<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>Amy E. Stewart</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Jim E. Constantz</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>Carole L. Thomas</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2000</dc:date>
  <dc:description>Two methods, one a surface-water method and the second a &#13;
ground-water method, were used to determine infiltration and &#13;
percolation rates along a 2.5-kilometer reach of the Santa Fe &#13;
River near La Bajada, New Mexico. The surface-water method uses &#13;
streamflow measurements and their differences along a stream reach, &#13;
streamflow-loss rates, stream surface area, and evaporation &#13;
rates to determine infiltration rates. The ground-water method &#13;
uses heat as a tracer to monitor percolation through shallow &#13;
streambed sediments. &#13;
&#13;
Data collection began in October 1996 and continued through &#13;
December 1997. During that period the stream reach was instrumented &#13;
with three streamflow gages, and temperature profiles were &#13;
monitored from the stream-sediment interface to about 3 meters below &#13;
the streambed at four sites along the reach.&#13;
&#13;
Infiltration is the downward flow of water through the stream-&#13;
sediment interface. Infiltration rates ranged from 92 to 267 &#13;
millimeters per day for an intense measurement period during June 26-&#13;
28, 1997, and from 69 to 256 millimeters per day during &#13;
September 27-October 6, 1997. Investigators calculated &#13;
infiltration rates from streamflow loss, stream surface-area &#13;
measurements, and evaporation-rate estimates. Infiltration rates &#13;
may be affected by unmeasured irrigation-return flow in the &#13;
study reach. Although the amount of irrigation-return flow was none &#13;
to very small, it may result in underestimation of infiltration &#13;
rates. The infiltration portion of streamflow loss was much greater &#13;
than the evaporation portion. Infiltration accounted for about &#13;
92 to 98 percent of streamflow loss. Evaporation-rate estimates &#13;
ranged from 3.4 to 7.6 millimeters per day based on pan-evaporation &#13;
data collected at Cochiti Dam, New Mexico, and accounted for about 2 &#13;
to 8 percent of streamflow loss.&#13;
&#13;
Percolation is the movement of water through saturated or &#13;
unsaturated sediments below the stream-sediment interface. &#13;
Percolation rates ranged from 40 to 109 millimeters per day during &#13;
June 26-28, 1997. Percolation rates were not calculated for the &#13;
September 27-October 6, 1997, period because a late summer flood &#13;
removed the temperature sensors from the streambed. Investigators &#13;
used a heat-and-water flow model, VS2DH (variably saturated, two-&#13;
dimensional heat), to calculate near-surface streambed &#13;
infiltration and percolation rates from temperatures measured in the &#13;
stream and streambed.&#13;
&#13;
Near the stream-sediment interface, infiltration and &#13;
percolation rates are comparable. Comparison of infiltration and &#13;
percolation rates showed that infiltration rates were greater &#13;
than percolation rates. The method used to calculate infiltration &#13;
rates accounted for net loss or gain over the entire stream reach, &#13;
whereas the method used to calculate percolation was &#13;
dependent on point measurements and, as applied in this study, &#13;
neglected the nonvertical component of heat and water &#13;
fluxes. In general, using the ground-water method was less labor &#13;
intensive than making a series of streamflow measurements and relied &#13;
on temperature, an easily measured property. The ground-water method &#13;
also eliminated the difficulty of measuring or estimating &#13;
evaporation from the water surface and was therefore more direct. &#13;
Both methods are difficult to use during periods of flood flow. The &#13;
ground-water method has problems with the thermocouple-wire &#13;
temperature sensors washing out during flood events. The surface-&#13;
water method often cannot be used because of safety concerns for &#13;
personnel making wading streamflow measurements.</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.3133/wri004141</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>U.S. Geological Survey </dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Determination of infiltration and percolation rates along a reach of the Santa Fe River near La Bajada, New Mexico</dc:title>
  <dc:type>reports</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>