, in feet above NAVD 88a Shallowb Mid-depthc Deep

4,925

RS1

4,921.17

R5

4,924.11

Figure 3d. Location of piezometer nests and surface-water gages and water-table contours showing direction of groundwathe Rio Bravo transects, February 7, 2008.
106°41'10" 106°41'00" 106°40'50" 106°40'40" 

34°57'10"34°57'00"

0 200 4

0 100 

Transect 1

Transect 2

4,898.55

4,899.00 4,900.62 4,901.79

4,902.09

4,899.51

no data 4,902.54

4,898.46

4,898.01

4,899.15

4899.97

4,898.64

4,898.05

no data

4,899.59 4,900.31

no data

ab

I2

IS1

I3 a

abc

I4

I5a

b

abc

ab

IS2

I6

I7

IS3 I10

I8

abc

ab

I17a

b

I16 a I15

bc

ab

I14 I13

I12

a I11b

abc

ab

a

4,899 4,900

4,901 4,902

4,9024,900 4,901

4,899

Figure 3e. Location of piezometer nests and surface-water gages and water-table contours showing thdirection of groundwater flow at the I-25 transects, February 7, 2008.

I-25 bridge crossing

Base from New Mexico Geospatial Data Acquisition Coordination Committee digital orthophoto data, 2006, 1:12,000Universal Transverse Mercator projectionZone 13, North American Datum of 1983

Atrisco Riverside

Drain

Drain Albuquerque Riverside

EXPLANATIONDirection of groundwater flow

 Water-table contour—Interval is 1 foot.  Dashed where inferred. Datum is NAVD 88. Surface-water gage, identifier, and mean daily hydraulic head, in feet above NAVD 88 Piezometer(s), identifiers(s), and mean daily hydraulic head  in shallow piezometer, in feet above NAVD 88a Shallowb Mid-depthc Deep

4,902

IS1

4,898.46

I4

4,899.15

Figure 3e. Location of piezometer nests and surface-water gages and water-table contours showing direction of groundwathe I-25 transects, February 7, 2008.
10 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

Description of the Study Area

The study area extends about 18 miles (mi) along the 

Rio Grande in the Albuquerque area from the Paseo del 

Norte bridge to the I-25 bridge (fig. 1). 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 inner valley is 

approximately 2-3 mi wide and slopes about 5-6 feet per mile 

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

Grande has a densely vegetated riparian area that supports a 

variety of biological communities. The riverside drains are 

ditches generally separated from the river by levees that are 

designed to intercept lateral groundwater flow from the river 

and prevent waterlogged-soil conditions east and west of the 

inner valley. Seepage to the riverside drains constitutes one of 

the main sources of groundwater discharge from the shallow 

alluvium (Kernodle and others, 1995). 

Rio Grande Inner Valley Alluvial Aquifer

The Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer consists of 

coarse-grained axial channel deposits and post-Santa Fe Group 

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 lens-shaped interbeds of fine-grain 

sand, silt, and clay (Connell and others, 2007). These deposits 

form an extensive shallow aquifer along the Rio Grande in 

the Albuquerque area and represent the last cut-and-fill cycle 

of the expansion of the Rio Grande fluvial system. Hawley 

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

deposits may be as much as 120 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). 

The alluvial aquifer is overlain by and interfingers with valley 

border deposits of late Pleistocene and Holocene age derived 

from the major tributary drainages. The top of this unit has 

formed through deposition and includes the flood plain and 

channel of the Rio Grande. 

Santa Fe Group Aquifer System

The Santa Fe Group aquifer system, which underlies the 

alluvial aquifer, is composed primarily of gravel, sand, silt, 

and clay. Most of these sediments were transported into faultbounded basins of the Rio Grande by rivers and drainages 

from surrounding areas (Bartolino and Cole, 2002). The 

spatial distribution of sedimentary facies of these deposits 

tends to be complex and three-dimensional rather than a 

simple, layered system (Bartolino and Cole, 2002). 

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 comprise 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 

to 1986 and briefly described groundwater/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. 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-temperature profiles and 

groundwater levels 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. 

The projected movement of groundwater in the 

Albuquerque area has been described by Kernodle and 

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

simulated historic and hypothetical groundwater flow in 

the Santa Fe Group aquifer system. Water-level declines 

in the Santa Fe Group aquifer have been estimated by 

Bexfield and Anderholm (2002); the authors report that 

contours of water-level data collected from 1999 to 2002 

indicate that groundwater-flow direction in the Albuquerque 
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 11

area has changed significantly since 1961 because of 

increased pumping. 

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 single measurements of water 

levels 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 either been 

very site-specific (Bartolino and Niswonger, 1999) or have 

been more regional in nature (McAda and Barroll, 2002). 

The study described in this report was designed to provide 

geohydrologic data and interpretations at a higher spatial 

resolution over a longer reach of the Rio Grande than has been 

provided by previous studies. Additionally, this study focuses 

on the geohydrology of the upper part of the alluvial aquifer.

Methods of Data Collection 

and Analysis

Piezometer Installation and Core Descriptions

Piezometers and surface-water gages were installed in 

paired transects near five bridges in the Albuquerque area 

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

(multiple monitoring wells with screen openings at different 

depths) and surface-water-stage gages configured in roughly 

straight lines and oriented perpendicular to the river and 

riverside drains (fig. 3). 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 to 50 ft and the mid-depth piezometer 

screen at 30 to 35 ft. The shallow piezometer screen typically 

was installed at 5 to 10 ft to intersect the expected range 

in seasonal depths to the water table. The deep piezometer 

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—the capital letter and number indicate location, and 

the small letter indicates piezometer depth (a, shallow; b, middepth; and c, deep). Each surface-water gage is labeled—the 

first capital letter and number indicate location, and the second 

capital letter (S) indicates a surface-water gage (fig. 3).

Piezometers were installed using direct-push drilling 

technology. 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. 

Continuous subsurface core samples were collected at 

each transect from 2004 to 2006 by using direct-push drilling 

technology. 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, 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. Core descriptions 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.

Water-Level and Temperature Data

Groundwater and surface-water levels were measured 

in piezometers and surface-water bodies for this study. 

Submersible water-pressure sensors (transducers) were 

installed in each piezometer to measure and record hourly 

groundwater levels; some of the transducers also were capable 

of recording hourly temperatures. Surface-water-stage 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 164 piezometers and 

17 surface-water gages were installed; the number of 

piezometers and surface-water gages in each set of transects 

varied for each location.
Table 1. Site data for piezometers and surface-water data collection sites, Rio Grande inner valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico. [S, surface-water stage gage; B, Barelas; I, I-25; M, Montaño; P, Paseo del Norte; R, Rio Bravo; a, shallow piezometer; b, mid-depth piezometer; c, deep piezometer; MP, measuNAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988] Other identifier (fig. 3a-e) Site identifier Piezometer depth (feet below land surface, rounded to nearest foot) Screened interval (feet below land surface, rounded to nearest foot) Land surface1 or MP2 elevation (feet above NAVD 88) Period of record presented in this report Ty

Start Date End Date p

Paseo del Norte transects P2a 351055106385101 22 12-17 4994.53 Uninstrumented during study 

P2b 351055106385102 40 30-35 4994.53 11/07/2007 03/04/2009 

P3a 351054106385401 25 15-20 4992.11 11/07/2007 03/04/2009 P4a 351054106390101 16 6-11 4993.29 11/07/2007 03/04/2009 P4b 351054106390102 35 25-30 4993.29 11/07/2007 03/04/2009 P5a 351054106390401 16 6-11 4993.53 11/07/2007 03/04/2009 P5b 351054106390402 35 25-30 4993.53 11/07/2007 03/04/2009 P6a 351055106391101 16 6-11 4992.03 11/07/2007 03/04/2009 P6b 351055106391102 31 21-26 4992.03 11/07/2007 03/04/2009 P7a 351054106391301 16 6-11 4993.47 11/07/2007 03/04/2009 P7b 351054106391302 31 21-26 4993.47 11/07/2007 03/04/2009 P8a 351052106391701 16 6-11 4990.86 11/07/2007 03/04/2009 P9a 351053106391701 23 13-18 4996.34 11/07/2007 03/04/2009 P9b 351053106391702 27 17-22 4996.34 11/07/2007 03/04/2009 P10a 351050106394001 22 12-17 4991.09 11/13/2007 03/04/2009 P10c 351050106394002 46 36-41 4991.09 Uninstrumented during study P11a 351059106385201 22 12-17 4991.37 10/17/2008 03/03/2009 P11b 351059106385202 37 27-32 4991.37 10/17/2008 03/03/2009 P12a 351059106385301 22 12-17 4991.77 10/17/2008 03/03/2009 P13a 351058106385901 17 7-12 4993.36 10/17/2008 03/03/2009 P13b 351058106385902 32 22-27 4993.36 10/17/2008 03/03/2009 P13c 351058106385903 52 42-47 4993.36 10/17/2008 03/03/2009 P14a 351058106390301 15 5-10 4993.76 10/17/2008 03/03/2009 P14b 351058106390302 30 20-25 4993.76 10/17/2008 03/03/2009 P15a 351058106391001 16 6-11 4992.33 10/15/2008 03/03/2009 P15b 351058106391002 31 21-26 4992.33 10/15/2008 03/03/2009 
Other

identifier

(fig. 3a-e) Site identifier

Piezometer depth

(feet below land 

surface, rounded 

to nearest foot)

Screened interval

(feet below land 

surface, rounded to 

nearest foot)

Land surface1

or MP2 elevation

(feet above NAVD 88)

Period of record presented in this 

report

Ty

Start Date End Date p

Paseo del Norte transects—Continued

P16a 351058106391101 16 6-11 4993.26 10/15/2008 03/03/2009 

P16b 351058106391102 40 30-35 4993.26 10/15/2008 03/03/2009 P17a 351058106391501 16 6-11 4989.73 10/15/2008 03/03/2009 P18a 351058106391601 20 10-15 4991.50 10/15/2008 03/03/2009 P18b 351058106391602 35 25-30 4991.50 10/15/2008 03/03/2009 PS1 351054106385310 na na 4984.21 10/17/2008 03/04/2009 PS2 351055106390810 na na 4993.49 10/15/2008 03/04/2009 PS3 351053106391710 na na 4989.62 10/15/2008 03/04/2009 

Montaño transects

M3a 350843106402801 17 7-12 4974.14 12/05/2005 10/31/2008 M3b 350843106402802 31 21-26 4974.14 12/05/2005 08/22/2006 M4a 350842106403101 15 5-10 4978.85 01/09/2006 10/31/2008 M4b 350842106403102 30 20-25 4978.85 06/13/2005 10/31/2008 M4c 350842106403103 49 39-44 4978.85 06/13/2005 10/31/2008 M5a 350842106403201 15 5-10 4978.20 01/09/2006 10/31/2008 M5b 350842106403202 32 22-27 4978.20 06/13/2005 10/31/2008 M6a 350848106404703 13 3-8 4978.86 10/12/2005 10/31/2008 M6b 350848106404704 28 18-23 4978.86 10/12/2005 10/31/2008 M7a 350848106404701 15 5-10 4977.89 10/12/2005 10/31/2008 M7b 350848106404702 30 20-25 4977.89 10/12/2005 10/31/2008 M8a 350852106405601 16 6-11 4979.78 10/12/2005 01/24/2007 M9a 350853106405701 15 5-10 4977.39 10/12/2005 10/31/2008 M9b 350853106405702 30 20-25 4977.39 06/13/2005 10/31/2008 M12a 350847106402501 17 7-12 4977.26 01/09/2006 11/03/2008 M12b 350847106402502 32 22-27 4977.26 01/09/2006 10/31/2008 U

08/2

M13a 350846106402801 16 6-11 4977.37 03/16/2007 10/31/2008 M13b 350846106402802 31 21-26 4977.37 01/09/2006 10/31/2008 M13c 350846106402803 47 37-42 4977.37 01/09/2006 10/31/2008 
Table 1. Site data for piezometers and surface-water data collection sites, Rio Grande inner valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.—Continued Other identifier (fig. 3a-e) Site identifier Piezometer depth (feet below land surface, rounded to nearest foot) Screened interval (feet below land surface, rounded to nearest foot) Land surface1 or MP2 elevation (feet above NAVD 88) Period of record presented in this report Ty

Start Date End Date p

Montaño transects—Continued M14a 350846106402804 18 8-13 4979.83 11/17/2006 10/31/2008 

M14b 350846106402805 33 23-28 4979.83 01/13/2006 04/29/2008 M15a 350851106403801 13 3-8 4977.80 02/01/2006 10/31/2008 

M15b 350851106403802 28 18-23 4977.80 02/01/2006 10/31/2008 

M16a 350854106404201 17 7-12 4978.62 02/01/2006 10/31/2008 M16b 350854106404202 32 22-27 4978.62 02/01/2006 10/31/2008 M16c 350854106404203 46 36-41 4978.62 02/01/2006 10/31/2008 M17a 350855106405401 18 8-13 4978.88 02/01/2006 01/26/2007 M18a 350857106405401 18 8-13 4978.17 02/01/2006 10/31/2008 M18b 350857106405402 33 23-28 4978.17 02/01/2006 10/31/2008 MS1 350846106402510 na na 4972.61 06/20/2006 10/31/2008 

MS2 350841106403510 na na 4978.52 06/20/2006 07/22/2008 

MS3 350854106405610 na na 4979.11 06/20/2006 10/31/2008 

B2a 350403106392201 16 6-11 4940.68 10/30/2008 03/10/2009 

Barelas transects B3a 350403106392301 15 5-10 4941.86 10/07/2005 03/10/2009 

B3b 350403106392302 30 20-25 4941.86 06/13/2005 03/10/2009 

B4a 350402106392601 16 6-11 4942.18 10/07/2005 03/10/2009 

B4b 350402106392602 31 21-26 4942.18 06/13/2005 10/30/2008 

B4c 350402106392603 52 42-47 4942.18 06/13/2005 03/10/2009 

B5a 350402106392901 15 5-10 4943.08 10/07/2005 03/10/2009 

B5b 350402106392902 30 20-25 4943.08 06/13/2005 10/30/2008 

B6a 350400106393701 17 7-12 4942.40 10/07/2005 03/10/2009 

B6b 350400106393702 32 22-27 4942.40 06/13/2005 03/10/2009 

B7a 350359106393901 17 7-12 4943.03 10/07/2005 03/10/2009 

B7b 350359106393902 32 22-27 4943.03 04/21/2005 10/22/2008 

B7c 350359106393903 52 42-47 4943.03 04/21/2005 03/10/2009 

B8a 350359106394401 16 6-11 4940.23 10/05/2005 03/10/2009 

B8b 350359106394402 34 24-29 4940.23 04/21/2005 10/22/2008 

[S, surface-water stage gage; B, Barelas; I, I-25; M, Montaño; P, Paseo del Norte; R, Rio Bravo; a, shallow piezometer; b, mid-depth piezometer; c, deep piezometer; MP, measuNAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988]
Other

identifier

(fig. 3a-e) Site identifier

Piezometer depth

(feet below land 

surface, rounded 

to nearest foot)

Screened interval

(feet below land 

surface, rounded to 

nearest foot)

Land surface1

or MP2 elevation

(feet above NAVD 88)

Period of record presented in this 

report

Ty

Start Date End Date p

Barelas transects—Continued

B9a 350359106394501 20 10-15 4943.21 Uninstrumented during study B10a 350354106395201 17 7-12 4940.77 06/27/2005 03/10/2009 

B10b 350354106395202 32 22-27 4940.77 07/13/2005 03/10/2009 B10c 350354106395203 48 38-43 4940.77 07/13/2005 03/10/2009 B11a 350358106392201 16 6-11 4939.91 10/31/2008 03/10/2009 B12a 350358106392301 16 6-11 4939.88 02/01/2006 03/10/2009 B12b 350358106392302 31 21-26 4939.88 02/01/2006 03/10/2009 B13a 350358106392601 15 5-10 4941.91 01/30/2006 03/10/2009 B13b 350358106392602 30 20-25 4941.91 01/30/2006 03/10/2009 B13c 350358106392603 40 30-35 4941.91 01/30/2006 03/10/2009 B14a 350357106392901 15 5-10 4943.41 01/30/2006 03/10/2009 B14b 350357106392902 30 20-25 4943.41 01/30/2006 03/10/2009 B15a 350356106393601 16 6-11 4943.14 01/30/2006 10/22/2008 B15b 350356106393602 31 21-26 4943.14 01/30/2006 01/15/2008 B16a 350356106393901 16 6-11 4943.59 01/30/2006 03/10/2009 B16b 350356106393902 31 21-26 4943.59 01/30/2006 03/10/2009 B16c 350356106393903 51 41-46 4943.59 01/30/2006 03/10/2009 B17a 350354106394201 16 6-11 4939.60 01/27/2006 03/10/2009 B17b 350354106394202 31 21-26 4939.60 01/30/2006 03/10/2009 B18a 350353106394301 20 10-15 4943.14 Uninstrumented during study BS1 350403106392410 na na 4942.04 06/21/2006 03/10/2009 BS2 350402106392810 na na 4942.86 06/21/2006 03/10/2009 BS3 350359106394410 na na 4935.89 06/21/2006 03/10/2009 R1a 350137106395101 27 17-22 4931.35 01/01/2004 10/27/2008 R1c 350137106395102 59 49-54 4931.35 01/01/2004 10/27/2008 

Rio Bravo transects

R2a 350141106400701 16 6-11 4927.27 10/28/2008 03/12/2009 R3a 350141106400801 17 7-12 4927.51 01/01/2004 03/12/2009 R3c 350141106400802 57 47-52 4927.51 01/01/2004 10/27/2008 
Table 1. Site data for piezometers and surface-water data collection sites, Rio Grande inner valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.—Continued Other identifier (fig. 3a-e) Site identifier Piezometer depth (feet below land surface, rounded to nearest foot) Screened interval (feet below land surface, rounded to nearest foot) Land surface1 or MP2 elevation (feet above NAVD 88) Period of record presented in this report Ty

Start Date End Date p

Rio Bravo transects—continued R4a 350138106401102 22 12-17 4929.91 01/01/2004 03/15/2009 

R4b 350138106401104 30 20-25 4929.91 07/12/2005 10/28/2008 R4c 350140106401701 56 46-51 4929.91 01/01/2004 03/15/2009 

R5a 350140106401704 19 9-14 4930.49 07/12/2005 03/15/2009 

R5b 350140106401703 30 20-25 4930.49 07/12/2005 03/15/2009 

R5c 350140106401702 54 44-49 4930.49 01/01/2004 04/14/2008 

R6a 350143106402401 15 5-10 4928.75 07/12/2005 03/15/2009 

R6b 350143106402402 30 20-25 4928.62 10/05/2005 03/15/2009 

R7a 350143106402503 15 5-10 4928.79 07/12/2005 03/15/2009 

R7b 350143106402501 35 25-30 4928.99 01/01/2004 08/15/2006 

R7c 350143106402502 54 44-49 4928.99 01/01/2004 03/15/2009 

R8a 350142106402701 15 5-10 4928.32 01/01/2004 03/12/2009 

R8c 350142106402702 50 40-45 4928.32 01/01/2004 03/12/2009 

R9a 350142106402801 14 4-9 4927.73 10/29/2008 03/12/2009 

R10a 350137106403501 30 20-25 4925.90 01/01/2004 03/12/2009 

R10c 350137106403502 49 39-44 4925.90 01/01/2004 03/12/2009 

R11a 350144106400703 18 8-13 4926.48 10/28/2008 03/12/2009 

R12a 350144106400701 16 6-11 4929.06 08/15/2006 03/12/2009 R12b 350144106400702 31 21-26 4929.06 08/15/2006 03/12/2009 R13a 350144106401101 15 5-10 4929.13 02/15/2005 03/15/2009 R13b 350144106401102 30 20-25 4929.13 02/16/2005 10/28/2008 R13c 350144106401103 56 46-51 4929.13 02/16/2005 03/15/2009 R14a 350146106401801 15 5-10 4929.92 01/25/2005 03/15/2009 

R14b 350146106401802 30 20-25 4929.69 01/25/2005 03/15/2009 

R15a 350147106402601 15 5-10 4929.77 10/05/2005 03/15/2009 

R15b 350147106402602 30 20-25 4929.77 06/02/2005 03/15/2009 

R16a 350147106402501 15 5-10 4928.70 10/05/2005 03/15/2009 

R16b 350147106402502 30 20-25 4928.70 06/02/2005 10/29/2008 

R16c 350147106402503 54 44-49 4928.70 06/02/2005 03/15/2009 

[S, surface-water stage gage; B, Barelas; I, I-25; M, Montaño; P, Paseo del Norte; R, Rio Bravo; a, shallow piezometer; b, mid-depth piezometer; c, deep piezometer; MP, measuNAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988]
Other

identifier

(fig. 3a-e) Site identifier

Piezometer depth

(feet below land 

surface, rounded 

to nearest foot)

Screened interval

(feet below land 

surface, rounded to 

nearest foot)

Land surface1

or MP2 elevation

(feet above NAVD 88)

Period of record presented in this 

report

Ty

Start Date End Date p

Rio Bravo transects—Continued

R17a 350147106402801 16 6-11 4928.18 10/05/2005 03/12/2009 

R17b 350147106402802 31 21-26 4928.18 10/05/2005 03/12/2009 R18a 350147106402701 15 5-10 4929.11 10/29/2008 03/12/2009 RS1 350141106400810 na na 4925.22 09/29/2006 03/12/2009 RS2 350145106400810 na na 4926.52 04/10/2006 03/12/2009 RS3 350143106402301 na na 4934.74 01/01/2004 03/15/2009 RS4 350142106402810 na na 4927.49 04/07/2006 03/12/2009 RS5 350147106402810 na na 4928.69 10/13/2006 03/12/2009 

I-25 transects

I1a 350358106391301 16 6-11 4904.92 11/29/2005 02/21/2008 I1b 350358106391302 31 21-26 4904.92 06/01/2005 12/11/2006 I1c 350358106391303 56 46-51 4904.92 06/01/2005 10/21/2008 I2a 345703106403901 16 6-11 4902.76 06/01/2005 10/21/2008 I2b 345703106403902 31 21-26 4902.76 06/01/2005 10/21/2008 

02/1

I3a 345703106404001 16 6-11 4902.35 11/29/2005 10/21/2008 I4a 345701106404501 14 4-9 4903.47 11/29/2005 10/21/2008 I4b 345701106404502 29 19-24 4903.47 06/01/2005 10/21/2008 I4c 345701106404503 54 44-49 4903.47 06/01/2005 12/11/2006 I5a 345701106404601 14 4-9 4904.60 11/29/2005 10/21/2008 I5b 345701106404602 29 19-24 4904.60 06/01/2005 10/21/2008 I6a 345707106410101 14 4-9 4905.91 11/30/2005 10/24/2008 I6b 345707106410102 29 19-24 4905.91 06/01/2005 11/19/2007 U

06/2

I7a 345706106410201 14 4-9 4905.12 11/29/2005 10/24/2008 I7b 345706106410202 29 19-24 4905.12 06/01/2005 10/24/2008 I7c 345706106410203 49 39-44 4905.12 04/22/2005 10/24/2008 I8a 345704106410701 15 5-10 4901.90 11/29/2005 10/24/2008 I8b 345704106410702 30 20-25 4901.90 06/01/2005 10/24/2008 I10a 345703106411201 13 3-8 4900.97 06/01/2005 10/22/2008 
Table 1. Site data for piezometers and surface-water data collection sites, Rio Grande inner valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.—Continued Other identifier (fig. 3a-e) Site identifier Piezometer depth (feet below land surface, rounded to nearest foot) Screened interval (feet below land surface, rounded to nearest foot) Land surface1 or MP2 elevation (feet above NAVD 88) Period of record presented in this report Ty

Start Date End Date p

I-25 transects—Continued I10b 345703106411202 28 18-23 4900.97 06/01/2005 11/05/2007 

I10c 345703106411203 48 38-43 4900.97 06/01/2005 10/23/2008 I11a 345707106404101 13 3-8 4902.27 02/23/2007 10/20/2008 I11b 345707106404102 28 18-23 4902.27 01/20/2006 10/20/2008 I12a 345707106404103 13 3-8 4902.28 Uninstrumented during study 

I13a 345706106404701 14 4-9 4904.21 03/09/2007 10/21/2008 I13b 345706106404702 29 19-24 4904.21 12/12/2006 11/06/2007 

I13c 345706106404703 49 34-39 4904.21 12/12/2006 10/21/2008 I14a 345706106404704 14 4-9 4904.06 03/09/2007 10/21/2008 I14b 345706106404705 29 19-24 4904.06 01/20/2006 10/21/2008 

I15a 345713106410604 14 4-9 4906.50 10/13/2006 10/27/2008 I15b 345713106410605 29 19-24 4906.50 10/13/2006 10/27/2008 

I16a 345713106410601 16 6-11 4908.22 Uninstrumented during study 

I16b 345713106410602 31 21-26 4908.22 01/23/2006 10/27/2008 

I16c 345713106410603 49 39-44 4908.22 01/23/2006 10/27/2008 I17a 345713106411001 13 3-8 4903.46 03/09/2007 10/23/2008 

I17b 345713106411002 28 18-23 4903.46 01/23/2006 10/23/2008 

IS1 345703106404010 na na 4903.63 04/07/2006 10/21/2008 IS2 345705106405810 na na 4905.143 4906.664 08/10/2005 10/23/2008 U

06/2

IS3 345705106410810 na na 4902.045 4903.236 04/07/2006 10/23/2008 

[S, surface-water stage gage; B, Barelas; I, I-25; M, Montaño; P, Paseo del Norte; R, Rio Bravo; a, shallow piezometer; b, mid-depth piezometer; c, deep piezometer; MP, measu

NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988] 1Land-surface elevation for piezometers only 2Measuring-point elevation for surface-water stage gages only 3MP valid through May 2, 2006 4MP valid after May 2, 2006

5MP valid through May 8, 20086MP valid after May 8, 2008
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 19

Groundwater-level data were measured using vented and 

unvented transducers (table 1). Transducers with vented cable 

are automatically compensated for changes in barometric 

pressure, but transducers with unvented cable are not. With 

unvented transducers, a calculation is required to correct the 

recorded water levels for changes in barometric pressure. 

Unvented transducers record total pressure (water + 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 subtracted from the recorded total 

water level in order to attain a corrected water level (Freeman 

and others, 2004). Hourly barometric pressure values from 

the Albuquerque airport (National Climatologic Data Center, 

2011) were used to correct all water level data collected using 

unvented transducers. Water-level barometric corrections 

ranged from 0 to about 0.5 ft.

Slug Tests

The spatial variability of aquifer properties at each 

of the transect locations was estimated by conducting 

slug tests during January and February 2009. Analytical 

results from slug tests, a type of aquifer test, 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 portions 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, 19 middepth piezometers, and 1 deep piezometer at the Paseo Del 

Norte, Montaño, Barelas, Rio Bravo, and I-25 transects. 

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 slug tests conducted in highly 

permeable aquifers with an oscillatory response during 

recovery. For both methods, the recovery data are analyzed 

by using a family of type curves to determine the hydraulic 

conductivity of the aquifer. 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 (L/t)),

c r is casing radius (L), Re is effective radius of influence (L),

wr is borehole radius (L),

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

t is time (t),

0 y is initial water level (L), and

t y is water level at time t (L).

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 (L/t),

*

dt is dimensionless time parameter t

L

g

e

1/ 2 ( ) , 

where g is gravitational acceleration, and 

Le is effective length of water column 

in well, and t is time. *

t is time (t),

cr is casing radius (L),

Re is effective radius of influence (L),

wr is borehole radius (L),

s b is screen length (L), and

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.

Darcy’s Law

Temporal changes in the rate of Rio Grande seepage 

to the alluvial aquifer were computed by using Darcy’s law. 

Darcy flux, or specific discharge, is a rate of groundwater 

movement defined by a hydraulic gradient acting across a 

* C D
20 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

homogeneous aquifer under laminar flow conditions 

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

dh Q KA

dl = − (3)

where

Q is volumetric groundwater flow (L3

/t), 

K is hydraulic conductivity (L/t), 

A is cross-sectional area through which 

groundwater flow occurs (L2), and

 is hydraulic gradient (dimensionless but, by 

convention, is negative in the direction of 

groundwater flow).

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

setting q=Q/A, the Darcy flux through a unit area of aquifer 

can be stated as:

dh

q K

dl = − (4)

where

q is the Darcy flux of water through the 

aquifer (L/t).

The hydraulic conductivity values used in the Darcy 

flux calculations in this report are considered bulk values 

that characterize the aquifer as a homogeneous mixture of 

sediments. Bulk hydraulic conductivity values represent 

average conditions in the aquifer and were defined on the 

basis of the results of slug tests conducted for this study and 

on the basis of values obtained from published literature 

(Tiedeman and others, 1998; Bartolino and Niswonger, 1999; 

McAda, 2001; Sanford and others, 2003; Moret, 2007). 

Horizontal hydraulic gradients used in the Darcy flux 

calculations were calculated by using the three-point method 

to determine the strike (compass direction) and dip (slope) 

of rock outcrops (Compton, 1962), and which has been 

used by Myers and others (1999) to calculate hydraulic 

gradients in an alluvial aquifer at Fort Riley, Kansas. Daily 

hydraulic gradients were calculated by using the three-point 

method and 2006-08 daily mean water levels to compute the 

slope of the water surface between selected sets of shallow 

piezometers. Daily mean water levels were not uniformly 

available at all transects from 2006-08 (table 1). 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 on each side of the Rio Grande (fig. 4). 

For each set of six piezometers, a total of eight piezometer 

triangles were defined on each side of the river (fig. 4). 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.

Suzuki-Stallman Method

In addition to specific fluxes calculated from hydraulic 

conductivities and hydraulic gradients by using the Darcy 

equation, specific fluxes also were computed with the 

temperature data collected at 10- and 20-ft depths in the 

alluvial aquifer by 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 

1-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 1-dimensional (vertical) advective and conductive heat 

transfer in an aquifer. The Suzuki-Stallman method relies only 

on temperature data, providing an independent method that 

can be used to check the Darcy flux estimates generated by 

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 

transport is (Suzuki, 1960):

(5)

where 

 is the thermal conductivity of the saturated 

aquifer sediment and water) (BTUIT/t L°F,

 is the temperature in the aquifer (°F),

 is the heat capacity of the water (BTUIT /L3°F) 

[British Thermal Unit (International 

 Steam Table Calorie) per cubic footdegrees Fahrenheit,

is the specific flux of water through the 

aquifer (L/t),

 is the heat capacity of the saturated aquifer 

(sediment and water) (BTUIT/L3°F),

 is distance (L), and 

 is time (t).

k

T

w w ρ c

s q

ρc

z

t

T

c

z

T

c q

z

T k w w s ∂∂ = ∂∂

+

∂

∂

ρ ρ 2

2

t
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 21

2

4

1 3

PZ-1

PZ-4 PZ-5 PZ-6

PZ-2 PZ-3

5

6

7

8

PZ-1

PZ-4 PZ-5 PZ-6

PZ-2 PZ-3

Four triangles can be defined for a set of six piezometers

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

River

Drain Drain

River

Figure 4. Diagram of sets of piezometers used to compute daily mean hydraulic gradients on each side of the Rio Grande for each 

paired transect. For six piezometers, eight triangles can be defined for use in gradient calculations.
22 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

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 seepage. For the horizontal flux, Moret (2007) 

uses Equation 5, but substitutes 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, Moret 

found it necessary to assume that the aquifer is bounded at x=0 

by a fully penetrating river and that all flow is uniform and 

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

and Stallman (1965), Moret (2007) stated that the temperature 

of the river, Triver, varies sinusoidally with a period of 1 year:

(6)

where

Tavg is the average river temperature (°F), 

T0 is the magnitude of temperature oscillation in 

the river (°F),

τ is the period of the oscillation (t), 

is the phase lag in temperature signal of the 

river (t), and 

t is time (t). 

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) can be used to model 

the temperature oscillations in groundwater (Tosc) that are 

attributable to river water temperature oscillations (Triver):

(7)

where

 T 0 , τ , t , x , and φ are as previously defined for 

equations 5 and 6,

, and (8)

(9)

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

attenuation of the temperature wave. The spatial frequency b, 

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

of the wave through space. The parameters KT and V are 

defined by:

(10)

 (11)

where ρc , k ,τ , w w ρ c , and s q 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 (155 BTUIT /ft3 °F) of the inner valley alluvial 

aquifer.

For 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 at 

distances x1 and x2 from the river. The differences between the 

maximum and minimum temperatures in these records, ΔTx1

and ΔTx2, can be used to estimate a:

(12)

The phase lag between the two temperature records, Δt, 

yields b:

(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 such as figure 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 
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 23

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

Specific flux qs, in feet per day

a

b

10-4 102 101 100 10-1 10-2 10-3

0.02

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.0

Figure 5. Type curves for the Suzuki-Stallman method, showing values of the parameters a and b as a function of specific flux. Type 

curves generated using equations 8, 9, 10, and 11.

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, there were four steps used to estimate 

flux with temperature data. First, two type curves (a and b) 

were developed by using thermal properties of the aquifer 

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

Second, values for a and b were calculated using equations 12 

and 13 and temperatures measured in the piezometers. Third, 

the values of a and b calculated in the previous step were 

plotted on their respective type curves and matched with the 

corresponding flux (qa and qb). Fourth, the qa and qb estimates 

were averaged to obtain qheat.

Limitations and Assumptions

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, but in many cases it 

may represent the system sufficiently well to produce a useful 

estimate of groundwater flux. Some of the limitations and 

assumptions with this method are described in this section. 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 by 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 temperature 

signal oscillation, and the distance between measuring points, 

but for the aquifer parameters used in this study, fluxes 

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

Flow Direction

The heat-transport equation (Suzuki, 1960) was 

developed to measure vertical infiltration and assumes that 

the flux is one-dimensional and calculated along the flowpath. Seepage of water from the Rio Grande into the adjacent 

aquifer is not one-dimensional. The hydraulic gradients are 
24 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

primarily horizontal, but vertical gradients do exist. The paired 

piezometer transects in this study were 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 equation (1960) 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) advised measuring the temperature 

at a number of depths in as many observation wells as 

are available to limit the effect of time series 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, but the Suzuki (1960) equation assumes a constant 

flux. Moret (2007) modeled aquifer temperature by using 

both variable monthly recharge estimates and a constant 

annual flux. The two 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: 

 

(14)

As shown on 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 q=10-3 ft/d, then b=0.117 (from fig. 5) and λ=2π/0.117, or 

54 ft; if q=1, then b=0.0132 (from 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 along 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 q values that correspond to a and 

b do not agree reasonably well, then 1-year increments can be 

added to the measured lag.

b

π λ 2 =

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 (Moret, 2007; 

Silliman and Booth, 1993).

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 riverside drains east and west of 

the river. In piezometers P06 and P07 from Bartolino’s (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 variations 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 due to 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 depends directly on fluid density, whereas 

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 vary substantially with the temperature of the water 

(Constantz and others, 1994). A fundamental limitation of 

the Suzuki-Stallman method is that it does not consider the 

effect of temperature on hydraulic conductivity. Moret (2007) 

evaluated this limitation by using a two-dimensional finiteelement 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 additional details see 

Moret (2007).

Uncertainty in Thermal Properties 

The thermal properties of the aquifer, k and , are 

generally not well known, but for aquifers consisting of 

unconsolidated sediments, the range of k values reported in 

the literature is not large (Moret 2007). Moret (2007) found 

that if site-specific measurements are not readily available, 

a thermal conductivity chosen based solely on the aquifer’s 

lithology will introduce an uncertainty into the estimate of qs

of a few tens of percent. In this study, we used the average of 

ρc
Groundwater Hydrology 25

the four values obtained by Bartolino and Niswonger (1999) 

for the thermal conductivity (2.16 W m-1 °C-1), and saturated 

heat capacity (3.2 x 106 J °C-1 m

-3) of the upper Santa Fe 

Group aquifer.

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 slug-test, hydraulichead, and water-temperature data. Slug-test data from 35 

sites were used to determine the hydraulic conductivity of the 

alluvial aquifer (slug-test archive, files of USGS New Mexico 

Water Science Center, Albuquerque). Daily mean hydraulichead data were used to establish groundwater gradients at 

transect locations, and vertical water-temperature profile data 

were collected at selected locations to evaluate the depth of 

penetration of river-water recharge into the aquifer. Finally, a 

simple conceptual model of groundwater flow away from the 

river was constructed to demonstrate water-table conditions 

and characteristics. 

Hydraulic Conductivity

 During slug tests, the water-level responses in 16 

piezometers were nonoscillatory and were analyzed using 

the Bouwer and Rice (1976) slug-test analysis method. The 

water-level responses at 19 piezometers exhibited oscillatory 

behavior and were analyzed using the Butler (1998) slugtest analysis method. Results from 35 slug tests performed 

in the alluvial aquifer for this study indicate that the spatial 

variability of hydraulic properties in the alluvial aquifer is 

small (fig. 6). Hydraulic-conductivity values ranged from 

5 ft/d (I-25 transects) to 160 ft/d (Montaño transects) (table 2). 

The median hydraulic-conductivity value for all transects was 

40 ft/d. Slug-test results from piezometers on the east side of 

the river were not substantially different from those on the 

west side.

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; and 

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 to occur over distances of a few tens of feet or less. 

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. Literature-cited 

values determined from regional-scale modeling (Sanford 

and others, 2003), aquifer tests (McAda, 2001), and wellto-well heat-transport modeling (Moret, 2007) provide a 

basis to extrapolate the heterogeneities to the scale of the 

current study. 

Groundwater Levels and Temperatures

Hourly groundwater-level data were recorded from 164 

piezometers screened at different intervals within the alluvial 

aquifer. Daily mean water levels are shown in figure 7.

Groundwater-level data were used to evaluate water-level 

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 long-term 

water-level trends were discernible from 2004 through early 

2009 (fig. 7). 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. Similar heads typically were measured in the shallow 

and mid-depth piezometers; however, there were exceptions, 

most notably at piezometers B16a, b, and c and R4a, b, and c, 

where clay-rich sediments were observed in sediment cores. 

Horizontal hydraulic gradients indicated that groundwater 

movement generally was away from the river and toward 

the drains (fig. 3, table 3). This direction of groundwater 

movement makes sense because the riverside drains were 

designed to extend below the groundwater table, except near 

the tail ends of the drains where they have to 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 more than 5 ft higher than the 

water levels at M9a and M18a on February 7, 2008 (fig. 3b). 

The depth of water in the drain at this location was about 

3 to 4 ft, so the bottom of the drain probably was also 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. In February, 2009, discharge was measured along this 

portion of the Corrales Riverside Drain as part of the seepage 

investigation. Measurements made between drain miles 4 and 

6 (fig. 1) of 3.0 and 2.6 ft3/s, respectively, demonstrated that 

the drain was losing water to the aquifer.
26 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

n=8 n=7 n=7 n=7 n=6 n=35

40

45

30

60

40

50

Paseo Del Norte

Montaño

Barelas

Rio Bravo

I-25

All

Hydraulic conductivity, in feet per day

75th percentile

25th percentile

median (50th percentile) and median value

-1.5 times the interquartile range 

 or the smallest value

outlier (value is between 1.5 and 2 

 times the interquartile range) 

EXPLANATION

1.5 times the interquartile range 

 or the largest value

number of values

interquartile range

n=35

40

Figure 6. Summary of hydraulic conductivities estimated from slug tests conducted at selected locations in the Rio Grande inner valley 

alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Groundwater Hydrology 27

Table 2. Summary of Bouwer and Rice (1976) and Butler (1998) slug-test results from piezometers in the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial 

aquifer, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

[B, Barelas; I, I-25; M, Montaño; P, Paseo del Norte; R, Rio Bravo; a, shallow piezometer; b, mid-depth piezometer; c, deep piezometer; nd, not determined]

Site identifier

Other 

Identifier 

(figs. 3a-e) Test date

Slug test 

hydraulic 

conductivity 

(feet per day)

Method of 

analysis

Piezometer 

depth (feet)

Screened 

interval (feet)

Dominant 

lithology of 

screened 

interval

Water level 

(feet below 

land surface)

351054106390101 P4a 2/2/2009 50 B&R (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 B&R (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 nd 4.03

351055106391102 P6b 1/30/2009 20 B&R (1976) 31 21-26 nd 4.10

351054106391301 P7a 1/30/2009 60 B&R (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 B&R (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 B&R (1976) 15 5-10 nd 5.79

350842106403202 M5b 1/28/2009 60 Butler (1998) 32 22-27 clayey sand 6.40

350848106404703 M6a 1/28/2009 30 B&R (1976) 13 3-8 nd 7.35

350848106404704 M6b 1/28/2009 10 B&R (1976) 28 18-23 nd 5.42

350848106404702 M7b 1/28/2009 10 B&R (1976) 30 20-25 sand 6.71

350402106392601 B4a 1/30/2009 20 B&R (1976) 16 6-11 sand 5.27

350402106392602 B4b 1/30/2009 10 B&R (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 nd 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 B&R (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 B&R (1976) 15 5-10 silty sand 3.35

350143106402501 R7b 1/29/2009 20 B&R (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

345701106404501 I4a 1/29/2009 30 B&R (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 B&R (1976) 14 4-9 nd 4.18

345701106404602 I5b 1/29/2009 80 Butler (1998) 29 19-24 nd 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
28 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

4,995

Water level, in feet above North America Vertical Datum of 1998

4,990

4,980

4,985

4,985

4,975

4,980

4,990

4,980

4,985

4,995

4,985

4,990

4,995

4,985

4,990

4,995

4,985

4,990

4,990

4,980

4,985

4,990

4,980

4,985

4,985

4,975

4,980

2007 2008 2009

EXPLANATION

Rio Grande

West riverside drain

East riverside drain

Surface water Piezometer nests

Piezometer c

Piezometer a 

Piezometer b

Rio Grande and riverside drains

P2

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

Figure 7a. Hydrographs showing daily mean stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater levels in 

piezometers at Paseo Del Norte transect 1, November 7, 2007-March 4, 2009. Piezometer locations are shown on figure 3a.
Groundwater Hydrology 29

4,995

4,990

4,980

4,985

4,985

4,975

4,980

4,985

4,975

4,980

4,990

4,980

4,985

4,995

4,985

4,990

4,995

4,985

4,990

4,995

4,985

4,990

4,990

4,980

4,985

4,990

4,980

4,985

Water level, in feet above North America Vertical Datum of 1998

2007 2008 2009

EXPLANATION

Rio Grande

West riverside drain

East riverside drain

Surface water Piezometer nests

Piezometer c

Piezometer a 

Piezometer b

Rio Grande and riverside drains

P11

P12

P13

P14

P15

P16

P17

P18

Figure 7b. Hydrographs showing daily mean stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater levels in 

piezometers at Paseo del Norte transect 2, October 15, 2008-March 4, 2009. Piezometer locations are shown in figure 3a.
30 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

4,980

4,975

4,965

4,970

4,975

4,965

4,970

4,975

4,965

4,970

4,980

4,970

4,975

4,980

4,970

4,975

4,980

4,970

4,975

4,975

4,965

4,970

4,975

4,965

4,970

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Water level, in feet above North America Vertical Datum of 1998

EXPLANATION

Rio Grande

West riverside drain

East riverside drain

Surface water Piezometer nests

Piezometer c

Piezometer a 

Piezometer b

Rio Grande and riverside drains

M3

M4

M5

M6

M7

M8

M9

Figure 7c. Hydrographs showing daily mean stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater levels in 

piezometers at Montaño transect 1, June 13, 2005-October 31, 2008. Piezometer locations are shown in figure 3b.
Groundwater Hydrology 31

Rio Grande and riverside drains

M12

M13

M14

M15

M16

M17

M18

4,980

4,975

4,965

4,970

4,975

4,965

4,970

4,975

4,965

4,970

4,980

4,970

4,975

4,980

4,970

4,975

4,980

4,970

4,975

4,975

4,965

4,970

4,975

4,965

4,970

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Water level, in feet above North America Vertical Datum of 1998

EXPLANATION

Rio Grande

West riverside drain

East riverside drain

Surface water Piezometer nests

Piezometer c

Piezometer a 

Piezometer b

Figure 7d. Hydrographs showing daily mean stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater levels in 

piezometers at Montaño transect 2, January 9, 2006-October 31, 2008. Piezometer locations are shown in figure 3b.
32 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

Rio Grande and riverside drains

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B10

4,945

4,940

4,930

4,940

4,935

4,930

4,940

4,935

4,930

4,940

4,935

4,930

4,945

4,940

4,935

4,945

4,940

4,935

4,945

4,940

4,935

4,940

4,935

4,930

4,940

4,935

4,930

4,935

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Water level, in feet above North America Vertical Datum of 1998

EXPLANATION

Rio Grande

West riverside drain

East riverside drain

Surface water Piezometer nests

Piezometer c

Piezometer a 

Piezometer b

Figure 7e. Hydrographs showing daily mean stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater levels in 

piezometers at Barelas transect 1, April 21, 2005-March 10, 2009. Piezometer locations are shown in figure 3c.
Groundwater Hydrology 33

Rio Grande and riverside drains

B11

B12

B13

B14

B15

B16

B17

Water level, in feet above North America Vertical Datum of 1998

EXPLANATION

Rio Grande

West riverside drain

East riverside drain

Surface water Piezometer nests

Piezometer c

Piezometer a 

Piezometer b

4,945

4,940

4,930

4,935

4,940

4,930

4,935

4,940

4,930

4,935

4,940

4,930

4,935

4,945

4,935

4,940

4,945

4,935

4,935

4,940

4,930

4,935

4,940

4,930

4,935

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 7f. Hydrographs showing daily mean stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater levels in 

piezometers at Barelas transect 2, January 27, 2006-March 10, 2009. Piezometer locations are shown in figure 3c.
34 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

Rio Grande and riverside drains

R1

R3

R4

R5

R6

R7

R8

R2

R9

R10

4,930

4,925

4,920

4,922

4,917

4,912

4,925

4,920

4,915

4,925

4,920

4,915

4,930

4,925

4,920

4,930

4,925

4,920

4,930

4,925

4,920

4,930

4,925

4,920

4,930

4,925

4,920

4,930

4,925

4,920

4,925

4,920

4,915

4,935

Water level, in feet above North America Vertical Datum of 1998

EXPLANATION

Rio Grande

West riverside drain

East riverside drain

Surface water Piezometer nests

Piezometer c

Piezometer a 

Piezometer b

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 7g. Hydrographs showing daily mean stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater levels in 

piezometers at Rio Bravo transect 1, January 1, 2004-March 15, 2009. Piezometer locations are shown in figure 3d.
Groundwater Hydrology 35

Rio Grande and river side drains

R11

R13

R14

R15

R16

R17

R18

R12

4,930

4,925

4,920

4,925

4,920

4,915

4,925

4,920

4,915

4,930

4,925

4,920

4,930

4,925

4,920

4,930

4,925

4,920

4,930

4,925

4,920

4,930

4,925

4,920

4,930

4,925

4,920

4,935

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Water level, in feet above North America Vertical Datum of 1998

EXPLANATION

Rio Grande

West riverside drain

East riverside drain

Surface water Piezometer nests

Piezometer c

Piezometer a 

Piezometer b

Figure 7h. Hydrographs showing daily mean stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater levels in 

piezometers at Rio Bravo transect 2, January 1, 2004-March 15, 2009. Piezometer locations are shown in figure 3d.
36 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

Rio Grande and riverside drains

I1

I2

I3

I4

I5

I6

I7

I8

I10

4,905

4,900

4,895

4,905

4,900

4,895

4,905

4,900

4,895

4,905

4,900

4,895

4,905

4,900

4,895

4,905

4,900

4,895

4,905

4,900

4,895

4,905

4,900

4,895

4,905

4,900

4,895

4,905

4,900

4,895

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Water level, in feet above North America Vertical Datum of 1998

EXPLANATION

Rio Grande

West riverside drain

East riverside drain

Surface water Piezometer nests

Piezometer c

Piezometer a 

Piezometer b

Figure 7i. Hydrographs showing daily mean stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater levels in 

piezometers at I-25 transect 1, April 22, 2005-October 24, 2008. Piezometer locations are shown in figure 3e.
Groundwater Hydrology 37

Rio Grande and riverside drains

I11

I13

I14

I15

I16

I17

4,905

4,900

4,895

4,905

4,900

4,895

4,905

4,900

4,895

4,905

4,900

4,895

4,905

4,900

4,895

4,905

4,900

4,895

4,905

4,900

4,895

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Water level, in feet above North America Vertical Datum of 1998

EXPLANATION

Rio Grande

West riverside drain

East riverside drain

Surface water Piezometer nests

Piezometer c

Piezometer a 

Piezometer b

Figure 7j. Hydrographs showing daily mean stage of the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater levels in 

piezometers at I-25 transect 2, August 10, 2005-October 27, 2008. Piezometer locations are shown in figure 3e.
38 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

Table 3. Median annual magnitude of groundwater horizontal 

hydraulic gradient and direction of groundwater flow at 

piezometer transects, Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2006-9. 

[Site locations shown in figs. 3a-e; CW, clockwise from downstream direction 

of channel; CCW, counter clockwise from downstream direction of channel. 

Groundwater flow direction is relative to the downstream direction of the 

Rio Grande channel at each transect.]

Transect

location

Median annual

horizontal hydraulic 

gradient (feet per foot)

Direction of

groundwater flow 

(degrees)

Paseo Del Norte

East 0.010 89 CCW

West .005 78 CW

Montaño

East .010 89 CCW

West .003 77 CW

Barelas

East .009 87 CCW 

West .011 77 CW

Rio Bravo

East .005 73 CCW

West .007 76 CW

I-25

East .002 71 CCW

West .005 68 CW

The effect of this loss of water from the drain was not evident 

in the February 7, 2008 groundwater-level data and so is not 

reflected in the water-level contours (fig. 3b). At the Barelas 

transects, the water level at BS1 in the Albuquerque Riverside 

Drain was more than 2 ft higher than the water levels in 

piezometers B3a and B12a on February 7, 2008 (fig. 3c). 

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 was substantially higher than downstream from the 

structure.

Hourly groundwater temperatures were recorded at 

depths of 10 and 20 ft in selected piezometer nests. Daily 

mean water temperature for all measurement points are shown 

in figures 8a-8j. Large ranges in surface-water temperature 

are apparent: surface-water temperatures ranged from 37°F in 

the winter to 79°F in the summer. Surface-water temperatures 

in the drains typically were similar to temperatures measured 

in the Rio Grande, but the magnitude of fluctuations in the 

river were somewhat larger. 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 or 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. 8a), which are farther away 

from the river (fig. 3a). The high-frequency fluctuations were 

not recorded in mid-depth piezometers or shallow piezometers 

located greater than a few hundred feet from the river. For 

example, short-term temperature variations recorded in M15a, 

a shallow piezometer adjacent to the river, are substantially 

attenuated in M15b, an intermediate-depth piezometer a few 

feet from M15a, and are not evident in M16b, 400 to 500 ft to 

the west of M15a (fig. 8d).

Vertical temperature profiles were collected during the 

months of October 2008 and January and February 2009 in 

the deepest piezometer at selected piezometer nests during 

the nonirrigation season (fig. 9). 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. Groundwatertemperature profiles in figure 9 form envelopes that generally 

are bracketed by warmest temperatures in October and coolest 

temperatures in February. Groundwater temperatures recorded 

throughout the nonirrigation season were most variable at 

depths less than 30 ft and generally ranged from 40 to 70°F.

Temperature envelopes in figure 9 generally can be 

classified as fan- or tulip-shaped depending on the direction 

and velocity of groundwater flow. At M7, M9, R3, R8, I3, 

I4, and I5 the fan-shape of the temperature envelope shows 

the seasonal temperature extinction depth (the depth at 

which seasonal temperature variations are not observed) 

during the nonirrigation season ranges from 20 to 30 ft. 

The temperature ranges near the water table in these fanshaped envelopes generally were 20°F or less for the period 

between October 2008 and February 2009. The compressed 

nature of fan-shaped temperature envelopes is indicative of 

areas where (1) vertical groundwater flow is limited, and 

(2) horizontal advective transport of heat is relatively uniform. 

At the remaining piezometer nests, temperature ranges near 

the water table generally were greater than 20°F for the 

period between October 2008 and February 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).
Groundwater Hydrology 39

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

2007 2008 2009

Water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

EXPLANATION

Rio Grande

West riverside drain

East riverside drain

Surface water Piezometer nests

Piezometer a 

Piezometer b

Rio Grande and riverside drains

P3

P4

P5

P8

Figure 8a. Daily mean water temperature in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperature in 

piezometers at Paseo del Norte transect 1, November 7, 2007-March 4, 2009. Piezometer locations are shown on figure 3a.
40 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

Rio Grande and riverside drains

P12

P13

P14

P15

P16

P17

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

2007 2008 2009

Water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

EXPLANATION

Rio Grande

West riverside drain

East riverside drain

Surface water Piezometer nests

Piezometer a 

Piezometer b

Figure 8b. Daily mean water temperature in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperature in 

piezometers at Paseo Del Norte transect 2, October 15, 2007-March 4, 2009. Piezometer locations are shown on figure 3a.
Groundwater Hydrology 41

Water temperature, in degrees ahrenheit

Riverside

EXPLANATION

Rio Grande

West riverside drain

East riverside drain

Surface water Piezometer nests

Piezometer a 

Piezometer b

Rio Grande and riverside drains

M3

M4

M5

M6

M7

M8

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 8c. Daily mean water temperature in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperature in 

piezometers at Montaño transect 1, June 13, 2005-October 31, 2008. Piezometer locations are shown on figure 3b.
42 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations Water temperature, in degrees ahrenheit

Riverside

EXPLANATION

Rio Grande

West riverside drain

East riverside drain

Surface water Piezometer nests

Piezometer a 

Piezometer b

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Rio Grande and riverside drains

M12

M13

M14

M15

M16

M17

Figure 8d. Daily mean water temperature in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperature in 

piezometers at Montaño transect 2, January 9, 2006-October 31, 2008. Piezometer locations are shown on figure 3b.
Groundwater Hydrology 43

Rio Grande and riverside drains

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

Water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

Riverside

EXPLANATION

Rio Grande

West riverside drain

East riverside drain

Surface water Piezometer nests

Piezometer a 

Piezometer b

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 8e. Daily mean water temperature in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperature in 

piezometers at Barelas transect 1, April 21, 2005-March 10, 2009. Piezometer locations are shown on figure 3c.
44 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

Rio Grande and riverside drains

B12

B13

B14

B15

B16

B17

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

Water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

EXPLANATION

Rio Grande

West riverside drain

East riverside drain

Surface water Piezometer nests

Piezometer a 

Piezometer b

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 8f. Daily mean water temperature in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperature in 

piezometers at Barelas transect 2, January 27, 2006-March 10, 2009. Piezometer locations are shown on figure 3c.
Groundwater Hydrology 45

Rio Grande and riverside drains

R4

R6

R7

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

Water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

EXPLANATION

Rio Grande

West riverside drain

East riverside drain

Surface water Piezometer nests

Piezometer a 

Piezometer b

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 8g. Daily mean water temperature in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperature in 

piezometers at Rio Bravo transect 1, June 3, 2005-March 15, 2009. Piezometer locations are shown on figure 3d.
46 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

Rio Grande and riverside drains

R12

R13

R15

R16

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

Water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

EXPLANATION

Rio Grande

West riverside drain

East riverside drain

Surface water Piezometer nests

Piezometer a 

Piezometer b

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 8h. Daily mean water temperature in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperature in 

piezometers at Rio Bravo transect 2, February 16, 2005-March 15, 2009. Piezometer locations are shown on figure 3d.
Groundwater Hydrology 47

Rio Grande and riverside drains

I3

I5

I6

I7

I8

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

Water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

EXPLANATION

Rio Grande

West riverside drain

East riverside drain

Surface water Piezometer nests

Piezometer a 

Piezometer b

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 8i. Daily mean water temperature in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperature in 

piezometers at I-25 transect 1, April 22, 2005-October 24, 2008. Piezometer locations are shown on figure 3e.
48 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

Rio Grande and riverside drains

I13

I14

I15

I16

I17

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

85

55

25

Water temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

EXPLANATION

Rio Grande

West riverside drain

East riverside drain

Surface water Piezometer nests

Piezometer a 

Piezometer b

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 8j. Daily mean water temperature in the Rio Grande and riverside drains and daily mean groundwater temperature in 

piezometers at I-25 transect 2, January 21, 2006-October 27, 2008. Piezometer locations are shown on figure 3e.
Groundwater Hydrology 49

Figure 9. Vertical temperature profiles in piezometers, winter nonirrigation season, October 2008, January 2009, and February 2009. Depth, in feet below land surface

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

M6b

B6b

R6b

I6b

M9b

B8b

R8c

I8b

Montaño

M7b

B7c

Barelas

R7c

Rio Bravo

I7c

I-25

M5b

B5b

R5c

I5b

M3b

B3b

R3c

I3a

0

10

20

30

40

50

P8a P6b

Paseo del Norte

West Side of Rio Grande East Side of Rio Grande

P7b P5b P3a

Paseo del Norte

P4b

M4c

Montaño

B4c

Barelas

R4c

Rio Bravo

I4b

I-25

Temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit Temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

October 2008 January 2009 February 2009

EXPLANATION

35 45 55 65 75 35 45 55 65 75 35 45 55 65 75 35 45 55 65 75 35 45 55 65 75 35 45 55 65 75
50 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

Tulip-shaped temperature envelopes in figure 9, for example 

M3, M4, R5, and R7) show inflections between depths of 

10 and 20 ft that suggest heat fluxes from the Rio Grande 

are greatly reduced below about 30 ft. Similar results from 

Bartolino and Niswonger (1999) indicate that heat flux from 

the Rio Grande is limited below about 16 ft. 

 To distinguish between horizontal and vertical 

flow, 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 

deeper in the aquifer to temperatures below those he observed 

at shallower depths. Reiter’s (2001) conclusions can be 

applied to temperature profiles at piezometer nest I6, for 

example, where a negative temperature gradient to a depth of 

about 20 ft is shown. At 20 ft the temperature is 4°F to 5°F 

cooler than is observed at the shallower depths, indicating 

that cool horizontal flow is needed to reduce groundwater 

temperatures below that observed near the water table. 

Similarly, the importance of horizontal flux from the Rio 

Grande can be noted in temperature profiles from piezometer 

nests P4, P5, P6, P7, M3, M4, M5, B4, B6, B7, R4, R5, R6, 

R7, R8, I6, and I7 (fig. 9).

On the east side of the river, at the Montaño transects, 

temperature profiles indicate that the seasonal temperatureextinction depth is below the depth of observation. The shape 

of the temperature envelope at piezometer nest M4 indicates 

that heat from the Rio Grande is transported to depths greater 

than 50 ft and that horizontal flux from the Rio Grande must 

be high 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 of 10 to 20 ft and 45 ft. 

These zones may be separated by less permeable material in 

the interval from 30 to 40 ft. The compressed nature of the 

temperature profiles at M7, M9, R3, R8, I3, I4, and I5 provide 

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).

Conceptual Model

The volume of water infiltrating from the Rio Grande 

that is intercepted by the riverside drains is dependent on the 

local hydraulic gradient, aquifer properties, and configuration 

of the groundwater-flow field. In the Albuquerque area, 

alluvial aquifer hydrology is complicated by a heterogeneous 

distribution of 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 alluvial aquifer.

A simple conceptual model of flow in figure 10 indicates 

that the groundwater table gently slopes from the Rio Grande 

towards riverside drains and the outer boundaries of the inner 

valley. Water infiltrating from the Rio Grande initially moves 

in a vertical direction below the bed of the river (Bartolino 

and Niswonger, 1999). As flow spreads farther into the 

alluvial aquifer, vertical gradients become small relative to 

horizontal gradients at depths less than 30 ft and flow becomes 

primarily horizontal. The slope of the water-table surface 

may be strongly controlled by the riverside drains and, in a 

broader sense, influenced by other more distal hydrologic 

boundary conditions, such as groundwater withdrawals by 

wells. Riverside drains may induce localized vertical gradients 

that result in flow converging on the drain from all directions 

(West Riverside Drain in fig. 10). Alternatively, drains may 

intercept groundwater flow only from the shallowest part of 

the aquifer (East Riverside Drain in fig. 10). 

Aquifer hydraulic conductivity also influences the slope 

of the water-table surface and rates of flux from the river. 

Deposits comprising the alluvial aquifer are a heterogeneous 

mix of sediments that overlie the more competent and coarser 

material of the Santa Fe Group aquifer system (Hawley and 

Haase, 1992). In general, descriptions of core from the alluvial 

aquifer indicate that the sediments of the alluvial aquifer 

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 

significant 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 

and extent of the deposit and its location within the flow 

system. Fine-grain deposits with low hydraulic conductivity 

can locally impede groundwater flow and reduce the rates 

of horizontal flow through the alluvial aquifer. Coarsergrain sands and gravels may allow higher rates of horizontal 

groundwater flow and infiltration from the river.

Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater 

Flux from the Rio Grande

Horizontal groundwater flux from the Rio Grande to the 

alluvial aquifer east and west of the river was estimated using 

results from calculations of horizontal hydraulic gradients 

(determined from analysis of hydraulic-head data), analysis of 

slug-test data, and heat-transport modeling. In the following 

report sections the portions of transect 1 and 2 that are east of 

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".

Horizontal Hydraulic Gradients 

Water-level data from shallow piezometers indicated 

that the median annual horizontal hydraulic gradients in the 

alluvial aquifer ranged from 0.011 (Barelas west) to 0.002 

(I-25 east) (table 3). Generally, horizontal hydraulic gradients 
Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande 51

0 500 1,000 FEET

Rio Grande

4,996

4,996

4,995

4,994

4,993

4,992

10

0

60

50

40

30

20

clay layer

Approximate scale EXPLANATION

Line of equal hydraulic head—interval is 1 foot.

 Dashed where inferred. Datum is NAVD 88.

Approximate depth, in feet below land surface

Inner Valley

0 150 300 METERS

Land surface Land surface

5,000

4,999

clay

layer

Groundwater flow arrows; relative magnitude of groundwater 

 flux indicated by length of arrow

Piezometer with screened interval

West Riverside Drain East Riverside Drain

Water table

4,997

Inner

Valley

Alluvial

Aquifer

4,998

4,997

4,997

WEST EAST

Figure 10. Conceptual model of groundwater flow from the Rio Grande through the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer.

increased from the Paseo del Norte to the Barelas transects, 

and decreased from the Barelas to the I-25 transects. Hydraulic 

gradients on the east and west sides of the Rio Grande differed 

by a factor of 1.6 or less at the Paseo Del Norte, Barelas, and 

Rio Bravo transects and differed by a factor of 2.5 or more at 

the Montaño and I-25 transects (table 3). 

Relative to the downstream direction of the Rio Grande 

channel at each transect, the direction of groundwater flow 

on the east side of the river ranged from 71 to 89 degrees 

counterclockwise from the channel and on the west side 

ranged from 68 to 78 degrees clockwise from the channel 

(table 3). Between the Paseo Del Norte and Barelas bridges, 

the direction of flow relative to the river varied by less than 3 

degrees, although noticeable differences in gradient directions 

were computed for the east and west sides of this reach of 

the Rio Grande (table 3). East of the Rio Grande between the 

Paseo Del Norte transects and the Barelas transects, flow was 

nearly perpendicular to the river. On both sides of the river, the 

direction of groundwater flow away from the river became less 

perpendicular in the downstream direction. 

Darcy Flux

Darcy flux through the alluvial aquifer at each of the five 

transect locations was calculated using daily mean hydraulic 

gradients, which were calculated using shallow piezometer 

data and median hydraulic conductivities from slug-test results 

(this study) and hydraulic conductivities report by Tiedeman 

and others (1998) (fig. 11). The periods for which Darcy flux 

was calculated varied from transect to transect, depending on 

the availability of water-level data, from early 2006 through 

late 2008 (Barelas) to November-December 2008 (Paseo Del 

Norte) (fig. 11). 

The Darcy fluxes shown in figure 11 represent the linear 

flux of groundwater flowing through a unit area (in this case 

one square foot) of aquifer material per day. Groundwater 

fluxes through the alluvial aquifer calculated by using median 

hydraulic conductivities from slug tests (qslug) (fig. 6) ranged 

from about 0.1 ft/d (Rio Bravo east and Montaño west) to 

about 0.7 ft/d (Barelas west) (fig. 11). The differences in 

qslug from one location to another appear to be a function of 

both hydraulic gradient (table 3) and hydraulic conductivity 
52 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

Figure 11. Daily mean Rio Grande stage and daily mean Darcy fluxes calculated from hydraulic gradients and hydraulic conductivities 

from slug tests, and from hydraulic gradients and a range of hydraulic conductivities (Tiedeman and others, 1998), Rio Grande inner 

valley alluvial aquifer, 2006-8 .

EXPLANATION

Daily mean Rio Grande stage, in feet above NAVD-88

qslug Daily mean Darcy flux calculated using hydraulic conductivities from slug tests

qTiedeman Range in Darcy flux calculated using a range of hydraulic conductivities

 from Tiedeman and others (1998)

4,896

4,901

4,906

River stage in feet above NAVD 88 River stage in feet above NAVD 88 River stage in feet above NAVD 88 River stage in feet above NAVD 88 River stage in feet above NAVD 88

4,920

4,925

4,930

4,933

4,938

4,943

4,968

4,973

4,978

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

East Side of Rio Grande

I-25

2006 2007 2008

Rio Bravo

Barelas

West Side of Rio Grande

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Darcy Flux, in feet per day Darcy Flux, in feet per day Darcy Flux, in feet per day Darcy Flux, in feet per day Darcy Flux, in feet per day

2006 2007 2008

2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008

2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008

2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008

2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008

Montaño

Paseo Del Norte

I-25

Rio Bravo

Barelas

Montaño

Paseo Del Norte
Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande 53

(table 2). The qslug results indicate that the highest rates of 

groundwater flow through the alluvial aquifer occurred on 

the east and west sides of the river at the Barelas transects 

and correspond to the highest median hydraulic conductivity 

(60 ft/d) from slug test analysis (fig. 6) and high daily mean 

hydraulic gradients (table 3). The slowest rates of groundwater 

flow were found to correspond to transects with the lowest 

daily mean gradients (Montaño west and I-25 east). 

With the exception of the Montaño and I-25 transects, 

the range of qslug values near each respective bridge location 

generally were similar on both sides of the river. The differing 

values of qslug at Montaño east and Montaño west were 

attributed to much lower gradients on the west side than on 

the east side of this location. Increases in qslug corresponded 

to periods of high flow in the Rio Grande at all locations. The 

Darcy flux qslug response to stage changes in the Rio Grande 

varied from 18 percent about the mean at Montaño east to 

97 percent about the mean at Rio Bravo west. Although fluxes 

east and west of the river at the Barelas and Rio Bravo bridge 

locations were relatively uniform, hydraulic gradients on the 

west side of these transects were slightly more responsive to 

changes in river stage. 

A range of fluxes (qtiedeman) through the alluvial aquifer 

was calculated by 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. 11). Daily mean qslug values 

(fig. 11) plot near the lower end of the qtiedeman range because 

the Darcy flux qslug was constrained by site-scale hydraulic 

conductivities ranging from 5 to 160 ft/d. The difference 

between qslug values relative to the range of qtiedeman 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). 

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 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-Transport 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

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 values are considered to represent mean annual 

flux. Some variance in the annual mean qa and qb values 

probably resulted from analyzing temperature data sets with 

differing time spans (table 4). Only one temperature timeseries pair was available for analysis at the Rio Bravo east and 

Rio Bravo west transects, and no data were available for the 

Paseo Del Norte west transects. Values of a (the attenuation of 

the temperature wave) calculated from temperatures collected 

at 10 ft and 20 ft below land surface ranged from 2.0 x 10-4

to 7.2 x 10-3 ft-1 and 1.3 x 10-4 to 2.7 x 10-2 ft-1, respectively. 

Similarly, values of b (the spatial frequency) calculated from 

daily mean temperatures collected at both the 10-ft and 20-ft 

depths ranged from 2.0 x 10-2 to 1.0 x 10-1 rad/ft. All values of 

a and b were consistent for temperature time-series pairs that 

had multiple years of data.

Values of a and b were transformed to specific flux values 

of qa and qb by using type curves (fig. 5, table 4). At 10 ft, the 

specific flux values of qa and qb, collectively, ranged from 0.09 

to 0.74 ft/d. At 20 ft, values of qa and qb, collectively, ranged 

from 0.10 to 0.85 ft/d. The average absolute deviation from 

the mean of all qa and qb values from 10 and 20 ft was 0.12, 

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 lower 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 

time-series pairs used in this study. Gradient orientations 

(table 3), 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 12. 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 were rejected 

if temperature time-series curves were not sinusoidal or if the 

values of qa and qb disagreed by more than 50 percent. 

Values of qa and qb determined for each temperature timeseries pair were averaged to get a mean annual specific flux 

(qheat in table 4). Box plots of qheat show the highest median 

value at Paseo Del Norte east (0.52 ft /d) and the lowest 

median value at I-25 east (0.23 ft/d) (fig. 12).
54 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

Table 4. Suzuki-Stallman results for horizontal flux between temperature time-series pairs in the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial 

aquifer, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2006-8.

[Site locations shown in figures 3a-e; B, Barelas; I, I-25; M, Montaño; P, Paseo del Norte; R, Rio Bravo; a, shallow (10-foot depth) piezometer; b, mid-depth 

(20-foot depth) piezometer; qa and qb, specific fluxes calculated from a, temperature wave and b, spatial frequency; qheat, average of qa and qb; —, no data]

Transect location Temperature

time-series pair Year a (feet-1) qa

 (feet

per day)

b (radians

per foot)

qb (feet

per day)

qheat (feet per 

day)

Paseo Del Norte P5a/P4a 2008 3.8E-04 0.60 0.03 0.43 0.52

Paseo Del Norte P5a/P3a 2008 6.4E-04 .50 .02 .55 .52

Paseo Del Norte P4a/P3a 2008 7.3E-04 .48 .02 .58 .53

Paseo Del Norte P5b/P4b 2008 1.8E-03 .36 .03 .42 .39

Montaño MS2/M3a 2006 7.6E-04 .48 .03 .49 .48

Montaño M14a/M13a 2007 7.6E-04 .48 .06 .21 .34

Montaño M14a/M12a 2007 1.4E-03 .39 .05 .28 .34

Montaño M13a/M12a 2007 — — — — —

Montaño MS2/M12a 2006 3.0E-03 .30 .04 .32 .31

Montaño M6a/M7a 2006 3.6E-03 .28 .06 .22 .25

Montaño M6a/M7a 2007 3.6E-03 .28 .06 .22 .25

Montaño M6a/M8a 2006 1.2E-03 .41 .03 .39 .40

Montaño M7a/M8a 2006 — — — — —

Montaño MS2/M6a 2006 4.2E-03 .27 .08 .16 .22

Montaño MS2/M7a 2006 4.2E-03 .27 .05 .24 .26

Montaño M15a/M17a 2006 8.5E-04 .46 .03 .46 .46

Montaño MS2/M15a 2006 7.2E-03 .22 .05 .24 .23

Montaño M5b/M4b 2005 6.7E-04 .50 .05 .27 .38

Montaño M5b/M4b 2006 5.1E-04 .54 .05 .27 .40

Montaño M5b/M4b 2007 1.3E-04 .85 .05 .27 .56

Montaño MS2/M5b 2006 2.5E-03 .32 .04 .33 .32

Montaño MS2/M4b 2006 1.7E-03 .36 .04 .31 .34

Montaño M14b/M12b 2007 6.7E-04 .50 .02 .56 .53

Montaño MS2/M14b 2006 8.8E-03 .20 .07 .16 .18

Montaño M6b/M7b 2006 5.3E-03 .25 .05 .24 .24

Montaño M6b/M7b 2007 5.2E-03 .25 .05 .24 .24

Montaño MS2/M6b 2006 4.8E-03 .25 .08 .16 .20

Montaño MS2/M7b 2006 5.8E-03 .24 .06 .23 .24

Montaño M15b/M16b 2006 3.8E-03 .28 .06 .20 .24

Montaño M15b/M16b 2007 4.5E-03 .26 .06 .20 .23

Montaño MS2/M15b 2006 1.6E-02 .16 .06 .20 .18

Montaño MS2/M16b 2006 4.9E-03 .25 .05 .26 .26

Barelas B5a/B4a 2006 8.0E-04 .47 .04 .37 .42

Barelas B5a/B4a 2007 7.5E-04 .48 .04 .37 .42

Barelas B5a/B4a 2008 1.1E-03 .43 .04 .36 .40

Barelas B5a/B3a 2006 1.5E-03 .38 .03 .39 .38

Barelas B5a/B3a 2007 1.2E-03 .40 .03 .39 .40

Barelas B5a/B3a 2008 1.2E-03 .41 .03 .39 .40

Barelas B4a/B3a 2006 1.8E-03 .36 .06 .23 .30

Barelas B4a/B3a 2007 1.4E-03 .39 .06 .23 .31

Barelas B4a/B3a 2008 1.5E-03 .38 .06 .23 .30
Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande 55

Transect location Temperature

time-series pair Year a (feet-1) qa

 (feet

per day)

b (radians

per foot)

qb (feet

per day)

qheat (feet per 

day)

Barelas BS2/B5a 2007 1.7E-03 .37 .06 .23 .30

Barelas BS2/B5a 2008 1.8E-03 .36 .06 .23 .30

Barelas BS2/B4a 2007 1.9E-03 .35 .08 .15 .25

Barelas BS2/B4a 2008 2.8E-03 .31 .08 .15 .23

Barelas BS2/B3a 2007 2.5E-03 .32 .04 .30 .31

Barelas BS2/B3a 2008 2.2E-03 .34 .04 .30 .32

Barelas B14a/B13a 2006 7.1E-04 .49 .03 .48 .48

Barelas B14a/B13a 2007 6.8E-04 .50 .03 .48 .49

Barelas B14a/B12a 2007 8.5E-04 .46 .03 .45 .46

Barelas B13a/B12a 2007 1.1E-03 .42 .03 .49 .46

Barelas BS2/B14a 2007 2.7E-03 .31 .04 .34 .32

Barelas BS2/B13a 2007 1.2E-03 .41 .03 .48 .44

Barelas BS2/B12a 2007 7.6E-04 .48 .03 .45 .46

Barelas B6a/B7a 2006 7.1E-04 .49 .03 .45 .47

Barelas B6a/B7a 2007 7.1E-04 .49 .03 .45 .47

Barelas B6a/B7a 2008 6.8E-04 .50 .03 .44 .47

Barelas BS2/B6a 2007 6.1E-03 .23 .09 .13 .18

Barelas BS2/B6a 2008 5.1E-03 .25 .09 .12 .18

Barelas BS2/B7a 2007 1.7E-03 .37 .05 .24 .30

Barelas BS2/B7a 2008 2.0E-03 .35 .05 .24 .30

Barelas B15a/B16a 2006 3.8E-04 .60 .03 .43 .52

Barelas B15a/B16a 2007 5.4E-04 .53 .03 .43 .48

Barelas B15a/B17a 2006 8.8E-04 .46 .03 .51 .48

Barelas B15a/B17a 2007 7.3E-04 .48 .03 .51 .50

Barelas B16a/B17a 2006 2.1E-04 .73 .02 .73 .73

Barelas B16a/B17a 2007 2.0E-04 .74 .02 .73 .74

Barelas BS2/B15a 2007 3.0E-03 .30 .06 .19 .24

Barelas BS2/B16a 2007 4.4E-04 .57 .03 .44 .50

Barelas BS2/B17a 2007 7.3E-04 .48 .03 .51 .50

Barelas B4b/B3b 2006 5.2E-03 .25 .06 .23 .24

Barelas B4b/B3b 2007 5.3E-03 .25 .06 .23 .24

Barelas B4b/B3b 2008 5.6E-03 .24 .06 .22 .23

Barelas BS2/B4b 2007 — — .10 .10 .10

Barelas BS2/B4b 2008 — — .10 .10 .10

Barelas BS2/B3b 2007 — — .08 .15 .15

Barelas BS2/B3b 2008 — — .08 .15 .15

Barelas B14b/B13b 2006 8.1E-04 .47 .03 .46 .46

Barelas B14b/B13b 2007 7.9E-04 .47 .03 .46 .46

Barelas B14b/B12b 2007 7.2E-04 .49 .03 .50 .50

Barelas B13b/B12b 2007 1.8E-04 .77 .02 .57 .67

Barelas BS2/B14b 2007 2.7E-02 .12 .06 .22 .17

Table 4. Suzuki-Stallman results for horizontal flux between temperature time-series pairs in the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial 

aquifer, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2006-8.—Continued

[Site locations shown in figures 3a-e; B, Barelas; I, I-25; M, Montaño; P, Paseo del Norte; R, Rio Bravo; a, shallow (10-foot depth) piezometer; b, mid-depth 

(20-foot depth) piezometer; qa and qb, specific fluxes calculated from a, temperature wave and b, spatial frequency; qheat, average of qa and qb; —, no data]
56 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

Transect location Temperature

time-series pair Year a (feet-1) qa

 (feet

per day)

b (radians

per foot)

qb (feet

per day)

qheat (feet per 

day)

Barelas BS2/B13b 2007 2.1E-03 .34 .03 .39 .36

Barelas BS2/B12b 2007 1.1E-03 .42 .03 .45 .44

Barelas BS2/B6b 2007 1.1E-02 .19 .09 .12 .16

Barelas BS2/B6b 2008 1.1E-02 .19 .09 .12 .16

Barelas BS2/B7b 2008 3.7E-03 .28 .06 .21 .24

Barelas BS2/B8b 2007 2.1E-03 .34 .05 .24 .29

Barelas BS2/B8b 2008 2.1E-03 .34 .05 .24 .29

Barelas B15b/B16b 2006 6.7E-04 .50 .03 .43 .46

Barelas B15b/B17b 2006 6.2E-04 .51 .03 .48 .50

Barelas B16b/B17b 2006 5.3E-04 .54 .02 .68 .61

Barelas B16b/B17b 2007 1.5E-04 .82 .02 .68 .75

Barelas BS2/B16b 2007 2.2E-03 .33 .05 .24 .28

Barelas BS2/B17b 2007 1.2E-03 .41 .04 .35 .38

Rio Bravo R13a/R12a 2007 8.4E-04 .46 .04 .34 .40

Rio Bravo R13a/R12a 2008 7.6E-04 .48 .04 .34 .41

Rio Bravo R15a/R16a 2006 1.0E-03 .43 .10 .09 .26

Rio Bravo R15a/R16a 2007 8.1E-04 .47 .10 .09 .28

I-25 I14b/I13b 2007 5.9E-03 .24 .09 .13 .18

I-25 I16b/I17b 2007 1.5E-03 .38 .03 .38 .38

I-25 I6a/I7a 2006 3.7E-03 .28 .04 .31 .30

I-25 I6a/I7a 2007 3.3E-03 .29 .04 .30 .30

I-25 IS2/I13b 2007 6.1E-03 .23 .05 .26 .24

I-25 IS2/I14a 2007 6.4E-03 .23 — — .23

I-25 IS2/I14b 2007 1.3E-02 .18 .05 .28 .23

I-25 IS2/I17b 2007 2.0E-03 .35 .04 .30 .32

I-25 IS2/I5a 2007 — — — — —

I-25 IS2/I15a 2007 6.5E-04 .50 .05 .27 .38

I-25 IS2/I5b 2007 — — — — —

I-25 IS2/I6a 2007 2.9E-04 .66 .03 .41 .54

I-25 IS2/I16b 2007 2.0E-03 .34 .03 .44 .39

I-25 IS2/I7a 2007 2.8E-03 .31 .04 .36 .34

Table 4. Suzuki-Stallman results for horizontal flux between temperature time-series pairs in the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial 

aquifer, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2006-8.—Continued

[Site locations shown in figures 3a-e; B, Barelas; I, I-25; M, Montaño; P, Paseo del Norte; R, Rio Bravo; a, shallow (10-foot depth) piezometer; b, mid-depth 

(20-foot depth) piezometer; qa and qb, specific fluxes calculated from a, temperature wave and b, spatial frequency; qheat, average of qa and qb; —, no data]
Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande 57

Figure 12. Summary of mean annual specific flux through the Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 

calculated using Suzuki-Stallman method.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

n=15 n=27 n=2 n=7 n=4 n=11 n=36 n=2 n=5

Paseo del Norte

Montaño

Barelas

Rio Bravo

I-25

Paseo del Norte

Montaño

Barelas

Rio Bravo

I-25

n=0

Annual specific flux, in feet per day

West side of Rio Grande East side of Rio Grande

75th percentile

25th percentile

median (50th percentile) and 

 median value

-1.5 times the interquartile range 

 or the smallest value

outlier (value is between 1.5 and 

 2 times the interquartile range) 

EXPLANATION

1.5 times the interquartile range 

 or the largest value

number of values

interquartile range

n=15

far outlier (value is greater than 

 2 times the interquartile range) 

0.24

0.47

0.27

0.34

0.52

0.34 0.34

0.40

0.23 0.24
58 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

For all the east transects combined and all the west transects 

combined, the median of the mean annual qheat values from 

the east side of the river is higher (0.35 ft/d) than the median 

from the west side of the river (0.32 ft/d). Inspection of 

boxplots in figure 12 indicates that variance about the median 

increases with sample size. This is an indication that more 

temperature time-series pairs would have to be analyzed to 

fully characterize the range of specific flux at each set of 

transects. The relatively large sample sizes for both sides of 

the river at the Barelas transects (fig. 12) indicates that local 

scale geologic heterogeneities can result in a range of specific 

fluxes. The range of heterogeneities observed at the Barelas 

transects is likely present at all paired transect locations but 

not as well characterized by the smaller sample sizes at the 

other four transect locations. 

Model Comparison 

Median flux values computed from Darcy’s law ranged 

from about 0.09 to 0.66 ft/d (table 5); annual median flux 

values computed from the Suzuki-Stallman method ranged 

from 0.23 to 0.52 ft/d (table 5). The two methods of computing 

flux agreed reasonably well, although in general, fluxes from 

the Suzuki-Stallman method were slightly higher than those 

computed through the use of Darcy’s law (table 5). By using 

median annual gradients in table 3 and annual median specific 

fluxes computed by using the Suzuki-Stallman method, 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 30 ft/d (Montaño east) 

to 115 ft/d (I-25 east). The hydraulic conductivities calculated 

from the results of temperature analysis bracketed the median 

hydraulic-conductivity results (30 to 60 ft/d) from the slug 

tests (fig. 6). The results computed using Darcy’s law and 

results computed using the Suzuki-Stallman method (table 5) 

showed that groundwater fluxes through the alluvial aquifer 

generally are larger at and upstream of the Barelas transects 

than downstream. 

Riverside Drain Seepage Investigation

To test the validity of the results from the Darcy’s 

law and Suzuki-Stallman flux calculations, discharge was 

measured in riverside drains on both sides of the river 

north of the Montaño bridge (fig. 1) during a period of low 

flow on February 26, 2009 (table 6, fig. 7). All discharge 

measurements were conducted while wading, using a SonTek 

Flowtracker Handheld Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter (Rantz 

and others, 1982). On the Corrales Riverside Drain (west side 

of river), measurements were made at approximately 1-mi 

intervals for about 5.6 mi from below the head of the drain 

near Corrales to near the discharge point of the drain to the 

Rio Grande, south of the Montaño bridge. On the Albuquerque 

Riverside Drain (east side of river), one measurement was 

made near the Paseo del Norte bridge and another 3 mi 

downstream near the Montaño bridge. The uncertainty in 

discharge measurements (Sauer and Meyer, 1992) ranged from 

2.4 percent at east drain mile 3 to 4.8 percent at west drain 

mile 1 (table 6). Flow in the Rio Grande was not measured 

during this time; however, daily mean streamflow at the USGS 

Rio Grande at Alameda gaging station was 864 ft3/s and at 

the Rio Grande at Albuquerque gaging station was 696 ft3/s 

(see fig. 1 for locations). The daily mean streamflows would 

indicate that there was an average loss of water from the river 

to the aquifer of 168 ft3/s on February 26, 2009, between the 

two gages. But, the error in the daily mean streamflow at these 

gages probably was on the order of 10 percent of the total flow 

or ±86 ft3/s at the Rio Grande at Alameda gaging station, and 

±70 ft3/s at the Rio Grande at Albuquerque gaging station. The 

spans of possible error (172 ft3/s at the Rio Grande at Alameda 

gaging station and 140 ft3/s at the Rio Grande at Albuquerque 

gaging station) indicate that the difference in daily mean 

streamflow between the two gages (168 ft3/s) is within the 

range of, and could be attributable to, measurement error.

On the day that discharge was measured in the drains, 

the daily mean hydraulic gradients in the alluvial aquifer 

at the Paseo Del Norte west transects (0.005) was the same 

as the median annual hydraulic gradient calculated for the 

Paseo Del Norte west transects (table 3). Because river stage 

strongly influences hydraulic gradient and because river stage 

in February 2009 (figs. 7a and 7b) was relatively invariant, the 

hydraulic gradients at the Paseo Del Norte east and Montaño 

east and west transects presumably were similar to their 

respective median annual values (table 3). 

Flow in the Corrales Riverside Drain increased by 

1.4 ft3/s from mile 2 to mile 4 (table 6) and decreased by 

0.4 ft3/s from mile 4 to mile 6. Because there were no surfacewater inflows to the drain between miles 2 and 4, the increased 

flow in the drain is attributable to seepage of groundwater 

from the aquifer to the drain. Groundwater discharging to 

the drain could have originated as seepage from the river to 

the aquifer or could have come from areas farther west of 

the drain. The increase in flow between drain miles 2 and 4 

(10,500 ft) represents seepage of groundwater to the drain at 

an average rate of about 12 cubic feet per day (ft3/d) per linear 

foot of drain. 

The decrease in flow from mile 4 to 6 represents seepage 

of water from the drain to the aquifer. By design, a riverside 

drain slopes at a lower gradient than the river, thus ensuring 

that the drain terminus is higher than the river and that water 

in the drain can flow into the river. A consequence of this 

engineered design is that the water level in the drain for some 

distance upstream from the drain terminus is higher than 

the water level in the river and the groundwater table. The 

decrease in flow from mile 4 to 6 occurs near the downstream 

end of the Corrales Riverside Drain, where the drain design 

causes the water level in the drain to be higher than the 

groundwater table (compare water levels in fig. 3b and fig. 7c 

for Corrales Riverside Drain gage MS3 and piezometer M9a).
Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande 59

Table 50. Comparison of Darcy's law and Suzuki-Stallman calculations of horizontal groundwater flux in the Rio Grande inner valley 

alluvial aquifer, Albuquerque, New Mexico0.

[Site locations shown in figs0. 3a-e; ft, foot; rad, radians; q, Darcy flux; —, not reported0.]

Transect Location Darcy's law1 median q (qslug , in feet per day) Suzuki-Stallman median q (qheat , in feet per day)

Paseo del Norte

West 0.23 —

East 0.36 0.52

Montaño

West 0.09 0.24

East 0.30 0.34

Barelas

West 0.66 0.47

East 0.54 0.34

Rio Bravo

West 0.25 0.27

East 0.18 0.40

I-25

West 0.25 0.34

East 0.10 0.23

1

Calculated using median value of hydraulic conductivity from results of slug-test analyes (table 2)0.

Table 6. Seepage investigation discharge measurements in the Corrales and Albuquerque Riverside drains, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico, February 26, 2009.

[Site locations shown in fig. 1; DDMMSS.S, degrees minutes seconds]

Measurement location1

(locations shown in figure 1)

Latitude 

(DDMMSS.S,

Datum is

NAD 83)

Longitude 

(DDMMSS.S, 

Datum is 

NAD 83)

Measured 

discharge

(cubic feet

per second)

Measurement 

uncertainty 

(percent)

Approximate 

distance

from last

measurement 

point (feet)

Cumulative

distance along 

drain (feet)

Corrales Riverside Drain mile 1 351217.6 -1063830.5 1.0 4.8 0 0

Corrales Riverside Drain mile 2 351115.0 -1063908.8 1.6 2.9 7,400 7,400

Corrales Riverside Drain mile 3 351025.5 -1063928.3 2.3 3.3 5,200 12,600

Corrales Riverside Drain mile 4 350947.3 -1064011.6 3.0 3.1 5,300 17,900

Corrales Riverside Drain mile 5 350855.0 -1064054.0 2.7 2.8 6,500 24,400

Corrales Riverside Drain mile 6 350810.1 -1064121.8 2.6 3.1 5,200 29,600

Albuquerque Riverside Drain mile 0 351055.2 -1063852.9 58 3.0 0 0

Albuquerque Riverside Drain mile 3 350844.7 -1064025.9 73 2.4 15,800 15,800

1

 Mile marker location is approximate. More exact distances are shown in last two columns.
60 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

Flow in the Albuquerque Riverside Drain increased by 

15 ft3/s between drain miles 0 and 3. This increase in flow, 

which occurred over a distance of 15,800 ft, represents 

seepage of groundwater to the drain of at an average rate of 

about 82 ft3/d per linear foot of drain. No surface-water inputs 

or overlapping drains were observed, so this increase in flow 

is attributable to seepage of groundwater from the aquifer to 

the drain. 

Temperature profiles at the Montaño west transects 

(fig. 9) indicate that seasonal transport of heat from the Rio 

Grande during winter nonirrigation periods does not extend 

below 20-25 ft. The flux of water from the river to the aquifer 

was calculated to be 2.2 ft3/d per linear foot of river by using 

(1) the median qslug at Montaño west of 0.09 ft/d (table 5), 

(2) a 1-foot width of aquifer measured parallel to the river, 

and (3) an assumption that all of the leakage from the Rio 

Grande is contained in the upper 25 ft of the aquifer at the 

Montaño west transects. Under the same assumptions and by 

using the median qheat (0.24 ft/d) calculated from the SuzukiStallman method for the Montaño west transects (table 5), 

the total flux was calculated to be 6.0 ft3/d per linear foot of 

river. Assuming the Corrales Riverside Drain intercepted all 

of this flow, the qslug or qheat fluxes would only account for 

18 to 50 percent, respectively, of the increase of flow in the 

drain (12 ft3/d per linear foot of drain) between miles 2 and 4 

on February 26, 2009. Given a median annual hydraulic 

gradient of 0.003 at Montaño west (table 3), the hydraulic 

conductivity of the upper 25 ft of alluvium would have to be 

160 ft/d for discharge from the aquifer to the drain to account 

for 100 percent of the increase in flow in the riverside drain on 

February 26, 2009. As discussed previously, the design of the 

Corrales Riverside Drain at the Montaño west transects causes 

the water level in the drain to be higher than the groundwater 

table. So, the Darcy flux qslug and the Suzuki Stallman flux 

qheat probably are smaller than if they were measured in an 

area where the drain water level is lower than the groundwater 

table. Indeed, at the Paseo Del Norte west transects the median 

Darcy flux qslug is 0.23 ft/d (5.75 ft3/d per linear foot 

of river) and would account for about 48 percent of the 

increase in flow in the drain between miles 2 and 4 on 

February 26, 2009. 

Temperature profiles at the Montaño east transects 

(fig. 9) indicate seasonal transport of heat from the Rio Grande 

during winter nonirrigation periods extends to depths greater 

than 50 ft. The flux of water from the river to the aquifer was 

calculated to be 15 ft3/d per linear foot of river by using (1) 

the median qslug at the Montaño east transects of 0.30 ft/d (table 

5), (2) a 1-foot width of aquifer measured parallel to the river, 

and (3) assuming that all of the leakage from the Rio Grande 

is contained in the upper 50 ft of the aquifer at the Montaño 

east transects. Under the same assumptions and by using the 

mean flux calculated from the Suzuki-Stallman method for 

the Montaño east transects of 0.34 ft/d (table 5), the flux of 

water from the river to the aquifer was calculated to be 17 ft3/d 

per linear foot of river. Assuming the Albuquerque Riverside 

Drain intercepted all this flow, the qslug or qheat fluxes would 

only account for 18 to 21 percent, respectively, of the increase 

in flow (82 ft3/d per linear foot of drain) measured in the drain 

on February 26, 2009. Given an average annual hydraulic 

gradient of 0.010 at the Montaño east transects (table 3) the 

hydraulic conductivity of the upper 50 ft of alluvium would 

have to be about 160 ft/d for discharge from the aquifer to the 

drain to account for 100 percent of the increase in flow in the 

riverside drain on February 26, 2009.

For all locations, flux rates for qslug ranged from 0.09 ft/d 

at the Montaño west transects to 0.66 ft/d at the Barelas west 

transects and flux rates for qheat ranged from 0.23 ft/d at the 

I-25 east transects to 0.52 ft/d at the Paseo del Norte east 

transects (table 5). Assuming that water leaking from the river 

to the aquifer is transmitted to the drains through a uniform 

30 ft aquifer thickness in the Albuquerque area, the qslug flux 

rates would range from 2.7 to 20 ft3/d per linear foot of river 

and the qheat flux rates would range from 6.9 to 16 ft3/d per 

linear foot of river. 

At more local scales, Roark (2001) estimated river 

leakage to range from 0.47 to 2.1 ft3/d per linear foot of river, 

Thorn (1995) indicated that leakage from the river averaged 

74 ft3/d per linear foot of river between the Paseo del Norte 

and Rio Bravo bridges, and Veenhuis (2002) indicated that 

leakage from the river averaged 123 ft3/d per linear foot of 

river between the Bernalillo bridge and the Rio Bravo bridge. 

The comparison of these results with those of previous 

investigations suggests that calculated flux through the alluvial 

aquifer is strongly scale dependent and that the thickness of 

aquifer through which river water flows may be greater than 

indicated by the vertical temperature profiles. Depth of riverwater penetration into the aquifer could be further investigated 

using water chemistry to establish the boundary between water 

from the river and deeper aquifer water.

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: groundwater from the Santa Fe Group aquifer system 

and surface water from the San Juan-Chama Diversion 

Project. Estimates indicated that from 1960 to 2002, 

groundwater withdrawals from the Santa Fe Group aquifer 

system have caused water levels to decline more than 120 feet 

in some places within the Albuquerque area. This has resulted 

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

interaction associated with the Rio Grande. 

Previous researchers have used streambed permeameters, 

the transient response of the aquifer to a flood pulse, vertical 

profiles of temperature measurements, and calibrated 
Summary 61

numerical models to estimate the flux between the Rio Grande 

and the Santa Fe Group aquifer system. In contrast to previous 

more regional-scale studies, a study was designed to 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 in cooperation 

with the Bureau of Reclamation, the Middle Rio Grande 

Endangered Species Collaborative Program, and the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers began a detailed characterization 

of the hydrogeology of the Rio Grande riparian corridor in 

the Albuquerque, New Mexico, area to provide hydrologic 

data and 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 

the riverside drains. 

The study area extends about 18 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 inner valley is approximately 

2-3 miles wide and slopes about 5-6 feet per mile southward 

through the Albuquerque area. The riverside drains are ditches 

generally separated from the river by levees that are designed 

to intercept lateral groundwater flow from the river and 

prevent waterlogged-soil conditions east and west of the inner 

valley. Seepage to the riverside drains constitutes one 

of the main sources of groundwater discharge from the 

shallow alluvium. 

The Rio Grande inner valley alluvial aquifer (alluvial 

aquifer) consists of coarse-grained axial channel deposits 

and post-Santa Fe Group sediments that underlie the presentday Rio Grande flood plain. 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. These 

deposits form an extensive shallow aquifer along the Rio 

Grande in the Albuquerque area and may be as much as 

120 feet thick with an average thickness of 80 feet. The 

underlying Santa Fe Group aquifer system is composed 

primarily of gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposits that are 

approximately 14,000 feet thick in parts of the basin. 

Piezometers and surface-water gages were installed in 

paired transects near five bridges in the Albuquerque area. 

Each transect included nested piezometers and surfacewater-stage 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 were 

spaced about 500 feet apart. The paired-transect configuration 

was chosen to facilitate definition of horizontal and vertical 

gradients at each location. 

 Continuous subsurface core samples were collected 

at each transect. Core samples were obtained to ensure that 

piezometer screens were placed in sand and gravel and to 

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 at depths ranging from 

25 to 55 feet.

Results from 35 slug tests performed in the alluvial 

aquifer for this study during January and February 2009 

indicate that hydraulic-conductivity values ranged from 

5 feet per day to 160 feet per day, with a median hydraulicconductivity for all transects of 40 feet per day. Slug-test 

results from piezometers on the east side of the river were not 

substantially different from those on the west side.

Hourly groundwater-level data were recorded from 

164 piezometers screened at different intervals within the 

alluvial aquifer. Groundwater-level data were used to evaluate 

water-level trends, measure response to increases or decreases 

in river stage, and to calculate horizontal hydraulic gradients. 

Horizontal hydraulic gradients indicated that groundwater 

movement generally was away from the river and toward 

the drains. 

Hourly groundwater temperatures were recorded at 

depths of 10 and 20 feet in selected piezometer nests. Large 

ranges in surface-water temperature were apparent: surfacewater temperatures ranged from 37°F in the winter to 79°F in 

the summer. Surface-water temperatures in the drains typically 

were similar to temperatures measured in the Rio Grande, but 

the magnitudes of fluctuations in the river were somewhat 

larger. 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. 

Vertical temperature profiles were collected during the 

months of October 2008 and January and February 2009 in 

the deepest piezometer at selected piezometer nests during the 

nonirrigation season. 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-foot intervals from about 0.5 feet below the water surface 

to the bottom of each piezometer. Although piezometers 

were constructed with a screened interval of 5 feet 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 

temperatures recorded throughout the nonirrigation season 

were most variable at depths less than 30 feet and generally 

ranged from 40 to 70°F. 

A simple conceptual model of flow indicates that the 

groundwater table gently slopes from the Rio Grande towards 

riverside drains and the outer boundaries of the inner valley. 

Water infiltrating from the Rio Grande initially moves in a 

vertical direction below the bed of the river. As flow spreads 

farther into the alluvial aquifer, vertical gradients become 

small relative to horizontal gradients at depths less than 
62 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

30 feet and flow becomes primarily horizontal. The slope 

of the water-table surface may be strongly controlled by 

the riverside drains and, in a broader sense, influenced by 

other more distal hydrologic boundary conditions, such 

as groundwater withdrawals by wells. Riverside drains 

may induce localized vertical gradients that result in flow 

converging on the drain from all directions. Alternatively, 

drains may intercept groundwater flow only from the 

shallowest part of the aquifer. 

Water-level data from shallow piezometers indicated 

that the median annual horizontal hydraulic gradients in 

the alluvial aquifer ranged from 0.011 to 0.002. Generally, 

horizontal hydraulic gradients increase from the Paseo del 

Norte to the Barelas transects, and decrease from the Barelas 

to the I-25 transects. Hydraulic gradients on the east and west 

sides of the Rio Grande differed by a factor of 1.6 or less at 

the Paseo Del Norte, Barelas, and Rio Bravo transects and 

differed by a factor of 2.5 or more at the Montaño and I-25 

transects. Relative to the downstream direction of the Rio 

Grande channel at each transect, the direction of groundwater 

flow on the east side of the river ranged from 71 to 89 degrees 

counterclockwise from the channel and on the west side 

ranged from 68 to 78 degrees clockwise from the channel.

Groundwater fluxes through the alluvial aquifer 

calculated using median hydraulic conductivities from 

slug-tests (qslug) ranged from about 0.1 feet per day to 

about 0.7 feet per day. The differences in qslug from one 

location to another appear to be a function of both hydraulic 

gradient and hydraulic conductivity. The qslug results indicate 

that the highest rates of groundwater flow through the alluvial 

aquifer occurred on the east and west sides of the river at 

the Barelas transects and correspond to the highest median 

hydraulic conductivity from slug test analysis and high 

hydraulic gradients. 

With the exception of the Montaño and I-25 transects, 

the range of qslug values near each respective bridge location 

generally were similar on both sides of the river. The differing 

values of qslug at Montaño east and Montaño west were 

attributed to much lower gradients on the west side than on 

the east side of this location. Although fluxes east and west 

of the river at the Barelas and Rio Bravo Bridge locations 

were relatively uniform, hydraulic gradients on the west side 

of these transects were slightly more responsive to changes 

in river stage. A range of fluxes (qtiedeman) through the alluvial 

aquifer was calculated by using a plausible range of hydraulic 

conductivities (20 to 150 feet per day) compiled from the 

literature and the daily mean hydraulic gradients calculated in 

this study. The difference between qslug values relative to the 

range of qtiedeman values was likely the result of differences in 

bulk aquifer properties measured at different scales. Results 

of calculations of horizontal groundwater flux (qheat) show that 

highest median value was at Paseo Del Norte east (0.52 feet 

per day) and the lowest median value at I-25 east (0.23 feet 

per day). For all transects, the median of the mean annual qheat

values from the east side of the river is higher than the median 

from the west side of the river. Flux values computed from 

Darcy’s law and from the Suzuki-Stallman method agreed 

reasonably well, although in general, fluxes from the SuzukiStallman method were slightly higher than those computed 

through the use of Darcy’s law. 

To test the validity of the results from the Darcy’s 

law and Suzuki-Stallman flux calculations, discharge was 

measured in riverside drains on both sides of the river north of 

the Montaño Bridge during a period of low flow on February 

26, 2009. Flow in the Corrales Riverside Drain increased 

by 1.4 cubic feet per second from mile 2 to mile 4 and 

decreased by 0.4 cubic feet per second from mile 4 to mile 6. 

The increase in flow between drain miles 2 and 4 represents 

seepage of groundwater to the drain of at an average rate 

of about 12 cubic feet per day per linear foot of drain. The 

decrease in flow from mile 4 to 6 represents seepage of 

water from the drain to the aquifer. Flow in the Albuquerque 

Riverside Drain increased by 15 cubic feet per second between 

drain miles 0 and 3. This increase in flow represents seepage 

of groundwater to the drain at an average rate of about 

82 cubic feet per day per linear foot of drain. 

The flux of water from the river to the aquifer was 

calculated to be 2.2 cubic feet per day per linear foot of river 

by using the median qslug at Montaño west of 0.09 feet per day, 

a 1-foot width of aquifer measured parallel to the river, and 

an assumption that all of the leakage from the Rio Grande is 

contained in the upper 25 feet of the aquifer. Under the same 

assumptions and by using the mean qheat calculated from the 

Suzuki-Stallman method for the Montaño west transects of 

0.24 feet per day, the total flux was calculated to be 6.0 cubic 

feet per day per linear foot of river. Assuming the Corrales 

Riverside Drain intercepted all of this flow, the qslug or qheat

fluxes would only account for 18 to 50 percent, respectively, 

of the increase of flow in the drain (12 cubic feet per day per 

linear foot of drain) between miles 2 and 4 on February 26, 

2009. Given a median annual hydraulic gradient of 0.003 at 

Montaño west, the hydraulic conductivity of the upper 25 feet 

of alluvium would have to be 160 feet per day for discharge 

from the aquifer to the drain to account for 100 percent of the 

increase in flow in the riverside drain on February 26, 2009. 

The flux of water from the river to the aquifer was 

calculated to be 15 cubic feet per day per linear foot of river 

by using the median qslug at the Montaño east transects of 

0.30 feet per day, a 1-foot width of aquifer measured parallel 

to the river, and assuming that all of the leakage from the 

Rio Grande is contained in the upper 50 feet of the aquifer 

at the Montaño east transects. Under the same assumptions 

and by using the mean flux calculated from the SuzukiStallman method for the Montaño east transects of 0.34 feet 

per day, the flux of water from the river to the aquifer was 

calculated to be 17 cubic feet per day per linear foot of river. 
References 63

Assuming the Albuquerque Riverside Drain intercepted all 

this flow, the qslug or qheat fluxes would only account for 18 

to 21 percent, respectively, of the increase in flow (82 cubic 

feet per day per linear foot of drain) measured in the drain 

on February 26, 2009. Given an average annual hydraulic 

gradient of 0.010 at the Montaño east transects the hydraulic 

conductivity of the upper 50 feet of alluvium would have to 

be about 160 feet per day for discharge from the aquifer to 

the drain to account for 100 percent of the increase in flow 

in the riverside drain on February 26, 2009. For all locations, 

assuming that water leaking from the river to the aquifer is 

transmitted to the drains through a uniform 30 feet aquifer 

thickness in the Albuquerque area, the qslug flux rates would 

range from 2.7 to 20 cubic feet per day per linear foot of river 

and the qheat flux rates would range from 6.9 to 16 cubic feet 

per day per linear foot of river. 

The comparison of these results with those of previous 

investigations suggests that calculated flux through the alluvial 

aquifer is strongly scale dependent and that the thickness of 

aquifer through which river water flows may be greater than 

indicated by the vertical temperature profiles. Depth of riverwater penetration into the aquifer could be further investigated 

using water chemistry to establish the boundary between water 

from the river and deeper aquifer water. 

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, November.

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, The Rio Grande—Competing 

demands for a desert river, chap. 2 of Stonestrom, D.A., 

and Constantz, Jim, 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., 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 p.

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.

Blasch, K.W., Constantz, Jim, and Stonestrom, David A., 

2007, Thermal methods for investigating ground-water 

recharge, in Stonestrom, D.A., Constantz, Jim, Ferre, Ty 

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, Fla., 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.

Compton, R.R., 1962, Manual of field geology: 

New York, Wiley, 378 p.

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 4–D2, 128 p.

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.
64 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

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.

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.

Engdahl, N.B., Vogler, E.T, and Weissman, G.S., 2010, 

Evaluation of aquifer heterogeneity effects on river flow 

loss using a transition probability framework: Water 

Resources Research, v. 46, no. 1 [variously paged]. (Also 

available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009WR007903.)

Fetter, C.W., 1994, Applied hydrogeology (3d ed.): 

New York, 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 8-A3, 52 p.

Gould, Jaci, 1994, Middle Rio Grande channel permeameter 

investigations: Bureau of Reclamation Albuquerque Area 

Office, 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: Socorro, 

N. Mex., 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 valleyfill 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. 

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.

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.

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.

Myers, N.C., Finnegan, P.J., and Breedlove, J.D., 1999, 

Analysis of water-level data and ground-water flow 

modeling at Fort Riley, Kansas: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4115, 6 p.

National Climatic Data Center, 2011, Quality controlled 

local climatological data: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, accessed December 1, 2011, 

at http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/qclcd/QCLCD?prior=N.

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.

Rantz, S.E., and others, 1982, Measurement and computation 

of streamflow: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 2175, 2 v., 631 p.

Reiter, Marshall, 2001, Using precision temperature logs 

to estimate horizontal and vertical groundwater flow 

components: Water Resources Research, vol. 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.
References 65

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, 

Air-ground temperature coupling and subsurface 

propagation of annual temperature signals: Journal of 

Geophysical Research, v. 109, no. 21, D21107, 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. 2,821-2,827.

Suzuki, Seitaro, 1960, Percolation measurements based on 

heat flow through soil with special reference to paddy fields: 

Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 65, no. 9, p. 2883-2885.

Thorn, 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, 2003, 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, Wiley, 689 p.
66 Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande at Selected Locations 

Publishing support provided by

Lafayette Publishing Service Center
Rankin and others—Groundwater Hydrology and Estimation of Horizontal Groundwater Flux from the Rio Grande—Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5007