Hydrogeology of Potential Recharge Areas for t h e Basina n d Valley-Fill Aquifer Systems, and .Hydrogeochemical Modelling
of P r o p o s e d Artificial Recharge of the Upper Santa Fe Aquifer,
Northern Albuquerque Basin, New Mexico
Compiled by
i
John W. Hawley and T. M. Whitworth
New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources
New Mexico Tech, Socorro, NM 87801
NMBMMR OPEN-FILE REPORT 4 0 2 4
June,l996
This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed
for conformity to New Mexico Bureau of Mines standards
s
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NMBMMR OPEN-FILE REPORT 402
402D Hydrogeology of potential recharge areas for the basin- and valley-fill aquifer
systems. and hydrogeochemical modelling of proposed artificial recharge of
the upperSanta FeAquifer.northern
Albuquerque Basin.NewMexico.
Edited by J W Hawley and T &I Whitworth
. .
. .
I.
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II.
Chapter 1
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
i
Hydrogeologic framework of potential recharge areas
in the Albuquerque
Basin. CentralValencia County. New Mexico.
..
by J. W . Hawley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1.
Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
2.
Study Approach
and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
3.
Related Hydrogeologic Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
Geologic Setting andOutline of Cenozoic History . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
2.
Geomorphic Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
Central Albuquerque (ABQ) Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
a.
b.
Belen Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
C.
Major
Intrabasin Landforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.
Overview of Rio Grande RiftEvolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Basin-Fill Depositionand RiverValleyEvolution
. . . . . . . . 21
4.
The Santa Fe Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
a.
Quaternary Evolution oftheRio Grande
b.
22
Valley System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Conceptual Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
1.
Hydrostratigraphic Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
2.
Lithofacies Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
3.
a.
Basin-Fill Facies
Subdivisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
b.
Valley-Fill Subdivisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
4.
Intra-Basin and Bedrock-Boundary SturcturalCompnents . . . 30
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
Recharge Corridors, Reaches, and Windows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
1.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
Recharge Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
2.
3.
Recharge Reaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
i
RechargeWindow Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
a.
River-Valley
Recharge Windows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Mountain-Front Recharge Windows . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
b.
5.
Arroyo Recharge Window Areas (AW's) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Hydrogeologic Framework ofMajor Basin Subdivisions with
Emphasis on Areas with Recharge Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
Cochiti-Bernalillo (C-B) Structural
Depression
. . . . . 45
a.
b.
Loma Colorada Transfer Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
C.
Ziana-Sandia Pueblo (Structural)High . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Rivers Edge Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47
d.
e.
Metro-Area (Structural) Depression . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
f.
Mountainview-Westland (Structural) High . . . . . . . . . 55
g.
Wind Mesa (WDM) Depression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
h.
Gabaldon Salient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57
1.
Tijeras-Gabaldon Accommodation Zone
(TGaz)
. . . . 57
Lunas-Bernard0 (L-B Structural)Depression . . . . . . . 58
1.
k.
Hubbell Bench Recharge WindowSites . . . . . . . . . . 59
1.
Turututu Salient of Joyita Bench . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Lower Puerco Structural Depression . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
m.
Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
61
1.
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
61
2.
Recommendationsfor Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63
4.
F.
G.
H.
Appendix 1-A
FieldLogs of Boreholes drilledby the U S . Bureau of Reclamation
for Installation of Piezometer NestsfortheMiddle
Rio Grande
Water Assessment Project - FY 1994
I11.
Permeability, porosiry, and grain-size distribution
in representative hydrostratigraphic and lithofacies
units at potential recharge areas, by D . M . Detmer,
Graduate Research Assistant, New Mexico Bureau of Mines
and Mineral Resources and Earth and Environmental
Department,New Mexico Tech, Socorro, NM 87801 . . . . 2-1
Chapter 2
A.
B.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-1
2-4
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Permeability Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-4
1.
Collection of Porosity Samples 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
2.
Classification of Outcrop Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
3.
4.
Particle
Size Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-9
Porosity Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-10
5.
6.
Graphical Representation of Particle SizeDistributing
. . . 2-11
7.
8.
9.
10.
C.
Results . .
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
I.
8.
..........................................
Correlation of Permeability with Size Distribution
Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Porosity, Permeability andCementation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Multiple Regression Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison of Measured Permeability with Empirical
Permeability Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Outcrop Descriptions and PermeabilityProfiles . . . . . . . .
Comparison of Bedding Types Based on Particle Size
Distribution Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison of Porosity and Permeability by Bedding Type
Comparison of Bedding Types of Log-Hyperbolic Plot
of Grain Size Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison of Grain-Size Distributions of Well Cuttings . .
2-12
2-12
2-13
2-14
2-14
2-14
2-17
2-17
2-19
2-21
2-30
2-32
2-32
2-33
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-36
1. The Air-Minipermeater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-36
2 . Correlation of Permeability with Grain Size Distribution . . . . 2-37
3 . Porosity, Permeability and Cementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-40
2-42
4 . Multiple Regression Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 . Empirical Permeability Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-44
6. Outcrop Permeability Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-46
7. GrainSize Distribution Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-48
8. Log-HyperbolicPlots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-49
9. Comparison of BeddingTypes by Particle Size Distribution . 2-51
10. Permeability and Porosity by BeddingType . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-52
11. Comparison of Outcrop Samples and Well Cuttings . . . . . . . 2-53
E . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-54
F. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-57
G. Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-61
H. Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-68
9.
D.
Comparison of Measured Permeability to Empirical
Permeability Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.................
ParticleSizeDistributionStatistics
Comparison of BeddingTypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Predictive PermeabilityEquations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix 2-A Log hyperbolic plots, cumulative
percent
plots,
and grain
size
distribution parameters of outcrop samples
Appendix 2-B Scatter plots of measured permeability compared to permeability values
predicted bypublished empiricalpermeabilityequationsandmultiple
regression permeability equations
Appendix 2-C Scatter plots of measured permeability and outcropsampleeffective
diameters and grain size distribution parameters
...
111
Appendix 2-D
Appendix 2-E
Appendix 2-F
IV.
Chapter 3
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
V.
Comparison
of
porosity. permeability and grain size distribution
parameters of outcrop sample grouped by bedding type
Comparison of grain size distribution statistics of well cuttings
Outcrop sketches and range of permeability measurements by outcrop
Comparison of geophysical logs
and
vertical permeability
distributions inPSMW 19andCoronado 2 Wells. Albuquerque.
New Mexico. by W. C. Haneberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PSMW19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Coronado2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter 4
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-2
3-3
3-4
Hydrogeochemical computer modelingofproposed
artificial
recharge of the upper Santa Fe Group aquifer.
4-1
by T. M. Whitworth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-1
A . Abstracr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-2
C. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-3
1. Hydrogeochemical Modeling Programs Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
2. Hydrogeochemical Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-5
3. Choice of Porentially Significant Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
..
4-6
a. Shcates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-7
b . Oxides and Hydroxides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Aluminum Hydroxides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-7
2 . Silica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-7
3 . IronOxides and Hydroxides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-7
c . Carbonates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-7
d. Phosphates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-8
e. Sulfides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-8
4-8
f. Sulfates and Halides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-8
4 . ChemicalAnalyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 . Sensitivity Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-10
D . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-13
1. Geochemical Modeling of Artificial1 Recharge
Via Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-13
a . Treated Effluent Injected intoGroundwater . . . . . . . . 4-13
1. Mixing of Treated Effluent and Charles 3
groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-13
iv
E.
F.
G.
H.
2. Mixing of Treated Effluent and Corondao 1
groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . , . 4-14
b. Surface Water Injected into Groundwater . . . . . . , . , . 4-14
1. Mixing of Low TDS Surface Water with
Charles 3 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15
2. Mixing of Low TDS Surface Water with
Coronado I Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 4-15
3. Mixing of High TDS Surface Water with
Charles 3 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16
4. Mixing of High TDS Surface Water with
Coronado 1 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17
5. Mixing of El Paso Treated Effluent with
El Paso Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17
c.Geochemical Modeling of Artificial Recharge Via
Surface Infiltration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18
1. Mixing of Treated Effluent Recharged by Surface
Infiltration with Charles 3 Groundwater . . , . , 4-18
2. Mixing of Treated Effluent Recliarged by Surface
Infiltration with Coronado1Groundwater
. . . 4-19
3. Mixing of Low TDS Surface Water Recharged by
Surface Infiltration with Charles 3 Groundwater 4-19
4. Mixing of Low TDS Surface Water Recharged by
Surface Infiltration with Coronado 1 Groundwated-20
5. Mixing of High TDS Surface Water Recharged by
Surface Infiltration with Charles 3 Groundwater 4-20
6. Mixing of High TDS Surface Water Recharged by
Surface Infiltration with Coronado 1 Groundwated-21
2.Water
Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . 4-21
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22
1. Basisand Limitations of Geochemical Models . . . . . . . , , , , 4-22
2. Precipitation Reactions During Subsurface Injection of
Artificial Recharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23
3. Theoretical Pattern and Distribution of Precipitation During
Subsurface Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . , . 4-25
4. Comparison of Albuquerque and El Paso Simulations for
Subsurface Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-27
5. Precipitation Reactions During Surface Infiltration o f
Artificial Recharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-28
6. Theoretical Pattern and Distribution of Precipitation
Effects During Surface Infiltration . . . , . . , . . . . . . . , . , . , 4-29
7. Predicted Effects o f Artificial RechargeonWaterQuality
. . . 4-30
Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-30
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . , . . , . . . 4-32
Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-35
V
I. Figures
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . 4-52
Appendix 4A Chemical Analyses Used in Study
Appendix 4B Computer Output Files
Appendix 4C Theoretical Development of Figure 4-34
Disks 1-7
VI.
Chapter 5
Summary and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 5-1
vi
Open-file Rcpon 402-D
HYDROGEOLOGY OF POTENTIAL RECHARGE AREAS
FOR THE BASIN- AND VALLEY-FILL AQUIFER SYSTEMS,
AND HYDROGEOCHEMICAL MODELLING OF PROPOSED ARTIFICIAL
RECHARGE OF THE UPPER SANTA FE AQUIFER,
NORTHERN ALBUQUERQUE BASIN, NEW MEXICO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the fourth and final volume (OF402-D) of
a set of reports on "Hydrogeologic
Investigations in the Albuquerque Basin, Central New Mexico, 1992-1995" by the Environmental
andEngineeringGeologyGroup,NewMexicoBureauofMinesandMineralResources
(NMBMMR, Office of the State Geologist), and collaborators
in the Earth and Environmental
Science Department at New Mexico Tech. Prituary support for these studies was provided
by
matching-fundgrantstoNewMexicoTechfromtheCityofAlbuquerque-PublicWorks
Department (COA-PWD) and the U.S.Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). Project activities will be
introducedandsummarizedinOpen-fileReport(OF)402-A.Thegeneralsettingofthe
Albuquerque Geohydrologic Basin Complex (ABC)
in the context of its Cenozoic geologic history
isdescribed in OF402-B.Report402-Cprovidesdetailedinfonnation
on hydrostratigraphic,
lithofacies, and structural-geologic units that (individually and collectively) are major components
of the basin-fill aquifer system, and/or fonn important geohydrologic boundaries.
Etnphasis in this volume (OF402-D) ison aspects of hydrogeology and geocheulistry that
relate to groundwaterrecharge,bothnaturaland
artificial, intheAlbuquerque-RioRancho
metropolitan area. Identification and characterization of potentialrecharge window areas has been
theprincipalobjectiveofthisphaseoftheinvestigation.
Recltnrge windows wereoriginally
defined (NMBMMR-OF387) as places where permeable, partly saturated valley- and basin-fill
deposits are in contact with
1) equally pcnneable lithofacies (e.g. I, 11) of the Santa Fe Group
aquifersystem, or 2)unsaturated(vadose-zone)depositsthatarewell-connectedwithmajor
aquifer zones. Narrow shallow-aquifer belts that coincide with perennial or internlittent streamchannelreachesareheredesignated
recltorge corridors. Equallyimportant recharge window
categories include very penueable deep-aquifer zones that may be hundreds of feet below the
surface, but are still accessible via high-capacity recharge wells. Three of the four chapters in this
report deal specifically with the geohydrologic, geophysical, and geochetnical factors that must
becarefullyevaluatedbeforeanyartificialrechargemethodcanbeconsidered
as a viable
(economic and environmental) option.
Chapter 1, by J. W. Hawley, builds both on the basin-wide and detailed and basin-wide
characterizations of the basin's hydrogeologic framework presented in Volumes 402-B and 402-C.
Three types of representative recharge windows and corridor areas are identified and described:
1) river-valley floor, 2) major tributav-arroyo systems, and 3) basin-border reaches
of streams
draininglarge,high-mountainwatersheds.Targetrecharge-wellsitesintheAlbuquerque-Rio
Rancho Metro Area are also identified in Chapter 1. Chapter 2, by D. M. Detmer, documents
significant
interrelationships
between
penneability,
porosity,
bulk
density,
and
grain-size
distribution in representativehydrostratigraphicandlithofaciesunits.Thissectionincludes
detaileddescriptionsoftheseunits
in bothsubsurface(borehole)andsurfacesamplesitesat
potential rec/targe window areas.Chapter
3, by W. C.Haneberg,conlparesgeophysical-log
interpretations with vertical peneability distributions based
on analyses of drill-cuttings fromtwo
of the deep wells were described
in Chapter 3. Chapter 4, by T. M. Whitworth, concludes this
report with a detailed description ofa hydrogeochemical (computer) modeling method that is here
appliedtotheproposedartificialrechargeoftheprimarybasin-fillaquiferzone
in the
Metropolitan area: Upper Sauta Fe Unit USF-2 and ancestral Rio Grande lithofacies.
J. W. Hawley
T. Michael Witworth
I
Chapter 1
Hydrogeologic Framework of Potential Recharge Areas
in theAlbuquerqueBasin,Central
ValenciaCounty,
New Mexico
Jolm W. Hawley
New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources
2808 Central S.E., Albuquerque, NM 87106
TNTRODUCTION
As here defined, the Albuquerque (ABQ) Basin Complex comprises all of the area
between Cochiti Reservoir and San Acacia that has been collectively designated the Santo
Doming0 and Albuquerque-Belen Basins in many reports on the region's water resources
(Figs. 1-1, 1-2,; Plates 1-3; Lee, 1907; Bryan, 1938). The
ABQ Basin covers a surface
area of about 3,000 square miles and includes the coextensive structural depressions of
the Rio Grande Rift tectonic province (Kelley, 1977; Chapinand Cather, 1994). Basin
and valley fills thatform the combined Santa Fe Group and shallow alluvial aquifer
systems arealso part of the Basin Complex (Hawley and Haase, 1992; Hawley etal,
1995). The geohydrologic system in the upper2000 ft of the basin-fillsequence
is
currently the subject of detailed investigations by a number of state and federal agencies,
and the City of Albuquerque (see Kernodle et al, 1995; Thorn et
al,
1993; McAda, D. P.,
1996; USBR, 1996).
This chapter describes studies that relate to our primary research goal of providing
to the US. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and the City of Albuquerque (COA) "a basic
understanding of the distribution and character of river-valley fill and mountain-front
deposits asthey pertain to groundwater recharge in the northern Albuquerque Basin."
Following an introductory section that describes objectives, study approach and methods
and related hydrogeologic investigations, there is a short discussion of geologic setting
1
Open-File Repon 402-D,Clnpler I
0
Neogene
Cenozoic
o
oasln-ill1
vclcanlc fields
deposits
sm2::z::::2
Acccrnmccalicn zone
1W
mhm
Figure 1-1. Index mapshowing major intermontane basins and Cenozoic volcanic fields of
the Rio Grande
rift region. Approximate boundaries with contiguous structural provinces
(S. Rocky Mts., Colorado Plateau,
SE Basin and Range) are indicated. Basins are half-graben complexes with asymmetry changing across
transverse (accommodation)zones that separate tilted-fault-block domains of generally opposing stratal
dip.
Modified from Keller and Cather (1995), and Chapin and Cather (1994). Basin abbreviations from north
to south: Upper Arkansas P A ) , San Luis (SL), Espaiiola (FJSanto
,
Doming0 (SD)-Central Albuquerque
(A), Belen-southern Albuquerque (a), Socorro (Sc)-La Jencia (LJ), S a n Agustin (SA), Jornada del Muerte
(JM), Palomas (?), Tularosa 0,Mimbres @I%),Mesilla
Los Muertos(LM), Hueco m,and Salt (S).
Rift accommodation zones: Embudo-Jemez (Eaz), Santa Ana-Borrego (SBaz), Tijeras-Gabaldou (TGaz),
and Socorro (Sa). Volcanic fields:San Juan (SJVF), Latir (LVF), Jemez (JVF), and Mogollon-Datil
(M).
WW.
2
Open-File Repon 402-D,Chapler I
setting and Cenozoic history of this part of the Rio Grande rift. Emphasis throughout is
onhydrogeologic
components of the overall geologic frameworkthat
groundwater recharge.
The middle part ofthis
relates to
chapter deals specifically with the
conceptual model of the Basin's hydrogeologic framework as it relates to recharge through
interconnected valley-and basin-fill aquifer systems. The model combines information on
the stratigraphy, lithologic character and structural components of the basin-fill (Santa Fe
Group)and valley-fill depositional systems. Discussions emphasizetheimportance
of
structural (tectonic) control on 1) intra-basin 'and basin-border (geohydrologic) boundary
conditions and 2) sedimentary depositional environments (e.g. playa-lake, alluvial-fan, and
ancestral-river) during times of rift-basin filling.
The final section of thischapter provides a detailed overview of potential recharge
"corridor, reach, and window" areas in valleys of the Rio Grande and its major perennial
andephemeral
tributaries.
In this section, the areal scopeof
our investigations is
expanded outside the Albuquerque-Rio Rancho Metropolitan area to include the entire
ABQ Basin Complex (Plates 1-3; Fig. 1-2). Discussions focusonreaches
of the Rio
Grande Valley in five major structure depressions that form distinct Basin subdivisions
between Cochiti Reservoir and San Acacia. The chapter is illustrated with 10 figures and
20 plates(map
and cross section scales from 1:500,000 to 1:24,000).
Supporting
information on borehole data bases, conceptual model unit descriptions, map and cross
section explanations, geologic history, definitions of terms, and'referencesources
is
presented in Appendices A to K.
Purpose and Scope
One of the major objectives of our hydrogeologic
investigations
in the
Albuquerque Basin is to develop a better understanding of the distribution and character
of basin and valley fills in terms of groundwater recharge potential. The hydrogeologic
framework of potential recharge areas for both the Santa Fe Group (basin-fill) and Rio
Grande valley-fill aquifer systems is described in this chapter.
Emphasis
is on
hydrogeologic conditions at places (corridor and window areas) where the Upper Santa
3
t?~.V,:_.V
Fig 1 - 2
Abq Basin Caption
ConnellIDJMc 4/86
EXPLANATION
11111111111111
First-order structures, including major basin-margin andintra-basin faults,
transfer and accommodation zones: Tijeras-Cafioncito(TCfs); GabaldonTijeras (GTaz); Atrisco-Rincon (ARtz); Loma Colorada (LCtz); Santa
Ana-Borrego (SABaz); La Bajada (LBfs); Rio Grande (RGfz); West
Sand Hill (SHfz); Sandia (Sfz); and Zia (Zfz).
Mesa (W);
Second-order structures, including significant intra-basinfaults and
flexures: Comanche (Cmfz); Cat Mesa (CMfz); Puerco Valley (PVfz);
Moquino (Mofz); and Sand Hill (SHfz).
"
"
"
JH
Third-order structures, including intrabasin transition zones,faults, and
flexures: Ridgecrest (RCfi).
Selected geomorphic boundaries.
Other basin-boundary uplifts: Cerros del Rio plateau (CR); Joyita Hills
(JH); Jemez Mountains (JM); Ladron Mountains (LM); and Nacimiento
Mountains
Major gaps in dividing ridges and other buried structuralhighs: Dalies
(DG); Peralta (PG); River's Edge (RG); and Westgate (WG).
Structural depressions and subbasins: stipple density denotes approximate
extent of selected basins.
Mujor structural depressions: Cochiti-Bernalillo (C-B); Metro-Area
("A); Wind Mesa (WDM); Lunas-Bemardo (L-B); and Lower
Puerco (LOP).
Subbasins (sectors): Apache graben (Ab); Borrego Canyon (Bb);
Calabacillas ((3); East Heights (EHb); Jemez-Zia (JZb); PlacitasTonque (PTb); Sun Mesa sector (SMs of EHb); Paradise Hills
(PHb); Cat Hills (CHb); CatMesa (CMb); Gabaldon (Gb); Parea
Mesa (PMb); Sevilleta (Svb); and Monte Largo(MLb).
Basin margin structural bench (embayment, salient, or prong): Monte
Largo (MLE); Hubbell-Joyita bench; Lagunabench (LB); San Ysidro
embayment (SY); and Hagan bench and embayment(HB). Hatchure
spacing denotes approximate extent of benches.
Inter-depression structural highs (ridge, salient,or prong): Westland
(WS); Mountainview (MR); Ziana (ZR); and Sandia Pueblo (SR).
A-
Approximate location of schematic cross section, Figure1-3.
Figure 1-2. Index map of the Albuquerque Basin Complex (ABC) showing location of major
geomorphic subdivisions, inrrabasin structural depressions, depression subunits; and fault zones.
4
Hawley
Abq Basin-Fig 1
ConnelWJMc 4/96
Open-File Repon 402-D,Chapter 1
Major Geomorphic Subdivisions
of the Albuquerque Basin Complex (ABC)
106'
35' 4:
107' 15'
I
106'15'
45'
I
I
35' O(
34' 1
Figure 1-2a. Major geomorphic subdivisions of the Albuquerque Basin Complex.
5
Open-File Report 40Z-D, Chapter I
35' 4 5 '
..
lor 151
I
106'
45'
I
+
35' 00'
106' 15'
I
+
34' 15
,
6
,
Open-File Repan 402-D.Chapter I
3
5
'4
3
5
'O(
+
+
34' 1
Figure 1-2c. Major subbasins and highs within and between structural depressions.
Open-File Repon 4OZ.D. Chapter I
Fe aquifer units are in contact with saturated valley-fill deposits of the Rio Grande and
its major tributaries. In addition to sites in the valleys of perennial streams, the settings
ofthree
other geohydrologic systemswith
potential forgroundwaterrecharge
are
characterized:
1.
2.
3.
Stream channelswithperennial
or intermittentflow in lower mountain canyon
reaches and on contiguous piedmont slopes.
Channels of majorintra-basin ephemeralstreams(arroyosandwashes)
with large
watershed areas.
Major aquifer zones accessible only through injection wells or recharge basins.
Most localities described arein or near the Albuquerque-Rio Rancho Metropolitan
Area (Metro-Area, Fig. 1-2b); but available information on other parts of theMiddle Rio
Grande basin between Cochiti Reservoir and San Acacia is also summarized. The basinwideoverview
ofthe
hydrogeologic system developed forthisphase
of the our
investigations includes:
1.
2.
3.
Continued improvement of theconceptual model oftheBasin'shydrogeologic
(1992), againwith emphasis on
framework introduced in HawleyandHaase
(physical, chemical) features that are significant factors in the context of
groundwater recharge (natural and artificial).
Improved definition
of
the major hydrogeologic
units
(hydrostratigraphic,
lithofacies, and structural) that comprise the basin and valleyfills andbasinbounding rocks and structures; and (3-D) mapping these units in critical areas with
recharge potential.
Characterization ofbasic lithologicand geochemical propertiesof these units.
The conceprualmodel of hydrogeologic controls on surface-watdgroundwater
interaction that is describedinthis
chapter is based on synthesis of a large bodyof
on surface
published and unpublished geologic, geophysical, and geochemical information
and shallow subsurface features. See interpretive keys and references to these sources in
Appendices I to K. A wide variety of geomorphic and surficial geologic features are here
defined in terms of inferred recharge potential; and a provisional classification of "critical
corridor, reach,andwindowareas"
hasbeendeveloped(Plates
16 to 20; Fig. 1-10;
Appendices G-I). Withrespect to recharge potential, an important contribution of this
studyhas
beenthe
significant improvement in theidentification
and hydrogeologic
characterization of the majorstructural depressions and subbasin, the ABQ BasinComplex
8
Open-File Repon 402-D,Chaptar I
Complex (Le. Cochiti-Bemalillo [Santo Doming0 Basin], Metro-Area and Wind
Mesa
[Central ABQ Basin], Lunas-Bemardo and Lower Puerco [Belen Basin] depressions; Figs,
1-2, 1-3, 1-6). Report format (map, cross-section, tabular, and text) is designed for use
by the U S . Bureau of Reclamation and cooperating agencies in developing numerical
models of the interconnected surface-water groundwater flow particularly
as related to
aquifer recharge from both basin-wide and specific subbasin perspectives.
Study Approach and Methods
A land surface or "bird's eye" view of the Albuquerque basin provides at best a
very "fuzzy" image of what actually exists underground. Hydrogeologic and geophysical
investigations of the basin during the past four decades have demonstrated that what we
see at the surface is rarely what we get in subsurface (cf. Cordell, 1976, 1978a,b, 1979,
1984; Birch, 1982; Cordell et al., 1982; Kaehler, 1990; Lozinsky, 1994; May and Russell,
1994; Russell and Snelson, 1994 a,b; Hawley et al., 1995). It is now clear that much of
theunderlying
basin-fill hydrogeologic system (primarilySanta
Fe Group aquifers,
aquitards, and aquicludes; and basin-bounding and intra-basin structural features) is not
well connected with thesaturated inner-valley fill ofthe
perennialandintermittent
Rio Grande,and
its major
tributaries. Currentstudies also demonstrate,however, that
many important questions about aquifer system behavior can be answered satisfactorily
if we simply use readily available geological, geophysical, and geochemical tools to better
characterize the Basin's hydrogeologic framework.
The "underground view" of the relatively shallow hydrogeologic system presented
in
this
chapter
reflects
a
broad-based synrhesis of subsurface
information.
Hydrogeological interpretations arebased primarily on work done from three (contrasting)
perspectives:
1.
2.
Geomorphic expression of subsurface units as they areexhibited by surficial
geologic materials, landforms, and soils.
Lithologicproperties of valley-fill and upper basin-fill aquifersystems in the
relatively shallow subsurface (maximum depth range of 1000 to 3000 ft)
9
Hawley
MelraArea Xsectlan
ConnalVDJMc 4 D i i
Schematic Cross Section: Metro-Area Depression
A
. .
Southwest
1
de
Northeast
1
Alameda-Armijo
Paradise
Laguna
Hills
bench,
wolcanoes
subbasin
graben)
,
Llano
Rio Puercode .. '.
subbasin
subbasin
I
I wa;g~/r
Eo00 ft.
EastHeightsSandiafront
,
I
.
Llano
Sandia
Rio GrandeValley
Vemcal Exaggeralion= 8
Post-Santa
Group
Fe
Group
Santa
Fe
Deposits
Pre-Santa
Group
Fe
Deposits
Rocks
Upper Santa Fe Group
axial river facies (saturated)
Piedmont
(saturated)
Basalt
..
..
piedmont facies
(saturated)
Middle Santa Fe Group
(saturated)
Mesozoic
sedimentary
[-"3
Crystalline. .basement
- - 1- - Water table
mmza Fault zone
Open-File Report 402-D,Chapter I
3.
The structural-geologic (tectonic) frameworkand Neogene stratigraphy of deposits
in the deep depressions in the central Rio Grande Rift province (maximum depth
range of 5000 to 15000 ft).
We tend to consider the ABQ Basin from the first and second view points and ignore the
third (even when borehole and geophysical data are available). Information on the deeper
parts of rhe Basin Complex ismuch moredifficult to obtain simply because 1) deep
borehole and geophysical information is available in only a few areas; and 2) the genesis
andageof
many Rio Grande Rift tectonicfeaturesare
still poorly documented. The
multi-disciplinary investigations of the past five years, however, do showthar much
progress has already been (and will
continue to be) made in developing valid working
models of how this complicated hydrogeologic system really behaves at relatively shallow
depths (2000 to 3000 ft).
Lithofacies and hydrostratigraphic interpretations ofsample, geophysical and driller
logs of 112 boreholes contained in Appendix F represent at least one-work year of basic
data analyses.The
geophysical-log interpretationphaseof
the study was initiated by
Haase (1992) and continued by the author in 1993-1996. This work has been of a strictly
qualitative nature. It simply involved a labor-intensive method ofvisually comparing all
available subsurface date (Appendices A and B) at adjacent borehole sites, plotting this
information on a
series basin-wide cross-section, and testing and retesting provisional
interbore-hole correlations of hydrostratigraphic and lithofacies units in a series of drafts
of these sections. This "trial and error" approach ultimately led to the preparation of the
11 hydrogeologic cross sections (Plates 5-15) that form the core of the basin-framework
model developed during this investigation. Subsurface work was supplemented by broadreconnaissance surficial mapping (1:100,000 scale) of the north-central part of t h e Basin,
which concentrated on identifying fault and folds that displace Pliocene and Quaternary
deposits (Plate 4). More detailed reconnaissance mapping of valley and basin fills was
alsocompleted in parts of four 7.5 minuteQuadrangles:
Alameda, Los Griegos, and
Albuquerque West (Plates 16-19); and Albuquerque East, (Hawley and Chamberlin,
unpublished).
Surficial geologic information ofthe
11
entire Basin area (Socorro and
Open-File Report 402-D.Chapter 1
Albuquerque 2 degree sheets) has already been compiled by Hawley at a 1:250,000 scale
(unpublished ARCmJFO data base at UN"EDAC).
Investigations during this phase of the study demonstrate that
powerful subsurfacemapping
tools on abasin-widescale
one of the most
is a group of published
interpretive maps and cross sections that portray gravity (Bouguer and isostatic residual)
anomalies (Plate 3). Pioneering studies in the ABQ Basin region by Cordell (1976, 1978,
1982), Birch (1982), and Cordell and Keller (1984) are particularly acknowledged. The
other major source of geophysical information on deep-subsurface basin archirecture is
a series of papers by Russell and Snelson (1994a, b) and May and Russell (1994) on
seismic reflection surveys made in several parts of the Basin. Gravity and seismic survey
interpretations by the individuals listed above have been used whereverpossible
in
preparation of the hydrogeologicmaps and cross sections that are part of thisreport (Figs.
1-7, 1-8; Plates 2-18).
Related Hydrogeologic Investigations
Our current "underground view" of the Albuquerque Basin is based on detailed
field and laboratory research iniriated
in
1992in
cooperation wirh the City of
Albuquerque (COA) Public Works Department. The best possible interpretations of the
basin's hydrogeologic framework were needed atthat
time for incorporation in a
numerical model of the groundwater-flow system being developed by the U S . Geological
Survey-WaterResources
division (USGS-WRD; Kernodle,1992;Thornet
al., 1993;
Kernodle et al., 1995). The first phase of work involved a New Mexico Tech research
team made up of J. W. Hawley andC. S. Haase (NMBMMR), project leaders; R. P.
Lozinsky and R. M. Chamberlin (NIvlBMMR), general geology and basin-fill petrology;
and P. S. Mozley (Geoscience Department Faculty)and
J. M. Gillentine (Graduate
Research Assistant), petrographic and mineralogic analyses. Their provisional conceptual
model of basin hydrogeology in the Bemalillo County area was described in NMBMMR
Open-FileReport 387, compiled by Hawley and Haase (1992). Interpretations were
primarily based on 1) detailed analyses ofborehole geological andgeophysical
12
data
Open-File Repon 402-0, Chapter 1
(including drill samples) to depths of as much as 3400 ft (1040 m) from 12 COA water
wells, 2) recently published interpretations of commercial oil andgas exploration records,
and 3) published and unpublished information from earlier investigations of Rio Grande
Rift basins.
Besides the Albuquerque Basin discussed inthis
M
M
R and
paper, the W
cooperating organizations have conducted hydrogeologic and geotechnical investigations
inthe Espaiiola, Estancia, Palomas, southernJomada,andMesillaBasins,
as well as
reconnaissance studies throughout the Rio Grande Rift region of New Mexico and west
Texas (Hawley et al., 1969; King et al., 1971; Titus, 1980; Gile et al., 1981; Peterson et
al., 1984; Johnpeer et al., 1985, 1987; Hawley and Love, 1991; Hawley and
Longmire,
1992; Hawley and Lozinsky, 1992; Hawley and Haase, 1992). These projects have been
funded primarily from basic and special state appropriations to New Mexico Tech, with
substantial support also provided by the U S . Soil Conservation Service from 1962 to
1977.
Matching-fund
grants
from the City of
Albuquerque
(COA), Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Los Alamos National Laboratory
(LANL), NM Environment Department (NIvED), and NM Water Resources Research
Institute (WRRI) have provided additional project support since 1982.
Since 1992, continuedsupport by the Ciry of Albuquerque and a new cooperative
agreement with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) have allowed the New Mexico
Tech - N M l 3 ” R team to continue model refinement and validation and to expand our
studies intoadjacentparts
ofSandoval
County andValenciaCounty.
We have now
analyzed a database which includes logs of about 100 water -wells that range from 600 to
3500 ft in depth.Current studies, led by W. C. Haneberg, J. W. Hawley and T. M.
Whitworth (NMBMMR), include new research on borehole geophysicsand aquifer-system
geochemistry, continuedpetrographic and stratigraphic investigationsby P. S. Mozley and
R. M. Chamberlin, and graduate student research by J. Beckner, D. M. Detmer and J. M.
Gillentine.
At this point, however, it’ isimportanttoemphasize
two things about
hydrogeologic studies in the Albuquerque Basin area. First, work really started in the
early decades of this century when W. G. Tight (1905), W. T. Lee (1907), 0. E. Meinzer
13
Open-File Repon 402-D,Chapldr 1
(1911), C. F. Tolman (1909, 1937) and KirkBryan
(1909, 1938)firstlookedat
region's basin-fill geology from the perspective
of
facies
distribution
the
patterns,
groundwater-flow systems, and surface-watedgroundwater interactions; and, second, this
is an extremely broad-based investigation that is still in progress.
Acknowledgements
Information presented in this chapter is the result of the collective efforts of many
privateand public institutions, scores of scientists and engineers (mostly geologically
oriented), and hundreds of individuals (ranging from property owners to drilling
contractors). Space limitations in this report do not permit proper acknowledgement of all
these individuals and supporting institutions; however, cited authors in the reference list
include many of those whose contributions deserve special recognition.
This study could not have been donewithout access toproprietarysubsurface
informationprovided
by ARC0 Production and Exploration Technology,Shell
Oil
Company, New Mexico Public Service Company, Rio Rancho Utilities, New Mexico
Utilities, INTEL, Rinchem Company, and the Pueblos of Cochiti, Isleta, Jemez, Sandia,
Santa Ana and Santo Domingo. We also must acknowledge substantial contributions by
the following colleaguesand institutions: Mike Kemodle,Scott Anderholm, Conde Thom,
Doug McAda, Chuck Heywood, and Jim Bartolino (USGS-WRD); Dave Love, Steve
Cather, and Sean Connell (NMBMMR); Steve Hansen and Chris Gorback (USBR); Bill
White (BIA-Water Rights Division); Doug Earp (COA); Linda
Office-SEO);Dennis
Logan (State Engineer
McQuillan, Baird Swanson, and Bill Stone (NMXD); Wayne
Lambert (Texas AMU at Canyon); John Rogersand
Gary Smith (TJNM-Geoscience
Department); Bruce A. Black (Consultant); Tim Decker (West Water Associates); Bob
Grant (Grant Enterprises, Inc.); Dave Hyndman (Sunbelt Geophysics); Glenn Hammock
(Consultant); Zane Spiegel (Consultant); Frank Titus; and the staffs of John W. Shomaker
and Associates, Metric Corporation, GRAM, Inc., Hydrogeology Associates, and CDM
Corporation. Special appreciation is due to A. Norman Gaume and Thomas Shoemaker
of the COA Public Works Department, Rob Leutheuser,USBR,Charles
14
E. Chapin,
Open-File Repon 402.0, Chaplcr 1
NMBMMR Director, and Frank Kottlowski,Director Emeritus,
steadfast support andencouragement.
NMBMMR,
fortheir
KellySummers, formerly with the COA Public
Works Department, provided the initial vision and much of the hard data on subsurface
hydrogeologic conditions that enabled the NM Tech-NMBMMR team to accomplish so
much in a five-year period. This report could not have been completed without the able
assistance of Rita Case, Rebecca Titus, and Dave McCraw of the NMBMMR staff.
GEOLOGIC SETTING AND OUTLINE OF CENOZOIC HISTORY
Introduction
The central New Mexico region described in this chapter is quite diverse with
respect to the variety and age range of landforms and surface-hydrologic features,
underlying earth materials, and deep-seated structures of the lithosphere (Appendix I, Part
I). For example, much of the Los Pinos-Manzano-Manzanita range, which forms the
prominent southeastern border of the ABQ Basin (Fig. 1-2; Plate 2), is a remnantof
ancient highland that existed before initial Rio Grande Rift extension and basin collapse
25 to 30 Ma (million years) ago. The Estancia "Valley" to the east of this range, at the
southwestern border of the Great Plains area; and the southeastern Colorado Plateau to
the west are segments of sub-continent-size regions of the earth's crust that havenot
undergone major internal deformation since latePaleozoic and Mesozoic time (Plates 1-3;
Appendices I, J). In sharpcontrast,
the east-tilted fault block that forms the Sandia
Mountains (Fig. 1-3) only emerged as a high basin-border feature during the past 20-25
Ma, and after initial development of the Rio Grande
Rift-basin complex (Kelleyand
Chapin, 1995). The analogous (west-tilted) Ladron uplift at the southwestem edge of the
ABQ Basin is still younger, only formingabout
5 to 10 Ma ago. The high Jemez
Mountains, which border much of the northern basin, are primarily a mass of igneous and
sedimentary rocks that was constructed by volcanic activity during the past 10 to 15 Ma.
The caldera (summit-collapse depression) occupied by the Valle Grande and ValleToledo,
only formed 1 to 2 million years ago during eruptions that produced the Bandelier Tuff
15
Open-Filc'Repon 402-D,Chapter I
sequence. The Jemez volcanic center contains at least one potentially active vent area at
El Cajete (Reneau et al., 1996), where a major (pumice) eruption occurred about 50,000
yrs ago (50 Ka). In the CentralABQ Basin basalts of the Cat Hills and Albuquerque
Volcanic field were emplaced about 130 to 150 Ka (Kelly and Kudo, 1978; J. Geissmann,
personal communication, May, 1996). Intra-Basin features are described in more detail
in the subsequent sections of this chapter, and in Parts I1 and I11 of Appendix I; and they
appear to be just a structurally complex as bounding range blocks.
Geomorphic Setting
The Albuquerque (ABQ) Basin Complex is located within the Mexican Highland
section of the Basin and Range physiographic province (Plate 1). The area is bounded
on the west by the Colorado Plateau-Acoma-Zuni section, andon
Sacramento section. The
theeast
by the
latter unitis a transitional physiographic subdivision between
the Great Plains and Basin and Range provinces (Hawley, 1986). The northern edge of
the basin is another transitional zone between the Basinand Range, and the Colorado
Plateau and southern Rocky Mountain provinces that is partly covered with volcanics of
theJemezMountain
center(Fig.1-1).
TheBasin is expressed geomorphically as an
intermontane lowland that includes the Middle Rio Grande Valley area between Cochiti
and San Acacia Dams, and the tributuy valleys of the Puerco, Jemez, and Salado stream
systems. From north to south the Basin Complex has traditionally been subdivided into
three major physiographicunits; the SantoDomingo, Northern Albuquerque, and Southern
Albuquerque (or Belen) Basins. The latter two basins are here designated the
(ABQ)andBelen
Central
Basins (Fig. 1-2). These broadly defined topographic units are
separated by narrow transition zones, or belts, that cross constricted reaches of the Rio
Grande Valley at Angostura and Isleta and generally follow major intra-basin drainage
divides.
General orientation of these interbasin bolrndaly zona is approximately
perpendicular to the north to northeast trending axis of the Basin Complex.
16
Open-File Repon 402-D,Chapter 1
Santo Doming0 Basin
The Santo Domingo (SD) Basin includes much of the Pueblo of Cochiti, Santo
Domingo, and San Felipe Reservations, as well as the communities of Peiia Blanca and
Algodones. The northern and eastern borders are formed, respectively, by the Jemez and
Cerros delRio volcanic fields. The Sandia and Hagan Basin (Espinaso Ridge) uplifts
bound the SD Basin on the south, and the San Felipe volcanic field capping Santa Ana
Mesa is located in a transitional area between the Basin and the northern end (San Ysidro
sector) of the Central ABQ Basin. The Santo Domingo Basin also includes the eastern
part of Hagan embayment between Espinaso Ridge and the Cerrillos uplift south of Santo
Domingo Pueblo.
The interbasin boundary zone thatseparatesthe
Santo Doming0 and Central
Albuquerque Basins extends south to southeastwardfromBodegaButte
(S. Jemez
Mountains) across the western Santa Ana Mesa to the Rio Grande Valley at Angostura.
It continues southeast to the Placitas area along drainage divide between Las Huertas
Creek and Arroyo Agua Sarca (Plate 1; Fig. 1-2).
Central Albuquerque (ABQ) Basin
The Central Albuquerque (ABQ) Basin includestheAlbuquerque-Rio
Metropolitan area between Bemalillo and Isleta; and it extends
Rancho
west from the Sandia
Mountains to the middle segment of the Rio Puerco Valley at the eastern edge of the
Colorado Plateau (Fig. 1-2a). The Central (ABQ) Basin is bounded on the northwest by
the Nacimiento and southwestem Jemez Mountains. Major structural depressions (Figs.
1-2b and c, 1-3) within this part of the Basin Complex are the Metro-Area depression
(Calabacillas, Paradise Hills, Alarneda-Armijo, and East Heightssubbasins), and theWind
Mesa depression (Parea Mesa, Cat Hills, Cat Mesa, and Gabaldon subbasins). The poorly
defined boundary zone (Fig. 1-2a) that separates the Central ABQ and Belen Basins is a
Southwest-northeast trending belt thatcrosses the Rio Grande Valley between the Pueblo
of Isleta and Los Lunas (Plate 1). It extends northeast from Lucero uplift through the
Gabaldon Badlands area (west of Rio Puerco) to the tip of the Four Hills salient of the
17
Open-File Repon 402-D,Chapter 1
Sandia uplift at Kirtland AFB. The zone crosses the central Llano de Alburquerque in
the Dalies area west of the Los Lunas volcanic center, and it follows the general trend of
the Tijeras-Gabaldon accommodation zone (Fig. 1-2; Plate 2; Appendix I: IILG).
Belen Basin
The Belen Basin comprises the area between the Hubbell and Joyita benches to
the east and the Lucero-Ladron uplift on the west. It includes 1) the Belen segment of
the Rio Grande Valley between Isleta and San Acacia, and2) the lower valleys of the Rio
Puerco and Rio Salado-South (Fig. I-Za) and connects with the Socorro and La Jencia
Basins (Popotosa structural basin complex of Cather et al., 1994) to the south through the
structural and topographic constriction between Joyita Hills and the Ladron Mountains
near San Acacia (Chapin, 1979, 1988).
Major Intrabasin Landforms
From the perspective of groundwater recharge (and discharge), the two major
landforms of the ABQ Basin are 1) the deeply-entrenched Rio Grande Valley, which
extends southward thorough the eastern partof
the Basin fromCochitiDam
to the
MRGCD diversion structure at San Acacia, and 2) the middle and lower valley reaches
of the Rio Puerco Valley, including the lowermost reach of its largest tributary, the Rio
San Jose,along the western edge of the basin. This RioGrandeValley
system also
includes the lower Jemez River Valley downstream from Jemez Pueblo, and the lower
valleys of the Santa Fe River and Galisteo Creek atthe
eastern edge of the Santo
Dorningo Basin. The lowermost reach of Rio Salado (South), which joins the Rio Grande
between the mouth of the Rio Puerco and San Acacia Dam, forms the basin's
southwestern boundary.
Extensive remnants of the constructional "bolson" plains that formed much of the
Basin surface prior to Pleistocene entrenchment of the Rio Grande Valley system are
present in three general areas: 1) the high Llano de Alburquerque tableland between t h e
Rio Grande and Puerco Valleys (note traditional Spanish spelling introduced by HawIey
18
Open-File R e p m 4Q2-D,Chapter I
ef ul., 1995); 2) coalescent-fan-piedmont slopes and ancestral-river(fluvial)
plains
between the present Rio Grande Valley and the Sandia-Manzano-Los Pinos range front
(Llano de Sandia and Llano de Manzano); and 3) mesa remnants of piedmont and basinfloor surfaces between the lower Puerco Valley and the Ladron-Lucero uplift (Llanos del
Rio Puerco). Plio-Pleistocene volcanics oftheJemez-Cerros
del Rio and. San Felipe
volcanic fields cap high valley-border tablelands south of the Jemez Mountains; and LatePleistocene basaltic lava flows cover parts of the Llano de Alburquerque and bordering
river-terrace surfaces.
Overview of Rio Grande Rift Evolution
TheAlbuquerque (ABQ) Basin Complex (Plates 1-3; Figs. 1-2, 1-3) is in the
central part of a north-south-trending series of deep structural depressions and flanking
mountain uplifts that comprise the Rio Grande Rift tectonic province (Fig. 1-1; Chapin
and Cather, 1994; and other papers
Keller and Cather, 1994). This subcontinental-scale
tectonic feature is designated the RG Rift (or the Rift) in this report. The RG Rift zone
extends through New Mexico from the San Luis basin of south-central Colorado to the
bolson plains area of northern Mexico and western Texas: At its northern end, the Rift
separates the southeastern prong of the southern Rocky Mountains and western Great
Plains region of the continental interior from the southwestern extension of the southern
Rocky Mountain chain, which is located along the eastern edge of the Colorado Plateau.
In its central part, between Cochiti and Socorro, the Rift is flanked on the west by high
tableland and volcanic-capped surfaces of the southeastern Colorado Plateau, and on the
east by the Great Plains region of the stable continental interior (craton-North American
plate). South of Socorro the Rift loses it distinctive topographic identity and expands into
the more extended fault-block terrane of the southeastern Basin and Range province (Fig.
1-1).
The relatively large, but localized crustal extension that characterizes the rifting
process began in Oligocene time, about 25-30 million years ago (Ma), and is continuing
at present. Resultant half-graben structures in the brittle upper and middle parts of the
19
Open-File Repon 102-D,Chapter 1
Earth'scrust
have tended toform
alongpreexisting
zones of structural weaknesses,
primarily inherited from previous continental-scale tectonism during
the early Tertiary
(Laramide orogeny) and subsequent Mid-Tertiary (Oligocene) volcano-tectonic activity.
This Paleogene interval was characterized by northeast-directed compressional to semineutral regional tectonic stress regimes in the RG Rift region. It should be noted here
that major elements of the region's structural grain (e.g. NE-SW Tijeras Canyon trend, N-
S Nacimiento Range front) are inherited from still older (Precambrian andlate Paleozoic)
geologic terranes (Chapin and Cather 1981, 1994). In addition, Cather (1992) and Abbott
et al. (1995) suggest that almostall
of theBasinnorthwestof
Tijeras-Gabaldon
accommodation zone and the Tijeras-Caiioncito fault system (TGaz, TCfs; Plates 2 and
3), as well as the Sandia-Hagan Basin Uplift area, was
Galisteo structural depression. This areanowincludes
part of the Laramide (Eocene)
both the deepestpartsof
the
Albuquerque Basin (Metro-Area and Wind Mesa depression) andthe structural-high point
of the Basin margin at Sandia Crest.
Structural deformation along subbasin boundaries and changes
in topographic relief
between deeper basin areas and flanking uplifts has continued throughout late Cenozoic
(Miocene-Holocene) time. During earlystages of basinfilling (lower Santa Fe deposition)
many of the present bounding mountain blocks had not formed or had
relatively low
relief. Thickest basin-fill deposirs (up to 10000 ft of the middle Santa Fe Group) were
emplaced between 5 and 15 million years ago during most active uplift of the SandiaManzano range and the Ladron Mountains, and subsidence ofthe long segments. In most
parts of the Basin, major basin-bounding and h a b a s i n fault zones (e.g. Sandia, Hubbell
Springs, Tijeras-Gabaldon, Loma Colorada, and Rio Grande; Plate 2; Fig. 1-2; Appendix
I) are nowcovered by undeformed piedmont and valley floor deposits of Late Quaternary
age (c150,OOO yr). There are, however, a few places where late Pleistocene and, possibly,
Holocene fault displacement has occurred (Connell, 1995; Machette, 1982; Machette and
McGimsey,1982).
20
."
... . ..
.. .. ..". ....
.. .
Open-File Repon 402-D,Chapter 1
Basin-Fill Deposition and River Valley Evolution
Intermontane-basin and river-valley fills of the Rift comprise the major
aquifer
systems of this region and are the principal subject of this report. Hydrostratigraphic unit
and lithofacies classes are described in detail in the next section of this chapter (Tables
1-1, 1-2; Plates 4-19; Appendices C, D). All Rift basin fill that was deposited prior to
formation of the present Rio Grande Valley system in the early to middle Pleistocene (1.8
to 0.7 Ma) is included in the Santa Fe (SF) Group (Bryan, 1938; Spiegel and Baldwin,
1963; Hawley et al., 1969; Hawley, 1978; Chapin, 1988).
Post-Santa Fe deposits include (1) inset valley fill of the ancestral Rio Grande and
tributary arroyos that forms terraces bordering the modem floodplain, and (2) river and
arroyo alluvium that has been deposited since the last major episode of valley incision in
late Pleistocene time (about 15,000 to 25,000 years ago; 15 to 12 Ka).As
previously
stated, this chapter of the report deals primarily with the interconnection betweenshallow
(river and arroyo) valley-fill deposits and the regional, basin-fill aquifer system from the
perspective of groundwater recharge.
The Santa Fe Group
TheSanta Fe Group comprises a very thick sequenceofalluvial,
eolian, and
lacustrine sediments that were deposited in RG Rift basins during an interval of about 25
million years starting in late Oligocene time. Widespread filling of the linked series of
structural depressions, which in aggregate form theABQ Basin Complex, ended about one
million years ago (in the early Pleistocene) with the onset of Rio Grande Valley incision.
The SF Group has a maximum thickness of about 15,000 ft in the Central ABQ Basin.
Thickest basin-fill sections documented by deep (oil and gas) test drilling are near the
Isleta volcanic center (Plates 2, 10, 11, 14;Fig. 1-8) and The (Albuquerque) Volcanoes
(Plates 2, 9; Fig. 1-3, 1-7).
The lower and middle parts of the Group form the bulk of the basin fill. These
units include the Zia, Popotosa, "Lower gray", and "Middle red" of other workers. See
reviewsstratigraphicnomenclaturebyTedford
21
(1981) andHmvley (I978), Chart 1).
... ..
. .
Open-File Rspon 402-D,Chapter 1
Lower and Middle Santa Fe units were deposited in an internally-drained complex
of
major structural depressions that includes much of the present ABQ Basin area. Intrabasin structural highs, which at least partly, separate individual depressions, and intradepression subbasin units are now deeply buried in most areas (see concluding chapter
sections). Eolian sands and fine-grained playa-lake sediments are major lithofacies in the
Lowerand
Middle SantaFe
hydrostratigraphic units(Table
1-1, LSF andMSF;
Appendices C and D). These facies are locally well indurated and
only produce large
amounts of good quality ground water from buried dune deposits of the Zia Formation
(lower Santa Fe) in the northem part of the Metro-Area depression (Plates 3; Fig. 1-2c,
Calabacillas subbasin).
Widespread channel deposits of the ancestral Rio Grande first appear in upper
Santa Fe beds that have been dated at about 5 Ma in northern New Mexico, and 2.5 to
3.5 Ma in southern New Mexico and westem (Trans-Pecos) Texas. A schematic view of
this ancestral fluvial system in the ABQBasin
regionis shown on Fig. 1-4. Poorly
consolidated sand and pebble gravel deposits in the middle to upper part of the Santa Fe
Group (Table 1-1, USF; Appendices C and D) form the most extensive aquifers of the
area.
Quaternary Evolution of the Ria Grande Valley System
Expansion of the Rio Grande (fluvial) systeminto upstream and downstream
basins, and integration with Gulf of Mexico drainage in the early part of the Quaternary
(Ice-Age) Period about one million years ago led to rapid incision of the Rio Grande
Valleyand
termination of widespread basin aggradation(ending
Santa Fe Group
deposition in the ABQ Basin region). Cyclic stages of valley cutting and fillingare
represented by a stepped-sequence of valley border surfaces and associated river-terrace
deposits that flank the modern valley floor (Fig. 1-3). Fluvial sand and gravel deposited
during the last cut-and-fill cycle form a thin, but extensive shallow aquifer zone below
the Rio Grande floodplain (unit RA, Table 1-1, Appendix C). Recent fluvial sediments
LL
Open-File Repan 402-D,Chapter 1
35'N
-
106W
Figure 1-4. Schematic.map view of the ancestral Rio Grande drainage system during
deposition of the Upper Santa Fe hydrostratigraphicunit in late Miocene to early
Pleistocene time. Modified from Lozinsky et al. (1991). Arrows indicate flow directions
of major tributaries and lithologic character of source terranes: Precainbrianigneous and
metamorphic (p€), sedimentary (RS), intermediateand silicic volcanic (TI), mafk
.
volcanic (BV), mixed lithologies @E),andreworkedolder basin fill (BS).
23
Open-File Report 402-D,Chapter 1
are 1ocally.in contact with ancestral river facies in the upper Santa Fe Group,particularly
in the northern Santo Doming0 and Central Albuquerque Basins (see finalsection of this
chapter). They form the major recharge and discharge zones for the basin's groundwater,
and are quite vulnerable to pollution in this urban-suburban and irrigation-agricultural
environment.
THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Introduction
The conceptual hydrogeologic model of an interconnected surface-water, shallow
valley-fillhasin-fill and deep-basin aquifer systempresented
in thisreport
has been
developed primarily inthe Mesilla and Albuquerque Basins (Peterson et al., 1984; Hawley
and Lodnsky, 1992; Hawley and Haase, 1992); however, it
is designed for use inall
basins of the 50Grande Rift. It is a strictly qualitative description (graphical, seminumerical, and verbal) of how the geohydrologic system is influenced by 1) bedrockboundary conditions, 2) internal-basin structure,
and
3) the textural character,
mineralogical composition, and geometry of various basin-fill and valley-fill stratigraphic
units.
The model elements, which are briefly described below, canbe
displayed in a combined mapand
geohydrologicattributes
graphically
cross-section format so that basic information on
(e.g.hydraulic
conductivity,transmissivity,
anisotropy, and
general spatial distribution patterns) may be transferred to basin-scale, three-dimensional
numerical models of groundwater-flow systems.
The hydrogeologicframework of Albuquerque Basin aquifer systems,with special
emphasis features related to recharge potential, is here described in terms of the three
basic model "building blocks" identified and initially characterized during the first phase
of this investigation (Hawley and Haase, 1992).
1.
Structuraland bedrockfeatures include basin-boundary mountain uplifts, bedrock
units beneath the basinfill, fault zones within and at the edges
of basinthat
influence sedimentthickness and composition, and igneous-intrusive and-extrusive
rocks that penetrate or are interbedded with basin deposits (Plates 2-15; Figs. 1-3,
1-7, 1-8; Appendix I, Parts I and In). With respect to aquifer recharge potential,
24
.. ....... . . .
. . . . .. .
-
Open-File Repon 402-D,Chapter 1
2.
3.
much of the discussion in the final section of this chapter relates to structural
controls where the architecture of subbasin-scale elements directly influences local
groundwater-flow systems,
Hydrostratigraphic units are mappable bodiesof basin and valley fill that are
grouped on the basis of origin and position in a stratigraphic sequence (Plates 215; Table 1-1; Figs. 1-7, 1-8; Appendix C).
Lithofacies subdivisions are the basic building blocks of the model (Fig. 1-5;
Table 1-2; Appendix D). Inthis study, basin deposits are subdivided intoten
lithofacies (I through X) that are mappable bodies defined primarily on the basis
of grain-size distribution, mineralogy, sedimentary structures, and degree of postdepositional alteration. They have distinctive geophysical,geochemical, and
hydrologic attributes.
The schematic hydrogeologic framework of the
Albuquerque-Rio
Rancho
Metropolitan area is graphically presented in map and cross-section format (Plates 4-19;
Figs. 1-6 to 1-8). Syntheses of supportingstratigraphic,lithologic,
petrographic, and
geophysical information from about 110 wells are illustrated in stratigraphic columns and
hydrogeologic sections.
Interpretive summaries of these data bases are included in
Appendices A-H, which provide information onwelllocation
and depth; major
hydrostratigraphic units penetrated; lithofacies interpretations from borehole sample and
geophysical and geochemical data; and specific data sources. Potential recharge corridor,
reach, and window areas are shown in map format (Plate 20) and briefly described in
Appendix H.
Hydrostratigraphic Units
Hydrostratigraphic units are the major integrative components of the model and
comprise mappable bodies of basin and valley fill (scales 1:24,000-1:500,000) that have
definable lithologic and hydrologic characteristics and can be grouped on the basis of
position in a stratigraphic sequence. These informal mapping units are defined in terms
of (a) stratigraphic position, (b) distinctive combinations of lithologic features(lithofacies)
such as grain-size distribution, rnineraloa and sedimentary structures, (c) depositional
environment, and (d) general age of deposition (Table 1-1). Genetic classes include
25
Table 1-1.
Summary of Hydrostratigraphic Units and TheirRelationship
Lithofacies Subdivisions
to
Unit
Description
RA
River alluvium: Channel. floodplain, and lower tem3ce deposits of inner Rio Grnndc 3nd Puerco
valleys; as much as 110 ft thick; Holocene to Late Pleistocene. Lithofacies subdivision A.
VA
VAY
VAO
Arroyo-valley alluvium: Tibuury-arroyo channel, fan 3nd terrace deposits in areas bordering
inner valleys of theRio Grande system, as much as 100 It rhick. Subunit VAY is used in pans
of the map area to delineate inner-valley fills and valley-mouth fans of major arroyo systems.
VAO designates fanand terraceremnnnts of older arroyo-valley-fill; Holocene to Early (?)
Pleistocene. Lithofacies subdivisionB.
TA
River-terrace alluvium: Channel and floodplain deposits of the ancestral Rio Grande fluvial
system (including Sann Fe and Jemez Rivers, and Rios Puerco and Salado) that were deposited
during at !es: four major intervals of valley entrenchment and panial backilling foilowing Enal
phase o l basin a g x h t i o n (Upper Santa Fe deposition). Terrace fills may exceed 100 It in
thiclcnesr; and erosion surfaces at base of these deposits range from about 250 above to 50 below
present river-valley tioors, Holocene to Early (?) Pleistocene. Lithofacies subdivision A.
PA
PAY
PA0
Piedmont-slopealluvium:Depositsofcoalescentalluvialfansz~tendingbasinwardfrommountain
fronts on the eastern md souhwestern margins of the Basin; as much as I50 ft thick. Includes
veneers mantling piedmont erosion surfaces (rock pediments) andthick deposits of ancestral
Tijeras Arroyo system. Subunit PAY is used in parts of the map area to delineate younger (Late
Quaternary) alluvial deposits on upper piedmont slopes flankingthe Sandia and Manzano uplifts.
P A 0 designates fan and terrace remnants of older (primarily middle Pleistocene) piedmont
deposits; Holocene ;o Middle Pleistocene. Lithofacies subdivisions V and VI.
SF
Undivided Santa Fe Group: Rio Grande rift basin All, including alluvial, eolian and lacusuine
deposits; and inteioedded extrusive volcanic rocks @asalts to silicic), In the Albuquerque Basin,
the Group is a much as 15,000 ft thick and here subdivided intothree (informal) hydrosrratigraphic
units:
.
Upper
of ancestral Rio Grandeand Puerco fluvial systems that inter.
.. Santn Fe Grouo:. Deposits
USF-1 tongue toward basin margins with piedmont-alluvial facies; volcanic rocks (including Sasalt,
USF-2 andesite and rhyolite flow andpyroclastic units) and thin,sandy coliandeposits are locallypresent.
USF-3 Unit is less than 1000 it thick in most areas, but locally exceeds 1500 ft in thickness. Subunit
USF-4 USF-I is primarily fan alluvium derived from the Sandia, Manzmita and Manzano uplifts. USF-2
includes ancestral-Rio Grande and interbedded fine- to medium-gained sediments of diverse
(alluvinl-lacustrine-solian) origin. Deposits capping western and norrhern parts of the Llano de
Alburquerque between rhe Rio Grande and Puerco Valleys comprise subunits USF-3 and USF-4.
These piedmont (USF-3) and basin-floorfluvial LUSF-4) faciesaremainlyderived
from the
Southern Rocky blountainand southenstem Colorado Plateauprovinces; EarlyPleistocene to Late
Miocene, mainly Pliocene. Inc!udes lithofacies I, 11, 111, V, VI, VI11 and LY.
USF
MSF
MSF-I
MSF-2
MSFJ
Middle Sanra Fe Group: Alluvial, eolian, and playa-lake deposits; panlyindurated, piedmont
alluvium that intenonguer basinward withbasin-floor facies, includingplayp-lake,eolian,andlocal
fluvial deposits; basaltic to silicic voiconics are also locally present. The unit is 3 5 much as 10,000
ft thick near rhe Isleu and Albuquerque volcanic centers, and commonly is at least 5,000 fI thick
MSF-4 in other central basin areas. Subunit MSF-I is primarily piedmont-slope alluvium derived from
early-stage Sandia,Manzanita and Manzano uplifts. Unit MSF-2 comprises basin-floor sedimenls
o i mixed (alluvial-lacustrine- eolian) origin. MSF-2 facies intenangue eastward with MSF-I, and
westward and northward (beneath the Llano de Albuquerque) with alluvial subunit MSF-3 and
fluvial facies XISF-4. line latter subunits me primarily derived from the routhe~stern.Colorado
Plateau and Naeimiento-lema.Mountain area; Lateto Middle Miocene. Inoludeslithoiacies 11,111,
IV, V. VI, VII, VIII. iX and X.
LSF
Lower Sants Fe Group: Eolian alluvial, and playa-lake facies. Primarily basin-floor deposits, but
includes thick piedmont alluvial sequences near basin margins. The unit is as much 3s 3SOO it
thick in the central basin areas, where it is locnlly thousands of feet below sea level; Middle
Miocene to Late Oligocene. Includes lithofacies 111. IV,VII, VIII, IX and X.
25-a
Open-File Repon 402-D,Chapter 1
ancestral-river, present river valley, basin-floor playa, and alluvial-fan piedmont deposits.
The attributesof four major (RA, USF, MSF, LSF) and three minor (TA, VA, PA)classes
into whichof
thearea'sbasinand
valley fillshave
been subdividedare
AppendixC and schematically illustrated in Figures1-7 and 1-8. The
defined in
Upper (USF),
Middle (MSF), and Lower (LSF) Santa Fe hydrostratigraphic units roughly correspond to
the (informal) upper, middle, and lower rock-stratigraphic subdivisions of Santa FeGroup
describedin
the preceding section.
The other major hydrostratigraphic unit (RA)
comprises Rio Grande and Rio Puerco deposits of late Quaternary age ( 4 5 , 0 0 0 yrs) that
form the upper part of the region's major shallow-aquifer system. Units TA, VA and PA
include river-terrace deposits, fills of major arroyo valleys, and surficial piedmont-slope
alluvium
that
are primarily in the unsaturated (vadose) zone.
hydrostratigraphic units throughout Albuquerque-Rio Rancho areaof
Distribution of
Bernalillo and
Sandoval Counties is illustrated on Plates 4-19 (1:24,000 to 1:100,000 scales).
Lithofacies Units
Lithofacies units defined in Appendix D (see Table 1-2 outline) and schematically
illustrated in Figure 1-5, are the basic building blocks of the model where site-specific
subsurface infomation is available (e.g. borehole drilling, sample and geophysical logs).
Lithofaciesare
mappablebodies
defined primarily in terms of sediment-grain-size
characteristics (gravel, sand, silt, clay, or mixtures thereof), mineral composition, degree
of cementation, geometly of bodies of a given textural class, subsurface distribution
patterns, and inferred environments of deposition. Lithofacies unitshave
distinctive
characteriatics both in terms of geophysical and geochemical properties and in hydrologic
behavior(Chapters2
to 6 ofthis
report; OF-402C, Chapters 2 and 3; Haase, 1992;
Hawley and Lozinsky, 1992; Haase and Lozinsky, 1992; Mozley et al., 1992). In this
study, ABQ Basin deposits have been divided into twelve major lithofacies subunits (I to
X, A and B) that are used in combination with the major hydrostratigraphic unit classes
to provide a schematic 3-D view of subsurface conditions in the ABQ Metro Area(Plates
4 to
is).
These maps, cross sections, supporting well-log interpretations compiled in
26
. .
.
. .
.
_"
. . . . .. .,- .. ..
. .....
Opm-File Repon 402-D. Chapter 1. Table 1-2
T a b l e 1-2.
Summaly of Santa Fe group (I-X) and post-Santa Fe (AB) lithofaciesdepositional
settings and dominant texture in the Albuquerque Basin (modified from Hawley a n d
Haase, 1992, Table 1J.I-2)
Lithofacies
Dominant depositional
s e t t i n g and p r o c e s s
Dominant textural classes
I
Basin-floor fluvial; plain
braid
Sand
and
clay
I1
Basin-floor fluvial: locally eolian
Sand: lenses of pebble sand,and siltyclay
111
Sarin-noor fluvial-deltaic and playa-lake;
locally eolian
Interbedded sand and silty clay; lenses
of pebbly sand
w
Eolian, basin-floor alluvial
Sand andsandstone; lenses ofsilty sand
to clay
V
Distal to medial piedmont-slope, alluvial-fan
Gravel,sand,silsand
clay;common
loamy (sand-silt-clay) mixtures
Va
Distal to medial piedmont-slope,llluvial-fan;
associated with large watersheds; alluvial-fan
distributary-ohanncl primary, sheet-flood and
debris-flow secondary
S a d and gravel;lenses of gravelly to nongravelly, loamy sand to sandy loam
vb
Distal to medial piedmont-slope, alluvial-fan;
associated with small steep watersheds; debrisflow sheet-flood, and distributary-channel
Gravelly, loamy sand to sandy loam;
lenses of sand, gravel, and silty clay
Proximal to medial piedmont-slope, alluvial-fan
Coarse gravelly, loamy sand and sandy
loam;lensesofsand
andcobble
to
boulder gnvcl
Sand and gavel; lenses ofgnvelly to nongravelly, loamy sand to sandy loam
VI
VIa
Like Va
VIb
Like vb
pebble
gravel;
lenses
of silty
VI1
Like V
Gravelly, loamy sand to sandyloam;
lenses of sand, gravel, and silty clay
P a d y indurated V
VI11
Like VI
Panly indurated VI
Ix
Basin-floor playa lakc and alluvial
piedmont alluvial
X
Like
'
.
flac disral-
Silty clay interbedded with sand. silty
sand and clay
.
Partly indurated
IX
A
fluvial
River-valley
AI
Basal channel
A2
Braid plain channel
A3
Overbanks
meander.
Arroyo
Bchannel
and
Sand, gravel, silt and clay
sand
and
Pebble
gravel
to cobble
Sand and pebbly sand
belt oxbow
valley-border e.lluvial-fan
Silly clay, clay, and sand
Sand, gravel.
silt,and
clay
(like V)
Open-Filc Report 4 0 2 - 4 Chapter 1
VALLEYFILL FACIES
BASINFLOORFACIES
gravel,
I 3 sand-cobb1e
silt-clay
sand & p e b gb rl ea v e l
BEDROCK
sand & pebbly
sand
sand
p
z
J
sand-clay
’
,.-
sand,
gravel,
&clay
silt
& gavel,
sand-c!ay
gravelly
sand & silt-clay
sand & s a n d s t o n e
.
PIEDMONT
SLOPEFACIES
sandy
silty
toclay
9 / 1 3 coarse gravelly sand-clay
partly indurated V, Va, & V b
indurated
partly
indurated
partly
VI
iX
Figure 1-5.Hypothetical distribution pattern of lithofacies in fault-block basins such as
the Albuquerque Basins. Modified from Hawley and Haase (1992, Fig. 111-6).SeeTables
1-1 and 1-2, Appendices C and D for more detailed unit descriptions and explanations of
facies distribution patterns in various hydrostratigraphic units.
Open-File Rspon 402-D,Chapter 1
Appendix F, and the"Key"
to the Basin'shydrogeologicframework(Appendix
I)
constitute the major body of basic data and interpretative information used in preparation
of this report.
Basin-Fill Facies Subdivisions
Basin-fill lithofacies I, 11, III, V and VI are primarily unconsolidated. Facies I, II
and 111 are restricted to basin floors, and facies V and VI occur respectively on distal to
proximal partsof
piedmont slopes (Fig. 1-5). Any thin zonesofinduration
(strong
cementation) that may be present are not continuous. Clean, uncemented sand and gravel
bodies are major constituents of facies I and 11; and much of the coarse-clast assemblage
in these fluvial deposits is derived from source areas north of the Albuquerque Basin.
Note that coarse-grained (sand and gravel dominated) facies
I is equivalent to lithofacies
Ib of Hawley andHaase
(1992).
Clay and sandstone zones,respectively,
form a
significant part of lithofacies IT1 and IV; but both units contain extensive well-connected
layersof permeable sand. Facies subdivision IV consists mainly ofthick, eolian and
fluvial sand units that are partly indurated (common calcite cement).
Lithofacies V and VI are, respectively, characterized by lenticular bodies of
gravelly sand and sandy gravel that are bounded by poorly sorted layers of gravel, sand,
silt, and clay (loamy gravels
(V)to
10
gravelly loams). These facies form
the dominant distal
medial and medial to proximal (VI) components of piedmontalluvial
(usually formed by coalescent alluvial fans).Fansexpanding
out from the
large upland drainage basins (e.g. TijerasCanyon)includeextensive
aprons
mouths of
(distributary)
networks ofcoarse-grained, stream-channel fills (clean, gravelly sand), which form a large
part of subfacies Va and VIa. In marked contrast, small high-gradient fans derived from
small-steep mountain-front watersheds conrain a high proportion of the debris-flow and
sheet-flood materials, which are dominated by the poorly sorted (loamy) mixtures offineand coarse-grained sediments that characterize subfacies Vb and VrO. Lithofacies VI1 and
'tur are, respectively, partly to well-indurated equivalents of facies V andVI. Lithofacies
IX and X primarily comprise thick sequences of fine-grained basin-floor sediments, with
28
Open-File Report 402-D,Chapter 1
disconnected (lenticular) bodies of sand and sandstone, that include playa-lake beds and
otherlacustrine
sediments. Facies IX is primarily non-indurated, while unit X (not
recognized in basin-fill deposits mapped herein) contains large amounts of mudstone,
siltstone,
i
Coarse-grained channel deposits of the ancestral Rio Grande system, (clean sand
I
)are the major components of the upper Santa Fe
and gravel units of lithofacies I and I
(USF-2,4) hydrostratigraphic units. Ancestral-river deposits formthemost
aquifersand
important
potential enhanced-recharge zones in the basin. Buried fan-distributary
channel deposits (faciesVa and VIa) in the extensive piedmontalluvial
aprons that
flanked the ancestral-river plain form another major hydrogeologic unit that locally also
hasgoodaquifer
performance and recharge potential.
These ancient complexes of
distributary-channel fills occur in piedmont alluvial deposits of the upper Middle and
Upper Santa Fe Group (MSF-1,3 and USF-1-3) that are now partly dissected by valleys
of the present Embudo, Campus, Tijeras, Calabacillas, and Montoyas arroyo systems in
the Central (ABQ) Basin area.
Valley-Fill Subdivisions
The present, deeply entrenched river-valley system, which has developed since
early Pleistocene time (past million years) is partly occupied by a succession of inset fills
that include 1) fluvial-channel and floodplain facies (A), and 2) arroyo-channel and fan
facies (B). These lithofacies are the basic building blocks of hydrostratigraphic units RA,
TA and VA. Subfacies AI and A2 comprise, respectively, gravel- and sand-dominated
channel deposits ofthe Rio Grande (RA) system that form the bulk of the shallow-aquifer
system beneath modem river-valley floors. These subfacies are also major components
of the river-terrace (TA) fills that flank the inner Rio Grande and Puerco Valley in many
places; and they are equivalent to subfacies Iv of Hawley and Haase (1992) and Hawley
and Lozinsky (1992). Silt-clay-rich subfacies A3 is locally an important component of
both inner-valley (RA) and river-terrace (TA) fills, particularly beneaththe
modem
floodplain and channel area, in and south of "downtown" Albuquerque. Lithofacies B is
29
Open-File Repon 402-D,Chapter 1
an undivided complex of textural and clast-type classes associated with the high-gradient,
ephemeral depositional environments of tributary arroyo (wash) systems that are graded
to present (RA) and former (TA) river-valley floors. Facies B is a general correlative
of szrbfacies Vv of Hmvley and Haase (1992), and it is the product of the same alluvial,
hyperconcentrated-flood-flow and mass-wasting processes that produced piedmont
lithofacies V and VI.
Intra-Basin and Bedrock-Boundary Structural
Components
Intra-basin structural and bedrock-boundary structures aremajor components of the
model that include 1) basin-bounding mountain uplifts, bedrock units beneath the basin
fill, 2) fault zones within and at the edges of the basin that influence sediment thickness
and composition, and 3) the igneous intrusive and extrusive (volcanic) rocks that locally
penetrate or overlap basin-fill deposits (Appendix I, Parts I and III). Regional tectonic
and more-local structural controls on lithofacies distribution patterns and subbasin
"segmentation" are illustrated on Plates 2 to 15 and they are described in more detail in
otherparts
of this report (OF-402).
Emphasishere
is on how geologic structure
influences both internal-aquifer characteristics, and unit-boundary conditions that enhance
or restrict groundwater flow. The following examples, primarily from the Metro-Area
depression in the Central ABQ Basin, illustrate the importance of structural controls on
the local groundwater-flow system (Figs. 1-6, 1-7, 1-8).
The dominantly eastward-tilted (multiple) half-graben structure of the northeastern
Rift subbasins between Cochiti and Los Lunas (Cochiti-Bernalillo, Metro-Area, andWind
Mesa, depressions - Plate 2) has clearly controlled the position and character of ancestral
Rio Grande deposits (Unit USF-2, facies I, 11,111) since basin throughflow was initiated
about 5 Ma ago. Three deep graben complexes beneath the San Felipe-Santa Ana,
Albuquerque, and Cat Hills volcanic fields have also been identified in this study that
appear to have played a major role in controllingthe
position ofancestral
fluvial
tributaries and distributaries as the northern and western parts of the Basin filled (Fig. 14). Prior to late-Miocene time, however, rapidly subsiding subbasin blocks formed
30
0
I
0
4
2
2
4
A km
6 mi
I
0
Observation weit
0
Large-capacity production well
Figure 1-6. Index map of rhecentral part of the Albuquerque Metro-Area depression
(MAD) showing location of major subbasins, subbasin sectors, inter-depression structural
highs, bounding fault zones, and (easr) mountain uplifr. Locations of hydrogeologic and
structure cross sections (Figures 1-7 (Paseo) and 1-8 (Nonh Isleta) are also shown.
" M e t r o
w
Area Depression-Central Albuquerque
Hills subbasin
Alameda-Armijo
subbasin
Laguna (strlrctural) bench
Paradise
g
puerco
C Valley
m
graben
Volcanoes
MPPi
n
E
Basin"---f
East
Tramway
Heights
bench
subbasin
E
Open-File Rdpon 402-D,Chapler I
Figure 1-8.Schematic structuraland hydrogeologic cross section of the eastern Wind
Mesa and southern Ivletro-Area depressions - Central Albuquerque Basin; derived from
Plates 10 and 11. West to east section alignment is along north boundary of the Pueblo
of Isleta Reservation. Modified from May and Russell (1 994, Figs. 6 and 7) and Russell
and Snelson (1994, Fig. 7). Inferred locations of transverse structures (Atrisco-Rincon
transfer zone andTijeras-Gabaldon accommodation zone) and interpretations of intraSanta Fe Group and other structural relationships are a product of the present study.
33
hawlwalb basin
pajarilolkirliand new seclion
rjl 2/96
-
,
W Laguna bench
Cat Hills graben
*
Basin
Albuquerque
Central
Wind Mesa Depression
4
*+“Metro
Parea Mesa subbasin
Area Depression+
Mouniainview
prong
Easi Heights subbasin
(Sun Mesa sector)
,-,\-,x-,,-,\-,\-,\.
Tijeras-Gabaldon
accommodalion
zone
a
E’ ?
I\
w
P
POSTSANTAFEUNITS
0
River-Valley RA
SANTA
Alluvium
PRE-SANTAFE
UNiTS
Tertiary
Rocks-Paleogene
T
)..;?,%-
Mz-Pz Mesozoic & Paleozoic Rocks
pG Precambrian Crystalline Rocks
FEGROUPHYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
UNiTS
MIDDLEUNITS
UPPERUNITS
USF-I Eastern Piedmont Facies
USF-2 RioBasin-Floor
MSF-2
Grande
Facies
USF-3
Western
Piedmont
T”I-l
...
USF-4 Western
“
p:.:>
Facies
Basin Fiuviai Facies
USF Transition Zone Facies (1-2, 2-4)
111
LOWERUNIT
Normal fault
T=toward;A=away
.. .
MSF-1 Eastern Piedmont Facies
Facies
@ MSF-3
Western
Piedmont
Facies
MSF-4 Western Basin-Floor Facies
MSF Transition Zone Facies (1-2,2-4)
0LSF Piedmont & Basjn-Floor Facies 0SF Undifferentiated
Opcn-File Repon 402-D,Chapter I
extensive internally drained areas paqicularly in the southern and south-central parts
of
the Basin, Deltaic and lacustrine sedimentation occurred in these areas during episodes
whencontributingfluvial
systemswere
unabletodelivertheamountsofwater
and
sediment needed tomaintain through-flow conditions. Dominantly fine-grained facies(111,
IX and X) are major components of hydrostratigraphic unit MSF (Fig. 4) in such sites of
restricted or ponded surface drainage.
The general locations of buried structural features that have significant influence
on the Basin groundwater flow are delineated on Plates 2 and 3, and Figures 1-2, 1-3, and
1-6 to 1-8.Thesestructures
include the SandiaPuebloBench,Mountainviewprong,
Atrisco-Barelas trend (A-Bzone),Rio
Grande-faultsystem(RGfs),
Atrisco-Rincon
transfer zone(ARtz),Loma
Colorada transferzone(LCtz),andTijeras-Gabaldon
accommodationzone(TGaz).
They commonly have little or no surface(geomorphic)
expression, but they do have a significant impact on the behavior of the shallow and
intermediate aquifer systems in the ABQ-Metro Area.
Intheinner-valleyarea
beneath theAmsco-Barelasneighborhoodsstructural
control of the groundwater-flow system is illustrated by a feature designated the the A-B
zone (Hawley et al., 1995). This zone and the central (Ridgecrest) segment of the Rio
Grande fault sysrem (RGfs) are normal fault and/or fold components of major structures
(with general NW-SE strike) that border and/or crossthe Alameda-Armijo subbasin of the
Metro Area depression (Plates 2 and 13; Figs. 1-6, 1-7). The A-B zone, which parallels
the Tingley Beach reach of the river is part of a sourhward ascending structural dipslope
that is located between the Sandia Pueblo bench and the southern segment of the
Rio
Grande fault system, which is located beneath the Vista Valley-Westgate Heights
area.
In rhis section of the Alameda-Armijo subbasin, the Upper Santa Fe hydrostratigraphic
unit (USF-2, 4; facies Ib, 11, and 111) thins from about 1600 ft beneath Corrales to about
400 ft at Rio Bravo and
Coors Blvds; aquifer transmissivity appears to decrease by at
least a factor of 4 in a down-valley direction between the deepest (north) and shallowest
parts of the subbasin (south) beneath this reach of the Rio Grande.
35
Open-File Repon 402-D,Chapter 1
The western and easternpartsofthe
MetroAreaDepression,
respectively,
designated the Paradise Hills and East Heights subbasins in this report (Plate 3; Figs, 12b, 1-6, 1-7), are characterized by thick, Upper Santa Fe Group basin fill (Subunits USF-4
and 2). These coarse-grained sediments (facies I, II, 111) were deposited by the ancestral
Rio Grande system in two narrow, but very deep structural depressions. Apparent nonrotational (fault-block graben) subsidence in theParadiseHills
subbasin area now
occupied by the Albuquerque Volcanoes formed the western subbasin; while
eastward
rotation of East Heights hanging-wall (half-graben) blocks along the western margin of
theSandia uplift producedthe eastern subbasin (Figs.1-3,1-6).
The effect of these
structural features on Middle (1) and Upper Santa Fe lithofacies distribution and aquifer
characteristics was only revealed after study of more than 100 borehole geophysical and
drilling logs from deep wells in the Albuquerque-Rio Rancho area during the course of
this investigation. It is significant to note that these now well-documented distribution
patterns of thick (highly transmissive) fluvial facies units (1-111) in the Upper Santa Fe
(USF-2,4) basin-fill sequence coincidewith
theEastandWestMesa
"groundwater
troughs" originally identified by Bjorklund and Maxwell (1961) and Titus (1961). The
western trough continues southward in a south-southwest-trending belt in the "WestMesa"
(Llano de Albuquerque) area that includes the Albuquerque and Cat Mesa volcanic fields
(Plates 7-11; Fig. 1-8) in both the western Metro Area and central Wind Mesa structural
depressions.
DISCUSSION
Since our original conceptual model of the Basin's hydrogeologic framework was
introduced (Hawley and Haase, 1992), there hasbeenampleopportunityto
test the
validity of 1) the provisional definitions of hydrostratigraphic and lithofacies classes, and
2 ) the basic logic and organization of the model. This evaluation was originally done as
part of the monitoring well installation program conducted by the USBR and COA in
1993 and 1994 (Appendix I-A), and the system is currently being tested as part of the
current monitoring well drilling activities in cooperation with the USGS and the COA.
36
Open-File Repon 402-D.Chapter 1
The major test of the models validity, however, has been its use in organizing and
interpreting the large and quite varied (quality-wise) data base (Appendices A, B, and F)
that is the foundation for the hydrogeologic inferences illustrated in Plates 4 to 19.
To date, our evaluation of the model shows that, if applied with caution, it is a
powerful tool for organizing and graphically presenting the large amount and variety of
available hydrogeologic information on texture, mineralogy, diagenesis and depositional
environments and history.
This classification system,however,
primarily because it requires reasonably correct identificationof
is quite subjective,
both genetic and
chronologic units in sedimentary sequences that may not be exposed anywhere. Textural
and mineralogic classification based on modem sample and wireline logging techniques
can be quite sophisticated, but proper recognition of depositional environments, age, and
diagenetic processes normally require considerable field experiencein mapping areaswith
a similar geologic history and well-exposed basin-fill sections.
In the RG k f t region, fortunately,there
are many well-studied areas where
combined surface geologic and subsurface geohydrologic evaluations of available data
bases have already been made (cf. Kernodle, 1992). For example the TesuqueFormation
of the Espafiola Basin (Hearne, 1980; IvIcAda and Wasiolek, 1988; Lazarus and Drakos,
1995) serves as an excellent analog for lithofacies V to VI11 and hydrostratigraphic units
MSF-1 and 3 in ABQ Basin. Detmer's detailed reconnaissance investigation of aquiferpermeability discussed in Chapter 2 (Table 2-10), relates primarily to lithofacies I, 11, Va,
A and B (Table 1-2)and
hydrostratigraphic units USF-1 and 2, RA, PA, and VA.
Similar, more intensive research ar one site in theBelen
Basin (Lunas-Bemardo
Lohman et al. (1991) is an excellent
and
depression) by Davis et al. (1993)
characterization of hydrogeologic basin-fill deposits representative of lithofacies I11 and
hydrostratigraphic units USF-2 and MSF-2. Ancestral and modem river-channel facies
units I and I1 (USF-2,4) and Al, 2 (RA) are particularly well characterized because they
are typical of medium- to coarse-grained fluvial deposits worldwide. Likewise playa-lake
facies 1X and X (hydrostratigraphic units MSF-2,4 and LSF) rarely pose a problem in
31
Open-File Repan 402-D,Cluprer I
terms of subsurface identification. Moreover, these important flow-system confining units
never form aquifers.
Structural elements of the model, both intra-basin and bedrock-boundary
components, always pose special problems in terms of groundwater flow and recharge
conditions. They are currently being investigated by co-workers and are also described
in other parts of this report. These model components were introduced in the previous
section, and they are described in more detail throughout the following section on critical
recharge areas in the ABQ Basin Complex (Plate 20; Appendix H).
RECHARGE CORRIDORS, REACHES, AND WINDOWS
Introduction
The recharge corridors, reaches, and windows described in this report (Plate 20;
Figs. 1-9, 1-10; Appendix H) are three special stream-channel zone classes that comprise
linear elements (corridors and reaches) and small-area componenrs (window areas) that
are here interpreted as sites with significant potential for groundwater recharge. The other
major site classwith respect to recharge potential comprises non-channel areas where
injection wells of varying depth, or other typesof
deep surface excavations can be
located. Short descriptions of this type of recharge site are included in the following
discussion of the Metro-Area depression (Central ABQ Basin).
Recharge Corridors (Plate 20)
Recharge corridors (Fig, 1-10) are here defined as channels and riparian zones of
perennial and intermittent streams. Coarse-grained deposits of the Rio Grande and its few
major tributaries are in direct contact with permeable valley-fill (RA) and basin-fill (USF2,4, MSF-2,4, LSF-Zia) units; primarily lithofacies A M , 11, 111, andIV.
The major
corridor unit comprises the entire Rio Grande channel and adjacent floodway zone from
Cochiti DamtotheSanJuan
(Canal)Heading
southeast of Belen.
individual segments is included in Appendix H, Part 1.
38
Information on
Figure 1-10. Location of critical recharge corridors, reaches, and window areas in the
Albuquerque Basin.Complex. See Appendix H for general site descriptions. BelenBasin
Area (from Plate ZOB, Socorro 2 degree s:?eer)
40
Open-File Report 402-D,Chapter 1
The Jemez River channel corridor and adjacent floodplain area (RJC), from the
confluence of Rio Guadalupe and Jemez River to San Ysidro, probably only has local
recharge potential, because seasonal lowflow
and poor waterquality
limit the
effectiveness of this source. The lower canyon and valley of the Santa Fe River (SFR)
appear to have much more potential as a contributor to the Basin's groundwater recharge
system in the eastern Santo Domingo Basin.
Recharge Reaches (RR; Plate 20)
Recharge reaches (Fig. 1-10) are here defined as channels of major ephemeral
streamswith
watershed areas commonly exceeding 20 squaremiles.
Coarse-grained
channel deposits of large arroyos and washes are separated from Santa Fe aquifers by
permeable (lithofacies) units in vadose zones that are usually less than 200 to 300 ft thick.
Areas inferred to have significant recharge potential include the lower reaches of
four major arroyos in the Albuquerque-Rio Rancho Metropolitan area. Recharge ofUpper
I)would be through vadose zones less
Santa Fe Group aquifer (USF-2, lithofacies I and I
than 200 ft thick. Specific recharge reaches identified in this study are 1) Sandia Wash,
2) the lower valley of Arroyo de las Calabacillas (below Unser Blvd.); 3) the lower valley
of Arroyo de 10s Montoyas (below Broadmoor); and 4) the lower valley of TijerasArroyo
downstreamfrom KAFB. Potential recharge reaches in the BelenBasin with similar
hydrogeologic settings are 1) lower Hells Canyon Wash, 2) lower Caiiada de la Loma de
Arena (southeast of Tome), and 3) lower Abo Arroyo, above Veguita.
In the Santo Domingo Basin (Cochiti-Bemardo depression), potential recharge
reaches include lower channel segments of major arroyo systems that are located between
basin-border window areas (Appendix H, Part 3) and the central part of the Rio Grande
Valley. In this area Upper and Middle Santa Fe aquifer zones (hydrostratigraphic units
VAAJSF-2 and MSF-2, facies Bn-IV) are recharged to some (unknown) extent by these
large ephemeral stream systems (see following discussion).
41
Open-File Repon 402-D,Chapter 1
Recharge Window Areas (Plate 20)
Critical recharge window areas identified inthis report occur in two distinctly
different geomorphic settings: river-valley and, mountain-front (canyon-mouth):
River-Valley Recharge Windows
Rio Grande Valley window areas (RWs) are here defined as short river-channel
reaches ofthe middle Rio Grande where permeable valley fill deposits (unitsRA and TA,
facies A1 and 2) are in direct contact with Santa Fe Group aquifer units along floodplain
borders.
Saturated-zone (phreatic) recharge conditions prevailatthesesites.Five
recharge window areas are described inAppendix
H
(Part 3) and in the following
section.
Mountain-Front Recharge Windows
Mountain-front window areas ( M w ' s ) are here defined as canyon-mouth channels
with perennial andor intermittent flowandactive
underflow percolates into basin and valleyfill
springs. Surface flow and
deposits at or nearcanyon
shallow
mouths.
Saturatedvadose-contact zones involve permeable basin-fill units (e.g. VANSF-I, facies
Va, VIa). Eighteen mountain-front recharge sites have been identified in this study (see
Appendix H and following discussion); and many more small "point" recharge sources
of this type definitely exist.
Other basin-border window (BW) areas comprise upland valley sites that are
basinward from mountain-fronts, but which still have shortreachesofperennial
to
intermittent channel flow. Such channel zones and associated springs discharge to basinfill aquifers (primarily unit USF). Small recharge-window sites of this type (Appendix
H, Fig. 20) include five areas bordering the southern Jemez and Nacimiento Mountains,
two sites in the Hagan basin area bordering the Santo Doming0 Basin (Fig. I-Z),and six
areas of spring discharge along the western edge of the Hubbell Bench.
42
Open-File Repon 402-D,Chapter 1
Arroyo Recharge Window Areas (AW's)
The other major class of recharge window areas defined in this report comprises
short reaches of large arroyos where coarse-grained channel deposits (Va) are in contact
I)of basin-fill deposits that form major aquifer
with unsaturated, but permeable facies (I, Z
zones at a relatively shallow depth. Vadose zones in these areas are estimated to be less
than 200 ft thick. The five Arroyo Window Areas identified in this study are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Lower Tijeras Arroyo. BelowPennsylvania Ave. Bridgeandconfluence
with
Coyote Arroyo.
Lower Hells Canyon Wash; 3to 4 mi upstream from Chical.
LowerSandiaWash; about 2mi upstream from 1-25,
Calabacillas Arroyo; north ofParadise Hills, aboveUnserBlvd.flood
control
structure.
MontoyasArroyo; Rio Rancho between Unser Blvd. (20th St.) and Broadmoor
(30th St.).
HYDROGEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK OF MAJOR BASIN SUBDIVISIONS
WITH EMPHASIS ON AREAS WITH RECHARGE POTENTIAL
Introduction
Froma geohydrologic perspective, the development of basin-wide conceptual
models and the identification of potential recharge sites require much better definition
of the geologic boundaries that constitute the fundamental controls on the behavior of
groundwater-flow systems. All the major depression and subbasin units described in this
section (Fig. 1-2, 1-6) share the following attributes: 1) alluvial, lacustrineand eolian
deposits of the upper Cenozoic Santa Fe Group; 2) post-Santa Fe valley and basin fills;
3) igneous rocks that locally cover, intrude, or are interbedded
with these deposits; and
4) the zones of structiral deformation (faults, folds) that are present as both boundary
features and internal components. The fact that late Neogene tectonic and
volcanic
processes controlled the position of the late Mioceneto early Pleistocene ancestralRio
Grande fluvial) system during final stages of basin filling is of great importance in
terms of groundwater-resource management, particularly with respect
UpperSanta
to
recharge
Fe (USF-2,4; Table 1-2) fluvial deposits comprise the most productive
43
Open-File Report 402-D,Chapter I
aquifers in the RG Rift region, and include not only the Sierra LadronesFormation in the
Albuquerque and Socorro-La Jencia Basins, but also the Alamosa, Ancha-Puye, Polomas,
and Camp Rice Formations, respectively, in the San Luis, Espaiiola, Engle-Palomas, and
Jornada-Mesilla-Hueco Basins.
In this report, the ABQ Basin (comprising the Santo Domingo, Central ABQ, and
Belen Basins) is further subdivided into five major structural depressions: 1) CochitiBernalillo, 2) Metro Area, 3) Wind Mesa, 4) Lunas-Bernardo, and 5) Lower Puerco
(Plates 1-3; Fig.1-2).
Each ofthese
tiltedfault-block
complexes has three or more
distinct subbasins that are interconnected (linked) by saddles (gaps) in inter-depression
structural highs (SH zones). These zones, which are invariably marked by gravity highs
(Cordell et al., 1982; Heywood, 1992), appear to be primarily horsts and anticlines. They
are usually deeply buried, and are here referred to as ridges, salients, andprongs. The
general northeast and southwest trends of the buried structural highs are transverse to the
overall north-south axial trend of the BasinComplex.
Santa Fe Group deposits are
commonly deformed by faults and folds over SH zones.
Structural style is dominated by east-west to northeast-southwest extension of the
right-stepping (en echelon) system of RG Rift depressions that appears to have had a
significant component of lefr oblique (positive) shear stress during
(Kelley, 1979,1982;Cather,
1992; Chapin andCather,1994).A
late Neogene time
combination of dip-,
oblique-, and minor strike-slip fault displacement of Pliocene-Quaternary stratigraphic
units has occurred along the major northeast-trending transverse structural zones
(accommodation and transfer systems) that subdivide the Basin (Fig. 1-1). Buried interdepression boundary zones are informally named for localities near their extremities.
Location descriptions (Fig. 1-2; Plates 2, 3; Appendix I: III-B, D, F, G) also indicate the
general areas where these trends cross or approach the Rio Grande Valley.
The majorfault
zones, which boundtheABQ
Basin Complex or separate
individual subbasin blocks within and between the major depression units, exhibit large
amounts (thousands of feet) of Neogene displacement. These zones tend to have northsouth, northeast-southwest and northwest-southeast orientations in map view, and a wide
44
. .. ._
Open-File Repan 402-D,Chapter I
range of dips (30" to vertical). Dip-slip offsets on north to northwest trending master
faults such as the Sandia fault zone and the Rio Grande fault system, account for much
of the observed rift-basin extension. The master fault zones along the structurally highest
basin-borders (e.g. Sandia and Ladron) uplifts have been observed (in seismic reflection
andgravity geophysical profiles) to flatten withdepth.This
type of normal fault is
termed "listric" (Appendix K). In the Central ABQ Basin master normal faults appear to
merge with subhorizontal detachment-fault surfaces at depths of
about 35,000 ft (Fig. 1-8).
However, dips of nearly all
faults are relarively steep (60" to 90") in the 1000 to 3000-
thick ft (upper) basin-fill aquifer zones described herein (Figs. 1-7, 1-8; Plates 5-15).
Major normal faults in the Basin Complex are not all listric, however, because some
north-southtrending faults appear to extendtogreatcrustaldepth
as steeply dipping
surfaces (Russell and Snelson, 1994).
Northeast trending transverse zones, such as those that form the Loma Colorada
transfer and Tijeras-Gabaldon accommodation-zone systems are roughly parallel to major
direction of basin extension (Chapin and Cather, 1994). At least
locally such transverse
structures exhibit some oblique-slip to strike-slip displacement. They appear to be nearly
vertical and deeply penetrate the earth's crust; and they are commonly adjacent to major
eruptive centers of basaltic to andesitic volcanics. In most, if not all, cases, transverse
structuralzones
bound tilted fault-block domains with stronglycontrasting
styles of
deformation.
Cochiti-Bernalillo (C-B) Structural Depression (Fig. 1-2a)
The Cochiti-Bernalillodepression forms the central part of SantoDoming0 Basin
andincludesthe
KO,
Grande Valley betweenCochiti Dam A d Sandia Pueblo. The
depression is flanked on the east by the Cerros del Rio volcanic field, on the northwest
by the Jemez volcanic field, on the southeast by the Sandia Uplift (including the Hagan
embayment east of Sandias), and on the west by the Ziana anticline.
The entire river-channel zone (Plate 20; Fig. 109) includingrhe lower reach of the
Santa Fe River, from Cochiti
Dam to the Angostura "consmction" is here classed as a
45
Open-File Repon 402.D. Chapter 1
major recharge corridor area because of the excellent interconnection between coarsegrained channel facies of the modem and ancestral Rio Grande. This primarily gaining
reach of the Rio Grande is generally not part of the recharge system for the local shallow
(valley-fill) aquifer. Theentire
upper bodyof
interconnected valley and basin fill,
however, potentially serves as a major reservoir for recharging deeper partsofthe regional
aquifer system to the south.
Structural "ramps" south of the Cochiti-Bernalillodepression
mark zones of
transition with the Sandia uplift (Placitas-Tonque area and San Francisco-Placitas fault
zone), and with the Hagan basin (Espinaso Ridge) and bench (Plate 3; Fig. 1-2). Potential
recharge reaches and windows located along the southern border ofthe Cochiti-Bernalillo
depression include lower and upper channel reaches, respectivelyof
Galisteo Creek,
Arroyo de la Vega de 10s Tanos, Arroyo Tonque, Arroyo Maria Chavez, and Las Huertas
Creek (Plate 20; Fig. 1-9).
The southeastern Jemez volcanic center (Bearhead Peak sector) is separated from
the Cochiti-Bernalillo depression by a broad, transverse structural boundary zone that
includes much of the "Santa Ana accommodation zone" of Cather (1992) and Chapin and
Cather (1994). This feature is here designated the Santa Ana-Borrego accommodation
zone (SABaz or SBaz, Plate 2). The SAB accommodation zone separates the west-tilted
fault block domain of the Espafiola Basin from the generally east-tilted half-graben
subbasins of the Santo Domingo and Central ABQ Basinstothe
south.
The three
potential recharge reaches and window areas identified in this areacomprise
lower
ephemeral and upper intermittent channel reaches, respectively, in the valleys of Peralta
Canyon Wash, Carion Santo Domingo Wash and Borego Canyon Wash (Plate 20; Fig. 19).
Lorna Colorada Transfer Zone
The east-northeast trending Lomu Coloruda transfer zone (LCtz, Plate 1C) forms the
southern boundary of the C-B depression and is transitional southward with the PlacitasTonque "ramp". The narrow Lorna Coloradu zone, which is subparallel to direction of
46
Open-File Rdpon 402-D,Chapter 1
basin extension inferred by Chapin and Cather (1994), exhibits local oblique- to strike-slip
deformation; and it is oriented transverse to the general north-south RG Rift trend, The
Loma Colorada zone is also subparallel to both the Santa Ana-Borrego and the TijerasGabaldon accommodation zones. Thelatter transverse structuralfeature separates the
Central Albuquerque and Belen Basinsegments and is the southwestward extension of the
Tijeras-Cafioncito fault system. The Tijeras zone is discussed in more detail below (See
Appendix I, Part I.D. 1.b).
Ziana-Sandia Pueblo (Structural) High
The Ziana-Sandia Pueblo structural high is a major, south to southeast-trending
feature that has two segments: the Ziana anticline and the Sandia Pueblo bench (Plates
5, 6 ; Fig. 1-2). It extendssouth across the Jemez River Valley fromtheSanta
Ana-
Borrego accommodation zone southward at the Lorna Colorada transverse zone (Plate2),
passes beneath the Zia-Santa Ana Pueblo boundary zone, and terminates near the
Rio
Rancho Country Club area. The Sandia Pueblo bench is located southeast of the
Rio
Grande Valley constriction at Angostura.
The SP bench underlies the Pueblo of Sandia
betweenRincon Ridge (northwestern Sandia uplift) a i d the inner Rio Grande Valley
(Plates 6 and 12); and it forms a buried northwestward extension of the narrowTramway
(structural) bench. The latter feature is part of Sandia (master) fault zone (Sfz),
which
is located between the East Heights subbasin of the Metro Area Depression (Plate 2, 3;
Figs. 1-2, 1-6, 1-7) and the Sandia Mountains.
Rivers Edge Gap
The Sandia Pueblo Bench is separated from the south end of the Ziana anticline
by a narrow structural saddle, here designated the Rivers Edge Gap. The Gap is bounded
by northwest to northeast trending faults of Rio Grande system and Loma Colorada and
Atrisco-Rincon (transfer) zones. These zones are buried by the fill of theinner Rio
Grande Valley upstream from the mouth of Arroyo de las Montoyas at Corrales (Plate
13). It is here suggested that a buried course (Mio-Pliocene) of the ancestral Rio Grande
47
Open-File Report 402-D,Chapter 1
occupies muchof the shallow subsurface between Bemalillo and Corrales in
this area
(Plates 4, 5, 6, 12, and 13).
The inner valley of the Rio Grande betweentheBemalillo-Angostura
Valley
segment and Corrales occupies a critical zone in terms of Basin geohydrology. This area
roughly coincides with the buried Rivers Edge Gap structural saddle. Historical data on
the groundwater-flow system (Bjorklund and Maxwell,1961;Titus,1961)show
that
shallow flow lines converge at the north end of the Sandia Pueblo reach and diverge as
they enter the Metro-Area depression nearCorrales.Asidefromtheimmediate
area
surrounding Bernalillo, however, there are no deepboreholelogsavailable
for
incorporation in the model's data base. So hydrogeologic interpretations on this part of
the Rio Grande Valley are quite speculative.
The entire river reach from Angostura toSandiaPueblo
is here designated a
recharge corridor, and two Critical Recharge Window Areas have also been identified
(RERW-Rivers Edge and SBRW-County Line; Plate20;Fig.
RiversEdgeWindow
area includes the lower reachofArroyo
1-9; Appendix H).
The
de Los Montoyas in
northeastern Rio Rancho. River-channel deposits appear to be in directcontact with
saturated Upper Santa Fe (USF-2) deposits that extend southwestward into the Paradise
Hillssubbasin.Dominant
groundwater flowdirectionappears
to be to the southwest,
across the northwestern (Corrales) segment of the Rio Grande fault system (Fig. 1-6).
The Sandoval-Bernalillo County Line Recharge Window site (SBRW) is a short
valley-border reach of the river at the south edge of the Pueblo of Sandia Reservation
(Fig. 1-6). In this area coarse-grained channel deposits(unit RA, facies A1,2) are in
direct contact with the northwestern edge of the major Upper Santa Fe (USF-2, facies I,
II)aquifer zone that extends beneath the Northeast Heights of Albuquerque (Figs. 1-3, 17).
Hydrogeologic cross-sections (Plates 6, 12, 13; Figs. 1-3, 1-7) and maps (Plates
2, 4; Fig. 1-6) illustrate, at least schematically, the style of faulting and tilting of basin
fault-block components in this major structural boundary zone and how this structure may
affectthe
local groundwater-flow system. It appearsthatthroughoutmuch
48
oflate
Open-File Repon. 402-D,Chapter 1
Miocene and Pliocene time, northeastward to eastward tilting of the Sandia Pueblo and
East Heightssubbasin (hanging-wall) blocks controlled theposition of a majordistributary
channel complex of the ancestral river, which tended to shift eastward toward the easttilted Sandia Mountains and Tramway bench (footwall) block. The County-Line Window
area is the only place where the modem Rio Grande channel zone and associated coarsegrained deposits of the inner-valley fill are in direct contact with the thick sand and gravel
deposits of this part of the ancestral Rio Grande system.
Small Mountain-Front Window sites have also been identified at the mouths of
Caiion Agua Sarca, C d o n del Agua, and Juan Tab0 Canyon where drainage from small
watersheds in the northern Sandia Mountains, and discharges directly into basin-fill that
caps the Santa Fe Group sequence on the Sandia Pueblo bench.
Metro-Area (Structural) Depression
The Metro-Area depression (MAD, Plate 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9; Figs. 1-2, 1-3, 1-6, 1-7)
comprises the Corrales-Isleta segment of the Rio Grande Valley and adjacent parts of the
Central, (ABQ) Basin in the Albuquerque-Rio Rancho Metropolitan area. The depression,
which forms the core-area of this study (Fig. 1-6), has four major subbasins: Calabacillas,
Paradise Hills (including The Volcanoes graben), Alameda-Armijo, and East Heights. It
extends west from Tramday bench along the SandiaMountain
frontto
the middle
segment of the Rio Puerco Valley (above Rio San Jose confluence). The Paradise Hills
and Alameda-Armijo subbasins form the deepest, most extended parts of the depression.
They are flanked to the northwest and southeast, respectively, by the much shallower and
less extended Calabacillas and East Heights subbasins. Segments of the Loma Colorada
and Atrisco-Rincon transfer (fault) zones, and the Rio Grande fault system bound and
occupy parts of the Paradise Hills and Alameda-Armijo subbasins.
Calabacillas subbasin.
The Calabacillas subbasin north of the Loma Colorada
transfer zone is a faulted syncline and half-graben complex that is separated from the
Santo Domingo Basin (Cochiti-Bemalillo depression) tothenortheast
by the Ziana
anticline (Plates 4,5; Fig. 1-2). It also includes the westem part of the Santa Ana-
49
Open-File Report 402-D,Chapter I
Borrego accommodation zone (Fig. 1-2, Plate 2). The San Ysidro embaymentof the
north end of the subbasin is transitional northward into the upper Jemez River Valley
between the southern Nacimiento and Jemez Mountains.
A special class of recharge reaches has been identified in the Calabacillas subbasin
that comprises arroyo channel reaches in drainage basins at the northern end of the Llano
de Alburquerque (La Cejaescarpment area: sites ACRR, AMRR,PPRR, and AORR,
Plate 20A; Fig. 1-9; Appendix H, X ) . Channel reaches at elevations between 5500 and
6500 ft may provide some recharge to medium- and coarse-grained facies of Middle and
Lower SantaFe Hydrostratigraphic units (hlSF"SF-Zia). The
vadose zone in this area,
however, is about 500 ft thick.
Paradise Hills subbasin. The Paradise Hills subbasin, with as much as 10,000
to 15,000 ft of Santa Fe Group deposits in The Volcanoes graben, and the AlamedaArmijo subbasin, with 5,000 to 10,000 ft of basin fill, are two of the deepest parts of the
Basin Complex. They are bounded on theeast andwest, respectively, by the master
faults of the Rio Grande-Sandia and
West Mesa systems, and on the northwest by the
Lorna Colorada transfer zone (LCrz; Plates 2, 4, 7, 8, 9; Figs. 1-2, 1-6, 1-7). The broad
Atrisco-Rincon transfer zone, which is subparallel to the LCtz, crosses the northwestern
Alameda-Armijo subbasin and forms the southeastern boundary of the Paradise Hills
subbasin. In the southwestern part of thelatter subbasin, basaltsof the Albuquerque
volcanic field spread out from a north-south lines of vents within The Volcanoes graben.
The deeply buried Laguna (structural) bench underlies the Llano de Alburquerque and
Rio Puerco Valley area west of The Paradise Hills and Calabacillas subbasins (Figs. 1-6,
1-7). The bench is transitional westward into the Rio Puerco fault belt
at the eastem
margin of the Colorado Plateau and extends southward to the Wind Mesa structural
depression.
Two Arroyo Recharge Reaches (CARR and MARR), and two Arroyo Recharge
Window areas (CAAW and MAAW) are located in the northern Paradise Hills subbasin.
The channel reaches (RR's) identified in this study are in the lower valleys of Arroyo de
10s Montoyas and Arroyo de las Calabacillas (Plate 20A; Fig. 1-loa; Appendix H). Both
50
Open-File Repan 402.Q Chapter 1
extend valleyward from the Loma Colorada transfer zone (Plate 2; Fig. 1-6), and both
directly overlie productive aquifer zones in the Upper Santa Fe Group fluvial deposits
(USF-2,4; facies I and II) The general area that includes these potential recharge sites,
also appears to be one o f the best areaswestof
the Rio Grande for locating future
recharge wells.
The potential (arroyo) Recharge Window Areas are both located at the heads of
the Calabacillas and Montoyas Recharge Reaches, and they are immediately downstream
from points where these arroyos cross rhe Loma Coloradatransfer zone (Plate 2; Fig. 1-6).
The LCtz and related structures of the Star Heights and Paradise fault zones (Plate 2)
clearly control local groundwater flow directions and hydraulic gradients, buttheir overall
effect on the groundwater-flow system is not well understood. As has already been noted,
the narrow LomaColorada zone definitely separates two contrasting extensional terranes.
In the Calabacillas subbasin to the north, the maximum thickness of the Santa Fe Group
is not known to exceed 4000 to 5000 ft, and Upper Santa Fe Group deposits are thin or
absent. The Loma Colorada zone may form a partial "sill" at the northwestern edge of
the extremely deep Paradise Hills subbasin, where basin-fill locally exceeds 10,000 ft in
thickness, and the Upper Santa Fe hydrostratigraphic unit (USF-2,4) ranges from about
1000 to 1600 ft in thickness. It is here suggestedthat
deep percolation from the
Calabacillas and Montoyas arroyo systems could be enhanced immediately downstream
from the Loma Colorada zone.
The other major fault zone that affects groundwater flow in
the Paradise Hills
subbasin is here designated the Paradise fault zone (PHfz; Plate 2). The two mapped
segments of this zone havea
north-south strikeanddown-to-the
west, normal
displacement. They form the eastern boundary of The Volcanoes graben; and prior to
eruption of the Albuquerque volcanic center, they probablycontrolled the ancestral course
of t h e lower Calabacillas arroyo system. The west Paradise'fault is located immediately
downstream from the inferred Calabacillas Arroyo Recharge Window location; and it is
here suggested that this fault acts as an effective barrier (dam)to down-valley subsurface
(vadose zone) flow. In this case most of the deep percolation from the arroyo channel
51
@en-File Repon 402-D,Chapter 1
would be directed (by the West Paradise fault) southward to southwestward toward the
axisofthe"West
Mesa" groundwater trough (Bjorklundand
Maxwell, 1961) that
essentially coincides with the trend of the volcanoes graben. As has already been noted,
this also appears to be another area underlain by thick Upper Santa Fe fluvial deposits,
and a potentially productive aquifer unit.
Alarneda-Armijo subbasin. The Alameda-Armijo subbasin (Plates 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 16,
17, 18, 19; Figs. 1-6, 1-7) encompasses most of the inner Rio Grande Valley area between
theNorth and South AMAFCA Outflow Channels (west Tramway Rd. to Rio Bravo
Blvd.). The entire Rio Grande floodway and channel zone is here designated as a Critical
RechargeCorridor
(RGCD, RGCE); and it also is the siteof two Critical Recharge
Window Areas; Oxbow and San Jose:.
The Oxbow Critical Recharge Window site (OXRW; Plates 17, 19, 20; Fig. 1-9;
Appendix H, Part 3) is a short valley-border segment where river-channel and valley-fill
deposits (units RA and TA, facies A1,2) are in direct contact with the major Upper Santa
Feaquifer zone (USF-2; facies I-In). This aquiferappearstoextend
southwestward
beneath the "WestHeights" area of Albuquerque (southwestern Alameda-Armijo subbasin
and Volcanoes graben sector Fig. 1-6). The hydrogeologic setting of this very important
recharge windowis schematically illustrated in both map and cross-section viewsin Plates
4, 8, 17, and 19A (Menaul and Montan0 sections).
The second Recharge Window Area in the Alameda-Armijo
majorrecharge
potential is the San Jose site(SJRW;Plates,
subbasin that has
18, 19, 20; Fig. 1-9;
Appendix X, Part 3). It is located along the short valley-border segment that is bounded
on the west by the river-channel and floodway reach between San Jose Ave.and
Woodward Rd. Coarse- to fine-grained channel andfloodplaindepositsof
the inner
valley-fill sequence (unit RA, facies A) are here again in direct contact with primarily
medium-grained (sandy) facies of ancestral Rio Grande deposits in unit (USF-2). Map
andcross
section interpretations of the general hydrogeologic setting in this area
schematically illustrated in Plates 4, 9, 18, and 19B (Gibson and Rio Bravo section).
52
Open-Filc Repon 402-D,Chapter I
East Heights Subbasin. TheEast
Heights subbasincomprises
two east- to
northeast-tilted half graben blocks (Uptown and Sun Mesa; Plates 3, 4, 7, 8, 9; Fig. 1-6).
It is located between the Sandia frontal fault zone (Tramway Bench) and segments of
the Arrisco-Rincon transfer (ARtz) and Rio Grande Master (RGfs) fault zones. The ARtz
and RGfs belt ofnortheast and northwest striking (transfer and master-extensional) faults
underlies the eastern valley-border area along and west of 1-25, It appears that in much
of this area the structurally-high western border of the East Heights(uptown) half-graben
block effectively separates aquifer systems of the inner-valley area from
those in the
Northeast Heights (Figs. 1-3, 1-7). Within the East Heights subbasin (Plate 2; Fig. 1-6),
the southern (Sun Mesa) half graben is also separated from the northern (Uptown) half
graben by the buried northwest-striking Ridgecrest fault (RCf, down to SW). The buried
(western) hinged-margin of the Sun Mesa half graben block is formed by the
Mountainview "prong" (Fig. 1-7). The Sun Mesa sector extends southeastward beneath
the Sunport and Mesa del Sol area to the Tijeras-Gabaldon accommodation zone (TGaz).
East Heights Recharge-Well Sites. This phase of the NMBIvIiMR investigation
did not deal directly with selection of potential recharge-well sites. General observations
on the subject, however, are quite appropriate in this section because the East Height's
subbasin appears to be the bestarea for artificial recharge through injection wells in the
entire ABQ Basin Complex (SeeChapter 4). Figure 1-7 andPlates 7, 8, 9, and11
provide a comprehensive "underground view" of prime target
wells.
These areasare
areas for siting recharge
essentially any part of theaquiferzonemade
up of thick
sequences of lithofacies I and II that form the bulk of hydrostratigraphic unit USF-2. It
is here suggested that the northem (uptown) sector of the Eait Heights subbasin, which
is located north of Gibson Blvd. (and the Ridgecrest fault), encompasses most, if not all,
of area where recharge through deep wells would be economically feasible.
Sandia Mountain-Front Recharge
Sites. Six small Mountain-Front Window sites
at the eastern edge of the Tramway bench contribute some recharge to the northern East
Heights subbasin (uptown sector). From north to south, these (canyon-mouth) window
areas comprise channels of short perennial to intermittenr streams in the lower segments
53
Open-File Report 4X2-D. C h a p I
of La Cueva (LCIMW), Doming0 Baca (DBMW), Pino (PCMW), Bear-Oso (BOMW),
Embudito (ETMW), and Embudo (ECMW) Canyons (Plate 20A; Fig. 109; Appendix H,
Part 3). Groundwater contributed by these recharge sites is stored in and passes through
Upper and Middle Santa Fe piedmont deposits (units USF-1/MSF-1, and lithofacies V-
VIII). Thisflow system ultimately discharges intothe main upper Santa.Fe (fluvial)
aquifer system (unit USF-2, facies I-IV) immediately west of the West Sandia fault zone
(Figs. 1-3, 1-6 to 8).
The major Mountain Front Recharge Window site in the Tramway bench and
East Heights subbasin area is located at the mouth of Tijeras Canyon, near the FourHills
Blvd. crossing (site TCMW; Plate 20A; Fig. 9; Appendix H, Part 3). The large Tijeras
Canyon watershed (about 80 sq. mi.), which includes much of Sandia Mountain eastern
slope, contributes both surface and subsurface flow to this site (Titus, 1980). As in the
case of the small mountain-front window areas to the north, this lower perennial reach of
Tijeras Creek provides recharge to both the piedmont-alluvial aquifer zone on the
Tramway bench and the main basin-fill (USF-2) aquifer system of the Northeast Heights
subbasin. The piedmont-alluvial aquifer zonealso receives (indirectly)recharge input
from a small Mountain-Front Recharge Window area near the mouth of Coyote Canyon
(MCMW; Plate 20B; Fig. 1-10), The latter area runoff and subsurface-flow contributions
from a large watershed at the north end of the Manzanita Mountains. Coyote
Arroyo joins Tijeras
Arroyo about four miles downstream from the mouth of
Canyon
Tijeras
Canyon.
There is a another potentially important Arroyo Recharse Window area (TCAW;
Plate 20B; Fig. 1-9) located in the Sun Mesa graben sector (southern Alameda-Armijo
subbasin) near the confluence of Tijeras and Coyote Arroyos. This site is immediately
downstream from the Pennsylvania Ave. Bridge on Kirtland Air Force Base (KAFB). In
this area (Plate 12) about 200 ft of unsaturated, but very permeable UpperSanta Fe fluvial
deposits (unit USF-2,facies I, I
I
)overlie similar aquifermaterial in the zone of saturation.
In this study, the lower reach of Tijeras Arroyo downstream from the Window Area has
Open-File Repen 4OZ-D, Chapter I
also been identified as a potential Recharge Reach (TARR; Plate 20A; Fig. 1-9; Appendix
H, Part 2).
Mountainview-Westland (Structural) High
The Mountainview-Westland "high" is a major southeast-trendingpositive structure
that has two segments: 1) theMountainview prong and2) the Westlandssalientof
Laguna bench, which are separated by the broad Westgate gap (Plates 4, 10; Figs. 1-2,
1-8). The Mountainview prong (Fig. 1-6, 1-8) is a buried structural high beneath lMesa
del Sol and the Mountainview area of the South Valley.
It forms a prominent
buried
ridge (and gravityhigh) projecting northwestward beneath Mesadel Sol fromthe northern
Hubbell Bench (Figs. 1-6, 1-8). The Mountainview prong also forms the footwall block
of the southernRio Grande fault zone and the eastern edge ofthe Wind Mesa depression.
The prong's southeastern terminus is the Hells Canyon segment of the Tijeras-Gabaldon
. .
~
. accommodation zone (TGuz); and it is bounded on the northwest by the Mountainview-
Valley Gardens area of the South Valley (near South Coors and Gun Club Road).
The section of
the
Rio Grande channel and floodway that crosses the
Mountainview prong is here provisionally identified as a critical Recharge Corridor
(RGGF; Plates 20A, 20B; Figs. 1-9,l-10). Potential recharge contributions to the shallow
(RAAJSF-2,4) aquifer system below the inner river valley appear to be substantial. The
deeper part of the Upper Santa Fe aquifer zone that is so thick in the East Heights
subbasin, however, may be very thin or absent over parts of the Mountainview structural
high.
The Westgaze gap (Fig. 1-6), occupied by an inferred major course of the ancestral
Miocene-Pliocene Rio Grande, is located beneathanareaapproximately
WestgateHeights.
In subsurface it forms a deep structural lowthat
centered at
separatesthe
Mountainview prong from the Westlands salient of the Laguna bench. The gap appears
to be part of a structural saddle formed by an inferred deep graben segment that connects
the deepestparts of the Metro Area and Wind Mesa depressions. It is bounded by
segments of the Rincon-Atrisco and Rio Grande fault zones.
55
Open-File Report 302-D,Chapter I
The Westlands salient is an eastward extension of the Laguna bench that forms
a very broad structural high separating The Volcanoes and Cat Hills volcanic fields (and
deep graben sectorsof the Metro-Area and Wind Mesa depressions). The salient's
southeastem terminus is beneath the Nine Mile Hill area and fault zone (NMfz, Plate 2)
at the wesrem edge of the Westgate Gap near Central and 1-40 W (Plate 3;,Fig. 1-2).
Wind Mesa (WDM) Depression
The Wind Mesa depression is locared in the southwestern part of the Central
ABQ Basin (Plate 3; Fig.1-2, 1-8). It extends from the Westgate Heights-Isletaarea (Fig.
1-6) westward across of the Rio Puerco Valley to Gabaldon subbasin (west-tilted half
graben east of Lucero Mesa). The Gabaldon Badlands area in the latter subbasin has been
the site of deep oil and gas test drilling and detailed stratigraphic research on Santa Fe
Group deposits (Lozinsky and Tedford, 1991). The WDM depression includes Cat Mesa,
Cat Hills, and Wind Mesa volcanic fields and the deep Cat Hills and Parea Mesagrabens,
respectively SW and NE of the Wind Mesa volcanic center (Pliocene).
is bounded on the north by the Laguna bench and on the east
The depression
by the Mountainview
prong. The southem boundary is formed by the Tijerus-Gubaldon accommodation zone
(TGuz) west of Isleta (Plare 2; Fig. 1-2). A deeply buriedmid-basinstructural
extending southfrom
Wind Mesa to theLos
Lunas volcaniccenter,
high
separates the
extremely deep PareaMesa half graben (site of Isleta volcanic field)on the east, from the
Cat Hills graben and volcanic field to the west (Fig. 1-8). Note: Basin fill in the deepest
parts of the WDM depression (Gabaldon, Cat Hills, Parea Mesa subbasins) ranges from
10,000 to 15,000 ft in thickness (Lozinsky, 1994; May and Russell, 1994).
The northernmost part of Recharge Corridor RGCG(Plate20B;
Fig.1-IO) is
located in the southeast corder of Wind Mesa depression (Parea Mesa subbasin). This
locality also includes the Bemalillo-Valencia County LineRechargeWindow
Area
(BVBW). River channel and inner valley fill deposits (unit RA, facies A2, 1) are here
in contact with the upper Santa Fe (USF-2) aquifer zone that extends beneath the "West
Mesa" area between the Isleta and Los L u n a Volcanic Centers (Titus, 1963). No recent
56
Open-Fild Repon 402-D,Chapter I
water-well data fromthis locality has beenanalyzed during the current study; so the
author's interpretations are here quite speculative. This observation holds for the entire
basin area south of Bemalillo County.
Gabaldon Salient
The Gabaldon salient (Plate 3; Fig. 1-2) is a partly buried structural high at the
southwestern edge of the Wind Mesa depression. It projects east into the ABQ Basin
from the Carrizo Mesa segment of the Lucero uplift. The salient terminates as a surface
feature in the Hidden Mountain-Cerro Molinas area of theRio Puerco Valley and appears
to generally coincide with the western end of the Tijeras-Gabaldon accommodation zone.
Tijeras-Gabaldon Accommodation Zone (TGaz)
The Tijeras-Gabaldonaccommodationzone
is a major southwest to northeast
trending belt of structural deformarion transverse to the general north-south trend of the
RG Rift. It separates the Central and Belen parts of theBasin Complex and extends from
the southern margin of the Gabaldon salient to the Coyote Canyon reentrant between the
Four Hills (Sandia) and Manzanita uplifts. The Tijeras-Gabaldon zone follows the trend
Tijeras-Caiioncito fault system (TCfs; Appendix I, I-D.l.b), includes a series of buried
ridge-form segments and deep saddles in the central part of the Basin, and appears to be
about two to four miles wide. It crosses the Rio Grande Valley between Los Lunas and
Bosque
Farms,
(andesitic)
contains the Los Lunas
volcanic center, and extends
southwestward across the Pottery Mound area of thelower Puerco Valley. The latter area
is locatedsouth
of the Hidden Mountain andMojinas
Mountain (basaltic)volcanic
centers.
The Tijeras-Gabaldon zone also crosses the southern endof
the Gabaldon
subbasin; and it includes the buried Dalies gap beneath the Llano de Alburquerque west
of Los Lunas volcano, as well as the Peralta gap (saddle) between Mountainview prong
andthe Los Lunas area of the Belen Basin(Lunas-Bemardodepression).The"West
Mesa ground-water trough" first documented by Bjorklund and Maxwell (1961) and Titus
57
Open-File Rcport 40223, Chapter I
(1961, 1963)in the Sandoval-Bernalillo-ValenciaCounty area is located within the Dalies
gap. It is here suggested that a major western axial channel zone of the ancestral Rio
Grande extends through this area from the Cat Hill graben (subbasin) to the north; but this
hypothesis can only be tested by deep drilling anddetailedborehole
log and sample
analyses.
The lower reach of Hells Canyon Wash (Plates 2,20B; Fig. 1-10) directly overlies
the main part of the Tijeras-Gabaldon accommodation zone east of Chical (Pueblo of
Isleta). This 2
to 3 mi long channel zone is here identified as a potential Arroyo Reach
(HCRR), and it includes a Recharge Window Area at its upstream end (HCAW). This
area needs furtherinvestigation, but it is here suggested that this segment of Hells
Canyon
Wash is analogous to the lower reachof Tijeras Arroyo (TCAC) in terms of how it
interacts with the groundwater flow system. This reach is here considered as a small, but
important source of recharge to the Upper Santa Fe aquifer system in the northemmost
part of the Lunas-Bemardo Depression.
Lunas-Bernard0 (L-B §tructural) Depression
Major surface topographic subdivisions of the Lunas-Bernard0 depression (Fig.
1-2c) include the central Rio Grande Valley (Isleta-Bemardo reach), which is flanked by
"East Mesa" and "West
(Fig. 1-2). The
Mesa" (Llano de Manzano and Llano de Alburquerque) areas
river channel and floodway belt in the "valley" area between the Isleta
diversion dam and Jarales southeast of Belen comprises the southernmost river Recharge
Corridor (RGCG) identified in this study. This channel zone recharges Santa Fe group
aquiferbelowand
on either sideof the inner valley of the Rio Grande. .The L-B
depression is a complex of at least three major structural subbasins and interveningbroad,
buried ridges that occupy the eastern p a n of the Belen Basin and extends to the Hubbell
bench (I.D.2) on the east, and to the Puerco Valley on the west. It is bounded on the
north by the Tijeras-Gabaldon accommodation zone (TGaz) and is transitional
southeastward across the Turututu salient of the Joyita bench (Plate 2; Appendix I, Part
I). Because no detailed (shallow or deep) boreholeandgeophysical
58
information is
Open-File Rqon 402-D,Chapter I
available for most of the area, only general inferences on basin hydrogeologic framework
can be made. Major structural subdivisions comprise:
1.
2.
A western sector, including two west-tilted half
grabens,
that
underlies the
southern Llano de Alburquerque between Dalies and Pic0 Hill, and extends under
the Rio Grande Valley between Isleta and Belen. It is bounded on the west by the
Puerco Valley fault zone.
An eastern sector, between the Hubbell and Joyita benches (Appendix I, Part
I.D.2) and the Rio Grande Valley, that extends beneath the inner valley area south
of Belenand appears to include several north-south-trending (symmetrical) grabens
in the Tome and Casa Colorada Land Grant areas.
The "western" and "eastern" sectors are separated by north-south-trending zone of faults
(Belen Valley fault zone-BVfz in this report) withgeneraldown
to east sense of
displacement. Major ancestral Rio Grande channel complexes in upper Santa Fe deposits
appear to have entered the Lunas-Bemardo depression through structural saddles (gaps)
in the TGaz near Dalies, and Peralta (between Los Lunas and lower Hells Canyon Wash).
The southernmost (potential) Critical Recharge Window area identified in this study is
located near Madrone (ATSF) RR Station and the San Juan Canal Heading southeast of
Belen (JMRW; Plate 20B; Fig. 1-10), The Rio Grande channeland underlying inner
valley fill (unit RA, facies A) is in direct contact with undifferentiated Upper Santa Fe
Group fluvial deposits and inset river-terrace fill (TAiUSF-2, facies A). The window area
appears to have potential for recharging both (deep) "East Mesa" and (shallow) innervalley aquifer zones.
Hubbell Bench Recharge Window Sites
Four Mountain-Front Window areas have been identified in this study that are all
located at places where short reaches of intermittent streams and/or spring occur in or
near the mouths of small canyons on the west face of Manzano Mountains (Plate 20B;
Fig. 1-10>. All these canyon-channel reaches discharge into thecomplex bedrock and
alluvial aquifer system of Hubbell Bench. Designated window areas are at the.mouths
of SaisCanyon ( S H M W ) , Comache Canyon (CHMW),TrigoCanyon
(TEMW), and
Cafion Monte Largo (CIMMW). The southernmost potential Mountain-Front Recharge
59
Open-File Repon 402.Q Chapter 1
Window area is located at the mouthof Abo Canyon (ACMW; Plate 20B; Fig. 1-10),
Like the Tijeras and Hells Canyon Window sites to the north, this site has a very large
mountain tributary watershed. The Abo Arroyo area (Becker sag), however, has never
been investigated from a hydrogeologic perspective and no furtherobservations
recharge potential can be made at this
on
time.
The southernmost group of recharge windows in the ABQ Basin comprises the
series of small springs that are located at the west edge of the Hubbell Bench. hlost of
these pointsof
perennial discharge havebeendescribed
by Titus(1963).Recharge
Windows at these sites are here identified as Hubbell Spring (HSBW), Ojo de la Cabra
(OCBW-in upper Hells Canyon tributary), Maes Spring (MSBW), Carrizo Spring
(CSBW), Ojo Huelos (OHBW) and Ojo Jedeondilla (OJBW). All these springs appear
to be contributing small, but significant amounts of recharge to the eastern part of the
main Upper Santa Fe (USF-1,2) aquifer system.
Turututu Salient of Joyita Bench (I.D.2)
The Turututu salient is a partly buried strucmral high that extends northward into
southeastern Belen Basin from the Joyita Hills-Valle de Parida area and includes
the
Turututu (Hill or Black Butte) area along US-60 between Bernard0 and Abo Pass (Plate
2; Appendix I; I.D.2.)
Lower Puerco Structural Depression
The Lower Puerco depression (Fig. 1-2) is here inferred to comprise two major
subbasins partly separated by a poorly-defined, buried ridge (herein formally designated
the Ladrones salient) that extends east-nonheastward from the Ladron uplift. These deep,
west-tilted half graben structures are located west of the (lower) Puerco Valley faultzone
(PVfz) and form the southwestern part of the ABQ Basin (Russell and Snelson, 1994a,
b; Lewis and Baldridge, 1994). The PVfz, which appears to exhibit
dominant down-to-
east displacement, is here interpreted as a major intra-basin structurethatextends
southward beneath the presentPuerco River Valley from
near the RioSan Jose confluence
60
Open-File Repon 401-D.Chapter 1
to near Bemardo. The Lower Puerco depression includes 1) a northern subbasin east of
the Monte Largo embayment (bench) that extends northeastward from the Ladron and
Lucero uplifts (Appendix I, Part 1.B) to the Rio Puerco,and 2) a southern subbasin
between the Joyita bench and the Ladron uplift. The two depression subunits are here
informally designated the Comanche-Coyote (northern) and Sevilleta
(southern) subbasins.
Because of the general fine-grained nature of basin-fill in this part of theBasin (facies III-
IX probably dominant), no investigation of potential recharge sites has been undertaken.
The Joyita Hills between Abo Arroyo and the Rio Salado-South marks a
southwestern transition zone wirh the Socorro and La Jencia subbasins of the Popotosa
Basin. The latter area marks the northern edgeof the more highly extended terrane
(southeastem Basin and Range section) of the southern Rio Grande rift province (Cather
et al., 1994).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
This chapter provides a basin-wide overview of the hydrogeologic setting
from the
perspective of groundwater recharge. It is a qualitative geologic study that pinpoints
attractive recharge windows, reaches, and corridors based upon a synthesis of structural
and stratigraphic information, and well-documented to inferred behavior ofshallow
geohydrologic systems. The windows, reaches, andcorridorscorrespond
permeable parts of basin-fill (Sanra Fe Gp) aquifer zones andoverlying
to themore
valley-fill
deposits; therefore, it is critical to understand the hydrogeologic framework (architecture)
of the aquifer system in any serious analysis of artificial recharge potential. For surface
recharge, critical recharge corridors are defined as belts of perennial to locally intermittent
streamflow in the Rio Grande, and Jemezandlower
Santa Fe Rivers where high
permeability aquifer units are exposed at or very near the land surface. Critical recharge
reaches are defined as the channels of major ephemeral streams, beneath which the thin,
coarse grained alluvium is separated fromtheSanta
Fe Groupaquifersystem
by
unsaturated but highly permeable units. Recharge corridors are areas in which recharge
61
Open-File Rdpon 402-0,Clrapldr I
is currently occurring, whereas recharge reaches are areas in which recharge would be
occurring if there wereperennial
streamflow. Both rechargecorridors
and recharge
reachesare essentially linear elements. Recharge windows,incontrast,
are localized
stream-channel zones that occur in four geohydrologicsettings:
1) valleys oflarge
perennial streams underlain by shallow saturated zones; 2 ) valleys of ephem'eral streams
underlain by deep saturated zones; 3) lower ends of mountain canyons or other upland
areas with perennial streams and/or springs; and 4) valley floors in other basin-border
uplands that have
shortchannel reaches with perennial discharge from streams and/or
springs to basin-fill aquifer units. In contrast to corridors and reaches, windows can be
thought of as points, or specific locations along a reach or corridor. For underground
recharge, the most favorable recharge corridor appears to be a wide swath underlain by
axial river gravels of the ancestral Rio Grande.
Recommendations for Future Work
The basin-wide hydrogeologic investigations of the past 5 years, combined with
a few site-specific studies described in Chapter 2 and 3, provide only general information
on the characterof the recharge windows, corridors and reaches identifiedin this chapter.
Actual recharge mechanisms are still very poorly understood in most parts of the Basin.
Inferences on how geologic features influence recharge are based largely dn conceptual
models o f interconnected valley-fillhasin-fillgeohydrologicsystems
that have been
developed over the past four decades (see Spiegel, 1962, and McAda, 1996). Seemingly
valid interpretations based on field-scale hydrogeologic investigations must, therefore, be
considered as inferential until on-site investigations ofactualrechargesystems
completed.Future
work, particularly in areas that may beseriously
artificial recharge candidate sites,
should
include
detailed
are
considered as
subsurface geologic
investigations consisting of drilling, coring, lithologic and geophysical logging,
petrographic analysis of samples, geochemical
characterization,
and appropriate
instrumentation to establish the ambient groundwater and soil moisture flow regimes.
62
Open-File Repon JOZ.D, Chapter 1
REFERENCES
Abbott, J. C., Cather, S. M., and Goodwin, L. B., 1995, Paleocene synorogenic
sedimentation in the Galisteo Basin related to the Tijeras-Caiioncito fault system:
New Mexico Geological Society, Guidebook 46, pp, 271-278.
Birch, F. W., 1982, Gravity models of theAlbuquerquebasin, Rio Grande rift, New
Mexico: Geophysics, v.47,no. 8, pp. 1185-1197, 4 figs. , 1 table. .
Bjorklund, L. J. and Maxwell, B. W.,1961, Availability ofground water in the
Albuquerque area, Bemalillo and Sandoval Counties, New Mexico: New Mexico
State Engineer Technical Report 21, 117 pp.
Bryan, K., 1909, Geology and the vicinity of Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Bulletin 51, Geological Series, v. 3 , 24 pp.
Bryan, K., 1938, Geology and groundwater conditions of the Rio Grande depression in
Colorado and New Mexico
U.S. Natural Resources Planning Board,The Rio
Grande Joint Investigations in the RioGrande Basin: Washington,D.C., U.S.
Government Printing Office, v. 1, pt. 2, pp. 197-225.
Cather, S . M . , 1992, Suggested revisions to the Tertiary tectonic history of north-central
New Mexico: New Mexico Geological Society, Guidebook 43, pp. 109-122.
W.
C.,
1994,
Cather, S. M . , Chamberlin, R. M., Chapin, C. E., andMcIntosh,
Stratigraphic consequences of episodic extension in the Lemitar Mountains,central
Rio Grande rift: Geological Society of America, Special Paper 291, pp. 157-170.
R. E., ed.,
Chapin, C. E., 1979, Evolution ofrhe Rio Grande rift: A summary Riecker,
Rio Grande rift: Tectonics and magmatism: Washington, D. C., American
Geophysical Union, p. 1-5.
Chapin, C. E., 1988, Axial basins of the northern and central Rio Grande rifts, in Sloss,
L. L., ed., Sedimentary cover-North American Craton (U.S.): Geological Society
of America, Geology of North America, v. D-2, pp, 165-170.
andsedimentation in the
Chapin, C. E. and Cather, S. M., 1981,Eocenetectonics
Colorado Plateau-Rocky Mountain area, Dickenson, W. R. and Payne, M.D.,
eds., Relations of tectonics to ore deposits in the southern Cordillera: Arizona
Geological Society Digest, v. 14, pp. 33-55.
Chapin, C. E. and Cather, S. M., 1994, Tectonic setting of the axial basins of the northem
and central Rio Granderift: Geological Society of America, Special Paper 291, pp.
5-25.
Connell, S. D.,1995, Quaternary geology and geomorphology of the Sandia Mountains
piedmont, Beinalillo and Sandoval Counties, central New Mexico (MS. thesis):
Riverside,University of California, 390 pp., 3 plates.
Cordell, L., 1976, Aeromagnetic and gravity smdies of the Rio Grande graben in New
Mexico between Belen
and
Pilar,
Tectonics
and
mineral resources of
southwestern North America, New Mexico Geological Society, Special
Publication
6, pp. 62-70.
Cordell, L., 1978a, Regional geophysical setting of the Rio Grande rift: Geological
Society of America Bulletin 89, pp. 1073-1090.
'
63
Open-File Rcpan 40Z-D, Chapter I
Cordell, L., 1978b, Gravity profile along TramwayRoad, b Hawley, J. W. (comp.),
Guidebook to Rio Grande rift in New Mexico and Colorado: New Mexico Bureau
of Mines and Mineral Resources, Circular 163, pp. 156-158.
Cordell, L., 1979, Gravimetric expression of braben faulting in Santa Fe country and the
Espaiiola Basin, New Mexico: New Mexico Geological Society, Guidebook 30,
pp. 59-64.
Cordell, L., 1984, Composite residual total intensity aeromagnetic map of New Mexico:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Geophysical Data
Cenrer, scale 1:500,000.
Cordell, L., 1982, Extension of the Rio Grande rift: Journal of Geophysical Research, v.
87, pp. 8561-8569.
Cordell, L. and Keller, G. R., 1984, Regional structural trends inferred from graviry and
aeromagnetic data in the New Mexico-Coloradoborderregion:
New Mexico
Geological Society, Guidebook 35, pp. 21-33.
Cordell, L., Keller, G. R., and Hildenbrand, T. G., 1982, Bouguer gravity map of the Rio
Grande rift: U S . Geological Survey, geophysical Investigations Map GP-949,
scale 1:1,000,000.
Davis, J. M., Lohmann, R. C., Phillips, F. M., Wilson, J. L., andLove, D. W., 1993,
Architecture of the SierraLadrones Formation, central New Mexico: Depositional
controls on the permeability correlations structure: Geological Society of America
Bulletin, v. 105, pp. 998-1007, 9 figs., 1 table.
Detmer, D., 1996,
Gile, L. H., Hawley, J. W., and Grossman, R. B., 1981, Soils and geomorphology in the
Basin Range area of southem New Mexico - Guidebook to the Desert Project:
New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Memoir 39, 222 pp.
Haase, C. S., 1992, Borehole geophysical data b Hydrogeologicframework of the
northern Albuquerque Basin, NewMexicoBureau
of Minesand
Mineral
Resources, Open-File Report 387, pp. V-1 to V-18.
Haase, C. S. and Lozinsky, R. P., 1992,Estimation of hydrologic parameters b
Hydrogeologic framework of thenorthernAlbuquerque
Basin, New Mexico
Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Open-File Report 387, pp. VI-1 to VI13.
Hawley, J. W., compiler, 1978 Guidebook to the Rio Grande rift in New Mexico and
Colorado: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Circular 163,
241 pp,
Hawley, J. W., 1986, Physiographic provinces(and)landformsofNew
Mexico, &
Williams, J. L., ed., New Mexico in Maps: Albuquerque, The University of New
Mexico Press, pp. 28-3 1.
of the
Hawley, J. W., and Haase, C. S., 1992, compilers,Hydrogeologicframework
northern Albuquerque Basin: NewMexicoBureauofMinesand
Mineral
Resources, Open-file Report OF-387, 74 pp., 8 Appendices, Glossary.
Hawley, J. W. and Longmire, P. A,, 1992, Site characterization and selection Reith, C.
C.and Thomson, B. M., eds, Deserts as Dumps? The disposal of hazardous
64
Open-File Repan 402.D, Chapter I
materials in arid ecosystems: Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp.
57-99.
Hawley, J. W. and Love, D. W., 1991, Quaternary and Neogene landscape evolution: a
transect across the Colorado Plateau and Basin and Range provinces in westcentral and central New Mexico h Julian, B. and Zidek, J. (eds.), Field guide to
geologic excursions in New Mexico and adjacent areas of Texas and Colorado:
New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Bulletin 137, pp. 105-148
(130-133)
Hawley, J. W. and Lozinsky, R. P., 1992, Hydrogeologic framework of the Ivlesilla Basin
in New Mexico and westem Texas: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral
Resources, Open-file Report 323, 55 pp,
Hawley, J. W., Kottlowski, F. E., Seager, W. R., King, W. E., Strain, W. S., and LeMone,
D. V., 1969, The Santa Fe Group in the south-central New Mexico border region,
in Border stratigraphy symposium: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral
Resources, Circular 104, pp. 52-76.
Hawley, J. W., Haase,C. S., and Lozinsky, R. P., 1995, An underground view of the
Albuquerque Basin, New Mexico h Ortega-Klett, C. T., ed., Proceedings of the
39th Annual New Mexico Water Conference, "The water future of Albuqueruqe
and Middle Rio Grande Basin": New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute
Report 290, pp. 37-55.
Hearne, G. A,, 1980, Mathematical model of the Tesuque aquifer system underlying
Pojoaque River Basin and vicinity, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey, OpenFile Report 80-1023, 181 pp.
Heywood, C. E., 1992, Isotalic residual gravity anomalies in NewMexico:
U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4065, 27 pp.
Johnpeer, G. D., Love, D. W., Hawley, J. W., Bobrow, D. J., Himingway, M., and
Reimers, R. F., 19S5, El Llano and vicinity geotechnical study - final report: New
Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Open-File Report 226, 4 v., 578
PP.
Johnpeer, G. D., Robinson-Cook, S., Bobrow, D., Barue, D.. and Kelleher, J., 1987,
Geology and tunneling h Estancia
Basin,
New Mexico superconducting
supercollider (under the direction of L. H. Lartman and H. E. Roser): New lMexico
Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Open-File Report 258, v. 3, 224 pp., 15
figs., 10 appendices.
Kaehler, C. A,, 1990, Lithology of basin-fill deposits in the Albuquerque-Belen Basin,
New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 894162, 14 pp,
Keller, G. R.andCather, S. M.,eds., 1994,Basins of the Rio Grande rift: Structure,
stratigraphy, andtectonic setting: Boulder, CO, Geological Society of America
Special Paper 291.
Kelley, S. A. and Chapin, C. E., 1995, Apatite fission-track thermochronology of southern
Rocky Mountain - Rio Grande rift - western High Plains provinces: New Mexico
Geological Society, Guidebook 46, pp. 87-96.
65
Open-File Repon 402-D,Chapter I
Kelley, V. C., 1977, Geology of Albuquerque Basin, New Mexico: New Mexico Bureau
of Mines and Mineral Resources, Memoir 33, 59 pp.
Kelley, V. C., 1979,Tectonics, middle Rio Grande rift, New Mexico, Riecker,
R. E.,
ed., Rio Grande rift: Tectonics and magmatism:Washington, D. C., American
Geophysical Union, pp. 57-70.
Kelley, V. C., 1982a, Albuquerque: Its mountains, valley, water,andvolcanoes: New
Mexico Bureau of Mines andMineral Resources, Scenic Trips to the Geologic
Past No. 9, 106 pp.
Kelley, V. C., 1982b, The right-relayed Rio Grande rift, Taos to Hatch, New Mexico:
New Mexico Geological Society, Guidebook 33, pp. 147-151.
Kelley, V. C. and Kudo, A. M., 1975, Volcanoes and related basalts of the Albuquerque
Basin, NewMexico: NewMexico Bureau of MinesandMineral
Resources,
Circular 156, 320 pp.
Kemodle, J. M., 1992a, Results of simulations by a preliminary numerical model of land
subsidence in the El Paso, Texas, area: U S . Geological Survey, Water Resources
Investigations Report 92-4037, 35 pp.
Kemodle, J. M., 1992b, Summary of U.S. Geological Survey ground-water-flow models
of basin-fill aquifers in the southwestern alluvial basins region, Colorado, New
Mexico, and Texas: U S . Geological Survey, Open-File Report 90-361, 81 pp.
Kernodle, J. M., McAda, D. P.,and Thorn, C. R., 1995, Simulation of ground-water flow
in the Albuquerque Basin, central New Mexico: U S . Geological survey WarerResources Investigations Report 94-4251, 114 pp.
King, W. W., Hawley, J. W., Taylor, A. M., and Wilson, R. P., 1971, Geology and
ground-water resources of central and western Doiia Ana County, New Mexico:
New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Hydrologic Report 1, 64
PP.
Lazarus, J. andDrakos,
P., 1995, Geohydrologiccharacteristics
and hydrocarbon
contamination of the shallow alluvialflesuque Formation aquifer, Santa Fe, New
Mexico: New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 46th Field Conference, pp.
307-312.
Lee, W. T., 1907, Water resources of the Rio Grande valley in New Mexico and their
development: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 188, 59 pp,
Lewis, C. L. and Baldridge, W. S., 1994, Crustal extension in the Rio Grande rift, New
Mexico: Half-grabens, accommodation zones, and shoulder uplifts in the Ladrone
Peak-Sierra Lucero area: Geological Society of America, Special Paper 291, pp.
135-155.
Lohman, R. C.,Davis, J. M., Love, D. W., and Phillips, F.,1991, Hydrogeologic
investigations ofupper Sierra Ladrones Formation[AlbuquerqueBasin]: New
Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Bulletin 137, pp, 164-166.
Lozinsky, R. P.,1994, Cenozoic stratigraphy, sandstonepetrology, and depositional
history of the Albuquerque Basin, central New Mexico: Geological Societyof
America, Special Paper 291, pp. 73-81.
.
66
Open-File Repon 402-D,Chapter I
Lozinsky, R. P. and Tedford, R. H, 1991, Geology and paleontology of the Santa Fe
Group, southwestern Albuquerque Basin, Valencia County, New Mexico: New
Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Bulletin 132, 35 pp.
Machette, M. N., 1982, Quaternary and Pliocene faults in the La Jencia and southern part
of the Albuquerque-Belen Basins, New Mexico: Evidence of fault history from
fault scarp morphology and Quaternary geology: New Mexico GeologicalSociery,
Guidebook 33, pp. 161-169.
Machette, M. N. and McGimsey, R. G., 1982, Map of Quaternary and Pliocene faults in
the Socorro and western part of Fort Sumner 1" X 2" quadrangles, central New
Mexico: U S . Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1465-A,
Scale 1:250,000, with text, 12 pp.
May, S . J. andRussell, L. R., 1994, Thickness of the syn-rift Santa Fe Group inthe
Albuquerque Basin andits relation to structural style: Geological Society of
America, Special Paper 291, pp. 113-123.
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: US. Geological ILSurvey Water-ResourcesInvestigations Report 964006, 58 pp.
McAda, D. P. and Wasiolek, M., 1988, Simulation of the regional geohydrology of the
Tesuque aquifer system near Santa Fe, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey,
Water-Investigations Report 87-4056.
Meinzer, 0. E., 1911, Geologyand water resources of Estancial Valley, New Mexico:
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 275, 89 pp.
Mozley, P. S., Chamberlin, R., Gillentine, J. M., and Lozinsky, R. P., 1992, Petrologic
data: Hydrogeologic framework of the northern Albuquerque Basin, New Mexico
Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Open-File Report 387, pp. IV-1 to IV17.
Peterson, D. M., Khaleel, R., and Hawley, J. W., 1984, Quasi three-dimensional modeling
of groundwater flow in the Mesilla bolson, New Mexico: New Mexico Water
Resources Research Institute, Technical Completion Report, Project No. 1-3-4564,
WRRI Report No. 178, 185 pp.
Reneau, S. L., Gardner, J. N., Forman, S. L., 1996,Newevidence for the age ofthe
youngest eruptions in the Valles caldera, New Mexico: Geology, v. 24, no. 1, pp.
7-10.
Russell, L. R. and Snelson, S., 1994% Structuralstyle and tectonic evolution of the
Albuquerque Basin segment of the RioGrande rift, NewMexico, U.S.A., b
Landon, S. M.,ed.,Interior
Rift Basins: American Associationof Petroleum
Geologists, Memoir 59, pp. 205-258.
Russell, L. R. and Snelson, S., 1994b, Structure and tectonics of the Albuquerque Basin
segment of rhe Rio Grande rift: Insights from reflection seismic data: Geological
Society of America, Special Paper 291, pp. 83-112.
Spiegel, Z., 1962, Hydraulics of certain stream-connected aquifer systems: New Mexico
State Engineer, Special Report, 105 pp.
67
Open-File Report 402-D,Chapter I
Spiegel, Z. and Baldwin, B., 1963, Geology and water resources of the Santa Fe area,
New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper 1525, 258 pp.
Tedford, R. H.,1981, Mammalian biochronology of the late Cenozoic basins of New
Mexico: Geological Society of America Bulletin, Part I, v. 92, pp. 1008-1022.
Thorn, C. R., McAda, D. P., and Kernodle, J. M., 1993, Geohydrologic framework and
hydrologic conditions in the AlbuquerqueBasin, central New Mexico: U.S.
Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-4149,, 106 pp.
Tight, W. G., 1905, Bolson plains of the Southwest: American Geologist, v. 36, pp. 271284.
Titus, F. B, Jr., 1961, Ground-water geology of the Rio Grande trough in north-central
New Mexico, with sections on the Jemet Caldera and the Lucero Uplift: New
Mexico Geological Society, Guidebook 12, pp. 186-192.
Titus, F. B., Jr., 1963, Geology and gound-water conditions in eastern Valencia County,
New Mexico: NewMexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, GrountWater Report 7, 113 pp.
Titus, F. B., 1980, Ground water in the Sandia and northern Manzano Mountains, New
Mexico: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Hydrologic
Report
5 , 66 pp.
Tolman, C. F., 1909, Ero'sion and deposition in southern Arizona bolson region: Journal
of Geology, v. 17, pp. 136-163.
USBR, 1996, Middle Rio Grande Water Assessment, Draft Report: U.S. Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque Area Office.
68
Open-File Repolt JOZD, Chapter 1, Appendix 1A
OPEN-FILE REPORT 402D, CHAPTER 1
APPENDIX 1A
Field Logs of Boreholes Drilled by
the US. Bureau of Reclamation for Installation of Piezometer Nests
for the Middle Rio Grande Water Assessment Project "FY 1994
A.
Isleta
1.
2.
B.
Edith Boulevard and Paseo delNorte Site (COA, Pub. Works Dept. Coop.)
1.
Borehole No. MWlE
7
-.
Borehole No. MW3E
C.Los
1.
2.
D.
Lakes Site P I A Coop.)
Borehole No. MWI-Isleta
Borehole No. MW2-Isleta
Angeles Landfill (COA, Envir.HealthDept.
Borehole No. LALF9
Borehole No. LALFll
Coop.)
LemitarSite, Rio Grande MainConveyanceChannel,RiverMile
(Middle Rio Grande Floodway Study Site)
1.
Borehole No. DW-2-1@)
109.5
Open-File Repan 40ZD. Chapter 1. Appendix l A
Field Logs of Boreholes Drilled by
the US. Bureau of Redamation for Installation of Piezometer Nests
for the Middle Rio Grande Water Assessment Project - FY 1994
John W. Hawley
Senior Environmental Geologist
New Mexico Bureau of Mines & Mineral Resources
New Mexico Tech
Socorro, NM 87801
INTRODUCTION
The following logs of boreholes drilled by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation at fourpiezometer-nest sites (Islera
Lakes-Isleta Pueblo, Paseo del Norte and Edith Blvds-Albuquerque, LosAngeles Landfill perimeterAlbuquerque, and River Mile 109.5-east oflemitar) were made during drilling operations inJuly to December,
1993, and March 1994. Work was done in cooperation with the Albuquerque, Denver andPhoenix offices of
the Bureau of Reclamation, the Water Rights Section of the US.Bureau of Indian Affairs, theUS. Geological
Survey-Water Resources Division, and the Cityof Albuquerque. These logs emphasize the lithologic properties
of drill cuttings recovered (including. texture, color, mineralogy, and cementation), with special note being
made of drilling conditions xvere appropriate. Interpretations are also made of stratigraphic position in the
valleyibasin-fill sequence;and materials are classified using the informal system of hydrogeologic-unit
nomenclature originally developed by Hawley, Lozinsky and Haase (NIvfBMMROpen-file Reports 323 and
387, 1992; Appendices 402 C and D): hydrostratigraphic units @AVA,
,
PA, USF,MSF, LSF) and lithofacies
subdivisions (I to X). Information on each borehole was also collected by other individuals involved with this
project (primarily USBR drillers and soils specialists, Douglas Earpof the City ofAlbuquerque, and the USGSWRD geophysical logging group), and is being reported on separately. Additional information on samples
collected during operations will be provided in the future where such data are needed.
The outline of field-log descriptions is generally as follows:
1.
USBR Borehole number (and other designations)
Location,elevation, dates, drilling, equipmentandmethod,
bit type(s) and size(s), and persons
2.
primarily involved in drilling and sampling operations.
3.
Depth
Intervals and lithologic description
a.
Major textural class(es)-U.S. Soil ConservationService (Soil Survey) system
b.Color-Munsell
Color CompanyInc. Soil-Color chart (moist colors)
Grain size distribution by major textural classes:
C.
Fine (<0.05 mm)-silt and clay fraction
Medium (0.05-2 m m ) s a n d (vf, fine, med., coarse, v.c.)
Coarse (>2 mm)-granules (2-4 mm); pebbles (fine, med., coarse, vy crs - 4-64 mm); and
cobbles (64-256 mm)
Clast composition (major lithic and mineral types)
d.
e.
Other characteristics (including HCL reaction, carbonatesegregations, organics)
f.
Driller comments and other remarks
4.
Supplementalcomments on drilling history (also seeUSBRDaily Drill Reports)
5.
Sampling information (by
depth-interval
in
feet)
6.
Photography notes
7.
Borehole geophysical logging information (where available)
8.
Hydrogeologic Interpretations, NMBMMR hydrostratigraphic andlithofaciesunits (Appendices 402C
and D)
.. .
Open-File Repon 402D,Chapter I , .Appendis 1A
Borehole No. MW1-Isleta
Location: SN-2E-1-4232a, Isleta Quad. (7.57, Isleta Pueblo Grant, Bemalillo County; Isleta Lakes Park,
about 200 ft east of Albuquerque Riverside Drain and 50 ft south of Barr Interior Drain.
Elevation: 4898 ft (land surface estimate)
Drilling Dates: August 24 to25,1993
Drilling Equipment and Method:USBR track-mounted CME 1250 drillrig; 4.5 in ID hollowstem auger with
3.5 in split tube sampler to 100 ft
Driller: Jerry Hayden, with G. Atwood (USBR)
Physical Science Technician: George Ewoldt (USBR)
Hydrogeological Logging: John Hawley, with Bill White (USBIA)
Denth Cftl
0-0.8
Lithologic Descrintion
Clay loam tosilty clay loam, dark brown (7.5YR3-4/2), strongly effervescent in
HCL,moist
0.8-7.5
7.5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-69.5
71.5-73
77-80
80-85
85-90
91-93
95-100
REIMARKS:
Fine to medium sand, brown (7.5YR5/2), saturated below 3 ft
Fine to medium sand, brown (7.5YRY2)
Fine to coarse sand, with fine to medium pebbles, brown (7.5YR512)
Not sampled
Fine to coarse sand, with pebbles, brown (10YR4/3)
Not sampled
Very fine to medium sand, dark grayish brown (IOYR412). Driller: Change from
pebbly to non-pebbly sand at 30 to 31 ft.
Not sampled. Driller: Change from sand to coarse gravel and sand at about 39 ft.
Due to continuous collapse of hole, it is necessary to drill to base of coarse channel
gravel zone (estimate 65-75 ft). Samples below 35 ft from material
working up
auger during drill penetration
Medium tovery coarse sand, with pebble gravel (mas.clast 1.5 in) common
subrounded mixed volcanic and siliceous pebbles. Driller: Tighter (fine-grained?)
material at about 69 ft
Driller: Fine-grained hard layer
Driller: Fine-grained hard layer
9riller: Alternating hard and soft layers. Material working up auger flight is sand
with about 15% pebble gravel, including andesite pebbles up to 2-in size
Driller: Hard uniform drilling (500 psi), possibly non-gravelly sediments
Driller: Very hard zone (700 psi on bit). Ground surface starts sink
near borehole due to upper (3-69 ft) sand and gravel zone removal.
As above; major suriace subsidence, drill rig tilting back toward hole.Level rig and
pull out of borehole (7129, 10:45 am)
Fine to very-coarse pebbles and small cobbles on upper auger flights. Subrounded, mired
volcanic and siliceous rock types dominant (no limestone). Largest clast noted is 4 X 3 X
2 inch cobble of sillimanite gneiss. Last 5 flights (penetrated from 75 to 100 ft) are caked
with loamy to clayey material ranging from brown to reddish brown (7.5YR514). Sampled
reddish brown (5YR5/4) clay from lower flight (90-100 ft) contains a few hard carbonate
nodules.
Sampling Information
Samples above 15 ft collected by Steve Hoffman [7/28). Samples at 20-25, 30-35, 80-85, 85-90, and 90-95
ft are of mixed materials taken from auger flights.
2
Open-File Repon 402D,Chapter 1, Appendix I A
Borehole No. "1-Isleta
(cont'd.)
Photography Notes:
Representative sediments and drill site photographed on July 29, 1993.
Borehole Geophysics: None
Hydrogeologic Interpretations
Depth (ftl
Hvdrostraticranhic Unit
Lithofacies"
0-10
10-39
39-69
69-100
River-floodplain facies - overbank (RA)
River-channel facies @A)
River-channel facies @A)
Upper Santa Fe Group - ancestral river
(USF-2)
A3
A2
AI
I
'Note: Litho facies A1-3 and I, equivalent (respectively) to facies Iv an.d Ib cj f Hawley and Haase (1992). See
Appendix 402D
3
Open-File Reporr 402D. Clmpter I, Appendix l A
Borehole No. "2-Isleta
Location: 8N-ZE-1-4232b, Isleta Quad. (7.57, Isleta Pueblo Grant, Bemalillo County; Isleta Lakes Park,
about 200 ft east of Albuquerque Riverside Drain and 50 ft south of Barr
Interior Drain; 20 feet east of MW1-Isleta.
Elevation: 4898 ft (land surface estimate)
Drilling Dates: August24to 25, 1993
Drilling Equipment and Method: Failing 1500 mud rotaq; 7 7/8-in tricone rock bit, 4-in
drill pipe
Driller: Grover (AT) Atwood, with R. Gillman and Rick Poel (USBR)
Ph?.sical Science Technician: George Ewoldt (USBR)
Hydrogeological Logging: John Hawley, with Bill White (USBIA)
Denth Cft)
Litholooic Descrintion
0-30
See detailed log of MW2-I. Sandy loam to loamy sand (7.5 ft) -/sand
and pebbly
sand, with minor sandy clay beds or lenses @rown-7.5YR4/2)
Driller: Harder sand at 32 ft, pebble gravel at 32-33 ft
Driller: Gravelly sand to pebble gravel; mud densityand viscosity need to be
increased in order to maintain open hole
Driller: Coarse gravel below 45 ft; gravel with sand layersbelow 55 ft; mostly sand
below 58 t i
Sandy clay, brown (7SYR5/4), softvery calcareous; also noted some soft shale
chips, reddish brown (5YR4/4), trace of marlstone, pink (5YR7/3), and trace of
pumiceous sandstone fragments.
Silty to sandy clay, brown (7.5YR5/4), soft, calcareous
Silty clay, with sandy zone form 87-90 ft, brown (7.5YRY4) very calcareous
As above 85-95, Driller: pebbly sand (?) layer at about 102 ft
Sand, with brown, calcareous clay interbeds
Clay, reddish brown (5YR5/4), with thin pebble gravel lens or bed(s)
Sand, with thin interbeds of reddish brown (2.5YR5/4), silty clay, soft calcareous
Carbonate-cemented zone (ground-water calcrete?), pinkish gray to brown (10YR56/2)
Pebbly sand, with interbedded reddish brown (2.5-5YR5/4), silty clay, soft,
calcareous
Silty to sandy clay, reddish brown (5-7.5YR5/3), soft, calcareous
Transition zone (clay to sand)
Pebbly sand; mixed, subrounded volcanic and siliceous pebbles, with trace pumice
Sandy to silty clny, reddish brown (5YRSI4); withtracesof
sandy mudstone
(calcrete?), brown to pinkish gray (7.5YR5-6/2
Pebbly sand, as above (148-160 ft)
Sandy to silty clay, as above (160-162); bottom of hole (8/25/93, 9 3 0 am)
30-33
33-45
45-68
68-75
75-85
85-95
95-105
105-110
110-113
113-125
125-126
126-143
143-146
116-148
148-160
160-162
162-164
164-166
Supplemental Comments on Drilling History
Denth Cftl
Comments
0-26
26-46
46-66
66-86
86-106
7:OO-1O:OO am (8/24/93)
10:25-10:54 am
120-2:20 pm
258-3:15 pm
8: l8-8:45 am (8/25/93) drilling faster at 87 ft (sand), slower at 90 ft (clay), fast at
about 102 ft (pebbly sand?)
A
Open-File Report 4020, Chapter 1, Appendix 1A
Borehole No. MWZ-Isleta (cont'd.)
106-126
9:02-9:15 am; drilling fast 106-1 10 ft (sand ?),hardandsmoothat
1 IO ft,
bit chatter
at I12 ft (gravel); softer at 113 ft, gravel at 120 ft, hard streak at 123 ft, and hard
(cemented) zone at 125 ft
9:25-9:35 am; pebbly sand with interbedded clay
9:35-9:42 am, ditto, sand and pebbles 141-143 ft, clay 143-146 ft
950-1O:lO am;sand and pebble gravel with clay streaks 148-160ft,strongbit
chatter at 155 ft, harder 160-162 (clay), faster 162-164 (pebbly .sand), and slower
164-166 (clay)
126-136
136-146
146-166
Sampling Information
25-33', 35-40*, 40-AS*, 45-55*,45-65*, 25-65-*, 65-85,68-15*, 75-85*, 85-95.95-105,
105-115", 105-110", 110-115*, 115-1.25, 125-126*, 125-135*, 135-140*, 125-140'*, 140-143*, 143-146',
140-146**, 146-156, 156-166
Inrervalssampled
no
*
*
li
sieve (fine-coarse fraction)and wash bucket (medium-coarse fraction) samples
sieve sample
wash bucket sample
Borehole Geophysics: None
Hydrogeologic Interpretations
Lithofacies
Hvdrostratigranhic
(ftlDenth
Unit
0-68
68-148
148-166
River floodplain and channel facies
Upper Santa Fe Group (USF-2).
ancestral - river floodplain and channel facies
Upper Santa Fe Group (USF-2),
ancestral - river channel facies
5
A2IA1
I11
I
Open-File Repon @ZD, Chaplsr I , Appendix 1A
Borehole No. MW1E
Location: 1 IN-3E-lj-3424a (projected), Alameda Quad (7.57, BemalilloCounty, about 200 ft NW ofpaseo
del Norte-Edith Blvd. Underpass at E edge of Alameda Lateral. General Mills Corporation propeny
MRGCD canal right of way.
Elevation: 5006 ft (land surface - estimate)
Drilling Dates: July 20-24, 1993
Drilling Equipment and Method: USBR track mounted CME 1250 drill rig; 4.5-in ID hollowstem auger,
with 3.5-in split-tube sampler to 76.7 ft; &in ID HS Auger below 76.7ft, with 5-in sampler; and 2.5-in
split spoon drive sampler.
Driller: Jerry Hayden, with G. AtwoodOJSBR)
Drill Foreman: Robert Hussen [USBR)
Soils Logging: Steven Hoffman-Soil Scientist, USBR (soil core sampling and logging)
Hydrogeological Lagging: John Hawley, with J. Gillentine and D. Dettmer (NMB-)
-
Denth Cftl
Lithalosic Description
0-3.5
Pebbl! sandy loam; brown (7.5YR4-5/2) to dark grayish brown (10YR4/2); canal
embankment fill
Not sampled
Pebbly sand; brown (7.5YR4/2); calcareous; dry
Loamy sand with thin sand interbeds; brown (7.5YR4/4); calcareous; damp
Sandy loam, with few thin pebbleandsand
layers; brown (7.5YR4/3); pebble
fraction includes reworked pumice, mas clast size -16 mm; calcareous; damp
Loamy sand; brown; calcareous
Fine sandy loam; brown (7.5YR4/3); calcareous
Pebbly sand; mas clast c 1.6 mm
Interbedded loam, silt loam, and sandy granule gravel; brown (7.5YR4/3-4); with
carbonaceous zones and plant roots, calcareous, damp to moist
Interbedded loamand silt loam; brown (7.5YR4/3-4), with carbonaceous zones and
plant roots, calcareous, damp to moist
No sample recovery; probably like underlying unit
Very fine sandy loam; brown (5YR4/2); trace coarse pebbles, max clast size < 32
mm; calcareous; lower part saturated (perched water table at 22.5 ft)
Medium to coarse sand,with c 5% granule to medium pebble gravel; brown
(7.5YR5/2); loose; non-calcareous moist (field capacity)
As above (23-25)
No sample recovery. NOTE: sandy loam; brown (7.5YR4/3) in core catcher; with
fine pebbles; slight HCL reaction; damp
No sample recovery. Driller comment: fine gravel to sandy fine gravel
Loam; brown (7.5YR5/4); very calcareous, with soft and hard carbonate nodules.
Note: 2.5 in split-spoon sampler driver 2 ft (20/22/20/12 blows), with only 0.75 ft
recovered
No sample recovery
Loam; brown (7.5YRW); very calcareous, with soft and hard carbonate nodules
No sample recovery. Driller comment: Hit coarse gravel at about 46 to 46.5 Et,
probably mostly sand
Medium to coarse sandy pebble gravel;sand fraction grayish brown mised siliceous
vy crs);noncalcareous
to slightly calcareous;saturated and
pebbles (fineto
capillary-fringe zones. Note: 2.5-in split-spoon sampler driven 2 ft (23/47/46/70
blows)
Sandy pebble gravel; as above (50-52 ft), with pumiceclasts. Note: C 1 ft recovered
3.5-5
5-9
9-10
10-12.5
12.5-13.5
13.5-15
15-15.3
15.3-17.5
17.5-20
20-22
22-23
23-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-42
42-42.5
42.5-45
45.50
50-52
52-55
6
Open-File Repon 402D,Chaptsr 1, Appendix IA
Borehole No. MWlE (cont'd.)
55-60
60-65
Interbedded
65-66
66-68.3
68.3-74.7
74.7-75
75-76.7
gravel (1.5 ft) sand fraction brown
Medium to coarse rand ( I ft), over sandy pebble
(10YR413); composition as above (50-55 ft). Note: only 2.5 ft of interval sampled;
quartzite cobble (3 X 4 in) in core catcher
coarse sand and sandy gravel; above
as
(55-60). Note:
about
1offt
interval sampled, 3-in quartzite cobble in core catcher
Not sampled
pebble gravel; sand
Medium to coarse sand, with thin interbeds of fine to medium
fraction dark brown to brown (7.5YR4/2); with thin (e I-in lens) in middle part of
sandy loam to sandy clay loam; brown (7.5YR514). Note: 2.5-in split-spoon sampler
driven 2 ft (31316117 blows)
No sample recovery
Pebbly, medium to coarse
sand,
as
above
(66-68.3).
Note:
Upper
3 in
of split-spoon
drive sample described below
Coarsening downward sequence: clay loam (0.1 ft) reddish
brown
(5YR4/3), and
(5YR4/4)
brown(10YRU6)=/coarse
sandy loam (1.2 ft), reddishbrown
overiloamy medium to coarse sandto sand (0.5 Et), reddish brown(5YR4/3). Note:
2.5-in split-spoon sample driven 2 ft (46/65/97/102 blows)
Medium to coarse sand to loamy sand (I5 in), brown to reddish-brown, as above
(76.2-76.7) -/lens
or large clast ("ball") of clay loam (6 in), dark brown to brown
(7.5-lOYR4/3) -/interbedded
sand and first tomedium pebbly sand (18in), dark
brown to brown (10YR4/3)
Coarse
sand, with (< 15%) fine medium
to
pebbles;
dark
brown
to brown,
as above;
with few clastsor thin beds of sandy loam. Note: upper part of recovered 3-ft core
( 5 4 ) that penetrated underlying unit
Medium to fine sand,dark brown to brown (10YR4/3); Note:lower part of
recovered 3-ft core (5-in)
No sample recovery; reentered hole with split-spoon sampler
Medium to coarse sand; color as above; with few fine to medium pebbles; mised
siliceous composition, with some loam and clay loam clasts. Note:
2.5in split-spoon
samples driven 2 ft (7/40/59/93 blows)
loam (1 ft), reddish
Medium to coarse sand (]%in), as above (89-91) -/clay
brown (SYRY3) with minor red (2.5YR4/6) clay clasts and orangeto black iron and
manganese oxide stains -/pebbly
sand mixed with clay loam layers or clasts (as
above)
No sample recovery; reentered hole with 2.5-in split-spoon
sampler
driven
from
97.3
to 99.3 ti (3/8/20/34 blows)
Disturbed sample of fine to coarse (?)pebbly medium to vy coarse sand, witha few
"mud" clasts
Fine to medium sand, brown (7.5YR4/2)
Not sampled
Fine to medium
pebbly coarsesand, brown
(7.5YR4/2), with a few clasts of "loamy
material" =/medium
sand, dark grayish brown
(10YR4/2). Note: 2.5-in splitspoon sampler driven 2 ft (8/14/25/100 blows)
No sample recovered; bottom
hole
of
(7/23/94, 2:30
pm)
-
76.7-80
80-82
82-85
85-90
89-91
91-94
94-99
97.3-99.0
99.0-99.3
99.3-103
103.1-105.1
105-1 10
Supplemental Comments on Drilling History
July
July
July
July
20;
21;
22;
23;
2 0 0 to 5:OO pm; drilled from 0-47.5 ft
SO0 am to 3:OO (?) pm; drilled from 47.5 to 76.7 ft
7:35 am to 3:OO (?) pm; drilled from 76.7 to 105.1 ft
all day; bit and sampler plugging problems below 105 ft
7
Open-File Repon 402D,Chapter 1, Appendix IA
Borehole No. MWIE (cont'd.)
July 24;
July 24 to 21;
morning; drilling of borehole MWlE discontinued after
auger-bit hollow-stem insert
lost in hole. Piezometer screen will be installed at about 65 to 70 ft over 5 ft of
blank casing
drill rig moved north __ ft to borehole siteMW2E. Hole drilled to about 155
ft, with sand and pebbly sand dominant lithology reported between 105 and 145 ft:
clay encountered from 345-155 ft sampled (7126). Hole not logged by NMBMMR.
Sampling Information
Inlen~alssompled:5-7.5*,7.5-9,9-10*,10-12.5,
12.5-15, 15-17.5*, 17.5-20*, 20-22,22-23*, 23-25*, 25-21.5,
27.5-30', 30-35**, 40-40.75', 42.5-45, 50-52*, 52-55', 55-60, 60-65*, 66-68.3', 74.7-75, 75-76.7, 76.7-78*,
78.5-SO*, 80-82*, 8?-85*, 89-91', 91-92.5=,92.5-93.5*, 93.5-94,97.3-99.0**, 99-99.3*, 103.1-103.9*, 103.9-
105.1 *
* Samples to NMBMbR Laboratories at New Mexico Tech for grain-size and
mineralogical analyses
* * Bag samples of mixed materials from uncored intervals (split-spoon recovery)
Photography Notes
Color ohotoevauhs ofsomuled infervals /solir-rube and solif-sooonl: 50-52 (l), 52-55 (l), 55-60 (I), 60-65
(l), 66-68.3 (2), 74.7-76.7 (I), 76.7-90 (?)*, 80-85 (2), 89-91 (2), 91-94 (3)
*
0-inch mark on scale at bottom of core; 24 or %-in mark at core bottom at all other intervals
Borehole Geophysics: None
Hydrogeologic Interpretations
Unit
Denth (ftl Lithofacies* Hvdrostratigraphic
3.5-15.3
15.3-23
23-45
45-75
75+
Valley-border fan alluvium (VA)
River floodplain facies-over bank @A)
River channel facies @A)
River channel facies-basal @A)
Upper Santa Fe Group-ancestral river (USF-2)
B (fine to med grained)
A3
A2
AI
I
Note: See Borehole MW3Efor section below 75 ft
*Lithofacies B, A, and I are equivalent (respectively) to subfacies Vv, Iv, and Ib ofHawley and Haase (1992).
See Appendix 402D
8
Open-File Repon 402D,Chapter I, Appendix IA
Borehole No. MW3E
Location: 1 IN-3E-15-3424b. Alameda Quad (7.53, Bemalillo County, about 200 ft NW of Paseo
del Norte-Edith Blvd. Underpass, at E. edge of Alameda Lateral. General Mills Corporation property MRGCD canal right of way. About IO ft north of MWlE.
Elevation:
5,006 (land surface estimate)
Drilling Date(s): August 5-13,1993
Drilling Equipment andMethod: Failing I500 mud rotary; 7 718-inch drag bit, with 6-in collar and 4-in drill
pipe to 98.6 ft; tricone rock bit to bottom of hole (661 ft)
Driller: Grover (AT) Atwood, with R. Gillman (USBR)
Physical Science Technician: George Ewoldt (USBR)
Hydrogeological Logging: John Hawley, with J. Gillentine and D. Dettmer ( N M B M M R )
Denth Cftl
Litholocic Description
0-75
See detailed field descriptions, etc. on Log of borehole MWIE. Note: from about
60-75 fr coarse gravel and sand sloughing into borehole; redrilled severaltimes until
proper mud density and viscosity levels reached to keep hole open.
Not sampled, smooth easy drilling below 75 ft
Silty-clay, reddish brown (5YR5/3); mixed with sand and gravel cuttings from up
hole
Mixed sample: most sand and gravel cuttings from above 75 ft; small amount of
silt-clay (soft shale), reddish brown (5YR4/4) in sample.
Not sampled; drill rig breakdown at 98.6 ft (8/6/93); redrilled to 100 ft with 7 7/8
rock bit (8/7/?3)
Driller: Mainly sand and small (pebble) gravel
Driller: (pebble) gravel zone
Sand and pebble gravel; with some sandy to silty clay interbeds, (?), brownto
reddish brown, calcareous
Sand and pebble gravel;with minor (interbedded?)coarse sandy loam, brown
(7.5YR5/2), effervesces slightly in HCL. Driller: Mostly gravelly sand, with thin
(pebble) gravel zones (bit chatter)
Sand and pebble gravel; interbedded withcoarse sandy loam, reddish brown
(5YR4/3) effervesces slightly. Note: Bit bouncing on coarse pebble zones
As above (130-140)
Transition zone, marked decreasein gravel content, andincrease in silt-clay, reddish
brown (5YR4/3)
Silty clay, reddish brown (5YR413); sand ? Driller: Hard, smooth drilling
Driller: Coarse (pebble) gravel and sand (?) layers, strong bit chatter
Silty clay, with sandy interbeds (?); clay-brown(7.5YRY3)and
reddish brown
(5YRU3); minor fine sandy loam to sandy clay loam, palebrown (10YR6/3),
effervesces slightly; trace marlstone, reddish brown (2.5YR4-5/4)
Driller: (Pebble) gravel and sand (?) layers; bit chatter, with strong bit bounce at
75-78
78-85
85-95
95-100
100-110
110-112
112-120
120-130
130-140
140-143
143-149
149-152
152-158
158-171
171-181
181 ft
181-201
201-211
211-220
220-23 1
Driller:Mainly sand withpebble gravel zones,siltclaydecreases
with depth.
Driller: common bit chatter
Driller: Clay zone
As above (201-210); with some sandy clay loam interbeds, dark brown to brown
(7.5YR4/3), and trace of hard dense calcrete fragments in cuttings
Sandy gravel, with conglomeratic sandstone layers. Driller: Very slow drilling with
nearly constant bit chatter
9
.
Opzn-File Repan 402D. Chapter I , Appcndis I A
Borehole No. MW3E (cont'd.)
231-241
241-256
256-265
260-285
285-286.5
286.5-294
294-3 IO
3 10-330
330-358
358-380
380-399
399-408
408-415
415420
420-440
440-460
460-480
480-500
500-510
510-538
538-552
Sand topebbly sand; with granule to medium pebblegravellayers,and
minor
interbeds of soft clay; clay-brown (10YR4/3), with trace of olive (5Y413) material.
Driller: Very fast drilling and less bit chatter
Pebbly sand to sand, as above (23 1-241), no olive clay noted
Partly cemented pebbly sand to sand,with soft calcareouszones, pinkish gray
(7.5YR6/?). Driller: Harder drilling
Sand, with thin silty clayandpebbly (?) interbeds; silty clay-reddish brownto
brown (5-7.5YR5/4), and soft calcareous zones-light gray 10YR7/2
Driller: Smooth drilling, clay (?)
Pebbly sand to sandy pebble gravel. Driller: Bit chatter increasing with depth
Sandy clay, with minor calcareous zones, and some(?) thin pebbly sand interbeds;
clay-yellowish red (jYR5/6),pinkish
gray (7-5YR7/2), and
reddish
brown
(7.5YRU4). Driller: Hard drilling with moderate bit chatter
Sand, with pebbly beds and thin cemented zones. Minorsilty to sandy clay as above
(294-3 10)
Marl and sandy carbonate-impregnated zones, pinkish gray (7.5YR7/2) to very pale
brown (10YR7/3). Driller: Smooth drilling, with minorbit chatter (Hard withstrong
bit chatter, 349-350)
Clay to silty clay, reddish brown to red (2.5YR4/4-6), with calcareous pinkish gray
zones (7.5YR7/2)
Clay, as above (358-380), with sand content increasing downward
Sand, with v e v fine pebbly and calcareous loamy sandto sandy loam interbeds or
zones; loamy material-light yellowish brown (10YR4/6)
Marl and soft shale, with some sand as above, pinkish gray (7.5YR7/2), minor
reddish brown to brown zones (5-7.5YRY3)
As above (399-408)
Sand to loamy sand and fine pebble gravel, with calcareous loamy sand interbeds
or carbonate-impregnatedzones; loamy calcareousmaterial-pinkishgray (7.5YR7/2)
to brown (lOYR5/3)
Calcareous sandyclayloam
to sandyclay, with thin fine pebbly zones or fine
pebbly sand interbeds; loam to clay -grayish brown to light brownishgray (IOYRS612). Driller: Smooth hard drilling; with very hard (calcrete?) layer 441.5 to 442.5
As above (440-460); brown to grayish brown (7.5-10YR5/2). Driller: Bit chatter
(pebbly or well-cemented zone) 461-465
As above (440-480), with some very dark grayto grayish brownzones (10YR3/1-2)
As above (440-500), with some reddish brown zones
(2.5YR4/4). Driller: Slow,
hard drilling through dense (clayey, carbonate-impregnated material
Sand and pebble gravel (dominant), interbedded with sandy clay (partly carbonateimpregnated); sandy clay-reddishbrown (2.5YR4/4) and brown to pinkish gray
(7.5YR5-6/2) minor grayishbrown(10YRY2)basaltnoted
in mostly siliceous
pebble fraction. Driller: alternating soft and hard
Calcareous clay to siltyclay, clay loamand marl; brown (7.5YR5/4 10YR513) and
pinkish gray (7.5YR7/22). Driller: Very slow drilling, bit worn out?, bit change (552
-
ft)
552-605
605-620
620-630
Pebbly medium to coarse sand, with minor interbedded clay as above (538-552);
mixed siliceous-clast lithologies including Jemez
volcanics. Driller: bit chatterbelow
570 ft
Sandy clayloamto
sandy loam, with pebblysandinterbedsandcarbonateimpregnated zones; loams - brown (7.SYR5/2-4)
Sandy clay, as above, with minor pebbly sand
IO
Open-File Repon JOZD. Chapter 1. Appandis 1A
Borehole No. ivlW3E (cont'd.)
630-640
640-661
Pebbly sand, interbedded with sandy clay, as above (620-630)
Sandy clay to clay, partly impregnated with secondary carbonate, with pebbly sand
beds at about 650 and 655 ft; clay-brown (7.5YR5/3) and reddish brown (5YR5/34); bottom of hole (8/13/93, 3 3 5 pm)
Supplemental Comments on Drilling History
August
August
August
August
5-7
Major problems with
mud
(viscosity-density) control and rig breakdown.
Mud circulation problems and poor,
Rig down
for repairs (mud
pump); shale-shaker
problem never taken care of.
530-552 ft, poor sample recovery (slow drilling and mud circulation due to worn
bit). Problems resolved after bit replacement (8/13; 11:30-12:jO); excellent drilling
progress and sample return (S/l3, pm)
10
11
12 & 13
Sampling Information
InIervo/sSumo/ed 78-85*,85-95*, 100-110***, 110-120***, 120-130, 130-140,140-150,150-l60,160-170*,
170-180,180-190,190-200,200-210,210-220,220-230',
230-240,240-255*,255-260*, 240-260=*,260-270*,
270-?80,300-310*,310-320~,310-320**,320-330*,330-340,340-350*,350~355*,355-360*,350-360**,~
370', 370-380*, 360-380**, 380-390, 390-400,600-410,410-420,420-430,430-440,440-450,450-460,460-
470, 470-680, 480-490, 490-500, 500-510, 510-520, 520-530**, 520-525*, 525-530*, 520-540, 540-550**,
540-545*, 545-550*, 550-552, 552.560. 560-570, 570-580, 580-590, j 9 o - 6 0 0 , 600-610. 620-630. 630-640*,
640-650, 650-661
"
no
*
***
Sieve (med-coarse fraction) and wash
bucket
(medium-fine fraction) samples
Sieve sample
Wash bucket sample
2 sieve
samples
(coarse,
medium-fine), plus wash bucket sample
355
-
Escellent sample recovery. See Drillers comments 261-301 ft, 510-552 ft
*
rt
Borehole Geophysics
August 14
USGS-WRD (R.K.DeWees, Jim Basler) Logged borehole. Resistivity (long and short
normal), natural gamma, neutron, density and caliper logs made.
Hydrogeologic Interpretations
Denth Cftl Lithofacies
15-75
75-143
143-510
5 10-605
Santa
Upper
605-661
Hwlrostratipranhic
Unit
River and channel facies
Upper
Santa
Fe Group (USF-2), ancestral
river - channel facies
Santa
Upper
Fe Group (USF-2), ancestral
river - interbedded tloodplain and channel facies
Fe Group (USF-2), ancestral
river - channel facies
Santa
Upper
Fa Group (USF-2). ancestral
river - floodplain facies
A2/A1
I
111
I
111
Open-File Repon 402D.Chapter 1. Appendis I A
Borehole No. LALF9
Location: 1 IN-3E-14-341, Alameda Quad. (7.5'), Bernalillo County, north edge of Doming0 Baca Ditch,
at west end, above drop structure and flood basin discharging into main AMAFCA drainage channel. Site
is adjacent to SW corner of property at 4432 Anaheim.
Elevation: 5090 ft (land surface estimate)
Drilling Dates: November 19-22, 1993
Drilling Equipment and Method: USBR Failing I500 mud rotary; 7 718411 tricone rock bit, 4-in drill pipe
Driller: Rick Poel (USBR)
Drilling Foreman: Harold Nestor (USBR)
Hydrogeological Logging: John Mawley (NMBLMMR) with Douglas Earp (City of Albuquerque,
Environmental Health Dept.)
Lithologic
Descrintion
(ft)DeWh
0-5
5-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-58
58-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-95
95-103
103-113
113-120
120-133
133-157
157-170
170-180
180-183
Fill, not sampled
Coarse loamy sand to sandy loam; brown (7.5YR514); 1520% silt-clay, 70% medcrs sand, 10-15% granules; arkosic (Sandia suite), calcareous
Very coarse sandy clay loam; brown (7.5YR5/4); 30-40% silt clay, 30% med to w
CIS sand, 30-40% granules; arkosic (Sandin Suite), calcareous
Pebbly sand; yellowish brown to brown (10-7.5YR5/4); 60-70% fine to vy crs sand,
3040% granules to fine pebbles; mixed siliceous mineralogy slightly calcareous
Sandypebble gravel; 40% sand (fine to vy crs), 60%granule to coarse pebble
gravel; mas clast S I-in; mised siliceous clast lithology includes quartz, feldspar,
and volcanic, plutonic, sedimentary (no limestone) lithic clasts
As above (30-40)
Sand and clay (inbedded?), brown (7.5YR5/4), calcareous
Sandy pebble gravel as above (30-58), with thin interbeds of brown sandy clay
Valley-fill overhasin-fill contact zone between73 and 78 ft;sandy gravel with thin
interbeds of silty clay loam, brown(10-7.5YR513); pumice definitely present in
cuttings below 78 ft
Fine pebbly sand, slightly silty,brown (IOYR and 7.5YR, 4 and Y3); 10% silt, 90%
sand to fine pebble gravel; pumiceous, mixed-siliceous mineralogy
Pumiceous silty clay, brown (7.5YR4-5/3), 10-15% pumice clasts (< 5mm)
Silty clay, dark brown to brown (7.5YR4/3), with pinkish gray (7.5YR) fragments
below 100 ft
Silty clay, brown (7.5YR513)
Interbedded sandy clay, and sand and fine pebble gravel; clay-brown (7.5YR513),
sand-variegated brown (dominantly 10YR513); 50% silt-clay, and 50% sand and
pebbles (< 0.5 inch); mixed siliceous clast lithologies, including quartz, feldspar, and
volcanic, plutonic, and sedimentary (no limestone) lithic clasts
Sand andfine pebble gravel, withsilty clay interbed; colors as above (1 13-120); 2030% silt-clay, and 7 0 4 0 % sand andpebbles; size and clast lithologyas above (1 13120); no pumice noted.
Pebbly sand, variegated brown (dominantly 10YRY3); less than 5% silt-clay, 1535% granule and pebble gravel (< 2 in?); clast lithology, as above (1 13-133)
Sandy clay, with pebbly saud
interbeds; clay-brown (7.5YR513-4); 60% clay-silt-fine
sand, 40% sand and pebble gravel (< 2 in?), mixed lithology, as above
Fine sandy clay, brown (7.5YRY4); 95%clay-silt-fine sand, 5% med sand to pebble
gravel
Sand and pebble gravel
12
Open-File Repon 402D,Chapter 1, Appendix IA
Borehole No. LALF9 (cont'd.)
183-190
190-200
200-202
202-210
210-218
218-220
220-248
Fine sandy clay; brown (7.5YRY4); 75% clay-silt-fine sand, and 25% med sand to
pebble gravel
Fine sandy clay, as above (170-180 ft)
Pebbly sandy clay, brown (7.5YRWi); 60% clay-silt-fine sand, 40% med sand to
pebble gravel
Sand and medium pebble gravel (?)
Sand and med to CIS pebble gravel; dark brown to brown (IOYR413); 10% silt-clay,
brown (7.5YRY4); clast lithology as above (1 13-133), max grain size I-in
Silty clay; brown (7.5YR5/4)
Sand and tine pebblegravel as above (210-218); with few (10% silty clay interbeds
(230-240); bottom of hole ( I 1/22/93, 1O:lO am)
-
Supplemental Comments on Drilling History
Denth (ftl
Comments
0-22
22-3 1
9:45 - 10:30 am (ll/l9/93); drill collar hole
11 :?O - 13:45 am; unconsolidated (soft), coarse sand to fine pebbles at 23 ft; bit
chatter at 25 ft (coarse pebbles)
l l : 4 5 am - 12:15 pm; coarse gravel at 32 ft; fast drilling in sand, 40-42 ft
12:15 - 1:05 pm; bit chatter (gravel) at 42 ft
l:4@- 2:lO pnl
1:5@ pm; hard (clay?) at 58.5 ft
2 0 5 pm, bit chatter (gravelly sand)
2 1 0 - 2 5 5 pm; mixing mud
2 5 5 - 3:09 pm
3:09 - 3:15 pm; bit chatter (gravel sand bed) at 73, changing quickly to smooth
drilling (sand or sandy clay)
3:15 - 4:OO pm; hard drilling (93-94 ft) through dense pumiceous clay
9:15 9:40 am (I 1/20/93); back in hole with no caving; slow drilling, hard finegrained matter, with soft (sandy?) streaks
S A 0 - 9:45 am; softer
1035 11:Oj am; soft (103.5-104.5 ft)
11:05 - 11:15 am, soft, with bit chatter in gravel a t 112-113 ft
11:30 - I1:40 am; hard, poor circulation and sample recovery
11:40 - 1150 am; good sample recovery, medium to coarse grained
12:30 - 12.12 pm; bit chatter below 143 ft, with thinsmooth drilling (fine-grained)
zones
12:42 1:OO pm; smooth drilling (sand?) below 151 ft; firmer (sandy clay), 157-160
ft
2:00 - 2 2 5 pm; mostly smooth-drilling, firm (sandy clay); bit chatter at 160 it
2 2 5 - 2:35 pm
2:35 - 3:OO pm; hard, firm (600 psi bit pressure)
3:OO - 3 2 0 pm
3 2 0 3:36 pm; softer (300 psi bit pressure), soft zone at 194 ft
9:14 - 9 2 0 am (11/22/93); back in hole with little caving, bit chatter at 203 ft
(gravel slough?)
9:20 - 9:33 am; smooth drilling (silty clay?), 218-220 ft
9:47 - 9 5 6 am; bit chatter
9 5 6 - 10:07 am
10:07 - 1O:lO am: bottom of hole
3 1-42
42-50
50-63
57
59.5
63
63-73
73-83
83-95
95-100
100-103
103-1 IO
110-123
123-133
133-143
143-150
150-160
160-173
173-183
183-190
190-192
192-203
203-210
210-220
220-230
230-240
240-243
-
~
-
~
13
Open-File Rzpon 40ZQ Chapter 1, Appmdis l A
Borehole No. LALF3 (cont'd.)
Sampling Information
Sample interval 10-ft (5-ft or less in a few zones); sieve (tine to coarse fraction) and some wash bucket
(fine to medium size) samples.
Borehole Geophysics
USGS-WRD (R.K. DeWees and Jim Bassler) Logging started at 11:48 am (239 ft) on November 22 and
completed in afternoon; including resistivity, natural gamma, neutron-density, and caliper logs
Hydrogeologic Interpretations
DeDth Cft)
Hvdrostratipranhic
Unit
Lithofacies
5-20
Distal Sandia piedmont; coalescent-fan
alluvium (PA-VA) and valley-border deposits
River-terrace deposits (Ta) (Edith gravel of
Lambert, 1968)
Contact of river-terrace gravel
Santa Fe Group (ancestral-river facies)
in this 5 ft interval (TARTSF-2)
Upper Santa Fe Group (USF-2),
ancestral-river - channel facies
Upper Santa Fe Group (USF-2),
ancestral-river - interbedded floodplain
and channel facies
Upper Santa Fe Group (USF-2) - channel
facies
Upper Santa Fe Group (USF-2),
ancestral-river - interbedded floodplain
(major) and channel (minor) facies
Upper Santa Fe Group (USF-2),
ancestral-river - channel facies
v-€3
20-73
73-78
78-95
95-120
120-157
157-202(?)
202(?)-243
A1
Al/1
I
111
I
111
I
Open-File Report 4020, Chapter I, Appmdis l A
Borehole No. LALFll
Location: 11N-3E-15-2444, Alameda Quad. (7.53, Bemalillo County, west edge of main AMAFCA
drainage channel, about I IO0 ft south of Alameda Blvd.
Elevation: 5060 ft (land surface estimate)
Drilling Dates: December 6 and 7, 1993
Drilling Equipment and Method: USBR Failing 1500 mud rotary; 7 7/8-in tricone rock bit, &in drill pipe
Driller: Rick Poel (USBR)
Drilling Foreman: Harold Nestor (USBR)
Hydrogeological Logging: John Hawley (NMBMMR) with Douglas Earp (City of Albuquerque,
Environmental Health Dept.)
Litholoeic
Descrintion
(ftlDenth
0-5
5-14
14-15
15-22
22-32
32-42
42-45
45-52
52-58
58-62
77-82
82-87
87-92
92-110
110-115
115-120
120-140
140-147
Pebbly sand fill, not sampled
Pebble gravel and sand, less than 5% silt-clay, pinkish gray to light brown
(7.5YR6/3), very calcareous; coarse pebbles to small cobbles 13-14 ft (Driller);
mised siliceous lithologies including quartz, feldspar, and volcanic, plutonic and
sedimentary (no limestone) lithic clasts
Sandy to silty clay =/sand
and pebble gravel, as above; clay-dark brown to brown
(10YR43-4, 5/3)
Coarse gravelly sand to sandy gravel, as above (5-14)
Pebbly sand; with interbedded sandy to silty clay, brown(7.5YR513); 40% clay-siltfine sand; 60% sand and iine to medium pebble gravel; noted fragment of calcrete,
pink (7.5YR713)
Silty clay, with interbedded pebbly sand; clay-brown (7.5YRY4); as above (22-52),
60% silt-clay, 40% sand and fine-med pebble gravel
As above (32-42 it) but finer grained; clay -light gray (IOYR7/2-3); 70% silt-clay,
30% sand and fine-med pebble gravel
As above (42-45 it); variegated, light gray (IOYR7/2) and brown (7.5YRV4);
pumice noted in cuttings at about 50 ft
Fine pebbly (pumiceous) sand, with interbedded silty clay; light brownish gray. pale
brown (10YR6/2-3); 30% silt-clay, 70% medium sand to finepebbles; pumice clasts
major component of coarse fraction
As above (52-58 ft, but finer; 40% silt-clay, 60% medium sandto fine pebbles; with
variegated brown (7.5YRU3) and light brownish gray (10YR6/2) zones; base of
pumiceous interval
Silty clay, with fine sand; brown (7.5YRU3) to reddish brown (5YRU3); 90% siltclay, 10% fine sand interbeds(?)
Clay, grayish brown to brown (10YR512 to 7.5YR513); hard; calcareous (?)
Silty clay, with interbedded sand and fine pebble gravel; silt-clay
brown
(7.5YR5/3), with light yellowish brown (7.5YR6/4) mottles, calcareous?
Sand and coarse pebble gravel; brown (7.5-lOYR513); with about 5% silty clay reddish brown (5YR5/3), as above (71-92); coarse pebble gravel layer (e 2-in) 99100 ft; mised rounded, siliceous, igneous and sedimentary (no limestone), as above
Silty clay, interbedded with sand and pebble gravel, as above (92-1 10 ft); clay brown (7.5YR5/3), sand-brown (7.5-lOYR5/3); 75% silt-clay;25% sand and pebbles
Sand and pebble gravel, with silty clay interbeds; colors as above (mostly 10YRY3);
75%, sand and pebbles; 25% silt-clay
Sand and pebble gravel; brown (10YR93); < 5% brown (7.5YR513) sandy clay;
composition as above, finer pebbly sand zone, 135-140 ft
As above (120-135); clay - grayish brown to dark grayish brown (10YR4-5/2);
bottom of hole (12/7/93, 12:lO pm
-
Open-File Repon 102D,Chapter 1, Appendix I A
Borehole No. LALFII (cont'd.)
Supplemental Comments on Drilling History
(fti
Depth
Comments
5-14
15-20
20-22
22-32
32-42
10:30 - 11:15 am (12/6/93); cobbly 13-14 ft
11:15 11:40 am; hard clay
over
sand and fine (< 3-in) gravel 14-15 ft
11:40 - 1149 am; gravel (< 3-in) and sand, hole caving, had
to'use IO-ft "sub"
1220 - 12:40 pm; fast, smooth drilling; pebbly sand
and
silty
clay
1:45 - 1 : j j pm; fast, smooth
drilling; mostly soft silty clay;
stop to mix mud (I:55 247 pm)
- 3:OO pm; as above; stif€ clay at about 45 ft; softer at 50 ft, more sand
(pumiceous)
;:OO
3:13 pm
325-350 PM, hard, stiff clay at 76-77 ft (3:45 pm); softer at 79 ft, harder at 80 ft
950 - 10:35
am
(12/7/93); stiff
clay,
82-87
ft; softer below 87, with some bit
clatter; sandy with some fine gravel
1O:lS-10130 am; sand and fine gravel; strong bit chatter 99-100 ft
10:35 10:45 am; sand and fine gravel
10:45 1O:jO am: harder, more clay
1050 - 11:OO am; bit chatter 115 and 120 ft, more sand and gravel
am;
bit
chatter, mostly sand and fine gravel; minor silt-clay
11:05 - 11:20
ll:?O - 11:35 am; as above (122-130 ft)
11:35 - 1142 am; firmer at 140 ft (still sand?)
11:% am - 1210 pm, bottom
of
hole
42-52
2:47
51-62
62-82
82-92
92-102
102-110
110-1 15
115-122
122-130
130-140
140-142
142-147
-
~
~
~
Sampling Information
Sample interval 10-ft ( 5 Ft or less in a Few zones); sieve (fine to coarse fraction) and some wash bucket (fine
to medium size) samples
BoreholeGeophysics:
None
Hydrogeologic Interpretations
Depth (ft)
Hvdrostratieraphic
Unit
Lithofacies
5-22
River-terrace deposits (TA)
(Edith gravel of Lambert, 1968)
Contact of river-terrace sand and gravel
(VA-g) on Santn Fe Group (ancestral-river
facies, USF-2) in this interval
Upper Santa Fe Group (USF-2)
ancestral-river
interbedded floodplain
and channel facies (pumiceous, 50-62)
Upper santa Fe Group (USF-2) ancestral-river
channel facies
AI
22-32
32-92
92-147
-
16
AMI1
111
I
Open-File Report 402D. Chapter 1, Appendis IA
Borehole No. DW-2-l(b)
Location: IS-1W-36-242 (center of WX), Lemirar Quad. (7.53, Socorro County; west of Rio Grande Main
Conveyance Channel (west edge of road at River Mile 109.5); about 200 ft south of USBR shallow
monitoring well
109.49-3, and 2 mi northeast of Lemitar
Elevation: 4635 ft (land surface estimate)
Drilling Dates: March 8 and 9,1994
Drilling Equipment and Method: USBR Failing I500 mud rotary; 7 7/8-in tricone rock bit, &in drill pipe
Driller: Rick Poel and Harold Nestor (USBR)
Drilling Foreman: HaroldNestor
Hydrogeological Logging: John Hawley(NMBMMR)
Denth Cft)
Litholocic
Descriotion
80-85
Sandy fine to medium pebble gravel; 80% > 2 mm;mixed siliceous lithogies
including quartz, feldspars, and volcanic, plutonic, and sedimentary (no limestone)
lithic clastics
As above; with about 10% vy fn sand, silt and clay, reddish brown (5YR513)
Fine pebbly loam; reddish brown (5YR513); 20% silt-clay, 20% fn-crs sand, 60%
granule and pebble gravel, mostly less than 0.5-in
Pebbly clay loam; reddish brown [5YR513); 50% silt-clay, 50% pebble gravel,
mostly less than I-in; clast lithology like 80-90 ft
Loamy fine to medium pebble gravel; reddish brown (5YR5/3); 75% granules to
coarse pebble gravel; 25% clay-silt-sand
Pebbly, loamy sand; reddish brown (5YR5/3); 10-15% silt-clay, 65-70% sand, 20%
granule to med. pebble gravel; mised clast lithologies as above (?)
Clay loam to clay, reddish brown (2.5YR4-5/4); Note: coarse fraction in cuttings
from up hole (?)
Fine sandy clay to clay loam; weak red [lOYR4-5/2); trace < 2 mm
Pebbly sandy clay to sandy clay loam; wenk red (?.jYR5/2); 50% silt-clay, 50%
sand to medium pebble gravel;mixedvolcanicclastlithologies
(silicic to
intermediate); calcareous
Fine pebbly sandy clay; reddish brown (5YR5/3); 75% clay-silt-fine sand, 25% sand
to fine pebble gravel; clast lithologies, as above (140-145) and calcareous, to total
depth of hole (283 ft)
Pebbly sandy clay; reddish gray to reddish brown (5YR5/2-3), 60% clay-silt-fine
sand; 40% sand to medium pebble gravel
Fine pebbly sandy clay loam, reddish brown(5YR513); 70% clay-silt-sand, 25% fine
pebble gravel; Note: silt-clay fraction may be concentrated in thin strata interhedded
with sand and gravel in 150-180 ft interval
Pebbly sandy clay; as above, 150-165 ft
Pebbly sandy clayloamto
sandyclay;variegatedreddishbrown
(5YR513) and
pinkish white; 40% clay-silt-fine sand, 60% sand to medium pebble gravel, very
calcareous
Sandy clay, slightly gravelly; weak red to reddish brown (2.5YR4-5/3); 90% claysilt-sand, 10% granule to fine pebble gravel
Pebbly sandy clay to sandy clay loam; reddish brown (5-2.5YR513); 50% silt-clay,
50% sand to medium pebble gravel
Fine sandy clay; reddish brown (5YR5/4) 95% clay-silt-tine sand, 5% coarse sand
to granule gravel
85-90
90-100
100-105
109-110
110-119
119-135
135-140
140-145
145-150
150-165
165-170
170-175
175-180
180-185
185-205
205-2 15
17
Open-File Reporl JOZD, Cllaptdr 1, Appendis 1A
Borehole No. DW-Z-l(b) (cont'd.)
2 15-223
223-230
230-235
235-235
255-270
270-283
Interbedded (?) sandy clay (as above), withsandand
fine pebble gravel; light
reddish brown (5YR6/3), with pinkish white fragments of carbonate segregations;
30% silt-clay, 70% sand and pebble gravel
Fine pebbly sandy clay;variegatedreddishbrown
(5YRY3) and pinkish white
(5YRSI2); 50% silt-clay, 25% sand, and 25% granule to fine pebble gravel; with
fragments of carbonate segregations
Pebbly clay to sandy clay; colors as above (223-230); 70% silt clay, 30% sand to
medium pebble gravel; carbonate segregations as above (223-230)
Pebbly sandy clay to sandy clay loam; pinkish gray (5YR6/2) and reddish brown
(5YR5/3); 40% silt-clay, 3340% sand, 20-25% granule to med pebble gravel
Pebbly sandy clay to sandy clay loam; variegated, pinkish gray (5YR6-7/2), with
pinkish gray to light gray (7.3-10YR6-7/2), and reddish brown (5YR5/3); 40% siltclay, 40% sand, and 20% fine lo medium pebble gravel
Sandy to siltyclay, with fine lo medium pebbles(fining downward); weakred
(2.5YR4/2) to dark reddish gray (5YR4/2), variegated with colors, as above (255.
270); 60-70% silt-clay, 20% sand, 10-20% fine to med pebbles; bottom hole (3/9,
1 2 5 5 pm)
Supplemental Comments on Drilling History
~
Borehole (DW-?-l@) logged on March 8-9 is second hole drilledat site. The original hole [DW-2-l(a)] drilled
on March 1-4 to depth of 523 ft partly collapsed (probably in upper 77-1 19 ft). The rig was skidded several
feet and the new hole drilledto 283 ft, with piezometer screen setin the 215-223 ft interval. The driller (Rick
Poel) recorded the following log for Hole DW-2-l(a) on his daily drill report (Form 300-77). Supplemental
information is from his phone conversation with JWH on March 7; and comments at the drill site on March
8, 1994.
Denth (ftl
Rock on Soil Tvne
0-63
63-75
73-77
77-190
190-220
220-274
Sand with small amount of gravel
Sand (and gravel?); rapid mud loss starting 63-65 ft
Gravel with cobbles
Clay, with sandy clay
Clay
Sandand gravel; drillchatter 220-274 ft; rodspullinghard,
clay seems to be
swelling (210-335). J. W. Hawley Note (319194): Sand and gravel logged in this
interval by driller definitely has silt-clay matrix. This is also probable for 335-390
and 413-423 intervals logged in Borehole DW-2-l(a)
Sand, with some clay
Sand, with very little clay
Sand and gravel
Clay
Clayey sand
Clay
Sand and gravel
Clayey sand
(Smooth drilling sand?)
274-315
315-335
335-390
390-394
394-405
405-413
413-423
423-523
(495-499)
~
Open-File Repon 4OZD, Chaptdr 1. Appdndis 1.4
Borehole
No. D W - 2 - l ( b ) (cont'd.)
Sampling Information and Additional Comments
Comments (ftl
on Borehole DW-Z-l(b)
Denth
0-80
80-120
120-150
150-163
163-183
183-203
203-220
220-223
223-243
243-263
263-283
Not sampled; drilled 3/8/94 am, major change in drilling at 77 ft, with no caving
below that depth (tighter material)
Sampled at 5 ft intervals by drillers; cuttings logged by JWH
12:Jj - l : J j pm; start of cutting description and sampling by Hawley, mainly at 5
ft intervals (screen)
l:J5 - 2:OO pm
2: 10 2:JO pm
2:46-3:18 pm; bit chatter and slower drilling at about 190 ft
3 2 6 - 4: 10 pm; smoother drilling (204-205 ft); occasional bit chatter,and slow hard
drilling in clay (205-215 €1); and strong bit chatter (215-220)
4: 10 - 4: 18 pm; washed screen sample
9:20 - 10: 15 am; firmer below 223 ft with occasional bit chatter (up to 800 psi bit
pressure); hard and soft (pebbly clay and sand?) interbeds
10:33 - 1123 am; faster drilling zone, but still with clay-richdrill cuttings, between
250-255 ft; bit chatter 58-60 ft
1 l:J5 am - 1 2 5 5 om. strong bit chatter 263-264 ft; and hard drilling between 265270 ft (800 psi)
~
. .
Note: Piezometer screen set in 215-223 interval
Hydrogeologic Interpretations
Denth (ftl
Hvdrostraticranhic Unit
Lithofacies
0-63
63-77
77-1 10
River floodplain and channel facies @A)
River channel facies (RA),
Upper Santa Fe Group, USF-2, ancestralriver floodplain and channel facies
(Sierra Ladrones Fm)
Upper Santa Fa Group (USF-2), basal part
of ancestral-river facies of the Sierra
Ladrones Fm
Middle Santa Fe Group (MSF-2), basin-floor
facies (Popotosa Fm)
Middle Santa Fe Group (MSF-I), distal
piedmont-slope facies (Popotosa Fm)
As above (1 19-283), basin floor, and
distal piedmont facies (Popotosa Fm)
Middle Santa Fe Group (MSF-2), basin
floor facies (Popotosa Fm)
A2 (rned grained)
AI (med-crs grained)
I, 111
110-119
119-140
140-283
283-423
423-523
19
111, I
IX
v, VI1
v, IX
111, IX
J. W.HaWleyandT. hl. Wllit~vorth(edr.),1996,Hydrogeologyofpofenriolre~harge~,e~~sand/rydrogeosh~micalnlodelingqfpropored~~,jic,.~.
recharge merhods in basin- and ~olley-/il/oqulferrysfene. Albuquerque Emin. .Vew,werico: New Mexico Bureau ofaliier and &linen1Resources
Open-File Report 402D.Chapter 2
Chapter 2
Permeability, Porosity, and Grain-Size Distribution
in
Representative Hydrostratigraphic and Lithofacies Units
at Potential Recharge Areas
Daniel M. Detmer
New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources
Socorro, New Mexico
INTRODUCTION
The northern Albuquerque Basin is experiencing rapid population growth, and
concerns about the quantity and quality of groundwater in the area is being acknowledged.
As the geologic history and architecture of the basin comes to be better understood,
hydrogeologists can use geologic information to improve models of groundwater flow and
recharge. Chapter 1 of this report defines the hydrostratigraphic units that make up the
basin, and presents the architecture of the basin as it is currently understood. This chapter
includes more detailed investigations of outcrops of several of the hydrostratigraphic units.
A knowledge of the range of permeability, types of bedding, continuity of bedding and
grain size distributions common to the
hydrostratigraphic
units ofthe
northern
Albuquerque Basin is required for accurate modeling of the water resources of the area.
The outcrops selected for investigation in this study are representative of sediments
of themorepermeable
ofsome
hydrostratigraphic unitsoccurringin
the norihern
Albuquerque Basin. Prior studies have used slug tests, pumping tests, and geophysical
well log analysis to evaluate aquifer permeability, Each method has certain limitations,
and outcrop permeability studies
are
an alternative way to obtain permeability
measurements for aquifer-related sediments that crop out at the surface. Recent advances
in the design ofportable
permeameters allow in
2- 1
.
.. .,
Tint
permeabilitymeasurementsof
Open-File Repon 402-D,Chapter 2
undisturbed deposits (Stalkup, 1986; Chandler, et al., 1989; Dreyer
et ai., 1990; Davis,
1990; Hartkamp et ai., 1993). In this study, the permeability of surface exposures were
measured withan
air-minipermeameter, and soil samples taken fromthe
point of
measurement. Permeability was then related to the porosity, lithification and grain size
distribution of the samples. Chapter 3 of this report includesgeophysical
well log
analysis of two wells in the Albuquerque area. Well PSMW-19 penetrates 815 feet
of
upper Santa Fe Group river deposits, and the upper portion of well Coronado 2 is located
in a thick sequence of piedmont alluvium. Grain size distributions were determined for
the cuttings from these wells, allowing comparison of the texture of sediments at depth
to permeability as estimated by geophysical well log analysis.
Ten outcrops in the Albuquerque municipal area were selected for study. Outcrops
are classified by hydrostratigraphic unir andlithofacies
(Hawley andHaase,1992;
Hawley, this report). Three exposures of fluvial facies of the upper Santa Fe Group
(hydrostratigraphic unit USF-2) were investigated, as was river alluvium (RAr) from
recent deposits of the Rio Grande. Three deposits of valley alluvium (VA) were studied,
aswere
three outcropsof
piedmont alluvium (PA).
Severaloftheseunitsare
in
hydrologic contact with the Rio Grande, and others are productive aquifer units. Outcrops
of hydrostratigraphic units characterized by deposits of low permeability were notsampled
for several reasons.
Few outcrops of unirs having low permeability exist in the
Albuquerque municipal area. The air-minipermeameter used in this study cannot sample
permeabilities less than approximately 0.5 darcys, and a compressed gas typepermeameter
was not available for use. Finally, sediments having low permeability due to cementation
and abundant fine material are not well suited for grain size analysis.
A number of permeability measurements were taken at
each
Measurements were madeat
outcrop.
15 cm increments vertically, and verticalprofileswere
spaced every 15 m in the horizontal direction. The intent of this sampling scheme was
to avoid bias in the measurements, that would include most of the beds present in outcrop.
The location of the sampling points were not sufficiently documented to allow
Open-File Repon 402-D,Chapter 2
geostatistical methods to be applied to the measurements, A range of permeability values
was determined for each outcrop. The hydrostratigraphic units detailed in Chapter 1 of
this report are large and variable, and it is not possible to characterize the units based on
several small outcrops. However, outcropstudiesdoallowa
detailed investigation of
bedding assemblages that occur within the hydrostratigraphic units.
Permeability measurements and sediment samples were obtained from the largest
and most common beds of each outcrop. Porosity was determined at each point where
permeability was measured. Particle sizedistributions of thesedimentsampleswere
determined by mechanical sieving. Moment measurements were used to calculate sorting
coefficients, allowing a quantitative comparison of grain size distributions. Samples were
classified by bedding type, and a range of measured permeabilities was determined for
crossbeds, channels, horizontal beds, scour and fill structures and structureless deposits.
Measured permeability varies within and between bedding types due to differences in
particle size distribution, packing (porosity), fabric, and degree of cementation (Pettijohn
et al., 1972). Scatter plots andbox
plotswere
used to determine typical grain size
distribution parameters for each bedding type. Log-hyperbolic plots were also used to
compare the grain size distributions of the sediment samples.
Correlation of measured permeability andanumberofsampleparameters
established.
is
Strong correlation is observed with permeability and several"effective
diameters," which are sieve diameters through which a small weight percentage of the
sample will pass.
Correlation of permeability with mean particle size is also high.
Moderate to weak correlation exists with permeabilityand
the uniformitycoefficient
d,,/d,,, standard deviation, skewness, and degree of cementation of the samples. A weak
negative correlation is observed with porosity and permeability. Correlation of various
grain distribution parameters and effective diameters withpermeability generally improves
when clasts larger that 2 mm in intermediate diameter are excluded from the samples
before distribution parameters are calculated.
2-3
Open-File Report 402-D,Chapter 2
A number of published empirical permeability equations based on porosity and
grain distribution parameters were applied to the outcrop samples. There is considerable
disagreement between permeability values predicted by the various equations, and some
correlate quite poorlywith measured permeability values. Multiple regression analysis
was applied to grain distribution parameters of the outcropsampleshaving
high
correlations coefficients with measured permeability to generate predictive permeability
equations.
Several of the regression equations correlate quite well with measured
permeability values, but the new regressions have yet to be tested on an independent data
set.Noneof
the new regression equations use a porosity term, which is difficult to
obtain. Porosity correlates poorly with measured permeability for the outcrop samples,
and the porosity term is a source of error among the published empirical permeability
equations.
METHODS
Permeability Measurements
The outcrops chosen for study were selected on the basis of location and quality
of exposure. Outcrops of river alluvium, valley-border alluvium piedmont-slope alluvium,
and upper Santa Fe Group 'hydrostratigraphic units were sampled (Hawley, this report).
Whenever possible, outcrops were selected near known natural recharge areas. If several
outcrops exist in the same vicinity, the outcrop with the greatest variability of sedimentary
structures and greatest area of exposure was selected for sampling.
Samples were collected from every major sedimentary structure or bed occurring
in the outcrops. Outcrop sampling included an in situ measurement of permeability, and
collection of sediment samples for grain size analysis and calculation of porosity. The
bedding style and degree of cementation of the samples were also recorded. Sampling
waslimited
to deposits with permeabilities within the rangemeasurable
minipermeameter, approximately 0.8 to 270 darcys.
2-4
by the air-
Open-File Rsport 402-D,Chapter 2
The air-minipermeameter (AMP) used in this study is a lightweight device that is
considerably more portable than compressed-gas type
permeameters.
it weighs
approximately 2 kilograms and measures 13x15~23cm, and is supported by a neck strap
when in use. Its primary components are a 100 cm3 ground glass syringe, timing circuit,
and tip seal to
direct air flow through the soil matrix. Permeability measurements are
obtained by orienting the permeameter vertically, raising the syringe piston, applying the
tip seal to the outcrop, and releasing the piston. The glass piston falls at a steady rate
under its own gravitational force, applying a small constant pressure through the tip seal.
A bubble levelmounted
on thetop
of thepermeameterallows
leveling of the
permeameter before measurement. This assures thatfrictionbetweenthe
piston and
syringe body is constant for each measurement. A stopwatch wired to optical switches
measures the time required for a known volume of air to diffuse through the
material.This
design allows rapid, non-destructive in situ measurementof
outcrop
outcrop
permeability. Davis et al. (1994) discuss the operating principles and calibration of the
AMP.
The samplingrangeof
this air-minipermeamerer is approximately 0.8 to 270
darcys (approximately 1.6 to 540 ft/day for water at 50 degrees Fahrenheit). This
range
corresponds with permeabilities common to poorly to moderately lithified sands and silty
sand deposits in the Albuquerque Basin. Silt, clay and well indurated sand bedsgenerally
have permeabilities lower than those measurable by the AMP. Coarse sands and gravels
typically have permeabilities exceeding 275 darcys (550 ftlday). This permeametercannot
sample unconsolidated fine sands, as a seal cannot be attained between the tip seal and
thesediments because the soil matrix is compressed or destroyed when pressure is
applied. Sampling of
gravel beds is also problematic because it is difficulty to seat the
tip seal against irregular
surfaces. The permeameter was calibrated to
a set of epoxy-
cemented sandstandards prepared in the lab, for which permeability was determinedwith
a constant flow device.
2-5
Open-File Repon J02-D, Chapter 2
When necessary, outcropsurfaces were prepared priortosampling.
A smooth
surface is required to form a tight seal between the outcrop and the tip seal of the
permeameter. A small trowel was used to scrape a smooth vertical surface on the deposit.
This produced a glazing of someof the surfaces of the finer deposits, whichwas removed
with a brush prior to sampling. Three measurements with the AMP were taken for each
sample, and the median value was recorded.Obviousoutliers
among the three
measurements, such as would occur if leakage took place, were resampled.
Horizontal permeability was measured parallel to bedding and perpendicular tothe
outcrop surface, because most outcrop surfaces are
permeability measurements would requirethe
vertical or nearly vertical. Vertical
excavation of a bench on the outcrop
surface. It is difficult to construct such a bench in coarse deposits without disturbing the
matrixofthe
sediments. In stratified rocks and sedimentshorizontalpermeability
is
generally greater than vertical permeability (Domenico and Schwartz,1990). Permeability
measurementswere
made
only
from
dry
sediments,
as soil moisture causes an
underestimation of permeability (Davis et al., 1994). Standards were taken into the field
to assure the accuracy and consistency of permeability measurements.
A plug of sediment was cored from the outcrop at the point where permeability
was measured. A small cordless electric drill fitted with a 35 mm diameter hole saw was
used for sampling. Samples were cored horizontally, corresponding to the orientation of
the permeability measurement.
bedding,minimizes
Coring in a horizontal direction,usually
parallel to
the sampling of contrastingsedimentaryfabrics,since
internal
sedimentary structures are generally more uniform along, rather than across, dominant
stratificationtrends (Collinson and Thompson, 1982). The permeametermeasuresthe
permeabilityof
several cubiccentimeters
of sediment.
The volume ofthe
sample
collected for grain sizeanalysis is significantly largerthan the volumeof materialsampled
by the permeameter, but a larger samplewas
necessary for grain size analysis.
Approximately 60 to 80 grams of sample were collected, and retained in manila sample
2-6
Open-File Report d02-D, Chapter 2
envelopes.
Outcrops
and sampling points were
photographed
for
later
reference
(Appendix 2-F).
Additional permeability measurements were made at most outcrops.
permeability profileswere
constructed to providea
Vertical
more accurateevaluation
of
permeability on the outcrop scale. Measurementswere taken at 15 cm (6 in) vertical
increments with 15 m (50 ft) horizontal spacing. This sampling scheme
is intended to
reveal the basic ranges of permeability occurring in the outcrops. The location of each
sampling point was not accurately recorded, rendering the data inadequate for variogram
analysis orother rigorous geostatistical methods evaluatingthe correlation of permeability
with individual beds.
Photo mosaics of the outcrops were constructed. Individual photographs cover a
horizontal distance of approximately 15 m (50 ft), and werepieced together to portray the
outcrop surface intwo
dimensions. Scalingofsomeof
the photographs is imprecise
vertical or planar.
because most outcrop surfaces areneither
Theazimuth
of the
individual photographs was recorded. Overlays detailing the contacts between major beds
were drawn from the photo mosaics.
Overlaysandbrief
geologic descriptions are
included in Appendix 2-F.
Collection of Porosity Samples
Sediment samples were collected adjacent to the point where permeability was
measured for the purpose of determining sample porosity. The porosity of fine-grained,
poorly consolidated deposits were determined from a relatively undisturbedsample
obtained from outcrop.A
sampled, and a small
isolatinga
level horizontal surface was prepared alongthe bed to be
cylindrical samplingtinwaspushed
relatively undisturbed core.
down through the matrix,
A shovel blade was thendriven
under the
sampling tin, allowing it to be turned upright without the loss of sandy material. The soil
matrix is disturbed near the edges of the tin, but most of the sample retains its original
packing.
2-7
Opzn-File Repon 402-D,Chapter 2
The porosity of coarse-grained or moderately cemented samples wai determined
by an alternative method. It is impossible to drivethe rim of asampling tin through
sediments containing particles larger than coarse sand without greatly disturbingthe
original matrix. For coarse or moderately cementedsamplesahorizontalsurface
was
prepared on the bedto be sampled, and a small pit was made with a drill, trowel or
spoon, and the excavated material retained in a sample bag. The depression was then
filled with fine sand poured from a graduated cylinder. The volume of sand required to
fillthe depression was then easily determined fromthe volume measurements on the
graduated cylinder. Knowing the bulk volume, weight and average grain density of the
sample, the porosity may be determined.
Classification of Outcrop Samples
Samples were classified on the basis of bedding and sedimentary structure, and are
grouped into five categories. Bedding classifications, defined more rigorously in the
Results section where detailed outcrop descriptionsare
included, are based on a
combination of sedimentary structures and style of bedding. Classifications were designed
to provide the most useful differentiation between types of deposits on the outcrop scale.
This appears to be the most appropriate way to classify deposits, considering the disparity
in scale between sediment samples used for grain size analysis and the size and variability
of beds occurring in the outcrops.
"Crossbeds" are the first bedding classification, and are most common in the river
facies. This classification includes trough crossbeds, tabular crossbeds, and foresets. This
style of bedding includes the sediments of most accretionary bar deposits,
"Channels" include larger scours and associated lateral accretion deposits. They
commonly cut into underlying beds, and areconcave in cross-section. Most channels
observed in outcrop are composed of coarse sand, pebbles and gravel. They may occur
as part of a
channel-fill sequence, as described by Picard and High (1973). Channels
typically consist of material coarser than the beds they cut into or overlie.
2-8
Open-File Report 402-D.C h a p t ~ r2
"Horizontal beds" are commonly fine-grained deposits, but may be of medium to
coarse sand. They are tabular and laterally continuous. Horizontal beds greater than one
centimeter thick are relatively uncommon, and the majority of thesediments of this
grouping are actuallyhorizontal
laminations (less than 1 cm thick). Fine-grained low
angle ripples are included in this bedding type.
"Scour and fill" deposits commonly form crude horizontal beds of limited lateral
continuity, typically extending no more than one meter along the outcrop surface. Sorting
of the sediments is generally poor. This type of deposit is common to the piedmont fan
facies, and it is likelythatthey
are formed by accretionary lobes.
This bedding
classification is applied only to the fan facies.
The final bedding classification is labeled "Structureless," and describes deposits
having no primary sedimentary structures. Silts of the riverfacies may fall into this
category.Structureless
beds contained in thefandeposits
may be eolian in origin.
Several deposits classified as structureless are buried paleosols.
In addition to sedimentary structure, the degree of cementation was recorded for
each outcrop sample. The relative amount of cementation is evaluated in the field, and
no rigorous measurement of lithification is determined.
Phreatic
and
pedogenic
cementation is not differentiated. Table 2-1 list the criteria used in ranking cementation.
Particle Size Analysis
Outcrop samples were prepared for particlesizeanalysis
in the laboratory. A
sample splitter was used to reduce samples to the desired weight for sieving.
Between
40 and 43 grams of material was used for most samples, but up to 50 grams was used for
the coarsest samples. Samples were oven dried at approximately 90" Celsius for at least
24 hours. After drying, samples were allowed to cool to room temperature and weighed.
Samples were inspected for aggregates prior to mechanical sieving. Samples containing
aggregates were ground with a mortar and pestle to break up all aggregates. Most
samples required no disaggregation beyond that which occurred in sampling andhandling.
2-9
Open-File Repon 402-D,Chapter 2
A set of 21 sieves were used for grain size analysis. Sieves diameters are listed
in Table 2-2. Sieves with mesh diameters of 0.600 mm and larger are 8 inch diameter
Soiltestbrass
sieves. Sieves 0.500 mm and smaller are 3 inch diameter nickel mesh
sieves manufactured by the Buckbee Mears Co. The large-diameter sieves were placed
on a Rotap sieve shaker for 15 minutes. The small-diameter sieves were placed on a
separate shaker that shakes the sieves more violently than .the Rotap machine, but does
not have a tapping arm. Most of the outcrop samples have minor percentages of silt and
clay, and no wet-sieving was necessary.
In contrast to the outcrop samples, many of the well cuttings from PSMW-19
required wet sieving prior to dry sieving. Nested sieves with meshes of 0.074 and 0.045
mm were used to remove silt and clay-sized particles from the sand-sized fractions. The
runnings from the wet sieving were dried and weighed. The sand fractions were then
dried in the oven, and dry-sieved as described above. Thecuttingsfrom
Coronado 2
contain fines in very small percentages, and no wet-sieving was required. Approximately
half of the samples from M W I required wet sieving.
Porosity Measurements
The porosity of outcrop samples was estimated by two methods. The first method
requires a petrographic determination of the average particle mass density of the sample.
Most of the samples are predominantly quartz and feldspar, and a density of 2.65 g/cm3
is assumed for these samples. Porosity is calculated by subtracting the quantity of the
bulk mass density divided by the particle mass density from one (Lambe, 1951). It is
difficultto
apply this method to samples containing clasts of varying densities, most
notably pumice, common to samples from the Santa Fe Group and the Edith Section.
Porosity was estimated by an additional method for sample cores obtained with
thesampling
tins.
Distilled water was poured from agraduatedcylinder
into the
undisturbed material, allowing the volume of water required to saturate the pore spaces
of the sample to be accurately determined. The water was poured along one side of the
2-10
Open-File Repon 402-D,Chapter 2
tin to minimize the volume of air trapped in the matrix. The sample was then probed
with a narrow blade to release air bubblestrapped in the matrix. By subtractingthe
volume of water added from the total volume of the tin, and dividing by the dry weight
ofthesample,
an estimation oftheaverageparticle
massdensiry was obtained. The
porosity of the sample was then determined by subtracting the bulk mass density divided
by the particle mass density from one (n = 1 - MD,iMD,). See the discussion section for
the limitations and use of this method.
Graphical Representation of Particle Size Distributions
Two separate methods were used to plot particle size distributions. The first is the
common cumulative percent graph. These plots are easily generated from the raw sieve
data."Percent
smaller than" from 0 to 100 is plotted alongthey-axis,
and sieve
di.ameters in millimeters are plotted on the x-axis. From these curves the general grain
size distribution is observed in a familiar format, and the percentage of thesample passing
througheachsievesize
iseasily determined. "Effective diameters" are used in many
published empirical permeability equations. The effective diameter "d,," is simplythe
sieve diameter through which only the smallest 10 percent of the sample by weight will
pass.
Valuesfor
d,,, dl,, dl,, d2,,d,,
and d,, were interpolated fromthe
smoothed
cumulative frequency curve of each sieved outcrop sample. An effective diameter based
on the entiregrain distribution was also computed for each sample. This diameter is
proposed by Kruger, and assumes the form l/d, = C g/d. Variable g is thefractional
percentweight
retained on individual sieves, and d is the mean graindiameter
in
millimeters of the corresponding fraction (Vukovic and Soro, 1992).
Effective diameters were determined in millimeters, then converted tophi units for
subsequent correlations with permeability. Phi units are the grade scale commonly used
by geologiststo describe particle sizedistributions.
Phi valuesarecalculatedasthe
negative log base2 of grain size millimeters. The negative sign is addedfor convenience,
giving all grains smallerthan
1 mm in diameter (very coarsesand)
2-1 1
a positive value
Open-File Repon 402-D.Chapter 2
(Krumbein, 1934). Sieve diameters listed in Table2-2are
converted to phiunits
for
comparison.
The plotting style used in this study for the comparison of sample particle
size
distributions is the log-hyperbolic plot, proposed by R. A. Bagnold (1941). The loghyperbolic plot is constructed as follows: the term N is the percent weight of the sample
retained on a sieve, divided by the log of the next larger sieve mesh size divided by the
mesh size retaining the sample. Sieve diameters are reported in millimeters. The log of
N is plotted on the y-axis, with sieve diameters plotted on the logarithmic x-axis. Plotting
log N on the y-axis gives all values, however small, equal prominence (Bagnold, 1941).
Plots of thistype effectively display the relative abundance offine-grained material, which
has a large influence on permeability. Cumulative percent and log hyperbolic plots
are
displayed for comparison in Appendix 2-A.
Comparison of Measured Permeability to Empirical Permeability Equations
Scatter plots contrasting measured permeability values and
permeability values
estimated by a number of published empirical equations are included in Appendix 2-B.
Permeability is plotted on logarithmic axis for ease of comparison. The various equations
are listed in the Results section of this chapter. The published equations yield values for
hydraulic conductivity, which are converted to darcysfor comparison with measured
permeability values. A water temperature of 10 degrees Celsius (50 degrees Fahrenheit)
is used for all conversions tointrinsic permeability.SYSTAT
statistical software was
used to calculate Pearson correlation coefficients for measured and predicted permeability
values.
Particle Size Distribution Statistics
Particle size distribution statistics and representative diameters were calculated for
two sets of data. Thefirst group includes theentireparticlesize
distribution of the
sample, while the second excludes all grains greater than 2 millimeters in intermediate
2-12
Open-File Rcpon 402-D.Chapter 2
diameter. For the complete sample no sieveslargerthan
2 mm were used, but the
maximum intermediate diameter of the .largest clast of the sample was measured
and
recorded. The weight of clasts retained on the 2 mm sieve and the maximum intermediate
diameter of the largest clast were usedto determine the moment measurement of the
pebble-sized fraction of the sample.
Moment calculations, as opposed to graphical methods, were used to calculate the
mean, standard deviation, skewness, and mean-cubed deviation for each sieved outcrop
samples. The formulas were
used for the computation of moment statistics. Grain size
is reported in phi units, so a log normal distribution is assumed. The mean is defined as
x = Xfm, where f is the fractional percent by weight retained on each sieve, and m is the
midpoint for that sieve interval.
Standard deviation o is the square root of Zf(m-x)’. This is a measure of sorting,
reflecting the spread of the distribution on either side ofthe mean, Skewness, also termed
the third moment about the mean, describes the symmetry of the curve, and defines how
far the curve deviates from a symmetric form. Skewness a is computed as E f ( m - ~ ) ~ / o ~
(Friedman, 1967). The mean-cubed deviation is Xf(m-x)’, and has been found to be
a
useful parameter for distinguishing between different depositional environments in other
studies (Friedman, 1967).Kurtosis,thefourthmoment,
is not used in this study. A
spreadsheet was created to compute statistical parameters for the outcrop samples and the
well cuttings.
Comparison of Bedding Types
Outcrop samples were grouped by beddingtype.
Box and scatterplots were
generated to compare separation between bedding style, based on permeability, porosity
and grain size distribution parameters. Comparative statistics were generated for grain
1314 permeability
size distribution parameters grouped by bedding
type.
Some
measurements from the outcrop permeability profiles were grouped
allowing comparison of permeability among bedding types.
2-13
by bedding type,
Box and scatter plots were
Open-File Repon 402.0, Chapter 2
used to compare grain size distribution parameters of cuttings from wells Coronado
2,
MWl and PSMW-19 to the outcrop samples.
Predictive Permeability Equations
TheSYSTAT
statistical software package was used todetermine
Pearson
correlation coefficients for measured permeability and a number of grain distribution and
outcrop parameters. The same software was used to formulate predictive permeability
equations for use on well cuttings in the Albuquerque Basin.Stepwise
multiple
regressional analysis was applied to various parameters found to have high correlations
withthe
measured permeability of the outcrop samples.
Sampleparameters
were
correlated with both measured permeability and the log,, of measured permeability.
RESULTS
Correlation of Permeability with Size Distribution Parameters
Measured permeability was correlated with a number of particle size parameters
forthe
sieved outcrop samples. Scatterplotsweregeneratedtocompare
permeability with a number ofeffective
parameters. Listwise Pearson product
measured
diameters and particle size distribution
moment correlation coefficients for permeability
correlated with sample parameters are listed in Table 2-3. "Complete sample" values are
derived from the entire sediment sample, and "cut
sample" values are calculated with
clasts larger than 2 mm in diameter excluded.
Scatter plotscomparing
measured
permeability to dl,, d,,, d,,, d,, and d,, grain size, the Kruger effective diameter(Vukovic
and Soro, 1992), grain distribution statistics, porosity and sample cementation are included
in Appendix 2-C. In the following tables dl, is the sieve size through which the finest
10% of thesample
by weight will pass.
The uniformity coefficient d,,/d,,
correlated with permeability.
2-14
is also
Open-File Rspon 402-D.Chapter 2
Scatter plots of measured permeability and effectivediameters
included in
Appendix 2-C illustrate the strong correlation between permeability and the finer portion
samples. Grain diameters are listed in phi units, equivalent to the
of thesediment
negative log base 2 of the grain size in millimeters. The result is that both axis of the
are logarithmic, even though phi values along the x-axisare
includedplots
linear.
Logarithmic plots are the most effective way to display trends in permeability throughout
the entire sampling range.
Visual comparison of the effective diameter plots reveal a more constrained
groupingofdata
points for the cut samples than forthecompletedistributions.
An
abundance of large grains in a sample of average sorting will result in a larger value for
theeffective diameter in the complete sample than in the cutsample.The
measured
permeability is constant, andthe result is that the large grains in the complete sample
influencethe
effective diameter without changing themeasuredpermeability.
It is
expected that the cut sample would correlate better with permeability, as it is the smaller
grains of a deposit that has the greatest influence on permeability, and not the size and
abundance of larger clasts that are surrounded by matrix material.
Comparison of effective diameters in phi units to measured permeability
showsa reversal of the trends noted above. Correlation of dl,, dl,anddl,
phiwith
measured permeability is better forthe
effective
complete sampledistribution.The
diameter d,, correlates slightly better with the cut distribution, but the values are very
similar. Correlation of the effective diameters of the complete distribution
in 'phi units
have values similar to the correlation of the cut sample in millimeters. Figures 2-1 and
2-2 are scatter plots ofdl,
permeability. The dl,
and d,, of thecompletesamplesplotted
with measured
diameter in millimeters has a correlation of 0.803 with measured
permeability, while d,, in phi units has a correlation coefficient of 0.836. Squaring the
correlation coefficients reveals how much of the variance in the permeability values is
explained by thedl,
particle size, being 64.5 percent by dl, in millimeters and 69.9
percent in phi units.
2-15
Open-File Repon 402-0,Chapter 2
The correlation of dl:,
dl,' andz: terms with permeability for the complete sample
is considerably worse than correlation with unsquared effective diameters. The diameter
term dto2is a common parameter in published empirical permeability equations, and is
foundtohavea
correlation coefficient ofjust
0.654 with measured permeability.
Correlation is slightly better with squareddiameters taken from thecut
'distribution.
However, none of the empirical formulas recommend using a cut distribution.
A number of grain size distribution parameters are compared with permeability.
The mean grain size is the only parameter with meaningful correlation with permeability.
Notice that this correlation is not as good as correlations with effective diameters. Figure
2-3 is ascatter
plot of mean grainsizeand
permeability fortheoutcrop
samples.
Skewness, percent fines and lithification have correlation coefficients near 0.500.
Effective diameters and distribution parameters were also correlated with the log,,
of measured permeability in darcys. As shown in Table 2-4, correlation is slightly better
with the effective diameters in phi units than in millimeters. A correlation coefficient of
0.S51 exists between dl, and permeability for the complete sample, and 0.846 for the cut
sample. Correlation for d2, and the complete sample is 0.834, and is 0.863 with the cut
sample.
Theeffective
diameter with thebest
correlation to the logof
measured
permeability is the diameter usedin the Kruger empirical permeability equation. This
diameter is calculated as lid, = x:agi/di,where gi is the weight percentage retained on each
sieve, and di is the mean grain diameter in millimeters for the sieve interval (Vukovic and
Soro, 1992). If converted to phi units, theKruger
permeability than mean grain size of the sample. Figure
diameter correlatesbetter
with
2-4 is a scatter plot of Kruger
diameters and measured permeability.
The mean grain diameter of the cutsamplecorrelates
well withthe
log,, of
measured permeability, having a coefficient of 0.872. Squaring this term shows that 76
percent of the variability in the measured permeability values can be explained by the
mean grain size of the sample. Calculation of the mean and other grain size distribution
2-16
Open-File Report 402-D,Chapter 2
parameters is detailed in the Methods section of this chapter,
A correlation of 0.634 is
observed with theweight percentage of fines in boththecompleteandcutsamples.
Correlation of permeabilitywith the.standard deviation, skewness, mean-cubed deviation,
percent pebbles and maximum intermediate diameter of the largest clast are poor.
Porosity, Permeability and Cementation
A surprising finding amongthe outcrop samples is a poor correlation between
porosity and permeability. A number of researchers have documented a strong correlation
between porosity and permeability in sandstones(Archie,1950;Fuchtbauer,1967).
study ofuncompactedHolocene
A
sands found a poor correlation with porosity and
permeability (Pryor, 1973). It appears that the degree of cementation and the sorting of
the samples disrupts the expected correlation of porosity and permeability. Figure 2-5 is
a scatterplotshowing
the association between porosity and permeability.Figure
2-6
shows the observed relationship between permeability and cementation of the samples.
Mostoutcropsamples
withhighporosity
values andlow measured permeability are
moderately cemented. The relationship among porosity and permeability addressed in the
discussion section of this chapter.
Multiple Regression Analysis
Multipleregression
analysis was applied to sample parameters to generate a
number of predictive permeability equations. Several equations use an effective diameter
as the sole input parameter.
toseveralofthemorecomplex
Correlation of these simple regressions compare favorably
published permeabilityequations
that require an
estimation of porosity. In the followingchart a name for eachmodel is listed in quotation
marks, and input parameters are listed in parenthesis. The equations were correlated to
measured permeability in darcys, and the log,, of permeability in darcys. Table 2-5 lists
regressions with measured permeability, and Table 2-6 list correlations with the log,, of
permeability. Thetables list the parameters used inthe regressions,listwisePearson
2-17
Open-File Rcpon 402-D,Chapter 2
correlation coefficients, and squared correlation coefficients which reveal the percentage
ofthe
variability ofthe
One darcy is
permeability explained by the regressions.
equivalent to a hydraulic conductivity of approximately two feet per day, for a water
temperature of 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius).
Effective diameters dl, and d,, in millimeters are used as input parameters for
regression fits with measured permeability. Regressions with the effective diameters of
the complete samples tend to overestimate permeability for thefinersamples,and
overestimate permeability for the more permeable coarse samples. Fits with cut samples
are considerably better: the fit for the d?, diameter regression has a correlation of 0.842
with the measured permeability. This model slightly overestimates permeability in the
lower ranges, but the fit over the entire range of permeabilities is good.
The regressions of dl, andd,, diameters in phi units also overestimate permeability
inthe lower ranges.Of
regressions yield thebest
thisgroups of models, thed,,phicompleteand
d,, phi cut
results, with correlationsof 0.836 and 0.825, respectively.
These models have a more pronounced overestimation of permeability in the lower ranges
than the models based on effective diameters recorded in millimeters.
The final four regressionswith measured permeability include parameters from the
entire grain size distribution.
Parametersincludethe
Kruger effectivediameter
in
millimeters, the mean grain size in phi units, and the weight percentage of silt and clay
in the sample. Like the models based on effective diameters alone, permeability in the
lower ranges of the complete samples is overestimated. Models "MSP1 Cut" and "MSP2
Cut" make accurate predictions over the entire range of permeabilities, with correlation
coefficients of 0.849 and 0.844, respectively.
Regression analysis was repeated with the log,, of measured permeability for the
same parameters as discussed above.
permeability isbetterthan
In each case thecorrelation
with thelogof
correlation with permeability in darcys.Thisindicatesthat
permeability tends to be log-normally distributed, as suggestedby a number of researchers
(Nelson, 1994). As listed in Table 2-4, effective diameters in millimeters do not correlate
2-18
Open-File Repon 402-D,Chapter 2
well with the log of permeability, and diameters in millimeters are notused in regressions.
Regressions using d,, anddZowith the complete and cut distributions all yield similar
results. The best f i t is found with d,, of the cut distribution, with a correlation coefficient
of 0.854. Overestimation of the lowest permeability values is still present, but to a lesser
degreethan
with the correlations to permeability.
This trend is addressed in the
discussion section of this report.
Regressions LMSP1 and LMSP2 show good correlation with the log of measured
permeability forboth
the complete and cut distributions.
The models with the cut
samples are slightly better than the complete samples, butall models have correlation
coefficients between0.871and
0.887.Models
LMSP3 andLMSP4
substitute d,,
diameters in phi units for the Kruger diameters used in the LMSPl and LMSP2 models.
Examination ofthe
scatter plots of the data, included in Appendix 2-B, show that
permeability is overestimated for several samples in the higher ranges when the complete
sample is used, but this overestimation is reduced when thecutsample
isused.
Correlations are slightly less accurate if the Kruger diameter is used in place of d,,, with
correlations ranging from 0.856 to 0.883.
Comparison of Measured Permeability with Empirical Permeability Equations
Table 2-7 presents listwise Pearson correlation coefficients
for
measured
permeability values compared to values predicted by a number of published empirical
permeability equations. Comparisons are based on 100 outcrop samples, representing the
most common beds of the outcrops studied in this report, having permeabilities within the
measurement range of the air-minipermeameter. The Beyer, Hazen, Kozeney, Kruger,
Sauerbrei, Schlichter, USBR and Zamarin equations were applied to the outcrop samples.
All formulas are taken from a publication by Vukovic and Soro (1992). The original
formulas calculate hydraulic conductivity, which is converted to darcys for comparison
with measured permeabilityvalues.
Scatter plots comparing measured and predicted
permeability are included in Appendix 2-B.
2-19
It is important to refer to the scatter plots
Open-File Rspon 402-D.Chapter 2
when evaluating the effectiveness of the individual methods. A given method may have
a high correlation with measured permeability values, but the equation may consistently
overestimate or underestimate the permeability of the samples.
The Beyerformula has the form K = C.d,’, where the empirical C term is 4.5.10E3 ~ 1 0 g ’ ~The
~ ~ effective
.
diameter is dl, in mm, U is the uniformity coefficient d,,/d,,, and
K is hydraulic conductivity in meters per second. TheBeyerequation
is the only
equation using the coefficient of uniformity instead of the porosity term that is common
to most other formulas applied here. The Beyer formula has a correlation of 0.713 with
the measured permeabilityof the cut samples, providing one of thebest fits of themodels
applied here.
TheHazen formula hasthe form K
=
AC.td,;.
The A term determines the
dimensions of hydraulic conductivity, being 1 for K in meters per day, and 0.001 16 for
K in centimeters per second. C is a function of porosity, approximated by C = 400+40(n26), where n is percent porosity. The t term is a correction for water viscosity,
0.70+0.03.(temperature in
Celsius),
anddl,
is reported in millimeters.
being
Measured
permeability values correlate wellwith Hazen values for the complete sample,
correlation coefficient of 0.697. Hazenvaluesforthecompletesample
with a
tend to
underestimate permeability.
Two forms of the Kozeney equation appear in the literature, and the form found
to correlate best with measured permeability is K = 5400d/(l-n)’.d,:.
N is the fractional
porosity of the sample, and dl, is reported in millimeters.Thisequation
significantly
underestimates permeability for the cut samples. A correlation coefficient of 0.654 exists
with the complete samples, but permeability is also underestimated.
The Kruger formulaassumes the formK=240d(l-n)’.dc’.
is calculated as l/d,
=
The effective diameter
x:agi/di, where gi is the weight percentage retained on each sieve,
and di is the mean grain diameter for thesieve interval. N isthefractional
percent
porosity, and the effective grain diameter is reported in millimeters. K is reported in
2-20
Opw-File Repon 402-D.Chapter 2
meters per day. This formula provides the best correlation with permeability for both the
complete and cut samples, with correlation coefficients of 0.783 and 0.723, respectively,
The Sauerbrei formula predicts hydraulic conductivity in centimeters per second,
and hasthe form K
=
3.49d/(I-n)'~d,,'. Fractional porosity is the nterm, and t is
dependent on water temperature, equaling 1.05.10E-6 divided by the kinematic viscosity
of water in meters per second. This formula has a relatively poorcorrelation
with
measured permeability and tends to underestimate permeability of the samples, sometimes
by more than an order of magnitude.
The Schlichter formula has the form K = 4960~n3~"'dI,'. The effective diameter
dl, is in millimeters, n is fractional porosity, and K is reported in meters per day.
This
formula correlates rather poorly with the measured permeability values, and significantly
underestimates the permeability of most of the samples.
The USBR formula has the form K = 0.36.dz0'.j. The effective diameter d20is
reported in millimeters, and hydraulic conductivity units are in centimeters per second.
Permeabilities values calculated by thisequationunderestimatepermeability
fairly
significantly, yet the correlation with the cut samples is an acceptably 0.712. Correlation
is poor with the complete sample.
The Zamarin formula has the form K
=
8.07.n3/(1-n)'.C.t.d,'.
The C term is a
function of porosity, equaling (1.275-1.5.n)', with n as a fractional percent. T is 0.807
for a water temperature of 10 degrees Celsius. De is approximated by an equation similar
to the Kruger effective diameter term, which is substituted here. Hydraulic conductivity
is reported in meters per day. Correlation with measured permeability for the complete
sample is 0.753. Correlation with the cut sample is 0.690, and permeability values are
fairly accurate in general.
Outcrop Descriptions and Permeability Profiles
Ten representative outcrops of basin- and valley-fill units in the Albuquerque
Basinwere
selected for the characterization of aquifer-relatedunits(Plates
2-2 1
17-19,
Open-File Rcpon 402-D,Chapler 2
Appendix 402G). Sampling was restricted tothe urban area, but enough exposures do
exist to gain valuable information on the nature of these sediments. Sites were selected
basedon
the size, quality and location of the exposures.Sedimentsamplesand
permeability measurements were obtained from these outcrops to determine the range of
permeabilities and associated particle size distributions common to several of the different
hydrostratigraphic units known tobe recharge areas. Ten exposures are not sufficient to
characterize the heterogeneity of lithofacies found in the Basin. This study is limited by
the availability of quality outcrop, the sampling range of the permeameter, and the time
frame of this project.
Figure 2-7 is a box plot showing the range of permeability values measured at
eachoutcrop.
Figure 2-7 and the summaries of permeabilityvalues
by outcropand
bedding type are based on the 1314 permeability profile measurements, and do not include
data for the sieved outcrop samples. Boxes in the box plots enclose 50% of the values
of each parameter, and the solid line within the boxes denotes the median value. Lines
extend beyond the boxes to the maximum and minimum values, or to a distance of 1.5
times the length of the inner box. Values plotting beyond 1.5 times the length of the
inner box are considered outliers by the graphing program and marked by small circles.
Geologic overlays, drafted from photo mosaics of most of the outcrops, are included in
Appendix 2-F.
Three outcrops of the upper Santa Fe group
were
selected for
study.
Approximately 5 million years ago the through-flowing ancestral Rio Grande was
established, marking achange
in sedimentation from the fine-grained valley floor
sediments common to the middle Santa Fe, to the sand-dominated river deposits of the
upper Santa Fe Group (Lozinsky and Tedford, 1991). This unit has been divided further
by various authors, and the hydrostratigraphic units and lithofacies of Hawley and Haase
(1992) are usedto classify the outcrops studied in thisreport.Thethreeoutcrops
upper
Santa
Fe Group sediments investigated here all belong
to
the
of
USF-2
hydrostratigraphic unit, which includes river deposits of the ancestral Rio Grande and
2-22
Open-File Rspon 102-D.Chapter 2
associated fine-grained deposits in the river-valley area, Large channels, gravel beds, and
thick tabular beds are exposed in the three outcrops, and beds and structures of this scale
could only have been deposited by a major through-flowing river system (Lambert,1968).
The presence of trough crossbedding, a poorly defined main channel, and high sand-toclay ratios suggesta braided-river style of deposition (Lozinsky and Tedford, 1991). Thin
clay drapes and horizontally laminated silt beds are present but uncommon, deposited in
low-energy environments and as overbank deposits.
The first outcrop of USF-2 deposits is locatedapproximately
100 m (330 ft.)
southeast of the comer of University boulevard and Clarke Carr Road. In reference to
more familiarlandmarks, this is 1 krn (.6 mi) east of Interstate 25, between theUniversity
of New Mexico Golf Course and the Albuquerque International Airport. This outcrop,
referred to as CC, consists of high-energy axial river deposits ofthe ancestral Rio Grande,
and is classified as Lithofacies I (Hawley and Haase, 1992; this report). Approximately
7 m (23 ft) of vertical section is exposed. Deposits consist of alternating sand and gravel
beds. Sortins of the sand fraction is highly variable, ranging from
well-sorted fine to
medium sands, to poorly-sorted medium to coarse sands with alternating sand and pumice
laminations. Some beds are composed almost entirely of pumice clasts. Large foresets,
trough crossbeds, minor channels, and horizontal beds and laminations are common
amongthe
sandy beds.
Cementsare
uncommon, with small moderately cemented
concretions occurring in one ofthefinesandbeds.
Gravels and coarsesand
abundant gravel-sized clasts form approximately 30 percent of the
with
exposure, both as
continuous beds and as channels cut in the sand beds.
Seventy fourpermeability measurements were obtained at the Clarke Carr
location.
The minimum permeability measured was 6 darcys, and the maximum 223 darcys. Near
the top of the outcrop thick gravel beds are exposed, and have permeabilities greater than
those measurable by the air-minipermeameter.
Ofthemeasuredsamples,the
mean
permeability value is 89 darcys, and the standard deviation is 57. The median recorded
value is 75 darcys. Most permeabiliry measurements were taken from the sandy beds,
2-23
SO
Opm.File Rspon J02-D, Chapter 2
the average permeability of this outcrop would increase by an undetermined amount if the
permeability of the gravel beds were included.
The second outcropofUSF-2
fluvial facies, referred to as RB, is located
immediately east of Interstate 25 at the University-Rio Bravo Blvd. underpass. Beds were
deposited by large flows of the ancestral Rio Grande, and best classified as 'lithofacies I
or Ib (Hawley and Haase, 1993;thisreport).
Bed assemblages are tabular andvery
continuous, some being continuous across the entire length of the exposure, a distance of
over 200 m (650 ft). Sandy beds form the majority of the deposit, ranging from well
sortedfine
sands topoorlysorted
coarse sands and pebbles.
Horizontal beds and
laminations are common, with crossbeds and minor channels also present. A bed of large
foresets, composed of gravel with a coarse sand matrix, is continuous across the outcrop.
Broad gravel scours less than 15 cm thick are found between two of the sandy beds. A
moderately cemented fine sand bed of low permeability, with local well-developed
cementation, is foundnear
the top ofthis exposure. Approximately 10 m (33 ft) of
vertical section was sampled.
Well PSMW-19 is locatedseveralhundred
meters
northwest of this outcrop.
A total of 116 permeability measurements were obtained atthis location. The
lowest measured permeability is 4 darcys, and the maximum is 271 darcys. The
mean
permeability value is 50 darcys, and the median is 43. The standard deviation ofthe
permeabiliry measurements is 43.
The third Upper Santa Fe (USF-2) outcrop from which samples were gathered is
located approximately 1.4 km (0.9 mi) south of the Rio Bravo outcrop, where
railroad
tracks pass under Interstate 25, north of Tijeras Arroyo. This location is referred to as
RR, and exposures were formed by the excavation ofthe railroad underpass and an
adjacent sand and gravel quarry, just west of Interstate 25. This outcrop is dominated by
sandy deposits, and classified as lithofacies 11. The lower beds exposed at this location
are medium to coarse-grained river sands forming trough crossbeds, horizontal beds and
minor channel structures of coarse sands and pebbles. One gravel channel approximately
2-24
Open-File Repon 402-D,Chapter 2
one meter deep and three meters wide cuts through the lower sand beds. This style of
sedimentation is common to braided channels. A slightly to moderately cemented bed of
horizontally laminated fine to very fine sand, 1.5 to 2.5 m thick, overlies the lower coarse
sands. This bed extends the length of the outcrop, some 60 m. Well-indurated laminae
are found near the top os this bed, and angle or diverge up into the overlying bed. The
upper sand bed atthis location is a well sorted medium sand,containinglarge
scale
convoluted bedding. The convolutions do not appear to be entirely depositional, and may
be due to soft sediment deformation. The origin of this bed is readily apparent, but it
may be eolian. Capping the outcrop are discontinuous gravel deposits; poor exposure
obscures the nature of these deposits. A second exposure several hundred meters to the
north consists primarily of low angle crossbeds and horizontal beds of medium to coarse
sands and pebbles.
For the 496 measurements taken at the RR outcrop, the maximum value was 223
darcys, and theminimum
.8 darcys. The mean permeability is 42 darcys, and the
standard deviation 41 darcys. The median measurement value is 33 darcys. This outcrop
is located approximately 1 mile south of the well PSMW-19.
Three younger inner valley deposits were sampled. They include ancestral Rio
Grande deposits of middle to late Pleistocene age that are now preserved as terrace fills
(Los Duranes and Edith units of Lambert, 1968), and a section of Holocene channel sand
and gravel exposed about 10 m below thepresent
river floodplain in the Claremont
Avenue (Menaul School) flood-water basin. Gravels of the Edith unit were deposited
during late glacial intervals following full-glacial episodes of valley cutting.The
Los
Duranes channel and overbank facies were probably deposited during a late glacial to
early interglacial interval (Lambert, 1968; J. W. Hawley, personal comm). The basal LOS
Duranes unit, which may correlate with the Edith gravels, is in direct hydraulic contact
with the present-day channel of the Rio Grande. The Holocene channel deposits below
modem floodplain level (Menaul School section) are now disconnected from the Alameda
Drain and Lateral (canal) due to recent lowering of the water table.
2-25
Open-File Repon 402-D.Chapter 2
The Los Duranes (LD) type-section forms the prominent bluffs along the west
bank of the Rio Grande, approximately 1.5 km (1 mi.) north of Interstate 40. Access is
possible from Crown Point Court, east of Coors Blvd. This
deposit is a characteristic
deposit of the VAS hydrostratigraphic unit. It is an interbedded sand and silt/clay valleyborder alluvial terrace, classified as lithofacies I1 (Hawley and Haase, 1992). This deposit
contains a number of overbank silt and clay beds, interbedded with sandy river deposits,
Beds are tabular and lateral continuity is on the order of hundreds of meters. Overbank
deposits consist of thin
interbeds
clay,
silt,and
sandy silt and clay.
Overbank
assemblages range from 3 to 9 m (10 to 30 ft) thick. Sandy sequences range from 2 to
6 m (6.5 to 20 ft) in thickness. Horizontal laminations, low angle crossbeds and foresets,
and minor channels of coarse sand and pebble gravel are the most common structures of
the sandy beds.
Sand beds are typified by minor percentages of silt and clay, are
unconsolidated toverypoorly
Thisdeposit
consolidated, and are of
is described ingreaterdetail
as partof
moderate to high permeability.
Lambert's (1968)Adobe
Cliffs
Section.
The sandy beds of
the
Los Duranes section are moderately permeable.
Permeability measurements were difficult to obtain at this location, as many of the sandy
beds are unconsolidated and crumble under the pressure of thetipseal
of the air-
minipermeameter. Twenty permeability measurements were obtainedfromthe
sandy
beds, with a mean value of 71 darcys, a standard deviation of 30, and a median value of
67 darcys. The minimum recorded permeability for the sandy beds was 25 darcys, and
themaximumwas137.
These values reflect the lower ranges ofpermeabilityof
the
sandy deposits. The maximum permeability recorded for the silty beds at this location
was 5 darcys. The permeability of clay beds interbedded with the silts is considerably
lower, but the range of these values was not determined.
The Edith "Gravel" unit of Lambert (1968) is exposed at a number of locations
along the inner valley of the Rio Grande. The Edith is an axial river terrace deposit that
is included in the VAg hydrostratigraphic unit and lithofacies Iv by Hawley and Haase
2-26
(1992). Excellent outcrops can be found along Edith Blvd., approximately 0.5 km (3 mi)
northofPaseo
del Norte in the north valley. Theoutcropdescribed
in this report is
adjacent to the site of well MW1, drilled by the Bureau of Reclamation in the summer
of 1993. However, the
thesectionwas
basal Edith channel gravel, with a coarse sand matrix, that caps
too coarse tosample and its estimatedpermeability
range definitely
exceeds 275 darcys. Sampling was confined to the underlying Upper Santa Fe (USF-2;
facies 11) sequence of medium to very coarse sand with abundant pumice that forms the
lower 4 m of the Edith Blvd. section (ES). Trough crossbedding and small channels are
the mostcommon
sedimentary features. Large convolutedbedsarealso
present. A
laterally extensive bed of white silt forms the upper rim of the outcrop and immediately
overlies the lower convoluted and channeled sands.
A total of 134 permeability measurements were taken atthis location, ranging from
0.8 to 223 darcys. The mean value is 56 darcys, standard deviation 53, and the
median
permeability value was 49 darcys. Permeability of the sandy beds is relatively high, and
the presence of overlying gravel beds makes the overall permeability of units exposed in
this section very high.
The third inner valley deposit samples is young river alluvium from the ancestral
Rio Grande (hydrostratigraphic unit RAr, lithofacies Iv). The exposure is in a flood-basin
located approximately 200m (650 ft) south of Claremont Avenue, between Broadway
Blvd. and the AT&SF railroad tracks. This exposure is 4 km (2.5 mi) east of the present
channel of the Rio Grande, and referred to as the Claremont Flood-Basin outcrop (CB).
A largetrenchwas
excavated to construct a floodcontrolstructure,
exposing the
sediments beneath thevalley floor. The deposit consists of clean channel sands deposited
by the ancestral Rio Grande. Bedding continuity is on the order of hundreds of meters.
Channels and troughcrossbeds are the major sedimentary features. Occasionally very fine
sand lenses are present, but the deposits are primarily medium to very coarse sand and
pebble. Measured permeabilities were near the upper range of the air-minipermeameter.
The sediments are unconsolidated, prohibiting extensive sampling.
2-27
Open-Fils Repon 402-D,Chapter 2
Distal Embudo Fan (EF) (Lambert, 1968) facies were exposed at the southern end
of the above mentioned flood-basin excavation (CB) exposing the river-channel facies.
This deposit is classified as Valley Alluvium (VA), lithofacies V (Hawley and Haase,
1992). Crude horizontal beds are common, and scour and fills are the most common
sedimentary structure. Individual thin depositional lobes can generally be traced for less
than 1 to 2 m along the outcrop surface. This is typical of alluvial fan
deposits, where
sediment is abundant and channel avulsion and lobate deposition is common (Collinson,
1986). Poorly sorted coarse-grained beds are prevalent, with abundant of fines resulting
in low to moderate permeability values. 'Fine-grained structureless beds are also present.
The more permeable deposits appear to be poorly connected. Permeability profiles were
not sampled at this location, due to the poor quality and limited extent of the exposure.
Piedmont-slope alluvium is the fourth hydrostratigraphic unit studied in outcrop.
Medial fan facies of the Bear Canyon Arroyowere
sampled in two locations, and
proximal and medial Tijeras Fan facies were sampled. Sediment is derived mainly from
the Sandia Mountains. Feldspar and quartz are the most common minerals weathered
from the Sandia Granite. Many samples from these deposits are poorly sorted and have
a large percentage of clasts greater than 2 mm in intermediate diameter. These exposures
co.ntain beds of high porosity and permeability, but are often separated by beds of low
permeability.
The Tijeras Arroyo (TA) outcrop is located approximately 3 km (1.9 mi) west of
the point where Tijeras Arroyo crosses the Tijeras fault at the mouth of Tijeras Canyon.
It is most easily accessed by traveling south on Eubank Blvd. past the entrance to Sandia
National Laboratories, theneast
to the point where power linescross
the arroyo. A
sequence of fan deposits approximately 12 m (40 ft) thick is exposed in a gully on the
north side ofTijeras Arroyo. The sediments are classified as PAt, Tijeras piedmont-slope
alluvium lithofacies VI. The outcrop is characterized as a sequence of alternating coarse
and fine beds. Coarse beds are poorly sorted gravely sands and silts with crude horizontal
bedding. Scour and fill structures are common. Coarse channels are contained in these
2-28
Open-File Repon 402-D,Chapter 2
beds, with boulders UP to 30 cm in diameter, Channels are locally coarse and lacking in
fines,resulting in high porosity and very highpermeability.Sine
silty sand beds are
largely structureless, with occasional horizontal laminations. The laminations appear to
be overbank deposits, while the majority of the sediments may be eolian, The lack of
sedimentary structures suggests that they may be buried paleosols. Horizontal exposure
is limited, and it is difficult to define the lateral extent of these beds.
The instability of the upper portions of this outcrop, and angled surfaces at the
base prevented the acquisition of complete vertical permeability profiles.
As an
alternative, measurements were staggered up the exposure in 1.5 m segments, forming the
equivalent to one vertical section sampling the complete section. Some 91 permeability
measurements were gathered, with a mean of 98 darcys, standard deviation of 90, and
median of 68 darcys. The highest permeability measured was 271 darcys, and the lowest
value was 5.
Proximal Tijeras fan deposits were sampled at an exposure along Four Hills road,
south of the intersection of Interstate 40 and Tramway Blvd. The exposure is located
several hundred meters north of the point where Tijeras Arroyo crosses the Tijeras fault
zone, forming the head of the Tijeras fan. This location is referred to as the Four Hills
(FH) outcrop.
Deposits are similar to thosefound further down thearroyoat
the TA
outcrop, and are also classified as PAt deposits of lithofacies VI. Coarse channel deposits
withclasts
as large as 40 cmin
diameter extend across the outcrop.
One thick
structureless bed of low permeability, composed of very fine sands and silts, is present.
Poorly sorted pebbly coarse to fine sands, in discontinuous horizontal beds and scour and
fill structures, are common at this outcrop. Approximately 8mof
section is exposed
here, but float covers much of the upper exposure.
A total of 211 permeability measurements were taken at the Four Hills outcrop.
The mean recorded value was 83 darcys, with a standard deviation of 90. The median
value was 38 darcys, with a maximum of 270 and minimum of 1 darcy. Sampling of the
upper portions of the outcrop was limited by the abundance of float.
2-29
The final two outcrops sampled in this study are located in Bear Canyon Arroyo
(BC). Deposits are modern in age, as evidenced by canvas and metal debris embedded in
the outcrops.
Samples BC1
-
BC5were
collected from a small outcropalongthenorthern
cutbank of the arroyo, approximately 0.5 km (.3 mi) west ofwhere TramwayBlvd.
crosses Bear Canyon Arroyo. These depositsconsistofscourand
fill structures, are
poorly sorted, and have moderate permeabilities. Outcropexposure is limited,and the
continuity of bedding is not evident.
These beds have localized moderate cementation.
A second exposure exists several kilometers down the arroyo, west of Wyoming Blvd.,
adjacent to the Arroyo del Os0 soccer fields. This exposure is also modern, and contains
scour and fill structures, large channel deposits, and structureless beds. These
deposits
are classified as Piedmont Alluvium (PA), and are of lithofacies V (Hawley and Haase,
1992).Poorlysorted
pebbles to finesands
formthe
lower bedsofthisexposure.
Discontinuoushorizontal bedsand scour and fill structures are
pebblesandgranulesform
much ofthe upper portion of theexposure.
deposits are locallywellsortedwith
permeability
values.
common. Channels of
an openmatrix,
Channels at this outcropdonot
The channel
and have high porosity and
contain clasts
larger
than
approximately 2 cmin diameter, unlike the deposits found in Tijeras Arroyo. A buried
paleosol of limited extent is exposed in the upper right comer of the outcrop.
Sixty eight permeability measurements were obtained formthe lower BearCanyon
exposure. The mean permeability was 100 darcys,thestandard
deviation 63,andthe
median 91 darcys. The greatest recorded permeability was 223 darcys, and the smallest
4 darcys
Comparison of Bedding Types Based on Particle Size Distribution Parameters
One hundred sixteen sediment samples, representing the most common beds from
twelve outcrops in the Albuquerque municipal area, were sieved to allow comparison of
grain size distributions. From the raw sieve data, moments measurements were used
2-30
to
Open-File Repon 102-D.Chapler 2
calculate the mean, standard deviation, skewnessandmean-cubed
samples. The formulas used to
deviation of the
calculate the grain distribution parameters are included
in the Methods section of this chapter. Grain distribution parameters were calculated for
both the complete sample distributions and the cut sample distributions, which excludes
all grains with an intermediate diameter greater than -1 phi (2 mm). Phi units are used
in the following comparisons.
Outcrop
samples
were
classified by bedding type.Beddingtypesinclude
crossbeds, channels, horizontal bedsand laminations, scour and fills, andstructureless
deposits. These types are described in the Methods section of this chapter. The mean,
standard deviation, skewness, and median size value of each sample, grouped by bedding
type, are included in Appendix 2-A.
Box plots allow rapid comparison of grain size distribution parameters.
Figures
2-8 and 2-9 show the mean standard deviation and skewness of the outcrop samples
(grouped by bedding type) for the complete and cut samples, respectively. Table 2-8 lists
the Tean, standard deviation and skewness of samples grouped by bedding type, and how
grain distribution parameters vary between the groups. A more complete list of grouped
parameter statistics, including the maximum and minimum values, variance and skewness
ofthe
values is included in Appendix 2-D.
Inspection of Figure2-8showsgood
separation between the mean grain sizes of the various bedding types, and less separation
between the standard deviation and skewness of the bedding types. Relationships among
grain distribution parameters are similar for the cut samples shown in Figure 2-9, but
there is less separation between groups. Additional box plots showing the
relationship
of the percent fines, percent pebblesand maximum intermediate diameter of beddingtypes
is included in Appendix 2-D.
An alternative method for comparing grain size distribution parameters
by bedding
type is by scatter plot. An advantage of scatter plots over box plots is that all data points
are displayed. Figure 2-10 plots mean grain size against the standard deviation of the
samples, and showsfair
separation betweenthebedding
2-3 1
types.
Crossbeds show
Open-File Repon 402-D.Chapter 2
considerable overlap of both standard deviation and mean grain size with channels and
horizontal beds. Mean grain sizes of -1 to 0 phi and standard deviations of 1.1 to 1.5 are
commonto
channels and scour and fill structures.Separationbetween
cut sample
distributions is considerably worse.
Figure 2-11 is a scatter plot of mean grain size versus skewness of samples
grouped by bedding type. Crossbeds overlap with all other bedding types, most severely
withhorizontal
and strucrureless beds. There is little overlapamongtheotherfour
beddings types in this plot. There is much less separation between bedding types if the
mean and skewness of cut sampledistributions
are plotted.
Scatterplotsfor
cut
distributions appear in Appendix 2-E. Scatter plots of standard deviation versus skewness
were also prepared, but separation betweenbedding
types is poor.
These plots are
included in Appendix 2-E.
Comparison of Porosity and Permeability by Bedding Type
Rapid comparison of permeability and porosity by bedding type is possible with
box plots. Figures 2-12 and 2-13 show measured permeability and porosity of the sieved
outcrop samples. Note thepoor correlations between porosity and permeability, especially
amongthe horizontaland
structureless beds. Figure 2-14 is a boxplotof
permeability measurements fromtheoutcrop
permeability profiles.
the1314
The range of
measured permeability of each bedding type is similar for both data sets, as expected. A
complete listing of permeability distributions by bedding type is included in Appendix 2D. Table 2-9 is an abbreviated list of permeability distribution by bedding type.
Comparison of Bedding Types of Log-Hyperbolic Plots of Grain Size Distributions
Log-hyperbolic plots, described in the Methods section of this chapter, were used
to display grain size distributions graphically. The log-hyperbolic plot reveals therelative
abundance of grain sizes within the sample, with the peak of the curve occurringnear the
mean grain size as calculated by moment measurements. Grains larger than 2 mm are not
2-32
I
Open-File Rspon 402-D,Chapter 1
plotted on the
log-hyperbolic plots. Outcrop samples wereclassified by bedding type,
then samplesof
thesame
bedding type were divided into groupsofsimilar
grain
distributions based on log-hyperbolic plots. Several bedding types contain discrete zones
with grain-size distributions dissimilar to the other sampled parts of the group, and are
classified as outliers. Appendix 2-A includes values of porosity, measured permeability,
lithification and particle size distribution parameters for all sieved outcrop samples.They
are categorized by bedding type and grouped by like grain size distributions based on the
log-hyperbolic plots.
Figure 2-14 is a box plot summarizing the range of permeability for each bedding
type (compiled from outcrop permeability profile measurements). Considerable spread
in the permeability values exists for several of the bedding types, but others have a fairly
constrained permeability range. Figure 2-15 is a box plot showing permeability values
of
the
bedding
subgroups.
Considerable
demonstrating the influence of
separation is achieved
between
groups,
particle size distribution on permeability.Halfof
the
bedding subgroups contain 6 or fewer samples, so this analysis is intended for casual
comparison only. Detailed statistics on the range of permeability for each subgroup is
included in Appendix 2-A.
Comparison of Grain Size Distributions of Well Cuttings
Grain size analysis was completed on the cuttings of 3 wells in the Albuquerque
municipal area. Thefirst
well is Coronado 2, a water supplywell
forthe
City of
Albuquerque. It is located approximately 0.6 miles southwest of the corner of Paseo del
Norte and Wyoming Blvd., penetrating a thick sequenceofpiedmontalluvium.This
location is approximately 2 miles north-northwest of the lower BearCanyon Arroyo
outcrop. The well was drilled with a mud rotaryrig and the sampling interval was 10
feet. Twenty-five samples
from the uppermost 900 feet of this well
were sieved. The
mean of the mean grain sizes of all the cuttings is -0.022 phi, with a minimum mean
diameter of 0.639 and maximum of -0.742 phi. The range in the standard deviations of
2-33
Open-Fils Rapon 102-D,Chapter 2
thesamples is also relatively small, the mean value being 1.129, with a maximum of
1.503 and minimum of 0.652. thus, a high degree of uniformity is observed among the
cuttings of this well. The range of skewness values for this well is similar to those of the
other two wells. Figure 2-16 is a box plot of the mean grain size, standard deviation and
skewness of the cuttingsof Coronado 2, along with wells PSMW-19 and M W I . Inclusive
grain distribution statistics for all of the well cuttings are included in Appendix 2-D.
'
The second well for which cuttings were analyzed is well MWI, drilled by the
Bureau of Reclamation in the summer of 1993. It was drilled on the floodplain of the Rio
Grande, just west of the EdithNSF-2 outcrop from which samples were obtained.
well is located just north of Paseo del N o m , and west of Edith Blvd.
The
This well
penetrates 105 feet of river sands and gravel, with minor clay lenses. Core was obrained
in lengths of up to 3 feet, and samples used for grain size analysis were skimmed from
theentire length of the core. Unfortunately sampleswerenotgatheredfrom
distinct
depths in the core barrel. The mean grain of the sediments of this well are considerably
smaller than those of Coronado 2, with a mean over the entire depth being 1.617 phi,
ranging from -0.236 to 4.121. The standard deviation ofthe grain distributions range
from 1.204 to 2.782.
The third well from which cuttings were obtained and sieved is well PSMW-19.
This well is located several hundred meters north of Ria Bravo Blvd. on the west side of
Interstate 25. It was drilled as a monitoring well for the Public Service Company of New
Mexico. The well penetrates upper Santa Fe Group sediments, from which the uppermost
815 feet of cuttings were sieved. The well was drilled with a reverse-rotary drill rig, and
samples were collected at 5 foot intervals. The mean of the values for mean grain size
forthe
cuttings ofthis
wellis
1.652, ranging from-1.672
to 3.695.
The standard
deviation ranges from 1.293 to 3.221. Grain distribution parameters from the cuttings of
this well are similar to those of well MWI.
Scatter plots were generated to allow a graphical representation of the grain size
distribution parameters ofthewell
cuttings. Figure 2-17 is a plot of mean grain
2-34
size
Open-File Report J02-D, Chapter 2
versus the standard deviation of the individual well cuttings. Weak trends are apparent
in the samples from each of the 3 wells, with standard deviation increasing as the mean
grain size increases. This trend is not evident if clasts greater than 2 mm in diameter are
excluded form the samples. Additional scatter plots of grain distribution parameters are
included in Appendix 2-E.
Inspection of Figure 2-1 X, a scatter plot comparing mean grain size with. skewness,
shows skewness increasing as mean grain size increases. For the PSMW-19 samples,
most skewness values are slightly negative or near zero for mean grain sizes smaller than
2 phi, and skewness values steadily increase as mean grain diameters become larger. The
same trend is observed for the samples from Coronado 2, but the range of mean grain size
is considerably smaller. Samples from well MWl exhibit similar behavior. These trends
are more pronounced among the cut sample distributions.
Plots comparing sample standard deviation to skewness reveal no striking trends.
The sampled drill cuttings from Coronado 2, however, have low standard deviationvalues
in contrast withthe units sampled in the other two wells. An expected relationship is
observed between mean grain size and percent fines. Silt and clay-sized particles become
more abundant as the mean grain size of the sample decreases. Note that none of the
cuttings from Coronado 2 contain more than 2percent
fines. This may be due to
excessive washing of the samples prior to bagging.
Scatter plots were generated comparing thegrain
size distributions of all the
outcrop samples to the well cuttings. Figure 2-19 shows mean grain size plotted with the
standard deviation of each sample. Comparison of Figure 2-19 to Figure 2-17 shows that
standard deviation values for a number of the cuttings fromPSMW-19 are larger than the
standard deviations of theoutcrop samples. Outcropsamples with small mean grain
diameters have smaller standard deviations than the well cuttings, but trend is influenced
by the cuttings from PSMW-19.
2-35
Open-File Rcpon 402.D. Chapter 2
Figure 2-20 compares mean grain size to skewness for the outcrop samples and
the well cuttings. There is good agreement between the mean and skewnessofthe
outcrop samples and well cuttings.
DISCUSSION
The Air-Miniperrnearneter
The air-minipermeameter was calibrated to standards prepared in the laboratory.
Standards were constructed by filling stainless steel cylindrical rings with a mixture of
sands and low viscosity epoxy. The one-dimensional permeability of the samples
was
determined with a compressed gas source, rotameters and pressure transducer, following
the ASTM D4525 method. These procedures are detailed in a publication by Davis et al.
(1994), who was responsible for thedesign,
construction and calibration of the
permeameter used in this study. The original standards prepared by Davis were used to
recalibratethepermeameter.The
dimensions ofthetipseal
were changed since the
original calibration of the instrument, and recalibration found that a geometric factor of
5.2 provided the best fit with the prepared standards, instead of 4.5 as used earlier by
Davis, based on the investigations of Gogin et al. (1988).
Sensitivity of calculated permeability values to changes in atmospheric pressure
and air temperature was evaluated by the author. A change in air temperature from 45
to 90 degrees Fahrenheit in the permeability equation increases the value of
measured
permeability by 6.8 percent. Standards were not measured at these temperature extremes,
so it was not determined how readings vary due to changes in air viscosity. An average
temperature of 55 degrees, or air viscosity of 0.0000178 Pascal-seconds, was used in all
calculations,
Permeability
values are considerably less sensitive
to
changes
in
atmospheric pressure, A pressure change from 82.5 kPa to 87.5 kPa Pascals results in an
0.015 percent decrease in permeability values. An
used in all calculations.
2-36
average pressure of 85.153 kPa
was
Open-File R~port402-D, Chapter 2
The air-minipermeameter is extremely sensitive to measurement times for highly
permeable sediments. The free-fall time of thepistonaverages0.72seconds.The
smallest times recorded at the outcrops were 0.78 seconds and indicates a permeability
of271darcys.
A measurement time of 0.83 seconds indicates a permeability of 200
darcys, demonstrating the sensitivity of measurements in this range. The most permeable
laboratory standard has a permeability of 250 darcys, so permeability measurements in
this range can be used with confidence. Readings for sediments with fall time less than
1 secondwere
recordedonly
if goodagreementwas
attained betweenconsecutive
measurements. Otherwise the deposit was recorded as too permeable for measurement
with the air-minipermeameter in the current configuration. The weight of the piston and
dimensions of the tip seal may be adjusted to allow sampling of sediments of higher or
lower permeability.
The air-minipermeameter wasused
by anotherresearcherbetweenthe
time
permeability measurements for the sieved outcrop samples and the outcrop permeability
profiles were taken. He was negligent in his use of the instrument, drawing fine particles
through the in-line filter and into the glass syringe. Slight scoring occurred near the top
of the syringe body. The damage is in the uppermost range of piston travel, and it is not
felt that this has
an influence on the permeability readings. The upper microswitch is
located approximately one third of the length of the syringe body from the top, and the
piston falls freely well before it reaches this point. This upper piston travel allows steady
state conditions to be'established before the timing
of air flow through the soil
matrix
begins.
Correlation of Permeability with Grain Size Distribution
Few comprehensive studies of the relationship between grainsize distribution
parameters andpermeability have been published. The most commonly citedinvestigation
was conducted by Beard andWeyl (1973). In this study sands from two Texas rivers
were sieved and recombined to form 48 samples. Eightsizeclasses
2-37
of varying mean
Open-File Repon 402-0. Chapter 2
grain size were constituted, with six subgroups of varied sorting for each size class. It
was determined that porosity is independent of grain size for the extremely well sorted
samples, but among poorly sorted samples porosity decreases and permeability increases
as coarse grains are added. It was also demonstrated that permeability is proportional to
the square of meangrainsize.
If theoretical models of flow being propor&onal to the
square of the radius of a pore opening are accepted, this data demonstrates thar pore size
is proportional to grain size (Nelson, 1994). An additional finding of Beard and Weyl is
that low sphericity and high angularity of grains increases the permeability and porosity
of unconsolidated sands.
A second study relating mean grain sizeand
sorting to
permeability is that of Krumbein and Monk (1942). Glacial outwash sands were sieved
and recombined to
make 30 samples withsystematic changes in meangrain size and
sorting (standard deviation). In the first set of samples the standard deviation was fixed
at 0.21, and the mean grain size varied from -0.75 to 1.25 phi. The second set of sands
were mixed with the mean grain size fixed at zero phi, and the, standard deviation values
ranging from 0.15 to 0.80. A constant-head permeameter wasused
to measure the
permeability of the sand samples. Excellent correlation with measured permeability was
observed with changes in mean grain size and standard deviation of the samples. It was
found that variations in permeability can be expressed as the product of a power function
of the mean grain size and an exponential function of the standard deviation. Another
study involving repacked grain distributions and permeability was published by Masch
and Denny (1966). Permeability was found to increase as d,, grain size increases and
standard deviation decreases. However, the permeability of samples withd,, values larger
than 3.5 phi (finer sands) are practically independent of standard deviation. Permeability
values were alsofound to increase with increasedskewnessvalues.Shepherd(1989)
wroteabrief
summaryand
review of theoretical and empiricalstudies
relating
permeability and grain size distribution.
Measured permeability values andthelog,,
of measured permeabilitywere
correlated with a number of effective diameters and grain distribution parameters for the
2-38
Open-File Rqmn 401.0,Chapter 1
sieved outcrop
samples.
The
listwise Pearson correlation coefficients
for
comparisons are listed in Tables 2-3 and 2-4 in the Resultssectionofthis
Scatterplotsofmeasured
permeability and all effectivediametersand
parameters are included in Appendix 2-C. In agreement with thestudies
these
chapter.
distribution
mentioned
above, permeability is found to correlate well with mean grain size and the d,, grain
diameter. However, correlation of measured permeability with standard deviation is very
poor. Skewness of the grain distributions have a slight influence on sample permeability,
but correlation values are low.
Comparison of correlation coefficients listed in Tables 2-3 and 2-4 reveals some
interesting trends.
For nearlyevery
effectivediameter
and distribution parameter,
correlation with permeability is better with the cut samples than with the complete sample
distributions. An abundance of large grains in a sample of average sorting will increase
the mean grain size, but if smaller grains fill the spaces between the larger grains, the
permeability of the sample will not be highly dependent on mean grain size. Excluding
grains larger than 2 millimeters in diameter from the samples results in a better correlation
of mean grain size and permeability. A correlation coefficient of 0.872 is found between
mean grainsizeofthe
cut sample and the log base 10 of measuredpermeability.
Squaring this coefficient shows that mean grain size explains 76 percent of the variability
in thisrelationship.
The Kruger effectivediameter
is another sample parameter that
correlates well with measured permeability. Like mean grain size, it is calculated from
the percent weight retained on each sieve. The Kruger diameter of the cut samples and
the log of measured permeability have a correlation coefficient of 0.885, the highest of
all correlations madefor
permeability andgrain
distribution parameters.
This term
explains 78.3 percent of permeability variability among the samples.
Most of the effective diameters calculated for the outcrop samples correlate well
with measured permeability. If effective diameters are recorded in millimeters, the best
correlations are with measured permeability and the cut samples. Higher correlations are
found to exist between effective
diameters from the cut distribution converted tophi units,
2-39
fit, with a R value of 0.863,explaining 74.5 percent of the variability in permeability
among the samples. Correlations for some effective diameters approach the goodness of
fit of the Kruger diameter and mean grain diameter. Much
I
less sieving is required to
determine effective diameters of d,, and smaller, compared to mean grain size and Kruger
diameter. Determining mean grain size requires sieves covering the entire range of grain
diameters, while d,,andd,,
can be accurately determined with half as many sieves.
Porosity, Permeability and Cementation
Figure 2-5 in the Results section of this chapter displays the observed relationship
A slightnegative
between permeability and porosity forthesievedoutcropsamples.
correlation is observed between porosity and permeability, contrary to what one might
expect.
If the sorting and cementation of thesamples
isconsidered,
thenegative
correlation is partially explained. It is found rhat samples with relarively high porosities
and low measured permeabilities are all moderately consolidated (cementationrank of 3).
This demonstrates that relatively minor amounts of cementation haveanappreciable
influence on permeability. Cemented samples were not examined
is likely that cementation is sufficiently developedtoclose
in detail; however, it
pore throats(meniscus
cements), but is not so prevalent as to cause a large reduction in porosity The cluster of
samples with low porosity and high permeability values can also be explained. Samples
in this region of the plor are primarily scour and fill structures, and have an abundance
of coarse grains and are poorly sorted. The large particles surrounded by fine matrix
material increases the bulk density of the sample resulting in a lowered porosity value
(Pryor, 1973).
Despite accommodations for
the
extreme
values for sorting and
cementation among the samples, the correlation of porosity with permeability is poor.
It is possible that sampling error contributes to the poorcorrelation of porosity and
measured permeability. Quartz and feldsparsarethemost
abundant minerals in the
majority of the samples. The average density of these two minerals, 2.65 g/cm3, was used
2-40
Open-Fils Repon 402-D,Cllnpler 2
forthegrain
density valueof
contained in the
these samples. Mostotherminerals
samples have similar densities, and this is not considered to be a significant source of
error. Plug samples obtained with the sampling tins are felt to provide accurate volume
measurements, but there is a greater possibility for error among the coarse samples for
which a small pitwas
excavated and refilledwith
sand. The uncertainty lies in the
packing and volume of sand poured backinto the pit from which the sediments
were
excavated and retained for weighing. Disturbance of the sediments around the rim of the
pit, and the difficulty of replacing the removed volume by exactly the same amount
of
sand, may result in errors in the measurement of the volume of sediment removed. Slight
differences in thepackingofthesand
poured into thepit and that remaining inthe
graduated cylinder may also produce minor inaccuracies in volume measurements.
Pumice grains occur in large quantities in some of the samples, most notably at
the Clarke Carr and Edith Blvd. outcrops, creating difficulties for estimating porosity by
graindensity
methods.
The density of individual pumiceclasts
is variable due to
differences in the internal porosity of the clasts. Grains with no internal porosity have
a density similar to quartz, while those with high intragrain porosity may have a density
of less than 1 gram per cubic centimeter (they float on water). Due to the variable grain
density in pumice-rich samples, porosity was estimated by measuring the volume ofwater
required to saturate these samples. By comparing porosities obtained by the saturation
method to porosity values obtained by the bulk density method, it was determined that
the saturation method underestimates porosity by an average of 8.8 percent. It may be
faster, simpler and more accurate to determine a saturation correction factor and apply it,
than to determine varying grain densities and proportions in samples containing grains of
widely varied densities.
A number of researchers cite a strong positive relationship between porosity and
permeability (Archie, 1950; Fuchtbauer, 1967; Thompson, 1978; Bloch, 1991; Luffel
et
al., 1991; Nelson, 1994). The motivation for most of these studies was theevaluation and
predictionof
the qualityof
reservoir rocks for oil and gasrecovery.
2-4 1
Consequently,
Open-File Repon 402-D. Chapter 2
studies have dealt primarily with sandstones that have been buried to significant depths
and compacted by overburden forces. Diagenesis is common at depth, and pore filling
cements cause further reductionsin porosity and permeability. Inspection ofplots relating
permeabilityto
porosity in manyof
thesestudies
reveals thatpermeabilities seldom
exceed 1 darcy and porosity values ranging from 2 to 30 percent. Considering thefact
that the sediments examined in this study have not been buried to significant depths, and
lithification ranges from unconsolidated to moderately consolidated, it is not surprising
that porosity-permeability trends are less defined in the ourcrops examined in this study.
In one of the few comprehensive studies of the relationship between porosity and
permeability of modern uncompacted sediments, Pryor (1973) measured the porosity and
permeability of348cores
from point bar deposits of theWabash,Whitewater
MississippiRivers.Permeability
and
of samples was foundto be highly variable, ranging
from 4 millidarcys to more than 500 darcys. Porosity valuesvariedfrom17
to52
percent, with an average value of 41 percent. Pryor found no clear relationship to exist
between porosity and permeability of modem uncompacted sands. In another study of
Holocene river deposits, Atkins and McBride (1992)-cited porosity values ranging from
40 to 58 percentfor
point bars and braided bars fromfive
rivers.
Thus, thepoor
correlation of porosity and permeability, and the range of porosity values found to exist
among the outcrop sample examined in this study are not without precedent.
lklultiple Regression Annlysis
Mulriple regression analysis was applied to grain size distribution parameters to
formulate predictive permeability equations for use on sediments common to thenorthern
Albuquerque Basin. The predictive permeability equations and scatrer plots
measured
permeability
comparing
to predicted permeability are included inAppendix
2-B.
Correlation with measured permeability yields coefficients ranging from 0.785 to 0.854
for regressions based on a single effective diameter, and coefficients as high as 0.887 are
achieved with regressions including mean grain size, Krugereffectivediameter
2-42
and
Open-File Repan 402-D,Chapter 2
percent fines.
The issue of colinearity, occurring when regression variables are
themselves related (Ott, 1988), was not evaluated for the regression equations.
Inspection of the scatter plots of measured permeability and values predicted by
regression equations shows that regressions based on a single effective diameter tend to
overestimate permeability in the lower ranges. Errors aremost pronounced when effective
diameters are determined from the complete grain distributions. Overestimation ofthe
low permeability samples is less severe for regressions with the log of permeability. It
is worth noting that the outcrop samples with the lowest permeability are typically fine
grained and/or moderately cemented, where correlation of measured permeability with
graindistribution
parameters becomes moreproblematic.
Several ofthe
regression
equations based on a single effective diameterprovide a goodestimate of measured
permeability over the entire range of measured permeabilities.
Regressions predicting the log,, of measured permeability, based on various
parameters including mean grain size, the Kruger effective diameter, dl, diameter,
percentfinescorrelate
wellwith
and
measured permeability values. Regressions LMSPl
through LMSP4 produce correlations of 0.856 to 0.887, explaining 73 to 79 percentof the
variability in the data set. Inspection of scatter plots of theregressions reveals that values
are centered around the 1:1 line of measured to predicted permeability. This is significant
in that there is no systematic overestimation or underestimation of permeability by these
equations.
The percentage of silr clay contained in the majority of the outcrop samplesis less
than 5 percent, and inclusion of percent fines as an input parameter did not significantly
improve any of the regression equations.
The application ofregression
equations
including a term for percent fines is not recommended for well cuttings. It is difficult to
ascertain what portion of the fines of a sample are drilling mud and what is native to the
sediments. Quality core is required to accurately determine the abundanceof silt and clay
in subsurface deposits.
2-43
Open-File R q m t 402-D,Chopter 2
It is recognized that cementation has a significant influence on permeability, but
cementation is difficult to quantifyin outcrop, much less in the subsurface. This study
does not evaluatehow cementation influences the permeability of samples of varied grain
distributions, and cementation values are not included in any of the regression equations.
If sediments are more than moderately
cemented, the influence on permeability is great,
and relationships between grain size distributions and permeability are obscured.
The regression equations developed here are based on a relatively small data set.
Depending on the texture of samples to which they are applied, the different regression
equations may produce varied permeability predictions. Further validation and refinement
of these regressions are necessary before they are widely applied to sediments of the
northern Albuquerque Basin.
Empirical Permeability Equations
A number of empirical equations relating permeability to porosity and grain size
parameters exist.
Manyofthese
modelsare
based on a relationship developed by
Kozeny, and later modified by Carmen, known as the Kozeny-Carmen equation (Carmen,
1956).This
equation representsthe
porousmediaas
a bundle of capillary tubes of
differing radii, where laminar flow is mainrained in each tube. The two basic components
of the equation are a particle size term, related to the specific surface
unit volume of the solid,
and a porosity term. The
with respect to a
porosity term was found to
equal
n3/(l-n)’, where n is fractional porosity (Bear, 1972). The idea that permeability varies
with the square of grain diameter was proposed by Hazen (1892) and Schlichter (1899),
and later experimentally verified (Krumbein and Monk, 1943; Burmister, 1954). Kozeney
and Carmen also employed a squared diameterterm,butthetermwasderived
as an
expression of specific surfacearea with respect to a unit volume of porousmedium (Bear,
1972).
The empirical permeability equations applied to the outcrop samples are described
in the Results section of this chapter. Table 2-7 lists Pearson correlation coefficients for
2-44
Open-File Rspon 402-D,Chapter 2
values predicted by the various equationscompared to measuredpermeability
values.
Scatter plots comparing measured to predictedpermeability are includedin Appendix 2-E.
TheKruger
and Zamarin equationsyieldthe
highest correlations with measured
permeability, with the complete samples yielding better results than the cut samples, The
Beyerand USBR equations correlate equally wellwith
measuredpermeability
when
applied to the cut samples, but the Beyer equation slightly underestimates permeability,
and the USBR equation significantly underestimates permeability. The other equations
generally underestimate permeability, and correlation with measured values is poor.
Inspection of scatter plots in Appendix 2-C comparing squared effective diameters
to measured permeability illustrates one reason why there is a large degree of scatter in
theupper range of permeability values predicted by empiricalformulasemployinga
squared diameter term. The squared diameter term generally increases more rapidly than
the measured permeability of the outcrop samples. This disparity is tempered by the use
of phi units, where the log conversion causes the effective diameter to change less rapidly.
However, a logarithmicscale is recommended for use in any of thepublished permeability
equations. While' the squared diameter term has a proven theoretical end empirical basis,
it is not appropriate to square the effective diameter simply to maintain consistent units
if it can be demonstrated that unsquared diameter terms correlate better with measured
permeability.
An additional source of error in theempirical equations in theinclusion of a
porosityterm.ExceptfortheBeyer
and USBR equations, all permeability equations
applied in this study include a porosity function. The poor correlation of porosity and
permeabilityobserved
in the outcropsamplescontributes
to theinaccuracyof
the
empirical equations. The difficulty of obtaining porosity values, coupled with the poor
correlation of porosity and permeability, suggest that it is not worthwhile tocollect
porosity values for the purpose of estimating the permeability of sediments. A major
advantage of the regression equations formulated in this study is the exclusion of a
porosity term
2-45
Open-File Rrpon 402-D.Chapter 2
Outcrop Permeability Profiles
The first set of permeability measurements was collected when sediment samples
weregathered and porosity measurements were made. Thesampling criterion wasto
sample all major beds at each outcrop.
This datawas
used forthe
generation of
predictive permeability equations by regression analysis that can be applied to the wide
variety of sedimentary textures found in the northern Albuquerque Basin.
The second set of permeability values was compiled from theoutcrop permeability
profile measurements. Prior to sampling,outcropsweresectionedinto
15 m (50 ft)
horizontal increments for photographing and the construction of photo mosaics. These
same points, spaced every 15 m alongthe baseof theoutcrops, were used to locate
vertical sections along which permeability was measured every 15 cm (6 inches) in the
vertical direction. Most beds
or assemblages of similar sedimentary structures found in
theoutcrops are at least I 5 cmthick.
By using a samplingspacingsmaller
than the
thickness of most beds, it is likely that most beds are sampled in the vertical profiles.
Likewise, the lateral continuity of many beds exceeds 15 m, so this horizontal resolution
is considered appropriate. Althouzh sampling at a higher resolution would be preferred,
and would allow
a more detailed study of the heterogeneity of the deposits, rigorous
investigation of outcrop heterogeneity was beyond the scope of this investigation. Strict
adherence to the sampling scheme reduces sample bias unintentionally and
inevitably
introduced by the researcher.
Care was taken to make permeability measurements along
exactly 15 cm increments. Despite this intent, thedesign
a vertical column at
of thetipseal
oftheair-
minipermeameter did not always allow strict adherence to this sampling scheme. Some
of the coarserdeposits found at the outcrops,commonly coarse-grained channel and scour
and fill deposits, contain enough pebble and gravel sized clasts to prevent a good seal
between the tip seal of the permeameter and the surface of the deposit. In this case a
measurement was taken as near as possible to the left or right, where a smooth enough
surface could be
found or prepared with a trowel. Care was taken rhatthe sediments
2-46
Open-Fils Report 402-D,Chapter 2
sampled had a matrix similar to the adjacent point on the vertical transect. The sampling
offiner
material as necessitated by the tip seal may produce a slightbias
in the
permeabilitymeasurement by occasionally samplingpoints less permeablethan those
alongthe vertical column. If thisbias
does exist, it is slight and doesnot produce
significant error in the average measured permeability values for any given outcrop.
The air-minipermeameterhas a sampling range of approximately
0.8to 270darcys.
If sampling points along the
vertical profiles were located on beds with permeabilities
outside this range, no permeability measurement was recorded. It was noted if the deposit
was too permeable or impermeable to be sampled by the permeameter, but these points
were not included in the permeability statistics for each outcrop. Approximately 5 percent
of the points along the transects could not be sampled by the permeameter.
The sediments of the three upper Santa Fe Group outcrops investigated
in this
study would make excellent aquifer material. Table 2-10 summarizes the permeability
measurements from each outcrop.
A moreinclusive
list of therangeof
outcrop
permeabilitymeasurements is included in Appendix 2-F along with geologic outcrop
sketches. The outcrops of hydrostratigraphic unit USF-2 (Hawley and Haase, 1992) are
dominated by deposits of the ancestral Rio Grande, and are characterized as a braided
style of deposition (Lozinsky and Tedford, 1991). Channeling is common, occurring both
as coarse gravel and cobble deposits between and within beds, and as coarse sand and
pebble scours within sandy beds. Channels tend to be highly permeable, and the sinuosity
and avulsion of channels
results in a high degree of interconnectedness between beds.
Fine grained beds of low permeability are relatively uncommon. The absence oflaterally
continuous beds of low permeability and the presence of channels
connecting beds of
moderate to high permeability allows for high rates of water movement through these
sediments.
Deposits classified as River Alluvium by Hawley and Haase (1992) also contain
thick sandy beds of high permeability. However, the Edith and Los Duranes ourcrops
also contain laterally extensive silt and clay beds of low permeability. Given the limited
2-47
Open-Fib Repon 402-D,Chaptor 2
exposures available for
investigation, it is difficult to assess the continuity
of the fine
beds. The horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the River Alluvium deposits is great, but
more work must be done to determine to what degree vertical flow is impeded by the
presence of fine overbank deposits.
PiedmontAlluvium
deposits also contain alternatingpermeable
and relatively
impermeable beds. Beds and assemblages of beds of alluvial fan deposits are often lobate
in shape. Although beds of high porosity and permeability exist within the fan deposits,
at times theymay be isolated from other permeable deposits. The Bear Canyon, Four
Hills and Tijeras Arroyo deposits havesomeof
the highestaveragepermeabilities
recorded in this study, but the outcrops contain beds of relatively low permeability. These
beds are generally of fine sand, and have higher permeability than silt and clay deposits
associated with the ancestral Rio Grande.
The hydrostratigraphic units defined in Chapter 1 of this report may be hundreds
or thousands of feet thick, while the outcrops examined here are generally less than 30
feet high. The variability of sediments observed in outcrop does not necessarily reflect
the range of depositsoccurring within thehydrostratigraphic units. It is importantto
integrateoutcropstudies
withthe analysis of well cuttings and geophysical well logs
when assessing local and regional rates of groundwater recharge and flow.
Grain Size Distribution Statistics
A number of researchers have demonstrated that the
grain size distribution of
many sediments approach lognormality. A brief review of some of these studies may be
found in Pettijohn (1957). Due to the wide range of particle sizes found in many natural
sediments, it is convenient to use a grade scale, or a series of class intervals that have a
constant relationship to one another.
Thegradescale
most commonly used by
sedimentologists is the phi scale, proposed by Krumbein (1934).
lognormalityamongsamples
Departuresfrom
is generally a function of thematerialavailable
for
sedimentation and the natural processes of sedimentation, but may also be influenced by
2-48
Open-File Repon 402-D,Chapter 2
sampling procedures (Friedman, 1962).
It is assumed that most outcrop samples
sieved
in this study do not deviate significantly from a lognormal distribution, but no rigorous
validation of this assumption was made.
Moment measurements were used to
calculate
the
grain-size
distribution
parametersof the sieved outcrop samples. Momentcalculations
are described in the
Methods section of this chapter. Distribution parameters may also be calculated from size
frequency histograms, but moment calculationsgenerallyyieldmoreaccurate
results
(Koldijk, 1968). The mean grain size, or first moment, represents the center
of gravity
of the distribution (size frequency histogram). Higher moments are calculated about this
mean size. The second moment, or standard deviation, measures the
dispersion of the
distribution. The third moment is the skewness of the sampled grain-size population and
describes its symmetry (Friedman, 1962). The fourth moment measures the peakedness
of the size-distribution curve, but was not considered in this study.
The frequency distributions of some of the outcrop samples are
bimodal. If a
sample is bimodal, the peak from the coarser grains is often formed by clasts larger than
2 mm in diameter. The exclusion of the grains larger than 2 mm generally eliminates or
greatly reduces bimodality among the samples. All references to cut distributions in this
study pertain to samples with clasts larger than 2 mm removed. Griffiths (1967) questions
the appropriateness of usingmoment
calculations.This
is addressed in this study by
assuming a minimum grain diameter of 7.5 phi (0.0055 mm) for the finest grainsof each
sample. Among the cut sample distributions the frequency curve does not return to zero
if the sample contained grains larger than 2 mm. These assumptions are not believed to
produce large inaccuracies in the computation of grain size distribution parametersfor the
cut samples.
Log-Hyperbolic Plots
Several researchers have conducted detailed studies on the size distributions of
natural sediments, and found a log-histogram the best way to display grain distributions.
Open-File Report 402-D. Chapter 2
It was found that grain-size distributions of natural sands are most closely approximated
by a hyperbola (Bagnold, 1941; Bagnold and Bamdorff-Nielsen, 1980; Barndorff-Nielsen
etal., 1982; Sutherland and Lee, 1994). Grain distribution parameters may be defined
usinghyperbolic
parameters, but in this studythe
plots are used only for visual
comparison. Log-hyperbolic plots are useful as a graphical method because they require
no assumption about the nature ofgrain
distributions (D. W. Love, personal comm.;
1994).
Log-hyperbolic plots were generated for eachof
thesievedoutcrop
samples.
Samples were classified by bedding type at the outcrop. Based on visual comparison of
log-hyperbolic plots, each bedding type was dividedinto subgroups. Plots of bedding
subgroupsare
included in Appendix 2-A, alongwith
theparticlesize
distribution
parameters of each sample, arranged by log-hyperbolic plot subgroups. By comparing the
plots to the data files listing grain size distribution parameters, one can quickly become
proficient at interpreting the log-hyperbolic plots. The mean grain size, as computed by
moment measurements, is approximated by the peak on the log-hyperbolic plot (grain size
is plotted by millimeters, mean reported in phi units). The relative abundance of fine and
coarse grains is also displayed. The y-value of the plot is influenced by thepercent
weight of thesample
retained on each sieve, and larger y-valuesindicateagreater
percentage of the total sample weight.
Figure 2-15 is a box plot of sample permeability divided by bedding subgroups.
The good separation between the various subgroups demonstrates the effectiveness of the
log-hyperbolic in making rough approximations of sample permeability. The mean grain
size,and
relative abundance of coarse and fine grains is known to affectsample
permeability, and these characteristics are easily approximated from the plots. the median
graindiameter is displayed on cumulative percent plots, but thisparameter
does not
correlate as well with permeability. The relative abundance of coarse and fine grains is
more difficult to interpret from cumulative percent plots. Log-hyperbolic plots are useful
2-50
in groupingsediment
samples by beddingtypeanddisplayinggrain
distribution
parameters that influence permeability.
Comparison of Bedding Types by Particle Size Distribution
A number of researchers have used grainsizedistributionsto'
investigate
differences in depositional processes and sedimentaryenvironments(Friedman,1961;
1967;1979;Bull,
1962; Koldijk, 1968; Visher,1969;SutherlandandLee,
1994).
Friedman was one of the first researchers to advocate the use of scatter plots ofgrain-size
distributionparametersto
differentiate betweensands
He had
of differentorigins.
considerable success isolating dune, beach and river sands by their textural characteristics
(Friedman,1961;
1979). A recentstudy
by Sutherlandand Lee (1994) usesmoment
measurements, log-hyperbolic plots and non-parametric discriminate analysis to evaluate
the textural differences between coastal subenvironments of a beach in Hawaii.
Both box plots and scatter plots were usedin
differences
between
outcrop
samples.
thisstudytocompare
Box plots
effectively
characteristics of sorting parameters for each bedding type, but
textural
show
the
scarier
global
plots have the
advantage of displaying paired variables for the individual samples. Box plots do not
allow comparison of individualsamples.
Log-hyperbolic plots display the entire grain
size distribution, but it is cumbersome to compare a large number of these plots.
Figures 2-10 and 2-1 1 are scatter plots comparing grain distribution parameters of
the outcrop samples. Samples
are plotted by bedding type, and considerable
separation
between bedding types is illustrated by this style of plot. Figure 2-10 is a plot of mean
grain size and standard deviation, displaying good separation between the bedding types
with the exception of crossbeds, which overlaps with each of the other bedding types.
Similar separation exists between bedding styles when mean grain size is plotted against
skewness,with crossbeds overlapping each of thefourothergroups.Appendix
2-D
contains scatter plotscomparing additional grain distribution parameters. The distribution
2-5 1
Open-File Rspon 402-0. Cllapler 2
statistics for set of parameters shows better separation if.complete instead of cut sample
distributions are plotted.
Permeability and Porosity by Bedding Type
Figures 2-12 and 2-14 are box plots showing permeability measurements grouped
by bedding type for the sievedsamples and the outcroppermeability profiles, respectively:
Permeability trends among the bedding types are partially explained by comparison to
Figure 2-8, a box plot of the mean, standard deviation and skewness of the samples of
each bedding type.
Table 2-8 provides a statistical summary ofgraindistribution
parameters by beddingtype.
samples,alsogrouped
Figure 2-13 is a box plot of theporosity of thesieved
by bedding type. Comparisonof
the fourplotsillustrates
the
relationship between texture, porosity and permeability of the outcrop samples. Channels
are found to have the greatest average permeability. Not surprisingly, they also have the
smallest phi values of meangrain
size. However,channelshavemoderatestandard
deviations and a large range of positive skewness values, resulting in a wide range of
porosity values. Despite the fact that sorting and porosity is widely distributed among the
channel samples,average permeability is high dueto thecoarsergrains
common to
channels.
Crossbeds and horizontal beds havesimilar
porosity, permeability and grain
distribution characteristics. The average permeability is greater for crossbeds than for
horizontal beds and laminations, which is largely a function of the larger mean grain size
of the crossbeds. Both
bedding types have average standard deviations of slightly less
than one, and skewness values near zero.
The consistentsortingofcrossbeds
horizontal laminations results in high porositiesand
and
a relatively small range of
permeability values for these bedding types.
Scour and fill deposits have a wide range of permeability values, with average
permeability being relatively high. the average mean grain size of thesestructures is
fairly large, and the samples are poorly sorted. The poor sorting resorts in low and varied
2-52
Open-File Repon 402-D.Chaptsr 2
porosity values.
Structureless deposits havethe
lowest averagepermeability
of the
various bedding types, and the smallest average mean grain size. Samples have relatively
high standard deviation values, and slightly negative skewness values. Porosity of the
structureless deposits is moderate to high.
Structureless deposits tendtobemore
cemented than the other bedding types, which contributed to the low measured
permeability values.
Comparison of Outcrop Samples and Well Cuttings
Box plots and scatterplots areusefulin
comparing grain sizedistributionsof
outcrop samples to well core and cuttings. One must remember that there is some degree
of uncertainty in the comparisons because cuttings, and not core, were obtained from
wells Coronado 2 and PSMW-19.
As cuttings move up the well boreasdrilling
progresses, some amount of mixing takes place among the sediments. If beds are fairly
thick and grain distributions of the sediments are similar, a small sample of the cuttings
coming out of the well should have grain distributions similar to the beds at the bottom
of the well. If beds in rhe subsurface are relatively thin and of varied texture, mixing in
the well bore may completely obscure the grain size distributions of the individual beds
at depth, Sloughing and caving of the well may also produce samples at the surface that
do not reflect the sediments being cut by the bit at the recorded depth of
the sample.
Well PSMW-19 was drilled with a reverse-rotary drill rig, where drilling mud travels
downtheoutside
of the well bore and up through thedrill
pipe. Thisstyleof
minimizesmixing of the sediments as they are transportedtothesurface.With
rig
mud
drilling, anadditional complication is the uncertainty of what percentage of fines are
native to the sediments, and what is simply drilling mud. Accurate estimation of the time
required for sediments to travel up thewell bore is necessary to determine from what
depth samples are cut.
Keeping the above-listed factors in mind, comparisons may be made between the
many outcrop and well-cutting samples. Figure 2-19 is a scatter plot comparing the mean
2-53
Open-File Repon J02-D, Chapter 2
and standard deviation ofall outcrop samples to allwell cuttings from the three wells
considered in this investigation. It is demonstrated that there is good agreement among
thetwo
data sets. Inspection ofFigure
2-17 revealsthatmost
of the high standard
deviation values are from the cuttings of well PSMW-19.
The combined use of the petrography and grain-size distributions of well cuttings
and core may allow the investigator to infer the nature of sediments at depth. Figures 2-8'
and 2-16 show that the grain size distributions of the cuttings of well Coronado 2 and
scourand
fill structures sampled in outcropare
very similar. A knowledgeofthe
lithology and textures common to the various hydrostratigraphic units within the basin
provides insight as to the nature of deposits at depth.
Chapter 3 of this report details a quantitative comparison between permeability
estimated from geophysical well logs and grain size distributionparameters for wells
PSMW-19 and Coronado 2. Additional comments on the strengths and shortcomings of
these techniques are addressed in that chapter.
CONCLUSIONS
The investigations outlined in thischapterrepresentpreliminaryefforts
to
characterize hydrostratigraphic units based on permeability measured in outcrop andgrain
size distribution of sediments. Outcrop investigations allow a detailed look at styles of
beddingand
relationships between bedding types. Permeametersallow rapid in situ
measurementsof
permeability, and the
collection
of sedimentsamples
enabling
comparison of permeability to the grain size distributions of sediments.
Mean grain sizeand a number of effective diameters correlatewell with measured
permeability. Empirical permeability equations and regression equations developed from
sediments of the northern Albuquerque Basin allow prediction of permeability based on
grain size distribution parameters. Estimation of permeabilityfrom grain distributionscan
be used to check permeability values obtained by other methods. Slug test and pumping
test permeability data is influenced by well construction, and gephysical well log analysis
2-54
Open-File Repon 402-D.Chapter 2
provides relative permeability values. If quality core samples
are obtained from wells,
the resolution of permeability estimations based on texture is better than those obtained
from slug test and pumping tests.
Characteristic grain sizedistributionsanda
determinedfor
typical range of permeability was
several bedding types common tothe
AlbuquerqueBasin.Channels
Channelsoftenhavesinous
and scourand
sedimentsofthe
northern
fill structures are highly permeable:
paths and cut intosurroundingbeds,resulting
in beds
connected by permeable pathways, which is conducive to groundwater recharge and flow,
Mapping of hydrostratigraphic units in thesubsurface is based largely on the
analysis of well cuttings. Comparison of the texture and petrography of outcrop samples
and well cuttings, combined with a knowledge of associated bedding types and common
associations between beds determined in outcrop, allows the hydrogeologist to infer the
hydrologic quality of the subsurface deposits. The accurate estimation of the permeability
and bedding type of subsurface deposits on the basis of grain size distributions requires
the acquisition of well core, as opposed to well cuttings.
Cementation in relativelyminor
permeabilityof
sandy sediments.
amounts has an appreciableinfluence on the
Estimationsof
permeability based on grain size
distribution is not appropriate for sediments having more than moderate cementarion. No
clear relationship is observed between measured permeability and porosity for
outcrop
samples from the northern Albuquerque Basin.
Deposits of hydrostratigraphic unit USF-2 are characterized by highly permeable
sand and gravel beds, and generally lack extensive beds of low permeability. The mean
measured permeability for the sands of the threeUSF-2 outcrops studied here ranges from
42 to 89 darcys. Two of the outcrops contain gravel beds of permeability greater than
approximately 300 darcys, which were not sampled. The
USF-2 sands and silts of the
Edith Section have an average permeability of 56 darcys, but the permeable gravelsof the
overlyingEdith(VA)
unit are not included in this average.
Therecorded
average
permeability values for these outcrops underestimates the true average permeability.
2-55
Open-File Repon 402-D, Chapter 2
Two exposuresof Valley Alluvium were sampled. The ancestral river-channel
sands of the Los Duranes outcrop are unconsolidated and difficult to sample with the airminipermeameter. From the few readings obtained here, it was determined that the sands
have an average permeability of at least 71 darcys. Laterally extensive silt and clay beds
are found as part of this deposit, having undetermined permeability of less than 1 darcy.
The ancestral RioGrande channel depositsexposednearthe
base oftheClaremont
Avenue flood basin (west of Menaul School) are dominated by sand and pebble gravel
with permeabilitiesgreater
than 275 darcys (-550 fdday),whichexceedsthe
range
measurable by the air-minipermeameter.
Three outcrops of Piedmont Alluvium were sampled and found to have
average
permeabilities ranging from 83 to 98 darcys. Deposits are characterized by thick interbeds
of coarsechannelsand
scour and fill structures, and depositsoffinesands.
These
outcrops represent some of the more permeable deposits of this hydrostratigraphic unit.
2-56
Archie, G. E., 1950, Introduction to petrophysics ofreservoir rocks: Bulletin ofthe
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, v. 34, no. 5, pp, 943-961.
Atkins, J. E. and McBride, E. F., 1992, Porosity and packing of Holocene river, dune and
beach sands: The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 76,
no. 3, pp. 339-355.
Bagnold, R. A., 1941, The physics of blown sand and desert dunes: Chapman and Hall,
Ltd., London, 265 pp.
Bagnold, R. A. and Barndorff-Nielsen, O., 1980, The pattern of natural size distributions:
Sedimentology, v. 21, pp. 199-207.
Barndorff-Nielsen, O., 1977, Exponentially decreasing distribution for the logarithm of
particle size: Proceedings Royal Society London A. 353, pp. 401-419.
Barndorff-Nielsen, O., Dalsgaard, K., Halgreen,C.,Kuhlman,
H., Mdler, J. T., and
a small dune:
Schou, G., 1982, Variation in particlesizedistributionover
Sedimentology, v. 29, pp. 53-65.
Bear, J., 1972, Dynamicsof fluids in porousmedia:AmericanElsevierPublishing
Company, New York, 764 pp.
Beard, D. C. and Weyl, P. K., 1973, Influence of texture on porosity and permeability of
unconsolidated sand. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v.
57, no. 2, pp. 349-369.
Bloch, S., 1991,Empirical prediction of porosity and permeability in sandstones:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 75, no. 7, pp. 11451160.
Bull, W. B., 1962, Relationof textural (CM) patterns to depositional environment of
alluvial-fan deposits: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 32, no. 2, pp. 21 1-216.
Burmister,D. M., 1954, Principles of permeability testing of soils: Symposiumon
Permeability of Soils, ASTM Special Publication 163, pp. 3-20.
Carmen, P. C., 1956, Flow of gases through porous media: Academic Press Inc., 182 pp.
Chandler, M. A,, Kocurek, G., Goggin, D. J., and Lake, L., 198.9, Effects of stratigraphic
heterogeneity on permeability in eolian sandstonesequence, Page Sandstone,
northern Arizona: The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v.
73, no. 5 , pp. 658-668.
Collinson, J. D. and Thompson, D. B., 1982, Sedimentary structures: George Allen and
Unwin Ltd., London, 194 pp.
Collinson, J. D.,1986, Alluvial sediments, b Reading, H. G., editor, Sedimentary Facies
and Environments, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 615 pp.
Davis, J. M., 1990,An
approach forthecharacterizationof
spatial variability of
permeabiliry in the Sierra Ladrones Formation, Albuquerque Basin, New Mexico
[M.S. Thesis]: Socorro, New MexicoInstitute of Mining and Technology, 137 pp.
Davis, J. M., Wilson, J. L., and Phillips, F. M., 1994, A portable air-minipermeameter for
rapid in situ field measurements: Groundwater, v. 32, no. 2, pp. 258-266.
2-57
Open-File Repon 402.D. Chsplcr 2
Domenico, P. A. and Schwartz, F. W., 1990, Physical and chemical hydrogeology: John
Wiley and Sons, New York, 824 pp.
Dreyer,T., Scheie, A., and Walderhaug, 0.. 1990,Minipermeameter-based study of
permeability trends in channel sand bodies: TheAmerican
Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 74, no. 4, pp. 359-374.
Folk, R. L. and Ward, W. C., 1957, Brazos River bar: A study in the significance of grain
size parameters: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 27, no. 1, pp. 3-26.
Freeze, R. A. and Cherry, J. A , , 1979,Groundwater:Prentice-Hall,Inc.,Englewood
Cliffs, 604 pp.
Fuchtbauer, H., 1967, Influence of different types of diagenesis on sandstone porosity:
Seventh World Petroleum Congress Proceedings, v. 2, pp. 353-369.
Friedman, G. M., 1961, Distinction between dune, beach, andriversandsfrom
their
textural characteristics: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 31, no. 4, pp. 514529.
Friedman, G. M., 1962, On sorting, sorting coefficients, and the lognormality of the grainsize distribution of sandstones: Journal of Geology, v. 70, pp. 737-753.
Friedman, G. M., 1967, Dynamic processes and statistical parameters compared for size
frequency distribution of beach and river sands: Journal of SedimentaryPetrology,
v. 37, no. 2. pp. 327-354.
Friedman, G. M., 1979, Address of the retiring president of the International Association
of Sedimentologists: Differences in size distributions of populations of particles
among sand of various origins: Sedimentology, v. 26, pp. 3-32.
Goggin, D. J., Thrasher, R., and Lake, L.W.,1988, A theoreticaland experimental
analysis of minipermeameter response including gas slippage and high
velocity
flow effects: In Situ, v. 12, pp. 79-116.
Griffiths, J. C., 1967, ScientificMethod in the Analysis of Sediments: McGraw-Hill,New
York; 508 pp.
Hartkamp, C. A,, Arribas, J. and Tortosa, A., 1993, Grainsize, composition, porosity and
permeability contrasts within cross-bedded sandstones in Tertiary fluvial deposits,
central Spain: Sedimentology, v. 40, pp. 787-799.
Hawley, J. W. and Haase, C. S., compilers, 1992,Hydrogeologicframeworkof
the
northern Albuquerque Basin: New MexicoBureau
ofMinesand
Mineral
Resources Open-File Report 387, 74 pp., 8 Appendices.
Hazen, A,, 1892, Some physical properties of sands and gravels:Massachusetts State
Board of Health, Annual Report, pp. 539-556.
Inman, D. L.,1952, Measures for describing the size distributions of sediments: Journal
of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 22, pp. 125-145.
Koldijk, W. S., 1968, On environment-sensitive grain-size parameters: Sedimentology, V.
IO, pp. 57-69.
Krumbein, W.C., 1934, Sizefrequency distribution of sediments: Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology, v. 4, pp. 65-77.
2-58
Open-Fils Rcpon J02-Q Chaprer 2
Krumbein,W. C.and Pettijohn, F. J., 1938, Manual ofSedimentaryPetrology:
D.
Appleton-Centruy Co., New York, 549 pp.
Krumbein,W.C.
and Monk, G. D., 1942,Permeabilityasafunction
of the size
parameters o unconsolidated sands: American Institute ofMining
Metall.
Engineers, Tech. Pub. 1492.
Lambe, T. W., 1951, Soil Testing for Engineers: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York,
165 pp.
Lambert, P. W., 1968, Quaternary stratigraphy of the Albuquerque Area,
New Mexico
[Ph.D. dissertation]: Albuquerque, University of New Mexico, 329 pp.
Lozinsky, R. P. and Tedford, R. H., 1991, Geology and Paleontology of the Santa Fe
Group, southwestern Albuquerque Basin,ValenciaCounty, New ,Mexico:New
Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Bulletin 132, 35 pp.
Luffel, D. L., Howard, W. E., and Hunt, E. R., 1991, Travis Peak core permeability and
porosity relationships at reservoir stress: SPE Formation Evaluation, v. 6, no. 3,
pp. 310-318.
Masch, F. D. and Denny, K. J., 1966,Grainsizedistributionand
its effect on the
permeability of unconsolidated sands: Water Resources Research, v. 2, no. 4, pp.
665-667.
Nelson, P,H., 1994, Permeability-porosity relationships in sedimentary rocks: The Log
Analyst, v. 35, no. 3, pp. 38-61.
Ott, L., 1988,An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis, third edition: PWSKent Publishing, Boston, 835 pp.
Pettijohn, F. J., 1957, Sedimentary Rocks, second edition: Harper and Bros., New York,
718 pp.
Pettijohn, F. J., Potter, P. E., and Siever, R., 1972, Sand and sandstone: Springer-Verlag,
New York, 618 pp.
Picard, M. D. and High, L. R., Jr., 1973, sedimentary structures of ephemeral streams:
Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 223 pp.
Pryor, W. A,, 1973, Permeability-porosity patterns and variations in some Holocene sand
bodies: American Association of petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 57, no. 1, pp.
162-189.
Schlichter, C. S., 1899, Theoretical investigations of the motions of ground waters: U.S.
Geological Survey 19th Annual Report, part 2, pp. 295-384.
Shepherd, R. G., 1989, Correlations of permeability and grain size: Groundwater, v. 27,
no. 5, pp. 633-638.
Stalkup, F. I., 1986, Permeability variationsobserved at thefacies of crossbedded
sandstone outcrops,
Lake, L. W. and
Carroll,
H. B., Jr., eds. Reservoir
Characterization, Academic Press, Orlando, 1986.
Sutherland, R. A. and Lee, C. T., 1994, Discrimination between coastal subenvironments
using textural characteristics: Sedimentology, v. 41, pp. 1133-1145.
2-59
Open-File Repon 402-D.Chapter 2
Thomson, A,, 1978, Petrography and diagenesis of the Houston sandstone reservoirs at
Bassfield, Jefferson Davis County, Mississippi, Transactions, Gulf Coast
Association of Geological Societies, v. 28, pp. 651-664.
Visher,G. S., 1969, Grain size distributionsand depositional processes: Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology, v. 39, no. 3, pp. 1074-1106.
Vukovic, M. and Soro, A,, 1992, Determination of hydraulicconductivityof
porous
media from grain-size composition: Water Resources Publications, Linleton, Co.,
83 PP.
2-GO
Open-File R q o n 402-D,Chapler 2
TABLES
TABLE 2-1. Parameters of degree of cementation values
Degree of
Cementation
1
Description
Unlithified to very poorly consolidated. Deposit is easily
disaggregated, but matrix has sufficient integrity to allow sampling
with the permeameter.
2
Poorly consolidated. Outcrop material breaks off in clumps that are
easily crushed between the fingers.
3.
Weakly
to
moderately consolidated.
probling with trowel or hammer.
Outcrop
material
TABLE 2-2. Sieve sizes used in mechanical size analysis of sediments.
Millimeters
2.00
1.70
1.40
1.18
1.00
0.850
0.710
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.250
0.225
0.200
0.175
0.150
0.125
0.100
0.090
0.060
0.045
Phi unit (-log2 mm]
-1.00
-0.71
-0.49
-0.24
0.00
0.23
0.49
0.74
1.oo
1.32
1.74
2.00
2.15
2.32
2.5 1
2.14
3.00
3.32
3.41
4.06
4.41
2-6 1
resists
Opm-File Repon 402-D,Chapter 2
TABLE 2-3. Pearson correlation coefficients formeasured permeability andeffective
grain size
COMPLETE SAMPLE
0.803
0.794
0.789
0.782
0.571
0.821
-0.049
CUT SAMPLE
0.819
0.837
0.839
0.842
0.812
0.844
0.154
d,,’, mm
0.654
0.754
d,,’, mm
0.636
0.765
d:,’,
0.633
0.762
dl,, phi
dl<,phi
dl,, phi
dzo, phi
d,,, phi
Kruger, phi
d,,/d,,, phi
-0.836
-0.833
-0,827
-0.818
-0.680
-0.801
-0.509
-0.796
-0,815
-0.818
-0.823
-0.782
-0.791
-0.714
Mean
Standard Deviation
Skewness
Mean-Cubed Deviation
Percent Fines
Percent Pebbles
Max. Clast Diameter, phi
Porosity
Lithification
-0.718
-0.034
0.321
0.299
-0.407
0.478
-0.402
-0.198
-0.444
-0.785
-0.102
0.505
0.494
-0.405
mm
2-62
”
”
-0.198
-0.444
Open-File Report 402-D,Chapter 2
TABLE 2-4. Pearson correlation coefficients forlog,,
effective grain size
COMPLETE SAMPLE
CUT
0.669
0.659
0.655
0.649
0.524
0.723
0.000
of measured permeability and
SAMPLE
0.749
0.747
0.746
0.746
0.734
0.813
0.218
-0.851
-0.842
-0.848
-0.834
-0.741
-0.858
-0.396
-0.846
-0.856
-0.861
-0.863
-0.852
-0.885
-0.668
-0.776
-0.018
0.261
0.310
-0.634
0.397
-0.430
-0.161
-0.61 1
-0.872
-0.117
0.439
0.458
-0.634
"
"
-0.161
-0.61 1
Open-File Rdpon 402-D,Chapter 2
TABLE 2-5. Regression analysis with measured permeability
Measured oermeabilitv vs. erain size in mm
Pearson
correlation
492.42 (dl, mm complete) + 5.58
245.07 (dl, mm complete) + 14.06
650.69 (d,, mm cut) -23.69
425.80 (dl, mm cut) -15.88
0.806
0.785
0.819
0.842
R
'
lc
0.650
0.616
0.671
0.709
Measured oermeabilitv vs. ohi erain size
-65.87
-71.76
-60.30
-68.13
(dl, phi complete) + 264.55
(d,o phi cut) + 290.23
(d,,phi complete) + 219.31
(d2, phi cut) + 249.18
0.836
0.798
0.816
0.825
0.699
0.637
0.666
0.681
0.824
0.679
0.849
0.72 I
0.821
0.674
0.844
0.712
Measured oermeabilitv vs. entire distribution parameters
"MSP1 C O M
267.39 (Kruger mm complete) + 4.91 (mean complete)
complete)
fines
- 13.31
-2.24 (%
"MSPl CUT"
372.36 (Kruger mm cut) - 16.57 (mean cut)
+ 3.32 (% fines cut) + 0.58
"MSP2 C O M
258.34 (Kruger mm complete) + 0.235(mean complete)
"MSP2 CUT"
396.93
(Kruger
mm
CUI) - 6.31 (mean cut) - 17.85
2-64
- 7.54
Open-Fik Report 402-D.Cllaplsr 2
TABLE 2-6. Regression analysis with log,, measured permeability
Log,,of measured uermeabilit, vs. uhi erainsizePearsoncorrelation
(dlo-0.519
phi complete) + 3.026
(dzo-0.462
phi complete) + 2.651
(dl,
-0.590 0.844
phit) + 3.298
-0.553 (d20phi cut)
0.854
+ 2.943
Loglo
R
0.851
0.842
0.724
0.709
0.712
0.729
0.872
0.760
0.887
0.787
0.871
0.759
0.887
0.787
0.861
0.741
of measured oermeabilin, vs. entire distribution uarameters
"LMSPICOM'
0.752 (Kruger phi complete) + 0.23 1 (mean complete)
-0.014 ("Afines complete) t 2.73 1
"LMSPI CUT"
-0.456 (Kruger phi cut) - 0.145 (mean cut)
+ 0.003 ("Afines cut) + 2.802
"LMSP2 COMI
0.799 (Kruger phi complete) + 0.249(meancomplete)
"LMSP2 CUT"
0.469
(Kruger
phi cut) - 0.140 (mean cut) + 2.815
+ 2.773
"LMSP3 C O M
-0.389 (dl0 phi complete) - 0.076 (mean complete)
-0.026 ("Afines complete) + 2.811
"LMSP3 CUT"
-0.202 (dl0phi cut) -0.369 (mean cut)
- 0.010 ("A fines cut) +0.883
2.820
"LMSP4 C O M
-0.432 (dlophi complete) - 0.082 (meancomplete) + 2.894
"LMSP4 CUT"
-0.221
(dl,
phi cut) - 0.374 (mean cut) + 2.865
2-65
0.780
0.856
0.733
0.882
0.778
TABLE 2-7. Listwise Pearson correlation of measured permeability with published
empirical permeability equations
Complete Enuation
Sample
Cut
Beyer
Hazen
Kozeney
Kruger
Sauerbrei
Schlichter
USBR
Zamarin
Samde
0.629
0.697
0.654
0.783
0.658
0.688
0.584
0.753
0.713
0.653
0.566
0.723
0.621
0.602
0.712
0.690
TABLE 2-8. Distribution of grain size parameters by grouped bedding type, complete
samples
Bedding
Tvpe,
Parameter
Mean
Crossbeds, mean0.677
grain size
Channels, mean grain size
Horizontal, mean grain size
Scour and fill, mean grain size
-0.759structureless, mean
0.886grain size
Value
0.830
0.880
0.743
0.390
0.096
0.743
2.250
Crossbeds, standard deviations
0.902
Channels, standard deviations
1.304
Horizontal, standard deviations
0.969
0.410Scour and fill, standard
0.347 deviations 1.722
Structureless, standard deviations 1.535
0.314
0.303
0.233
0.629
1.006
0.122
0.402
-0.015
Crossbeds, skewness
1.377Channels, skewness
1.550
Horizontal, skewness
Scour and fill, skewness
Structureless, skewness
-0,051
0.968
0.779
-0.236
0.090
0.664
0.639
0.441
0.281
0.429
-0.125
0.552
1.138
3.721
3.002
1.547
3.668
3.968
1.526
Crossbeds, percent fines
Channels, percent fines
Horizontal, percent fines
Scour and fill, percent
1.546 fines
4.159 fines
Structureless, percent
1.323
-0.490
2.204
-0.072
2.467
Standard
Deviation
Skewness
0.638
-0.460
0.316
0.154
1.983
0.858
4.707
2-66
Open-File Rspon 402-D,Chapter 2
TABLE 2-9. Permeability distribution by bedding type, permeability profile samples.
Permeability in darcys
Beddine Tvoe
47.3
Crossbeds
(522 samples)
Channels (48)
Horizontal (208)
Scour and Fill (188)
Structureless (139)
R.
R. Conv. Sand (209)
17.9
Mean
Standard Deviation
55.7
178.1
38.6
119.8
8.2
36.0
57.3
49.3
75.3
6.3
Skewness
1.358
-0.826
2.058
0.474
2.115
3.732
TABLE 2-10. Outcrop permeability profile data summary
Outcroo
USF-2, Clarke Carr
USF-2, Rio Bravo
USF-2, Railroad
USF-2, Edith Section
VAS, Los Duranes (sands)
PA, Bear Canyon
PAt, Four Hills
Pat, Tijeras Arroyo
Median
74.67
42.59
32.86
49.42
66.90
90.94
37.63 .
67.89
Mean
88.89
50.20
42.13
55.76
71.25
91.00
83.37
98.10
2-67
Std. Dev.
56.55
43.14
40.51
52.54
29.76
63.22
89.52
90.00
Skewness
0.664
1.977
1.636
1.029
0.497
0.386
0.915
0.407
Open-File Report 402-D,Chapter 2
TABLE 2-11. Sample site location and h y d r o g e o l o g i c setting
Unit (Amendices 402C and
Hvdrostratierauhic
Lithofacies
Location
Site
Sample
Svmbol
&
cc
Clarke
Carr
9-3-4-3
11
Plates 4 & 18
USF-2
I, I1
RB
9-3-9-134
Bravo:
Rio
Persons Section,
Lambert (1965)
Plates 4 & 18
USF-2
I, I1
Plates 4 & 18
USF-2
I, I1
Plates 4 & 18
FL4
A2
9-3-17-241
RR
Railroad
9-3-17-242
LD
Duranes:
10-2-11-2223
Los
Adobe Cliffs Section,
Lambert (1968)
ES
Section
Edith
11-3-15-431
Plates 4 & 16
USF-2
I1
BCu
Upper Bear
Canyon
Arroyo
11-4-34-2322
Plates 4 & 16
PA
Va
Lower Bear
Canyon
Arroyo
11-4-31-243
Plates 4 & 16
VA-PA
Va
Plate 4
PA
VIa
BC1
HillsFour
F H 10-4-26-4132
TA
Tijeras
Arroyo
10-4-33-41
11
Plate 4
PA
V-VIa
CB
Claremont
Basin
11-3-8-242
Plates 4 & 18
PA
A2
2-68
Dl
Open-File Report 402.4 Chapter 2
FIGURES
2-69
1000
+it++
~
!
+j : +*
..................................
......................
100
+
++
++
t
+
10
+
+
:++
++++*;
g
+~~
;#
+c
+ +
+
....+
+*+
+
+
+ ++ +ti
+;+*+
+; + +++ \
i
t
+
...................
................... .<..++
......................
+
+
+
+t
+
4
+
......................
.....................
1
Fine
mj
i
0. I
6
+.....
5
4
3
2
d,, Grain Size, Complete Sample (phi)
Figure 2-1. Influence of d,, particle size on permeability.
1
0
............................
i. ++
, _
+
++
++
*
...................
......+ .......
t: .
t+
+
#
j .t
_,._
.......................
:
...................
..................................................................................
t+
Coarse
i
5
4
3
2
1
0
d2,, Grain Size, CompleteSample (phi)
Figure 2-2. Influence of d,,, grain size on permeability.
-1
..
r
................... .......
,
~
.
t+
t
+ ++
+ +
+
i
++ +
+.
10
1%
0.1
+
e
: i
+
+
’+
+
?.t
+
............... ......
......... .............
......
. ..,.... ...............
+
4
4.
i
...... ..........................................
+ ’+;
_L”L-L
4
+
4
4.
...........+” ..........
5
+
*+
+ +
+
$
++
+
................... .......... .:...i ...F+c..
+
+
k
1
+
+
+
F+
:++
.* ............. ......................
+i
i
8
L
i
-1
-2
: (loarse
i
3
3
2
1
0
Mean, Complete Sample (phi)
Figure 2-3. Influence of mean grainsize
on permeability.
1000
r
7
/ + ++ + /
i
++ $++ $
+
+++
2 + ++
++ ; +
*$
++
+ ++
+ ++
j
i
+ +
.........
+
+
+++
t
.
i
........................
_._.._
.........................
.......
?.
+ i
1
+
< +
i
+
i f
i+
......
+
~
+ #
+ :
+
+
+&+
i+
+
ie
+ ' . . " " ....+
...............................
....................
++ +
++*
+i
+i
i
+
++
+
.
.
....................................................
....................
+ +
+
i
5
4
3
2
1
0
Kruger Effective Diameter, Complete Sample (phi)
Figure 2-4. Influence of Krugerdiameter
on permeability.
-1
loo0
,....
100
j,
4
10
.....
1
....
0.1
i
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Percent Porosity
Figure 2-5. Scatterplot of porosity vs. permeability.
Dashed lines separate moderately cementedsamples tothelower
right,andcoarse,poorlysortedsamples
totheupperleft.
0.6
1000
100
10
1
u. I
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Degree of Cementation
Figure 2-6. Influence of cementation on permeability.
3
3.5
250
300
E....................
T1~1
__..........
............ ........... ...................
... ._..___._.
i
i.
j
........
o
T
.........
Figure 2-7. Measured permeabilityvalues by outcrop.Permeability
profilemeasurements,unsievedsamples.Circlesaredatapoints
consideredoutliers by the graphing program.
......
......
<..._.
i.....
i -
......
;E
1.....
......
i
Figure 2-8. Mean, standarddeviationandskewness
of sieved
outcropsamples.Completesamples,grouped
by beddingtype.
Circlesare data pointsconsideredoutliers
by thegraphingprogram.
~~
;.__..
.;........... ......
i
.E
: -
......
.-
.....
......
i
Figure 2-9. Mean,standard deviationand skewness of sieved
outcropsamples.Cut
samples?groupedby
bedding type. Circles
are data pointsconsideredoutliers by the graphing program.
3
2.5
2
1
0.5
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
Mean, Complete Sample
Figure 2-10. Scatterplot of meanandstandarddeviation
outcrop samples.Ranges
of bedding typescircledbased
comparison.
of complete
on visual
6
Scour and Fill
Structureless
...__,
..............,...................................... ........
Figure 2-11. Scatterplot of meanandskewness
samples.Ranges
of beddingtypescircledbased
of completeoutcrop
on visual comparison.
300
r
__/._
.....
..,..
......
......
0
i
Figure 2-12. Permeability by beddingtype, sieved outcropsamples.
of samples for each bedding
Number in parentheses indicates number
type.Circlesaredatapointsconsideredoutliers
by thegraphing
program.
0 . j-5 - , , , , l , , , , I , , , , , , , , , I , , , ,
0.5
0
0
1..............................
:
..................................
T
............ .............; .................................
,_.._.._..__.__._.____________:
0.45
.--x
0.4
v)
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
m
U
2
VI
Figure 2-13. Porosity by bedding type,sievedoutcropsamples.
Circles are data points considered outliers by the graphing pro,
oram.
300
250
h
m
i
......................
..:..,
200 -. ....... ...............
-
x
!!
n
a_
-.-.-,X
T
150
_
Q
0
0
0
0
. .
../....
aJ
E
......
.......
i
Figure 2 - 1 4 Permeability by beddingtype,unsievedpermeability
profilemeasurements.Numbersinparenthesesindicatenumber
of samples.Circlesaredatapointsconsideredoutliers
by the
graphingprogram.
CB1CB2
CB3CB4
CHI CH2 HL1 HL2 SF1 SF2 SL1
Figure 2-15. Permeabilityrangesforbeddingsubgroupsbygrain
sizedistribution.Subgroupsdeterminedfromlog-hyperbolicplots.
Circles are data points considered outliers by the graphing program.
2
8
z
4
E:
20
U
E:
0
V
2
8 8
3
u
6
2
0
U
E:
x
LA
20
U
E:
0
U
iR
6
2
E
E:
8
3
E2
2
E:
LA
E:
0
U
z
E:
0
V
2
i
4
n
E
o\
2
E
LA
a
Figure 2-16. Mean,standarddeviationandskewness
cuttings,completesamples.Circlesaredatapointsconsidered
outliers by thegraphingprogram.
of well
Mean, Complete Sample
Figure 2-17. Scatter plot of mean andstandarddeviation
cuttings,completesample.
of well
4
-
-
3
I " ' ~ l " " (
S
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 4
COR2
Mwl
0
x
-..........
-
0
PSMw19
.......................
;.......................
;
;.....................
j .......................
:.......................
i......................
i.................x
j
.......................
2
-....................
-
1 -..........
0
X?
i
j ...............................................
x
:i
o
-- .......... :;...................
+.*
x x x
* i
x ?
o/
:x
o
x
i
0 : x 0
I.....x..x.........
:
....................
!X
X
:
0
xi %x
*;
X
0
J
I
0
0
00 0
o
:
x
icI
x io
.....x...Prx............ ZI....... i.,.....no......0... 0. . a..........................
:O
:
0 0
x X :x
0
0
:
;x
00
x
00
-Fine
0
i
I
-1
5
4
3
t
,
I
, 1 1 , , , 1 , , , ,
2
1
Coarse
i
I
0
-1
"L-L
Mean, Complete Sample
Figure 2-18. Scatterplot
completesample.
of meanandskewness
of wellcuttings,
-2
3.5
3
-,
-
, , , 1 , , , , 1 , , , , 1 , , , 1 1 1 , , , ( , , , I, , ,
+ Well cuttings
+
o
Outcrop samples
j+
.
...i.......................
.
.......................
i+
i
L......................
i........................................
i:.I.+
-
....
2.5
2
......................
1.5
......................
>:
1
../....................
0.5
..,...................
Fine
0
5
,
0 , , , 1 , , , , 1 , , , , 1 , , , ,
4
3
2
1
0
I
-1
Mean, complete samples
Figure 2-19. Scatter plot of meanandstandarddeviation
wellcuttings andoutcropsamples.
of
-2
(
I
!
vi
0
2
2
0
2
i
L o
I+
................... .....
i<
v1
...................
0
-1
_I._.
................... .(...
................... .....
i
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
blean, complete samples
Figure 2-20. Scatter plot of mean and skewness of wellcuttings
outcropsamples.
and
J. W. Hawley and T. M. Whitworth (eds.). 1996, Hydrogeology ofpotentialrecharge areasand hydrogeochemicalmodeling
of proposed artificiakrecharge methods in basin- and valley-fill aquiier systems, Albuquerque Basin, NOW Mexico: New
Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Open-File Repan 40213.Chapter 2,Appendix 2-A
APPENDIX 2-A
Log-hyperbolic plots, cumulative percent plots, and
grain size distribution parameters of outcrop samples
Log-Hyperbolic Distribution
-
Crossbeds, Group 1
mm
Log-Hyperbolic Distribution
0.01
-
Crossbeds, Group 2
1
0.1
mm
10
Log-Hyperbolic Distribution
0
-1
...................................................
................................
-3
-
Crossbeds,Group
3
1
....
1.................................................
0.01
1
0.1
mm
10
Log-Hyperbolic Distribution
0
-1
1
1
-
Crossbeds, Group 4
1
..........
...............................
............
+
..........................
j.
.........
-
RB9
RRll
RR12
EG2
EG4
0.01
1
0.1
INIl
I
. ,.
10
Log-Hyperbolic Distribution
-
Crossbeds,outliers
Log-Hyperbolic Distribution
-
Channels, Group 1
..
-
BC9
BClO
'4
0.01
,
,
, ,.i
,
.
,
, , i
1
0.1
mm
1
-BC12
,
,
,
. ,,.
10
. _ . ..............
.
.-
. . .. . - . .. .. . .
Log-Hyperbolic Distribution
1
ct
'
'
""'!
-
Channels, Group 2
'
'
' '
I
"'!
0
-1
-2
0.01
1
0.1
mm
I
,
I
.
,,*
Log-Hyperbolic Distribution
-
Horizontal Laminations, Group 1
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
0.01
1
0.1
mm
10
.
.
... ...
Log-Hyperbolic Distribution
-
.
.
.- ..
,
Horizontal Laminations, Group 2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
0.
mm
..
Log-Hyperbolic Distribution
-
Horizontal Laminations, Group 3
mm
..............
........
..
Log-Hyperbolic Distribution
-
Scour andFill,
. ...%"
. ..._.
. ". .- ,. .....
.
.
Group 1
1
- EF S
-EF
-EF9
EF 10
-TA
3
--A4
-FHS
-FH
.
-3
....................................................
L
......................................................
....... -FH
4
-
.
-BC
TA7
9
FH 10
11
FH 12
1
=
-4
0.01
I
.
,
, , .,,
0.1
. , . .,i
1
m
BC5
BC 6
--c-.-BCS
.
, .
10
,-_.I
..
.......
Log-Hyperbolic Distribution
- Scour and Fill, Group 2
4
0
/
..................................
3!
..
....:....
-1
-2
.........................
-.--..........
;....................................................
i
.................................................
-EF2
-EF3
......
"FH4
-FH
-FH6
I0.01
--A5
0.1
1
mm
5
-BC2
-BC3
10
Log-HyperbolicDistribution
0
-1
it
-
Structureless,Group
1
...........................__.
_
t
....................................................
-
RRlO
EF4
-4- EF6
EF7
TA1
TA2
TX6
TA9
TAlO
FH1
FH2
FH3
FH13
*-BC4
=
- 4 " '
0.01
. ,
1
0.1
mm
10
......
...........
Log-Hyperbolic Distribution
-
__ ...
......
..
........
.
Structureless, Outliers
-
0 -
0.01
0.1
1
mm
10
.
,
. . . :.
.... .........-
. _.:
Cumulative Percent Plot
. . . .. .
. ..... . .
~...
..".
'..4
s;.i
- Crossbeds, Group 1
I
0.s
0.6
Fractional
Percent
Smaller
Than
0.4
5
-MS
-MS
PEG
-LD4
0.2
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
Sieve Mesh (mm)
1.5
7
S
1.75
2
,..
-3'"L,+
.""..i_
CumulativePercent
Plot
- Crossbeds, Group 2
1
0.8
0.6
Fractional
Percent
Smaller
Than
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
Sieve Mesh (mm)
1.5
1.75
2
.
Cumulative Percent Plot
-
.
,
_.
"
.. . . . .. .
..
~
..... ._.-_.i." ..
Crossbeds, Group 3
1
0.8
0.6
Fractional
Percent
Smaller
Than
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.251.75 1.5
Sieve Mesh (mm)
2
2-,.,-:
.
. . . ..
.. .
..
. ... . .
. ..
Cumulative Percent Plot
-
.. .......
Crossbeds, Group 4
1
0.8
0.6
Fractional
Percent
Smaller
Than
0.4
0.2
0
1.75 1.501.25 0.25
1 0.75 0.5
2
Sieve Mesh (mm)
Cumulative PercentPlot
-
Channels, Group 1
S
-TA 11
-BC9
.
, . . . !. . . . . ! ' " ' I
.
....................................
..............................
L
i
i1
BC 10
-BC 11
"X--
I
..............................
..."..
.......
Fractional
Percent
Smaller
Than
....r..
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
Sieve Mesh (mm)
1.5
1.75
2
0.75
0 0.5 0.25
1.751 1.5 1.25
Sieve Mesh (mm)
2
.
.
Cumulative Percent
Plot
- Horizontal Laminations, Group
2
1
0.8
0.6
Fractional
Percent
Smaller
Than
0.4
-
cc 12
-CC 13
"RR3
-RR6
0.2
-R R 7
-LD
2
TA 13
FH7
-s"-
-
, . , ,
,
I
1
.
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.751.25 1
Sieve Mesh (mm)
1.5
1.75
2
Cumulative Percent Plot
-
Horizontal Laminations, Group 1
1
0.8
0.6
Fractional
Percent
Smaller
Than
cc 11
i
t
-
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.251.75 1.5
Sieve Mesh (mm)
2
Cumulative Percent Plot
-
Horizontal Laminations, Group 3
1
0.8
.....
0.6
Fractional
Percent
Smaller
Than
0.4
".
...................
3
~
...................
_____________.___.I
0.2
.
-LD
i
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
.
15
, , , i , , , , ~ ,
1.25
Sieve Mesh (mm)
1.5
I
I...,
1.75
2
Cumulative Percent Plot
-
Scour and Fill, Group 1
1
-EF9
4
-
EF 10
TA I
-
-FH8
--FH 9
Fractional
Percent
Smaller
Than
0.4
-BC
-BC5
FH 10
FH 11
1
-BC6
-BC8
0
1.75
0.25
1.5 1.25
0.5 1 0.75
Sieve Mesh (mm)
2
...
Cumulative PercentPlot
- Scour and Fill, Group 2
. . .
1
-EF2
--A5
0.8
rL................. ;...................
0.6 r
I
Fractional c
L................. i
Percent
Smaller
Than
0.4
c
/
0.2
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.75
1 1.5 1.25
Sieve Mesh (rnm)
2
Cumulative Percent Plot
- Structureless, Group 1
1
0.8
0.6
Fractional
Percent
Smaller
Than
-"--Fa
0.4
-EF4
-EF6
-EF7
-TA
--A2
-TA6
-TA9
0.2
-FH
-FH2
"FH3
10
1
"-- TA 10
1
F
H
13
-BC4
.
,
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25 1.751.5
Sieve Mesh (mm)
,
,
.
.
.
0
0.250.75 0.5
2
1.75
1 1.5 1.25
Sieve Mesh (mm)
ITAL OBSERVATIONS:
18
CB1
N OF CASES
MNIMIJM
,MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD DN
STD.
ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
5
20.145
189.818
169.673
86.901
4139.685
64.340
28.774
0.771
-0.551
434.506
0.740
86.397
CHZ
N OF CASES
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD DEV
STD. ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
6
44.981
271.680
226.699
160.956
8534.561
92.383
37.715
0.016
-1.532
965.738
0.574
157.183
SL1
N OF CASES
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD DEV
STD. ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
14
2.010
19.681
17.671
8.534
28.192
5.310
1.419
0.639
-0.611
119.481
0.622
7.462
CBZ
CB3
4
88.151
271.680
183.529
196.688
6361.577
79.759
39.880
-0.600
-1.099
786.753
0.406
213.461
HL1
17
3.525
158.933
155.408
57.279
2019.518
44.939
10.899
0.879
0.005
973.746
0.785
47.679
8
2.828
98.224
95.396
58.176
896.148
29.936
10.584
-0.470
-0.393
465.411
0.515
56.932
HLZ
8
0.848
45.843
44.995
17.125
227.497
15.083
5.333
0.675
-0.371
136.996
0.881
15.776
CB4
8
74.671
165.608
90.937
129.037
700.906
26.475
9.360
-0.897
0.525
1032.299
0.205
134.886
SF1
13
35.455
271.680
236.225
156.502
6355.770
79.723
22.111
0.335
-1.114
2034.520
0.509
141.959
CHl
5
210.681
271.680
60.999
249.758
920.286
30.336
13.567
-0.471
-1.697
1248.788
0.121
271.680
SF2
6
8.899
147.170
138.271
51.203
2765.330
52.586
21.468
1.110
-0.145
307.219
1.027
31.081
Complete
Sample
Structure MeasPerm
Cement
Porosity Mean
Std.
Crossbeds Group 1
RR1
CE
48.1 62
1
0.409
1.535
RR9
CE
20.145 0.438 1
1.681
MS5
03
189.818
1
0.467
1.435
MS7
CB
1 .
1.428
EG8
CB
86.397
1
0.477
1.649
LD4
CB
89.984
1
0.467
1.657
LDI1
CE
1 .
1.542
LD12
c8
1 .
1.501
Crossbeds Group2
MSI
271.680
1
0.467
0.990
MS3
a3
237.104
1
0.467
0.843
MS4
a3
189.818
1
0.467
1.019
MS8
CB
1 .
1.066
EG3
CB
88.151
1
0.461
1.038
LDIO
c8
1
1.188
Crossbeds Group3
CE
CCI
41.848
1
1.843
0.435
CC2
CB
86.397
1.731
0.469
1
CC6
a3
98.224
2
0.458
0.926
RB2
CB
57.630
0.455
2
1.398
RR5
CE
2.828
1
0.441
2.002
EG1
CB
44.981
0.489
1
1.890
EG5
c8
77.270
1
0.461
1.330
EG7
CB
56.233
1
0.514
2.021
.a
”.
Dev.
Skewness
M*3
Dev
%>4.5phi %<-1phi
Max.Diam.
0.658
0.700
0.479
0.478
0.678
0.676
0.632
0.546
1.109
0.220
0.107
-0.262
1.214
1.061
0.460
0.559
0.31 6
0.075
0.012
-0.029
0.379
0.328
0.116
0.091
0.073
0.049
0.023
0.024
0.150
0.182
0.047
0.047
0.002
0.002
0.023
0.212
0.002
0.002
0.071
0.002
-1.007
-1.007
-1.138
-1.138
-1.007
-1.007
-1.070
-1.007
0.523
1.030
0.544
0.681
0.735
0.878
-0.751
-1.517
-0.283
-1.323
0.509
-0.941
-0.107
-1.656
-0.046
-0.418
0.202
-0.637
0.000
0.024
0.023
0.023
0.072
0.046
0.723.
7.907
0.271
2.025
0.980
3.668
-1.722
-3.000
-1.963
-2.406
-2.000
-2.000
0.850
0.944
1.590
1.228
1.134
1.003
1.039
0.989
-1.352
-0.763
-0.317
-0.138
-0.210
-1.387
-0.098
-0.688
-0.830
-0.643
-1.275
-0.255
-0.306
-1.398
-0.110
-0.665
0.095
0.140
0.340
0.647
0.698
0.252
0.326
0.434
1.239
1.072
12.249
4.842
1.953
2,447
2.072
1.038
-2.536
-1.963
-3.000
-2.1 38
-1.632
-3.121
-2.293
-2.233
..
Crossbeds Group4
CC5
ca
cc7
RB9
CB
RFQ
c8
RR11
CB
ca
RR12
E@
ca
EG4
ca
CB
165.608
132.641
74.671
120.884
117.447
141.959
137.130
14 1.959
2
2
0.391 2
1
1
1
2
2
0.534
0.441
0.409
0.326
0.367
0.472
0.374
0.472
28.209
34.462
2
0.474
1.202
1.464
0.973
1.254
0.939
0.532
0.073
0.734
-0.238
0.490
0.343
0.509
1.201
0.925
0.231
0.676
-0.470
0.406
0.442
0.806
5.263
0.1 ao
0.151
0.662
2.390
3.227
2.170
2.462
0.199
0.552
0.71 1 2.243
0.546
-0,115
0.778
-0.968
-0.019
-0.456
0.024
. 0.417
I.oaa
1.166
1.636
0.091
3.482
10.685
3.872
13.202
-1.926
-3.036
-2.379
-2.868
-2.459
-2.848
-2.963
-2.485
0.002
0.002
-1.007
-1.007
0.491
-1.585
1.104
13.284
9.609
0.276
0.191
0.073
1.070
0.465
0.060
0.609
0.599
0.138
0.758
'
11.002
Crossbed Outliers
RR4
RR8
LDI 3
ca
ca
c8
Structure MeasPerm Cement
Sample
Channels Group1
TA8
CH 2
271.680
TAI 1
ai
271.680
BC9
ai
210.681
BClO
a-l
BC11
CH
271.680
BC12
CH
223.067
Channels Group2
CC3
ai
124.547
CC4
CH
I 89.8 t 8
RB3
ai
44.98 1
RB6
ai
81.559
MS2
ai
253.153
MS9
CH
LD9
ai
BC7
ai
271.680
1
0.438
1 ..
Porosity
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.302
0.281
0.274
0.288
0.274
0.420
0.361
0.384
0.235
0.467
0.399
Complete
Mean
Std. Dev.
Skewness
I ,157
5.420
3.135
4.763
3.782
2.548
2.212
0.509
0.21 1
0.391
0.144
0.1 55
0.151
66.110
57.318
62.696
93.744
43.126
44.495
-3.293
-3. I 86
-3.263
-3.307
-2.678
-2.807
. I 86
.431
.959
,874
1.144
1.449
0.968
I ,087
-0.653
0.271
0.393
0.362
-0.729
-0.059
-0.126
0.022
-I ,089
0.795
2.957
2.384
-1.090
-0.179
-0.115
0.028
0.095
0.129
0.112
0.1 07
0.022
0.065
8.381
31.488
51 .I 12
49.227
15.685
35.427
4.51 1
11.202
-2.807
-3.087
-3.51 1
-3.170
-3.000
-3.322
1.335
1.262
1.310
0.902
0.886
-0.283
-0.459
0.197
-0.387
0.804
0.217
Max.Diam,
2.277
1.560
2.1 t a
5.149
1.530
1.430
-1.369
-1.178
-1.312
-1.951
-0.812
-0.896
-0.318
MA3 Dev %>4.5phi %<-1phi
1. I 8 5
0.021
0.047
-2.000
-2.632
..
HB
HL
HL
Complete
Sample Structure
MeasPen
Cement Porosity Mean
Std. Dev.
Skewness
MA3 Dev %>4.5phi %<-1phi Max.Diam.
Horizontal Group 1
-1.926
0.819
CC8
HL
-0.189
-0.325
0.174
89.984
0.834
1.837
0.446
1
-1.138
0.194
CC9
HL
0.707
0.164
1.659
0.463
0.145
73.441
0.453
1
-1,888
4.968
-0.103
-0.042
0.477
CClO
HB
1.353
1.206
158.933
0.515
2
-1.536
0.408
1.zoo
1.160
-0.135
1.578
-0.086
78.645
CCI 1
HB
2
0.515
-1.070
0.075
0.153
0.174
0.462
RBI
HL
0.692
1.952
37.346
3
0.478
-2.585
3.135
-0.162
0.166
-0.168
RE4
HL
0.989
1.153
47.679
2
0.430
-2.202
0.386
1.152
4.244
1.205
1.324
0.221
2
0.423
R E
HL
31.601
-1.485
4.123
0.1 86
0.405
1.081
1.364
0.147
3
0.397
3.525
RE8
HB
-1.585
0.301
0.159
0.1 62
0.826
1.673
0.283
RBI0
HL
2
0.431
24.990
-1.379
0.301
1.707
1.037
0.401
0.359
RBI 1
HL
2.283
2
0.417
3.957
-1.433
0.138
0.147
0.686
0.959
2.128
12.149
0.157
RR13
HL
3
0.338
-2.263
6.032
0.1 86
1.100
-0.305
0.895
-0.229
MS6
0.467
141.959
1
-2.000
3.243
-0.986
0.258
LD3
1.058
1.676
-0.833
0.406
48.656
1
-1.070
0.048
0.841
0.307
0.886
LD5
HL
2.293
0.516
0.440
25.239
1
-1.263
-0.268
0.303
2.021
1.078
1.678
-0.214
0.406
73.441
LD6
1
-1.070
0.025
0.100
0.737
-0.069
1.560
-0.172
0.467
89.984
LD7
HL
1
-2.536
8.619
-1.453
-0.463
1.304
LD14
HL
1.464
1.561
1
-2.293
3.451
1.324
-0.495
-0.213
1.006
TA12
HL
1.796
0.308
32.217
1
Horizontal Group 2
-1.632
4.118
-2.31 1
-1.544
1.265
CCI
2
HL
1.144
2.680
0.469
9.163
2
-1.007
1.171
CC13
HL
0.002
0.123
0.749
2.850
0.292
0.469
10.141
2
-1.007
0.573
0.1 93
21.41 1
RfU
HL
0.002
0.133
0.615
2.245
0.457
2
-1.007
3.228
RR6
HL
0.002
-0.789
3.086
-0.583
0.474
0.882
1. I 0 6
3
-1.202
RF7
HL
3.338
-0.654
4.820
0.474
0.848
1.090
3
0.126
-0.846
-1.007
0.335
LD2
HL
0.002
0.307
2.081
1.146
0.440
45.843
0.644
1
-1.263
TAI3
HL
0.048
3.070
0.300
3.470
22.954
1
0.280
0.454
0.978
-1.433
FH7
HL
3.306
-0.329
5.832
0.454
25.754
1.165
-0.521
2
0.024
..
Horizontal outliers
LDI
HL
0.962
LD8
HL 0.466 2 2.834
LDI 5 1.585
0.638
HL3.401
0.466 2 4.430
19.245
0.231
0.318
.4.367
0.899
0.4662
0.004
-1.007
0.003
-1.007
-1.007
0.003
5.724
0.422
1.636
0.637
3.890
Complete
Sample
Structure MeasPerm Cement Porosity Mean
Std.
Dev.
Skewness
Scour and Fill Group 1
s=1.271
-0.209
0.374 271.680
1
EFl
EF8
-3.293
s= 42.658 0.236 3.631 0.605
1 .
1.818 -0.390
2.
2.069 -0.256
EF9 -3.787 41.602 0.359 3.081 0.348
s= 53.257 0.292 6.367 20.755
.
2.035 -0.769
EF10
TA3
38.044
0.420
3.088
0.515
1.816
s=-0.222
0.396 1128.457
s=
271.680
-3.000
27.028
0.373
2.724
1.049
11.375
-0.400
0.396
TA4
TA7 2.050
0.514
3
1.585
-0,091
- 0.302 3 78.645
0.135
1.326
0.375
1.524
s=
-0.194
0.271 1141.959
FH8
-3.018
25.241
0.214
1.766
0.615
1.421
s=
-0.205
0.374 1223.067
FH9
FH10
SF
141.959
0.767
11.788
-0.309
0.439
s=
81.559 1.268
0.419
1.446
1 0.176
0.439
FH11
s=
27 I .680
10.292
4.358
1.252
1.516
-0.849
0.374
FH12
7.308
0.740
2.145
s=
-0.287
0.372 2 35.455
BCI
s=
124.547
1.909
0.377
11.717
0.449
0.308
BC5
BC6
s=
98.224
1.986
0.548
1
1.536
-0.324
0.373
BC8
-3.170
41.404
0.247
4.273
0.954
1.648
-0.553
0.373 2165.608
Scour and Fill Group 2
72.253
8.079
0.132
-1.378
-0.622
1.304
1 0.965
0.399
EF2
1.925
s=
0.599
0.308 2147.170
EF3 -0.044
s=
44.981
29.692
1.315
5.451
0.790
1.904
1 0.113
0.283
TA5
FH4
s=
0.446 5.652 2.489
1.
1.314 -1.169
FH5
3
1.
-0,610
1.735 1.163
8.773
0.528
2.551
0.165
s= 0.318 1 8.899
FH6
41.762
1.249
7.483
0.677
2.228
9
-0.148
0.325 3 16.735
BC2
BC3
-3.138
40.076
1.534
7.190
0.752
2.122
s=
-0.045
0.295 2 17.181
0.412
MA3
2.588
Dev %>4.5phi % e l p h i
1.253
0.61 1
0,046
25.972
Max.Diam.
-2.511
s=
-3.916
-3.263
0.589
27.215
31.924
4.385 -3.217
37.342
0.436
0.325 -2.678
20.442
-3.186
48.820
1.049 -3.524
44.109
19.21
0.793
1
0.132 -2.945
35.570
-3.202
-2.982
-2.963
s=
s=
-3.233
0.609
-0.311
2.728
-3.379
22.976
63.629
0.325
27.939
2.038 -3.420
44.619
-2.848
-2.828
-2.766
-3.536
..
Sample
Structure MeasPerm Cement
Structureless Group 1
RRiO
SL
2.659
EF4
SL
15.209
EF6
SL
4.296
7.361
EF7
SL
TA 1
SL
10.241
TA2
SL
7.562
TA6
SL
12.409
TA9
SL
3.957
19.681
TA10
SL
FH1
SL
5.057
.
FH2
SL
9.836
FH3
SL
4.838
FH13
SL
14.365
Bc4
SL
2.01 0
Structureless outliers
SL
44.152
RB7
60.662
EF5
SL
,...
Porosity
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
Complete
Mean
Std. Dev.
Skewness
MA3
Dev
0.948
1.958
0.895
1.529
2.063
1.363
1.795
1.648
1.234
I .256
1.848
2.1 95
1.136
1.836
0.432
-0.838
-1.028
-1.361
-0.720
-0.358
-0.213
-0.317
-0.183
-0.154
-0.658
-0.688
-0.257
-0.801
0.368
-6.292
-0.737
-4.864
-6.314
-0.908
-1.230
-1.418
-0.344
-0.306
-4.153
-7.281
-0.377
-4.954
0.398
1.387
1.772
-0.037
-0.517
-0.099
1.382
0.469
0.334
0.454
0.334
0.370
0.463
0.370
0.441
0.441
0.470
0.345
0.425
0.454
0.298
2.979
1.751
3.387
2.359
2.233
3.426
1.859
3.379
2.862
3.270
2.442
1.983
3.302
2.756
1
0.418
1
0.308
1
%>4.5phi % e l p h i
-2.878
Max.Diam.
0.003
3.212
1.259 . 15.153
0.620
3.1 26
7.077
1.156
10.751
5.201
10.236
0.002
3.195
7.143
0.996
16.270
4.688
0.933
0.073
7.433
5.829
4.71 1
17.242
3.380
0.002
5.764
6.659
7.880
-1.007
-3.138
-2.000
-2.678
-3.248
-1.007
-2.787
-2.322
-2.104
-2.000
-2.926
-2.766
-1.007
-2.744
16.604
12.115
-2.700
-2.945
0.141
0.838
334
. .
Excluding <-I
phi
Sample
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Skewness
MA3
Dev.
Crossbeds Group 1
0.658
RRI
1.535
RR9
1.681
0.700
0.477
MS5
1.435
0.464
MS7
1.434
0.678
EG8
1.649
0.676
LD4
1.657
0.628
LD11
1.544
0.546
LD12
1.501
Crossbeds Group 2
0.484
MSI
1.008
0.631
MS3
1.087
0.529
MS4
1.025
MS8
1.123
0.558
0.694
EG3
1.063
0.718
LDIO
1.290
Crossbeds Group 3
0.752
CCI
1.889
0.888
CC2
1.765
1.232
Cc6
1.055
RE2
1.549
1.043
R E
2.068
0.793
EGI
1.990
0.955
EG5
1.393
0.921
EG7
2.059
%>4.5phi Porosity
1.111
0.221
0.138
0.010
1.21 6
1.063
0.508
0.562
0.316
48.162
0.409
0.073
1 20.145
0.438
0.049
0.076
0.015
0.023
0.024
0.001
0.379
0.150
0.329
0.182
0.047
0.126
0.047
0.091
MeasPerm Cement
1
0.467
189.818
.
0.477
0.467
86.397
89.984
0.467
0.467
0.467
271.680
237.1 04
189.818
.
.
-0.223
-0.520
-0.060
-0.238
0.987
-0.221
-0.025
-0.1 30
-0.009
-0.041
0.330
-0.082
0.000
0.026
0.023
0.023
0.461
0.072
0.048.
-0.768
-0.533
0.060
0.470
0.176
-0.148
0.313
-0.339
-0.327
-0.373
0.113
0.552
0.1 99
-0.074
0.273
-0.265
0.096
0.141
0.388
0.680
0.71 1
0.259
0.333
0.439
.
1
1
1
1
1
88.151
1
0.435
0.469
2
0.458
2
0.455
0.441
10.489
10.461
0.514
41.848
86.397
98.224
57.630
2.028
44.981
77.270
56.233
1
1
1
1
..
Crossbeds Group4
EG4
1.179
165.608
2 0.534
0.279
0.999
0.610
132.641
2
0.845
0.441
0.221
0.976
0.599
1.176
0.246
0.829
1.626
0.932
0.812
0.924
1.162
0.683
0.843
0.870
1.471
0.384
1.128
0.868
1.049
1.505
1.51 7
0.696
0.927
0.656
0.697
0.968
1.301
5.252
0.081
0.103
0.186
0.169
0.688
2.753
20.391
0.409
0.326
0.367
2
0.472
2
0.472
74.671
20.884
17.447
41.959
37.130
41.959
RR4
RR3
LD13
3.227
2.170
2.480
0.557
-0.1 11
-0.574
0.200
-0.018
-0.227
2.243
0.024
0.419.
2
0.474
0.438
28.209
34.462
Cc5
CC7
RE9
RW
RRI 1
RR12
EG2
0.146
'
0.71 1
0.546
0.733
Excluding <-I phi
Std. Dev. Skewness MA3 Dev. %>4.5phi Porosity MeasPenn
Cement
Mean
Sample
Channels Group 1
0.302 271.680
1.503
5.306
2.224
1.336
TA8
0.494
0.281 271.680
2.476
2.157
1.047
0.051
TAI 1
0.274 210.681
4.573
2.314
1.049
1.255
BC9
0.066
2.303
3.746
0.671
1.774
BCIO
1.090
0.273
0.288 271.680
2.343
2.134
1.032
0c11
-0.034
0.272
0.274 223.067
1.992
2.174
0.971
BC12
-0.088
Channels Group2
0.103
0.420 124.547
0.202
0.306
CC3
1.142
0.870
0.189
0.361 189.81 8
0.934
1.079
CC4
0.527
0.953
44.981
0.230
0.384
0.139
0.150
0.974
RB3
1.420
0.212
0.235
81.559
0.086
0.980
0.081
R86
1.394
0.467 253.153
0.043
0.026
0.015
0.698
MS2
0.606
0.101
0.422
0.759
MS9
0.586
0.184
0.364
0.022
0.222
0.847
LD9
0.913
0.399
271.680
0.783
0.053
0.502
0.862
BC7
0.473
1
1
1
1
1
..
2.852
3.072
Excluding <-I p h i
Sample
Mean
Std. Dev.
Skewness
MA3 Dev.
%>4.5phi
Porosity MeasPerm Cement
Horizontal Group 1
1
89.984
0.175
1.864
CC8
0.446
0.057
0.119
0.782
1
0.453
73.44i
0.145
0.196
0.577
1.664
0.697
CCS
2
0.515 158.933
0.502
0.221
1.344
1.241
CC10
0.1 16
2
0.515
78.645
0.413
0.013
cc11
*.. 1.612
0.009
1.124
3
0,478
37.346
0.174
0.170
0.688
1.954
RBI
0.523
2
0.430
47.679
0.172
0.453
0.849
RB4
1.249
0.740
0.423
2
31.601
1.203
1.074
1.058
REl5
1.454
0.907
3
0.397
3.525
0.423
0.646
0.956
RB8
1.476
0.741
0.431
24.990
0.163
RBI0
2
0.221
0.81 1
1.682
0.414
2
0.417
3.957
1.712
0.495
2.293
RBI 1
0.466
1.021
3
0.338
12.149
0.687
0.180
0.209
0.951
RR13
2.133
1
0.467 141.959
0.198
0.291
0.370
0.923
MS6
1.057
1
0.406
48.656
0.266
-0.204
-0.282
0.898
LD3
1.783
1
0.440
25.239
0.886
0.322
LD5
2.295
0.546
0.838
1
0.406
0.303
73.441
0.006
0.006
1.009
LD6
1.735
1
0.467
89.984
0.025
-0.056
LD7
1.563
-0.141
0.732
1
1.427
0.726
0.551
1.096
LD14
1.875
0.308
32.21
7
TAl2
1
1.042
0.436
0.270
1.173
1.920
Horizontal Group 2
-0.009
cc12
2
0.469
9.163
1.320
-0.018
0.806
CC13
2.850
2
0.469
10.141
1.171
0.124
0.295
0.749
2
RR3
2.245
0.457
21.41 1
0.193
0.134
0.577
0.614
-0.788
3
RR
3.086
3.228
-0.582
1.106
0.474
0.882
4.827
-0.757
-0.602
1.079
3
RK7
3.344
0.474
0.848
LD2
2.081
0.335
0.307
1.149
0.644
1
0.440
45.843
TA13
3.472
0.310
0.336
0.973
0.454
1
22.954
FH7
3.307
5.834
-0.503
-0.320
1.163
0.454
25.754
2
2
Horizontal outliers
0.898
0.326
4.367LDI
2.834
0.466
5.724
LD8
0.426
1.654
0.636
3.890
LD15
3.401
2 4.430
0.466
0.638
2.588
0.414
1.596
0.951
0.661
1
Excluding <-I
phi
Sample
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Skewness
MA3
Dev.
Scour and Fill Group 1
1.024
EFI
0.334
1.326
EF8
0.917
1.327
EF9
1.267
1.380
EFIO
1.156
1.308
TA3
1.136
TA4
0.193
1.173
TA7
1.090
FH8
0.648
FH9
0.405
1.1 i o
1.422
FHI 0
0.764
1.148
FHI
'0.694
1.266
FH12
0.339
BC1
1.271
1.651
BC5
1.027
I.382
BC6
e.
0.587
1.154
1.344
Bc8
0.530
Scour and Fill Group 2
EF2
1.236
0.971
I .430
EF3
1.341
TA5
0.973
1.632
FH4
0.134
1.442
1.003
FH5
-0.117
1 .E83
FH6
2.079
1.728
BC2
1.372
1.71 6
BC3
1.308
0.236 0.466
19.246
0.962
%>4.5phi Porosity
1.468
0.583
0.862
0.758
1.113
1.126
1.237
0.663
0.981
1.633
2.749
2.323
1.066
1 .E68
2.732
1.512
2.977
2.622
2.275
1.166
2.701
0.062
0.377
0.615
0.625
0.677
0.51 1
0.810
0.198
0.286
0.697
0.409
0.571
1.E77
0.982
0.205
0.422
0.314
0.413
0.876
1.972
2.955
-0.109
0.493
0.615
0.287
0.996
3.810
5.917
2.977
-0.731
2.543
3.105
0.144
0.790
1.871
1.227
0.450
3.680
2.144
2.559
1.049
0.530
0.284
0.373
0.731
1.877
1.438
0.823
1.367
0.950
1 .ooo
0.374
2
MeasPerm Cement
271.680
0.396 128.457
0.396 271.680
78.645
0.302
0.271 141.959
0.374 223.067
0.439 141.959
0.439
81.559
0.374 271.680
0.372
35.455
0.308 124.547
0.373
98.224
0.373 165.608
0.399
0.308
0.283
72.253
147.170
44.981
0.318
0.325
0.295
8.899
16.735
17.181
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
2
Excluding <-I phi'
Sample
Mean
Std. Dev.
Skewness
Slructureless Group 1
RR10
EF4
EF6
EF7
TA 1
TA2
TA6
TA9
TAIO
FH 1
FH2
FH3
FH13
BC4
2.979
2.433
3.417
2.679
2.757
3.426
2.148
3.430
2.904
3.274
2.715
2.788
3.302
3.087
Structureless outliers
RB7
0.846
EF5
1.845
0.947
'1.203
0.810
1.035
1.485
1.363
1.518
1.576
-0.133
0.187
1.162
1.250
1.533
1.435
1.136
1.405
0.501
1.049
1.345
-0.279
MA3 Dev. %>4.5phi Porosity
0.434
-0.425
-0.138
-0.594 '
-0.223
-0.358
0.206
-0.124
-0.295
-0.765
-0.256
-0.081
3.212
0.369
-0.741
1.484
-0.073
3.145
-0.658
1.244
-0.729
5.827
-0.906 10.236
0.721
3.44 1
-0.523
16.434
4.732
0.294
-0.243
7.438
-1.063
5.003
-2.261
4.084
-0.376
5.765
-0.225
8.442
0.578
0.953
-0.678
0.1 69
0.469
0.334
0.454
0.334
0.370
0.463
0.370
0.441
0.441
0.470
0.345
0.425
0.454
0.298
MeasPenn Cement
2.659
15.209
4.296
7.361
10.241
7.562
12.409
3.957
19.681
5.057
9.836
4.838
14.365
2.010
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
1
0.41 8 44.152
0.308 60.662
1
1
3
2
J. W. Hawley and T. M. Whitworth (eds.). 1996,Hydrogeologyofpotentialrecharge areas andhydrogeochemlcalmodeling
of proposed ariflcial-recharge methods in bash- and valley-fiil aquifer systems, Albuquerque Basin, New Mexico: New
Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Open-File Report 4020, Chapter 2, Appendix 2-8
APPENDIX 2-8
Scatter plots of measured permeability compared to permeability values
predicted by published empirical permeability equations and
multiple regression permeability equations
.
...
..........
_i
.. ..
.
ListwisePearsoncorrelation
permeabilityequations
Equation
Beyer
Hazen
Kozeney
Krugei
Sauerbrei
Slichter
USBR
zamarin
... .
....
.. . ., ,
.
..'>
-....
....... _ .....-.. ........,. .&.._._.^2_.I., ""._
of measuredpermeabilitywithpublishedempirical
ComDlete samDle
0.629
0.697
0.654
0.783
0.658
0.688
0.584
0.753
c u t SamDle
0.713
0.653
0.566
0.723
0.621
0.602
0.712
0.690
Beyer vs. Measured Permeability Values
T
looo
0.1
1
10
100
Measured Permeabilitv. (.Darcvs
1000
i
Hazen vs. Measured Permeability Values
1000
h
100
?,
$
a
-
v
.-E>.I
2
z-
10
a
m
0
..-
i
E-
Lrl
1
0.1
0.1
1
10
100
Measured Permeability ( Darcys )
1000
.
. .
.. . ...
Kozeney
VS.
.
,
. . C .. . .-
...
-,.._
.
. . ,_...
..
Measured Permeability Values
1000
0.1
0.1
1
10
100
Measured Permeability ( Darcys )
1000
'
. ...
"...._
..
Kruger vs. Measured Permeability Values
I./
T
lCQ0
+
c
*
...........
100
0
+
oc
///A
.
.
ylb
+
o + o
,...e
;+
10
0
.
0 ......
t
00
*.p0
o+
0
0
0
...................................
.
* 6
.....................................
1
0.1
0.1
1
10
100
Measured Permeability ( Darcys )
1000
.....-.
I.
.
.
. . . .,.
Sauerbrei vs. Measured Permeability Values
0.1
1
10
100
Measured Permeability ( Darcys )
1000
Slichter vs. Measured Permeability Values
USBR vs. Measured Permeability Values
o
USBRCUT
.
L
.....................................
10
~
.
8
.
.
.
~ * ~ * . *
i,....
................................................
i
+
ii *
8
-4
O*
o
*%
+
0
O
i
&+P
*
.......................
+
0
+ q o
o
dt.
+...........
*
i
1
+
o*
...................................
...........
*
*I
1
10
1
i
I
0.1
I
100
Measured Permeability ( Darcys )
1000
......
"_.....I
.....
...
Zamarin vs. Measured Permeability Values
loo0
100
t
.....................................
;........................................
h
?,
6
2
10
...................................
1
LL
0.1
0.1
....................................
1
10
100
Measured Permeability ( Darcys )
1000
.I
Regressionanalysiswithloglo
..
.
..
. . . .
.
.
. ..
of measured permeability
R &lo of measured permeabilitvvs. uhi grain size:
-0.519(d10 phi complete) + 3.026
R2
0.851
0.842
0.844
0.854
0.724
0.709
0.7 12
0.729
0.872
0.760
0.887
0.787
0.871
0.759
0.887
0.787
0.861
0.741
"LMSP3 CUT"
-0.202(d10 phi cut)- 0.369(mean cut) - O.OlO(% fines cut) + 2.820
0.883
0.780
"LMSP4 C O M
-0.432(d10 phi complete)- 0.082(mean complete) + 2.894
0.856
0.733
"LMSP4 CUT"
-0.221(d10 phi cut)- 0.374(mean cut) + 2.865
0.882
0.778
-0.462(d20 phi complete)+ 2.651
-0.590(d10 phi cut) + 3.298
-0.553(d20 phi cut)+ 2.943
b l o of measured permeabilitv vs. entire distribution Oarmeters:
"LMSP1 C O M
-0.752(Kruger phi complete)
+ 0.23l(mean complete)
- 0.014(% fines complete)+ 2.731
"LMSP 1 CUT"
-0.456(Kruger phi cut)- 0.145(mean cut)- 0.003(% fines cut) + 2.802
"LMSP2 C O M
-0.799(Kruger phi complete)+ 0.249(mean complete) + 2.773
"LMSP2 CUT"
-0.469(Kruger phi cut)- 0.140(mean cut)+ 2.815
"LMSP3 C O W
-0.389(d10 phi complete)- 0.076(mean complete)
- 0.026(% fines complete) + 2.8 11
Regression dl, phi,complete
distribution
rn
+ +
++
+
..........
J;
..........;1:.......
+
%+
+
:
+++
...................
+
...................
...................
..........
-0.5
0
0.5
1
2.5
1.5
2
Log,, Measured Permeability (Darcys)
3
Regressiond,,
-0.5
phi, cut distribution
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Log,, Measured Permeability (Darcys)
2.5
3
_.
. .
.. ..
..
.
. _. ... . . .. .
.. .
,,
..
.
..-,.. ..
.
'
.
1
".
..
Regression dzo phi, complete distribution
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Log,, Measured Permeability (Darcys)
2.5
3
.
,
._
Regression d,,phi,
-0.5
0
cut distribution
0.5
1
1.5
2
Log,, Measured Permeability (Darcys)
2.5
3
Regression LMSP1, complete distribution
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Log,, Measured Permeability (Darcys)
2.5
3
'7
Regression LMSP1, cut distribution
.................
+ + i i..........
+
i
ti
++ ++ I
4............... i...................
++++
j
+
......................
...........
...........
j
...................
...................
:
.................
...
-0.5
0
2.5
0.5
21
1.5
Log,, Measured Permeability (Darcys)
3
Regression LMSP2, complete distribution
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Log,, Measured Permeability (Darcys)
2.5
3
.. ..
Regression LMSP2, cutdistribution
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Log,, Measured Permeability (Darcys)
2.5
3
Regression LMSP3, complete distribution
..........
_.)_.
_+_,
..i_
+
+ j
..... .......................
...........
.....
I
-0.5
0
2.5
0.5
21
I
,
, , I , ,
1.5
Log,,, Measured Permeability (Darcys)
9
,
i1
3
Regression LMSP3, cut distribution
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Log,, Measured Permeability (Darcys)
2.5
3
Regression LMSP4, complete distribution
-0.5
0
0.5
21
1.5
Loglo Measured Permeability (Darcys)
2.5
3
Regression LMSP4, cut distribution
I-
25
2
v2
e,
i
s
I
.-c0
VI
VJ
2
..................
I
...................
.t
1 5 .....................I__
.......................
:I
i
0 5 .................. .....
0
+
..................
-0.5
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Log,, Measured Permeability (Darcys)
2.5
3
.. .. . -
... ..
Regressionanalysis
.
. . ...
..
.
...
_. .... . ....
~
with measuredpermeability
Pearson correlationR
Measured permeabilitv vs. orain size in mm:
402.42(d10 mm complete) + 5.58
245.07(d20 mm complete) + 14.06
650.69(d10 mm cut) - 23.69
425.80(d20 mm Cut) - 15.88
Measured permeability vs. phi orain size:
-65.87(d10 phi complete)+ 264.55
-71.76(d10 phi cut) + 290.23
-60.30(d20 phi complete)+ 219.31
-68.13(d20 phi Cut) + 249.18
3
Measured permeability vs. entire distribution parameters:
"MSP1
COM'
267.39(Kruger mm complete) + 4.91(mean complete)
- 2.24(% fines complete)-13.31
"MSP1 CUT"
372.36(Kru,oer mm cut) - 16.57(mean cut) + 3.32(% fines cut)
"MSP2 cow
258.34(Kruger mm complete) + 0.235(mean
complete) - 7.54
"hiSP2 CUT"
396.93(Kruger mm cut) - 6.31(mean
cut)
- 17.85
+ 0.58
R2
0.806
0.785
0.819
0.842
0.650
0.616
0.67 1
0.709
0.836
0.798
0.816
0.825
0.699
0.637
0.666
0.681
0.824
0.679
0.849
0.72 1
0.821
0.674
0.844
0.712
Regression d,, mm, complete distribution
1000
7
* oo
h
....................................
.....
+
-I
.I+
+
+ + ++
++
+
i
..,..
Measured Permeability (Darcys)
Regression dl, mm, cut distribution
i__
loo
100 ....................................
+
............
......................................
+
+.
+ t i
+
......... +...+ .......+.........
0.1
1
#+?
~
++
+
I.+*
$++++ + + p
+
i+
* *
+ ..... '
/1
/+
*
.+.......
++ ...........
10
100
Measured Permeability (Darcys)
1000
Regressiond,,
i"
phi, complete distribution
1000
+
...............................
).+
++
.....
100
+
+
+'
10
1'
0.1
0.1
.......................................
/
/
....................................
b
I
_*__.
..................................
++
....................................
I
1
10
-4
100
Measured Permeability (Darcys)
Ll
1000
Regression dl, phi, cutdistribution
1000
100
...................................
10
...................................
1.
0.1
0.1
/
1
I
I
I
I
10
100
Measured Permeability (Darcys)
L
1000
............
.......
,A
- ...
...........................
....................
....
X-...".^.-."
.,,,,
Regression d,, mm, complete distribution
1000
t
/5;
+
c,
...................+$-.....$
__(_.
1.j
+
+
+ + +'
+*+ +
:
..................
.....
....................................
Measured Permeability (Darcys)
1
.-..............
Regression d,, mm, cut distribution
L
100
t
o
o
o
~
10
1'
0.1
0.1
1
10
100
Measured Permeability (Darcys)
1000
......... ..:
...
~
.:....... -. .......
............
.."L;;:-.;:
Regression d,, phi, cut distribution
l0OC
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
...............*+....+......
100
..
+
*
.%
+
+ .+ .
10
..................................
....................................
/
.....................................
.....................................
....................................
1'
0.1
0.1
//
I
1
10
I
100
Measured Permeability (Darcys)
1000
..I...__ ,-..,
~
Regression d,, phi, complete distribution
E-"
loo0
......................................
+
+
t
......................................
I
'
/
....................................
0.1
0.1
I
L
+
L
1
10
100
Measured Permeability (Darcys)
1000
Regression MSP1, complete distribution
0.1
1
10
100
Measured Permeability (Darcys)
1000
Regression MSP1, cut distribution
0.1
1
10
100
Measured Permeability (Darcys)
1000
...............................
. . "h._, . . ........"4L,a...
.......
G..
.
.-
................
-.
Y....
............
..I.
Regression MSP2, complete distribution
+
.............................,.....+. t :
+i
+;
.............................
+
%.
*+
:+%+*
+ +
++
+
i.................+..+.............
j
...................................
i /
L
0.1
0.1
1
Ij
+Y
+
+
:-
..................
10
100
Measured Permeability (Darcys)
1000
Regression MSP2, cut distribution
1000
1
I
................ .............,..,_..
....................
+
I
+
+I
I
10
0.1
0.1
1
10
100
Measured Permeability (Darcys)
1000
J. W. HawleyandT. M.WhiW01th(eds.),1996, Hydrogeologyofpotentialrecharge areas andhydrogeochemicalmodeling
of proposed artificial-recharge methods in basin- and valley-fiil aquifer systems. Albuquerque Basin, New Mexico: New
Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Open-File Report 402D, Chapter 2. Appendix 2-C
APPENDIX 2-C
Scatter plots of measured permeability and outcrop sample effective diameters
and grain size distribution parameters
...
Pearson correlation coefficients for
loglo of measured permeability and grain
distributionparameters
VARIABLE
COMPLETE SAMPLE
-
CUT SAMPLE
0.669
0.659
0.655
0.649
0.524
0.749
0.747
0.746
0.746
0.734
0.723
0.000
0.813
0.218
d20, phi
d50, phi
Kruger, phi
d6O/d10, phi
-0.851
-0.842
-0.848
-0.834
-0.741
-0.846
-0.856
-0.861
-0.863
-0.852
-0.858
-0.396
-0.885
-0.668
Mean
Standard Deviation
Skewness
Mean-Cubed Deviation
Percent Fines
Percent Pebbles
Max. Clast Diameter,phi
Porosity
Lithification
-0.776
-0.018
0.261
0.310
-0.634
0.397
-0.430
-0.161
-0.61 1
-0.872
-0.117
0.439
0.458
-0.634
d10,
dl57
d17,
d20, mm
d50, mm
Kruger, mm
d60/d10, mm
die, phi
d15, phi
di7, phi
"
"
-0.161
-0.611
..
Pearson correlation coefficients
parameters
-
VARZABLE
for measuredpermeabilityandgraindistribution
COMPLETE SAMPLE
CUTSAMPLE
d10,
d15. mm
d17,
d20,
d50,
Kruger, mm
d60/d10, mm
0.803
0.794
0.789
0.782
0.571
0.819
0.837
0.839
0.842
0.812
0.821
-0.049
0.844
0.154
dio2, mm
d17?,
d202, mm
0.654
0.636
0.633
0.754
0.765
0.762
dio, phi
d15, Phi
d17, Phi
d20. phi
d50, phi
Kruger, phi
d60/d10, phi
-0.836
-0.833
-0.827
-0.818
-0.680
-0.796
-0.815
-0.818
-0.823
-0.782
-0.801
-0.509
-0.791
-0.714
Mean
Standard Deviation
Skewness
Mean-Cubed Deviation
Percent Fines
Percent Pebbles
Max. Clast Diameter, phi
Porosity
Lithification
-0.718
-0.034
0.321
0.299
-0.407
0.478
-0.402
-0.198
-0.444
-0.785
-0.102
0.505
0.494
-0.405
"
"
-0.198
-0.444
Influence of dl, ParticleSize
on Permeability
....
. . . .
1000
j
...........
100
' +
* ................
++++q
....
t
_;.......................
...........
+
++ .
+
+
1
+
+
t
................... .* .
10
+
+
++
+ ++
t
+
...................
.I
t+;
j
++
+
+*
........................
+
+t
+
+*+
+
+
+
;
+.I
+
+
+
"'&:
++ +
+ y + +
++ +
...................
.............
;
+
t
+
+
1
.......................
Y
'ine
0.1
6
5
...........
.... ............
t
......................
cox5
i
4
3
2
d,, Grain Size, Complete Sample (phi)
1
0
Influence of dl, Grain Size on Permeability
Foo
+
+
...........
.......................
+
+
+
...................+ +....
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
**+
6
...........
Fine
5
4$.
+ + . .
+
++
+++
j
"+++
++
+ +
.......................
+
" +
:
+
+-?
;++
+
i
...............................
............
...........
......................
0.1
f.++
i+T++g+l.
+
1.
+i+
. F+*+
+
4
3
2
d,,L" Grain Size, Cut Sample
. (phi)
.
1
0
.....
,
...
. .- ...........
...-_I ....
""L
-.
-..-. .. . . . .
~
~
....
__
L"._.__.
.,....-_.....
.... . _
-
Influence of d,, Grain Size on Permeability
1000
+* ++
++
+
+
++
+i
+
:
t+$
.............+
$+
.
$
+
+ +
t $+
+
i.
........+
LOO
++ "++
., ++
i.
+.
++ +
.K
+
++
10
+
...................................................
1
f+
"
-.
-me
.
1
1
1
1
/
1
1
1
1
0.1
5
4
3
2
1
d,, Grain Size, Complete Sample (phi)
0
-1
-
Influence of dl, Grain Size on Permeability
1000
....
T
++++a++
~
#
j++
+
+++++ . ++ + +i:
,. . . . . + *
+_ ...................+.... ..................:..
..........................
__?
LOO
++'+
?+
.p
+ +
+*
;+
1
t + +++
++
+$
++
++ +
............
10
+
j
.......
t
++
1
+j
,
.
,""
1'
.
.......................
++
. .
:ine
L
0.1
5
4
3
i
2
1
d,, Grain Size, Cut Sample (phi)
0
-1
Influence of dl, Grain Size on Permeability
1000
8
............+
100
'+
..
4'3
+
f
.H+
+ + $
++
+?
++
10
+
1.
0.1
5
4
3
2
1
d,, Grain Size, CompleteSample (phi)
0
-1
.. . . .......
.. ...
....
~,
.,.”. . .
I
.
.....”... .... _. . ,._...
Influence of dl, Grain Size on Permeability
1000
100
10
1’
0.1
5
4
3
2
1
d,, Grain Size, Cut Sample (phi)
0
-1
Influence of d2,, Grain Size on Permeability
> , , , , , , , , 1 , 1 , 1 1
it,
i:
........................
+
++
.......
++
*
..:...
..+ .......
++
++
+
+
+
............
_.,.__
++
i
5
4
3
2
1
b. Grain Size. Comulete Samule (ubi)
0
-1
Influence of dzo Grain Size on Permeslbility
5
4
3
2
1
d,, Grain Size, Cut Sample (phi)
0
-1
"
"
-. ...
loo0
7
F-
c
+i
+ +
$ 3 +++
+
+j + + * +
.......... ...................+
"
'$+*+ +;+
. i.+ + ;
+
+ + I
1*.
:+'
+ ;
h
v1
x
2
m
8
+i
+
t
+
-...........
;
+.-
+
+
I
t
$ i
i+
+ +
+
.$
____<._
..........................
+
+
+
.........................
j
+
++ i
Fine
......
i
0.1
5
*
I +
I+
....................
+; !
+ i. ,;
4
3
2
1
d50Grain Size, Complete Sample (phi)
0
....
"
.... .*"_."
.....
..-..-.I
I
-1
....
.....
.
.
......
......
._. . .
..................................
.... -A"&....
*..ai _I
Influence of d,, Grain Sizeon Permeability
1000
T
I " "
+
.
++ +
............ 4............+
'++ 4
+
100
i #+ * +
++/
+
**;
+i
+ i
+
+........... + j+.............
-+ +
...........
+
+
t
1.
0.1
i
5
& ,
+
+
....................
.................
++
Fine
i
4
+
* ;
t
+
10
+
*
+
3
+ /
2
+
1
d50 Grain Size, Cut Sample (phi)
0
-1
......
...
Influence of Kruger Diameter on Permeability
T
..................
...........
T
++ +..
+t..+i
+
+
++
+
+
++
++
jt
........................4 ...+.......+..
+
+
t.
. .+
i+
+
++
+
++
+
_.(___ ..... ............
.......
i
i
+ +
5
4
3
2
1
0
Kruger Effective Diameter, Complete Sample(phi)
-1
........
Influence of Kruger Diameter on Permeability
1000
...........
+
+
i
10
...........
1
...........
1
, , , , I
Fine
, , , ,
Coarse
0.1
5
4
3
2
1
0
Kruger Effective Diameter,Cut Sample (phi)
-1
"
.....
Influence of the Uniformity Coefficient on Permeability
1000
"
t
*
F
+ +
T
! " "
+
+ ++
+
++ + +* + +++ +
+
.................
+ _ ..........4............
i+
++ +
j +++
%
_a___
++
+
+
+
i
i+
lj
+
_'____
t
........................................
<
......
0.1
1
i
0.5
Uniformity Coefficient
......
.......
i
Fine
+
i
0
-0.5
""%,,,CompleteSample(phi)
-1
,
Influence of dl, Grain Size Squared on Permeability
1000
100
10
1'
0.1
0
0.5
1
1.5
d,, Grain Size Squared, Complete Sample
(mm)
2
..
Influence of dl, Grain Size Squared on Permeability
....
*+ +
fl
.
.
I
,
+
+
............
............
e
............................
.......................
Fine
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
d,, Grain Size Squared, Cut Sample (mm)
0.5
0.6
-
Influence of dl, Grain Size Squared on Permeability
1000
t
+
+.....
100
+
.
10
0.1
....................................
L
Fine
0
0.5
,
.
,
+
+
I
.
.....................................
....................................
.....................................
....................................
.....................................
....................................
I
1
,
I
I
,
i
l
l
1.5
d,, Grain Size Squared, Complete Sample (mm)
Coarse
,
,
2
................
.........
Influence of dl,Grain
--
Size Squared on Permeability
+
+
+
+
7
..+
+
100
............
...........
............
10
......................
...........
_.*__
...........
1.
.......................
...........
............
....:...
........
-
i"uLi
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
d,, Grain Size Squared, Cut Sample (mm)
0.5
0.6
." .." . . . . .
.
._
Influence of dzo Grain SizeSquared on Permeability
1000
+ + +
100
10
0
0.5
1
1.5
d20Grain Size Squared, Complete Sample(mm)
2
--
Influence of d,, Grain Size Squared on Permeability
loo0
I-
T
7-
+
+
+
+*++
i+
~
...........
I
Fine
.*__.
...........
...........
..................
............
............
+
L
0.1
0
0.1
+
............
i
.
+
10
..
4
4
+
++
+i
t....-.-............. .............
+
;
100
+
0.2
0.3
+
-
i
0.4
i
0.5
d20Grain Size Squared, Cut Sample (mm)
0.6
Influence of Mean Grain SizeonPermeability
.....
..:..
:.
5
._(_.
._,_.
i
i
4
3
2
1
0
Mean, Complete Sample (phi)
L
-1
-2
"
"
...
"Y
Influence of Mean Grain Sizeon Permeability
looo
F-
7-
+
.:._..
+
+ .
+
+
+
+
#+
+
$
++
2
++
i
+
+
."
+
/t
++
...........
t
+
+
4
......
......................
i
5
4
3
2
1
Mean, Cut Sample (phi)
0
-1
..............
-.
-
Influence of Standard Deviation on Permeability
p +++
+ +++
+ $
i
+ + , +
++++
+ I *++
........................I
+
*+
+ +i
+
+
+
*+++ +
;
:
++
, ++
+
+
+
++
i ++ +
* {
+
: +
+ (i++
.................. '
0
0.5
+-
..............+. +
~
++
+
+
+
......... +............+ii.......
+
+
+
+
+
+i
+
; *"
'
1
1.5
~
2
Standard Deviation, Complete Sample
2.5
3
-r-
Influence of Standard Deviation on Permeability
++
++ ,.++ ++ +
+ :+$+++
... ...........
T+++
3 *
+
+ I.
...........bS ....+f.-
++ +++++
+
+ I +
+
+
+
++
+
+
++
........++..........+
& .......................
++
+
+
t
+
+ ......
+-
+:.
t
.......
.......................
i,--0
0.5
..;__.
+
.................+- ........................
0.1
_.,___
+
+
I.+
i
.*...
1
i
i
i
1.5
2
2.5
Standard Deviation, Cut Sample
3
Influence of Skewness on Permeability
. . . .
. . .
1000
+
...........................
100
*
+
+
-+ +
4; +
+
++ : .............
..................
+ + * +'+
*+$ +
+
+
+
+
+.
+
+
+
* **
+
++
........+......
+
10
+
+
'
- + +.H
+
+
.............
..............................
i.+
+
++
++
+
+
+
+
....*t.................. ....*...................
...............
+
+
+ ++
+
+ +
+
.I.+
.............
+
.............................
.........................
...... ................... ...............................
++
1.
~
0.1
-2
-1
0
1
Skewness, Complete Sample
2
3
..........
.....
-
"
"
Influence of Skewness on Permeability
r
+ i i+
+ +
j$
+
i
+
!
+
++
+
*(.+
.......
+ +
+ ++;*
++ +I
++
+
+
+
+i
++i+
*
+++
...........
+'.....+..........................
.4
+
+
+
+ +
_.___.
..................++ ....
+
+$
++
i
..........
i
...............................
__/____
+ +
+
1
+ + ;
++
.I
;
+
+
....................
..................................
b
!.
i
-2
-1
i
0
1
Skewness, Cut Sample
2
3
-
-
Influence of Percent Fines on Permeability
1000
z
2
h
100
...........
...........
...........
...........
......................
...........
9
-
0.1
0
5
10
15
20
Percent Fines, Complete Sample
25
30
- ...........................
.
-.: .........................
-
-
Influence of Percent Fines on Permeability
. . . .
............
...........
............
.......................
c..........
...........
...........
...........
+
e
.......................
......................
+
+
...........
1i -
....................
0.1
0
5.
10
15
*
......................
20
Percent Fines, Cut Sample
25
30
...
-
Influence of PorCsity on Permeability
r
:
+
i i
............
......
............
......
i + +
+ +++
?
+
..
_...........
++
......
-
i
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Fractional PercentPorosity
0.5
0.6
"
Influence of Cementation on Permeability
T
loo0
oo
...........
............
...........
.......................
t
0.1
............
.S
uncemen
2.5 0.5
2 1
1.5
Degree of Cementation
3
3.5
J. W. Hawley and T. M.Whitworth (ads.), 1996, Hydrogeologyofpolenllrecharge areas andhydrogeochemicalmode1;ng
of proposed art8ciaCrecharge methods In basin- and valley-fill aquiter systems, Albuquerque Basin, New Mexico: N~~
Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Open-File Repod 402D, Chapter 2-D
APPENDIX 2-D
Comparison of porosity, permeability and grain size distribution parameters
of outcrop samples grouped by bedding type
ABBREVIATIONS
CB - CROSSBEDS
CH - C U N N E L S
HL - HORIZONTAL LAMINATIONS
SF - S C O m AND FILL
S L - STRUCTURELESS
C2 - CORONADO 2
MI " W 1
PS - PSMW-19
-CM - COMPLETE DISTRIBUTION
-CT - CUT DISTRIBUTION
MEAN - MEAN GRAIN SIZE (PHI UNITS)
STDV - STANDARD DEWATION
SKEW - SKEWNESS
M3DV - MEAN-CUBED DEVIATION
PSLT - PERCENT FQ4E.S
PPEB - PERCENT PEBBLES
MAXD"AXlMUMINTERMEDIATEDJAMETER
POR - PERCENT POROSITY
MSPERM-MEASUREDPERMEABILITY
LITH - LITHIFICATION
,"._l_"~_
. .... . .. .
,
3TAL OBSERVATIONS:
33
CBMEANCM
CBSTDVCM
CBSKEWCM
CBM3DVCM
CBPSLTCM
33 N OF CASES 33
33
MINIMUM 0.000
-1.656
-1.517
0.478
0.060
MAXIMUM
3.227 2.390
5.263
1.214
I.636
RANGE
2.7311.1583.167
0.3160.035
-0.051
1.323
0.902
MEAN
0.099
0.458
0 .G%7
VARIANCE
0.5521.112
DN 0.7790.3140.677
STANDARD
STD.
ERROR
0.0960.1940.1360.0550.118
0.390
.
0.629
3.0023.060
-0.236
SKEWNESS(G1)
0.482
8.298
13.137
-0.829
-0.312
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
43.645 1.147
-1.678
29.772
C.V.
1.748
31.988
-15.319
0.348
0.512
-0.019
-0.098
0.878
1.398
MEDIAN 0.140
33
2.390
6.919
0.304
1.236
10.413
CBMEANCT
CBSTDVCT
CBSKEWCT
CBPPEBCM
CBMAXD
33
33 33
N OF CASES
0.002 0.000
-3.121
MINIMUM
1.5173.227
-1.007
MAXIMUM
13.284
2.3941.0533.2272.114
13.282
RANGE
-1.968
MEAN
3.319
0.548
VARIANCE
19.260
0.740 4.389
STANDARDDEV
STD.
ERROR
0.764
0.129
SKEWNESS(G1)
I.0.016
270
-1.339
0.101
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
109.537
-64.951
-0.376
1.322
C.V.
MEDIAN
1.104
-2.000
33
1.382
0.429
0.655
0.114
0.328
0.704
45.602
0.474
1.434
0.464
33
-0.768
1.626
0.802
0.062
0.248
0.043
0.850
0.417
26.465
0.310
0.733
0.381
0.444
0.666
0.116
0.190
-1.024
12.570
1.749
0.313
CBMSPERM
CBPOR
CBPSLTCT
CBM3DVCT
N OF CASES
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD DN
STD.
ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
33
-0.373
5.252
5.625
0.400
0.356 0.938
0.969
0.169
3.962
9.132
17.386
13.205
2.420
0.126
CBLITH
33
0.000
2.753
2.753
0.333
0.0390.597
0.104
3.115
11.000
1.790
0.141
33
27
0.326
2.830
0.534
271.680
0.208
268.850
0.453
103.023
0.002
4423.749
66.511
12.800
0.007
-1.197
0.772
0.090
2.621
14.941
2781.630
0.646
0.086
88.150
0.467
.
'
27
1.004
2.000
1.004
1.296
0.217
0.465
0.090
0.892
-1.204
35.000
0.359
1.050
''
;
.~.
;
:. :..,"y.:.-..-?..".
""~
,
..
TAL OBSERVATIONS:
14
CHM3DVCM
CHMEANCM
CHSTDVCM
CHSKEWCM
N OF CASES
MINIMUM
MAXI"
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD ON
STD. ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
1.006
14
-1.951
0.886
2.837
-0.490
0.688
0.830
0.222
0.096
-0.773
-6.861
-1.693
-0.423
14
0.902
1.959
1.057
1.304
0.092
0.303
0.081
.
0.294
18.249
0.232
1.224
14 14
-0.729
5.149
5.878
0.968
2.403
1.550
0.414
1.377
1.731
13.545
1.602
0.378
CHPSLTCM
14
-1.890
0.021
5.420
0.509
6.510
0.488
1.825
0.154
4.494
0.019
2.120 0.138
0.037
0.567
0.099
1.547
-1.165
1.511
25.551
2.159
1.162
0.896
2.298
0.121
CHMEANCT
CHSTDVCT
CHSKEWCT
CHPPEECM
CHMAXD
14
N OF CASES
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD DN
STD.
ERROR
SKEWESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
14
-3.511 4.511
-2.000 93.744
89.233
I.511
41.037 0.592 -3.005
0.154
644.757
25.392
0.392
0.105
6.786
0.248
1.157
-0.499
1.029
574.522
-42.063
-0.130
0.619
-3.129
43 x11
14 14
14
-0.088 0.043 0.698
1.420
1.774
1.508
2.271
1.076
1.026
0.279
0.076
0.528
0.275
0.141
0.074
0.244
1.505
-1.277
1.986
8.292
14.358
0.268
0.891
0.557
0.973
CHMSPERM
CHPOR
CHPSLTCT
CHM3DVCT
N OF CASES
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD DN
STD.
ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
14
0.015
5.306
5.291
1.623
3.316
1.821
0.487
0.858
-0.648
22.715
1.122
0.718
2.314
1.065
0.848
0.921
0.246
0.357
-1.622
14.907
0.865
0.727
CHLITH
14
0.022
2.303
2.281
0.488
0'.452
0.673
0.180
1.763
1.941
6.830
I.379
0.221
14
0.216
0.467
0.251
0.345
0.008
0.089
0.024
0.143
-1.403
4.835
0.258
0.332
11
-44.981
271.680
226.699
201.321
6786.031
82.377
24.838
-0.835
-0.747
2214.526
0.409
223.067
11
1.000
2.000
1.000
1.091
0.091
0.302
0 .a1
2.846
6.100
12.000
0.276
1.000
'
...
TAL
.
... ..
~
.*
29
HLMEANCM
HLSTDVCM
HLSKEWCM
HLM3DVCM
I OF CASES
4T.NIMUM
MIMUM
UNGE
AEAN
IARIANCE
jTANDARD D N
TO. ERROR
Z.V.
I1EDIAN
29
0.895
4.367
3.472
2.204
0.774
0.880
0.163
0.743
-0.307
63.930
0.399
1.952
... .
,
HLPSLTCM
29
0.615
1.464
0.849
0 .%9
0.055
0.233
0.043
0.122
-0.839
28.110
0.241
0.989
29
-1.544
1.636
3.180
0.090
0.441
0.664
0.123
0.281
0.923
2.603
7.401
0.147
29
-2.311
0.422
2.733
-0.167
0.388
0.623
0.116
-1.778
3.228
-4.830
-3.742
0.123
29
0.025
19.245
19.220
1.983
13.849
3.721
0.691
3.668
14.247
57.495
1.877
0.686
29
1.057
4.367
3.310
2.257
0.712
0.844
0.157
0.803
-0.241
65.448
0.374
1.954
29
0.614
1.241
0.627
0.902
0.034
0.184
0.034
0.046
-1.134
26.153
0.2w
0.898
29
-0.602
1.654
2.256
0.364
0.289
0.538
0.100
0.504
0.436
10.552
1.478
0.336
HLMEANCT
HLSTDVCT
HLSKEWCT
HLPPEBCM
HLMAXD
V OF CASES 29
YINIMUM
WIMUM
UNGE
lfEAN
tARIANCE
STANDARD DEV
STD.
ERROR
SKEWESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
29
-2.585
0.002
8.619
8.617
1.633
5.311
0.506 2.305
0.0940.428
1.367
1.100
47.355
1.411
0 .I94
-1.007
1.578
-1.493
0.256
-0.815
-0.599
-43.301
-0.339
-1.379
N OF CASES 29
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARDDEV
STD.
ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
29
0.025-0.788
19.246
1.074
1.862
1.9950.177
13.829
0.155
0.394
0.073
-0.606
I.134
14.250
57.860
5,141
1.864 2.221
0.6870.221
HLLITH
HLMSPEW
HLPOR
HLM30VCT
HLPSLTCT
29
28
0.308
0.850
158.930
0.515
158
.080
0.207
39.962
0.442
0.002
1753.202
41.871
0.044
0.008
7.913
1.367
-1.192
1.962
I.279
12.832
1118.940
1.048
0.100
0.454
25.495
.
19.221
3.719
0.691
3.667
27
1.000
4.000
3.000
1.815
0.618
0.786
0.151
0.814
0.463
49.000
0.433
2.000
'
S:
ITAL
25
,"
SFMEANCM
SFSTDVCM
SFSKEWCM
25 N OFCASES 25
25
MINIMUM
-0.8021.163
-1.169
2.489 2.551 2.756
M
A
X
"
I
13.727
1.388
3.925
RANGE
3.2560.6381.722
-0.072
MEAN
VARIANCE9.3800.4080.1210.552
0.743
STANDARD DN
0.149
STO.
ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
-0.447
0.429
0.410
2.250
KURTOSIS(G2)
15.508
0.519
2.314
-0.456
6.634
SUM
-1.807
C.V.
-10.280
MEDIAN
-0.209
SFMAXD
SFPPEBCM
N OFCASES
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD DEV
STD.
ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
25
6.659
63.629
56.970
33.811
176.502
13.285
2.657
-0.068
-0.052
845.270
0.393
35 570
SFM3DVCM
-4.954
8.773
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD DEV
STO. ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
25
0.271
0.062
-0.731
5.917
6.648
1.932
1.940
1.393
0.279
0.578
1.098
48.310
0.721
1.868
0.046
7.880
3.290
3.063
0.858
2.390
1.546
0.309
3 .%8
81.407
0.941
3.081
21.446
1.802
0.373
0.347
0.639
0.069 0.6130.128
43 .057
0.202
I.717
15.948
1.002
0.611
SFMEANCT
25
-3.916
-2.511
1.405
-3.142
0.114
0.338
0.%8
-0.381
-0.136
-78.547
-0.107
-3.170
SFPSLTCT
SFM3DVCT
25 N OF CASES 25
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
SFPSLTCM
25
-0.117
3.087
3.204
0.930
0.446
0.668
0.134
1.307
2.627
23.246
0.719
0.917
SFWR
8.442
8.380
1..225
3.016
1.737
0.347
3.125
10.181
30.631
1.417
0.625
SFSTDVCT
SFSKEWCT
25
0.971
1.883
0.912
1.334
0.059
0,242
0.048
0.531
-0.428
33.362
0.181
1.327
25
-0.109
2.955
3.064
0.906
0.458
0.677
0.135
1.131
1.657
22.654
0.747
0.823
SFLITH
SFMSPEW
0.439
0.168
0.345
0.002
0.048
0.010
0.353
-0.987
8.637
0.139
0.325
.
1.000
2.010
271.680
269.670
117.187
7872.529
88.727
19.840
0.502
-0.822
2343.749
0.757
111.386
3.000
2.000
1.400
0.463
0.681
0.152
1.398
0.612
28.000
0.486
1.000
S:
3TAL
...
15
SLMEANCM
SLSTDVCM
SLSKEWCM
SLM3DVCM
SLPSLTCM
15 N OF CASES 15
15
-1.361
00.895.
398
MINIMUM
3.426 0.432 2.195
MAXIMUM
RANGE 7.649 1.793 1.300 3,028
-0.4643
2.467
MEAN
I.535
0.786
0.162
0.194
VARIANCE
0.441
STANDARD ON
0.886
0.402
0.1040.229
0.114
STD.
ERROR
-0.015
-0.759
-0.125
SKEWESS(G1)
-1.109
-0.095
0.003
KURTOSIS(G2)
70.610
-36.833
-6.897
23.027
37.012
SUM
0.884
-1.070
-0.958
0.262
0.359
C.V.
2.442
1.529 3.380
-1.230
-0.358
MEDIAN
SLPPEBCM
N OF CASES 15
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD DEV
STD.
ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
15
0.002
17.242
17.240
6.303
43.314
6.581
0.2801.699
0.7140.493
-1.281
94.543
1.044
-2.678
5.829
SLWD
OF CASES 15
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARDDEV
STD.
ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
15
-2.261
16.434
0.721
16.265
2.982
-0.419
0.568
0.754
0.195
1.498-0.578
2.0900.579
-6.289
-1.798
-0.523
-2.456
6.900
2.627
0.678
-0.692
-1.080
0.141
16.270
16.129
4.707
17.297
4.159
1.074
1.526
2.076
SLMEANCT
SLSTDVCT
SLSKEWCT
15
0.846
-3.248
3.430
-1.007
2.584
2.241
2.730
-2.309
0.495
0.@a0
0.703
0.775
0.182
-0.290
-1.321
-0.802
1.444
40.943
-34.635
-0.335 0.1860.258
1,2502.788
SLM3DVCT
SLPSLTCT
N
-7.281
0.368
15
0.810
1.576
0.766
1.256
0 .055
0.234
0.860
-0.986
18.847
SLLITH
SLMSPERM
SLPOR
15
0.169
15
0.308
0.470
58.003
0.162
14.819
0.406
.4.878
265.527
0.003
17.236
16.295
0.057
4.152
1.072 4.2070.015
-0.423
-1.370
6.096
73.167
0.140
0.851
0.425
4.084
15
-0.765
0.501
1.266
-0.151
0.125
0.354
0.091
0.343
-0.487
-2.262
-2.348
-0.223
, 2.659
60.662
1.957
2.679
222.285
1.100
9.836
15
1.000
3.000
2.000
2.067
0.352
0.594
0.253
0.003
-0.001
31.000
0.287
2.000
..
..
Porosity by Bedding Type, Sieved Outcrop Samples
0.5
............................
.,................................
....
0.4
1
............................
1 T.
._
................. "...... ...............................
+
4
...............
.j..
0
0
0.35
,.,..
0
0.3
0.25
0.2
............................ .....
............................
-
.....
.............................
i
i
.*xm
g
a
m
U
Small circles are datapoints considered outliers by the graphing program.
..
Permeability by Bedding Type, Sieved Outcrop Samples.
300
r
T
............___,__
..............................
~l
*
_,___.
. :
................ ......
..I................
i..
..............................
*..............................
_/____
_,____
.................................
...................
..................
,.:.__.
.............
0
0
0
il_
i
i
i
:I
G
2.
111
111
8
Small circles are data
points considered outliersby the graphing program.
......
. . .
......
Permeability by Bedding Type, Un'sieved Permeability
ProfileMeasurements
T /
300
O
....................................................
j
.............
-i~
...........
...........
1
...........
150
o~
L
I
b I
.....................
loo
......................
I~
T
.....................
Small circles are data points
considered outliers by the graphing program.
Range
CB Mean Corn
CH Mean Corn
HL Mean Corn
SF Mean Corn
SL Mean Corn
CB Std. Dev. Corn
0
e
z.
0
aa
CH Std. Dev. Corn
HL Std. Dev. Corn
SF Std. Dev. Corn
SL Std. Dev. Corn
CB Skewness Corn
CH Skewness Corn
HL Skewness Corn
SF Skewness Corn
SL Skewness Corn
Mean
CB
Cut
OEL
zg
.....................
CH Mean Cut
m
.....................
,
, 8 , . . ,
HL Mean
Cut
-
SF MeanCut
- ................... t+"l
:
......... !..!
................... I
!
........................
-.......................
"
Cut
SL Mean
-
i
i.
CB Std. Dev. Cut
CH Std. Dev. Cut
SL Std. Dev. Cut
io
_ .......................
o
j
-....................... <j ............
....................
...........................
--....................... ............
................... ..............
ii t a 3 - 1
j
_
I...................................................
"lo ,
....................
0
m
i...
(.
<
+
;
i
2
:
0
i
:._
i
..........................
*
...........................
i
1
c
j
i ..........................
i
. .
.......................... ?
(.
CB Skewness Cut
CH SkewnessCut
HL Skewness Cut
SF Skewness Cut
SL Skewness Cut
.......................
I/
...........................
<
g.
i
!........................... i...................... .- .?
M
rA
.....................................................
........................
:
HL Std. Dev. Cut
SF Std. Dev. Cut
i
..........................
0 :
(.
P)_
:,'.,>:*.$,;<',:
i.." ........ :.
::
.-,,,
. .
i...........................
i
a
- B%
:
i........................... i........................
: .
l , . , , I , , , , l , , , , I , , , ,
-$
- o w
L
-$
a m
w
- $3
- z gU
a m
- 20
....
.
.. .
.
.
..
.
.,. . j . . "
.__._
I . _.j
^
u
y
u
y
"
_
. ....
I
Percent Fines by Bedding Type
20
..,...
15
__,___
E
sM
C
.*
a
e
m
u
Small circlesare data points considered outliersby the graphing program.
..
.
.. ._
Percent Pebbles byBedding Type
..
e
m
e
U
Small circles aredata points considered outliersby the "phing
program.
. . .
....
Maximum Intermediate Diameter by Bedding Type
Fine
-0.5
-3
.............................
T
11
t
...........................
-3.5
-4
...........
l$Oa;rS?
E
.*n
a
g
...........
,
E
.-m
n
Em
En
a
m
U
Small circles are data pointsconsidered outliersby the graphing program.
.
__
Distribution of grain size parameters
by grouped bedding type, complete samples
Bedding Tvpe. Parameter
Mean Value
Crossbeds, mean grain size
Channels, meangrain size
Horizontal, mean grain size
Scour and fdl, mean grain size
Structureless, mean grain size
1.323
-0.490
2.204
-0.072
2.467
0.677
0.830
0.880
0.743
0.886
0.390
0.096
0.743
2.250
-0.759
Crossbeds, standard deviations
Channels, standard deviations
Horizontal, standard deviations
Scour and fill, standard deviations
Structureless, standard deviations
0.902
1.304
0.969
1.722
1.535
0.3 14
0.303
0.233
0.347
0.402
0.629
1.006
0.122
0.410
-0.015
Crossbeds, skewness
Channels, skewness
Horizontal, skewness
Scour andfill, skewness
Structureless, skewness
-0.051
0.968
0.090
0.638
-0.460
0.779
1.550
0.664
0.639
0.441
-0.236
1.377
0.281
0.429
-0.125
Crossbeds, percent fines
Channels, percentfines
Horizontal, percent fines
Scour and fill, percent fines
Structureless, percent fines
0.316
0.154
1.983
0.858
4.707
0.552
0.138
3.721
1.546
4.159
3.002
1.547
3.668
3.968
1.526
Standard Deviation
Skewness
,
..... . .
.....
. . . . . . . . . . . . ._
.......................
~
~.
"~
,",
.......
Scatter Plot of Mean and Standard Deviation by Bedding Type,
Complete Samples
3
-7
..
__>___
2.5
................
..;.__
2
......................
1.5
i 1
j l
,j
......................
1
......................
0.5
i
5
4
3
2
1
Mean, Complete Sample
0
-1
-2
..
2
.
Scatter Plot of Mean and Standard Deviation by Bedding Type,
Cut Samples
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
5
4
3
2
1
Mean, Cut Samples
0
-1
-2
..
.
..
Scatter Plot of Mean and Skewness by Bedding Type,
Complete Distribution
5
4
3
2
1
Mean, Complete Sample
0
-1
-2
.......
"
__
.... .,__.
..
.~ .
Scatter Plot of Mean and Skewness by Bedding Type,
Cut Samples
6
5
4
3
---- ..........
-
!
"
"
!
"
"
!
"
"
1
~
"
.......................
i
...........
L
---.......... .......................
---- ............................................
---.......... ............ -.....................
-jn
;
1
_
-;
4
...........
i
"
"
~
'
~
....
'
0
L
+
~
...........
+
:
.
I
L- ..........
---..........
--
--
oO'
w
<
Br..".-...-..-"":"'
~
^
:
?.-X
x j
'63s j
i
&
!
&
%
A
i...................
......\
;
.......
'............
--:
-
"
0
._.. _ . _ .
.
Crossbeds
Channels
Horizontal
ScourandFill
Structureless
A
0
-1
~
x
<
1
'
".
. . . . . . . . ."."":..
i +
iX
+
<
............
*...........
...........
L.......................
--
i ................... I
-i
-
:Fine
j
5
4
i Coarse:
1 1 1 , , 1 , 1 , , 1 , 1 , , 1 , , , , 1 , , , ,
-2
3
2
1
Mean, Cut Samples
0
-1
-2
...
.....
_.
....
...
...
. . . . ,-..,. ....... .: -
..........................
....
"
"
...
Scatter Plot of Standard Deviation and Skewness by
Bedding Type, Complete Samples
,
>
1
,
,
1
,
,
,
,
1
,
,
"
1
,
,
,
,
x
0
oi
...........
0
A
I
+
...........
............
+..........................
..........................
i
!
Crossbeds
Channels
Horizontal
ScourandFill 1
Structureless -
..........................
i
-
i
-
......................
A
j
0
...........
a
ll
.......................0...
-i
!
j
A
$ 0
....................................
............
;
:
j
*.... .......
...........
x+
..............
0
0.5
1
...+............
+
~
............
..............
.......................
.............
............
+
..........................
1.5
..........................
2
Standard Deviation, Complete Samples
2.5
.....
3
- ......
. . .. ... .. . . ......_I
...
.-.....I.
i
Scatter Plot of Standard Deviation and Skewness by
Bedding Type, Cut Samples
6
5
A
Horizontal
Scour and Fill
Structureless
4
3
2
1
0.
it
-1
[
........................
i
.............
;
i
-2
0
.....
2.5 0.5
..
'
21
1.5
Standard Deviation, Cut Samples
3
....
......
. .. . .
Scatter Plot of Standard Deviation and Mean-Cubed Deviation
by Bedding Type, Complete Samples.
10
I " " !
-
x
0
-
-
+
Crossbeds
Channels
Horizontal
Scour and Fill
Structureless
\
-
B
.....x.......".........4..
i.............0.
&
/A
A /
;
i
:
$
A
o /
;
i
:
r(
i
............
4
0
A
A
A
i
A
b
<
0
o
A
s
......
A
A jAA A
A :A
+
0 ;
...........
..-
.......
:.+..............*......
_.,._.
:
X+
n
i...........................
A
+
+
+
i
I"
0
0.5
. .'
1
1.5
2
2.5
Standard Deviation, Complete Samples
3
..."
. . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.......
.
,
.
"
S
I
%
"
.
-
.. i
Scatter Plot of Standard Deviation and Mean-Cubed Deviation
by Bedding Type, Cut Samples
10
-..........
5
t
......................
-5..
-
-10
0
0.5
' '
1
1.5
2
Standard Deviation, Cut Samples
2.5
3
I
~.
. .
...............................
.
I
.
"
.
"_
>*-.
..........
..
-r
Scatter Plot of Mean Grain Size and Percent Fines by
Bedding Type, Complete Samples
T
Channels
Horizontal
Scour~and~Fill
Suuctureless
11
0
A
+
+
1-
......................... ..................
__i.__
............+.......
........................
A
+
l CI
..a,._
q
...................
l
...........T...................
+ +..
..:...................
it
+ E
f+
x
X
0
/c
5
i
A i
h,
i
i&
4
3
2
1
Mean, Complete Samples
0
-1
-2
~
.
5
4
3
2
1
Mean, Cut Samples
0
-1
-2
J. W. Hawley and T. M. Whihvorih (eds.). 1996, Hydrogeologyofpofenfialrecharge areas andhydrogeochemicalmodeling
of proposed artificial-recharge melhods in basin- and valley-fill aquifer sysfems, Albuquerque Basin, New Mexico: New
Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Open-File Report 402D.Chapter 2 , Appendix 2-E
APPENDIX 2-E
Comparison of grain size distribution statistics of well cuttings
Scatter Plot of Meanand Standard Deviation of Well Cuttings,
Complete Samples
.-.-C0m
>
5
4
3
2
1
Mean, Complete Sample
0
-1
-2
Scatter Plot of Mean and Standard Deviation of Well Cuttings,
CutS'amples
.........................
2.5
................. ....
1.5
........................
1
.........................
0.5
i
___(
5
4
3
2
1
Mean, Cut Sample
0
-1
-2
Scatter Plot of Mean and Skewness of Well Cuttings,
Complete Samples
4
3
..:...............x..
2
.......................
1
....
X
0
-1
5
4
3
2
1
Mean, Complete Sample
0
i
{
-1
-2
5
4
3
2
1
Mean, Cut Sample
0
-1
-2
Scatter Plot of Standard Deviation and Skewness of
Well 'Cuttings, Complete Samples
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Standard Deviation, Complete Sample
3
3.5
Scatter Plot of Standard Deviation and Skewness of
Well Cuttings,Cut
Samples
i
MWI
PSMW19
x
.......P.......5...
..................
Q
"1
0
@
<
a no
i
0
i
x ;
x x ;
X
O ; o
0
0
i
,.a...............P...............9..
........
x
.....K..*L
.......................
0
~3
...................
>
0
..........
i
i
o
.....................
*
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Standard Deviation, Cut Sample
3
3.5
Scatter Plot of Mean and Percent Fines of Well Cuttings,
Complete Samples
50
5
4
3
2
1
Mean, Complete Sample
0
-1
-2
Scatter Plot of Mean and Percent Fines of Well Cuttings;
Cut Samples
0
x
COR2
MWl
PSMW19
...........
..................
..................
..:_..................
iCoarse
5
4
3
2
1
Mean, Cut Sample
0
-1
-2
E:
E
E
8 8 8
z
ii
n
!i
2
0
3
E
2
0
U
E
0
V
E
8
E
0
U
2;a
sE
V
Small circles are data points considered outliers by the graphing program.
Range
c
0
t3
COR2 MEANCUT
COR2 ST.DEV. CUT
COR2 SKEW CUT
........................
..........................
....................................................
:
(.
MW I MEAN CUT
MW I ST. DEV. CUT
MW I SKEW CUT
..........................................................................................................
i
j
i
i
o
i
i
i
......................... .......................................................
:..................-..
,
,
1 1
. .,
.. .. .
1
.......................
i ...........................
........................
i..
:
i ...........................
..........................
PSMW19 MEAN CUT
.....................................................
i
PSMW19 ST. DEV. CUT
.......................
.......................................................
:
:
PSMW19 SKEW CUT
.........................
:
. . . . .
.........................
:.
Percent Fines of Well Cuttings
50
0
............... a--".._.......- .
40
T
............
I
30
e,
M
C
2
1, '1
T
...........................
......... .......
._I._
.......................
10
.......... ................~.........,.......,....."
-
. ....
...,.... . .
~
,
^
.....
. . .
.:., . .
. ... .. ....."
~
. . .
0
0
i
L i
z
0
U
WY
2E
€3
zz
Small circlesare data points considered outliers by the graphing program.
ABBREVIATIONS
CB - CROSSBEDS
CH 1 CHANNELS
HL - HORIZONTAL LAMINATIONS
SF - SCOUR AND FILL
MI “ W 1
PS - PSMW-19
-CM - COMPLETE DISTRIBUTION
-CT - CUT DISTRIBUTION
MEAN - MEAN GRAIN SIZE(PHI UNITS)
STDV - STANDARD DEMATION
S K E W - SKEWNESS
M3DV - MEAN-CUBED DEVIATION
PSLT - PERCENT FINES ‘
PPEB - PERCENT PEBBLES
MAXD - MAXI”INTERMEDIATE DIAMETER
POR - PERCENT POROSITY
MSPERM - MEASURED PERMEABILITY
LITH - LITHIFICATION
CZMEANCM
N OF CASES
25
MINIMUM
WIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD DEV
STD. ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
CZSTDVCM
25
-0.742
-0.820-0.731 0.652
0.639
1.503
1.381
0.851
-0.022
1.129
0.158
0.065
0.398
0.255
0.080
0.051
-0.291
-0.198
-1.073
-1.255
-0.551
28.223
-18.060
0.226
0.050
1.109
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
C2PPEB
N OF CASES
25
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD DEV
STD. ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
CRMAXDIA
25
3.383
60.493
57.110
21.664
250.085
15.814
3.163
0.926
-0.114
541.590
0.730
18.347
2.046
25
0.172
3.478
3.306
1.286
1.098
1.048
0.210
0.806
-0.594
32.159
0.815
0.889
C2M3DVCM
C2PFINCM
1.594
2.325
0.479
0.353
0.594
0.119
0.067
-0.695
11.971
1.241
0.441
CZMEANCT
5.413
6.233
1.132
2.520
1.587
0.317
1.201
0.696
28.294
1.403
0.420
0.051
1.767
1.716
0.373
0.145
0.380
0.076
5.141
9.330
1.019
0.254
25
0.048
0.698
0.650
0.249
0.035
0.188
0.038
0.677
-0.555
6.223
0.754
0.238
CZSTDVCT
C2SKEWCT
-3.138
0.047
0.555
-1.070
0.913
1.325
2.068
0.866
0.770
-2.491
0.468
0.874
0.2220.054 0.051
0.471
0.226
0.231
0.094
0.045
0.046
1.241
-0.054
0.601
1.495
-0.818
-0.660
-62.268
11.693 38.235
21.855
-0.189
0.484
0.265
-2.609
0.452
0.756
C2M3DVCT
CZPFINCT
N OF CASES
25
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD DEV
STD. ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
CZSKEWCM
0.773
2.451
1.678
1.529
0.159
0.399
0.080
0.194
-0.342
0.261
1.530
w\\
iNA\
rOTAL OBSERVATIONS:
22
MlMEANCM
MlSTDVCM
MlSKEWCM
MlM3DVCM
NOFCASES 21
22 22
-5.933
-0.862
1.204
-0.236
MINIMUM0.609
4.121
MAXIMUM
RANGE
4.357
MEAN
1.617
VARIANCE
1.866
STANDARDDEV
1.366
STD.
ERROR
0.291
SKRYNESS(G1)
0.456
KURTOSIS(G2)
-1.135
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
35.573
0.845
1.203
MlPPEBCM
NOFCASES
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARDDEV
STD.
ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
N OF CASES
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARDDEV
STD.
ERROR
SKFNNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN :
22
2.782
1.578
1.843
0.185
0.430
0.092
0.422
-0.593
40.556
0.233
1.781
MlMAXDIA
22
-3.797
0.002
-1.070
40.278
2.72740.276
10.117
161.174
0.80712.695
0.1722.707
0.836 1.265
0.267
222.576
1.255
4.505
MlM3DVCT
MlPFINCM
MlMEANCT
22
-2.912
0.651
-0.037
-64.067
-0.277
-2.897
MlPFINCT
22
-6.011
8.031
14.042
12.854
1.636
162.381
9.336
12.743
3.056
2.717 0.651
1.3850.040
0.807
35.990
1.868
1.138
1.198
2.060
0.218
0.360
0.600
0.128
0.009
-1.049
4.788
2.756
0.100
22
0.628
46.199
45.571
0.884
282.792
0.991
6.655
11.063
16.9%
1.590
18.073
4.251
0.928
0.651
0.063
33.385
2.674
0.436
MlSTDVCT
22
0.557
4.193
3.636
2.171
1.298
1.139
0.243
0.446
-1.017
47.763
0.525
1.848
41.902
41.293
11.809
147.767
12.156
2.592
1.367
0.745
259.789
1.029
6.298
MlSKEWCT
22
1.163
2.393
1.230
1.582
0.076
0.276
0.059
0.986
1.608
34.810
0.174
1.545
22
-0.774
1.464
2.238
0.424
0.317
0.563
0.120
0.082
-0.451
9.336
1.327
0.391
'
OBSERVATIONS:
TAL
46
PSMEANCM
N OF CASES
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD DEV
STD. ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
PSSKEWCM
46
0.321
70.814
70.493
-2.614 17.061
335.968
18.329
2.703
1.394
1.328
784.783
1.074
11.488
46
-3.982
-1.202
2.780
0.375
0.613
0.090
0.047
0.558
-120.249
-0.234
-2.585
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
46
-7.736
12.635
20.371
3.998
21.013
4.584
0.676
0.097
-0.363
183,899
1.147
3.069
46
2.334
43.960
41.626
16.799
77.834
8.822
1.301
0,478
0.356
772.767
0,525
16.798
46
1.226
36.460
63.875
1.178
0.302
-0.182
658.623
0.558
15.316
PSSKEWCT
PSMAXDIA
PSMEANCT
PSSTDVCT
PSM3DVCT
PSPFINCT
N OF CASES
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD DEV
STD. ERROR
PSM3DVCM
PSPFINCM
46
46
45
1.293 -5.210 -0.532
3.221 17.905 3.643
1.928
4.175 35.23423.115
2.123
0.592 14.318 4.356
0.224
0.896
40.239
0.473
0.9477.992 6.343
0.070
0.140
0.946
1.237
0.557
-0.575
-0.296
1.233
97.638
27.211
196.006
1.600
1.456
2.0564.697 0.243
46
-1.672
3.695
5.367
1.652
1.955
1.398
,
0.206
0.522 -0.621
-0.258
75.990
0.223 0.846
1.852
PSPPEBCM
N OF CASES
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD DEV
STD. ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
PSSTDVCM
46
-0.157
3.958
4.115
2.265
1.312
1.145
0.169
-0.580
-0.672
104.182
0.506
2.434
46
1.257
2.547
1.290
1.886
0.083
0.288
0.042
0.365
0.119
86.748
0.152
1.841
46
-0.723
3.237
3.960
0.714
0.827
0.910
0.134
1.150
0.671
32.852
1.274
0.394
.
J. W. Hawley andT. M.Whiiofth (eds.). 1996, Hydrogeologyofpotentiairecharge areas andhydrogeochemicalmod*ling
of proposed aMcial-recharge melhods in basin- and valley41 aquiler systems. Albuquerque Bash. New Mexico: New
Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Open-File Report 4020, Chapter 2, Appendix 2-E
APPENDIX 2-E
Comparison of grain size distribution statistics of well cuttings
5
4
3
2
1
Mean, Complete Sample
0
-1
-2
Scatter Plot of Mean and Standard Deviation of Well Cuttings,
CutS'amples
"5.3
.....
c
0
..-
.->m
a
..................
..................
Fine
0.5
5
4
3
2
1
Mean, Cut Sample
0
-1
-2
Scatter Plot of Mean and Skewness of Well Cuttings,
Complete Samples
4'
...................:............
...................
I.......................
c...................
4
3
..........
0
-1-
5
2
1
Mean, Complete Sample
0
-1
-2
.....
Scatter Plot of Mean and Skewness of Well Cuttings,
Cut Samples
$
4
0
MWI
x
PSMW19
:X
.:....
................
._
...............
.................
.................
Coarse
I”LL
5
4
3
2
1
Mean, Cut Sample
..<
0
-1
-2
Scatter Plot of Standard Deviation and Skewness of
Well 'Cuttings, Complete Samples
x
PSMW19
...................
X
~~, , 1
.......
, .
.%.X
0
........Xxii .....x ....................................
x
i
i
0
0.5
1
.'
. ..
1.5
2
2.5
Standard Deviation, Complete Sample
3
3.5
Scatter Plot of Standard Deviation and Skewness of
Well Cuttings, Cut Samples
x
;
i
....................
x
i
iX
;
no
0
o n
0.5
1
...........
x x
i o
x i
x x I
0
i
O
;
i......x..*;
i
i
I
1.5
.......................
i
j
:
e...;
0
j
i
2
1
~i
...................
i
I
...........................................
~~
2.5
Standard Deviation,Cut Sample
3
3.5
Scatter Plot of Mean and Percent Fines of Well Cuttings;
Complete Samples
10
i
0 5 Fine
4
3
2
1
Mean, Complete Sample
0
-1
'
-2
.. .-
Scatter Plot of Mean and Percent Fines of Well Cuttings;
Cut Samples
5
4
3
2
1
. Mean, Cut Sample
0
-1
-2
Mean, Standard Deviation and Skewness of Well Cuttings,
Complete Samples
5'
---
!
'
!
'
!
'
l
'
l
'
l
'
l
'
l
'
-
-
:
0
M
E
2
~.,.
:
-2
1
1
1
1
1
,
1
1
1
,
1
,
1
,
1
,
Small circles are data points considered outliersby the graphing program.
..
Mean, Standard Deviation and Skewness of Well Cuttings,
Cut Samples
a
Small circles are data points consideredoutliers by the graphing program.
Percent Fines of Well Cuttings
-i
.....................
0
M
r
2
Small circles are data points considered outliers by the graphing program.
ABBREVIATIONS
CB - CROSSBEDS
CH 1 CHANNELS
HL - HORIZONTAL LAMINATIONS
SF - SCOUR ANDFILL
SL - STRUCTURELESS
C2 - CORONADO 2
MI “ W 1
PS - PSMW-19
-CM - COMPLEXE DISTRIBUTION
-CT - CUT DISTRIBUTION
MEAN - MEAN GRAIN SIZE(PHI UNITS)
STDV - STANDARD DEVIATION
SKEW - SKEWNESS
M3DV - F
k%N-CE-kD
DEVIATION
PSLT - PERCENT HNES
PPEB - PERCENT PEBBLES
MAxD-”UMINTERMH>IATEDIAMETER
POR - PERCENT POROSlTY
MSPERM - MEASURED PERMEABILITY
LITH - LITHIRCATION
..
.....
OBSERVATIONS:
]TAL
25
CZMEANCM
N OF CASES
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD D N
STD. ERROR
SKEWNESSCGl)
KURTOSIS~GZ~
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
CZSTDVCM
25
-0.742
0.639
1.381
-0.022
0.158
0.398
0.080
-0.291
-1.073
-0.551
-18.060
0.050
CZPPEB
25
0.652
1.503
0.851
1.129
0.065
0.255
0.051
-0.198
-1.255
28 .223
0.226
1.109
CWDIA
25
3.383
60.493
57.110
21.664
250.085
15. 814
3.163
0.926
-0.114
541.590
0.730
18.347
N OF CASES
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD D N
STD. ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
CZSKEWCM
CZM3DVCT
CZPFINCT
N OF CASES
25
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD D N
STD. ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
25
00.172
3.478
3.306
1.286
1.098
1.048
2.046
0.210
0.806
-0.594
32.159
0.815
0.889
25
-0.731
1.594
2.325
0.479
0.353
0.594
0.119
0.067
-0.695
11.971
1.241
0.441
CZMEANCT
25
-3.138
-1.070
2.068
-2.491
0.222
0.471
0.094
1.241
1.495
-62.268
-0.189
-2.609
.051
1.767
1.716
0.-373
0.145
0.380
0.076
5.141
9.330
1.019
0.254
CZM3DVCM
25
0.048
0.698
0.650
0.249
0.035
0.188
0.038
0.677
-0.555
6.223
0.754
0.238
25
-0.820
5.413
6.233
1.132
2.520
1.587
0.317
1.201
0.696
28.294
1.403
0.420
CZSTDVCT
25
0.047
0.913
0.866
0.468
0.051
0.226
0.045
-0.054
-0,660
11.693
0,484
0.452
CZPFINCM
CZSKEWCT
25
0.555
1.325
0.770
0. 874
0.054
0.231
0.046
0.601
-0.818
21.855
0.265
0.756
25
0.773
2.451
1.678
1.529
0.159
0.399
0.080
0.194
-0.342
38.235
0.261
1.530
.
.
.
w\\
.. .. . . ..-
iwA\
'OTAL OBSERVATIONS:
22
MlMEANCM
N OF CASES
MINIMUM
M
A
"
X
I
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD DN
STD. ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
MlSTDVCM
22
-0.236
4.121
4.357
1,617
1.866
1.366
0.291
0.456
-1.135
35.573
0.845
1.203
MlPPEBCM
MlMAXDIA
N OF CASES
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD DEV
STD. ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
22
0.002
40.278
40.276
10,117
161,174
12.695
2.707
1.265
0.267
222.576
1.255
4.505
MlSKEWCM
22
1.2m
2.782
1.578
1.843
0.185
0.430
0.092
0.422
-0.593
40.556
0.233
1.781
MlM3DVCT
MlPFINCT
N OF CASES
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD D N
STD. ERROR
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN :
22
-6.011
8.031
14.042
1,636
9.336
3.056
0.651
0.040
0.807
282.792
35.990
1.868
1.138
22
-0.862
1.198
2.0643
0.218
0.360
0.680
0.128
0.009
-1.049
4.788
2.756
0.100
MWEANCT
22
-3.797
-1.070
2.727
-2.912
0.651
0.807
0.172
0.836
-0.037
-64.067
-0.277
-2.897
22
0.628
46.199
,45.571
12.854
162.381
12.743
2.717
1.385
0.884
0.991
6.655
MlM3DVCM
MlPFINCM
21
-5.933
11.063
16.996
1.590
18.073
4.251
0.928
0.651
0.063
33.385
2.674
0.436
MlSTDVCT
22
0.557
4.193
3.636
2.171
1.298
1.139
0.243
0.4%
-1.017
47.763
0.525
1.848
I
22
0.609
41.902
41.293
11.809
147.767
12.156
2.592
1.367
0.745
259.789
1.029
6.298
MlSKEWCT
22
1.163
2.393
1.230
1.582
0.076
0.276
0.059
0.986
1.600
34.810
0.174
1.545
22
-0.774
1.464
2.238
0.424
0.317
0.563
0.120
0.002
-0.451
9.336
1.327
0.391
OBSERVATIONS:
TAL
46
PSMEANCM
V OF CASES
4INIMUM
WIMUM
UNGE
4EAN
JARLANCE
STANDARD DEV
STD. ERROR
jKEWESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
PSSTDVCM
PSSKEWCM
PSM3DVCM
PSPFINCM
46
-1.672
3.695
35.23423.115
5.367 4.175
1.652
1.955
1.398
0.206
-0.621
-0.258
75.990
0.846
1.852 0.243
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD DEV
STD. ERROR
SKEWESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
SKEWNESS(G1)
KURTOSIS(G2)
SUM
C.V.
MEDIAN
46
1.226
36.460
0.592 14.318 4.356
0.896
4.0.239
0.947
6.343
0.946
0.140
1.237
0.557
1.233
-0.575
27.211
196.056
1.600
1.456
4.697
63.875
7.992
1.178
0.302
-0.182
658.623
0.558
15.316
PSPFINCT
46
-7.736
12.635
20.371
3.998
77.834
21.013
4.584
0.676
0.097
-0.363
183.899
1.147
3.069
46
2.334
43.960
41.626
16.799
8.822
1.301
0.478
0.356
772.767
0.525
16.798
.
,
PSSTDVCT
PSSKEWCT
46
46
46
0.321
-3.982
-0.157
70.814
3.237
-1.2022.547
3.958
4.115
70.493
2.780
17.061
-2.614
2.265
335.968
0.375
1.312
18.329
0.613
1.145
2.7030.169
0.042
0.090
1.394
0.047
-0.580
-0.672
1.328
0.558
784.783
-120.249
104.182
-0.234 1.074
0.506
-2.585
2.434
11.488
PSM3DVCT
N OF CASES
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
RANGE
MEAN
VARIANCE
STANDARD DEV
STD. ERROR
45
-5.210
17.905
-0.532
3.643
PSMEANCT
PSPPEBCM
PSMAXDIA
N OF CASES
46
46
1.293
3.221
1.928
2.123
0.224
0.473
0.070
0.522
-0.296
97.638
0.223
2.056
46
1.257
46
-0.723
1.290
1.886
0.083
0.288
3.960
0.714
0.827
0.910
0.134
1.150
0.671
0.365
0.119
32.852
86.748
0.152
1.841
1.274
0.394
'
J. W. Hawley andT. M.Whihvorth (eds.). 1996, Hydrogeologyofpofentialrecharge areas a n d h y d r o ~ ~ c h e m i c a l ~ o d ~ l i n g
ofproposed arMiciaCrecharge meihods in basin- and valley-rill aquifer sysfems, Albuquerque Basin, New Mexico: New
Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Open-File Report 40213.Chapter 2, Appendb: 2-F
APPENDIX 2-F
Outcrop sketches and range of permeability measurements by outcrop
J. W. Hawley andT. M. Whihvotih (eds.). 1996. Hydrogeology ofpolenlialrecharge areas andhydrogeochemicalmodelingofpmposed srificjal-recharge methods in bash- and valley-fillaqulfersystems,
Albuquerque Basin, New Mexico: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Open-File Report 402D, Chapter 2,Appendix 2-F
Unit (Amendices 402C and Dl
Hvdrostratieraohic Lithofacies
Map
Svrnbol
Sarnole Site
Location
&
cc
Clarke Carr
9-3-4-3 11
Plates 4 & 18
USF-2
I, I1
REi
Rio Bravo
9-3-9-134
Plates 4 & 18
USF-2
I, I1
RR
Railroad
9-3-17-241
9-3-17-242
Plates 4 & 18
USF-2
I, I1
LD
Los Duranes
10-2-11-2223
Plates 4 & 18
RA
A2
ES
Edith Section
11-3-15-431
Plates 4 & 16
USF-2
I1
BCu
Upper Bear
Canyon Arroyo
11-4-34-2322
Va
Plates 4 & 16
'PA
Lower Bear
Canyon Arroyo
11-4-31-243
Plates 4 & 16
VA-PA
Va
10-4-26-4132
Plate 4
PA
VIa
10-4-33-41 11
Plate 4
PA
V-VIa
Plates 4 & 18
PA
A2
BCI
FH
Hills
Four
TA
Tijeras Arroyo
CB
Clarernont Basin 11-3-8-242
Remarks
Persons Section, Lambert (1968)
Adobe Cliffs, Lambert (1968)
J. W.Hawley and T.M. Whitworth (eds.), 1996. Hydrogeology ofpofenfislrecharge areas and hydmgeochemicalmodeling orproposed
artilcial-recherge methods In basin- and valley-fill aquifersysfems.
Albuquerque Basin, NswMexlco: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Open-File Report 402D, Chapter 2, Appendix 2-F
Outcrop permeability profile data
cc
RB
RR
LD (sands)
ES
BC
Number of cases
74
116
496
20
134
Minimum
6.17
3.55
0.52
25.24
Maximum
223.07
271.68
223.07
Range
216.9
268.13
Mean
88.886
Variance
FH
TA
68
211
91
0.67
3.69
1.49
5.17
137.13
223.07
223.07
271.68
271.68
222.55
111.89
222.4
219.38
270.19
266.51
50.201
42.126
71.25
55.755
90.996
83.369
98.102
3198.071
1861.085
1640,732
885.427
2760.1 19
3996.929
8013.277
8100.613
Standard Deviation
56.551
43.14
40.506
29.756
52.537
63.221
89.517
90.003
Standard Error
6.574
4.005
1.819
6.654
4.538
7.667
6.163
9.435
Skewness
0.664
1.977
1.636
0.497
1.029
0.386
0.915
0.407
Kurtosis
-0.397
5.919
3.044
-0.348
0.776
-1.052
-0.5
-1.444
Sum
6577.54
5823.37
20894.54
1424.99
7471.23
61 87.75
17590.9
8927.29
Coefticient of Variance
0.636
0.859
0.962
0.418
0.942
0.695
1.074
0.917
Median
74.67
42.59
32.86
66.9
49.42
90.94
37.63
67.89
.
Edith
Section
-
N
100 fl;
-
5
3
I
2
1
1
10 Pt
1.
Trough crossbeds and small channels. Course to very coarse sand with
a high percentageof pumice clasts. Base of unit USF-2 not exposed
2.
Discontinuous bed of silts up to 1 foot thick.
3.
Trough crossbeds, channels and foresets. Large-scale convoluted bedding
Course sands with abundant pumice.
4.
Structureless silts and very fine sand. Top
of unit USF-2
5.
Gravels with a coarse sand matrix. Scours into underlying slits.
Base of Edith gravelsof Lambert (1968). Basal part of Edith Gravels
of Lambert (1968).
Bear Canyon
E
-
c
Modern
Soil
1
.
10 ft
1.
Horizontal beds, crude to well-defined, scour and fill structures common.
to very fine sand.
Poorly sorted gravels and pebbles
2.
Channels. Well to poorly sorted granules and pebbles. Locally
well sorted
beds.
with open matrix. Scouring into lower
3.
Structureless paleosol. Medium sand to silt with
10 percent granules.
Moderate cementation.
.
.
I
1
N
I
1
10 ft
1.
Crossbeds, horizontal beds, and low angle foresets. Fine to medium sand,
moderate to poor sorting.
2.
Horizontal beds and laminations. Medium to coarse sand, moderate sorting.
Local thin gravel scours into1. bed
3.
Gravels witha coarse sand matrix. Large-scale foresets and horizontal
bedding.
4.
Horizontal laminations,low angle crossbeds and foresets. Medium to coarse sand
with pebbles.
N
S
10 ft
2.
Same as lower Rio Bravo.
3.
Same as lower Rio Bravo.
4.
Same as lower Rio ‘Bravo..
5.
Fine sand, horizontal laminations to structureless. Cements are weak to
moderate, locally well-developed concretions along bedding planes.
6. Horizontal bedsand laminations, low angle crossbedsand foresets. Medium
to
to coarse sands, local pebblesmall
and gravel scours. Locally moderately
highly cemented.
...
Railroad"
4
3
-
sw
1
/
1
.
10 ft
1.
Clean river sands with gravel channels. Trough crossbeds and minor channels
Medium to coarse sand, no fines.
2.
Structureless and horizontally laminated fine to very fine sands.is Bed
roderately
cemented with well-developed laminar cements near the top. Laminar cements extend
into overlying bed.
3.
Well-sorted medium sand. Large-scale convoluted bedding. Possibly eolian in origin.
Local dendritic cementation near top of beds.
4.
Gravel beds/channels with coarse sand matrix. Exposure is limited, continuity
undetermined.
I
Four
Hills
1
U
10 ft
...
1.
Coarse channel deposits. Crude horizontal bedding within channel deposits.
Poorly sorted with few fines, very coarse sand and gravel matrix.
2.
Very fine sandand silt. Up to10 percent very coarse
sand and gravelsin
matrix. Structureless with few horizontal laminations.
3.
Horizontal bedding to shallow scour and fill. Fine sand with granules
and pebbles.
4. Coarse channels. Poorly sorted with medium sand matrix. Locally open matrix
without fines. .
5.
Horizontal beds and shallow scour and fill structures. Fine
medium
to
sand with granules, poorly sorted.
6. Coarse float. Interpreted as channel deposits.
. N
I
10 ft
!
1.
Interbedded silts and very fine sands. Structureless to weak local horizontal
laminations.
2.
Coarse channel sequence. Top and bottom of bed are coarse clasts
30 cm up to
in diameter, open matrix. Poorly sorted fine sand to granules, forming crude horizontal
beds locatedbetween largerchannels.
3.
Very fine sand and silt. Structureless with local horizontal laminations.
4. Coarse horizontal beds
and scours. Local open matrix, but generally fine sand.
5.
Very finesand and silt. Structureless with local horizontal laminations.
6 . Coarse channel poorly sorted. Very coarse
sand matrix.
SE
i
1
..
".
1.
Horizontal laminations,low angle crossbeds and foresets. Fine to medium
sand. Pumice-rich laminations along silica sands.
2.
Large foresets or lateral accretion deposits. Bedsbe may
entirely of pumice.
3.
Coarse channels. Mafic gravels and large pumice clasts, very coarse sand matrix.
4.
Thin bed of silts and clasts of reworked fine overbank
deposits.
5.
Interbedded coarse sand beds and gravels
with coarse sandmatrix.
6.
Well sorted fine to medium sand. Horizontal laminations and local climbing
ripples.
C lau k e Gw-j
_.
.
..
.
...
. .... -
.-.
Chapter 3
Comparison of Geophysical Logs and Vertical Permeability Distributions
in the PSMW 19 and Coronado2 Wells
William C. Haneberg
New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
Socorro NM 87801
I
IlVTRODUCTION
Four of the regression models described inChapter 2 were used to estimate the
permeability of selected depth intervals in the P S W 1 9 and Coronado 2 wells. The necessary
grain'size distribution parameters were obtained by sieving rotary drill rig cuttings, and the
resulting vertical permeability disrributions werecompared to geophysical log responses for the
same depth intervals. Different geophysical log suites are obtained by different logging
contractors for different wells throughoutthe basin. Some suites are very basic and consist of
only a few standard logs, whereas others are extensive and include more than twenty logs. In
order to insure that the results of this study are applicable to as many wells as possible, attention
was resmcted to a basic suite consisting of spontaneous potential (SP), induction resistivity
(medium and deep), and density porosity, which is available for many wells throughout the
Albuquerque Basin. The four regression models used were LbfSP2CUT, LMSP2COM,
LMSP4CUT, and LMSP4CUT (see Chapter2). The "cut" models are based on grain size
distributions from which the coarse fraction was removed,whereas the "corn" models are based
upon the grain size distribution of the entire sample. Lithofacies and hydrostratigraphic units
encountered in the two wells are listed in Tables 3-1 and 3-2.
I
PSMW 19
Calculated permeability for sediments encountered in PSMW 19 is based upon grain size
distributions obtained fromsamples collected over 5 ft intervals, and ranges from less than 10 to
about loo0 Darcys. In general, the calculated permeability decreases with depth and all four
regression models produce similar permeability estimates. The effective range of the air
permeameter used to collect the data upon which the regression models is based, however, is
about 1 to 300 Darcys (see Chapter 2); therefore, the reliability of high permeability values
3- 1
calculated using the regression models is uncertain. High permeability zones, particularly the
two occurrences of lithofacies Ib (215 to 260 ft and 775 to 815 ft depth), arecharacterized by
high electrical resistivity, a distinct separation of the medium and deep resistivity curves, and
lower than average porosity values. The 775 to 815 ftdeep Occurrence of lithofacies Ib is also
characterized by a negative SP kick; however, excessive drift in the upper portion of the SP log
makes it impossibleto determine whether the 215 to 260 ft occurrence of lithofacies Ib is
associated with a similar SP signature.
CORONADO 2
Permeability estimates calculated from grain size distribution parameters based on
samples collected over 10 ft intervals show muchless variability than those calculated forthe
PSMW 19 well, and are generally on the order of several hundred Darcys. The reason for this
lack of variability is unclear, but possible reasons include selective sampling of only the most
permeable zones and averagingof samples collected over 10 ft rather than 5 ft intervals.
Whatever the cause, the lack of variability inpermeability estimates makes it difficult to
distinguish the geophysical log signaturescharacteristic of permeable zones because the log
signatures cannot be compared with those from moderate or low permeability zones. The few
lower than average permeability zones(< 100 Darcys using the LMSP?-CUT model), however,
appear to be characterized by low resistivity values, no separation of the medium and deep
resistivity curves, higher than averageSP values, and average to above average density porosity.
The single occurrence of lithofacies Ib (170 to 460 ft), with permeability in excess of 100
Darcys. is characterized by moderate to large separation of the two resistivity curves, somewhat
lower than average SP values, and highly variable porosity. I€ one were to discriminate
lithofacies solely on the basis of geophysical logsignatures, then it is likely that the upper and
lower portions of the lithofacies Ib interval wouldbe divided into two separate facies.
SUbIbXARY
On the basis of a limited numberof data from two Albuquerque Basinwater wells, it
appears that high permeability zones are characterized by a combination of high electrical
resistivity, a distinct separation of the medium and deep resistivity curves, average to below
average porosity, and lower than average SP values.
3-2
~~~
~~~~
~~
Table 3-1Lithofacies and hydrostratigraphic units encountered in the upper
portion of the
PSMW 19 well
Depth
(feet)
Lithofacies
Hydrosaatigraphic Unit
0-215
215-260
260-775
775-815
815-900
m
USF-2
USF-2
USF-2
USF-2
MSF
Ib
m .
Ib
m,M
Table 3-2 Lithofacies a n d hydrostratigraphic units encountered in the upper portion of the
Coronado 2 well
Depth
(feet)
Lithofacies
0-170
170-460
460-650
650-790
790-980
V
Hydrosaatigraphic Unit
PA
USF-2
USE2
USF-2
USF-2
Ib
II
m
3-3
Resistivity
SP
Density
Porosity
LMSP4COM
LMSP2COM
LMSP2CUT
W
0
ji.:
.......
:I.
...:....*
..:..:... ......... .."..........
I....
; .?
.......1 : ....:::!:..-
I. I
.............
. (.?. .........
.....
.....
..................
::.....
. . .I . . I
.:
...
-200 .^......
-400
. . . ...,, ..........,....
........
. . .2,::,r!x;,:ey
. . . ..:./: .:.......
............
c.
i
I
.............I.........
. . !..
I
....:......:.].............
... .:........
I ,.:.. ...
I
.:........ I ::.. .!::::'
I"" .;..!
. , y 2 .I . .: :. ? 1
.:i
-600 ,....................
". ..."
i
"i
i
: * . .........?.
!......-
-600:"'., . . . . . . I . . . . .
,...
!. .;:...:..I..
............I
.,;.,:.,:i......
. I: .,/
....
,,:,.;.>;,{:;
..ij..,i..I
".., .......,.~,..~.
.....
{I.......:::::.:. ....:.
............
j.. .......
............
.'.I:
-800
1
............ . :
.~ ~ ~ ~ "
,.;
A:.J'.:..~A.
.~ ~ ~ . " ~.....
:~
A- ! : : ~ ~ ~ : : . : ~ .....
..
X:i:s.^
0
mV
100
ohm-m
0
20
dimensionless
LogloDarcys
1
2
LogloDarcys
0
1
2
LogloDarcys
LogloDarcys
Chapter 4: Hydrogeochemical Computer Modeiing of Proposed
Artificial Recharge of The Albuquerque Aquifer.
Mike Whihvonh
New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
ABSTRACT
Recently, the City of Albuquerque began investigating the feasibiliry of artificial recharge
of the Albuquerque aquifer. Artificial recharge by both subsurface injection and surface
infiltration are under consideration. Proposed recharge fluids are 1) treated effluent from the
Albuquerque wastewater treatmentfacility and 2) Rio Grande surface water. This study used the
hydrogeochemical models PHREEQE and MNTEQA2 to simulate both subsurface injection and
surface infiltration. As a basis for comparison, simulations were also performed with data from the
successful El Paso artificial recharge project. The results suggest that subsurface injection of
Albuquerque treated effluent will be successful, and that surface infiltration of Rio Grande surface
waters will probably be successful. Simulations of surface infitration predict a possibly
significant amount of mineral precipitationin the vadose zone, which might limit the lifeof a
surface infiltration facility. The simulations predict no adverse impact upon water quality due to
artificial recharge. However, trace metal dismbution, ion exchange, bacteriological content of the
waters, and the presence of potential pollutanrs are nor considered by the models. Chemical pilottesting and kinetics-basedcomputer modeling are recommended to predict the useful life of
recharge facilities. Equilibrium-based models, such as used in this study, can only infer if recharge
is likely to be successful. They cannot determine the potential life of a recharge facility.
4-1
INTRODUCTION
Recently, the City of Albuquerque began investigating the feasibility ofartificial recharge
of the Albuquerque aquifer. Both artificial recharge by subsurface injectionand surface
infiitration are under consideration. Proposed recharge fluids are treated effluent fromthe
Albuquerque wastewater treatment facility and Rio Grande surface water. The hydrogeochemical
modeling of potentialartificial recharge of the Albuquerque aquifer by the Cityof Albuquerque
described in this report was undertaken by the h&lBMMR for the United States Bureauof
Reclamation (USBR), Albuquerque, New Mexico. The USBR was chargedwith this
_. inveqigation by the City of Albuquerque. The purpose of the hydrogeochemical modeling was to
attempt to answer the following questions:
1. Is it likely that minerals will precipitate during artificial recharge and clog the pore space in the
aquifer thus limiting the useful life of artificial recharge sites?
2. What will the effect of artificial recharge be on water quality? Changes in water quality can
occur from precipitation of minerals, dissolution of minerals, absorptionldesorption effects,
and mixing of the recharge water with the groundwater. Water quality changes from these
mechanisms may be either detrimental or beneficial.
Numerous potential artificial recharge sites are under considerationby the City of
Albuquerque. However, since the aquifer mineralogy is similar throughout the Albuquerque area,
and because equilibrium hydrogeochemical models generally allow for thepresence or absence of
mineral phases, and notthe relative amounts of each phase present, itis feasible to treat the entire
aquifer as a single homogenous recharge site. Permeability considerations willbe of major
importance in theactual siteing of the artificial recharge sites.
Two recharge scenarios were investigated; recharge via subsurfaceinjection and recharge
i
via surface infiitration. Both treated effluent from the Albuquerque Southside Wastewater
i
~
Treatment Plant andSurface water from the Rio Grande north of the city havebeen proposed as
potential sources ofrecharge water. Therefore, chemical analyses of both were used in the
hydrogeochemical modeling. However, no modeling was donefor a recharge water comprised of
both treated effluent and surface water because the likely mix is as yet undetermined and modeling
all of the possiblepermutations was not feasible.
4-2
~
Albuquerque groundwater is generally of good quality. Total Dissolved solids (TDS)
range from approximately 190 to almost 380 mgil. According to Logan (1990). three
groundwater facies are present in the Albuquerque area (Fig. 1). These are 1) sodium
bicarbonate, 2) calcium bicarbonate, and 3) calcium chloride waters. Rather than add additional
bulk to this document, readers interested in more detail concerning the generalhydrogeochemistry
of the Albuquerque area are referred to Logan (1990).
METHODS
Hydrogeochemical Modeling Programs Used
Three hydrogeochemical modeling programs were used in this study: WATEQ4F.
PHREEQE, and MINTEQA2. The user's manual for WATEQ4Fwas written by Ball and
Pu'ordstrom (1991) and is an updated version of the original WATEQ (Truesdell and Jones, 1973,
1974). WATEQ4F is a chemical speciation code which uses field measurementsof temperature,
pH, dissolved oxygen, alkalinity, and the chemical analysis of a water sampleas input to calculate
the distribution of aqueous species, ion activities, and mineral saturation'indices. In this study,
WATEQ4F was used to calculate charge balances for the water analyses. It was used only to
screen the numerous analyses to see which ones had small enough chargebalance error (CBE) for
consideration.
There are two commonly accepted methods of CBE's for waters (Frirz, 1994). The most
common is described by the following equation:
%CBE =
xz.m,-Cz.m,
'
(Cz.m,+Cz.m,)
100
In equation 3-1, z is the absolute value of the ion's charge, m, and m, are molalities of the cationic
and anionic species, respectively. Other workers prefer to divide the denominator in Equation 4-1
by 2 in order to relate the difference between the cation and anion equivalents to the mean. The
equation then becomes:
4-3
Equation 4-2 is used by WATEQ4F.
Charge balance errors of less than 5% according to Equation 4-1, or 10% according to
Equation 4-2 are generally considered acceptable. Therefore, analyses were selected with CBEs
of less than 5% as calculated by Equation 4- 1 foruse in the hydrogeochemical modeling whenever
possible. The CBE's and other parameters for the analyses used are listed in Appendix A.
_.
PHREEQE is designedto model aqueousgeochemical reactions and is based on anion
pairing model. PHREEQE was written by Parkhurst er al. (1980). Unlike WATEQ4F,
PHREEQE is an extremely versatile code. It can simulate the following types of reactions:
Mixing of two solutions.
Titrating one solution with another solution.
Adding or subtracting a net stoichiometric reaction.
Adding a net stochiomeuic reaction until the phase boundary of a speciiic mineral is
reached.
Equilibrating a solution with one or more mineral or gas phases.
Changing temperature of a solution.
Several PHREEQE options were usedin this study including themixing of two solutions,
changing the temperature or' a solution, and equilibration with oneor more mineral phases.
MDTEQAZ is a metal speciation equilibrium model for surface and groundwater. It was
prepared by the Center forAssessment Modeling (CEAki), U.S.E.P.A. by Allison, et al., 1991,
and is a mod5cation of the original MINTEQAl (Felmy. er al., 1984) which was developed at
Battele Pacific Northwest Laboratory. MINTEQA? can be used to calculate the mass distribution
between dissolved, adsorbed, and multiple solid phases under a variety of conditions. It c m also
be used to model equilibrium with one or more gas phaseswith a constant partialpressures. In
this study it was used to equilibrate solutions with gas phases having constant partial pressures in
order to simulate vadose zone interactions.
4-4
Hydrogeochemical Modeling
The city of Albuquerque is considering the use of both treated effluent and surfacewater
for artificial recharge of the Albuquerque aquifer. Waste effluent would be treated to drinking
water standards forthis purpose. Two recharge scenarios are under consideration. The first is
subsurface injection. The second is surface infrltration.
Subsurface injection was modeled with PHREEQE by simulating the mixing of the
injected water and the groundwater. saturation indices from these modeling runs were plotted
versus percentage of injected water over a temperature range of 25 to 75°C. The geothermal
gradient in the Albuquerque basin is 30 to 40'C per kilometer with a mean surface temperature of
13.5'C (Reiter, e t al., 1986). Therefore, the expected temperature range at a depth of 3,000 feet
would be from 31 to 50'C and the expected temperature range at 5,ooO feet would be from59 to
75OC. Because it is unlikely that artificial injection will occur in the Albuquerque basin at depths
greater than 5,000 feet, the effects of mixing treated effluent with two end-member groundwaters
were calculated over atemperature range of 25 to 75OC.
After the mineral saturation indices were examined, an additional simulation was made
which equilibrated the solution with the minerals most likely to precipitate at equilibrium. The
results of this second run gave the mass of each mineral likely to precipitate. From this data, the
number of pore volumes of solution passing through a controlvolume of aquifer matrix necessary
to cause a 10% reduction on porosity due to precipitation was calculatedfor each signifkant
mineral. The 10% porosity reduction was chosen only as a basis forcomparison. Any other
porosity reduction factorwould have worked as well. The matrix o f PHREEQE modeling runs is
*given in Table 4-1.
Addidonal simulations were performed with data from the El Paso Artificial Recharge
~
Project which has been successfully underway since May of 1985. The El Paso subsurface
injection simulations serve as a reality check on the outcome of hydrogeochemical modeling of
artificial recharge for the city of Albuquerque.
Simulation of arrificial recharge by surface infiirration was done by fust allowing the
solutions to reached equilibrium with fixed partial pressures of CO2 and 0 2 , as they would in the
vadose zone. MINTEQA2 was used for vadose zone simulations. After equilibration with gases
in the vadose zone, the solutions were mixed with groundwater inPHREEQE over a temperature
4-5
range of 5 to 25°C. which is a reasonable estimate of expected temperatures at the water table.
Table 4-2 presents a matrix of the modeling done to simulate artificial recharge by surface
infiltration. Appendix B lists all of the model output files included on the eight, enclosed highdensity, 3 1/2 inch diskettes. These files comprise approximately 2,000 pages of printed output.
No WATEQ4F output was included.
Choice of Potentially Significant Minerals
All of the hydrogeochemical models usedin this study are based on equilibrium
thermodynamics and therefore are incapable ofaddressing how long a reaction takes to occur.
Some of the reactions modeled by these programs may occur i n a matter of minutes or hours,
while others may take hundreds or even thousands of years to reach equilibrium. Therefore, it is
necessary to model only those reactions whichhave a likelihood of occurring in a reasonable
length of time. Because kinetic data is not available for all possible reactions, it then becomes
necessary to examine the geological recordto see which minerals may be formed in place at low
temperatures (authigenic). A brief summary of mineralswhich, given favorable water chemistries,
might be possible to precipitate in time periods
of a few tens of years or less follows.
Silicates
The major authigenic silicate mineralsare the clays, primarily smectite, kaolinite, illite, and
various zeolite species. Since no valid dissolved aluminumconcentrations are available, possible
precipitation of these minerals during artificialrecharge was not addressed in this study.
However, because most waters arein or close to equilibrium with kaolinite (Drever, 1988) a
dissolved aluminum concentration at equilibrium withkaolinite was. Clays and zeolites are
commonly present in the Albuquerque aquiferas authigenic minerals, but usually in very small
amounts. Therefore, they probably will not be imporrant
during artificial recharge.
Some feldspars also form at low temperatures. However, the kinetics of authigenic
feldspar formation seems to be slow and the amount of authigenic feldspar rarely exceeds 1 to 2%
of the rock (Degens, 1965). Therefore, it is unlikely that feldspars would be important
precipitates during ardficial recharge.
TWOsilicates which also occuras authigenic minerals which could potentially be important
in artificial recharge in the Albuquerque Basin are sepiolite and talc. Authigenic occurrences of
4-6
sepiolite have been described by Bradley, 1929 and Teodorovich, 1961. Authigenic OccurenceS
of talc have been described by Steward (1949), Braitsch (1958), Dreizler (1962), Griffin (1963),
and Teodorovich (1961). According to Degem (1965) as data on authigenic silicates of low
temperature origin accumulated, it became evident that former well-established thermal stability
concepts needed to be revised. Therefore, because the possibility exisrs that it might be possible
for talc and sepiolite to form during artificial injection, they were considered in the model.
However, no kinetic data is available for these reactions'and it is not certain that these minerals
would actually form even if the hydrogeochemical models indicate they should.
Oxides and Hydroxides
Aluminum Hydroxides. At least t
hrk aluminum hydroxides (gibbsite, bohemite, and
diaspore) are known to commonly occur as authigenic minerals in sedimentary rocks (Degens,
1965). Because equilibrium dissolved aluminum concenuations are typically very low (Drever,
1985) and because these seems to be no unusual source of dissolved aluminum in the proposed
recharge waters, aluminum oxides are not likely to be important precipitates during artificial
recharge.
Silica. The only crystalline silica which can from at low temperatures is a-quartz. It
usually forms as amorphous silica which consists of essentially pure Si02 arranged in a
crystallographic disordered state. Pure quartz does not typically precipitate at short time scales.
Therefore, amorphous silicawas modeled in this study.
Iron Oxides and Hydroxides. Hematite is one of the more common ironminerals in
sediments (Degens, 1965). Recent works which describe the occurrence of authigenic hematite in
sandstones are Gang, et al. (1994); and Taylor (1991). While iris more likely that an amorphous
iron species (such as goethite) might form during recharge, the models indicateit is possible that
hematite might be favored. For this reason, hematite and goethite are both considered in this
study.
Carbonates
The carbonatesmost commonly found as aurhigenic minerals and also the most likely to
form during artificial recharge are calcite and dolomite. Calcite and dolomite were considered
potentially important minerals in this study. Other carbonates which occur as authigenic minerals
include magnesite and siderite. Although most magnesite represents alterationproducts of
?- I
crysralline rocks, sedimenratymagnesite is sporadically found in ancient lagoonalor salt lake
deposits, in thezone of surface weathering of ultrabasic rocks, disseminated in Someevaporites,
and in association with anhydrite rocks (Teodorovich, 1961; Milton and Eugster, 1959; Stewan,
1949). However, magnesite and siderite were not considered potentially important mineralsin
this study.
Phosphates
Calcium phosphates (including the apatite group) are the only phosphates abundant in
sedimentary environments pegens, 1965). However, because analyses for the phosphate ion
were,not consistently available, no phosphate mineral precipitation could be modeled. Phosphate
concenrradons are typically low, however. -Therefore, it is unlikely that phosphate mineral
precipitation would be volumetrically significant.
Sulfdes
The most commonauthigenic suliide is probably pyrite (FeS2). However, the formation of
pyrite (and it’s polymorph marcasite),as well as various sulfides of copper, nickel, lead, and zinc,
are thought to be due,at least in part, to the action of sulfate-reducing bacteria. Bacterial action
cannot be addressed by any of the models used in this srudy. Therefore, the true likelihoodof
pyrite precipitation could not beaddressed. However, neither the precipitation of pyrite, or any
of the other sullidesis likely to be volumetrically important due to relatively high pHand low
metals concentration in the recharge waters.
Sulfates and Halides
Gypsum is the sulfate most likely to be potentially important in artificial recharge and
therefore was considered in rhe modeling. Halides are typically very soluble and are therefore
unlikely to precipitate during artificial recharge. Therefore, even though considered inthe model,
they are not be important.
Chemical Analyses
Chemical analyses of Albuquerque groundwater from selected wells were provided
by Mr.
Bill Lindberg, of the City of Albuquerque Water Utility Division. However, only theanalyses
actually used in the hydrogeochemical modeling are listed in this report (Appendix4-A). TWO
groundwater analyses were chosen for use in hydrogeochemical modeling. The analysis with the
4-8
lowest total dissolved solids ( I D S ) from the selected wells (Charles 3,09-28-93) and &e analysis
with the highest TDS (Coronado 1;04-06-93). No analytical u n c e h t i e s were available forthe
Albuquerque analyses. However, charge balances were computed for each analysis by Equation
4-1 (Appendix 4-A).
Surface water analyses were provided by Ms. Lone Harper of the USBR from U.S.G.S.
Data at gauging stations along the Rio Grande. Data from the San Felipe gauging station was
chosen as the most appropriate. The San Felipe gauging station is located just north of the city of
Albuquerque. In a report forthe USBR., Harper (1993). states that TDS concentrations do not
vary greatly during the year except during &e high flow months of April, May, and June.
-
Therefore, two surface water analyses from the San Felipe gauging station were chosen. The first
was during the high flow, lowTDS time (06-04-91) and the second during a more normal flow,
with higher TDS (09-07-90). KOanalytical uncertainties were available for these analyses (the
U.S.G.S. does publish annual control cham for U.S.G.S. chemical analyses, however,I was
unable to obtain these). Both of rhese analyses are listed in Appendix 4-A.
Appropriate chemical analyses of the City of Albuquerque treated effluent werenot
available. Therefore, the treated effluent was sampled with the aid of Mr. Steven Glass, Technical
Programs Manager, Wastewater Utilities Division, City of Albuquerque Public Works
Department. Five identical samples were analyzed by the NMBMMR chemistry laboratory.
Analytical uncertainties were determined for these analyses. The results of these analyses are
...
tabulated in Appendix 4-A.
Chemical analyses from the El Paso M k i a l Recharge Project were provided by Dr.
Ernest Rebuck, Planning and Development Manager, El Paso Water Utilities Public Service
Board and Mr. Roger Sperka, Geologist, El Paso Water Utilities Public Service Board. Mr.
Sperka also described the El Paso Artificial Recharge project in great detail and delineated which
analyses were unaltered groundwater, and recovered injection water. Mr. Roberto Luna,
Chemist 11, Central Laboratory, El Paso Water Utilities Public ServiceBoard also provided
chemical analyses of El Paso Treated Effluent. No analytical uncertainties were available for
these analyses. 'The analysesused in the modeling are listed in Appendix 4-k
Many of the chemical analyses from various sources report certain parameters as being
less than a given value; often an analytical detection limit. Parameters reported at the detection
4-9
limit normally should not beused in hydrogeochemical modeling programs because analytical
uncertainty near detection limits is generally in the vicinity of k 50%. For sparsely soluble
parameters such as aluminum, typically present in natural watersin concentrations between 0.1
and 1.0 pg/l (Drever, 1988), the detection limits for someanalytical techniques may be far above
natural solubility. If detection limits for aluminum are entered as analytical values, often the
equilibrium calculations falsely indicate that the solution is supersaturated in many species of
aluminum-bearing minerals--including the clayminerals.
Also, when entering two solutions for use in mixing calculations, it is imponant to have
analyses of both solutions for all parameters used. If a value for one soluteis entered for solution
1 but not for solution 2, the computer code assumesthe concentration of that solute in the second
solution to be zero. Consequently, if the solute in question is actually present in solution 2, the
results of the mixing calculations will be in error--possibly significantly.
Sensitivity Analysis
Unless the uncertainty inherentin the hydrogeochemical modeling results is quantitied,
data interpretation may be both difficult and inaccurate. Sensitivity analyses are generally
performed by changing the inputs to a computer model slightly and determining the resulting
variation. For this study, theactual malyrical uncertainties in the chemical analyses were input in
order to quantify the expected analytical uncertainty (precision) of the model results.
Analytical uncertainties for chemical analyses were only available for Albuquerque treated
effluent (Table 4-3). Therefore, it was necessary to make the assumption that the analytical
uncertainties for all of the analyses used in this report are comparable to those of the treated
effluent. The MvlBbfhPJR Chemisuy Lab analyzed fivereplicates of treated et'fluent. Each of
these five analyses was input in10 the model PHREEQE and rLIINTEQA2 and saturation indices
were calculated for calcite, dolomite, quartz, talc, sepiolite, hematite, and goethite. Mean and
standard deviation SD of saturation indices (Log IAPKT)were calculated for each mineral.
For small samples(n c 40) the sample SD can b e quite variable and possibly misleading
(Weldon, 1986). A better approach is to use a student's t correction to ascertain uncertainty
levels for small populations. The procedure is to multiply the value o f t for the given degrees of
4-10
freedom (n-1) times the SD for a given u n c e d n t y level. The value of t used for n-1 = 4m. was
2.78 (Dick, 1973) for a 95% probabiliry.
The uncertainties (FtSD) in saruration indices shown in Table 4-4 apply to single
solutions. For modeling runs which involve mixing of two solutions, the uncertainty is greater.
Errors in multiplication or division operations are generally related to the square root of rhe sum
of the squares of the errors. Therefore. the saturation index uncertainties for the mixing runs
were estimated by the following equation:
P=&F
(4-3)
where P is the percent uncertainty at the 95 percent probability level, and Eis the analytical
uncertainty (k tSD) given in Table 3-4 for the panicular mineral.
Other uncertainties, including inherent errors in valueslisted in the thermodynamic
databases, and density variations in the minerals themselves, are also present. However, it is not
within the scope of this smdy to quantify them.
Many or' the modeling results are reported in pore volumes required to cause a 10%
porosity reduction in the aquifer. Before the u n c e d n t i e s in rhese values can be discussed. an
equation which allows calculation ofthe number of pore volumes necessary to achieve any given
percent porosity reduction due to precipitation of the chosen mineral must be derived. Since we
3
are dealing with dilute waters, the solution density is assumed to be 1.0 /cm . The control
volume is defined as the pore space which occupies 1000 cm3 (i.e. contains 1 kg of water). An
expression is then derived which defies how many cm' one mole of our chosen mineral occupies
""".."iW
2
1 cm3
mole D, g
- w.
cm3
Di mole
(4-4)
3
Where Wi is the gram formula weight in &ole and Di is the density in g/cm of mineral i.
Now the relationship between the desired porosity reduction P, (as a fraction) and the
3
volume of precipitate V in cm necessary to achieve it can be defined. Since the control volume is
1000 cm3, then
v = 1000. PR
(4-5)
Next the number of moles occupied by V is determined
V - 1000.PR,D,
Wi I Di
Wi
M" =--
(4-6)
3
Dividing Equation 4-3, which is stated for a control volume of 1000 cm , by the amount 01'
mineral i which will precipitate Pi at equilibrium in moles/1000 cm3,yields the following
expression for the number of pore volumes of solution Pv needed to pass through the control
volume in order to effect the chosen porosity reduction
The absolute value of Pi is used in Equation 4-4 because precipitating minerals are indicated by
negative signs in the model PHREEQE and in this study.
To determine the relationship between the analytical uncertainties in saturation index
(Table 4-4) and the u n c e d n t y in pore volume calculations, it is necessary to define the
relationship between the two quantities. When SI = 1.0, the solution id lox supersaturated.
It's1
= - 1.0 then the solutionis lox undersarurated. Given rhat the analytical uncertaintiesin SI listed
in Table 4-4 are represented by
(+tSD), where i represents the mineral of interest, then
Ph,i = Pi ' 10E'
(4-8)
and
where Pi is moles of precipitate per kg of solution. Furthermore, since IPh,i\= \PL,i\then the
absolute value of the uncertainty can be calculated by
(4-10)
Equation 4-7 is used to calculate the values of pore volumes required for a 10% porosity
reduction shown in the figures for the minerals of interest from the moles/Kg of precipitate output
by the model. Equation 4-10 is used to calculate the unceriainties at the 95% confidence interval
as shown by the error barsin the fi2W X S .
RESZiLTS
This section describes the resuh of equilibrium, thermodynamic-based geochemical
modeling. The focus is on mineral precipitation at equilibrium. Kinetic effects on precipitation
reactions are not considered by the models. The resulrs of geochemical modelingof artificial
recharge by subsurface injection are described first, followed by a description of the resulrs of
-ceochemical modeling of artificial recharge by surfacz infiltration.
Geochemical Modeling of .4rtificial Recharge Via Injection
Treated Effluent injected into Groundwater
PHREEQE was used to simulated the injection of the proposed recharge water into the
aquifer. The two groundwaters used were chosen because they had the highest and lowest TDS
values of the groundwaters examined for this study. Charles 3 groundwater had a TDS of 192
mg/I and Coronado 1 groundwater had aTDS of 376 m a .
Mixing of Treated Effluent and Charles 3 groundwater. Calcite is slightly
supersaturated in Charles 3 groundwater (Fig 4-22.). However, the effect of mixing with treated
effluent and increasing temperature tend to drive calcite into undersaturation. Therefore, it is
unlikely that mixing treated efrluent with Charles 3 groundwater will cause calcite precipitation.
Amorphous silica is consistently undersaturated.
Goethite and hematite saturation indices for both Charles3 groundwater and treated
effluent show that both minerals are supersaturated (Fig. 4-2c and 4-2d). In both cases, the
I
saturation indices forgroundwater are higher than for treated effluent. Thus, Charles 3
groundwaters may be precipitating iron minerals in the natural state.
1
Another modeling run wasmade with PHREEQE which allowed solution equilibration
with hematite over a temperature range of 25-75OC. The results suggests that hematite, but not
goethite, will precipitate over the entire temperamre range (Fig. 4-3) and that the precipitation of
iron in the hematite phase causes geothite to become undersaturated. Therefore, according to the
model, hematite is the only iron mineral likely to actually precipitate at equilibrium (When only
goethite was allowed to precipitate, no precipitation was predicted). At maximum precipitation,
-. where the solution is 100% ueated effluent, it will take 1,870,000 rt 1,760,000 pore volumesto
reduce the porosity by 10%. The largeuncertainty is in part the result of the small concentrations
of iron present in the waters. Consequently, all that can be said with certainty is that hematite
should precipitate at equilibrium. However, due to the smallamount of iron present, and it's
relatively high density (5.7-6 &m3) hematite is not likely to be significant in clogging aquifer pore
space under these conditions.
Mixing of Treated Effluent and Coronado 1 Groundwater. The results of mixing
treated effluentwith Coronado 1 groundwater are similar to those of mixing treated effluent with
Charles 3 groundwater. Calcite saturation(Fig. 4-4a) decreases with both mixing and increasing
temperature. Therefore, calcite is not likely to precipitate. Amorphous silica remains consistently
undersaturated. Hematite and goethite are both grossly supersaturated(Figs. 4-4cand 4-4d).
A second modeling run was madewith PHREEQE which equilibrated the solutions with
hematite over atemperature range of 25-75OC. The results indicate that hematite, butnot
goethite, should precipitate over theentire mixing and temperature range (Table4-7).
Calculations show that it would take approximately 1,830,000 ? 1,800,000 pore volumes to affect
a 10% reduction in porosity due to hematite precipitation (Fig. 4-5). Again, the large uncertainty
preludes accurateprediction for equilibrium precipitation of hematite.
Surface WaterInjected into Groundwater
Two surface waters were chosenas end members for mixing with the two end-member
'groundwaters. Surface water data is from the U. S. G. S. San Felipe gauging station, north of
Albuquerque on the Rio Grande. Rio Grande waters tend to have low TDS during spring melt
4-11
and somewhat higher TDS during low flow. The spring runoff analysis is dated 06-04-1991. It
has a TDs of 160
mu. The low flow analysis is dated 09-07-1990 and has a TDS of 248 mo&
The same two end-member groundwater analyses were used and four sets of modeling runs were
conducted to constrain the possible combinations.
Mixing of Low TDS Su@ace Water with Charles 3 Groundwater. The low TDS surface
water is saturated in calcite. Mixing calculations indicate that the saturation index for calcite
should tend to increase as the amount of surface water increases. Calcite saturation tends to
increase with temperature. Figure 6a suggests that significant calcite precipitation might occur if
this surface water is used for artificial rechage of the Albuquerque aquifer. Amorphous silica
remained undersaturated (Fig. 4-6b). Hematite (Fig. 4 6 c ) and Goethite (Fig. 4-6d) are
significantly supersaturated.
A second modeling run with PHREEQE, which allowed equilibration of the solutions wirh
hematite and calcite from 25 to 7 5 T , was conducted to see what thepossible precipitation effects
were for these minerals. Goethite proved to be undersaturated once hematite precipitation was
allowed. The results of this run indicate that hematite will precipitate over the entire mixing and
temperature range (Table 4-8). The model also suggests that it is possible for calcite to begin
precipitating (Fig. 4-7b) when the mixture is greater than 40% surface water at 25'C. At
temperatures greater than approximately 25'C, calcite will precipitate throughout the entire
mixing range.
Calculations suggest it would take approximately 35,800,000 i9,200,000 pore volumes
of injected fluid to obtain a 10% reduction of porosity due to hematite precipitation. Even though
the uncertainty is large, it can safely be said that pore clogging in the aquifer due to hematite
precipitation should not be significant under these conditions. The greatest precipitation of calcite
should occur where the temperamre rises above 50°C. The minimum number of pore volumes
required to achieve a 10% porosity reduction would be 67,000 i 11,300at 50'C and 32,350 i:
5,430 at75'C.
"iring of Low T D S Surface Water wirh Coronado 1 Groundwater.
In every case the
plots of saturation indices for calcite (Fig. 4-8a). goethite (Fig. 4-8c), and hematite (Fig. 4-8d)
%e similar to those in Figures 4-4 and 4-6. Figure 4-8 suggests calcite and hematite precipitation
may occur. Amorphous silica (Fig. 4-8b) remains undersaturated.
4-15
A second PHREEQE modeling run, which simulated equilibration of the mixed solutions
with hematite and calcite,suggests both minerals will precipitate under all mixing and temperatwe
conditions (Table 4-9). Calculations suggest (Fig. 4-9a) that a 10% reduction in porosity from
hematite precipitation will require the passage of approximately 9,200,000 i. 9,010,ooO pore
volumes. Again, the uncertainty limits the usefulness of the calculation. The magnitude of calcite
precipitation increases with increasing temperamre (Fig. 4-9b). The minimum number'of pore
volumes at 75°C which would result in a 10% porosity reduction is 32,000 i. 5,400, This
increases to 141,500 i 24,000 at 1 5 T .
..
. Mixing of High T D S Surface Waferwith Charles 3 Groundwater. The high TDS
-
surface water is saturated in calcite. Mixing calculations indicate thatthe saturation index for
calcite should tend to increase significantly with the amount of surface water present in the
aquifer. The calcite saturation index increases with increasing temperature(Fig. 4-loa).
Amorphous silica (Fig. 4-lob) remains undersaturated. Goethite (Fig. 4-1Oc) and hematite (Fig.
4-10d) are significantly supersaturated.
A modeling run with PHREEQE, which simulated equilibration of the mixed solutions
with hematite and calcite from 25 to 7YC, was conducted tosee what the possible precipitation
effects were for these minerals. Goethite proved to be undersarurated once hematite precipitation
was allowed. The results of this run indicate that hematite (Fig. 4-1la) will precipitate over the
entire mixing and temperature range (Table 4-10). The model also suggests thatit is possible for
calcite to begin precipitating when the mixture is greater than 10% surface water at 25OC. At
temperatures greater than 2jaC, calcite will precipitate throughout the entire mixing range (Fig.
4-llb).
Calculations showthat it would take approximately 46,0000,000 i.45,000,000 pore
volumes of injected fluid to obtain a 10% reduction of porosity due tohematite precipitation.
Once more, the uncertainty suggests the calculation is useless. A 10%porosity reduction would
occur at a minimum of between 10,200 5 1700 pore volumes at75OC to 21,000 k 3,500 pore
volumes at 2 j 0 C due to calcite precipitation. The greatest equilibrium precipitation of calcite
should occur when the temperature rises above 50°C.
4-16
Mixing of High TDS Surface Water with Coronado1 Groundwater. The results of
mixing high TDS surface water with Coronado 1 groundwater are similar to those of mixing with
Charles 3 groundwater. Calcite is generally supersaturated (Fig. 4-121) over the enrire mixing
and temperature range and supersaturation increases with increasing fractions of injectedwater.
Amorphous silica remainsundersaturated (Fig. 4-12b). Goethite and hematite are both grossly
supersaturated (Figs. 4-12 and 4-12d).
A second modeling run was made with PHREEQE which equilibratedthe solutions with
hematite and calcite overa temperature range of 25-75OC. The results (Table4-1 1) indicate that
both calcite and hematite should precipitate.over the entire mixing and temperature range.
Calculations suggest it would take a minimum of 46,000,000 zk 45,000,000 pore volumes to
cause a 10% reduction in porosity due to hematite precipitation (Fig. 4-13a). Therefore, hematite
precipitation is probably not significant Calcite precipitation will require a minimum of between
11,000 f.3,500 pore volumes at 2joC and 10,200 zk 1,700 pore volumes at75°C to cause a 10%
porosity reduction (Fig 4-13b).
Mixing of El Paso Treated Effruent with El Paso Groundwater. Because the treated
effluent and groundwater analysesProvided by the Ciry of El Paso did not contain analyses for
iron, it is impossible to comparehematite and goethite saturation between Albuquerque and El
Paso. However, the plot of calcite saturation indices (Fig 4-14a) for mixing of El
Paso treated
effluent and groundwateris generally supersaturated and similarin form to the plots of calcite
saturation index for mixingof Albuquerque surface waters and groundwater (Figs. 4-6,4-8,4-10,
and 4-12). Amorphous silica(Fig. 414b) remains consistently undersaturated.
Another modeling mn was done to simulate equilibration the solutions with calciteand
calculate the amount of projected precipitation. The results (Table 4-7) suggest calcitewill
precipitate under all mixing and temperamre conditions. Calculations suggest that a 10%
reduction in porosity wouldrequire the passage of a minimum of 30,100 C 5,100 pore volumes
at 25OC and 8,650 zk1,450 pore volumes at 75OC (Fig. 4-15). Simulations were also performed
with Albuquerque data which allowed either just calciteor both hematite and calciteto
precipitate. The results demonstrate that hematite precipitation has no effect on calcite
precipitation. Therefore, predictions of calcite precipitation in El PLSOare directly comparable to
predictions of calcite precipitation in Albuquerque.
4-17
Geochemical Modeling of Artificial Recharge Via Surface Infibation
The First step in simulating artificial recharge by surface infdtration is to equilibrate the
infiltrating solutions with 0 2 and C02, much as would happen in the uppermost vadose zone.
This was done in IvlINTEQA2 for treated effluent, low TDS surface water and highTDS surface
water. Because no actual parrial pressures of these gases in the vadose zone were available from
the Albuquerque area, the following typical values were used: pC0, = lo'''',
.
6.68
and p 0 2 = 10
The results of vadose zone simulations suggest there will be calcite and hematite precipitation for
.-. both treated effluent and surface water allowed to percolate into the vadose for all of the waters
modeled. Computer modeling suggests that precipitation of calcite in the vadose zone during
surface infiltration of treated effluent will require approximately 2500 k 420 pore volumes to
achieve a 10% porosity reduction. For infiltrating surface waters, a similar porosity reduction will
require between 2,450 ? 410 and 3,620 i: 610 pore volumes.
Hematite precipitation is also predicted in the vadose zone for both infiltrating treated
effluent and surface waters. However, the volume of expected precipitate is not nearly as great as
for calcite. Infiltration of treated effluent will require the passage of approximately 1,751,ooO k
1,751,000 pore volumes to achieve a 10% porosity reduction. For surface waters, a similar
porosity reduction will require between 9,196,000 k9,195,000 and 45,97 1,000 i:45,970,000
pore volumes. Because of the relatively high analytical uncerrainties for iron, the results are
essentially meaningless. However, due to the small amount of dissolved iron present, hematite
precipitation in the vadose zone will probably not significantly reduce porosity.
The next step in simulation of anificial recharge by surface infiltration is to simulate the
effects of the percolating recharge waters encountering and mixing with groundwater. These
simulations were done in PHFGEQE over a temperature range of from 5 to 25OC. This is the
approximate temperature range expected at the water table.
Mixing of Treated Effluent Rechargedby Sugace Infiltration with Charles 3
Groundwazn. When mated effluent previously equilibrated with 0 2 and CO2 in the vadose
zone enters Charles 3 groundwater, saturation indices forthe mixing of the two waters suggest
that calcite (Fig. 4-16a), dolomite (Fig. 4"16b), sepiolite (Fig 4-17a). talc (Fig. 4-17b). Hematite
(Fig. 4-17~).and goethite (Fig. 4-17d) are supersaturated. Amorphous silica is consistently
4-15
undersaturated (Fig. 4-16 c). Calcite, dolomite, sepiolite, and talc are unsaturated in each of the
end-member waters yetreach supersaturation due to mixing.
A second model run with PHREEQE equilibrated the mixing waters with hematite,calcite,
and talc (Table 4-14). Calculations suggest that the minimum pore volumes of hematite needed to
reduce porosity 10% by precipitation are 202075,860 zk 202,075,430 at 80% treated effluent
(Fig. 4-18a). Even with rhe large uncertainty, it is unlikely that hematite precipitation will be
significant. The minimum number of pore volumes needed to effect a 10% porosity reduction due
to calcite precipitation are approximately 15,04C t 2525 over the temperature rangeof 5 to 25°C
(Fig. 4 i 8 b ) . The maximum amount of precipitation is predicted to occur in a mixture containing
30% treated effluent.
Mixing of Treated Ejjluent Recharged by Surface Infiltration with CoronadoI
Groundwater. When treated effluent previously equilibrated with
0 2
and CO? in the vadose zone
enters Coronado 1 groundwater, plots of saturation indices for the mixingof the two waters
suggest that calcite (Fig. 4-19a), dolomite (Fig. 4-19b), sepiolite (Fig 4-20a). talc (Fig. 4-20b),
4Hematite (Fig. 4-20c), and goethite (Fig. 4-2Od) are supersaturated. Amorphous silica (FI~.
19d) is consistently undersatxated.
A second simulation with PHREEQE equilibrated the mixing waters with hematite and
calcite (Table 4-15). The results of this second modeling run suggest that hematite precipitation
is already occurring inthe groundwater in greater amounts than in the equilibrated treated effluent
(Fig. 4-2la). Therefore, it is unlikely that equilibrium hematite precipitation due to mixing of the
equilibrated treated effluent with Coronado 1 groundwater willbe significant. Calcite, however,
is also projected to precipitate due to the mixing of the two solutions (Fig. 4-2lb). The minimum
number of pore volumes required fora 10% porosity reduction due to calcite precipitation is
predicted to be 18,300 i.3,070 at 5OC.
Mixing of low
22)s surface
water Rechargedby Suzface Infillration with Charks 3
Groundwater. When lowTDS surface water percolates through thevadose zone and equilibrates
with O2 and CO? before mixing withCharles 3 groundwater, plots of saturation indices for the
mixing of the two waters suggest mixing will cause supersaturation of calcite (Fig. 4-22a).
saturation of dolomite (Fig. 4-22b), and undersaturation of amorphous silica (Fig. 22d),
3- i9
supersaturation of sepiolite (Fig 4-23a) and Talc (Fig. 4-23b) and gross supersaturation of
hematite (Fig. 4-23c) and goethite (Fig. 4-23d).
Equilibration of the mixing solutions with hematite, calcite, and talc (Table 4-16) suggest
that the hematite precipitation decreases with mixing (Fig. 4-24a). Almost all of the iron
precipitates out in the vadose zone. Therefore, the model predicts that the equilibrated waters
contain very little iron. The iron content entered into PHREEQE for theequilibrated water was
so low that the model would not accept it. ?herefore, an iron concentration of zero was used.
Calcite precipitation is predicted to reach a maximum for an SO% mixture of the equilibrated
.-. surface water (Fig. 4-23b). A minimum
of 10,660 i 1,790 pore volumes are required to reduce
-
porosity by 10% due to calcite precipitation.
Mixing of low TDS surface water Recharged by Surface Infiltration with Coronado 1
Groundwater. Plots of saturation indices of the mixing of equilibrated, low TDS surface water
mixed with Coronado 1 groundwater suggest that calcite will become supersaturated due to
mixing (Fig. 4-25a), as will dolomite (Fig. 4-25b). Amorphous silica is consistently
undersamrated (Fig. 4-175d). Sepiolire saturation increases due to mixing (Fig. 4-26a). Talc
saturation follows a similarpattern to sepiolite (Fig. 4-26b) and both hematite (Fig 3-26c)and
a
uoethite
(Fig. 4-26d) are grossly oversaturated. However, saturation indices of both decline with
increasing amounrs of equilibrated surfacewater.
Equilibration with hematite and calcite show that both will precipitate (Table 4-17).
Calculations suggestthat hematite precipitation would require a minimum of 11,280,260 i
11,279,940 pore volumes to achieve a 10% percent porosity reduction (Fig. 4-27a) Because the
equilibrated solution contains very littleiron due to iron precipitation in the vadose zone, hematite
precipitation is unlikely to be important. The minimum number of pore volumes necessary to
cause a 10% porosity reduction due to calcite precipitation is 12,310 i:2,070.
Mixing of high TDS surface water Recharged by Surface Infiliration with Charles 3
Groundwater. When high TDS surface water equilibrated with 0 2 and COz in the vadose zone
enters Charles 3 groundwater, plots of saturation indices for the mixing of the two waters suggest
calcite (Fig. 4-28a). dolomite (Fig. 4-28b), sepiolite (Fig 4-29a). and talc (Fig. 4-29b) become
supersaturated due to the mixing of the two waters. Amorphous silica remains undersaturated
(Fig. 4-28d). Both hematite (Fig. 4-29c) and goethite (Fig. 4-29d) are grossly oversaturated in
4-20
the groundwater and undersaturated in the equilibrated surface water. Consequently saturation
indices of both decline as the component of equilibrated surface water increases.
Equilibration with hematite and calcite suggests that hematite precipitation decreases
the component of equilibrated surface water increases (Table 4-18). Therefore, hematite
precipitation is not projected as important. For example, a solution containing90% of
equilibrated surface water would require 404,151,720 ? 404,151,400 porevolumes to effect a
10% porosity reduction (Fig. 4-30a). Calcite precipitation increases to a maximum at
approximately 50% equilibrated surface water (Fig. 4-3Ob) and is projected to require a minimum
.-. of 10;660 f 1,790 pore volumes to effect a 10% porosity reduction.
Mixing of high TDS surface water Recharged by Surface Infiltration with Coronado 1
Groundwater. Equilibration of the solutions with hematite, calcite, and talc (Table 4-19)
suggests that calcite (Fig. 4-31a), dolomite (Fig. 4-31b), and sepiolite (Fig. 4-32a)reach
supersaturation as a result of mixing. The saturation indices of hematite (Fig. 4-32c), and
goethite (Fig. 4 3 2 d ) decrease with increased amounts of equilibrated surface water. Amorphous
silica (Fig. 4-31d) remains unsaturated.
Equilibration ofrhe mixed solutions with hematite and calcite (Table 1-19) suggest that
hematite precipitation is not significant (Fig. 4-33a). Calcite precipitation would require a
minimum of 12,310 ? 2,070 pore volumes to effect a 10% porosity reduction (Fig. 4-33b).
Water Quality
Mixing treated effluent or Rio Grande surface water with Albuquerque groundwater by
either injection or surface infiltration is projected to have no impact on rhe potability of the
groundwater. 'However, the models used do not consider trace metal distribution, bacteriological
content of the waters, or the presence of potential organic pollutants.
Simulated groundwater quality is tabulated in Table 4-20. The results listed in Table 4-20
are for a80% injected water and 20% groundwater mixture. It is difficult to predict the exact mix
of injected water and groundwater inthe aquifer dueto artificial injection. A small component of
Foundwater is likely due to dispersion and mixing, even after long periodsof injection.
Therefore the 80-20 mix was chosen arbitrarily. No attempt was made to model trace metal
concentrations.
4-2 1
Injection of treated effluent is expected to produce water with a slightly higherTDS than
Albuquerque groundwater. Treated effluent has a TDS of approximately 5 0 0 mgfl, while the
range in groundwater TDS is approximately 190 to 430 mOJ1. Thus TDS will increase from
mixing. Iron concentrations may decrease due to iron mineral precipitation.
Because surface water is more dilute than the groundwater during spring runoff, and
comparable during the rest of the year, injection of surface water wiU produce waters with the
same or slightly lower TDS range as groundwaters. Some calcite precipitation is projected.
Therefore, Calcium and bicarbonate concennations may be slightly lower than simple mixing
would predict.
The models predict that waters percolating downward through the vadose zone are likely
to lose almost all dissolved iron and some dissolved calcium and bicarbonate due to precipitation
in the vadose zone. As a resulr, when the percolating waters mix with the groundwater, the TDS
of the recharged water is generally expected to be slightlylower than the TDS of the native
groundwater if equilibrium is acrually reachedin the vadose zone.
DISCUSSION
The topics of this discussion section, in order of presentation, are 1) the basis and
limitations of the geochemical models used, 2) predicted precipitation reactions during subsurface
injection of artificial recharge and possible chemical interference and kinetic effects not accounted
for by the models, 3) the theoretical pattern and distribution of precipitation during subsurface
injection, 4) a comparison of Albuquerque and El Paso simulations, 5 ) predicted precipitation
reactions during surface infiitration, 6) theoretical pattern and dismbution of precipitation effects
during surface infiltration, and 7) the predicted effects of artificial recharge on wafer quality.
Basis and Limitations of Geochemical Models
The geochemical models used in this study (WATEQ4F, MINTEQM, and PHREEQE)
are equilibrium models. In other words, the results output by these models are the predicted
heoretical equilibrium conditions. However, most groundwaters are not at equilibrium. Drever
(1988) states that many natural waters closely approach equilibrium with secondary clayminerals,
however, these waters rarely achieve equilibrium with the primaryminerals of igneous rock, with
the possible exception of K-feldspar.
Equilibrium with a mineral suiteis a function of contact time. Minerals which exhibit
relatively fast reaction kinetics, such as calcite, the clay minerals, andpossibly K-feldspar, will
react with water more rapidly and thus equilibrium with these minerals will be reached with less
contact time. In an artificial recharge scenario, flow rates throughporous media will be more
rapid than normal due to added head. Therefore, contact times will be shorter in an artificial
recharge system then in an undisturbed aquifer. For this reason, no equilibrium with primary
igneous minerals was atrempted during the various modeling runs.
-
None of the models used in this study has a spatial component. Therefore, it is not
possible to predict the location of precipitates or the useful life of a recharge facility from the
results output by these models.
Precipitation Reactions During Subsurface Injection
of Artificial Recharge
PHREEQE was used to model artificial recharge by subsurface injection in w o steps.
First, a mixing simulation which did not allow equilibration with minerals was performed. Next,
the saturation indices of all minerals in PHREEQE's LOOKMIN database were examined to see
which ones were supersaturated and therefore might possibly precipitate. Once the
supersaturated minerals were identified, PHREEQE simulations allowing mineral precipitation
were performed. Some minerals, such as talc, though supersaturated, were not allowed to
precipirate in the simulations because it is unlikely that suchprecipitation would occur over
significant time frames.
In general, PHREEQE and MIXTEQ tend to precipitate themost supersaturated minerals
first. As a result, often only the most supersaturated minerals are projected to precipitate. For
example, In each of the subsurface injection simulations, hematite andgoethite were both grossly
supersaturated, with hematite consistently the most supersaturated. When runs were made
equilibrating the solutions with both hematite and geothite, only hematite was predicted to
precipitate at equilibrium (Note: when simulations allowed only goethite to precipitate, no
precipitation occurred). However, the reality is that hematite doesnot precipitate on short time
scales due to slow reaction kinetics (Pankow, 1991). However, amorphous Fe(OH)3 does.
4-23
In
interpreting the results of this modeling, hematite should be considered an analog of amorphous
iron hydroxide which often has a bacterial component in its formation which could not be
modeled in this study.
Subsurface injection of treated effluent into Charles 3 and Coronado 1 groundwaters
predicted only iron-mineral precipitation. Calculations suggest that the maximum precipitation of
iron will occur when the solutionis 100 percent treated effluent and thata minimum of 1,870,000
ri: 1,760,000pore volumes are required to reduce the porosity by 10%. Even though the
uncertainty is grossly large, there is little possibility that iron precipitation could effectivelyplug
aquifer pores unless precipitation is concentrated in particular area, such as at the wellscreen.
-
+-.
Subsurface injection of oxygenated water containing Fe
into groundwater with a low
dissolved oxygen content which containsFe” causes the precipitation of iron hydroxide. This
reaction is usually bacteriologically mediated. Because Fe*Ee-
ratios were not available for
either the treated effluent or the groundwater, the geochemical modeling could not address the
potential for iron hydroxide precipitation at the well screen. Iron bacteria have the ability to
remain attached to a support even athigh water flow velocities (Appelo and Posuna, 1993).
Therefore, the process of injection is unlikely to dislodge these bacteria. Liang, et al. (1993)
ti+
proposed that natural organic matter may play a role in the reduction of Fe
and thus in the
formation of iron hydroxides. They also stated that where rhe dissolved oxygen contentof the
water is high, the rateof iron hydroxide formation is rapid and that atleast some of the colloidal
portion of the iron hydroxide precipitate is probably transported into the aquifer.
It is quite likely that injecting oxycygenated water into the subsurfacein the Albuquerque
area will result in iron hydroxide foulingof the well screens. However, the geochemical modeling
described in this study does not address the problem.
Simulations of surface water injection suggest both hematite and calcite will precipitate.
The number of pore volumes necessaryto cause a 10% porosity reduction due to hematite
precipitation ranges from approximately9,200,000 I.9,010,000 to 46,000,000 i-45,000,000.
Considering the worst case, it would still require approximately 200,000 pore volume for a 10%
porosity reduction. Again, the predicted amount of hematite precipitation is unlikely to plug a
significant volume of aquifer pore spaceunless precipitation is concentrated in one locale.
4-24
The volume of calcite precipitation is expected to increase with temperature. Therefore,
the greatest likelihood of significant calcite precipitation would be at depth wherethe temperamre
is greater. Calcite precipitation is projected by the geochemical models to require a minimum of
between 21,000 2 3,500 at 25'C and 10,200? 1,700 at 75'C.
++.
However, calcite precipitation is inhibited by the presence of large amounts of Mg Ions,
organic compounds, and phosphate compounds in solution. Precipitation inhibition byMgC+ ions
is apparently due to adsorption of the ionon the calcite surface, whereit blocks subsequent
crystal growth (Berner, 1975). For organic acids, inhibition effects begin at concentrations ofless
than IO ppm (Reddy, 1977; Tomson, 1983).. For phosphates, inhibition begins at concentrations
.
of less than 1.0 ppm (Walter and Hanor, 1979; Mucci, 1986). An analysis of Albuquerque treated
i?
efiluent contains 6.36 ppm of Mg (0.262
The molar Mg*/Ca-
millirnolesll) and 43.6 ppm (1.09 millimolesll) of Ca".
ratio of Albuquerque treated effluent is 0.24, whereas for seawater, as used
by Bemer (1975) it is approximately 5.0. The Mg"/Ca"
ranges from 0.29 to O.:l.
ratio for Rio Grande surface water
n
Therefore, it is uncertain if the Mg present in the recharges waters
will inhibit calcite precipitation.
Albuquerque treated effluent phosphate concentrations are approximately 0.S ppm. and
surface water phosphate concentrations range from 0.03 to 0.09 ppm orthophosphate.
Therefore, it is likely that the presence of orthophosphate may inhibit calcite precipitation during
artificial recharge in the Albuquerque basin. No information is available on the concentrations of
organic acidsin the proposed rechar,-e waters.
Current hydrogeochemical models are incapable of considering inhibition effects dueto
the presence of certain ions or acids on mineral precipitation. Therefore, these models will
overestimate the amount of recharge-induced mineral precipitation if inhibition effects are presenL
perhaps by several orders of mapitude. Therefore, the precipitation volumes presented in this
report should be considered maximum estimates.
Theoretical Patternand Distribution of Precipita~onDuring Subsurface Injection
Theoretically, the amount of precipitation which occurs in a given aquifer poreunder
steady state flow isa function of how rapidly groundwater passes through the porespace. For
relatively short geological time scales (minutes to perhaps several hundredsor even thousands of
4-25
years) precipitation reactions are kineticay controlled. If water passes through thepore
relatively quickly, then less of a given mineralis able to precipitate in that pore spaceper pore
volume of water. Water injected into an aquifer passes radially out of the well. Consequently, the
velocity and pressure of the injected water decrease with increasingdistance from the injection
well (Fig. 4-34). (The mathematical development of Figure 4-34 is given in Appendix 4-C ). At
some distance fromthe well, where velocity has decreased so that the water has a signifcant
residence time relative to the rate of the reaction, the amount of precipitate formed in each pore
should become significantand a radial precipitation front may form (Fig. 4-35) if the aquifer is
homogenous. The location of this precipitauon front will bea function of aquifer properties, such
as hydraulic conductivity and effective porosity, the reaction kineticsof the precipitating mineral,
and recharge well hydraulics.
Different minerals may produce precipitation fronts in different locations. For example, if
the rate of iron hydroxide precipitation is faster than the rate of calcite precipitation, then the iron
hydroxide fronr wouldbe expected to liecloser to the injection well than the calciteprecipitation
front.
Additionally, any injected solids will tend to settle outof the injected water as the pore
velocity decreases radially away from the injection well forming a settling front. The settling front
may or may not form in the same position as one or more precipitation fronts. The kinetically
based quantification of precipitation and settling fronts should be performed on
a site-specific
basis; it is nor within the scope of this study.
Before flow conditions for artificial injection reach steadystate conditions, mixing front
precipitation may occur. For example, if precipitation is predicted for agiven mineral for
mixtures of between 40 and 80% of the injected fluid, this precipitation would be localized along
a mobile, radial front where these mixing conditions occurred. However, as the injected fluid
gradually composes greater and greater amountsof the mixture, the importanceof mixing-front
precipitation should diminish.
If the aquifer is has a heterogeneous permeabilitydismbution (asmost do),then fingering
or channeling of rlow is likely to occur. If subsurface flow channeling does occur,then
precipitation or settling fronts resulting from artificial injection will not havea symmemcal .
distribution about the injection well.
Comparison of Albuquerque and El Paso Simulations for subsurface Injection
The first injectionwell for the ElPaso artificial recharge project was drilled and tested
prior to 1985 (Knorr andCliett, 1985). Since then nine more injection wells have been drilled and
placed into use. According to Paul Buszka of the U.S.Geological Survey, Indianapolis, Indiana,
full breakthrough of injected water in the some of the recovery wells was achieved in 1990-1991.
?dr. Buszka is currently preparing a sndy on the El Paso artifkial recharge for publication
through the U.S.G.S. I understand that his s.tudy does not include hydrogeochemical computer
-
modeling.
The El Paso artificial recharge project has successfully been underway since may of 1985.
The project was planned on the basis of a two-year recovery time from time of injection. All but
one of the El Paso injection wells are currently in operation, although it is my understanding that
the screens have to be periodically cleaned on all except the firstwell drilled.
The El Paso groundwater generally has higher TDS than Albuquerque groundwater. El
Paso groundwater ranges between approximately 500 to 800 mgA TDS,while Albuquerque
groundwater runs approximately 250-400 mg/l TDS.
A simulation of the mixing of El Paso treated effluent and El Paso groundwater suggesrs
that calcite will precipitate. A 10% porosiry reduction is calculated to require between 30,400 k
5,100 pore volumes at 25OC and 8,650 k 1,450 pore volumes at 75'C. Injection of Albuquerque
treated effluent is not projected to precipitate calcite at all. Therefore, it appears that the injection
of Albuquerque treated effluent should have less precipitation problems than El Paso. Since the
El Paso operation is successful, Injection of treated effluent in Albuquerque seems geochemically
feasible.
Computer simulations predict that injecting surface warer into the Albuquerque aquifer
will lead to calcite precipitation which is projected to require a minimum of between 21,000 k
3,500 at 2j0C and 10,200 k 1,700 at 75OC. Thus, the simulations predict that when surfacewater
in injected into the aquifer,that calcite precipitation will begreater than is projected to occurfor
injection of treated effluentin El Paso. Therefore, it is indeterminate if there is likelihood of
significant pore clogging due the injection of Albuquerque surface water.
4-27
Precipitation Reactions During Surface Infiltrationof Artificial Recharge
The infdtration of recharge water into the vadose zone was simulated inMINTEQ.42 by
equilibrating the solutions with partial pressures of CO? and
0 2
gas typical of the vadose zone.
The concentration of carbon dioxide gas in the soil zone is variable but typically falls in' the range
75
of 10'' to 10" atmospheres (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). A value of 10"' atmospheres was chosen
for the geochexical modeling performed in this study. More detailed discussion of the occurrence
and effect of soil zone C 0 2 are discussed by Jakucs (1973) and Trainer and Heath(1976).
The vadose simulations suggest there will be mineral precipitation within the vadose zone
for both infiltration of treated effluent and surface water. Calcite and hematite are expectedto
precipitate during surface infiltration of treated effluent during infiltration of surface waters into
the vadose zone.
The simulations project calcite precipitation to require 2,500 k 420 pore volumes to cause
a 10% decrease in porosity during vadose zone infiltration of treated effluent. For infiltrating
surface waters, a similar porosiry reduction will require between 2,450 k 310 and 3,620
610
pore volumes. The number of pore volumes projected to cause a 10% porosity reduction due to
calcite precipitation in infiltrating waters may be significantly greater than predicted by the
computer simulations of subsurface injection of the same waters. Without, pilottesting, it is
difficult to derermine if this level of precipitation would impede artifkial recharge by surface
infiltration in the Albuquerque area. However, it does appear that fewerprecipitation problems
will be encountered during subsurface injection.
While hematite precipitation is projected for vadose infiltration of both treated effluent and
surface water, it is not likely to be volumetrically signifcant. Especially since the kinetics of the
hematite precipitation reaction are relatively slow. However, it is likely that some form of
bacterially-mediated amorphous iron will precipitate in the vadose zone. Both the kineticsof the
reaction and the design of the infiltration structure would play a determining role in how much
recharge waters could be processed before porosiy reduction became signifcant. Pilot tests
would be needed to determine the potential Life of a surface infiltration structure.
4-23
In summary, it is possible that sipifcant precipitation and resultant pore-plugging may
occur during surfaceinfiltration of recharge water in the Albuquerque area. Chemical pilot testing
andor comparison with successfulsurface infiltration projects in similar climates would be
necessary to determine the feasibility of surface intiitration in Albuquerque.
Additional precipitation of calcite and hematite are also projected to occur when the
infdtrating recharge waters reach the water table and mix with the groundwaters. The minimum
projected pore volumes necessary to effect a 10% porosity reduction are 10,660 i 1,790 for
calcite and approximately 202,075,860 i202,075,000 for hematite. Calcite precipitation is not
likely: to be nearly as effective in blocking pores below the water table in the vadose zone. Iron
mineral precipitation below the water table should be insignificant. The models predict that most
of the iron may precipitate within the vadose zone before the recharge waters reach the water
table.
In summary, most of the precipitation during artificial recharge by surface infiltration is
projected to occur in the vadosezone if equilibrium is actually reached. Of course the amount of
precipitation which actually occurs in the vadose zone will be a function of the recharge water’s
residence time. The amounts of precipitation reported by this study shouldbe considered
maximum values. If the reaction rates for any or all of these precipitation reactions are
sufficiently slow so that equilibrium is not reached by the time the recharge water reaches the
water table, then less precipitation than predicted will occur.
Theoretical Pattern and Distribution of Precipitation Effects During Surface Infiltration
The resulrs of the surface intitration simulations are more likely to be correct if surface
infiltration is done in such a manner that the land surface periodically dries out. In this case, more
of the infiltrating water is exposed to soilzone gases. However, if a pond is used which rarely or
never dries out, then eventually a steady statewetting front will develop underneath the pond.
l
l
ino
Within this wettingfront, essentially all of the porosity will be filled with recharge water w
longer be exposed to significant amounts of soil gases. However, recharge water on the edges of
the wetting front will still be exposed to soil gases. It is likely, that this fringe area where the
wetting front meets the vadose zone is where much of the precipitation would actually occur.
4-29
Predicted Effectsof Artificial Recharge on Water Quality
Mixing treated effluent or Rio Grande surface water with Albuquerque groundwater by
either injection or surfaceinfiltration is projected to have no adverse impact on the potability of
the groundwater mowever, this study does not address biological concerns). Injection of treated
effluent is expected to produce water with a higher TDS than Albuquerque groundwater. Treated
effluent has a TDS of approximately 500
__
mu,while the range in groundwater T D S is
approximately 190 to 430 m-d. Thus TDS will increase from mixing. Because surface water is
more dilute than the groundwater during spring runoff, and comparable during the rest of the
year, injection of surface water will produce waters with the same or slightly lower TDS range as
groundwaters. Some calcite precipitation is projected. Therefore, calcium and bicarbonate
concentrations may be slightly lower than simple mixing would predict.
The models predict that waters percolating downward through the vadose zone are likely
to lose almost all dissolved iron and some dissolved calcium and bicarbonate due to precipitation
in the vadose zone. As a result, when the percolating wxers mix with the groundwater, the TDS
of the recharged water is generally expected to be slightly lower than the TDS of the native
groundwater.
However, the simulations do not consider trace metal distribution, ion exchange,
bacteriological content of the waters, or the presence of potential pollutants.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOblMEXDATIONS
The projected calcite precipitation for injection of treated effluent is less than for the
successful El Paso d i c i a l recharge project. Therefore, subsurface injectionof treated effluent is
not projected to cause sufficient precipitation to prevent successful aquifer rechargefor a time
period of at least as long as the El Paso project has been successfully underway. The El Paso
artificial recharge project began in May of 1985. However, subsurface injectionof E o Grande
surface water is projected to cause a greater calcite precipitation ban predicted for injection of El
Paso treated effluent Therefore, the possibility of precipitation-induced limits to the Life of
injection wells does exist Calcite precipitation increase with increasing temperature. Therefore,
4-30
injection into deeper zones, with warmer temperatures, is expected to produce greater
precipitation of calcite.
Hematite is also projected to precipitate by the computer models. However, the reaction
rate of hematite precipitation is quite slow. It is more likely that bacteralogically mediated
precipitation of amorphous iron hydroxide might occur. This process is capable of plugging well
screens.
Chemical pilot testing of precipitation reactions with the proposed recharge waters and/or
kinetically based cornpurer modeling is needed to ascertain the projected life of injection wells in
_. the Albuquerque area. Equilibrium-based modeling, such as done in this study, cannot make this
prediction.
-
Simulations of surface infiltration of the proposed recharge waters suggestthere will be
mineral precipitation within the vadose zone for both infiltration of treated efrluent and surface
water. Calcite and hematite are expected to precipitate during surface infiltrationof treated
effluent and calcite and hematite are projected to precipitate during infiltration of surface waters
into the vadose zone. The calculated pore volumes needed to effect a 10%porosity reduction for
calcite precipitation in the vadose zone are significantly less than calculated for subsurface
injection of Rio Grande surface waters. Therefore, it is possible that precipitation within the
vadose zone might be sufficient to limit the life of surface infiltration facilities. However,
chemical pilot testing might determine that reaction rates are sufficiently slow for surface
infiltration to be successful overlong time periods.
Mixing treated effluent or Rio Grande surface water with Albuquerque groundwater by
either injection or surface infiltration is projected to have no impact on the potability of the
groundwater. 'Injection of treated effluent is expected to produce water with a higherTDS than
Albuquerque groundwater. The models predict that waters percolating downward through the
vadose zone are likely tolose almost all dissolved iron and some dissolved calcium and
bicarbonate due to precipitation in the vadose zone. As a result, when the percolating watersmix
with the groundwater, the TDS of the recharged water is generally expected to be slighrly lower
than the TDS of the native groundwater. However, the simulations do not consider trace
metal
distribution, ion exchange, bacteriological content of the waters, or the presence of potential
pollutants.
4-3 1
REFERENCES CITED
Allison, J. D., Brown, D. S., and Novo-Gradac, K. J., 1991, MfiTEQA2/pRODEFA2, a
geochemical assessment model for environmental systems: version 3.0 users manual,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S.E.P.A.,
Athens, GA, 106 p.
Appelo, C. A. I. and Posma, D., 1993, Geochemistry, groundwater and pollution, A. A.
Balkerna, Rotterdam, 536'p.
__
Ball, J.W. and Nordstrom, D. K., 1991, User's manual for WATEQ4F with revised
thermodynamic data base and test cases for calculating speciation of major, trace, and redox
elements in natural waters, U.S.G.S. Open File Report 91-183.
Berner, R. A., 1975, Therole of magnesium in the crystal growth of calcite and aragonite from
seawater, Geochemicaet. Cosmochemica Acta V. 39,489-504.
Bradley, W. H., 1929, The occurrence and origin of analcite and meerschaum beds in the Green
River Formation of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, U.S.G.S. Prof. Paper l58-A, pp. 1-8.
Braitsch, O., 1958, Uber den mineralbestand der wasserunlBslichen riicksthde von salzen der
stassfurtserie im siidlichen leinetal, Frieberger Forschungshefte, A-123, pp. 160-163.
Degens, E. G., 1965, Geochemistryof Sediments: a Brief Survey, Prentice-Hall, Inc, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, 342 p.
Dick, J. G., 1973, Analytical Chemisny, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 696 p.
Dreizler, I., 1962, Mineralogische untersuchungen zweier gipsvorkommen aus der umgebung von
gottingen, Beitr. Min. Petrogr., v. 8., pp. 323-338.
Drever, J. I., 1988, The geochemistry of natural waters, 2nd. ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 435 p.
b
Felmy, A. R., Girvin, D. C., and Jenne, E. A., 1984, IvlINTEQ--a computer program for
calculating aqueous geochemical equilibria, EPA-600/3-84-032, U.S.E.P.A., Athens G a
Freeze, R. A., and Cherry, I. A., 1979, Groundwater, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
604 p.
Fritz, S. I., 1994, A survey of charge-balance errors on published analyses of potable ground and
surface waters, Ground Water, V. 32,539-546.
Gang, L; McCabe, C; Henxy,D. J.; and Schedl, A., 1994, Origin of a hematite carrying a late
Paleozoic remagneuzation in a quartz sandstone bed from the Silurian Rose Hill Formation,
Virginia, USA., Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 126,335-246.
Griffin, G. M., 1963, Occurrenceof talc in clayfractions from beach sands in the Baganapally
Stage (Kurnool System) India, J. Sedimentary Petrology, v. 29, pp. 468-469.
Jakucs, L., 1973, The karsticcorrosion of naturally occurring limestones in the geomorphology of
our age, Symposium on Karst-Morphogenesis,International Geographic Union, 52 p.
Knorr, D. B. and Cliett, T., 1985, Proposed groundwater recharge at El Paso Texas, in Artificial
recharse of groundwater, T. Asano editior, Butterworth Publishers, Boston, 425479.
-.
Liang', L.; McCarthy, J. F.; Jolley, L.W.; MkNabb, J. A.; and Mehlhorn, T. L., 1993, Iron
dynamics: transformation of Fe(lI)/Fe(III) during injection of natural organic matter in a sandy
aquifer, Geochimica er Cosmochimica Acta, V. 57,1987-1999.
Logan, L. M., 1990, Geochemistryof the Albuquerque municipal area, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, Independent Master's Study, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology,
Socono, New Mexico. (Note: this study is available from the NMBMMR Information
Office).
Milton, C. and Eugster, H. P., 1959, Mineral assemblages of the Green River Formation, in
Researches in Geochemisuy, P. H. Abelson, editor, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Xew York, pp.
118-150.
Mucci, A., 1986, Growth kinetics and composition of magnesian calcite overzrowths precipitated
from seawater; quantitative influence of orrhophosphate ions,Geochemica et. Cosmochemica
Acta V. 50.217-233.
Pankow, J. F.,1991, Aquatic Chemisny Concepts, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea MI, 683 p.
Parkhursr, D. L.; Thorstenson, D. C.; and Plummer, L. N., 1980, PHREEQE-a computer
program for geochemical calculations, U.S.G.S. Water-Resources Investigations Report 8096, 195 p.
Reddy, M
. M., 1977, Crystallization of calcium carbonate in the presence of trace concentrations
of phosphorous containing anions., Journal of Crystal Growth, V. 41,287-295.
Reiter, M.; Eggleston, R. E.; Broadwell, B. R.; and Minier, J., 1986, Estimates of terrestrial heat
flow from deep petroleum tests along the Rio Grande rift in central and southern New Mexico,
Journal of Geophysical Research, V. 91,6225-6245.
Steward, F. H., 1949, The petrology of the evaporites of the Eksdale No. 2 boring, East
Yorkshire. Part 1. The lower evaporite bed, Min. Mag. v. 28., p. 621.
4-33
Taylor, I. M., 199 1,Diagenesis of sandstones in the early h.Iesozoic Deerfield Basin, Maser's
Thesis, University of Massachusetts, 225 p.
Teodorovich, G. I., 1961, Authigenic minerals in sedimentary rocks, ConsultantsBureau
Enterprise, Inc., New York, (the Russian text was published by the USSR Academy of
Sciences Press, Moscow, 1958).
Thorn, C. R.; McAda, D. P., and Kernodle, J. M., 1993, Geohydrologic frameworkand
hydrologic conditions in the AlbuquerqueBasin, central New Mexico,U.S.G.S. Water
Resources Investigations Report 93-4149, 105 p.
Toms@, M. B., 1983, Effect of precipitation inhibitors on calcium carbonate scaleformation.,
Journal of Crystal Growth, V. 62.106-li2.
Trainer, F. W. and Heath, R. C., 1976, Bicarbonate content of groundwater in carbonate rock in
eastern Sorth America, Journal of Hydrology, V. 31,37-55.
Truesdell, A. H., and Jones, B. F.,1974,WATEQ, a computer program forcalculating chemical
equilibria of natural waters, Journal of Research, V. 2,233-248. U.S.G.S., Menlo Park, CA.
Truesdell, A. H.. and Jones, B.F.,1973, W A E Q , a computer program forcalculating chemical
equilibria of zarural waters, National Technical Information' Service Report,B-220 -B-464,
U.S.Depmmenr of Commerce, Springfield ,Vtz.
Walter, L. M. and Hanor, J. S., 1979, Effect o i orthophosphate on the dissolution kinetics of
biogenic magnesium calcites. Geochemica et. Cosmochemica Acta V. 43, 1377-1385.
Weldon, K L., 1986, Srurisrics: u concepruul approach, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 432 p.
Table.4-1. Matrix of PHREEQE Modeling Runs for Simulation of Albuquerque Subsurface
Injection.
Solution Mixin?
High TDS
Low TDS
Groundwater
Mineral Equilibration
Low TDS
High TDS
Groundwater
Albuquerque Treated Effluent
X
X
X
x
Low TDS Surface Water
X
X
X
X
H i g h TDS Surface Water
X
X
X
X
I
_.
Table 4-2. Manix of Artificial Recharge by Surface Infiltration Simulations.
Recharse W a t e r
Treated Effluent
LOWTDS Surface Water
High TDS Surface Water
Model
Purpose
MINTEQA?. Vadose zone simulation
PHREEQE Mix results of vadose zone simulation with Charles 3
groundwater
PHREEQE Mi results of vadose zone simulation with Coronado 1
groundwater
MINTEQA?. Vadose zone simulation
PHREEQE Mix results of vadose zone simulation with Charles 3
I groundwater
PHREEOE
- I Mix results of vadose zone simulation with Coronado 1
groundwater
Vadose
zone Simulation
MINTEQA?.
PHREEQE Mix results of vadose zone simulation with Charles 3
I groundwater
PHREEQE I Mix results of vadose zone simulation with Coronado 1
4-35
Groundwater
Groundwater
Table 4-3. Analytical Uncertainties of Treated Effluent as calculated from five replicates.
Silica (Si)
27.2 ppm
1.31 ppm
3.64 ppm
Sodium (Na)
103.2 opm
2.05 ppm
5.70 ppm
Sulfate (SO41
93.2 pwm
2.28 ppm
6.34 ppm
Note: n = 5
Table 4- 4. Results of Sensitivity Analysison Saturation Index for Treated Effluent.
Note: n = 5
4-36
Table 4-5. Parameters Used in Calculation of Volume Reduction Due to Mineral Precipitation.
Mineral
Formula
Di (_e/cm3)
Wi (g/mole)
Calcite
CaCOy
2.71
100.0894
Hematite
Fe?Oz
5.26
159.692
Error Analysis for Porosity Reduction Calculations
Table 4-6. Precipitation of Hematite Resulting from Mixing TreatedEffluent and Charles 3
Groundwater and Equilibrating with Hematite.
Note: All results are in moleskg. A negative sign indicates precipitation and a positive sign
indicates dissolution.
4-31
Table 4-7. Preciuitation of Hematite Reallting from Mixing Treate:d Effluent and Coronado 1
Groundwater and Equilibrating with Hematite.
Note: All resulrs are in moleskg A negative sign indicates precipitationand a positive sign
indicates dissolution.
4-38
Table 4-8. Precipitation of Hematite and Calcite Resulting from Mixing Low TDS San Felipe
Surface Water and Charles 3 Groundwater andEquilibrating with Hematite andCalcite.
4-39
Table 4-9. Precipitation cIf I4ematite and Calcite R e s~ltingfrom Mixing Low TDS san Felipe
Surface Water and Coronado 1 Groundwater and Equilibrating with Hematite and Calcite.
~
Note: All results are in moleskg. A negative sign indicates precipitation and a positive sign
indicates dissolurion.
4-40
Table 4-10. Precipitation of Hematite and Calcite Resulting from Mixing High TDS San Felipe
Surface Water and Charles 3 Groundwater and Equilibrating with Hematite and Calcite.
_.
-7.16x IO-'
-7.46x 1
0
.
'
-5.54I
-1.25 x IO4
-2.07 x IO4
-7.36x 1
0
.
'
-7.36x 1
0
.
'
-7.36s 10.'
-1.W x 10'
-1.45x IO"
-2.26x IO"
90
-7.16s IO-'
-7.26s 10.'
-7.26x 1
0
.
'
-1.15 x
IO"
-1.61s IO"
-2.46x IO"
100
-7.16x 1
0
.
'
-7.16i1
0
.
'
-7.16x IO-'
-1.19s 10"
-1.75x IO4
-2.65x IO"
-7.46 70
x1
0
.
'
30
Note: Au.results are in moles&.
indicates dissolution.
~
A negative sign indicates precipitation and a positive sign
4-31
Table 4-11. Precipitation of Hematite and Calcite Resulting from Mixing High TDS San Felipe
Surface Water and Coronado 1Groundwater and Equilibrating with Hematite and Calcite.
_.
Note: A, Jl. results are in moles/kg. A negative sign indicates precipitation and a positive sign
indicates dissolution.
4-42
Table 4-12. Precipitation of Calcite Resulting from Mixing El Paso Treated Effluent with El Paso
Groundwater and Equilibrating with Calcite.
10
Note: All results are in rnoleskg. A negative sign indicates precipitation and a positive sign
indicates dissolution.
4-43
Table 4-13. Results of Minte:SA2Vadose Zone Equilibrations.
_.
Porositv Reduction
4-44
Table 4-14. Precipitation of Hematite and Calcite as a Result of Mixing HighTreatedEffluent
previously equilibrated with the Vadose Zone and Charles 3 Groundwater andEquilibrating with
Hematite and Calcite.
~
I
-3.26 x 10.'
-3.26 x 10.'
-3.26 I 10.'
70
-2.44 x 10-8
-2.44s10-8
-2.14 x
-2.45 x
-2.45 I 10-l
so
-1.63 x 10-8
-1.63 s 10-8
-1.63 x 10-8
-1.59 x lo4
.IS9 x
90
.8.15~10-9
.8.15~10-~
-s.15x~o-9
1.24 x 10-13
1.58 x 10-5
100
I
7.zx I d 4
9.46 x 10-14
Note: Au results are in moles&.
indicates dissolution.
-3.19 x IO1
1 -3.28
60
x IO4
lo1
-7.26xlo-j
1.48
Io6
I
-3.28 X IO4
,
-2.18 x IO-)
-1.59 x
-7.1sn10-5
-7.20x10-j
l.u
10-5
A negative sign indicates precipitation anda positive sign
Table 4-15. Precipitation of Hematite and Calcite as a Result of Mixing Treated Effluent
previously equilibrated wirh the Vadose Zone and Coronado 1 Groundwater and Equilibrating
with Hematite and Calcite.
_.
Kote:
r e s d u are in moles/kg. A negative sign indicates precipitation and a positive sign
indicates dissolution.
4-46
thle 4-16. Precipitation c)f Hematite and Calcite as a Result of Mixing Surface Water (06-0491) previously equilibrated withthe Vadose Zone and Charles 3 Groundwater andEquilibrating
with Hematite and Calcite.
Note: All results are in moles/kg. A negative sign indicates precipitation and a positive sign
indicates dissolution.
4-47
Table 4-17. Precipitation of Hematite and Calcite as a Result of Mixing Surface Water (06-0491) previously equilibrated with the Vadose Zone and Coronado 1 Groundwater and Equilibrating
with Hematite and Calcite.
70
-8.76 x
80
. s . ~ ~ ~ -o5 .-~ 1~ ~ 1 0 - 8
90
-2.92 x 10-8
100
-2.25 x
-1.26 x IO-'
-1.24 I IO-'
- 5 . ~ ~ 1 0 4 .8.59s10-5
.8.d2r~0-5
-8.20~10-5
-2.92 x 10-8
-2.92 x 10-8
-2.93
10-5
-2.72 x 10-5
-2.42 10-5
2.34 x
2.98 x 10-l'
4.S?
-8.76 x 1V8
-8.76 x 10.'
-1.27 x lo4
lo-'
I
5.05 I
5.36 S lO-'
Note:
results are in rnoleskg. A negative sign indicates precipitation and a positive sign
indicates dissolution.
4-48
Table 4-18. Precipitation of Hematite and Calcite as a Result of Mixing Surface Water (09-0791) previously equilibrated with the Vadose Zone and Charles 3 Groundwater and Equilibrating
with Hematite and Calcite.
..
Note: All resulrs are in moleskg. A negative sign indicates precipitation and a positive sign
indicates dissolution.
4-49
Table 4-19. PIreciuitation of Hematite and Calcite a s a Restdt of Mixing Surface Water (09-0791) previously eqkibrated wirh the Vadose Zone and Coronado1 Groundwater and Equilibrating
with Hematite and Calcite.
~
~~
~
~~
~
Note: Au results are in moledkg. A negative sign indicates precipitation and a positive sign
indicates dissolution.
4-50
..
I
'**x
%
I
I ^
SODIUM BICARBONATE
\
\
CALCIUM *\
BICARBONA~E
Sandiz
I
1 1
I.
2B
A
0
_.
-. -_ -1
. -
1
m
-2
1oC
"
0
20
40
60
80
I
rb
I
I
I
I
1
0
% TREATED EFFLUEYI
I
I
80 100
20 60 40
% TREATED EFFLUE?JT
8
I
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
_""
-------"
I
I
0
20
I
I
40 80 60
0 - p
-2
I
100
% TREATED EFFLUENT
= e = = = = = =
,
I
I
I
0
20
40
60
I
80 100
% TREATED EFFLUENT
Figure 4-2. Saturation indices for mixing of Albuquerque treated effluent and groundwater from
well Charles 3. Mixing runs which allowed no mineral equilibration at temperamesbetween 25
and 7 5 T were performed in PHREEQE to see which minerals would be supersaturated. The
important supersaturated minerals were goethite(C), and hematite @). Amorphous silica (B) was
undersaturated while calcite (A) was only saturated at temperatures approaching 7 5 T .
4-53
I e+a
_.
..
.
1 e+7
I
1 e+6
1
'
I
I
0
-E
c.
<
le+4
L
E
0
I
I
I
I
20
40
60
80
100
Percent Equilibrated TreatedEHuent
I
.
,
-
-
25OC
"5OoC
-
75OC
Figure 4-3. Pore volumes required to achieve a 10%porosity reduction due to hematite
precipitation during mixing of Albuquerque treated effluentand groundwater from well Charles 3.
4-54
1 ,
2 1
AI
4-
I
-2
0
-.
20
40
60
80 100
0
% TREATED EFFLUENTII
..
20
40
60
80 100
5% TREATED E F F L U E X
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
"
"
"
"
""-===
"
"
"
"
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
% TREATED EFFLUENI
-"
25°C
20
40
60
80
% TREATED EFFLUEhT
-
50°C
4-55
b
-
75OC
100
.._.
..
2 le+4 ,
I
I
L
c
c,
0 40 20
I
I
I
80 60
Percent Equilibrated Treated Effluent
-
25OC
"5OoC
4-56
"7 j o c
100
1
AI
211 - " - 1
'-2
20
0
40
60
80
100
0
% SURFACEWATER
20
40
60
80
100
'3 SURFACE WATER
18
,..
-
16
14
12
10
Ek
3 8
-WJ
= 6
D
4
2
-1
0
I
I
I
I
20
40
60
80
c/o
100
SURFACE WATER
25"c
- 50°C
75°C
1
Figure 4-6. Saturaaon indices for mixing of low T D S surface water and groundwaterfrom well
Charles 3. hiixing runs which allowed no mineral equilibration at temperatures between 25 and
75OC were performed in PHREEQE to see which minerals would be supersaturated. The
imporrant supersaturated minerals were calcite (A), goethite (C), and hematite (D). Amorphous
silica. (B) was undersaturated.
'
4-57
le+10
lei9
le+8
lei7
lei6
. ._.
..
lei5
le4
$
a
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pacent San Felipe Surface Water (06-04-1991)
C
c
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent San Felipe Surface Water (06-04-1991)
25°C
50°C
A
75°C
Figure 4-7. Pore volumes required to achieve a 10% porosity reduction due to hematite
precipitation (A) and calcite precipitation (B) during mixing of low TDS surface warer and
groundwater from well Charles 3.
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
..
. "1
.1
-
-2
.
0
40
20
60
80 100-
I
1
I
I
I
I
0
20
40
60
80
70SURFACE W.4TER
100
$6 SURFACE WATER
1
c7 " " " -
16
5
12
D
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
1
O
0
20
40
60
0
80 100
25°C
"- 50°C
40
60
80
% SURFACE WATER
70SURFACE WATER
-
20
U
100
-O-
75°C
Figure 4-8. Saturation indices for mixing of low TDS surface water andgroundwater from well
Coronado 1. Mixing funs which allowed no mineral equilibration at temperatores between 25 and
75°C were performed in PHREEQE to see which minerals would besupersaturated. The
important supersaturated minerals were calcite (A), goethite (C), and hematite (D). Amorphous
silica (B) was undersaturawd.
.--C
E
0
2
3
le+10
c
2 le+9
n
5
c
le+8
8
c, lec7
L.
_.
.. .-
s
.-g-
le+6
c
le+5
Y
-E'-
3
c
le+4
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent San Felipe Surface Water (06-04-1991)
B
\c
"45c?-=-=-"=- - - - " "
$
.'
C
r
Ill,,
r
5
t
"
"
a
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent San Felipe Surface Water (06-04-1991)
25.C
50°C
*
75'C
Figure 4-9. Pore volumes required to achieve a 10% porosity reduction due to hematite
precipitation (A) and calcite precipitation (B) during mixing of low TDS surface water and
groundwater from well Coronado 1.
~
*
~
"
4-60
i/i
I
I
-.
._
-1 I
0
I
I
I
I
20
40
60
80
0
70SURFACE WATER
8
7
40
60
100
80
C/c SLWACE WATER
18
cl
4
20
4
"_""
2
-
D
"
"
"
"
-1
0
20
.
-
40
60
80
100
% SURFACE WATER
25°C
"- 50°C
75°C
Figure 4-10. Saturation indices for mixing of high TDS surface water and groundwater from
well Charles 3. Mixing runs which allowed no mineral equilibration at temperatures between25
and 7 5 T were performed in PHREEQE to see which minerals would be supersaturated. The
important supersaturated minerals were calcite (A), goethite (C), and hematite (D). Amorphous
silica (B) was undersaturated.
4-61
le+10
le+9
le+8
lei7
..
r.
le+6
...
lei5
lei3
$
0
c
20
40
60
100
80
Percent San Felipe Surface Water 09-07-1990)
2
0
a
20
60
40
80
100
Percent San Felipe Surface Water (09-07-1990)
O
25°C
5OoC
A
15’C
Figure 4-11. Pore volumes required to achieve a 10% porosity reduction due to hematite
precipitation (A) and calcite precipitation (B) during mixing of high TDS surface water and
groundwater from well Charles 3.
4-62
1
2
,
B
..
0
I
I
I
I
20
40
60
80
l&
% SURFACE WATER
10
,
I
Dl
4 1
O I I,
0
"
"
"
"
20
40
60
80
100
% SURFACE WATER
-
25T
50°C
b
75°C
Figure 4-12. Saturation indices for mixing of high 1;3S surface water and groundwater from
well Coronado 1. Mixing runs which allowed no mineral equilibration attemperatures benveen
25 and 7 5 T were performed in PHREEQE to see which minerals would be supersaturated. The
important supersaturated minerals were calcite (A), goerhlte (C), and hematite @). Amorphous
silica (B) was undersaturated.
4-63
lei10
lei9
let8
lei7
lei6
._
..
let5
lei4
0
s
20
40
60
100
80
Percent San Felipe Surface Water (06-04-1991)
c
I
0
8
I
I
I
I
I
20
40
60
80
100
Percent San FeIipe Surfae Water (06-04-1991)
O
25%
O
5OoC
A
75°C
Figure 4-13. Pore volumes required to achieve a 10% porosity reduction due to hematite
precipitation (A) and calcite precipitation(B) during mixing of high T D S surface water and
groundwater from wellCoronado 1. .
4-64
._
"
g
0
l-
1
"
"
"
"
=
-2
-1
0
20
40
60
80
-
25°C
-"- 50°C
-
"
"
"
"
u
0
100
c/o El PAS0 TREATED EFFLUENT
-0-
"""_
o+
20
40
60
80
100
% E l PASO TREATED EFFLUENT
-" 75°C
..
Figure 4-14. Saturation indices for mixing of El Paso ueated effluent and El Paso groundwater.
h4iuing runs which allowed no mineral equilibrationat temperatures between 25 and 75OC were
performed in PHREEQE to see which minerals wouldbe supersaturated. The important
supersamrated mineral was calcite (A). Amorphous silica (B) was undersaturated.
4-63
I
-
Percent ElPaso Treated Effluent
.I "25OC
-'
"a-
5ooc
75OC
I
-4
0
20
40
60
80, i o 0
I
I
1
I
I
0
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
100
% TREATED EFFLUENT
'3 TREATED EFFLUETUT
-3
0
100
%
TREATED EFFLUEXT
..
-" 25oC
- 50oC
75°C
Figure 4-16. Saturaaon indices for mixing Albuquerque aeated effluent previously equilibrated
with the vadose zone and groundwater fromwell Charles 3. Mixing runs which allowed no
mineral equilibration at temperaturesbetween 25 and 75°C were performed in PHREEQE to see
which minerals would be supersaturated. The important supersaturated minerals were calcite (A)
and dolomite (B). Amorphous silica (C) was undersaturated.
16 ,
y=;;--"j
: q l , l
_.
..
-2
-4
-8
0
40
20
60
80
800604020
100
c/o TREATED EFFLUENT
c/o TREATED EFFLUEXT
20
10
I
\
20 6040
80
"
"
"
"
I
1
20 6040
I
I
80
i
100
7%
' TREATED EFFLUENT
_.
25°C
1I
r----
0
100
c/o TREATED EFFLUENT
-
,
01-2
0
100
"50°C
75°C
Figure 4-17. Saturation indices for mixing Albuquerque treated effluent previously equilibrated
with the vadose zone and groundwater from well Charles 3. Mixing runs which allowed no
mineral equilibration at temperatures between25 and 7 5 T were performed in PHREEQE to see
which minerals would be supersaturated. The important supersaturated minerals were sepiolite
(X), talc (B), hematite (C), and goethite (D).
4-68
..
le+10
A1
le+9
le+8
le+7
le+6
5
g
!5
le+5
20
0
40
60
80
100
$
2
Percent Equilibrxted
Treated
Effluent
-
5OC
i
)
-
lj0C
-
Percent EquilibratedTreated Effluent
25°C
Figure 4-18. Pore volumes required to achieve a 10% porosity reduction due to hematite (A) and
calcite (B) during mixing of Albuquerque aeated effluent previously equilibratedwith the vadose
zone and groundwater from well Charles3.
4-69
i
,
-l?
..
-2
-2
0
20
60
40
0
80 :'lo0
20
, .
40
Yo TREATED
% TREATED EFXUENT
, ,
60
80
100
EFFLUENT
_""
0
20
40
:
%_.TREATED
-" 25°C
60
80 100
EmUENT
-" 50°C
-
75°C
Figure 4-19. Saturation indices for mixing Albuquerque treated effluent previously equilibrated
with the vadose zone and groundwater from well Coronado 1. Mixing runs which allowed no
mineral equilibration at temperatures between 25 and75OC were performed in PHREEQE to see
which minerals would be supersaturated. Theimportant supersaturated minerals were calcite (A)
and dolomite (B). Amorphous silica (C) was undersaturated.
4-70
_.
-
3
CI)
'
2
20
40
60
80
---- -- --
-2
..
0
6
4
-* 1
..
.- -4
16
14
12
10
8
100
0
c/o TREATED EFFLUENT
20
40
60
80
100
5% TREATED EFFLUENT
20
44
-"-""
2
0
"
"
"
"
I
I
I
I
20
40
60
80
-2
100
0
5% TREATED EFFLUENT
"25oC
"50°C
I
20
40
60
80
100
% TREATED EFFLUEhi
-
75oc
Figure 4-20. Saturation indices for mixing Albuquerque reared effluent previously equilibrated
with the vadose zone and groundwater from well Coronado 1. Mixing runs which allowed no
mineral equilibration at temperatures between 25 and 75'C were performed in PHREEQE to see
which minerals would be supersaturated. The important supersaturated minerals were sepiolite
(A), talc (B), hematite (C), and goethite @).
4-7 1
1-
B
..
"
I
I
I
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent Equilibrated Treated Effluent
I
0
20
40
60
80
1M)
Percent Equilibrated Treated Effluent
s
c
I
Figure 4-21. Pore volumes required to achieve a 10%porosity reduction due to hematite (A)
and calcite (B) during mixing of Albuquerque neated effluent previously equilibrated with the
vadose zone and groundwater from wellCoronado 1.
4-72
1
e
E'
" 0
5
Cr:
-l
"
"""-
I
0
-3
20
40
60
80
100
0
70SURFACE WATER
<
u
20
Yo
40
60
80
100
SURFACE WATER
2c
1
"_""
"_""
0
.20
-
40
60
80
100
%-SURFACE WATER
"- 25°C
-
-
50°C
-d-
75°C
Figure 4-22. Saturation indices for mixing low TDS surface water previously equilibrated with
the vadose zone and groundwaterfrom well Charles 3. Mixing m s which allowed no mineral
equilibration at temperatures between 25 and 75OC were performed in PHREEQE to see which
minerals would be supersaturated. The important supersaturated minerals were calcite (A) and
dolomite (B). Amorphous silica (C) was undersaturated.
4-73
14
- .
..
,
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
,
I
I
I
I
0
20
40
60
80
. -4 I
"
"
"
"
"
"
100
0
5% SURFACE W.4.TER
20
40
60
80
100
% SURFACE WATER
10
8
6
4
4 4,
2
I
2
O
-2
0
0
=""""
P
-20
I
I
I
40
60
80
-2
100
SURFACE WATER
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
20
40
60
80
100
'3 SURFACE WATER
Figure 4-23. Saturation indices for mixing low TDS surface water previously equilibrated with
the vadose zone and groundwater from well Charles 3. Mixing runs which allowed no mineral
equilibration at temperatures between 25 and 75OC were performed inPHREEQE to see which
minerals would be supersaturated. The important supersaturated minerals were sepiolite (A), talc
(B). hematite (C), and goethite @).
4-74
..
YI
0
I
g
E
I
I
0
20
I
40
I
I
60
80
3
E
I le+3
100
Percent Equilibrated Treated Effluent
F?
z
0
I
I
I
I
I
20
40
60
80
100
Percent Equilibrated TreatedEffluenr
Figure 4-24. Pore volumes required to achieve a 10% porosity reduction due to hematite (A) and
calcite (B) precipitation during mixing of low TDS surface water previously equilibrated with the
vadose zone and groundwater from well Charles 3.
4-75
-I
I
-l1
-3
-4
" -2 -
0
20
40
60
80
106-
0
=2 o
40
60
80
100
% SURFACE WATER
c/o S W A C E WATER
+e
20
"
"
"
"
tj
-1
-2
0
I
I
I
I
20
40
60
80
100
c/o .SURFACE WATER
-" 25°C
"50°C
--a"-
75°C
Figure 4-25. Saturation indicesfor mixing low TLX surface water previously equilibrated with
the vadose zone and groundwater from wellCoronado 1. Mixing runs which allowed no mineral
equilibration at temperatures between25 and 75'C were performed in PHREEQE to see which
minerals would be supersaturated. The important supersaturated minerals were calcite (A) and
dolomite (B). Amorphous silica (C) was undersaturated.
4-76
0
..
0
I
I
I
I
20
40
60
80
I.
-2
100
r=;=l=;=;=i
0
% SUWACE W.4TER
q
20
40
60
80
100
70SURFACE WATER
1
--------
"
"
"
"
=""""
-2O - I r
0 . 20
I
I
I
40
60
80
I
-2
100
0
% SURFACE W.4TER
"- 25°C
20
40
60
80
100
% SUWACE WATER
- 50°C
75°C
Figure 4-26. Saturation indices for mixing low TDS surface water previously equilibrated with
the vadose zone and groundwater from well Coronado 1. Mixing runs which allowed no mineral
equilibration at temperatures between 25 and 75°C were performed in PHREEQE to see which
minerals would be supersaturated. The important supersaturated minerals were sepiolite (A), talc
(B), hematite (C), and goethite (D).
4-77
A
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
Percent Equilibrated Treated Effluent
20
10
60
80
100
Percent Equilibrated Treated Efiluent
Figure 4-27. Pore volumes required to achieve a 10% porosity reduction due to hematite (A) and
calcite (B) precipitation during mixing of low TDS surface water previously equilibrated withthe
vadose zone and groundwater from well Coronado 1.
4-78
2
A/
1
""_
"
"
"
"
2
c!
$
-U=l
1h
0
1
c
E
T
-2
3
20
40
60
-1
-2
100
80
"""_
0
0 4020
% SURFACE WATER
"I
Yo
60
80
100
SURFACE WATER
C
1
-2
4
-3
0 4020
60
80
100
.c/o SURFACE WATER
1-
25oc
"50°C
b-
75°C
I
Figure 4-28. Saturation indices for mixing highTDS surface water previously equilibratedwith
the vadose zone and groundwater from well Charles3. Mixing runs which allowed no mineral
equilibration at temperatures between 25 and 75'C were performed in PHREEQE to see which
minerals would be supersaturated. The important supersaturated minerals were calcite (A) and
dolomite (B). Amorphous silica (C) was undersaturated.
4-79
10
,
Y
-F.
cn
4
0
20
40
60
80
160
0
% SURFACE WATER
2-1
-2O" I
0
E
I
I
20
40
60
80
40
60
80
% SURFACE WATER
"
"
"
3
-
I
20
100
% SURFACE WATER
4-SO
100
A/
_
"I
z
-E-
9
s
E
I
le+j
0
20
40
60
Percnt Equilibrated
Treated
80
100
Effluent
3
e
E
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent EquilibratedTreated Effluent
"15'C
"25°C
Figure 4-30. Pore volumes required to achieve a 10% porosity reduction due to hematite (A) and
calcite (B) precipimtion during mixing of high TDS surface water previously equilibrated with the
vadose zone and groundwater from well Charles 3.
4-X 1
A
,
B
0
20
40
60
80
-2
It%
1"I
1
% SURFACE WATER
0 . 20
40
60
80
20
0
Yo
40
60
80
100
SURFACE WATER
100
% SURFACE WATER
-
25°C
"- 50°C
75T
Figure 4-31. Saturation indices for mixing high TDS surface water previously equilibrated with
the vadose zone and groundwater from well Coronado 1. Mixing runs which allowed no mineral
equilibration at temperatures between 25 and 75OC were performed in PHREEQE to see which
minerals would be supersaturated. The imponant supersaturated minerals were calcite (A),
dolomite (B). Amorphous silica (C) was undersaturated.
4-52
..' . .:
...- . >...:
. ...
8
14
6
12
10
4
8
..
UI
. .
.
k"1
P
ILI
i .
6
0
2
cn
4
2
"""""__
0
0
.:. ........
I
20
2
======"-
40
601: 80
0
100
I
I
40
60
80
100
% SUR.F.4CE WATER
% SURFACE WATER
:,..
20
I
I
..:.,
..
q0
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
1
-
-2
0
I
I
I
I
-I
20
40
60
80
100
-2
0
40
60
80
7'0 SbXFACE W.4TER
76 SCRFACE WATER
"25°C
20
-
"50°C
75oc
4-83
100
0
20
40 80 60
100
0
5
L
Percent Equilibrated Treated Effluent
-
5
g
L
7
0
20
40
60
SO
100
Percent Equilibrated Treated EMuenr
"0 5OC
15OC
25°C
Figure 4-33. Pore volumes required to achieve a 10% porosity reduction due to hematite (A) and
calcite (B) precipitaaon during mixing of high TDS surface water previously equilibrated wirh the
vadose zone and groundwater from well Coronado 1.
4-84
60
II
I
0
500
i
I
1000
0
Distance f?om Recharge Well (ft)
500
1000
Distance kom Recharge Well (ft)
Figure 4-34. Conceptual diagram of velocity (A) and pressure distribution (B) during injection of
artiticial recharge waters. The mathematical derivation of rhese graphs is given in Appendix C.
4-85
APPENDM 4-A: Chemical Analyses used in study.
4-87
APPENDIX 4-B: Computer output files.
Appendix 4-B: Modeling Output Files.
This appendix contains a list of the files on the included diskette. These files are the
outputs from the PHREEQE and MIYTEQA?. simulations performed in this study. Each file is
formatted for Microsoft Word. version 6.0. Other word processors compatible with Microsoft
Windows should have no difficulty in reading these fdes as well.
File
I
Purpose of Modelins Run
p c m x l ,doc,
techmixj.out,
swnwau9.out
precip16,0ut
co?-ll.out
co2-12.out
co?-l3.out
slop100.out
s~opjOO~,out
slopl06.out
Modelins Trogrm
PHREEQE
Mix ucaled chluent and Charles 3 gouodwuer 11 25. 50, and 7 5 T
I
I
Mix High TDS mrixce 'wutcrand Caron2ddo I gouodwarer and equilibrue with
hcmtire and m l m d a1 25. 50,m d 75'C
Equillbmrc m x e d eflluenl with vaddare zone
PHREEQE
M1YIEQ.Q
M1hTEQ.Q
MIXTEQX
PHREEQE
PHREEQE
I Eqwlibrue low ' I D S surfact w m r with vaddara zone
I Equilibrae hirii TDS ruriac? Water with
Tone
VddarC
Miis Equilibrmcd limed cinucnl with
Chades
3 gaundwarer a1 5 , 15 a d 25'C
Mix Equdibrzed neued cinudnr with Charles 3 goundwarer and equilibrate with
hemtitd and cdnle Y 5 . 15 and 25°C
Mix Equilibrsrd ucrced einurnl with Corooadds 1 gouodwuer at 5, 15 and Z ' C
Mix Equilibratcd
muted cinuent with Coroodo 1goundwarcr md cquilibrsre with
hemarirc and cdcile a1 5 . 15 and 2 5 T
Mix Equilibrated low TiX nviacr Waler wth Chules 3 groundwvareru 5. 15 and
PHREEQE
PHREEQE
s~op~o~p,ouc
slopl08.our
4-85
I
PHREEQE
Fie
slop31 1p.out
slopl 12.out
Purpose of Modeling Run
Modeling Program
Mix Equilibnted high TDS d
a
c
e water with Charles 3 groundwater and equilibmts
with henmite, and calcite st 5. 15 and UT.
Mix Equilibredhigh TI2-S surface war with Coronado 1 groundwater Y 5, I5and
PHREEQE
?ST
PHREEQE
slop312p.out
Mix Equilibrated highTDS surfme w a r with Cmonado 1 groundwaer and
equilibrate with hematite. cdcitc. and talc a 5. I5 and 25°C.
PHREEQE
errl.out,
Obuin variation in ramaian indices
PHREEQE
Mix El Puo mated effluent and groundwater Y 25.50, and 75°C
Mix El Puo ucaed effluent and groundwater x 25,50. and 7 5 T and aquilibrxe with
PHREEQE
PHREEQE
errLout,
err3.out
epq-?.out
epg-3.our
d
c
m
i
-
4-89
APPENDM 4-C: Theoretical development of Figure 4-34.
Appendix 4-C: Theoretical development of Figure 4-34.
The equation for steady state radial flow to or from a well is known as the equilibrium or
Thiem equation (Todd, 1980, Fetter, 1988). The form of the Thiem equation for a recharge well
is
(4-C 1)
where K is the hydraulic conductivity in c d s , b is the aquifer thickness in cm, Q is the volume of
/ r,, h, is the head in cm at the recharge well, where
warer-recharged in cm3/s where Q =
A is 2m;b, or the area through which flow .occurs into the aquifer,h, is the head in cm at some
-KAh,
distance rz from the well, and rl is the radius of the well in cm. Equation 4-C1 is stated in terms of
planar cylindrical coordinates. Solving equation 4-C1 for h, yields
hz =
2nKbh,+Qln(r,/r,)
2nKb
(4-C2)
The plot of head versus radial distance from the well (Fig. 4-34a) was prepared using equation 2
and the following reasonable values: K = 1 x 10-3 c d s , b = 15240 cm (500 it). h, = 9144 cm
(300 ft), r, = 30.48 cm (1 ft),A = 2nrI2b. Head was converted to pressure (psi) for the figure.
The velocity v of groundwater in the pores at some distancer, from the well is described
by Darcy's law
(4-C3)
where ne is the effective porosity of the aquifer matrix. Taking the partial derivative of equation
4 - ~ with
2 respect to r, yields
dh,
Q
i
=
dr,
2Kbnr,
(4-C4)
Substituting equation 4 C 4 into equation 4 C 3 yields
V=
-Q
2n,bmz
(4-C5)
The plot of velocity versus radial distance from the well (Fig.4-34b) was prepared from equation
4-c5.
..
4-90
Open-File Rapon JO?D. Chapter 5
Chapter 5: Summary and Recommendations
by
William C. Haneberg, John W. Hawley, and T. Michael Whitworth
New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources
New Mexico Tech
Socorro, NM 87801
SUMMARY
The geologic studies described in the preceeding four chapters all concentrate on
the location and quantification of hydrogeologic units that provides potential surface and
subsurface pathways (corridors and windows) for both natural and amficial recharge of
the Albuquerque Basin aquifer system.
Chapter 1 provides a basin-wide overview of the hydrogeologic setting from the
perspective of groundwater recharge. It is aqualitativegeologicstudythatpinpoints
attractive recharge windows, reaches, and corridors based upon a synthesis of structural
andstratigraphicinformation,
and well-documented to inferredbehavior of shallow
geohydrologicsystems.The
windows, reaches,andcorridorscorrespond
to the more
permeable parts of basin-fill (Santa Fe Gp)aquiferzonesandoverlying
valley-fill
deposits; therefore, it is critical to understand the hydrogeologic framework (architecture)
of the aquifer system in any serious analysis of artificial recharge potential. For surface
recharge, critical recharge corridors are defined as belts of perennial to locally intermittent
streamflow inthe Rio Grande, and Jemezand lower Santa Fe Riverswhere high
permeability aquifer units are exposed at or very near the land surface. Critical recharge
reaches are defined as the channels of major ephemeral streams, beneath which the thin,
is separated fromtheSantaFeGroupaquifersystem
by
coarsegrainedalluvium
unsaturated bur highly permeable units. Recharge corridors are areas in which recharge
is currently occurring, whereas recharge reaches are areas in which recharge would be
occurring if therewere perennial streamflow.Both
recharge corridorsand recharge
reaches are essentially linear elements. Recharge windows, in contrast, are localized
stream-channelzonesthat
occur in fourgeohydrologic settings: 1) valleysof large
perennial streams underlain by shallow saturated zones; 2) valleys of ephemeral streams
underlain by deep saturated zones; 3) lower ends of mountain canyons or other upland
areas with perennial streams andor springs; and 4) valley floors in other basin-border
andor
uplands that have short channel reaches with perennial discharge from streams
springs to basin-fill aquifer units. In contrast to corridors and reaches, windows
can be
thought of as points, or specific locations along a reach or corridor. For underground
recharge, the most favorable recharge corridor appears to be a wide swath underlain by
axial river gravels of the ancestral Rio Grande.
I
Open-File Repon 402D. Chapter 5
Actual recharge mechanisms are still very poorly understood in most parts of the Basin.
Inferences on how geologic features influence recharge are based largely on conceptual
models of interconnectedvalley-fillhasin-fillgeohydrologicsystemsthathavebeen
developed over the past four decades (see Spiegel, 1962, and McAda, 1996). Seemingly
valid interpretations b'ased on field-scale hydrogeologic investigations must, therefore, be
consideredasspeculative
until on-siteinvestigationsof
actual rechargesystemsare
completed.Futurework,particularly
in areas that maybeseriouslyconsidered
as
artificial
recharge
candidate
sites,
should
include
detailed
subsurface
geologic
investigations
consisting
of drilling,
coring,
lithologic and
geophysical
logging,
petrographic
analysis
of
samples,
geochemical
characterization,
and appropriate
instrumentation to establish the ambient groundwater and soil moisture flow regimes.
Chapter 2: Expanded outcrop and laboratory studies of porosity and permeability should
be undertaken in order to characterize the hydraulic properties of important aquifer units
in more breadth and detail. Particular emphasis should be placed on the use of modern
geosratistical methods toestablish the spatial correlation structures
of important hydrologic
variables such as permeability and porosity. The use of indicator geostatistics may also
providevaluableinformationonthethreedimensionalgeometry
of theporosityand
permeabilitycorrelationstructures,aswell
as thethree dimensional geometryofthe
lithofacies, that will be necessary to analyze the uncertainty of future numerical models
of groundwater flow and transport.
Chapter 3 : Detailed petrophysical studies should be undertaken in order to determine the
geophysical log responses characteristic of different Albuquerque basin aquifer units. In
particular, it is critical that good quality cores be obtained and analyzed as part of this
work, so that actual measurements of porosity and permeability can be correlated with
estimates based upon geophysical log parameters. The current lack of cores from water
wellsand/orpiezometersthroughout
the basin makesseriouspetrophysicalwork
impossible. Once high quality petrophysical analyses have been conducted for selected
wells, however, it should be possible to extrapolate the results to other wells for which
only cuttings are available. It will also be important to start collecting cuttings from those
intervals judged to be poor aquifers or aquitards, rather than from just those intervals
believed to represent good aquifers.
Chapter 4: Bothpilotstudiesand
more advancedkinetic,ratherthan
equilibrium,
geochemical modeling are recommendedto evaluate the potential success of any artificial
recharge schemes. Equilibrium models
can predict whether artificial recharge is likely
to be successful,but say nothingabout the rates of any geochemicalreactionsand
therefore cannotpredict the potential lifespan of a recharge project. Also, attention should
be given to issues such as trace metal geochemistry and bacteriology, which were not
considered in the present study.
3
APPENDIX A
INDEX TO WELLS AND BOREHOLES IN THE ALBUQUERQUJZ AREA
CIIARLES
WELLS i
CIIAI<LES i
CllAl(LES 6
,
CllARLES
WELLS 6
CllS
~IOO,;J8
-
1..193.364
LOVE 8
CL6
407,747
-
1..189.628
I0
3
I2
331
5219
1989
3240
X
X
10
4
18
411
5310
1989
3336
X
x
I
I
X
OS6
X
0081
X
E18
X
0701
X
7
I
E
I
I
I
I
I
l77670j.l
-L79'PL<
01
SOD3I>lD
I
z smvnna
Ios~oP9o18oLoSf
X
x
X
X
x
0191
OSPl
1891
X
lP91
x
SlZl
X
id!)
la
lq0'l""n
l~ld~fl
I'lOl.
Opcs-File Repon 402. Appendix A
curren1NRmc
+
liSCS
M a p Codr
IdCllllliW
GRIEGOS 4
GNEGOS 5
350828106175501
G14
Gr5
350727106423201
La
350244106445301
Le I
350237106445201
LC2
LEAVITTI
350223106435401
LC3
LEYENDECEER I
350752106342101
L!. I
LEYENOECKER 2
350727106340801
Ly2
350819106344001
Ly3
LADERA
COLLEGE 3
LEAVWT I
I
LEAVITT 2
LEYENOECEEII 3
LEYENDECKER 4
ENAPP 11ElGlllS3
KNAPP IIEIGlllS 4
I
I
so. Valley \\'ells
350815106340601
LY4
I
LOMAS I
LOhlAS 2
LVhIAS 3
LVhlAS .I
---"-
350430106302401
350457106304601
350526106303S01
350347106310601
L"l1
Lm2
Lnr3
L"14
-
378.258
1,504,250
-
402,188
I;505.481
I
1958
815
X
5266
1960
1020
X
X
5327
1760
1018
X
X
5597
1962
1341
X
X
1134
5578
1973
I590
X
S
X
I5
314
5631
1625
1973
X
X
161594
241
1973
5575
X
X
31I 1
3
I1
3
36
322
11
3
36
422
10
3424
22
10
4
22
10
4
10
4
4970
442
1
I
-
404,922
1,504.861
1
423.032
1.482.58(1
I
~
-
421.744
1.485.813
?
422.1801.488.472
1
519.7761.470.417 r
! I/
x
0
c
Opcn-Fllc Rcpon 402, Appendix A
416.957l.518.701
3i1023106321301
I
-
4 14.269
1.518.325
409.012
I1
4
I1
4
I1
4
10
2
10
2
I
-
1.518.836 t
-
407.453
1.517.360
I
-
354,164
1.482.323
I
-
\VEST MESA 2
355,997
1.487.219
1
1.484.727
1
388.113-
1.482.273 1
-
3S7.RL.i
1.477.461
350435106380101
10
I
-
385.298
1.483.693 I
-
361.260
1.512.041
I
I
I
Open-File lkpon 402, Appendix A
Open-Fils Rep017 402, Appendix B
APPENDIX B
INDEX TO GEOPHYSICAL LOGS FOR WELLS
AND BOREHOLES IN THE ALBUQUERQUE AREA
Opsn-File Repon402, Appcndix B
I:
Opcn-File Rcpon402. Appendix B
Opsn-Filc Repan 402. Appcndix B
APPENDIX C
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC UNITS
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO LITHOFACIES SUBDIVISIONS
THAT ARE DELINEATED ON PLATES 4 TO 19
Open-File Report 402, Appendix C
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC UNITS
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO LITHOFACIES SUBDIVISIONS
The hydrostratigraphicunitsandlithofacies
referred to in thisreportwere
originally presented in
NMBM&MR Open-File Report 387, which was released in 1992. These units are defined on the basis of
age and depositional environment, and each is composed of a combination of several lithofacies (Hawley
et al., 1995). The hydrostratigraphic units used in this study are summarized below. They are designed
primarily for use at scales of 1:50,000 to 1:500,000 (Plates 1 to 13), and contain inclusions at contiguous
units, and thin surficial alluvial, colluvial and eolian covers.
Unit
Description
RA
River alluvium: Channel,floodplain, and lower terracesdeposits ofinner Rio Grande andPuerco
valleys; as much as 120 ft thick. Map unit Qf of Kelley (1977). Forms upper part of the shallow
aquifer system. Lithofacies subdivision A. Age: Holocene to Lata Pleistocene.
VA
VAY
VAO
Arroyo-valley alluvium: Tributary-arroyo channel, fan and terrace deposits in areas bordering
inner valleys of the Rio Grande system; as much as 100 ft thick. Subunit VAY is used in parts
of the map area to delineate inner-valley fills and valley-mouth fans of major (Late Quaternary)
arroyo systems. VAO designates fan and
terrace remnants of older (primarily Middle Pleistocene)
arroyo valley alluvium. Mapunit Qa of Kelley (1977). Lithofacies subdivision B. Most
of the unit
is in the vadose zone. Age: Holocene to Early (?) Pleistocene.
TA
River-terrace alluvium: Coarse to fine-grained channel and floodplain deposits ofthe ancestral
Rio Grande fluvial system (including Santa Fe and Jemez Rivers, and Rios Puerco and Salado)
that were depositedduring atleast three major intervals of valley entrenchmentand partial
backfilling following finalphase of UpperSanta Fe Group deposition. Terrace fills are
usually less
than 50 ft thick, but locally may exceed 150 ft in thickness; and erosion surfaces atbase of these
fills range from about 250 above to 50 below present river-valley floors. Includes fills associated
with Primero, Segundo, and Tercero Alto terraces of Bryan and McCann (1937) Bryan (1938),
Lambert (1968), and Machette (1985). Map unit Qt of Kelley (1977), and Edith, Menaul,and Los
Duranes (alluvial-terrace) units of Lambert (1968). Lithofacies subdivisions A and B. Most of unit
is in the vadose (unsaturated) zone. Age: Holocene to Early (?) Pleistocene.
TVA
Undivided valley-border alluvium: Complexlyintertonguing
deposits flanking inner valley of the Rio Grande.
PA
PAY
PA0
Piedmont-slope alluvium:Coarse-grained alluvium,mainlydeposited ascoalescent fans
extending
basinward from mountain fronts on the eastern and southwestern margins of the basin; as much
as 150 ft thick. Includes alluvial veneers mantlingpiedmonterosion surfaces (including rock
pediments) and thick deposits of ancestral Tijeras Arroyo system (Lambert et al., 1982). Subunit
PAY is used in ports of the map area to delineate younger (Late Quaternary) alluvial depositson
upper piedmont slopes flanking the Sandia and Manzano uplifts. P A 0 designates fan and terrace
remnants of older (primarily middle Pleistocene) piedmont deposits.Map units Qfa and QpKelley
(1977), and hydrogeologic (lithofacies) subdivisions VI. Most of unit is in vadose zone. Age:
Holocene to Middle Pleistocene.
SF
Undivided Santa Fe Group: Rio Grande rift basin fill in New Mexico and adjacent parts of
Colorado, Texas, and Chihuahua (Mexico). Includes alluvial, eolian and lacustrine deposits; and
interbedded extrusive volcanic rocks (basalts
to silicic tuffs). In theAlbuquerque Basin, the Santa
Fe is a much as 15,000 ft thick. It is mapped both as a formation (member subdivisions) (Kelley,
1977), and as a group (formation and membersubdivisions) (Spiegel and Baldwin,1963; Hawley,
1978; Machette, 1978a,b; Lozinsky and Tedford, 1991). Sand and gravel facies form the major
aquifers in Albuquerque basin (and elsewhere in basins of the Rio Grande rift). The group is
subdivided into three (informal) hydrostratigraphic units.
1
fluvial-terraceand alluvial-fan
Open-Fils Repon 402, Appendix C
USF
Upper Santa Fe Group: Coarse- to fine-grained (fluvial)depositsofancestralRioGrandeand
USF-1 Puerco systems that intertongue toward basin margins with piedmont-alluvial facies; volcanic rocks
USF-2 (including basalt, andesite and rhyolite flow and pyroclastic units) and thin, sandy eolian deposits
USF-3 are locally present. Unit is less than I000 ft thick in most areas, but locally exceeds I500 ft in
USF-4thickness.
Subunit USF-1 is primarily coarse-grainedfanalluviumderivedfrom
the Sandia,
Manzanita and Manzano uplifts. USF-2 includes ancestral-Rio Grande and interbedded fine- to
medium-grained sediments of diverse (alluvial-lacustrine-eolian) origin deposited in a rapidly
aggrading basin-floor environment. Upper Santa Fe deposits capping western and northern parts
of the Llano de Alburquerque between the Rio Grande and Puerco Valleys comprise
subunits
USF-3 and USF-4. These gravelly to sandy, piedmont (USF-3) and basin-floor fluvial (USF-4)
facies are mainly derived from the Southern Rocky Mountain and southeastern Colorado Plateau
provinces. Includes Ceja Member of Kelley, 1977, upper buff formation of Lambert (1968), and
Sierra Ladrones Formation (Machette 1978a,b; Lozinsky and Tedford, 1991); and locally, upper
Cochiti and Popotosa Formation correlatives (cf MSF). It forms lower part of '"shallow aquifer''
below river-floodplain areas, and main part of basin-fill aquifer system
in City of Albuquerque and
southeast Rio Rancho well fields. Includes lithofacies subdivisions I, 11,111, V, VI, VI11 and IX.
Muchof thisunit is in vadose zone north andwestof
The (ABQ) Volcanoes. Age: Early
Pleistocene to Late Miocene, mainly Pliocene.
MSF
Middle Santa Fe Group: Alluvial, eolian, and playa-lake deposits: partly indurated, coarse- to
MSF-I grained piedmont alluvium that intertongues basinward with fine-grained
to sandy basin-floor
MSF-2 facies, includingplaya-lake and local braided-stream deposits. Basaltic to silicic volcanics arealso
MSF-3 locally present. The Rio Grande riit region extending northward into south-central Colorado is a
MSF-4 major MSF sediment source area.
Theunit is as much as 10,000 ftthicknearthe
Isleta and
Albuquerque volcanic centers, andcommonly is at least 5,000 ft thick in other centralbasin areas.
Subunit MSF-1 is primarily coarse-grained fan alluviumderived
fromearly-stage
Sandia,
Manzanita andManzano uplifts
including the ancestral Tijeras Canyon drainage basin.
Unit MSF-2
comprises a gravelly sand tofine-grainedbasin-floor
sediments of mixed (alluvial-lacustrineeolian)origin.MSF-2facies
intertongue eastwardwithsubunit
MSF-1, andwestwardand
northward (beneath the Llano de Alburquerque) with subunits MSF-3 and 4. The latter subunits
include coarse- to fine-grained alluvium derived from the southeastern Colorado Plateau and
Nacimiento-Jemez Mountain area. Where recognized, piedmont deposits are designated MSF-3,
and basin-floor fluvial and playa sediments MSF-4. Includes much of the Popotosa Formation
(Machette, 1978a,b; LozinsLy and Tedford, 1991) in southern Albuquerque Basin, and part of
Cochiti Formation of Smith et a1 (1970) and Manley (1978), and "middlered" formation (Spiegel,
1961; Lambert, 1968; and Kelley, 1977) in northern part of basin. Forms lower part of principal
(deep) aquifer system in the north-central partofbasin.Includeshydrogeologic
(lithofacies)
subdivisions 11, 111, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X . Age: Late to Middle Miocene.
LSF
Lower Santa Fe Group: Eolian alluvial, and playa-lake facies. Sandy to fine-grained basin-floor
sediments, including thick dune sands and gypsiferous sandy mudstones, grade to conglomeratic
sandstones and mudstones near basin margins (early-stage piedmont alluvial deposits). The unit
is as much as3500 ft thick in the central basin areas, where it is locally thousands of feet below
sea level. Includes lower pan of Popotosa Formation (Machette, 1978a,b; Lozinsky and Tedford,
1991) in southern Albuquerque (Belen) Basin, and Zia(Sand) Formation (Galusha, 1966; and
Kelley, 1977) in northern part of basin. Eolian sand facies of the Zia Formation are an important
part of the deep aquifer systembeneath the Llano de Alburquerque in northwestern Rio Rancho.
Due to deep burial and abundanceof silt-clay, the unit is not known to form a major part of the
aquifer system in other parts of the basin because of depth of burial. Includes hydrogeologic
(lithofacies) subdivisions IV, VII, VIII, IX and X. Age: Middle Miocene to Late Oligocene.
2
.
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix D
APPENDIX D
MAJOR LITHOFACIES SUBDIVISIONS OF BASIN AND VALLEY FILLS
(PLATES 4 TO 19) IN THE ALBUQUERQUE BASIN,
THEIR STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE,
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO AQUIFER SYSTEMS
AND OTHER FACIES UNITS
Open-File Report 402, Appendix D
APPENDIX D. Lithofacies subdivisions o f AIbuquerquc Basin and valley fills, and their occurrence in hydrostratigraphic and Lithostratigraphic units.
1
Open-File Report 402, Appendix D
I
3
P
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix E
EXPLANATION OF
SYMBOLS USED
ON MAPS AND CROSS SECTIONS (PLATES 4-18)
~
1
Open-File Report 402, Appendix E
APPENDIX E.
Explanation of othergeologicsymbols
sections (Plates 4-18).
used on maps and cross
Miscellaneous Surficial Deposits
a
Thin, discontinuous alluvial deposits on older basin fill and basalts of the Llano
high
tablelands
de Albuquerque area and on stable summits of other
(mesas)flanking the KOGrande and Rio Puerco Valleys.
e
Sandy eolian deposits forming nearly continuous cover on large parts of the Llano
de Alburquerque, and on stable summits ofother high tablelands (mesas) flanking
the Rio Grande and Puerco Valleys. Underlying unit (Upper Santa Fe or basalt
flow) is identified by superposition of symbols (e.g. e/USF or e/Qb). Symbol
alone denotes thick dune deposits on escarpment rims, particularly along the Ceja
del Rio Puerco (west edge of the Llano de Alburquerque).
g
Channel gravel deposits associated with remnants of river-terraces bordering the
inner valley of the Rio Grande. Includes outcrops of Edith, Menaul and upper
bluff (?) "gravels" of Lambert (1968). Pebble to cobble gravels are commonly
underlain by pumiceous USF-2 beds at the edge of the inner valley (easr of Edith
Blvd.).
S
Sandy to silty fluvial deposits associated with river-terrace remnants west of the
Rio Grande. Includes Los Duranes formation of Lambert (1968).
Volcanic and Igneous Intrusive Rocks;
Santa Fe and post-Santa Fe Units (Kelley and Kudo,
1978)
Qb
Younger basalticvolcanics of the Albuquerque and Cat Hillsfields: extensive lava
flows, with localized vent units such as cinder cones and lava domes, and possible
feeder dikes and sills in subsurface. Post-Santa Fe; Middle Pleistocene.
Tbt
Basaltic tuffs and associated lavas and fluvial sedimentsof theIsleta (Paria Mesa)
center. Upper Santa Fe; Pliocene.
Tb
Older basaltic and andesitic volcanics of the Isleta, Los Lunas, Santa Ana, Tome,
and Wind Mesa fields, extensive lava flows, with localized vent units in upper
Santa Fe Group; include possible sills and/or buriedflowswestof
the
Albuquerque Volcanoes. Pliocene and Late Miocene.
1
Open-File Repon 402. Appendix E
Tv
Silicic to basaltic intrusive and volcanic rocks emplaced in middle and lower Santa
Fe deposits; penetrated in deep wells in theWestMesafault
zone; includes
possible intrusives from the Cerro Colorado center (quarp-latite and trachyte);
Miocene.
"Bedrock Units; qre-Santa Fe Group
T
Lower and middle Tertiary sedimeptary andvolcanicrocks-undivided;
mostly
sandstones and mudstones, includes, "unit of Isleta #2" of Lozinsky (1988), and
Galisteo and Espinaso Formation co1rrelatives; small igneous-intrusive bodies are
locally present; primarily Oligocene, and Eocene.
Mz
Mesozoic rocks-undivided; primarily upper Cretaceous sandstones and mudstones,
local Jurassic clastic rocks, and evaporites in the Puerco Valley and western Llano
de Albuquerque area, and Triassic sandstones and mudstones exposed along the
Hubbell Springs fault zone.
Pz
Paleozoic rocks-undivided; including 1) Permian rocks-undivided; sandstones,
mudstones, and minor limestones of the Permian Abo, Yeso, Glorieta and San
Andres Formations;and 2) limestones, sandstones and shales ofthe Pennsylvanian
Madera Group and the Sandia Formation.
p€
Proterozoic rocks-undivided; igneousintrusiveandmetamorphicrocks
ofthe
p Q Sandia and Manzanita uplifts; p€g - Sandia granite and local bodies metamorphic
pGn rocks north ofthe Tijeras fault zone; PQn - metamorphicrocks(greenstone,
quartzite, schist, gneiss and metavolcanics) south of the Tijeras fault.
*Primarily hard-rock, geohydrologic-boundary units
with
low
hydraulic
conductivities. However, localized zones of high permeability have been noted
along solution-enlarged joints
and
fractures
in Paleozoiccarbonaterocks
(Pennsylvanian and Permian), and in other highly fractured igneous, metamorphic
and clastic-sedimentary lithologies (e.g. basalts, welded tuffs, quartzites,and
sandstones). . .
2
Open-File Report 402, Appendix E
Faults
High-angle normal fault (map view), dashed where inferred, dotted where
buried; bar and ball or D on downthrown side; U on upthrown block
>”*
/ If
High-angle normal fault (cross section view), dashedwhere
direction of relative motion shown by arrows
inferred;
Transverse fault zones with observed oblique or strike-slip displacements;
A-away from and T-toward viewer in cross sections
Other Symbols
o o o o ~ o oApproximate eastern and western limits of ancestral Rio Grande deposits
in the Upper Santa Fe Group (USF-2,4)
Inferred former valley margins (paleo-bluff lines)
Tercer0 Alto
e
u
Segundo Alto
Primer0 Alto
0
Major water production wells
A
Ground water monitoring wells
0
Other water wells
+-
Oil and gas exploration wells
3
Open-File Report 402, Appendix F
APPENDIX F
LITHO~ACIESAND HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC UNITS IN
BOREHOLES STUDIED, SUMMARY OF INTERPRETATIONS
FOR CONCEPTUAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix F
APPENDIX F
Lithofacies and Hydrostratigraphic Units
in
Boreholes studied; Summaryof Interpretations for
Conceptual Model Development
J. W. Hawley
Key to Wells
City of Albuquerque (COA) Water-SupDlv
me
5
5
5
6
6
7
Location
Atrisco 1 (At 1 ) 8 I
Burton 1 (
B
u
kT
)
l
Burton 5 (Bu5)
&/
Charles Wells5 (Ch5) 3J
Charles Wells6 (Ch6) J3
Colleqe 1 (col) 8 I
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
11
11
11
12
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
20
Wells
Coronado 2 lCr2i
-.
41
Duranes 6 (Du6) A/
Gonzales 1 (Gzl) 2 _ /
Gonzales 2 ( G z 2 )
Griegos 1 (Grl) J
9
Griegos 2 ( G r 2 ) J
9
Griegos 3 (Gr3) %/
Griegos 4 (Gr4) J
9
Griegos 5 (Gr5) lO/
Ladera 1 (Lal) 8-1
Leavitt 1 (Lel) 8/
Leavitt 2 ( L e 2 ) &/
Leavitt 3 (Le3) &/
Lomas 1 ll/
Lomas 2 (Lm2) J
8
Lomas 3 (Lm3) &/
Lomas 4(Lm4)
&/
Lomas 5(Lm5)
lo/
Lomas 6 (Lm6l 1 0 1
Love 6 (Lv6) &/
Love 7 (Lv7)
&/
Miles 1 (Mil) &/
Ponderosa la (Pola) lo/
Ponderosa 2 ( P o 2 ) 8 I
Ponderosa 3 iPo3j
Ponderosa 6 (P06)
Ridaecrest 1 (Rill 8 I
x/
I
-.
‘a/
Ridaecrest 4 i R i 4 i 8i
x/
san Jose 3 ( 5 5 3j
San Jose 4 ( S J 4 ) %/
San Jose 5
( S J 5 ) %/
Santa Barbara 1 (SB1) &/
10-3-20-210
10-3-27-244
10-3-26-422
10-3-12-331
10-4-18-411
10-2-9-114
10-2-9-232
11-3-24-221
11-3-24-140
10-2-29-141
10-2-29-222
10-2-12-412
10-2-12-220
10-2-11-130
10-2-11-134
11-3-31-2314
10-3-6-121
11-3-31-3133
11-3-32-141
11-3-31-442
10-2-3-422
10-2-33-244
10-2-33-442
9-2-4-223
10-4-22-342
10-4-22-1134
10-4-15-314
10-4-16-241
10-4-15-3444
10-4-28-2234
10-4-15-123
10-4-8-434
10-3-33-233
10-4-4-212
11-4-33-331
11-4-32-234
11-4-29-431
10-4-29-232
10-4-20-344
10-4-30-223
10-4-19-322
10-4-30-121
10-3-29-441
10-3-29-3411
10-3-32-3142
10-3-32-414
10-3-10-224
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix F
Citv of Albuauerque (COA) Water-Supply Wells (cont’d)
Location
”
x/
-.
10-4-6-124
10-4-6-422
10-4-6-342
10-4-5-124
11-2-28-222
11-2-28-244
11-2-21-244
11-4-21-112
11-4-20-221
11-4-18-434
11-4-19-142
10-2-21-343
10-2-21-213
10-2-21-412
10-2-22-312
10-3-21-443
10-3-28-243
10-3-21-341
11-2-27-230
20 Thomas
5 (Th5)
20 Thomas
6 ITh6) 3 1
21
Thomas 7 iTh7) F/
21
Thomas 8 (Th8)
22
Volcano Cliffs1 (VC1)
22
Volcano Cliffs2 (VC2)
22
Volcano Cliffs3 (VC3)
22
Walker 1 (Wal) & j
23
Walker 2 (Wa2) L/
23
Webster 1 (Well 8 I
23
Webster 2 jWe2j E/
24
West Mesa 1 (WM1) &/
24
West Hesa2 (WM2) lo/
24
West Mesa 3 (WM3) &/
24
West Mesa 4 (WM4)
. -.8 I
25
Yale 1 (Yal)‘8J
25
Yale 2 (Ya2) &/
25
Yale 3 (Ya3l
8 I
, _,
25 Zamora
i (zal)
L/
I
e/
Other Citv of Albuqueraue
”
(COA)
Water
Wells
Location
26 Cerro Colorado Landfill
No. 1 (CC1) L/
26
Montessa Park (MP1) %/
26
Old Main Well Field 1 (MF1) %/
Other
27
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
31
Water
Wells
with
halvses of
DrillingLoqs (NMBMMRZ
Location
-
Public Supply Adobe-Acres
Southwest Landfill,Inc.
Tafoya Property
Sanchez Property
USDOD-Radar Station
Industrial S U D D ~ V
Sunport
Kirtland AFB 1, USAF 12
USVA-Hospital
Industrial Supply
Industrial SUDD~V
Public Service Company, Reeves
Power PlantNo. 1 (Psc-1) &/
Public Service Comuanv, Reeves
Power Plant NO. i (Psc-2) &/
Sandia Peak Utility
. Co. Love No. 3
(SPUC-3)
Sandia Pueblo Community WellNo. 1
Sandia Pueblo Stock WellNo. 1, ECW 1
.. -.
”
9-1-7-224
9-3-11-242
10-3-20-210
-
2
9-2-12-322
9-2-29-133
9-2-29-343
9-2-32-422
10-1-30-220
10-3-7-441
10-3-34-144
10-3-35-111
10-3-36-132
10-4-29-413
10-4-31-411
~
~
-~
11-3-23-121
11-3-23-111
11-4-15-330
12-3-24-423
12-4-32-2424
Open-File Rcpan 402, Appendix F
Monitorins
32
32
32
32
33
33
33
33
34
34
34
34
35
35
35
35
36
36
36
37
and
Test
Wells
with
Drill
Cuttinq and Borehole
Location
Analvses
USBR & BIA Isleta Lakes Site (MWZI)
Z_/
8-2-1-4232b
COA-Cerro Colorado Landfill (MW1)
9-1-18-333
USGS-Rio Bravo Piezometer Site
9-2-7-1141
No. 5 (RB5)
Public Service Co.-Persons
9-3-9-1131
Power Plant (PsMw-19)
1
USGS-SW Alluvial Basins Test No.
(Swab-1) a/
10-1-22-322
USGS & COA-John Marshall Ctr. (JMC-1)
10-3-29-242a
10-3-33-234
USGS & COA-Yale Landfill (YALE MW3)
10-3-33-314
USGS & COA-Yale Landfill (YALE
MW5)
USGS & COA-Four Hills Area
(4 Hills 1)
10-4-26-331
USGS & COA-South Eubank (EUBANK1)
10-4-32-422
11-1-27-433
COA-Soil Amendment Facility (Saf
1) Z_/
USGS-SW Alluvial Basins Test
NO. 2
11-2-18-313
(Swab 2)
11-3-14-341
Z_/
COA-Los Angeles Landfill (LALF-9)
COA-Los AngeleS Landfill (LALF-11)
Z_/
11-3-15-2444
USBR-Edith and Paseo Site (MW3E)
1_/
11-3-15-3424b
USGS-Paseo del Norte Piezometer
Site No. 1 (PDN-1)
11-3-17-140
USGS-SW Alluvial Basins Test
No. 3
(Swab 3)
11-3-18-411
11-3-31-1242
USGS-Montaiio Extensometer Site (MONT-XX)
11-3-33-424a
USGS & COA-East Moncaiio (MONT-5A)
J
4
High Desert Development (HDMW-1)
11-4-26-1343
r/
i/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
Oil and Gas Exploration
~~~
~~~~~
Holes
Location
38
38
38
39
Shell Isleta No. l2/
2
Transocean Isleta No.
1 lZ/
Norins Realty Co. No 1
(Pajarito Grant)
UTEX Weszland l-lJlE ll/
Carpenter-Atrisco Grant NO.
1121
ShellWestMesaFederalNo.
1 l2/
Norins Realty Co. No. 2,
%/
(North
Albuquerque
Acres)
u/
8-2-16-133
8-3-8-424
9-1-22-211
10-1-1-223
10-1-28-440
11-1-24-241
11-4-19-144
Footnotes
L/
See Appendices A and B for lists of available drill cutting sets, and
geophysical and drilling logs
1/ Cutting and borehole-log analyses by J. W. Shomaker, Inc.
3/
Cutting and borehole-log analyses by J. W. Shomaker, Inc. and NMBMMR
&/
Cutting and borehole-log analyses by Geohydrology Associates, Inc. and
NMBMMR
x/
a/
Cutting analyses by Camp, Dresser and McXee, Inc. and NMBMMR
Cutting and borehole-log analyses USGS,
by
Water Resources Div. (Anderholm
and Bullard, 1987; Wilkins, 1987; Kaehler, 1990; Richey,
1991)
3
...
Open-File Repoli 402, Appendix F
Cutting and borehole-loganalyses by NMBMMR
Geophysical and drillers log analyses by NMBMMR
Drillers log analyses by NMBMMR
Geophysical log analyses by NMBMMR
Interpretations primarily based on logs of nearby wells
See Lozinsky, 1968, for analyses of drill cuttings and geophysical logs
4
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix F
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE (COA) WATER-SUPPLY
WELLS
ATRISCO 1 (Atl)
Map:
10-2-25-111
350418106412201
USGS ID:
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""0-70
70-200
200-420
420-875
875-1440
A
4941
4871
4741
4521
4066
3501
BOTTOM
"_RA -
I
TTP-7
I, I11
IX, I11
11, IV
u5f-2
~
'
m5f-2
m5f-2
BURTON 1 (Bul)
Map: 10-3-27-244
USGS ID: 350359106361601
UNIT
DEPTH
(FT1
ELEVATION
(TOP)
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
~
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
~
0-10
10-410
410-600
600-650
650-865
865-960
960-1040
1040-1170
1170-1280
1280-1330
1330-1470
PA?
BOTTOM
5315
5305
4905
4715
4665
4450
4355
4275
4145
4035
3985
3845
I11
IV
V?
I
I11
IX,
I
IX, I11
I
111, v
Va, I11
111,
V
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5fy2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
USF-2,l
USF-1,2
MSF-2,l
m5f-1
BURTON 5 (Bu5)
Map: 10-3-26i422
USGS ID:
UNIT
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP1
------------""""""""""""""""~""""""""""~
4115
0-60
60-210
210-380
380-440
440-635
635-770
770-850
850-1025
1025-1160
1160-1330
BOTTOM
PA
5275
5215
5065
4895
483s
4640
4505
44254250
"
"
3945
LITHOFACIES
V
V
I
I1
-T
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
u5f-1
u5f-2
u5f-2
T"
T ~ " 7
A
,.
I, I11
11, I
111, I
11, I
u5f-2
u5f-2
Va.
MCP-7
._. VIa
."
5
u5f-2
u5f-2
__" -
"_
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix F
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE (COA) WATER-SUPPLY WELLS (cont'd.)
CHARLES WELLS 5 (Ch5)
Map: 10-3-12-331
USGS ID:
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
"-"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
4990
4680
4610
4180
4120
3960
3660
2890
2750
0-98
98-230
230-540
(430-440)
540-610
610-700
700-870
870-1040
1040-1100
1100-1260
1260-1560
1560-2020
2020-2340
2340-2470
2470-2640
2640-2860
2860-3230
BOTTOM
5220
5122
UNIT
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
Vb
I
- (w/Purnice)
I
(4790)
4520
4350
3200
2580
2370
1990
(wfobsidian)
I11
I, I11
111, I
I11
IV, I
I11
111, v, VI1
IX, VI1
IX
VII, IX
IX
IV, I11
PA
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
m5f-2
MSF-2,l
MSF-2,l
m5f-2
MSF-1,2
m5f-2
LSF
CHARLES WELLS 6 (Old Love 8) (Ch6)
Map: 10-4-18-411
USGS ID: 350308106374601
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
5110
4340
4130
2450
2390
0-95
95-200
200-360
360-970
970-1180
1180-1320
1320-1500
I11
1500-1650
1650-1830
1830-1980
1980-2110
2110-2160
2160-2420
2420-2580
2580-2860
2860-2920
2920-3200
3200-3335
BOTTOM
5310
5215
4950
V
Vb
I
I
II1,I
IV, I11
3990
3810
I1
3660
VI1
111, v,MSF-1,2
3480
v, VI1
3330
I11
3200
IX
3150
IV, VI1
2890
MSF-2,l VI1
IX,
2730
MSF-2,l
VI1 IV,
IX
11, VI1
2110
1975
I11
6
PA
u5f-1
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
m5f-1
m5f-2
m5f-2
MSF-2,l
.
m5f-2
MSF-2,l
LSF
COLLEGE 1 (Co 1)
Map:
10-2-9-114
USGS ID:
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-488
488-848
848-1270
1270-1514
1514-1624
BOTTOM
5331
4843
4483
4061
3817
3707
TA?/USF-2
USF-B/MSF-2
m5f-2
MSF-3,2
m5f-2
A/I
I11
IX
11, I11
I11
COLLEGE 2 (Co 2)
Map:
10-2-9-232
USGS ID: 350647106440001
DEPTH
ELEVATION
LITHOFACIES
(TOP)
UNIT
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0-300
300-525
(410-420)
525-700
700-1090
1090-1633
BOTTOM
5227
4927
(4817)
4702
4527
4137
3594
A/I
I11
(Clay)
111, IX
IX
111, I1
7
TA?/USF-2
u5f-2
(Uppermarkerbed?)
m5f-2
m5f-2
MSF-2,3
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix F
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE (COA) WATER-SUPPLY WELLS (cont'd.)
CORONADO 1 (Crl)
Map: 11-3-24-221
USGS I D :
DEPTH
ELEVATION
(FT)
(TOP)
""""""""""""""""""""""~""""""""""""""""0-200
200-260
260-300
300-460
460-610
610-720
720-820
820-1000
1000-1070
1070-1220
BOTTOM
5288
5088
5028
4988
4828
4678
4568
4468
4288
4218
4068
UNIT
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
V
I
I11
I
I11
I
I11
11, I11
I11
11, I11
PA/USF-l
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
CORONADO 2 (Cr2)
Map: 11-3-24-140
USGS ID:
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
""""""""""-""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
0-170
170-460
460-650
650-790
790-980
(950-980)
980-1130
1130-1220
1220-1380
1380-1400
BOTTOM
5245
5075
4785
4595
4455
(4295)
4265
4115
4025
3865
3835
UNIT
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
V
(Red c l a y )
PA
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
(Marker Bed)
I1
11, v
111, I1
I11
USF-2,l
u5f-2
u5f-2
I
I1
11. I11
I11
u5f-2
DON 1 ( D o l )
Map: 10-2-29-141
USGS ID: 350416106451801
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP1
-""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
4635
3725
0-10
10-275
275-500
500-700
700-1020
1020-1360
1360-1620
BOTTOM
5060
4835
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
I1
I
I11
I1
11, I11
111, IX
IX
8
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
VA
USF-2,4
USF-2,4
USF-2,4
USF-2,4
MSF-4,2
MS.F-2,4
Open-File Report 402, Appendix F
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE (COA) WATER-SUPPLYWELLS (cont'd.)
io-~1~9-222
USGS ID:
Map:
UNIT
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
0-47
47-327
327-602
602-842
842-1625
BOTTOM
5247
5200
4920
4645
----"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
~~~
~
4405
~~~~
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
1111
I, I1
111, IX
IX, I11
I11
VAIUSF-4,2
USF-4,2 '
MSF-4,2
m5f-2
m5f-4
3622
DuRAN!zS 3 ( D U 3 )
Map:
10-2-12-412
USGS ID:
ION
(TOP
DEPTH
(FT)
)
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
.......................................
0-65
65-240
240-380
380-740
740-1020
BOTTOM
4960
4895
4720
4580
4220
3940
A
RA
"
.
~~
I
I,I11
111
IX
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
m5f-2
DURANES 6 (Du6)
Map: 10-2-12-220
USGS ID:
ELEVATION DEPTH
(TOP
(FT)
UNIT
""""""""""""""-""""""""""""""""""""""""""
0-55
55-145
145-280
280-355
355-545
545-745
745-950
BOTTOM
)
4965
4910
4820
.".
4220
LITHOFACIES
A
I
I, I11
I11
111, I
111, IX
IX
9
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
RA
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
m5f-2
Open-File Report 402, Appendix F
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE (COA) WATER-SUPPLY WELLS (cont'd.)
GONZALES 1 (021)
Map:
10-2-11-130
USGS ID:
DEPTH
(FT)
.
.
ELEVATION
(TOP)
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
4748
4708
4518
3348
0-170
170-360
360-400
400-580
580-830
830-1370
1370-1760
1760-1800
BOTTOM
~~~
~~~
5108
4938
A
TA (Los Duranes)
USF-2
'
I
u5f-2
u5f-2
I11
I
~
~~
4278
3738
u5f-2
I11
IX
I11
IX
m5f-2
m5f-2
m5f-2
3308
GONZALES 2 ( 0 2 2 )
Map:
10-3-11-134
USGS ID:
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
4370
0-160
160-320
320-400
400-490
490-540
540-590
590-670
670-730
730-870
870-1400
BOTTOM
5100
4940
4780
4700
4610
4560
4510
4430
4230
3700
A
I
I11
I
I11
I
I11
VA (Los Duranes)
u5f-2
I
I11
IX
USF-2,4
10
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
m5f-2
Open-File Regan 402, Appendix F
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE (COA) WATER-SUPPLYWELLS (cont'd.)
GRIEGOS 1 (Grl)
Map: 11-3-31-2314
USGS ID:
ELEVATION
DEPTH
(FT)
(TOP)
-----""""~"""""""""""~""""""""""""~""""""""
0-68
68-102
102-255
(177-184)
255-285
285-425
425-570
570-695
695-759
759-800
800-824
BOTTOM
4971
4903
4869
(4794)
4716
4686
4546
4401
4276
4212
4171
4147
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
A
I11
I
(clay marker)
IX
I
111, I
I
I, I11
I
111, IX
TA
USF-2
'
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
GRIEGOS 2 ( G r 2 )
Map: 10-3-6-121
USGS ID:
ELEVATION
TOP)
DEPTH
(FT)
UNIT
LITHOFACfES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-82
82-283
283-451
740-820
A
Fa
111. I
I, 111
1 (IV)
I (w/red clay)
I, I11
I11
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
BOTTOM
~~
~
u5f-2
u5f-2
GRIEGOS 3 (Gr3)
Map: 11-3-31-3133
USGS ID:
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
4619
4114
4069
0-65
65-275
275-350
350-460
460-583
583-855
855-900
900-916
BOTTOM
4509
4386
A
RA
I, I11
I
111, I
I
I11
111, I
111, IX
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
m5f-2
4053
11
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix F
CITY
OF ALBUQUERQUE (COA) WATER-SUPPLY WELLS (cont'd.)
GRIEGOS 4 (Gr4)
Map: 11-3-32-141
USGS ID:
DEPTH
ELEVATION
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
(FT) LITHOFACIES (TOP)
UNIT
........................................
0-67
67-425
425-544
544-742
742-804
BOTTOM
4971
4904
4546
4427
4229
4167
RA
USF-2
u5f-2
A
111, I
1
111, I
'
u5f-2
u5f-2
111
GRIEGOS 5 (Gr5)
Map: 11-3-31-4244
USGS ID: 340828106175501
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-80
80-455
455-525
525-815
(670-685)
BOTTOM
4970
4890
4515
4445
143001
'4155'
A
I, I11
111
RA
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
"
11
( c l a y marker)
LADERA 1 (Lal)
Map: 10-2-3-422
USGS ID: 350727106423201
DEPTH
ELEVATION
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
(FT) LITHOFACIES (TOP)
UNIT
.......................................
0-510
510-730
730-834
834-1330
1330-1500
BOTTOM
5112
4602
4382
4278
3782
3612
A/ 1
111
111, IX
IX
11, I11
12
TA/USF-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
m5f-2
MSF-4,2
Open-File Report 402. Appendix F
CITY
OF
ALBUQUERQUE(COR) WATER-SUPPLY WELLS (cont'd.)
LEAVITT 1 (Lel)
Map: 10-2-33-244
USGS ID: 350244106445301
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
"""""-"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
0-145
145-240
240-400
400-600
600-910
910-1226
BOTTOM
5085
4940
4845
4685
4485
4175
3859
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
~
Duranes?)
A
(Los
1
111
IX, I11
IX
11,
I11
~~~
~
TA?
USF-2
.
u5f-2
m5f-2
m5f-2
MSF-2,4
LEAVITT 2 (Le2)
Map: 10-2-33-442
USGS: 350237106445201
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.........................................
0-130
130-270
270-360
360-480
480-920
920-1238
BOTTOM
5070
4940
4800
4710
4590
4150
3832
A
1
I, I11
111
IX
111
TA? (Los Duranes?)
u5f-2
u5f-2
m5f-2
m5f-2
m5f-2
LEAVITT 3 (Le3)
Map: 9-2-4-223
USGS ID: 350223106435401
UNIT
."""
0-100
100-390
390-450
450-960
960-1310
1310-1527
BOTTOM
LITHOFACIES
."""""""""""""""""""""""
(LosTA?
5090 Duranes?)
4990
4700
4640
I11
4130
3780
3563
A
11, I11
111
IX,
11, IV
111
13
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
u5f-2
m5f-2
m5f-2
MSF-2,4
m5f-2
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix F
CITY
OFALBUQUERQUE (COA) WATER-SUPPLY WELLS (cont'd.)
LOMAS 1 fLml\
Map:
1OL4-2i-342
USGS ID: 350430106302401
DEPTH
(FT)
0-100
100-500?
?500-1341
BOTTOM
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
5597
5497
5097
4256
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
v,
v,
VI
VI
v-VI11
PA/USF
USF-1
m5f-1
.
LOMAS 2 (Lm2)
Map:
10-4-22-1134
USGS ID: 350459106304601
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""0-30
30-180
180-320
320-460
460-590
590-690
690-870
870-1140
1140-1280
1280-1530
1530-1590
BOTTOM
5578
5548
5398
5258
5118
4988
4888
4708
4438
4298
4048
3988
UNIT
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
V
Va, VI
Vb
v, VI
v. VI11
v; VI
v, VI11
v, VI
Vb
v, VI
IX, v
PA
u5f-1
u5f-1
u5f-1
m5f-1
m5f-1
m5f-1
m5f-1
m5f-1
m5f-1
MSF-2,l
LOMAS 3 (Lm3)
Map:
10-4-15-314
USGS ID: 350526106303801
ELEVATION
DEPTH
(FT)HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
(TOP)
0-100
100-509
509-630
630-1450
1450-1625
BOTTOM
5631
5531
5122
5001
4181
4006
UNIT
PA/USF-lv. VI
V'
v. VI1
Vb
IX, V "blue
usi.-1
m5f-1
clay"
m5f-1
MSF-2,l
LOMAS 4 (Lm4)
Map:
10-4-16-241
USGS ID: 350547106310601
UNIT
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-90
90-195
195-430
430-880
880-1040
1040-1200
1200-1594
BOTTOM
5575
5485
5380
5145
4695
4535
4375
3981
v,
VI
PA/USF-l
Va
Vb
u5f-1
u5f-1
I11 (V)
MSF-1
MSF-2
MSF-1
MSF-2
v (111)
I11 (V)
v (111)
14
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix F
CITY
OFALBUQUERQUE (COA)
WATER-SUPPLY WELLS (cont'd.)
LOMAS 5 (Lm5)
Map:
10-4-15-3444
USGS ID: 350422106312601
ELEVATION
DEPTH
UNIT
(FT)HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
(TOP)
4450
4200
4130
0-100
100-1050
1050-1300
1300-1370
1370-1500
1500-1713
BOTTOM
5500
5400
4000
3787
V
V
v, VI1
IX
I11 (V)
VII?. v
PA/USF-l
u5f-1
m5f-1
m5f-2
MSF-2 (1)
MSF-l?
Map:
1OL4-2i-2234
USGS ID: 350408106310101
ON
(TOP
DEPTH
(FT)
0-100
100-1100
1100-1706
BOTTOM
)
5533
5433
4433
3827
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
V
V
v,
PA/USF-3
u5f-1
m5f-1
VI1
LOVE 6 (Lv6)
Map:
10-4-15-123
USGS ID: 350553106313801
DEPTH
(FT)
. .
ELEVATION
(TOP)
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-110
110-210
940-1020
1020-1569
BOTTOM
5294
5133
4604
4564
4484
3935
V
PA
V
u5f-1
111
111,
V
IX
111,
u5f-2
USF-2,l
u5f-1
u5f-2
MSF-2,l
v
v
LOVE 7 (LV7)
Map:
10-4-8-434
USGS ID: 350607106321301
DEPTH
(FT)
.
.
ELEVATION
(TOP)'
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-51
51-330
(310-330)
330-610
610-765
765-910
910-980
980-1045
1045-1485
(1245-1255)
BOTTOM
5442
5391
(5132)
5112
4832
4677
4532
4462
4397
(4197)
3957
V
Vb (.III)
(clay marker)
111, v
11, I
111, v
11
111. v
11, v
(clay marker)
15
PA
USF-1 (2)
(USF-2)
USF-2,l
u5f-2
USF-2,l
u5f-2
MSF-2,l
MSF-2,l
(MSF-2)
.
.
.... ... .-
Open-File Reporr 402, Appendix F
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE (COA) WATER-SUPPLY
WELLS (cont'd.)
MILES 1 ( M i l )
Map: 10-3-33-233
USGS ID: 350308106374601
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-50
50-596
596-1040
1040-1200
1200-1341
BOTTOM
5150
5100
4554
4110
3945
3809
B
VA
I
u5f-2
u5f-2
m5f-2
m5f-2
111, I
I11
IX
PONDEROSA l a (Pola)
Map: 10-4-4-212
USGS ID: 350933106391902
UNIT
DEPTH
ELEVATION
(FT) HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
(TOP)
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
0-100
100-550
550-730
730-1050
1050-1335
BOTTOM
5674 PAIUSF-1
5574
5124
4944
4624
4339
v,
VI
V
Va, VI1
v, VI1
V
Note: LikeWalker 1
u5f-1
u5f-1
u5f-1
u5f-1
PONDEROSA 2 (P02)
Map: 10-4-33-331
USGS ID: 350800106315001
UNIT
DEPTH
ELEVATION
(FT)
LITHOFACIES (TOP)
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-30
30-339
339-413
413-570
570-700
700-800
800-1120
1120-1295
1295-1410
1410-1564
1564-1700
5600
5570
5261
5187
5030
4900
4800
4480
4305
4190
4036
VI
Vb
PA
u5f-1
Va
TTSP-1
V
Vb
u5f-1
u5f-1
u5f-1
u5f-1
USF-1,2
u5f-1
USF-2,l
u5f-1
v, VI1
Vb
v, I1
v, VI
111, v
V
"_
-
PONDEROSA 3 (P03)
Map: 11-4-32-234
USGS ID: 350820106321701
DEPTH
(FJ3
ELEVATION
(TOP)
UNIT
EYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
........................................
0-105
5533
V
105-480
5427
5052
VI
I; VI1
111, I ( V )
v (I), I11
480-971
971-1031
1031-1680
BOTTOM
~~~~~
""
4567
""
4501
3852
v,
16
PAIUSF-1
u5f-1
u5f-2
USF-2 (1)
USF-1 (2)
.
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix F
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE (COA) WATER-SUPPLY
WELLS (cont'd.)
PONDEROSA 6 (P06)
Map: 11-4-29-431
USGS ID: 350851106322001
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP1
UNIT
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
.......................................
4986
0-100
PAIUSF-1
100-570
570-1210
1210-1510
1510-1697
BOTTOM
V
5556
5456
v,
VI
I, I1
I11 (V1
I (vi '
Note: Like Walker2
4346
4046
3859
USF-1
'
u5f-2
USF-2 f 1)
USF-2 i l j
RIDGECREST 1 (Ril)
Map: 10-4-29-232
USGS ID: 350427106323401
DEPTH
ELEVATION
(FT)
LITHOFACIES (TOP)
UNIT
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-55
55-170
170-320
320-420
420-620
620-855
855-945
945-1107
1107-1255
~~~
V, Va
Va
V
v, I11
v, IV
111, IV
111, v
IV, I11
v, I11
5443
5388
5273
~~
BOTTOM
4336
4188
PA
u5f-1
u5f-1
USF-1,2
USF-1,2
USF-2.
USF-2,l
USF-2.
USF-1,2
RIDGECREST 2 (Ri2)
Map: 10-4-20-344
USGS ID: 350427106323401
UNIT
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
5414
5309
4551
PA/USF-l
0-105
105-220
220-445
445-742
742-863
863-922
922-1543
BOTTOM
5194
4969
4672
4492
3871
USF-1,2
V
V
u5f-1
I11
I, I11
I11
I, Va
111, va
u5f-2
u5f-2
v,
17
USF-2,1
USF/MSF-~,~
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix F
CITY
OF
ALBUQUERQUE
(COA)
WATER-SUPPLY
WELLS (cont'd.)
RIDGECREST 3 (Ri3)
10-4-30-223
USGS ID: 350401106331401
Map:
ELEVATION
(TOP
DEPTH
(FT)
UNIT
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
)
........................................
0-50
PA
50-160
160-350
350-390
390-460
460-546
546-850
850-1070
1070-1274
1274-1384
1384-1406
5386
V
V
v,
4996
4926
4740
4536
I11
USF-1
USF-1,2
u5f-2
I11
I
I,
I11
I, I11
I11
4316
VR.
",
4112
4002
Va
111.
'
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
"_
u5f-2
_"T T T
ITSF-1
-7
-,-
u5f-1
v
USF-2.1
RIDGECREST 4 (Ri4)
Map: 10-4-19-322
USGS ID: 350445106334001
UCIT
ELEVATION DEPTH
(TOP (FT)
LITHOFACIES
)
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
4434
0-60
60-235
235-305
305-910
(890)
910-1110
1110-1210
1210-1320
1320-1450
PA
V
5284
5109
5039
(4454)
4234
4134
4024
V
I11
v,
I
(V?)
I, I11
I1
I, I11
I11
u5f-1
USF-1,2
u5f-2
(USF-l?)
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
RIDGECREST 5 (Ri5)
Map: 10-4-30-121
USGS ID:
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-80
4170
80-230
230-390
390-530
530-880
880-1040
1040-1180
1180-1350
1350-1460
1460-1630
BOTTOM
5350
5270
5120
4960
4820
4470
4310
~~
~
4000
3890
3720
V
V
I
I1
I
I, I11
11, Va
111, va
11, Va
11, Va
18
PA
u5f-1
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-7
". u5f-2
USF-2,l
USF-2,l
USF-2,l
MSF-2,l
Open-File Report 402, Appendix F
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE (COA) WATER-SUPPLY
WELLS
(cont'd.)
SAN JOSE 2 (SJ2, Old 7 )
Map:
10-3-29-441
USGS ID: 351922106470601
DEPTH
ELEVATION
(FT)
LITHOFACIES (TOP)
UNIT
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""0-115
115-320
320-490
490-690
690-750
750-1008
BOTTOM
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
VA/RA
4990
4875
4670
4500
4300
4240
3982
B/A
I
111, I
I
III(1)
IX
USF-2
.
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
m5f-2
SAN JOSE 3 (SJ3. Old 8 )
Map:
10-3-29-3411
USGS ID:
UNIT
DEPTH
ELEVATION
(FT)
LITHOFACIES (TOP)
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-89
89-195
195-315
315-620
620-1130
1130-1210
BOTTOM
4945
4856
4750
4630
4325
3815
3735
IX
A
I
I, I11
I
111,
IX
RA
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
m5f-2
m5f-2
JOSE 4 ( S J 4 , Old 9 )
10-3-32-3142
USGS ID:
SAN
Map:
ELEVATION DEPTH
(FT)
LITHOFACIES (TOP)
UNIT
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-90
90-265
265-660
660-1290
BOTTOM
SAN JOSE 5 (SJ5,
4940
4850
4675
4280
3860
A
I, I11
I, I1
IX, I11
RA
u5f-2
u5f-2
m5f-2
Old 10)
Map:
10-3-32-414
USGS ID:
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP).
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-10
10-85
85-640
640-945
945-1200
BOTTOM
4948
4938
4863
4308
4003
3748
~~
~~~~
~~
-R
A
I, I1
111, IX
IX
19
Y7A
..I
RA
u5f-2
USF-2, MSF-2
m5f-2
Open-File Report 402, Appendix F
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE (COA) WATER-SUPPLYWELLS (cont'd.)
SANTA BARBARA 1 (SB1)
Map: 10-3-10-224
USGS ID: 350648106362501
DEPTH
(FT)
""_"~"""""
0-15
15-112
112-180
180-240
4900
240-340
4800
340-500
500-600
600-760
4380 760-850
4290
850-1012
BOTTOM
UNIT
ELEVATION
(TOP)
5140
5125
5013
4960
4640
4540
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
I1
B-V
A
I1
I11
I
I11
11, I11
111,
I, I1
I11
VA/PA
TA (Menaul/Edith)
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
4128
THOMAS 5 (Th5)
Map: 10-4-6-124
USGS ID:
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
..........................................
0-190
190-225
225-895
895-1095
1095-1275
1275-1410
1410-1525
1525-1610
1610-1850
1850-2356
2356-2560
2560-3115
3115-3371
BOTTOM
5356
5166
5131
4461
4261
4081
3946
3831
3746
3506
3000
2796
2241
1985
Vb
Vb, I
I
III(1)
I
I11
I1
111
11, VI1
I11
IV, VI1
111, VI1
I11
PA/USF-1
USF-1,2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
m5f-2
MSF-2,l
m5f-2
MSF-2,l
MSF-2,l
LSF
THOMAS 6 f T h 6 )
Map: 10-4-6-422
USGS ID:
DEPTH
(FT)
.
.
ELEVATION
I TOP 1
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-170
170-245
245-530
530-590
590-710
710-880
880-1030
1030-1110
1110-1200
1200-1340
1340-1420
1420-1529
BOTTOM
~
~~~
5408
5238
5163
""
4878
4818
4698
4528
4378
4298
4208
4068
3988
3878
Vb
Vb
I
Vb
I
I, I11
I11
IX, I11
IX
I11
IX
V?
20
PA
u5f-3
u5f-2
u5f-1
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
m5f-2
MSF-l?
Open-File Report 402, Appendix F
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE (COA) WATER-SUPPLY WELLS (cont'd.)
THOMAS 7 (Th7)
Map:
10-4-6-342
USGS ID:
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
........................................
0-95
95-220
220-380
380-500
500-670
670-920
920-1085
1085-1240
1240-1485
BOTTOM
5341
5246
5121
4961
4841
4671
4421
4256
4101
3856
~~~~
vb
PA
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
I
I11
I
Va
I1
I11
I1
I11
u5f-1
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
THOMAS 8 (Th8)
Map:
10-4-5-124
USGS ID:
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
0-130
PA
130-330
330-490
490-800
800-1200
1200-1430
1430-1580
1580-1695
BOTTOM
5460
5330
5130
4970
4660
4260
4080
3880
3765
Vb
Vb
I1
IV, v
11, v
IV, Vb
IV, v
111, v
21
u5f-1
u5f-2
USF-2,l
USF-2,l
USF-2,l
USF-2,l
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix F
CITY
VOLCANO CLIFFS 1 (VC1)
Map:
11-2-28-222
USGS ID: 350950106434001
ON
I
OFALBUQUERQUE (COA) WATER-SUPPLY WELLS (cont'd.)
DEPTH
(FT)
)
-------"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~
(TOP
5335
5230
F-2,4
4126
0-105
105-570
570-900
900-1050
IX 1050-1209111,
BOTTOM
4765
4435
4285
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
11, I11
111, I1
111
USF-2
USF-2,4
USF-4?
'
VOLCANO CLIFFS 2 (VC2)
Map:
11-2-28-244
USGS ID: 350914106434001
ELEVATION DEPTH
(TOP
(FT)
)
UNIT
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
.......................................
II/Basalt/II
0-100
100-845
845-1010
1010-1200
BOTTOM
5328
5228
4483
4318
4128
VA/Qb/TA?
USF-2,4
USF-4?
MSF-2,4
11, I11
111
111, IX
VOLCANO CLIFFS 3 (VC3)
Map:
11-2-21-244
USGS ID: 351007106434201
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-21
21-32
32-110
110-570
570-650
650-870
870-1060
1060-1290
1290-1660
1660-1750
BOTTOM
5344
5323
5312
5234
4774
4694
4474
4284
4054
3684
3594
11
Basalt
11
11, I11
111, IX
11, I11
VA(e)
Qb
TA?
u5f-2
USF-2,4
u5f-4
USF-4?
MSF-2,4
MSF-2,4
MSF-2,4
111
111, IX
IX
IX, I11
WALKER 1 (Wal)
Map:11-4-21-112
USGS ID: 351025106323801
"_""
3860
DEPTH
(FT)
. .
0-30
30-70
70-510
510-710
710-1490
1490-1710
1710-1840
BOTTOM
ELEVATION
(TOP
5700
5670
5630
5190
4990
4210
3990
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
V
v
V
(11)
Va
V
v, I1
111, v
22
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
PA
PA
u5f-1
u5f-1
u5f-1
u5f-1
USF-2,l
Open-File Report 402, Appendix F
CITY
OFALBUQUERQUE (COA)
WATER-SUPPLYWELLS (codt 'd. )
WALKER 2 (Wa2)
Map: 11-4-20-221
USGS ID: 351023106321301
ELEVATION DEPTH
(FT)
""""""""""""""~"""""""""""""""-"""""""""
5593
5563
5453
5103
4533
4193
0-30
30-140
140-490
490-1060
1060-1250
1250-1400
1400-1450
1450-1610
1610-1660
1660-1730
1730-1840
BOTTOM
(TOP)
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
V
v
4343
~~~
*
~
4143
3983
3933
~...
3863
3753
PA
l\ "I, I \
PA
u5f-1
V
I1
I11
I1
111, v
11, v
11, Va
111, v
v. VI1
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
USF-2,l
USF-2,l
USF-2,l
MSF-2,l
m5f-1
WEBSTER 1 (Wel)
Map: 11-4-18-434
USGS ID: 351029106332301
"_""
4511
DEPTH
(FT)
~.
0-105
105-325
325-550
550-685
685-790
790-925
925-1000
1000-1210
4226
ELEVATION
I TOP
5436
5331
5111
4786
4750
4646
4436
1210-1484
BOTTOM
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
11, v
V
11, I11
I1
I11
I1
I11
I1
111, v
PA
u5f-1
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
MSF-2,l
3952
WEBSTER 2 (We2)
Map: 11-4-19-142
USGS ID: 351013106333501
DEPTH
ELEVATION
(FT)
LITHOFACIES (TOP)
UNIT
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-115
115-250
250-434
434-586
586-656
656-824
824-934
934-1004
1004-1244
1244-1450
BOTTOM
5384
5269
5134
4950
4798
4725
4560
4450
4380
4140
3934
11, v
V
I
I11
I1
I11
I1
I11
11, v
111, v
23
PA
USF"2,l
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
USF-2,l
MSF-2,l
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix F
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE (COA) WATER-SUPPLYWELLS (cont'd.)
WEST MESA 1 (WM1) (Lambert, 1968, p. 287)
Map:
10-2-21-343
USGS ID: 350438106443501
ELEVATION DEPTH
CIES
APHIC
(TOP)
(FT)
UNIT
-------"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~
0-15
15-240
240-400
400-840
MSF-2,4840-900
IV
111,
900-1180
3995
BOTTOM
11,
5175
5160
4935
4775
4335
4275
11
1
111, I
III/IX
VA
USF-2,4
USF-2,4
USF/MSF-2,4
111
MSF-2,4
A
TA (Tercer0 Alto)
USF-2,4
USF-2;4
(Upper marker bed)
MSF-2,4
MSF-2; 4
MSF-2,4
MSF-2;4
MSF-2,4
'
WEST MESA2 (WM2)
Map:
10-2-21-213
USGS ID:
UNIT
DEPTH
ELEVATION
(FT)HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
(TOP)
""_"_""""""
0
3716
ON
APHIC
IES (TOP)
5166
BOTTOM
WEST MESA 3 (WM3)
Map:
10-2-21-412
USGS ID: 350443106395801
"_""
DEPTH
(FT)HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
(TOP)
0-50
50-230
310-480
(375-380)
480-620
620-670
670-1060
1060-1350
1350-1437
BOTTOM
5150
5100
4920
(4775)
4667
4530
4480
4090
3800
3713
1
111. I
(Clay)
111, IX
11
IX
11, I11
111
WEST MESA4 (WM4)
Map:
10-2-22-312
USGS ID: 350442106431801
UNIT
DEPTH
(FT)
0-180
180-310
310-390
(350-360)
390-920
920-1010
1010-1230
1230-1430
BOTTOM
ELEVATION
5100
A
4920
4790
(4750)
4710
4180
4090
3870
3670
1
111, I
(Clay)
III/IX
111
11, I11
111
24
TA (Los Duranes)
USF-2,4
USF-2,4
(Upper markerbed)
USF/MSF-2,4
MSF-2,4
MSF-2;4
MSF-2,4
..
Open-File Repon 402. Appendix F
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE (COA) WATER-SUPPLYWELLS (cont'd.)
YALE 1 (Yal)
Map:
10-3-21-443
USGS ID: 350426106372601
DEPTH
ELEVATION
(FT)
LITHOFACIES (TOP)
UNIT
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
4149
B/I 0-200
200-1010
BOTTOM
5159
4959
4149
VA/USF-2
USF-2
B/I
I, I11
'
YALE 2 (Ya2)
Map:10-3-i8-2434
USGS ID: 350435106380101
UNIT
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP1
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-70
70-720
720-840
840-990
990-1260
1260-1289
5126
5056
4406
4286
B
V. .
A.
I
u5f-2
u5f-2
-
11
111
u5f-2
111, Va
IX
MSF-2,I
m5f-2
YALE 3 (Ya3)
Map:
10-3-21-341
USGS ID: 350435106380101
DEPTH
ELEVATION
(FT)LITHOFACIES (TOP)
UNIT
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-130
130-1000
1000-1240
BOTTOM
5080
4950
4080
VA/USF-2
B/I
I, I11
111, IX
u5f-2
m5f-2
3840
.
ZAMORA 1 (Zall
~ ~ ~ - ,
Map:
11-2-27-230
USGS ID:
UNIT
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP1
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-20
20-140
140-200
200-230
230-300
300-390
390-470
470-760
760-960
960-1210
BOTTOM
5168
5148
5028
4968
4938
4868
4778
4698
4408
4208
3958
A1
I
11, I
IX (red)
I, I1
I, I11
111
I, I1
111
IX, I11
25
TA
(Tercer0
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
USF-2,4
u5f-4
u5f-4
u5f-4
MSF-2,4
Alto)
Open-File Report 402, Appendix F
OTHER
CITYOF ALBUQUERQUE (COA) WATER WEZLS
CERRO COLORADO LANDFILL NO.
1 (CC1)
9-1-7-224
USGS ID:
350014106531301
Map:
ELEVATION
(TOP
DEPTH
(FT)
1
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-290
290-400
400-1410
1410-1530
1530-1760
BOTTOM
5835
5545
5435
4425
4305
4075
1
u5f-3
111
m5f-2
IX
LSF
IV
LSF
Silic Volcanic Rock (Tvi)
MONTESSA PARK (MP1)
9-3-11-242
USGS ID:
Map:
DEPTH
(FTI
.
.
ELEVATION
(TOP
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-39
39-101
101-141
141-252
252-290
290-345
345-420
420-462
BOTTOM
OLD
5067
5028
4966
4926
4845
4777
4722
4647
4605
B
IX
111, I
VA
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
1
IX
1
I, IV
111
MAINWELL FIELD 1 (MF1)
Map:
10-3-20-210
USGS ID:
ELEVATION
DEPTH
(FT)
UNIT
(TOP1
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-71
71-614
614-710
BOTTOM
4958
4887
4344
4248
A
PA
111
u5f-2
111-IV
u5f-2
26
Open-File Report 402, Appendix F
OTHER
UNIT
WATERWELLS WITH
ANALYSESOF DRILLING
LOGS(NMBMMR)
PUBLIC SUPPLY-ADOBE ACRES WATER
WELL (Lambert, 1968, p. 288)
Map: 9-2-12-322
USGS ID:
DEPTH
ELEVATION
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
(FT)
LITHOFACIES (TOP)
.......................................
28
4864
4820
0-64
64-108
108-217
217-241
USF-2
4711
4687
BOTTOM
SOUTHWEST LANDFILL,
Map: 9-2-29-133
USGS ID:
A
I1
I11
u5f-2
I1
u5f-2
UNIT
""""""""""""-""""""""""""""""""""""""""
0-80
80-400
400-600
600-650
650-750
750-800
4765
5335
5015
4815
4665
4615
BOTTOM
'
INC.
DEPTH
ELEVATION
(FT)
LITHOFACIES (TOP)
15
RA
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
I
111, I1
I11
I
111, I1
I
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
TAFOYA PROPERTY
Map: 9-2-29-343
USGS ID:
~
ON
(TOP
-5300
5260
~~~~~~
~
DEPTH
(FT)
0-40
40-290
290-320
320-585
585-600
BOTTOM
)
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
B
111
5010
4980
4715
4700
I
I1
I
VA
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
SANCHEZ PROPERTY
Map: 9-2-32-422
USGS ID:
ELEVATION
5200
DEPTH
(FT)
0-240
240-335
335-402
BOTTOM
(TOP1
4960
4865
4798
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
111, I1
I1
111, I1
27
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
Open-File Rzpon 402, Appendix F
OTHER
WATER
WELLS
WITH
ANALYSES
OF
DRILLING
LOGS (NMBMMR) (cont'd.)
USOD-RADAR STATION (Lambert, 1968, p. 285)
Map: 10-1-30-220
USGS ID:
ELEVATION
DEPTH
(FT)
UNIT
( TOP )
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
........................................
0-235
235-392
I11392-547
547-762LSF
762-840LSF
840-1371
1371-1386
BOTTOM
4569
5720
5563
5408
5193
5115
LSF
4584
VI
IX
I
MSF
MSF-3,4
I
I11
VI1
111,
Basalt Flow?
INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY (Lambert, 1968,
p. 289)
Map: 10-3-7-441
USGS ID:
ELEVATION DEPTH
(TOP (FT)
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
)
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
........................................
0-72
72-198
198-403
403-673
673-723
BOTTOM
I11
4960
4888
USF-2
4762
USF-2
4557
4287
4237
I
I11
A
111,
I,
RA
USF"3
". -
~~~
111, IV
USF-2
SUNPORT (Lambert, 1968,p. 291)
Map: 10-3-34-144
USGS ID:
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
UNIT
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
.......................................
0-400
400-700
USF-2
700-900
900-950
950-1010
BOTTOM
5301
4901
4601
4401
4351
4291
No Log
I1
11, I11
I
111, I
USF-2
USF-2
USF-2
KIRTLAND AFB1, USAF-12
Map: 10-3-351111
USGS ID:
ELEVATION
(TOP)
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
~~
~
.......................................
I1
0-60
60-485
USF-2
485-710
I
111,
710-927
I11
927-1025
1025-1032
USF-2
BOTTOM
5320
5260
4835
4610
4393
4295
4288
I
I
IV
28
USF-2
USF-2
USF-2
~
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix F
OTHER WATER
WELLS
WITH
ANALYSES
OF
DRILLING (N
LOGS
MBMMR) (c0nt.d.)
USVA-HOSPITAL (Lambert, 1968, p. 293)
Map: 10-3-36-132
USGS ID:
ON
(TOP)
DEPTH
(FT)
""_"_"""""
0-330
330-540
540-1020
BOTTOM
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
5342
5012
4802
4322
INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY (Lambert.1968.
Map: 10-4-29-413
USGS ID:
ON
(TOP
DEPTH
(FT)
0-70
70-211
211-270
270-340
340-460
460-630
630-780
780-870
870-960
960-1004
BOTTOM
)
5434
5364
5223
5164
5094
4974
4804
4654
4564
4474
4430
Val1
I, I1
I, 11, Va
USF-1/2
u5f-2
USF-2,l
'
D. 294)
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
VI
V
VI
I1 (Va)
I11
VI
I1 (Va)
VI
V
VI
PA
u5f-1
u5f-1
USF-2 (USF-1)
u5f-2
u5f-1
USF-2 (USF-1)
u5f-1
u5f-1
u5f-1
INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY (Lambert,1968, p. 295)
Map: 10-4-31-411
USGS ID:
(TOP
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
)
UNIT
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
.......................................
0-62
62-112
112-251
4132
251-408
408-521
521-667
667-995
995-1200
BOTTOM
4271
3975
3862
3716
3388
3183
V
VI
V
VI
I11
VI
I11
IV, VI1
29
u5f-1
u5f-1
u5f-1
u5f-1
u5f-2
USF-1
u5f-2
USF/MSF
.
.
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix F
OTHER WATER WELLS WITB ANALYSES
OF DRILLING
LOGS(WMBMMR) (cont'd.)
PUBLIC SERVICE, REEVES POWER
PLANT NO. 1 (PSC 1; Lambert, 1968, p . 296)
Map: 11-3-23-121
USGS ID:
UNIT
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-24
24-80
80-235
235-630
(465-485)
630-860
860-912
BOTTOM
5095
5071
~
~~
B
-
~
VA
A1
I, I11
I11
(red clay)
I, I11
I11
5015
4860
(4630)
4465
4235
4183
TAg (Edith)
USF-2
'
USF-2
(Marker Bed)
USF-2
MSF-2
PUBLIC SERVICE CO. REEVES POWER PLANT
NO. 2 (PSC 2 )
Map: 11-3-23-111
USGS ID:
DEPTH
ELEVATION
(FT)LITHOFACIES (TOP)
UNIT
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
0-15
15-72
72-240
240-610 USF-2
(460-480)
610-890
890-927 MSF-2
BOTTOM
SANDIA PEAK UTILITY
Map: 11-4-15-330
USGS ID:
DEPTH
(FT)
.
.
""_"""""~""
0-90
90-400
400-560
560-820
BOTTOM
B
A1
USF-2 I, I11
I11
(red clay)
I, I11
I11
5084
5069
5012
4844
(4624)
4474
4194
4157
COMPANY
ELEVATION
(TOP
(Marker Bed)
USF-2
lSPUC 3 )
LOVE 3 NO.
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
VI
VI
V
VI
-5850
-5760
-5450
-5290
-5030
SANDIA PUEBLO COMMUNITY
Map: 12-3-24-423
USGS ID:
VA
TAg (Edith)
PA
USF-1
USF-1
USF-1
WELL 1NO.
DEPTH
ELEVATION
(FT)LITHOFACIES (TOP)
UNIT
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-20
20-30
30-50
50-90
90-96
5060
5040
5030
B coarse
B fine
B coarse
A1,2
I11
BOTTOM
30
VA
VA
VA
RA
USF-2
ON
Open-File Report 402, Appendix F
OTHER
WATER WELLS WITH ANALYSES OF DRILLING LOGS (NMBMMR) (cont'd.)
SANDIA PUEBLO STOCK WELL NO. 1, ECWl
Map: 12-4-32-2424
USGS ID:
DEPTH
(FT)
UNIT
(TOP)
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
........................................
0-72
12-228
228-252
252-340
340-376
376-453
453-608
608-628
BOTTOM
5565
5493
5337
5313
5225
5189
5112
4957
4937
~~~~
VI I
I11
I
I11
I
I1
I, I11
I
~"
31
PA
.
.
.
USF
USF-2
USF-2
USF-2
USF-2
USF-2
USF-2
'
I
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix F
MONITORING AND TEST WEILS
DRILLCUTTINGAND BOREHOLE LOG ANALYSES
WITB
USBR h BIA ISLETALAKES SITE
Map: 8-2-1-4232b
USGS ID:
DEPTH
(FT)
MW-21
ELEVATION
(TOP1
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
........................................
4732
0-68
68-148
148-166
BOTTOM
4898
4830
4750
~
COA-CERRO COLORADO
Map: 9-1-18-333
USGS ID:
UNIT
RA
A2,l
I11
USF-2
USF-2
I
-
~~
LANDFILL
NO.
1 (MW1)
DEPTH
ELEVATION
(FT)
LITHOFACIES (TOP)
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.........................................
5336
0-30
30-150MSF
150-290
290-590
590-740
BOTTOM
5196
4896
4746
USGS RIO BRAVO PIEZOMETER
Map: 9-2-7-1141
USGS ID:
DEPTH
(FT)
B
VI1
IV
I11
IV
5456
SITE
ELEVATION
(TOP)
VA
LSF
LSF
LSF
5 (RB5)
NO.
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-65
65-185
185-255
255-460
460-600
BOTTOM
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY-PERSONS
Map: 9-3-9-1131
USGS ID:
UNIT
DEPTH
(FT)
A
I11
4925
4860
4740
4670
4465
4325
ELEVATION
(TOP)
RA
USF-1
USF-1
USF-1
MSF-1
I
I11
IX
POWER
PLANT
(PSMW-19)
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
4345
4220
0-215
215-260
260-775
775-815
815-900
BOTTOM
5120.
4905
4860
4305
I11
I
I11
I
111, IX
32
USF-2
USF-2
USF-2
USF-2
MSF
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix F
WITH
DRILL
MONITORING AND TEST WELLS
CUTTING
AND BOREHOLE LOG ANALYSES (cont'd.)
USGS-SW ALLWIAL BASINS TESTNO. 1 (Swab-1)
Map: 10-1-22-322
USGS ID: 350449406493101
DEPTH
(FT)
. .
ELEVATION
(TOPf
LITHOFACIES
UNIT
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
........................................
0-310
310-580
580-1040
1040-1150
1150-1180
1180-1204
BOTTOM
5790
5480
5210
4750
4640
4610
4586
I
VII,
111, VI1
IX,
VI1
VI1
I11
u5f-3
MSF-3
m5f-3
LSF
,
LSF-1
Basalt (Flow?)
COA-JOHN MARSBALL CENTER (JMC-1)
10-3-29-242a
USGS ID:
USGS
&
Map:
DEPTH
(FT)
.
.
ELEVATION
(TOP)
UNIT
""-""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~
0-35
35-65
65-80
80-130
130-169
BOTTOM
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
V
A1
I11
5008
4973
4943
4928
4878
4839
VA
TA (Edith)?
I1
u5f-2
u5f-2
I
u5f-2
B/I
I
I11
111, I1
I11
VA/USF-2
USGS h COA-YALE LANDFILL( Y A L E " W 3 )
Map: 10-3-33-234
USGS ID:
IES
PHIC
(TOP)
UNIT
DEPTH
(FT)
0-40
315-350
BOTTOM
ELEVATION
5196
4881
4846
USGS h COA-YALE LANDFILL
Map: 10-3-33-314
USGS ID:
ELEVATION
5072
5072
5057
DEPTH
DEPTH
(FT)
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
(YALE"W5)
ELEVATION
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
(TOP),
""_""" B
LITHOFACIES
UNIT
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-15
15-25
25-55
55-95
95-120
120-215
215-240
BOTTOM
5057
5047
5017
4977
4952
4857
4832
I
I
I11
I1
I11
I1
33
VA
USF-2?
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix F
WITH
USGS & COA-FOUR
Map:
10-4-26-331
USGS ID:
ELEVATION
DEPTH
(FT)
MONITORING AND 'PEST WELLS
CUTTING
AND BOREHOLE LOG
ANALYSES(cont'd.)
DRILL
HILLS
AREA
14 HILLS-1)
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
(TOP)
........................................
0-70
BOTTOM
USGS & COA-SOUTH
Map:
10-4-32-422
USGS ID:
UNIT
DEPTH
(FT)
Vb
PA
5599
EUBANK
(EUBANK-1)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-20
20-60
60-325
555-630
BOTTOM
5457
5437
5397
5132
4992
4902
4827
Vb
PA
PA
USF-1
USF-1
USF-1
USF-1
va
V
v,
I11
V
Vb
COA-SOIL AMENDMENT FACILITY (Saf-1)
Map:
11-1-27-433
USGS ID: 350846106492601
DEPTH
(FT)
""_"""""" 0-340
340-465
465-1200
1200-1320
1320-1485
1485-1640
1640-2428
BOTTOM
ELEVATION
(TOP)
5866
5526
5401
4381
4226
3438
UNIT
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
I, I1
111. I
111'
IV, IX
IV
IX
111, VI1
USF-4
USF-4
MSF
MSF
MSF
MSF
LSF
USGS-SW ALLUVIAL BASINS
TEST NO. 2 (Swab-2)
Map:
11-2-18-313
USGS ID: 351046106464701
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
.......................................
0-315
315-620
620-770
770-1820
BOTTOM
-5745
5430
5125
4975
3925
I
I, I11
I11
IX, I11
34
USF-4
USF-4
USF-4
MSF-2
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix F
WITH
COA-LOS ANGELES
Map: 11-3-14-341
USGS ID:
DEPTH
(FT)
DRILL
MONITORING AND TEST WELLS
CUTTING
AND BOREHOLE LOG ANALYSES (cont'd.)
LANDFILL
(LALF-9)
ELEVATION
( TOP )
UNIT
""-"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""0-20
20-75
75-95
95-120
120-157
157-202
202-243
BOTTOM
DEPTH
(FT)
B, Vb
A1
I
111
I
111
I
5090
5070
5015
4995
4970
4933
4aaa
4847
COA-LOS ANGELES LANDFILL
Map: 11-3-15-2444
USGS ID:
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
VA-PA
TA (Edith)
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
(LALF-11)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
........................................
0-27
27-92
92-147
BOTTOM
USBR-EDITH AND PASEO
Map: 11-3-15-3424b
USGD ID:
ION
DEPTH
(FT)
4863
A1
111
5060
5033
4968
4913
SITE
1
5006
4931
(4651)
4496
4401
4345
USGS PASEO DEL NORTE PIEZOMETER
Map: 11-3-17-140
USGS ID: 351059106385901
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP
0-ao
80-135
135-600
BOTTOM
.
4990
4910
4875
4390
u5f-1
u5f-1
(MW3E)
( TOP )
0-75
75-143
143-510
(355-375)
510-605
605-661
BOTTOM
TA (Edith)
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
A2/1
RA
1
u5f-2
111
u5f-2
(Red Clay, 2-5 YR) (Marker Bed)
u5f-2
1
111
u5f-2
SITE1 (PDN-1)
NO.
UNIT
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
A
I, I11
111
35
RA
u5f-2
u5f-2
Open-File Repon 402. Appendix F
WITH
(cont'd.)
USGS-SW ALLWIAL BASINS TESTNO. 3 (Swab-3)
Map: 11-3-18-411
USGS ID: 351051106395301
ION
DEPTH
(FT)
(TOP)
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
.........................................
0-70
70-240
240-280
280-510
510-625
625-840
(800-840)
840-1055
~
~~
BOTTOM
4991
4921
4751
4711
4481
4366
(4191)
4151
3936
RA
A
I, I1
IX
I
I1
I11
(clay)
IV, I11
USF-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
,
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
USF-2?
USGS-MONTAN0 EXTENSOMETERMONT-XX IMONT-6)
Map: 11-3-31-1242
USGS ID:
ION
ION
MONITORING AND TEST WELLS
CUTTING
AND BOREHOLE LOG ANALYSES
DRILL
(TOP
DEPTH
(FT)
0-87
87-210
210-225
225-260
260-280
280-305
305-330
330-380
,380-440
(415-435)
440-460
460-525
525-620
620-645
(635-645)
645-660
660-700
700-770
770-945
(770-785)
945-1034'
BOTTOM
USGS
Map:
&
)
4972
4885
4762
4747
4712
4692
4667
4642
4592
(4557)
4532
4512
'4447
4352
(4337)
4327
4312
4212
4202
(4202)
4027
3938
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
A2 I1
11;
I11
11.
I11
11,
I11
11,
I11
RA
I
USF-2,4
u5f-2
USF-2,4
u5f-2
USF-2,4
USF-2.
USF-2,4
u5f-2
I
I
I
(brown silt
clay)
I1
".11.
IV
"
I, IV
111. IV
(shale and/ors s )
IV, I
111. IV
IV, I1
IV, I11
(shale and9 s )
IV, IX
(Marker zone)
USF-2,4
USF-2,4
USF-2,4
u5f-2
(Marker zone)
USF-2,4
u5f-2
USF-2,4
USF-2,4
(Marker zone)
MSF-2,4
COA-EAST MONTAN0 SITE (MONT-SA)
11-3-33-424a
USGS ID:
DEPTH
(FT)
0-10
10-30
30-65
65-170
170-205
(TOP)
5018
5008
4988
4953
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
B
A1
I11
11, I
I11
BOTTOM
36
VA
TA (Edith)
u5f-2
u5f-2
u5f-2
Open-File Repan 402, Appendix F
WITH
MONITORING AND TEST WELLS
CUTTING
AND BOREHOLE LOG ANALYSES (cont'd.)
DRILL
HIGH DESERT DEVELOPMENT
Map:
11-4-26-1343
USGS ID:
UNIT
5530
DEPTH
(FT)
(HDMW-1)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
6035
5945
0-90
90-505
BOTTOM
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
PA
USF-1
V
V
OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION WELLS
NORINS REALTYC O . NO. 1 (PAJARITO GRANT) (Foster, 1978, well aa)
Map:
9-1-22-211
USGS ID:
UNIT
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
""""""""~"""""""""-"""""""""""""""""""""
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
LITHOFACIES
5630
526
0-5104
BOTTOM
SF
UTEX WESTLAND l-lJlE (Black, 1989)
Map:10-1-1-223
(4417)
USGS ID:
UNIT
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
""~"_""""""""
0-8500?
5
0
- .7 6
..
?8500-16665
BOTTOM
-2740
-10,905
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
SF
SF and/or :&/Oligocene rocks
CARPENTER-ATRISCO GXRNT NO.1 (Lambert, 1968; Lozinsky, 1988)
Map:
10-1-28-440
USGS ID:
UNIT
DEPTH
(FT)
ELEVATION
(TOP)
LITHOFACIES
HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
5480
4250
-852
0-320
USF-3
320-1040
1040-1550
LSF
1550-1580
1580-2670
I11
2670-3300
3300-6652
BOTTOM
5800
4760
IV,
4220
3130.
2500
Middle
I
VII, I11
IV
Basaltic
Volcanics
LSF
MSF
LSF
LSF
to Lower
Tertiary
sedimentary
rock
with volcanic or intrusive zone from 35503640 ft depth (elev. 2250-2160)
IV
I
Open-File R+port 402, Appendix F
NORINS REALTY CO. NO. 2 , (NORTH ALBUQUERQUE ACRES) (Lambert, 1968; Stearns, 1953)
Map:
11-4-19-144
USGS ID:
APPENDIX G
SURFICWL HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY EXPLANATION OF MAP UNITS, PLATES 16-18
Alameda, Los Griegos, and Albuquerque West Quadrangles (Scale 1:24,000)
Open-File Rapon 402, Appendix G
SURFICIAL HYDROGEOLOGY O F THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY EXPLANATION OF MAP UNITS, PLATES 16-18
Alameda, Los Griegos, and Albuquerque West Quadrangles (Scale 1:24,000)
Hydrostratigraphic and Lithofacies
Unit
Description
RA
River alluvium: Channel, floodplain,and lower terrace deposits of inner Rio
Grande valley; as much as 80 ft thick. Forms upper part of the shallow aquifer
system. Primarily lithofacies subdivisions A1 and 2. Age: Holocene to Late
Pleistocene. Surficial deposits usually less than 10 feet thick on dominantly sandy
gravel substrata are delineated separately on Maps 1 to 3:
RAA Coarse-grained channel facies; primarily sand to pebbly sand (A1 and 2)
RAB Medium-grained channel andoverbank facies; primarily sand and loamy
sand (A2)
RAC Fine-grained bottom land (e.g. sloughs and oxbows) facies (A3)
RAD Fine- to medium-grained floodplain facies (A2 and 3)
Note: Stipple pattern shows general locations of pebbly sand channel deposits of
major pre-1706 Rio Grande delineated on 1912 U S . Department of
Agriculture Bureau of Soils Map.
VA
Valley-border alluvium: Tributary-arroyo channel, fan and terrace deposits, with
thin eolian veneers in areas bordering inner valleys of the Rio Grande; as much
as100 ft thick. Primarily lithofacies subdivision B. Most of unit isin vadose
zone. Age: Holocene to Middle Pleistocene.
VAY Younger arroyo fan and terrace deposits; Holocene and Late Pleistocene
VAO Older arroyo fan and terrace deposits; Middle Pleistocene
TA
River-terrace alluvium: Channel andfloodplain deposits of the ancestral Rio
Grande fluvial system that were emplaced during at least four major intervals of
valley entrenchment and partial backfilling following final phase of Upper Santa
Fe Group deposition. Terrace fills are usually less than 30 ft, but locally exceed
100 ft in thickness. Erosion surfaces at base of these fills range from about 250
above to 50 below the modem river-valley floor. Includes fills associated with
Primero, Segundo, and Tercer0 Alto terraces of Bryan and McCann (1937) Bryan
(1938), Lambert (1968), and Machette (1985). Informal allostratigraphic units
include alluvial-terrace fills designated the "Edith gravel, Menaul gravel, and Los
are
Duranesformation" by Lambert (1968).Dominantlithofaciessubdivisions
facies A1-3. Mostofunit
is in thevadose (unsaturated) zone, except in the
Open-File Report 402, Appendix G
western valley-border area between M o n t ~ Boulevard
o
and Gun Club Road. Age:
Holocene to Early Pleistocene.
TAG Channel gravel deposits associated with remnants of fluvial terraces that
border inner river valley. Includes outcrops of Edith, Menaul and upper
buff (?) "gravels" ofLambert(1968).Pebbletocobblegravels
are
commonly (facies Al) underlain by pumiceous Upper Santa.Fe (USF-2)
beds at east edge of valley.
TAS Sandy to silty fluvial deposits associated with river-terrace remnants west
of the Rio Grande. Includes Los Duranes formation of Lambert (1968).
Qb
Basalt of the Albuquerque volcanic center:extensive lava flows, with localized
vent units such as cinder cones and lava domes, and possible feeder dikes and sills
in subsurface. Post Santa Fe; Middle Pleistocene.
USF
Upper Santa Fe Group: Coarse- to fine-grained (fluvial) deposits ofancestral Rio
Grande system that intertongue toward basin margins with piedmont-alluvial
facies; thin, sandy eolian depositsarelocally present. Subunit USF-2 includes
ancestral-Rio Grande and interbeddedfine- to medium-grained sediments of
diverse (alluvial-lacustrine-eolian) origin deposited in a rapidly aggrading
basin-floor environment, primarily lithofacies units Ib, 11, and 111.
Other Symbols
Inner valley bluff line (Late Wisconsinan)
Primero Alto terrace surface (Late Pleistocene)
Primero Alto terrace bluff line
Segundo Alto terrace surface (Middle Pleistocene)
Segundo Alto terrace bluff line
Tercero Alto terrace bluff line (Early to Middle Pleistocene)
Ancestral Valley of Calabacillas and Montoyas Arroyo systems; graded to
Tercero Alto terrace surface
Location of Montai7o and Rio Bravo cross sections (Plate 19)
Scale 1:24,000; vertical exaggeration of cross sections 20x.
Other symbol descriptions in Appendices C-E
Open-File Rspon 402, Appendix 0
Permeability Study Sites (Open-File Report 402-D, Chapter 2, Appendix 2F)
Site
Sample
Location
Plate
CC(Sunport)
- Carr
Clarke
9-3-4-3 11
18
I, I1
9-3-9-134
18
1, II
18
I1
RB
Bravo
- Rio
(1-25)
Lithofacies
RR - Railroad (1-25)
9-3-17-241
9-3-17-242
LD
Duranes
- Los
(Adobe Cliffs)
10-2- 11-2223
Claremont
CB - Basin
10-3-8-242
Section
ES - Edith
(Paseo del Norte)
11-3-15-431
16
n
BCl
Bear
- Lower
Canyon Arroyo
11-4-31-243
16
v (B)
BCu
Bear
- Upper
Canyon Arroyo
11-4-32-2322
16
v (B)
A3-1
I,
18
Al,
3
A2,
18
2
Other Special Study Areas
Site LG - Los Griegos
Neighborhood
10-3-5-230
10-3-5-320
17-18
Site SF - San Felipe de Neri
10-3-18-1342
A2
18
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix H
APPENDIX H
GUIDE TO CRITICAL RECHARGE AREAS (PLATE 18)
Part 1. Corridors
Part 2. Reaches
Part 3. Window Areas
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix H
Part 1: Guide to Critical Recharge Corridors (Plate 18)
Recharge corridors are here defined as channels and riparian zones of perennial and
intermittent streams. Coarse-grained deposits of rivers and major arroyos that arein direct
contact with permeable valley-fill (RA) and basin-fill (USF-2,4, MSF-2,4, LSF-Zia)units;
primarily lithofacies A M , 11, 111, and IV.
1A.
RioGrandeChannel
and AdjacentFloodway Zone(RiverMileUnits-RM)
Cochiti to San Felipe (RM -to 2:
Hydrostratigraphic
(HS) units RANSF-2; lithofacies AIL, 11.
RGCB
San Felipe to Angostura (RM -to 3:
HS units RANSF2 (and MSF-2?); facies A M , 11.
RGCC
Angostura to Sandia
Pueblo
(RM __ to 2:
HS units
RAKJSF-2 (and MSF-2?) facies A1L-111. RechargesAlamedaArmijo, Paradise Hills,andEastHeightssubbasin
aquifers; see
RERW (recharge window)
HS unirs RA
RGCDSandia
Pueblo to 1-40 Bridge ( R M __ to 2:
and USF; facies AM-111. Primarily rechar,oes East Heights, Central
Valley and West Mesa aquifers; see SBRW and OXRW (recharge
windows)
RGCE
1-40 to Rio Bravo Bridge (RM __
to 3:
HS units
RAKJSF; facies AID-111. Primarily recharges Alameda-Armijo and
East Heights subbasin aquifers; see SJRW (recharge window)
RGCF
Rio Bravo Bridge to Isleta Diversion Dam (RM __ to 3:
HS units RA and USF; facies AD-III. Recharges Alameda-Armijo,
East Mesa, and eastern WindMesa area aquifer systems; see
BVRW (recharge window)
Isleta Diversion Dam to San Juan (canal) Heading (RM -to
RGCG
-):
HS units RANSF; facies AA-111. Recharges"Central
Valley" and "East and West Mesa" aquifers of the Belen Basin
(Lunas-Bemardo structural depression); see JVRW
(recharge
window)
RGCA
1B.
JemezRiverChannel
RJCA
and AdjacentFloodplain Area(RJC)
Upper Jemez River, from confluenceof Rio Guadalupe and Jemez
River to San Ysidro: HS units RALSF (Zia);faciesIvLV.
Recharges Zia Sand and local bedrock aquifers: Note that seasonal
low flow and water-quality concerns limit the effectiveness of this
recharge source.
1
Open-File Repan 402, Appendix H
RJCB
RJCC
1C.
Lower Jemez River, fromSan Ysidro to Jemez Canyon Dam: HS
units RAILSF (Zia) and MSF-3, 4. Recharges shallow-Jemez
Valley and deep West Mesa aquifer systems. Major water quality
problems related to natural discharge from Rio Salado basin in the
San Ysidro area.
Jemez Canyon, from Dam to Rio Grande at Angostura: HS units
RAMSF-3, 4 and USF-3, 4, faciesIv/II-V.Recharges
central
valley aquifers.
Lower Santa Fe River(SFR)
RSCA
Lower
RSCB
canyon reach from
La
Cienega to La Bajada: HS units
RAILSF; facies Iv/III, IV.Rechargescentral
valley and Santo
Domingo basin-fill aquifers west of La Bajada fault zone?
Lower valley reach from La Bajada to Cochiti
Reservoir
(wing
dam): HS units RAILISF-2 and MSF(?); facies IvLb-IV. Recharges
central valley and Santo Domingo basin-fill aquifers.
Part 2: Guide to Critical Recharge Reaches (RR; Plate
18)
Recharge reaches arehere defined as channels of majorephemeral streams with
watershed areas commonly exceeding 20 square miles. Coarse-grained channel deposits
of large arroyos and washes are separated from Santa Fe Group aquifers by permeable
(lithofacies) units in vadose zones that are usually less than 200 to 300 ft thick.
2A.
Central Albuquerque Basin, Metro-Area Depression (Paradise Hills
Heights Subbasins)
and East
Lower reaches of major arroyos in the Albuquerque-Rio RanchoMetropolitan area
(2 to 4 miles above confluence with Rio Grande). Recharge of Upper Santa Fe
Group aquifer (USF-2, lithofacies I and 11) through vadose zones less than 200 ft
thick.
CARR
MARR
TARR
Lower valley of Arroyo de las Calabacillas (lower Unser Blvd.)
Lower valley of Arroyo de 10s Montoyas(belowBroadmoor)
Lower valley ofTijerasArroyodownstream
from KAFB to 1-25
2
Open-File Report 402, Appendix H
2B.
Lunas-Bernard0 Depression in (Belen) Basin South of Isleta Diversion Dam
Lower reaches of major arroyos in the Pueblo of Isleta, Tome and Veguita areas
with potential for recharge of Upper Santa Fe Group aquifer (USF-2, lithofacies
I to 111) through vadose zones less than 200 ft thick.
HCRR
Lower
Hells Canyon Wash
LARRLowerCaiadadela
Lomade
AARR
Lower
Abo Arroyo (?)
2c.
Arena (?)
Central Albuquerque Basin, Metro-Area Depression (Calabacillas Subbasin)
Upland-Valleys and escarpments (Cejas) at north end of Llano de Alburquerque.
Arroyo channel reaches at elevations of between 5500 and 6500 ft could recharge
Middle and Lower Santa Feaquifer
units (VAiMSF-4 and LSF-Zia), but
intervening vadose zone deposits (USF-4iMSF-4) as much as 500 feet thick.
ACRR
Upper
AMRR
Upper
PPRR
AORR
Upper
2D
Arroyo de Las Calabacillas, northwest
Arroyo de Los Montoyas, northwest
Upper Arroyo Piedra Parada, La Ceja (Rincones de Zia) Areaof
Lower Jemez River Valley
Arroyo Ojito, La Ceja area
Santo Domingo Basin, Cochiti-Bernard0 Depression
Lower channel reaches between basin-border window areas (Table B) and Rio
Grande.Recharges central valley area and upper and middle Santa Fe aquifer
zones; HS units VANSF-2 and MSF-2; facies BiI-IV.
PCRR
Lower
SDRR
BCRR
Lower
GCRR
Lower
VTRRLower
ATRR
Lower
MCRR
LHRR
Peralta Canyon Wash
Cafion Santo Domingo Wash
Borego Canyon Wash
Galisteo Creek; downstream from 1-25
Arroyo de la Vega de 10s Tanos
Arroyo Tonque; from point about 3 mi
upstream
to
confluence with Rio Grande at San Felipe Pueblo
Arroyo Maria Chavez; above Algodones (?)
Lower La Huertas Creek; from point 3 mi upstream of confluence
with Rio Grande at Angostura
3
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix H
Part 3: Guide to Critical Recharge Window Areas (Plate 18)
3A.
MiddleRio Grande Valley WindowAreas(RW's)
Short river-channel reaches (RW's) between Sandia Pueblo and Belen; shallow
saturated-zone (phreatic) recharge conditions at sites where permeable Rio Grande
deposits (RAand TA, facies A I and 2) are in contact with Santa Fe Group aquifer
units along floodplain borders .
RERW
SBRW
OXRW
SJRW
BVRW
JMXW
Rivers Edge. West valley-bordersiteincluding
lower valley of
Arroyo de Los Montoyas adjacent to Rivers Edge subdivision in
northeastem Rio Rancho. fiver-channel deposits in contact with
upper Santa Fe (USF-2) aquifer zone that extends
beneath West
Mesa area.
Sandoval-Bemalillo County Line. East valley-border site on Sandia
Pueblo including area between Tramway Road and Paseodel Norte
NE. River-channel deposits in contact with Upper Santa
Fe (USF-2)
aquifer zone extending beneath "East Mesa" (NEHeights) area near
Paseo del Norte N E .
Oxbow. West valley-border sitebetween Rio Grande NatureCenter
and St. Pius High School. River-channel deposits in contact with
coarse-grained terracefill(TAG)
and Upper SantaFe (USF-4)
aquifer zonethat extends beneath "West Mesa" (Volcano Cliffs)
area.
San Jose. East valley-border site adjacent to San Jose Well Field.
River-channel deposits incontactwith Upper Santa Fe (USF-2)
aquifer zone that extends beneath "East Mesa" (SE Heights) area.
Bernalillo-Valencia County Line. West valley-border site on Isleta
Pueblo. River-channel depositsincontactwithupperSanta
Fe
(USF-2) aquifer zone that extendsbeneath "West Mesa" area (Parea
Mesa subbasin) between Isleta and Los Lunas volcanic centers.
Jarales-Madrone. East valley-bordersitebetweenATSFRRand
natural gas pipeline bridges[above San Juan (canal) Heading].
River-channel deposits in contact with Upper Santa Fe (USF-2)
aquifer zone extending
beneath
"East
Mesa"
(southern Rio
Communities) area.
4
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix H
3B.
Mountain-Front Window Areas
(MW's):
Upland-Valley Surface Discharge Points
Perennial
Canyon-Mouth
and
Lowerreaches of mountain/canyons andotheruplandvalleyswith
perennial
channelflow, or intermittentstreams andsprings.Surfaceflowandshallow
underflow percolates into basin and valley fill deposits at these places. Saturated
vadose contact zones involve permeable basin-fill units (e.g.
VANSF11, facies Va,
VIa).
a.SandiaMountains-North
Slope
LMHWLas
Huertas Canyon
ASMW Cafion Agua Sarca
CAMW Cafion del Agua
b. Sandia Mountains - West Slope
JTMW
Juan
Tab0
Canyon
LCMW La CuevaCanyon
DBMWDomingoBacaCanyon
PCMW
Pino
Canyon
BOMW Bear-Oso
Canyon
ETMW
Embudito
Canyon
ECMW
Embudo
Canyon
c. TijerasCanyon(TCMW)
d.ManzanitaMountains-CoyoteCanyon
(MCMW)
e. Hells Canyon to Hubbell Bench
(HHMW)
f.ManzanoMountainsFront
SHMW
Sais Canyon to HubbellBench
CHMWComancheCanyontoHubbellBench
THMWTrigo
Canyon toHubbellBench
CMMW Caiion MonteLargo
g. Abo Canyon(ACMW)
3C.
OtherBasin-BorderWindow(BW)
Areas
Narrow belts of perennial tointermittentdischargefromuplandstreams
springs to basin-fill aquifers (primarily USF).
a.southeasternJemezMountains
PCBW
Peralta
Canyon
SDBW
Santo
Domingo
Canyon
BCBW
Borego
Canyon
5
and
Open-Fils Repon 102, Appendis
H
b. Southwestern Jemez and southern Nacimiento Mountains
CABW
Upper Arroyo Chamisa
OSBW
Owl Spring
c.Santo Doming0 Basin-Hagan Subbasin
GRBW
Galisteo Creek-Rosario
TQBWArroyo
Tonque near Coyote
d. Hubbell Bench-WestEdge
HSBW
Hubbell
Spring
OCBW
Ojo dela Cabra
MSBW Maes Spring
CSBW
Carrizozo
Spring
OHBW Ojo Huelos
OJBW
Ojo Jedeocilla
3D.
Arroyo Recharge Window Areas (Aw's) in Valleys of EphemeralStreams
Reachesof major arroyoswherecoarse-grained
channel deposits(Va)are
in
contact with unsaturated, but permeable facies (I, 11) of basin-fill deposits that
form potential aquifer zones at maximum depths of about 200 ft (e.%.VAAJSF~4).
TCAW
Lower Tijeras Arroyo. BelowPennsylvaniaAve.
confluence with Coyote Arroyo.
HCAW
Lower Hells Canyon Wash. Isleta Pueblo, 3 to 4 mi upstream from
Chical.
SWAW
Lower Sandia Wash. Sandia Pueblo, about 2 mi upstream from I25.
CAAW
Calabacillas Arroyo. North of Paradise Hills, above Unser Blvd.
flood control structure.
MAAW
Montoyas Arroyo. Rio Rancho between Unser Blvd. (20th St) and
Broadmoor (30th St).
6
Bridge and
Open-file Report 402, Appendix I
APPENDIX I
KEY TO THE HYDROGEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK OF
THE ALBUQUERQUE (ABQ) BASIN AREA
Open-tile Repon 402, Appendix I
KEY TO THE HYDROGEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK OF
THE ALBUQUERQUE (ABQ) BASIN AREA
INTRODUCTION
This appendix provides an overview of the basic hydrogeologic framework of the Albuquerque (ABQ)
Basin Complex, with emphasis on the Middle to Late Cenozoic evolution of the Rio Grande rift (RGR)
structural province. The expanded outline format (which is designed for use with all sections of OF-402)
includes keys to cited references,geographical locations, and generalcross-reference information on major
geologic features within and bordering the ABQ Basin. Map location information is shown on Figures B,
C, and D 1-1 to 1-4, and Plates 1, 2, 14, 16, 18. Part I deals with thebasin-boundary units, primarily
highlands of tectonic and volcanic origin; Part I1 provides an overview of the basin's geomorphic setting
with emphasis in Pliocene-Quaternar
history and landforms; and Part111covers internal basin architecture
from both structural geologic and hydrogeologic perspectives.
I.
Basin-BorderFeatures-Region a t GeomorphicandTectonicSetting(Plate
1)
A.
SouthernRockyMountains.Escept
for late Cenozoic-Jemez volcanic fields, the area
contiguous to the Basin Complex is dominated by RGR-border structures that were
primarilyproduced by "tectonic inversion" of formerbasin andmountain areas of
Laramide (mainly Eocene) age. For example, a large segment ofrhe Laramide Sangre de
Cristo uplift collapsed to form much of the present Espariola Basin area north of the
Santa Fe River and east of the basin- bounding Pajarito fault zone; parts of the Eocene
Galisteo-El Rito Basin Comples west of this fault are now part of the southern Pajarito
Plateau (St. Peter's Dome) highlands. See Chapin (1988), Cather (1992), and Cahpin and
Cather (1994, p. 20).
1.
Mountains and Volcanic
Highlands
a.
Jemez volcanic field andcentral caldera area (e.& ValleGrande and
Valle Toledo) of Miocene to Quaternary Age.
Nacimiento-San Pedro Range. Basement-cored, block-faulted complex,
b.
that is tilted to theeast. It is bounded on the west by a reverse wrenchfault zone, primarily formed by (north to northeast-directed)
transpression of the Colorado Plateauagainst the southwestemmost part
of the Southern Rocky Mountains in Eocene (Late Laramide) time.
C.
Sangre de Cristo-Santa Fe
Range.
Basement-cored,
block-faulted
complex; bounded on east (along Pecos-Picuris Valley trend) by late
Laramide strike-slip faults (right slip); primarily formed by north to
northeast-directed compression of the southeastern Sangre de Cristos
against the southern Great Plains region of the continental craton. In
contrast, late Cenozoic movement associated with R G R extension is
'"normal" (down to west).
2.
High Plateaus. Transition zone between SouthernRocky MountainandRGR
provinces characterized by extensive volcanic cover and many intrusivecenters.
a.
Southern Pajarito Plateau on southeast flank of Jemez VolcanicField
(primarily andesite, rhyolite tuff and basalt).
Cerros del RioVo!canic Field. Pliocenebasaltic volcanics emplacedon,
b.
and intruded into Santa Fe Group (SFG) fill of west-central Espaiiola
Basin.
3.
EspaAola Basin north of valley andlower canyon segments of the Santa Fa
River, Half graben, with as much as 10,000 feet of Santa Fe Group basin fill.
The basin (hanging-wall) block has rotated west to southwestward, toward the
Jemez-Pajarito Plateau (footwall) block, on the east-dipping Pajarito (master)
1
Open-file Report 402, Appendix I
fault zone (Pmfz). The eastern (hinge) margin ofthe Espafiola basin block is not
incorporated in the western part of the Santa Fe range.
B.
Colorado Plateau (Kelley and Wood, 1946; Kelley and Clinton, 1960; Callendar and
Zilinski, 1976; Kelley, 1977; Chamberlin, 1982; Black, 1984; Hammond 1987; Baldridge
et al, 1988; Lewis and Baldridge, 1994). High tablelands and cuestas, with Separating
Gaps, that form western border of Basin Complex Many of the boundary faults (with
normaldisplacement
down-to-east) appear to have"reused"Laramide
monoclinal
structures and reverse faults zones @igh and low angle, east and westdipping) that have
been reactivated inNeogene time. Tectonic inversion along east-dipping Laramide reverse
faultsappears to haveoccurred in border zones of the southern Lucero and Ladron
uplifts.
I.
Rio Puerco Fault Zone (RPfz). Structuraltransitionbetween RGR andColorado
Plateau that is bounded on the eastandwest,respectively,
bythe ApacheMoquino fault zone and the Ignacio Monocline (Plate Ib). It forms northwestern
border OF the Basin Complex. The structural sag occupied by valley of Rio
Salado-North, separates the RPfz from the Nacimiento Mountains.
2.
Lower Valley of Rio San Jose (GarciaGap), includes middle
Quaternary
(Suwanee) basalt flow derived from vent west of Sierra Lucero.
Lucero Uplift, including Lucero mesa, Sierra Lucero, Mesa Sarca. West-tilted
3.
fault block of Paleozoic sedimentary rocks with cover of Triassic and younger
Mesozoic on western dipslope of theuplift.Discontinuous
caps of upper
Miocene basalt flows, and scattered volcanic cones are also present.
4.
Mesa S a r a and Flanking Gaps. Area bounded on the east by the southern
Monte Largo embayment of the Basin Complex; includes NavajoGap between
Mesa Sarca (SE part of Lucero uplift) and the Ladron Mountains. Major zone
of both Laramide (compressional) and R G R (extensional) dip-slip and shear
faulting.
5.
LadronMountains,basement-cored fault-block uplift locatedat southeasternmost
extremity ofthe Colorado Plateaustructuralprovince[inan
area that is
transitional to Basin and Range province(Lewis and Baldridge,1994)]. Footwall
unloading of east dipping Coyote-Jeter-Sais master fault zone has resulted in
rapid to late Miocene uplift and westward tilt of this isolated mountain mass
(another example of probable Laramide-RGR tectonic inversion).
C.SouthernGreatPlains.
Structuralprovince at the southwesternmargin or' the North
American continental craton; occupies essentially the same area as the Sacramento section
of the Basin and Range physiographic province. Major tectonic features are dominated
by relict structures inheritedfrom late Paleozoic (ancestralRocky Mountain and Ouachita)
and earlier orogenic intervals. Laramide (northeast-directed) compressionand generally
southwest-northeast extension during lateCenozoic rifting have reactivated
many ofthese
older north-south, northeast-southwest, northwest-southeast,and east-westtrending
Structures.
1.
Mountains
and High Plateaus
a.
Ortiz, San Pedro and
South
Mountain
Group; Late Eocene and
Oligocene (25-40 Ma) igneous intrusive centers, along
northwestem
border of Estancia Basin (with Galisteo basin). Plutonic and volcanic
activity took place prior to initial R G R extension, and after Laramide
contraction and wrench faulting.Theintermediate
composition of
intrusive rocks (e.8. Ortiz monzonite porphyries) and associated
Espinaso rolcanics contrasts markedly from the bimodal (mainly silicic
and mafic) volcanicandplutonicunitsofthelate
Cenozoic RGR
province.
I
2
Open-tile Repon 402,Appendix I
b.
D.
Manzano-Manzanita uplift along eastern edge of theHubbell bench (see
D.1.c-e) area is transitional westward to the southern Basin Complex
(Belen Basin, 1I.A.S). Plateau-like and high domal structure of this
(RGR-shoulder) uplift contrasts markedly with the strongly east-tilted
Sandia block (across Tijeras Canyon) to the northwest.
C.
PedernalHighlands (includingPedernalHills).
Remnantof basementcored fault-block mountain range east of the Estancia Basin that formed
during the Pennsylvanian.
d.ChupaderaMesa
(including Mesa Jumanes), HighPlateauSouth
of
Estancia Basin that is cut by the north-trending CerroPrieta (Caiioncito)
shearzoneof Laramide andearlierage;transitional
eastward with
Pedernal uplift and westward with RGR.
2.
Estancia
Basin
(Valley): Broad, shallow structural
basin between
ManzanoManzanita rangeand Pedernal uplift, which contains a segment of a deep
wrench-fault basin of Pennsylvanian age and major Laramide
right-lateral shear
structures(following north-southCerroPrieta-Laguna
del Perro andPecosPicuris trends). The very shallow Late Cenozoic basin (Estancia Valley), with
lessthan
400 ft Neogene fill, formed by combinedRGR extension and
subsidence due to dissolution of Permian evaporates. This feature appears to be
superimposed on a transpressional basin (east of the ancestral Montosa uplift of
Cather, 1992) of Laramide age.
RioGrandeRift(RGR)StructuralProvince
(Mexican Highland Section, Basin and
Range physiographic province).
1.
Mountainsandhighplateaus (HP) along eastern ABQ Basin border;and major
rranswrsefadr sysrems separating individual fault-block uplifts, which are also
parts of transfer-fault and accomodation zones that separate large subdivisions
("depressions and subbasins") of the Basin Complex (111).
a.
Sandia
Mountains
(Kelley and
Northrup,
1974; Kelley, 1977;
Woodward, 1977; May et al, 1994; Menne and Woodward, 1995). This
east-tilted (10-257 fault-block uplift is cored with the Sandia Granite
(Proterozoic) and capped by a thin cover of upper Paleozoic rocks. It
forms the most prominent rift-shoulder uplift f l a k i n g the inner Basin
Complex and occupies one of the key zones of structural transition in
the R G R region. The Sandia uplift isseparated from the formerly
higher, Manzanita segment of the continental craton (Great Plains) by
the Tijeras-Caiionciro (transverse) fault system (TCfs). The uplift
comprises thefootwall blockof the Sandia Master fault zone
(Sdfz) and
Its
is bounded onthe west by the Central ABQ Basin (ILA.3,III.C-E).
boundary on the north with the northeast-southwest trending Santo
Domingo Basin is marked by collapse and fault separation along a
broad and very complex fault zone in the Placitas-San Felipe Pueblo
area(Rincon-Ranchos,Valley-View, Escala, Placitas, San Francisco
fault system ofKelley,1977). The Sandias tilt northeastwardtoward the
Hagan subbasin, which includes the low Espinaso Ridge uplift and
forms the southern border of the Santo Domingo Basin.
In Paleocene-Eocene time, much of the area now occupiedby
the Sandia uplift was deeply buried and formed the south-central part
of the (Laramide) Galisteo Basin (Abbott et al, 1995). It appears that
significant (thin-skinned) tectonic, as well as erosional denudation of
the original upperPaleozoic(post-Abo)
andMesozoic sedimentary
cover on the Sandia block may have occurred since the early Eocene.
Thepresent range form is the result of extensional collapse of the
3
Open-file Report 402, Appendix I
b.
0.
d.
northem ABQ Basin Complex leading
to I) (footwall) unloading ofthe
west dipping Sandia-Rincon (-Rio Grande) master fault zone and 2)
rapid early to middle Miocene uplift and eastward rotation of Sandia
block relative to the flanking Santo Domingo Basin, and Manzanita
Rangeblocks.Laramide
to RGR tectonic inversion noted in the
Espafiola Basin (Cather, 1992), and inferred in parts of the LuceroLadron basin-margin uplifts, has definitely occurred here (IILC).
Tiieras-Caiioncitofaulr sysrem (TCfs). Northeast-trending complex of
anastomosing fault traces, with documented right and leftlateral strikeslip, and reverse and normaldip-slipmovement
of Precambrian to
middle Pleistocene age. The TCfs separates the deep-rooted intrusive
granite core of the Sandia block from the older metamorphic terrane of
the Manzanita (Plateau), which is locatedat the northwestern corner of
the adjacent continental craton (Sacramento section Basin and Range
physiographic province). The TCfs extends northeast, incorporating the
Tijeras graben and Monte Largohorst blocks, and continues along the
southeastern edge of the Santo Domingo and Hagansubbasins to the
southwestern end of the Santa Fe Range (Booth, 1977; Lisenbee et al,
1979; May et al, 1994; Bauer and Raker, 1995) near Caiioncito. This
structural trend also formed the (early Tertiary) boundary between the
Laramide Galisteo basin and highlands of the Great Plains(craton)
region to thesoutheast(presentManzanita
plateau andEstancia
"Valley" area).
The Tijeras-Cafioncito trend @utnotthe
TCfs) continues
southwest across the ABQBasinComplexalong
a transverse
sfrncfwal
lineamenf,
here designated
the
Tijeros-Gabaldon
accomodation zone (TGaz). The TGar separates the Central ABQ and
Belen Basins into two distinct groups of deep half-graben subbasins,
most of which have sense of tilt toward their respective northeastern
and southwestern (master) fault contacts with the Sandia and LadronLucerouplifts (1II.G). Thegeneral trend of theCarioncito-TijerasGabaldon lineament also appears to continue further southwest along
the southeastern marginof the Colorado-Plateauand the northern border
of Mogollon-Datil volcanic field (Mogollon slope of Chamberlin and
Cather, 1994). This trend exits the Albuquerque Basin in the Monte
Largo Embayment-Mesa Sarca area betweenthe Ladron Mountains and
Lucero Mesa.
Manzanita
Uplift
(Structural
Plateau).
This
Precambrian metamorphic
terrane (primarily meta-sedimentary and meta-volcanic rocks; Reiche,
1949) is quite distinct from adjacent parts of the topographically higher,
intrusive-cored uplifts that comprise the Sandia and northernManzano
Mountains (Bosque and Mosca Peak areas, and Ojito granitic stock).
The upper Paleozoic sedimentary coverand basal unconformity on the
Proterozoic metamorphics is nearly flat; and the western boundary is
formed by a faulted monoclinethat flexes abruptly down to the Hubbell
bench on the northeastern flank of the Belen Basin just south of the
TCfs. The Manzanitas area remnant of the northern end of a Laramide
highland designated the Montosa uplift by Cather (1992).
Los Moyos transversestructural zone. Northeast andsoutheast trending
canyon segments that separate the Manzanita Plateau (max. elev. about
8,000 ft) from the northern Manzano Mountains (mas. elev.
about 9,600
ft) and delineate the northedge of the Ojito stock. The Los Moyos zone
4
Open-file Report 402, Appendix I
2.
also marks the northern extent of the Montosa and Paloma reversefault
system (Laramide) that forms the eastern boundary of structurally high
Precambrian terranesoftheManzano-LosPinosrange.The
latter
highland alsoincludesremnantsoftheLaramideMontosa
uplift
(Cather, 1992).
e.
Manzano Mountains.East-tilted,basement-coredfault-blockuplift
that
forms the longest continuous range bordering the Basin Complex. This
RGR-shoulderupliftistransitionaleastwardinto
the Great Plains
strucrural province (111.2). It is bordered on thewest
by east to
northeast-tilted segments of the Hubbell Bench, which, in turn, form
the
hanging-wall blocks of the Evlanzano Master fault zone (Mmfz). The
Manzano Mountains, Hubbell Bench, and the Los Pinos-Joyita
uplift
south of Abo Pass were originally all part of a major structural high
designated the Montosa uplift by Cather (1992). This uplift was created
by Laramide (right-lateral) transpression of northeastward-moving
crustal segments of the EastPacificPlate(fragmentsofwhich
are
preserved in the southern Basin and Range province) against the North
American craton(Great
Plains). West-southwest to east-northeast
extension, and subordinate left-lateral (strike) slip in the Rio Grande
Rift province, has resulted in deep subsidence of contiguous parts of
the Belen Basin (11.3.5, II1.H) and foot wall unloading
of both the
Manzano and Hubbell bench blocks (with accompanying rapid uplift
and eastward tilting.
Abo Pass. Structuralandtopographiclowacross the major(Palomaand
f.
Montosa) reverse - fault zones of Laramide (Eocene) age that includes
the valley and lower canyon ofAbo Wash (arroyo). The Pass separates
the Los Pinos and southern Manzano Mountain ranges.
B.
Los Pinos-Joyita Uplifts.
Progressively
lower
(structural
and
topographic) RGR-border highlands that trend southwestward along
the
lower endoftheBelenBasin.Thesebasement-coreduplifts
are
bounded on the northwest by the Joyita bench and the Becker "sag"
transition zone between the southeastern Lunas-Bernard0 depression
(IILH) and Abo Pass (D.2).
High structuralplatforms alongeastern borders ofCentralABQandBelen
Basins
a.
HubbellBench. Complexstructuralbench,with
a discontinuouscover
(as much as 300 to 500 ft thick) of Santa Fe Group piedmontdeposits,
that is segmentedintoat
least 3 sub-blocks,eachwithgeneral
northeasterly
tilt.
Upper
Pennsylvanian
(?) to middle Triassic
stratigraphic sequences (with strong [Late Laramide?] transpressional
shear fabric) are exposed in the south and north (Trigo and Hubbell
Spring)segments.
Inmuch
of thearea,pre-Cenozoicrocks
are
presumed to be shallowly buried by Paleogene and Neogene basin till,
particularly intheBench's
middle segment.TheHubbellBenchis
bounded on the west by the north-trending Hubbell Springs fault zone
(HSfz), which, withtheManzanofaultzone
(Mfz), forms the
southeasternmost master fault system of the ABQ Basin. This
fault
zone merges northward with the Tijeras-Caironciro sysrem (TCfi) and
appears to continue southwestward asa strand of the West Joyita fault
zone (WJfz). These fault systemsall exhibit a complex tectonic history
reflecting changing Laramide and RGR transpressional, transtensional,
and extensional stress regimes.
5
Open-file Repon 402, Appendix I
b.
11.
Joyita Bench. High basin-bounding
structural
platform, with
discontinuous cover of Upper (?) Sanla Fepiedmont depositsand
Laramide basin fill, on the HubbellBench.The
Joyita bench is
separated from the latter area by a structurally lower component of the
(Hubbell-Joyita) platform, here designated the Becker Sag, which is
transitional with the southeasternpart of the Belen Basin (LunasBemardo Depression, 1II.H). Turututu (hill) or Black Butte (111.1) is a
prominent topographic feature at the north edge of the Joyita bench,
which is composed of basaltic and silicic volcanics(flows and tuffs) of
late Oligocene and early Miocene age. Bedrock units exposed in the
southern (Joyita Hills) sector range from Precambrian to Cretaceous in
age.
ABQBasinInterior - GeomorphicSettingand iV1;ljor Landforms(Plate 1A)
A.
Physiographic
Subdivisions
The Albuquerque (ABQ) BasinComplexislocatedwithin
the Mexican Highland
’
section of the Basin and Rangephysiographic province. It is expressed geomorphically
as an intermontane lowland that includes the Middle Rio Grande Valley area between
Cochiti and San Acacia Dams, and the tributary valleys of the Puerco, Jemez, and Salado
streamsystems. From north tosouth the BasinCompleshas
traditionallybeen
subdividedinto
three major physiographicunits;the
SantoDomingo,Northern
Albuquerque, and Southern Albuquerque (or Belen) Basins. The latter
two basins are
also commonly reierred to as the Albuquerque-Belen Basin, but throughout thisReport
(OF.102)they are simply designated the Central (ABQ)and Belen Basins.These broadly
defined topographicand structural units are separated by narrow transition zones, or belts,
which cross constricted reaches o i the Rio Grande Valley at Angostura and Isleto, and
generally followmajor intra-basin drainage divides. General orientation these
of interbasin
boundary (IBZ) zones is normal to the northeast to east-west trending axis of the Basin
Comples.
1.
SantoDomingo (SD) Basin.Includesmuch
of the Pueblos of Cochiti, Santo
Domingo, and San Felipe, as well as thecommunities of Pefia Blanca and
Algodones. The northern and eastern borders are formed, respectively, by the
Jemez and Cerros del Rio volcanic fields.TheSandiaand
Espinaso Ridge
(Hagan basin) uplifts bound the SD Basin on the south, and the San Felipe
volcanic field capping Santa Ana Mesa is located in a transitional area between
the Basin and the northern end (San Ysidro sector) of the Central ABQBasin.
The SD Basin also includes the eastern part of Hagan embayment between
Espinaso Ridge and the Cerrillos uplift south of Santo Domingo Pueblo.
Jrmez-Sandia Inrrubasin BoundaryZone.
SeparatesSantoDomingo
and
2.
Central Albuquerque Basins; extendsSSE to SE irom Bodega Butte(S. Jemez
Mountains) across western Santa Ana Mesa (San Felipe volcanic field) to the
Rio Grande Valley at Angostura (near confluences with Jemez River and Las
Huertas Creek); and continues southeast to the Placitas area along drainage
divide between Las Huertas Creek and Arroyo Agua Sarca.
3.
CentralAIbuquerque(C-ABQ)Basin.Includes
the Albuquerque-Rio RanchoBernalillo metropolitan area between Santa A n a and Isleta Pueblos andextends
west fromthe Sandia Mounrains to the middle segment of the Rio Puerco Valley
at theeastern edge of theColorado Plateau. The Central (ABQ)Basin is
bounded on the northwest by the
Nacirniento
andsouthwestern
Jemez
Mountains, Major structural depressions (IILC-E) within this part of the Basin
Complex are the Metro Area depression (Calabacillas, Paradise Hills,Alameda-
6
Open-file Report 402, Appendix I
B.
Armijo, and East Heights subbasins), and the Wind Mesa depression
(Parea
Mesa, Cat Hills, Cat Mesa, and Gabaldon subbasins).
4
Four Hills-Lucero Inmubusin Boundury Zone. Separates Central ABQ and
Belen Basin segments, southwest-northeast trending belt that crosses
the R I O
Grande between the Pueblo of Isleta and Los Lunas. Estends east from Lucero
uplift through the Gabaldon Badlands area (west of Rio Puerco)
to the tip of the
Four Hills salient of the Sandia uplift at KAFB. The zone crosses the central
Llano de Alburquerque in the Dalies areawest of the Los Lunas volcanic center,
and it follows the general trend of the Tveras-Gabuldon accomodorion zone
(IILG).
Belen Basin. The area between the Hubbell and Joyita benches on the east and
5
the Lucero-Ladron uplift on the west that includes a,) the Belen segment of the
Rio Grane Valley between Isleta and San Acacia, and b.) the lower valleys of
Rio Puerco and Rio Salado-South (1II.H-J). It connects with the Socorro andLa
Jencia Basins (Popotosa structural basin comples of Cather et ai, 1994) to the
south through the structural andtopographic constriction between theJoyita Hills
and the Ladron Mountains near San Acacia fChauin.
. . . 1971, 1988).
Major Landforms of the ABQ BasinComplex
1.
Major segments of the RioGrande Valley (RGV)systemandseparatingvalley
constrictions. Inner-valley and valley-border landforms produced primarily by
fluvial cut and fill processesassociatedwithQuaternaryglacial-interglacial
hydrologic cycles.
a.
SantoDoming0(RGV) Reach,extendsfromCochitiDam toAngostura
diversion structure ofthe MRGCD. The Pueblo ofSan Felipe is located
at an inner-valley constriction of Santa Ana
Mesa downstream from the
mouth of Tonque Arroyo.
b.
Angostlrra Consrriction; narrowfloodplain area at Rio Grande-Jemez
River confluence.
C.
Central Albuquerque (RGV) Reach,extendsfromAngostura
to Isleta
diversion structure; La Cejita Blanca escarpment markswestern border
with Llano de Alburquerque.
Islero Consrricrion; narrow floodplain area at Isleta Pueblo
d.
e.
Belen
(RGV) Reach;
extends
from
Isleta
to San Acacia diversion
structure;La CejitaBlancaescarpment
marks western border with
Llano de Albuquerque.
f.
San Acacia Consrricrion
Valleys of Major Rio Grande Tributaries
2.
Lower Santa Fe River
a.
Lower Galisteo Creek
b.
C.
Lower JemezRiver: LaCejaescarpment
marks southern border with
Llano de Alburquerque.
d.
Lower Rio Puerco;CejadelRioPuercoescarpmentmarkseastern
border with the Llano de Albuquerque.
Lower
e.
Rio Salado-South
3 .
Intra-Basin Uplands. Remnants of aggradationalanddegradational surfaces that
mark the culmination ofbasin filling and development of locally extensive
piedmont erosion surfaces ("pediments") at foot of bordering mountain and
plateau highlands.
a.
Llano de Albuquerque (high tablelandbetweenRioGrandeandPuerco
Valleys and south of Lower Jemez Valley) - relict fluvial plain of
ancestral Rio Grande-Puerco system (structurally deformed and partly
dissected); and bounded by steep (Mesa-rim) escarpments or "Cejas",
7
Open-file Repon 402, Appendix I
b.
C.
d.
e.
E.
g.
notably Ceja del Rio Puerco (west), La Ceja (north) , and Cejita Blanca
(east).
Santa Ana Mesa (high tableland, cut by lower canyon of Jemez River,
betweensouthwestemSantoDomingoand
northernAlbuquerque
Basins) -relict basin floor capped by basalt of the San Felipr volcanic
field.
Llano de Sandia (east of 1-25 and north of Central Ave.) - partly
dissectedpiedmontslope
betweenSandiaMountain
frontand Rio
Grande Valley.
Sunport Mesa (east of 1-25, between Central Ave. and lower valley of
Tijeras Arroyo) - piedmont-slope andancestral Rio Grande fluvialplain remnant; structurally deformed and parzly buried by local eolian
and alluvial deposits.
Mesa del Sol (east of 1-25, between Lower Valleys of Tijeras Arroyo
andHells Canyon Wash) -ancestral Rio Grande fluvial-plainremnant;
structurallydeformed and partly buried by local eolian, playa,and
alluvial deposits.
LlanodeManzano (LdM, betweenIsleta-Bemardosegment of Rio
Grande Valleyand Manzano-ManzanitaMountain front) - partly
dissectedremnantspiedmont-slope
andfluvial-plain (ancestral Rio
Grande) surfaces;structurally deformed and partlyburied. In this report,
LdM areas south ofHells canyon Wash areinformally subdivided into
three zones: 1) Upper-piedmont [alluvial) surface on Hubbell and Joyita
benches
and
Becker
sag;
2) Middle-piedmont (alluvial)
surface
immediately west of the Hubbell and Joyita benches; and 3) Lowerbasin floor occupied by highest remnants of the ancestral Rio Grande
channel system (primarily upper Santa Fe deposits) on the "east mesa"
of the Belen Basin.
Hubbell and Joyita benches - partly buried, structural and erosional
platform on bedrock units east of Mesa delSol and Llano de Manzano,
which is bounded on the west by the Hubbell Springs fault zone and
structurallytransitional to theManzanita-Manzano-Los Pinos range
(I.D.2). Includescentral low-lyingarea(BeckerSagin
thisreport)
northeastof Turututu(Black Butte) that iscrossed by theshallow
valley of Abo Arroyo.
III. ABQBasinInterior-HydrogeologicFramework
From a hydrogeologic perspective, proper development of a basin-wide conceptual and numerical models
requires further subdivision of structural boundary, as well as lithostratigraphic,componentsat an
appropriate scale for numerical models of thegroundwater tlowsystem.Allmajor
hydrogeologic
subdivisions share the following attributes:1) alluvial, lacustrine and eolian deposits of
the upper Cenozoic
Santa Fe Group; 2) post-Santa Fe valley and basin fills; 3) igneousrocksthatcover,intrude,
or are
interbedded with these deposits; and 4) the shallow structural framework ofthe fault-block depressions that
contain thebasin- and valley-fill aquifer systems.Emphasis here is on the fact that late Neogene tectonic
and volcanic processes controlled the position of the late Miocene to early Pleistocene ancestral Rio
Grande (fluvial) system during final stages of basin filling (and Santa Fe Group deposition). Upper
Santa Fe (USF-2,J) units comprise the most productive aquifers in the RGR region (Appendix C), and
include notonly the SierraLadrones Formation inthe Albuqueruqe and Socorro-La Jencia Basins, butalso
the Alamosa, Polomas, and Camp Rice Formations, respectively, in the San Luis, Engle-Palomas, and
Jomada-Mesilla-Hueco Basins.
In this report, the ABQ BasinComplex (comprising the SantoDomingo, CentralABQ, and Belen
Basins( is further subdivided into five major structural depressions: 1) Cochiti-Bernalillo, 2) Metro Area,
8
Open-file Report 402, Appendix I
3) Wind Mesa, 4) Lunas-Bernardo, and 5 ) Lower Puerco. Eachof these highly-estended fault-block
components of the Rio Grande Rift system has three or more distinct subbasins, that are interconnected
(linked) by saddles (gaps) in inter-depression srrtrcteral highs (SH zones). These zones, whichare primarily
horsts and anticlines, may be deeply buried, and are here referred to as ridges, salients, and prongs. The
general northeast and southwest trends of the buried structural highs are transverse to the overall northsouth axial trend of the Basin Complex. Santa Fe Group deposits are commonly deformed by faults and
folds over SH zones. Structural style is dominated by east-west to northeast-southwest estension of the
right-stepping system of RGR depressions that had a significant component of left oblique(positive) shear
stress during late Neogene time. A combination of dip-, oblique-, and strike-slip fault displacement of
Pliocene-Quaternary stratigraphicunits hasoccurredalongthe major northeast-trending transverse
structural
zones (accomodation and transfer systems) that subdivide the Basin Complex. Buried inter-depression
boundary zones are informally named for localities near their estremities. Location descriptions(111-B, D,
F, G) also indicate the general areas where these trends cross or approach the Rio Grande Valley.
A.
Cochiti-Bernalillo (C-B) structural depression. Rio Grandevalleyandadjacentbasin
areas between Cochiti Dam and Sandia Pueblo. The C-B depression is flanked on east by
Cerros del Rio volcanic field, on northwest by Jemez volcanic field, on southeast by
Sandia Uplift (including Hagan embayment east of Sandias), and on
by buried Ziana
anticline. Includes central part of Santo Domingo Basin that is bordered on the south
(Placitasby structural"ramps"that mark zones of transition with the Sandia uplift
Tonque area and San Francisco-Placiras f a d r zone) and the Hagan basin (Espinaso
Ridge uplift) and bench.
The southeastern Jemez volcanic center (Bearhead sector) is separatedfrom the
C-B depression by a broad northern boundary zone that includes much of the area that
has been designated the "Santa A n a accomodation zone" by Cather (1992) and Chapin
and Cather (199.1). This zone separates the west-tilted fault block domainof the Espaiiola
Basin from the generally east-tilted half-graben subbasins of the Santo Domingo Basin.
The "Santa A n a zone" is here designated the Sanra Ana-Borrego accomodation zone
(SABaz).The enstnortheast-trending Lorna Coloroda rransferzone (LCtz, Plate IC)forms
the southeastern boundary of the C-B depression and is transitional southward with the
Placitas-Tonquz
"ramp".
This narrow zone
exhibits
local
obliqueto
strike-slip
deformation and is oriented transverse to the general north-south Rio Grand Rift trend.
The Loma Colorada trendis subparallelto both the Tijeras-Gabaldon accomodarion zone,
which separates the Central Albuquerque and Belen Basin segments (III.G), and the
Sarm Ana-Borrego accomodarion zone.
The C-B depression is flanked on ilst by Cerros del Rio volcanic field, on
northwest by Jemez volcanic field, on southeast by SandiaUplift (including Hagan
embayment east of Sandias), and on w e ~ by
t buried Ziana anticline. Faulted Pliocene
bnsalts ot' the San Felipe volcanic field cap Santa Ana Mesa at the west end
of the
depression. Two sets of north-south aligned vents mark the central area of the deep San
Felipe graben, which occupies the western part of the CB depression adjacent to the
Ziana anticline.
Zinna-Sandia Pueblo (structural) high. Major, south to southeast-trending structural
B.
high that has two segments: 1) the Ziana anticline, which extends south from Jemez
River Valley (and the Sanra Ana-Borrego accomodafionzone) through the Pueblos of Zia
and Santa Ana, to the Rio Rancho Country Club area; and 2) the Sandia Pueblo bench
(SPb), which is located south of
the RG Valley constriction at Angostura. The SPb
underlies the Pueblo of Sandia between Rincon Ridge (northwestern Sandia uplift) and
the inner Rio Grande Valley and it forms a buried northwestward estensionof the narrow
Tramway (structural) bench. The latter feature is part
of Sandia {master) faultzone (Sjs),
which is located between the East Heights subbasin of the Metro Area Depression
(IILC) and the Sandia Mountains.
9
Open-file Repon 402, Appendix I
C.
The Sandia Pueblo Bench is separated
from the south end of the
Ziono anricline
by a narrow structural saddle, here designated the Rivers Edge Gap. The Gap isbounded
by northwest and northeast trending faults of Rio Grande fz and Lorna Colorado and
Afrisco-Rincon (rransfer) zones, whichare located beneath the RioGrande Valley
upstream from the mouth of Arroyo de las Montoyas at Corrales. It is here suggested
(Plates 4 and I?) that a buried course (Mio-Pliocene) of the ancestral Rio Grande
occupies much of the shallow subsurface between Bernalillo and Corrales in this area.
Metro-Area (structural) depression. Corrales-Isleta segment of the Rio Grande Valley
and adjacent parts of the Central(ABQ)Basin
in the Albuquerque-Rio Rancho
Metropolitanarea. Includes four major subbasins: Calabacillas,ParadiseHills (including
The Volcanoes graben), Alameda-Armijo, and East Heights. The
M-A depression
extends west from the Sandia Mountain front to the middle segment of the Rio Puerco
Valley (aboveRio San Jose contluencej. The Paradise Hills and Alameda-Armijo
subbasins form deep, more highly extended parts of the depression, which are flanked to
thenorthwestand
southeast, respectively, by the much shallower and less extended
Calabacillas and East Heights subbasins. Segments of the Lorna Colorado, AtriscoRincon, and Rio Grande rransfer (fault) zones bound and occupy parts of the Paradise
Hills and Alameda-Armijo subbasins.
The Calabacillassubbasin north ofthe Lorna Colorada rransfer zone is a faulted
synclineand half-grabencomplex thatis separatedfrom the Santo Doming0 Basin
(Cochiti-Bernalillo depression) to the northeast by the Ziana anticline. Tt includes the
westernpart of the Sanra Ano-Borrego occornodotion zone. The San Ysidro embayment
of the north end of the subbasin is transitional northward into the upper Jemez River
Valley between the southern Nacimiento andJemez Mountains. The Paradise Hills
subbasin, with as much as 10,000 to 15,000 ft of Santa Fe Groupdeposits in The
Volcanoes graben, and the Alameda-Armijo subbasin, with 5,000 to 10,000 ft of basin
fill, are two of the deepest parts of the Basin Complex. They are bounded on the east
and west, respectively, by the master faults of the Rio Gronde-Sondia and West Mesa
s.vsterns, and on the northwest by the Lorna Coloroda transfer zone (LCfz). The broad
Atrisco-Rirrcon fransferzonr, which is subparallel to the LCtz, crosses the northwestern
Alameda-Armijo subbasin and forms the southeastern boundary of the Paradise Hills
subbasin. In the southwestern' part of the ParadiseHills subbasin, basalts of the
Albuquerque volcanic field spread out from a north-south lines of vents within The
Volcanoes graben. The deeply buried Laguna structural bench underlies the Llano de
Albuquerque and Rio Puerco Valley area west of The Paradise Hills and Calabacillas
subbasins. The Laguna Bench is transitional westward into the Rio Puerco fault belt at
the eastern margin of the Colorado Plateau and extends southward to the Wind Mesa
structural depression (IV-E).
The East Heights subbasin comprises two east- to northeast-tilted half graben
blocks(Uptown and Sun Mesa).Itislocated
between the Sandia frontal faultzone
(Tramway [structural] Bench in this report)
and segments of the Arrisco-Rincon (AR)
and Rio Gronde (RG) fault zones. The ARtz and RGfz belt of northeast and northwest
striking (transfer and master-extensional) faults underlies the eastern valley-border area
along and west of 1-25, Within the East Heights subbasin, a southern (Sun Mesa) half
graben is separatedfrom a northern (Uptown) half graben by the buried Ridgecrest fault
(RCfNW-strike, downto SW). The buried(western) hinged-margin of the Sun
Mesa half
graben block is formed by the ,Mountainview "prong" (1II.D.j. The Sun Mesa sector
extends southeastwardbeneaththe
Sunport and Mesadel Sol area to the TijerasGaboldon accornodafion zone.
10
Open-fils Repon 402, Appendix I
D.
E.
F.
G.
Mountainview-Westland(structural)high.
Majorsoutheast-trendingstructuralhighthat
has two segments: 1) Mountainview prong and 2) Westlands salient of Laguna Bench,
which are separated by the Westgate gap. The Mountainview prong is
a buried structural
high beneath Mesa del Sol and the Mountainview area of the South Valley that forms a
prominent topographic ridge projecting northwestward beneath Mesa del Sol from the
northern Hubbell Bench. It forms the footwall block of the southern Rio Gmnde fault
zone and theeastern edge ofthe Wind Mesa depression. The
prong's southeastem
terminus is the Hells Canyon segment of the Tijeras-Gabaldon accomodation zone, and
it is bounded on the northwest by the Mountainview-Valley Gardens area of the South
Valley (near South Coors and Gun Club Road). The buried Westgate gap, occupied by
a former (Miocene-Pliocene) course of the ancestral Rio Grande, is located in a broad
structural saddle that separates the Mountainview prong from the Westlands salientof
the Laglrna Bench. The gap appears to be in a narrow graben segment that connects the
deepest parts of the Metro Area and Wind Mesadepressions. The buried Westlands
salient is on eastward extension ofthe Laguna Bench that forms a broad structural high
separating TheVolcanoes and Cat Hills volcanicfields (and graben sectors ofthe Metro
Area and Wind Mesa depressions). The salient's southeastern terminus is beneath the
Nine Mile Hill area (Central and I 4 0 W) at the western edge of the JVesfgate Gap.
Wind Mesa (WDW depression. Southwestern part of Central ABQ Basin, extending
from Pueblo of Isleta westward across of the Rio Puerco Valley to Gabaldon subbasin
(west-tilted half graben SE of Lucero Mesa). The Gabaldon Badlands area in the latter
subbasin hasbeen the site of deep test drilling through and detailed stratigraphicresearch
on Santa FeGroup deposits (Lozinsky and Tedford, 1991). Includes Cat Mesa, CatHills,
and Wind Mesa volcanic fields and the C a t Hills and Parea Mesa grabens,respectively
SW and NE of the Wind Mesa volcanic center (Pliocene). The depression is boundedon
the north bythe Laguna Bench and on the east by the Mountainview prong. The
southern boundaw is formed by the Tijeras-Gaboldon accomodationzone west of Isleta
(IV-F). A deeply buried mid-basin structural high estending south from Wind Mesa to
the Los Lunas volcanic center separates the deep Parea Mesahalf graben (site of Isleta
volcanic field) on the east, from the C a t Hills graben and volcanic field to the west.
Note: Basin Sill in the deepest parts of the WDM depression (Gabaldon, Cat Hills,
Parea Mesa subbasins) ranges from 10,000 to 15,000 ft in thickness (Lozinsky, 1994;
May and Russell, 1994).
GabaldonSalient. Partly buried structuralhigh at the southwestern edgeof the WDM.
It projects east into the Basin from the Carrizo Mesa segment of the Lucero uplift. The
salient terminates as surface feature in the Hidden Mountain-Cerro Molinas area of the
Rio Puerco Valley and generally coincides with the western end of the GTar (IILG).
Tijrrus-GubuIdon uccomodufion zone(TGurJ. Major southwestto northeast trendingbelt
of structural deformationtransverse to the generalnorth-south trend of the RGR. It
separates the Central and Belen parts of the Basin Complex and extends
from the
southern margin of the Gabaldon salient to the Coyote Canyon reentrant between the
Four Hills (Sandia) and Manzanita uplifts. The Tijeras-Gabaldon zone follows the trend
Tijeras-Caiioncito fault system (TCfs; I-D.l.b), includes a series of buried ridge-form
segments and saddles, and locally ranges from two to four miles in width. It crosses the
RioGrande Valley between Los Lunas and BosqueFarms, containstheLos Lunas
(andesitic) volcanic center. and estends southwestward across the Pottery Moundarea of
the lower Puerco Valley south of the Hidden Mountain and Mojinas Mountain (basaltic)
volcanic centers. The TGaz also forms the southern border of the Gabaldon subbasin,
crosses the buried Dalies gap area of the Llano de Alburquerque west of Los Lunas
volcano, and includes the Peralta gap (saddle) between Mountainview prong and Los
Lunas.
11
Open-file Repon 402, Appendix I
H.
1.
J.
Lunas-Bernardo(structural)depression.Majorsurfacetopographicsubdivisionsinclude
the central Rio Grande Valley (Isleta-Bemardo reach), which is flanked by "East Mesa"
and "West Mesa" (Llano de Manzano and Llano de Alburquerque) areas. Complexof at
least three majorstructural subbasins and interveningbroad, buried ridgesthat occupy the
eastern part of the Belen Basin. The Lunas-Bernard0 depression extendsto the Hubbell
Bench (LD.2) on the east and the Puerco Valley on the west. It is bounded on the nonh
by the GT.4ccomodarion Zone and is transitional southeastward to the Turututu salient
no detailed(shallow or deep)boreholeand
(1V.I) oftheJoyitaBench.Because
geophysical information is available formost of the area,only general inferences on basin
hydrogeologic framework can be made in this report. Majorstructuralsubdivisions
include:
I.
A western sector, including two west-tiltedhalfgrabens,thatunderlies
the
southern Llano de Alburquerque between Dalies and Pic0 Hill, and extends
under the RG Valley between Isleta and Belen. It is bounded on the west by the
Puerco Valley fault zone.
2.
An eastern sector betweentheHubbelland Joyita Benchesandthe Ria Grande
Valley, extends beneath the inner valley area south of Belen and appears
to
include several north-south-trending (symmetrical) grabens in the TomeCasa
and
Colorada Land Grant areas.
The "western" and "eastern" sectors are separatedby north-south-trending zone of faults
(Belen Va/ley-EV'z in this report) with general downto west sense of displacement.Major
nncestral Ria Grande channelcomplexes in upper Santa Fe deposits appear to have
entered the Lunas-Bemardo depressionthrough structural saddles(gaps) in the TGaznear
Dalies, and Peralta (between Los Lunas and lower Hells Canyon Wash).
Turututu salient of Joyita Bench (LD.2). Partly buried structural high that extends
northward into southeastern Basin Complex from the Joyita Hills-Valle de Parida area
and terminates in the Turututu (Hill or Black Butte) area along
US-60 between Bernard0
and Aba Pass.
LowerPuerco Structural Depression. Two major subbasins
partly separated by a broad,
buried ridge (Ladrones salient) that extends east-northeastward from the Ladron uplift.
These deep, west-tilted half graben structures are located west of the (lower) Puerco
Valley faultzone and form thesouthwesternpart of the ABQ Basin.Includes 1) a
northern subbasin east ofthe Monte Largo embayment
(bench) that extends northeastward
from theLadron and Lucero uplifts to theRioPuerco,and
2) a southernsubbasin
between the Joyita Bench and the Ladron uplift. The two depression subunits are here
informally
designated
the Comanche-Coyote (northern) andSevilleta
(southern)
subbasins. The Joyita Hillsbetween Abo ArroyoandtheRioSalado-Southmarks
a
southwestern transition zone with the Soeorro and La Jencia subbasins of the Popotosa
Basin of the southem RGR.
12
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix J
APPENDIX J
GLOSSARY
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix 1
GLOSSARY
J. W. Hawley
alluvial
Pertaining to material or processes associated with transportation or deposition of
running water.
alluvial fan
A body of alluvium, with or without debris flow deposits, whose surface forms a
segment of acone that radiates downslope from thepointwhere
the stream
emerges from anarrow valley or canyon onto a plain. Common longitudinal
profiles are gently sloping and nearly linear. Source uplands range in relief and
areal extent from mountains and plateaus to gullied terrains on hill and piedmont
slopes. The proxinzal part of a fan is the area closest to the source upland, while
the distal part is the farthest away.
alluvial terrace
(cf. stream terrace)
alluvium
Unconsolidated clastic material deposited by running water, including gravel,sand,
silt, clay and various mixtures of these.
anticline
A fold in rocks in whih strata dip away from acommonaris
monocline).
(cf. syncline,
aquifer
soil or rock that is sufficiently permeable to conduct groundwater and to yield
economically significant quantities of water to wells and springs.
arroyo
The flat-floored channel of an ephemeral stream, commonly with very steep to
vertical banks cut in alluvium (regional term - Southwest; syn. dry wash). NOTE:
Where arroyo reaches intersect zones of ground-water discharge they are more
properly classed as intermittent stream channels.
ash (volcanic)
Fine pvroclastic material under 4.0 mm diameter.
I
bajada (coalescent-fan oiedmont
- American Southwest)
1
Open-Fila Repon 402, Appendix J
basin (intermontane)
A broad structural lowland, commonly elongated and many miles across, between
mountainranges.
Major componentlandformsare
basin floors andpiedmont
Floors of internally-drained basins (bolsons) contain one or more closed
depressions, with temporary lakes (h
and
)
alluvial
, plains. In basins with
through drainage, alluvial plains are dominant and lakes are absent
or of small
extent. Piedmont slopes comprise erosional surfaces adjacent to mountain fronts
(pediments) and constructional surfaces made up of individual and/or coalescent
alluvialfans.(cf.
valley)
w.
basin fill
The unconsolidated sediment deposited by any agent(water,wind,ice,
wasting) so as to fill or partly fill an intermontane basin. (cf valley fill)
mass
basin floor
A generaltermfor
the nearly level togentlysloping,bottomsurface
of an
intermontane basin (bolson). Component landforms include
broad
flats containing ephemeral drainageways, and relict alluvial and lacustrine surfaces
that rarely if ever are subject to flooding. Where through-drainage systems
are
welldevelopedalluvialplainsaredominantand
lake plainsareabsentor
of
limited extent. Basin floors grademountainward to distalparts of piedmont
w,
w.
bedrock
The solid rock (ieneous, sedimentam, or metamoruhic) that underlies the soil and
other unconsolidated material or that is exposed at the surface.
bolson
An internallydrained(closed),
intermontane basin with twomajor land-form
components: basin floor and piedmont slope. The former includes nearly level
alluvialplainsand
"lake
depressions. The lattercomprisesslopes
of
erosional
origin
adjoining the
mountain
fronts
(pediments‘) and
complex
constructional surfaces (bajadas) mainly composed of individual and/or coalescent
alluvial fans.Regional term (Southwest) derived from bolsa (Sp) - bag, purse,
pocket.
braided channel or stream (flood olain landforms)
A channel or stream with multiple channels that interweave as a result of repeated
bifurcation and convergence of flow around interchannel bars, resembling in plan
the strands of a complex braid. Braiding is generally confined to broad, shallow
Open-File Repon 402. Appendix J
streamsoflow sinuosity, high bedloadnon-cohesive bank material, and steep
gradient. At a given bank-full discharge braided streams have steeper slopes, and
shallower, broader and less stable channel cross sections thanmeandering streams.
calcrete
A general term for a hard calcareous crust or an indurated layer in upper horizons
of carbonate accumulation in soils formed under well-drained, arid to semiarid
climatic conditions. (cf. caliche, duricrust)
caliche
A generaltermfora
prominent zone of secondarycarbonateaccumulation
in
surficial materials of warm subhumid to arid areas formed by both geologic and
pedologic processes. Finely crystalline
calcium
carbonate
forms
a
nearly
continuous surface-coating and void-filling medium in geologic (parent) materials.
Cementation ranges from weak in noninduratedvarietiestoverystrong
in
induratedforms (e.g. pedoeeniccalcretes).Otherminerals(carbonate,
silicate,
sulphate) may be present as accessory cements. (cf. induration)
ceja
The upper part of a continuous and steep slope or escarument, with local cliffs,
that separates the relatively flat summit area of a m e ~ aor high olateau from
flankingvalley lowlands. Local term(Southwest)derived
from ceju (Sp) eyebrow, brow of a hill. (cejita - diminutive)
Cenozoic
The latest of the four eras into which geologic time, as recorded by the stratified
rocks of theearth's crust, is divided; it extends from the close of theMesozoic Era
to and including the present. Also the whole group of stratified rocks deposited
during the Cenozoic Era. The Cenozoic Era includes the periods originally called
Tertiaw and Ouaternaw, and now properly named Paleogene (Paleocene,Eocene,
Oligocene) and Neogene (Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene and Holocene).
cinder cone
A conical hill formed by the accumulation of volcanic ejecta, with slopes usually
steeper than 20 percent.
clast
An individual constituent, grain, or fragment of sedimentor rock, produced by the
mechanical weathering (disintegration) of a larger rock mass.
3
Opcn-File Repon 402, Appendix J
clastic
Pertainingtoa rock or sedimentcomposedmainlyoffragmentsderivedfrom
preexisting rocks or minerals and moved from their place of origin. (cf. detritus,
epiclastic, pyroclastic)
clay
A rock or mineral fragment (often a crystalline fragment of a clay mineral) having
a diameter of less than 0.002 mm (2 microns); an aggregate of clay-size particles
that is usually characterized by high water content and plasticity.
coalescent fan piedmont (bajada)
A broad, gently-inclined, piedmont slow formed by lateral coalescence of a series
of alluvial fans, and having a broadly undulating transverse profile (parallel to the
mountain front) due to the convexities of component fans. The term is generally
restricted to constructional slopes of intermontane basins in the southwestern USA.
colluvium
Unconsolidated earth material deposited on and at the base of steep slopes by
mass wasting (direct gravitational action) and local unconcentrated runoff.
conglomerate
A coarse-grained, clastic rock composed of rounded to subangular rock fragments,
(larger than 2 mm) commonly with a matrix of sand and finer material; cements
includesilica,calciumcarbonate,
and iron oxides. The consolidated equivalent
of gravel.(cf.breccia)
debris
Any surficialaccumulation ofloosematerialdetachedfrom
rock masses by
chemical and mechanical means, as by decay and disintegration, and occurring in
the place where it was formed, or transported by water or ice and redeposited. It
consists of rock fragments, finer-grained earth material,
and sometimes organic
matter.
debris flow (mudflow)
A mass movement process involving rapid flowage of highly viscous mixtures of
debris. water, and entrapped air.Watercontent
may range up to 60%. A
mudflow is a type of debris flow with clastic particles of sand size and finer. (cf.
alluvial fan)
detritus
Rock and mineral fragments occurring in sediments that were derived from preexisting igneous, sedimentary, or metamorphic rocks.
4
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix J
diagenesis
Theprocesses that changesedimentsandsoils
after burial beneathyounger
deposits. They includecompactionformation
ofnew minerals, redistribution,
cementation, reduction and loss of (or changes in) organic matter, but exclude the
pedogenetic processes involved in original development of a soil before burial.
However, Many diagenetic processes are similar to pedogenetic, and two may be
difficult to distinguish. Diagenesis includes all post-burial changes occurring
at
temperatures upto 2000C and pressures up to 100 MPa;processes at higher
temperatures and pressures are metamomhic.
dune
A mound, ridge, or hill of loose, windblown
either bare or covered with vegetation.
granular material (generally sand),
duricrust
A soil horizon or sequence of consecutive horizons hardened by deposition of
calcium carbonate (calcrete),magnesium-richcarbonate(dolocrete),
calcium
sulphate
(gypcrete),
iron
oxideshydrated
oxides
(ferricrete),
aluminum
oxideshydrated oxides (alucrete) or silica (silcrete); it should be at least
1 cm
thick and laterally continuous, and may form at any depth in the soil profile.
Eocene
The second epoch of the Paleocene Period of geologic time (about 58 to 34 Ma),
following the Paleoceneand preceding theMiocene Epochs. (cf. Cenozic, Tertiary)
eolian
Pertaining to materialtransported and deposited by the wind.
materials ranging from dune sands to silty loess deposits.
Includes earth
epiclastic
Pertainingto any clastic rock or sedimentotherthan
pvroclastic. Constituent
fragments are derived by weathering and erosion rather
than by direct volcanic
processes. (cf.volcaniclastic)
erosion
The wearing away of the land surface by running water, waves, moving ice and
wind, or by such processes as masswastingandcorrosion(solution
and other
chemical processes). The term "geologicerosion"referstonaturalprocesses
occurring over long (geologic) time spans.
5
Open-File Rspon 402, Appendix 1
erosional (geomorphology)
Owing its origin,
form,
position
or general
character
to
wearing-down
(degradational)processes,such
as removal of weatheredrockdebris
by any
mechanical or chemical processes to form, for example, a pediment or valley-side
slope.Runningwater
is thedominant agentof erosion in arid and semiarid
regions.
escarpment
A relatively continuous and steep slope or cliff breaking the general continuity of
more gently sloping land surfaces and produced by erosion or faulting. The term
is more often applied to cliffs produced by differential erosion and it is commonly
usedsynonymously with "scarp."(cf.ceja)
extrusive
Denotingigneous
rocksderivedfromdeep-seatedmoltenmatter(magmas)
emplacedontheearth'ssurface.(cf.intrusive;volcanic)
facies (stratigraphy)
The sum of all primary lithologic and paleontologic characteristics exhibited by
a sedimentav rock and from which its origin and environment of formation may
beinferred;thegeneralnature
or appearance of a sedimentaw rock produced
under agiven
set of conditions;adistinctivegroup
of characteristicsthat
distinguishes one group from another within a stratigraphic unit. (e.g., contrasting
river-channel facies and overbank-flood-plain facies in alluvial valley fills). (cf.
lithofacies, lithology, stratigraphy)
fault
A fracture or fracture zone in the earth's crust with displacement of the two sides
relative to oneanother andparallel to thefracture;displacement ranges from
inches to miles. In nomzal faults the hanging wall is depressed relative to the
footwall, while in reverse faults the footwall is relatively depressed. Strike-slip
faults aregenerallyverticalfaults
that accomodatehorizontalshear
within the
crust; displacements may be either right-lateral (dextral) with motion to right of
fault plane toward viewer, or left-lateral. Oblique-slip faults have both strike-and
dip-slip components of shear (cf. Transfer zones and faults).
floodplain
The nearly level alluvial plain that borders a stream and is subject to inundation
unless protected
artificially.
It is usually a
under flood-stage
conditions
constructional landform built of sediment deposited during overflow
and lateral
migration of the stream.
6
Open-File Repon 402,Appendix J
floodplain landforms
Avarietyof constructional and erosionalfeaturesproduced
by stream channel
migration and flooding. (e.g., backswamps,
braided
channels
and
streams,
floodplain splays, meander, meander belt, meander scrolls, oxbow lakes, natural
levees, and valley flats.)
fluvial
Of or pertaining to rivers; produced by river action, as a fluvial
plain
fold
A bend in strata or any planar structure (cf. anticline, momocline, syncline).
footwall
The rock mass below the plane of a dipping fault.
formation (stratigraphy)
The basic rock-stratigraphic unit in the local classification of rocks. A
body of
but
also
igneous
and
rock (commonly
a
sedimentary strarum or strata,
metamorphic rocks) generally characterized by some degree of internal lithologic
homogeneity or distinctive lithologicfeatures (such aschemicalcomposition,
structures, textures, or general kind of fossils), by a prevailing (but not necessarily
tabular) shape, and by mappability at the earth's surface (ar scales on the order of
1:25,000) or traceability in the subsurface.
geomorphology
The science thattreats the general configuration of the earth's surface; specifically
of
thestudy of the classification, description, nature, origin,anddevelopment
landforms and their relationships to underlying structures, and of the
history of
geologic changes as recorded by these surface features.
graben
An elongate, relatively depressed crustal block that
long sides (cf. half graben).
is bounded by faults on its
gravel
An unconsolidated aggregate of && particles with diameters greater than2 mm.
Granulegravel (granules) range from 2 to 4 mm, pebbles from 4to64mm,
cobbles from 64 to 256 mm (2.5 to 10 in,), and boulders greater than 256 mm (10
in.).
groundwater
The subsurface water that is found in the zoneof saturation, below the water table.
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix J
half graben
Asymmetrical down dropped block, faulted principally along one side and with an
updip, hinged opposite margin (cf. graben).
hanging wall
The rock mass above the plane of a dipping fault.
Holocene
The final (present) epoch of the Neogene Period of geologic time, extending from
10 thousand yearsago);
also the
theendofthePleistoceneEpoch(about
corresponding(time-stratigraphic)"series" of earth materials. (syn. post-glacial,
Recent; cf. Cenozoic, Quaternary)
igneous rock
Rockformed by solidification from amolten or partially moltenstate; major
varieties include plutonic and volcanic rocks; examples: andesite, basalt, granire.
(cf. intrusive, extrusive)
induration
The process ofhardeningofsediments
or other rock aggregatesthrough
cementation, pressure, heat, and other causes. (cf. lithification)
isopach map
A map indicating, usually by contour lines, the varying thickness of a designated
stratigraphic unit.
lacustrine deposit
Clastic sediments and chemical precipitatesoriginallydeposited
playas.
in lakes and
landform
Any physical, recognizable form or featureof the earth'ssurface,havinga
characteristic shape, and produced by natural causes; it includes major forms such
as a plain. ulateau, or mountain, and minor forms such as a stream terrace, hill,
valley, or d u n e . Taken together, the landforms make up the surface configuration
oftheearth.The
"landform" conceptinvolves both empiricaldescriptionofa
terrain class and interpretation of genetic factors ("natural causes").
landscape
(Gen.) All the natural features,such
as field, hills, forests,andwaterthat
distinguish one part of the earth's surface from another part; usually that portion
of land which the eye can comprehend in a single view, including all of its natural
8
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix J
characteristics. (Geol.) The distinct association of landforms, especially as
modified by geologic forces, that can be seen in a single view.
limestone
A sedimentarv rock consisting chiefly (more than 50%) of calcium carbonate,
primarily in the form of calcite. Limestones are usually formed by a combination
of organic and inorganic processes and include chemical and clastic'(soluble and
insoluble) constituents; many are fossiliferous.
lithification
The conversion of a newly deposited, unconsolidated sediment into a coherent and
solid rock, involving processes such as cementation,compaction; desiccation,
crystallization, recrystallization, and compression. It may occur concurrent with,
or shortly or long after deposition. (cf. induration)
lithofacies
The rock record of any sedimentary environment, including.both physical and
organic character. (cf. facies)
lithology
The physical character of a rock.
meander, meandering channel
A meander is one of a series of sinuous loops, with sine-wave form, in the course
of a stream channel. The term "meandering" should be restricted to loops with
channel length more than 1.5 to 2 times the length of the wave form. Meandering
stream channels commonly have cross sections with low width to depth ratios,
(fine-grained) cohesive bank materials, andlowgradient.
At a given bank-full
discharge meandering streams have gentler slopes, and deeper, narrowerand more
stable channel cross-sections than braided streams. (cf. floodplain landforms)
mesa
A broad, nearly flat-topped and usually isolated upland mass characterized by
summit widths that are greater than the heights of boundingerosional escarpments.
Atableland produced by differential erosion of nearly horizontal, interbedded
weak and resistant rocks, with the latter comprising caprock layers. As summit
In the western
area decreases relative to height mesas are transitional to &.
states m e ~ ais also commonly used to designatebroadstructural benches and
alluvial terraces that occupy intermediate levels in stepped sequences of platforms
bordering canyons and valleys. (cf. plateau, cuesta)
9
Open-File Report 402, Appendix I
Mesozoic
One of the major divisions or eras of geologic time, following the Paleozoic and
succeeded by the Cenozoic era, comprising the Triassic, Jurassic, and cretaceous
periods. Also the group of strata formed during that era.
metamorphic rock
Rock of any origin altered in mineralogical composition, chemical composition,
or structure by heat, pressure, and movement at depth in the earth's crust. Nearly
all suchrocksare crystalline. Examples:schist,gneiss,quartzite.
Miocene
The first epoch of the Neogene Period; also the next to last epoch of the Tertiaw
Olieocene and
Periodofgeologic
time (about 29 to 5 Ma),followingthe
preceding the PlioceneEpochs; also, the corresponding (time-stratigraphic) "series"
of earth materials.
monocline
A fold in rocks forming a step-like
anticline, syncline).
bend in otherwise gently dipping beds (cf.
mountain
A natural elevation of the land surface, rising more than 1000 ft (300 m) above
surrounding lowlands, usually of restricted summit area (relativeto a
and
generally having steep sides (>25% slope) and considerable bare-rock surface. A
mountain can occur as a single, isolated mass, or in a group forming a chain or
range. Mountains are primarily formed by deep seated earth movements and/or
volcanic action and secondarily by differentialerosion.(cf.hill)
w),
mudstone
Sedimentary rock formed by induration of silt and clay in approximately equal
proportions.
Neogene
Miocene,Pliocene
, Pleistocene and HoloceneEpochsofthe
Ouaternarv Period (cf. Cenozoic, Paleogene )
Tertiarv and
Oligocene
The final epoch of the Paleogene Period; also the third epoch
of the Tertiarv
Period of geologic time (about 24 to 5 Ma), following the Eocene and preceding
the Miocene Epochs.
10
Open-File Repon 602, Appendix I
Paleogene
Paleocene, Eocene, and Oligocene Epochs of the Tertiarv Period
(cf. Cenozoic, Neogene)
(66 to 24 Ma)
Paleosol
Asoilformed
in alandscape
ofthe
past; it is (a)isolatedfrom
present
pedogenesis by burial beneath a later deposit, andor (b) contains distinct evidence
that the direction of soildevelopmentwasdifferentfromthatofthe
present.
Paleosols may beburied,non-buried
or exhumed,andareoftentruncated
by
erosion. Soils buried by a deposit too thin to seal them from present pedogenesis
and not showing evidence of development in a direction different from that of the
present are termed buried soils,
not buried paleosols. Buried paleosols are also
subject to diagenetic changes, which may be difficult to distinguish from past or
current pedogenetic changes. (cf. soil, pedogenic)
Paleozoic
One of the major eras of geologic time that, between the Late Precambrian and
Mesozoic comprises the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian,
Pennsylvanian,andPermianSystems.ThebeginningofthePaleozoic
was
formerly supposed to mark the appearance of life on the earth, but that
is now
known to beincorrect. Also the group of rocks deposited during the Paleozoic era.
pediment
A gently sloping erosional surface developed
at the foot of a receding h;ll or
mountain slope. The surface may be essentially bare, exposing earth material that
extends beneath adjacent uplands; or it may be thinly mantled with alluvium and
colluvium, ultimately in transit from upland front to basin or valley lowland. The
term has been used inseveral geomorphic contexts: Pediments may be classed
with respect to (1) landscape position, for example intermontane-basin piedmont
or valley-border footslope surfaces, (2) type of material eroded, bedrock or
m, or (3) combinations of the above.
pedogenic
Produced by normal
soil-forming
processes
of
which
leaching,
oxidation,
eluviation, and illuviation are particularly important. The ultimate product of this
chemical and physical weathering activity over relatively short spans of geologic
time is a soil profile, which is characterized by a succession of zones or horizons
of altered geologic parent material that begins at the ground surface and typically
extend to depths of 5 to 10 ft. (cf. soil, paleosol)
11
Open-File Report 402, Appendix I
petrography
The branch of geology dealing with the systematic description and classification
of rocks; including their microscopic study and description.
petrology
A general term for the study by all available methods of the natural history of
rocks,
including
their
origins
(petrogenesis),
description
and
classification
(petrography).
piedmont
Lying or formed at the base of mountains;asapiedmontglacier.Apiedmont
alluvial olain is formed at the foot of a mountain range by the merging of several
alluvial fans. (cf. piedmont slope)
piedmont slope
The dominant gentle slope at the foot of a mountain; generally used in terms of
intermontane-basin terrain in arid to subhumid regions. Main components include:
(1) an erosionalsurface on bedrock adjacent to the recedingmountainfront
(pediment); (2) a constructional surface comprising individual alluvial fans and
interfanvalleys,
also near the mountain front; and (3) adistalcomplexof
coalescent fans (bajada), and alluvial slopes without fan form. Piedmonr slopes
grade to either basin-floor depressions with alluvial and temporary lake plains or
surfaces of through drainage. (cf. bolson)
plain
An extensive lowland areas that ranges from level to gently sloping or undulating.
A plain has few or no prominent hills or valleys, and occurs at low elevation with
referencetosurroundingareas
(local reliefgenerally less than 100 m). (cf.
plateau)
plateau
An extensive upland mass with relatively flat summit'area that is considerably
elevated (more than 100 m) above adjacent lowlands, and is separated from them
on one or more sides by escarpments. A comparatively large part of a plateau
surface is near summit level. (cf. ceja, mesa, plain)
Playa
The usually dry and nearly level lake plain that occupies the lowest parts of closed
depressions,suchasthoseoccurring
on intermontane basin floors. Temporary
in responsetoprecipitation-runoffevents.
Playa
floodingoccursprimarily
deposits are fine grained and may or may not be characterized by high water table
and saline conditions.
Open-File Repon 402, Appandix J
Pleistocene
The middle epoch of the Neoeene Period; and the first epoch of the Ouaternaw
Period of geologic time, following the Tertiarv Pliocene Epoch and preceding the
10 thousand
years
ago); also the
Holocene
(approx.
from
1.8
million
to
corresponding (time-stratigraphic) "series" of earth materials. Glacial-interglacial
cycles characterized much of the Pleistocene in high latitude and altitude regions,
while complexcool-moist,cold-dry,and
hot-dry (pluvial-interpluvial)cycles
occurred in the Southwest. Subdivided into early (1.8 - 0.75 Ma), middle (0.75 0.13 Ma), and late (130,000 - 10,000 yrs.) Pleistocene. (syn. Glacial epoch, Ice
Age)
Pliocene
The second epoch ofthe Neogene Period; and thelast epoch of theTertiary Period
of geologic time, following the Miocene Epoch
and preceding the (Ouaternarv)
PleistoceneEpoch (about 5 to 1.8 Ma); also, the corresponding (time-stratigraphic)
"series" of earth materials.
plutonic
Pertaining primarily to ieneous rocks
formed deep in the earth's crust, but also
includingassociated metamoruhic rocks.(cf.volcanic)
Precambrian
All rocks formed before Cambrian time are not called Precambrian in Canada and
by many geologists in the UnitedStates.Nomenclaturerecommends(thatthe
Canadian spellingbe used) thatthe terms EarlyPrecambrianera
and Late
Precambrian era be substituted for Archean and Proterozoic.
pumice
A light-colored vesicular glassy rock, usually having composition
of rhyolite.
pyroclastic
Pertaining to fragmental material: produced by usually explosive, aerial ejection
of clastic particles from a volcanic vent. Such materials may accumulate on land
or under water. Pyroclastic rocks include tuff, welded tuff, and volcanic breccia.
(cf. epiclastic, volcaniclastic)
Quaternary
The second period of the Cenozoic Era of geologic time (past1.7 Ma), extending
from the end of theTertiary Period to the present and comprisingtwo epochs. The
Pleistocene
(Ice
Age)
and the
Holocene;
also,
the
corresponding
(timestratigraphic) "system" of earth materials. Now included as the final interval of the
Neoeene "Period" by many workers,
13
Open-File Report 402, Appendix J
sand
A rock or mineral fragment having a diameter in the range of 0.062 to 2 mm; an
unconsolidated aggregate of dominantly sand-size clastic particles.
sandstone
Sedimentarv rock containing dominantly sand-size
clastic particles.
scoria
Vasicular, cindery, crust on the surface of andesitic or basaltic lava, the vesicular
nature of which is due to the escape of volcanic gases before solidification; it is
usually heavier, darker, and more crystalline than pumice. (syn. cinder)
sediment
Solid clastic material, both mineral and organic, that is in suspension, is being
transported, or has been moved from its site of origin by water, wind, ice ormasswasting and has come to rest on the earth's surface either above
or belowsea
level. Sedimentary deposits in a broad sense also include materials precipitated
remains
from solution or emplaced by explosivevolcanism,aswellasorganic
(e.g., peat) that have not been subject to appreciable transport.
sedimentary rock
A consolidateddeposit of clastic particles,chemical precipitates andorganic
remainsaccumulated at ornearthesurfaceoftheearthunder"normal"
low
temperature andpressureconditions.Sedimentaryrocks
include consolidated
equivalents of alluvium, colluvium, glacial drift,and &,
lacustrine and marine
deposits (e.g., sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, clay-stone, and shale, conglomerate
and limestone, dolomite, coal, etc.; cf. sediment).
shale
Sedimentarv rock formed by induration of a clay or silty clay deposit and having
the tendency to split into thin layers (i.e., fissility)
silt
A rock or mineral fragment having a diameter in the range of 0.002 to 0.062 mrn;
an unconsolidated aggregate of dominantly silt-size particles.
soil
A three-dimensional body at the land surface composed of mineral and/or organic
material, air and water, and formed by the impact of environmental factors acting
on parent materials over a period of time to produce a sequence of horizons that
typically extend to depths of 5 to 10 ft. (cf. paleosol, pedogenic)
14
Open-Fila Repon 402, Appendix J
strata
Plural of swamtz: a single sedimentary bed or layer, regardless of thickness.
stratified
Arranged in layers or strata. The term refers only to sedimentsemplaced by
geologic processes. Layers in land surface materials that result from the processes
of & formation (pedogenesis) are called horizons.
stratigraphy
The branch of geology that deals with the definition and interpretation of stratified
earth materials; the condirions of their formation; their character, arrangement,
sequence, age, and distribution; and especially their correlation by the use of
fossils and other means of dating. The term is applied both to the sum of the
characteristics listed and a study of these characteristics.
stream terrace
One of a series of relatively flat surfaces bordering a stream valley, and more or
less parallel to the stream channel; originally formed near the level of the stream,
and representing the dissected remnants of an abandoned flood plain, stream bed,
or vallev floor produced during a former stage of erosion or deposition. Erosional
surfaces cut on bedrock and thinly mantled with stream deposits (alluvium) are
designated "strath terraces." Remnants of constructional valley floors are termed
"alluvial terraces." (cf. terrace, valley-border surfaces)
subsurface water
The water under the surface of the ground, including both ground water and vades
water.
surface water
All waters on the surface of the Earth, including salt and fresh water, ice,
snow.
and
syncline
A fold in rocks in which strata dip inward from both sides toward a common axis
(cf. anticline, monocline).
tableland
A general term for a broad upland mass with nearly level or undulating summit
area of large extent and steep sideslopes descending to surrounding lowlands.
Varieties include plateaus and m.
15
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix J
tectonic
Pertaining to or designating the rock structure and external forms resulting from
deformation of the earth's crust. Deformationalforces are largeand produce
features such as faults. folds, fractures and joints.
tephra
A collective term for all clastic volcanic materials which are ejected from a vent
during an eruption and transported through the air, including volcanic ash, cinders,
lapilli, scoria. oumice, bombs, and blocks. (syn. volcanic ejecta)
terrace (geomorphic)
A step-like surface, bordering a valley floor or shoreline, that represents, the
former position of analluvial plain, or lake or sea shore.The term is usually
applied to both the relatively flat summit surface (platform, tread),cut or built by
stream or wave action, and the steeper descending slope (scarp, riser), graded IO
a lower base level or erosion. (cf. stream terrace)
Tertiary
The first period of the Cenozoic Era of geologic time, following the Mesozoic Era
preceding the Ouatemaw(approx. from 66 to 1.7 million yearsago); also the
corresponding time-stratigraphic subdivision (system) of earth materials.
Epoch/series subdivisions comprise, in order of increasing age, Pliocene,Miocene
(late Tertiary), Oligocene (middleTertiary),Eocene,andPaleocene
(early
Tertiary); or Neogene (Pliocene and Miocene), and Paleogene (Oligocene,Eocene,
and Paleocene). Now included with the Quaternary in the Neogene "Period by
many workers.
topography
The relative positions and elevations ofthe
describe the configuration of its surface.
natural features ofan
area that
transfer zones and faults
Transverse belts of deformation (faults and folds), or individual strike-sliu-fault
segments that divide an extensional tectonic system into domains distinguishedby
different predominant directions of half-graben tilting or fault orientation, or
different degrees of crustal extension.
vadose water
Water in the zone of aeration, or that water above the water table
16
Open-File Repon 402, Appendix I
valley-border surfaces
A general groupingof valley-side surfaces (e.g. stream terraces or dissected
alluvial fans) that occur in a stepped sequence graded to successively lower stream
base levels produced by episodic valley entrenchment.
valley fill
Theunconsolidated sediment deposited by any agent (water, wind,ice,
wasting) so as to fill or partly fill a stream valley. (cf. basin fill)
mass
valley floor
A general term for the nearly level to gently sloping, bottom surface of a &.
Component landforms include axial stream channels, the floodplain, and in some
areas, low terrace surfaces that may be subject to flooding from tributary streams.
(cf. floodplain landforms, meander, braided channel, valley side)
volcanic
Pertaining to (1) the deep-seated (igneous) processes by which magma and
associated gases rise through the crust and are extruded onto the earth's surface
and into the atmosphere, and (2) the structures, rocks, and landforms produced.
(cf. extrusive)
volcaniclastic
Pertaining to the entire spectrum of fragmental materials with a preponderance of
clasts of volcanic origin. The term refers not only to pyroclastic materials but also
to euiclastic deposits derived from volcanic source areas by normal processes of
mass wasting and stream
e.
watershed
The region drained by, or contributing water toa lake, stream, or other body of
water.
water table
The surface, or interface, that marks the beginning of the zone of saturation, where
groundwater is found.
weathering
All physical and chemical changes produced in rocks or other deposits at or near
the earth's surface by atmospheric agents with essentially no transportof the
altered material. These changes result in disintegration and decomposition of the
materials.
17
Open-File Report 402, Appendix I
zone of aeration
A subsurface zone containing water that is held at less pressure than that of the
atmosphere, including water held by capillarity,andcontaininggases
or air,
generally under atmospheric pressure.
zone of saturation
A subsurface zone where all of the intrstices, or voids, are filled with water at a
pressure greater than that of the atmosphere.
Most entries are from J. W. Hawley and R. B.Parsons,compilers,1980,
Glossary of
Selected Geomorphic and Geologic Terms: West Technical Service Center, Soil
Conservation Service, USDA, Portland, Oregon, 30 pp. For structural geologic
information see: Twiss, R. J. and Moores, E. M., Structural Geology, W. H. Freeman &
Co., NYC. Major geochronologic and chronostratigraphic units are listed
on the following
page. Recent advances in Neogene chronostratigraphy arediscussed by Berggren and
others, 1995, Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 107, pp. 1272-1287.
Major geochronologic and chronostratigraphic units
Subdivisions
on or Eonothem
in use by the U.S. Geological
Survey
Era or Erathem
Quaternary ((I)
!
HOlOCMe
1
Tertiary (T)
Pliocene
upper
Cretaceous (K)
Mesozoic
(h)
Lower
(23-26)(34-38)-
66
Lower
Late
Midole
Eany
(x)
Triassic
23.7
36.6
(54-57.8)57.8
Lale
Eany
Jurassic (J)
(1.65-2.2)(4.9-5.3)-
5
Miocene
Oligocene
Eocene
Paleocene
Paleogene
Subperiod or
Subsystem (P c )
Age estimates or
boundaries in
miillon yean','
0.010
1.65
Pleistocene
Neogene
Subperloa or
Subsystem (N)
(h
-
Epoch or Series
Period or System
Cenozoic
I
(map symbols)
Upper
Midole
Lower
Late
Upper
Miaale
Midole
Eany
.
"96
(63-66)(95-97)-
138
(135-141)-
205
(200-21 5)-
"250
~
Permian (P)
Phanerozoic
290
Pennsylvanian
Upper
Miodie
tower
Periods or
(290-305).
-330
Upper
Lower
Paleozoic
(R
Early
Devonian (0)
1
Upper
Silurian (S)
Lower
Miaale
Early
Lale
Middle
Lower
upper
Miaale
Lower
Lale
Midole
Cambrian 6)
Early
Upper
(e 1
(360-365).
405
(405-415).
435
(435-440).
510
(495-510).
Miaole
.
Lower
~
Late Proterozoic' (2)
Proterozoic
355
Miaale
Early
Late
Middle
Eany
Ordovician (0)
~~~
Upper
Late
Middle
-5702
009 "
Middle Proterozoic' (Y:
Early Proterozoic' (X)
Late Archean' (W)
Archean
(A)
C
h
"
1
2
5
0
0
Middle Archean' (V)
.L
Early Archean' (U)
"-A"
oredrchean' foA)
'Ranges reflecl uncertaintiesOf isotopic and biostratigraphic age assignments. Age of boundariesnot closely bracketed by existing data shown
by
Decay constants and isotopic ratios employed are cited in Steiger and Jager (1977).
'Rocks aider than 570 Ma also caiied Precambrian ( P C ) , a time term without specific rank.
IGeochronometric units.
'Informal time term without specific rank.
'Age estimates for the Phanerozoic are by G. A. hen. M. A. Lanphere. M. E. MacLachlan, C. W.Naeser.J. 0. Obradovich. 2. E. Peterman.
for thePrecambrianareby
M. Rubin. T. W. Stern.and R. E. ZartmanattherequestoftheGeologicNamesCommittee.Ageestimates
International Union of Geological Sciences Working Group on the Precambrian for the United States and Mexico, J.
E. Harrison, Chairman.
The chart is intended for use by members of lhe U S . Geological Survey and does not constitute a formal proposal for a geologic time scale.
Estimates of ages of boundariesweremadeafterrevlewingpublished
time Scales andotherdata.Future
modification of this chart will
undoubtedly be required. The general references apply where references are not given for specific bounaaries.
-.
Geologic Names Committee, 1983
with additions from Snelling. 1985
No. 5 7 , July 1991
Geochronology
NEW MEXICO BUREAU OF MINES &MINERAL RESOURCES
and
NEVADA BUREAU OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
Open-file Repon 402, Appendix K
APPENDIX K
REFERENCES USED IN PREPARATION OF PLATES 1-20,
AND APPENDICES A-J
I
Open-fils Repon 402, Appendix K
Bureau of Reclnmatian. 1994, Rio Puerco scdimmtation and w ~ c quality
r
study: An appraisal evaluation ofthe impacts ofthe
Puerco on the Rio Grande and Elephant Bune Rcrervoir: Dnfl Preliminary Findings Report, US.Dsp-ent
ofthe Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation. ,Albuqucrquc Projects Ollice, variously paged.
Burdau of Soils StdT, 19 12. Soil map. Y;ew M~lesico.Middle Rio Gmnde Valley sheet: US.D e p m e n t of Agriculture, Bureau ofsoils
and Yew Mesi;o Agricultunl Experiment Station, Scale 1:63,360.
Cabrzas, P., 1991, Tile roulhern Rocky Mountains in west-ccnVa1 New Mexico-Laramide smetures a d their impact on the Rio
Gmnde rift enmsion: N.lew Mexico Geology, v. 13, no. 2, pp. 25-37.
Cabot, E. C.. 1938, fault border of the Sangre de Cristo Ilountains nonh of S m w Fa. New Llexieo: Journal of Geology, v. 46, no.
1. pp. 88-105, 12 figs.
Callendar. I. F. and Zilinski. R. E.. Jr.. 1976, Kinematics ofTertiary and Quaternary dzfomdion along the eastern ddgc of the Luerro
upliR i e n t n l New Mexico: New hlesiso Geological Society Special Publication 6, pp. 53-61.
Campbell. J. .A,, 1967, Geology and smctur* of a ponion ofthe Rio P u m o fault belt, westem Bernalillo County, Sew llrsico [MS.
thesis]: .Albuquerque. University of X w Mexico. 89 pp.
Canlpbell, J. A.. 1982, Rio Puerco Fault Zone: Xdw hlasieo Geological Society, Guidebook 33, pp. 71-74.
Cape. C. D.. S h G r a g , S.. Tl~ompson.G. A, 1983, Cenozoic nonnnl faulting and thd shallow ~tmetureof ths Rio Gnnde rift mu
Sorurro. Scw Ilssico: Gcological S o A y of America Bulletin. Y. 94. pp. 3-14, 9 figs., 2 tables.
Caner, K. E. and Gnrdnar, 1.X., 1995, Quaternary faultkiin~maricrin the nonhwertern Erpa5oll Basin, Rio Grand< rift.Sew Mexico:
New hlasico Geological Society, Guidebook 46, pp. 97-103.
Cather, S. Xl.. 1989, Post-Lanmide tectonic and volcanic transition in west-senmrul New Maxico: New irleaico Gcologicvl Society,
Guidebook 40, pp. 91-97.
Callter, S. Xl., 1990, Stress and volcanism in the nonhern Slogollon-Datil fisld. Nsw Mexico: Effects of the post-Laramide tectonic
transition: Geological Socisly of America Bulletin, v. 102, pp. 1447.1458,
Cathcr, S. 11.. 1992, Suggested revisions to the Taniuy tectonic history of nonh-sentral New Mlesico: New S l ~ s i c oGeological
Society, Guidsbook 43, pp, 109-122.
Cather. S. SI. and Johnson. B. D., 1986. Eocene depositional systams and tectonic franxwork ofwest-central nrw Slcsico and eastern
Arizona, h Peterson, J. 4 , cd.. Paldotectonics and ssdmentation in the Rocky Blountains cegion, Unitsd Stales: American
Associalion of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 41, pp. 623-652.
Cathcr. S. 11.. Chambcrlin, R. M., Chapin, C. E., and McIntosh, W. C., 1994, Stratigraphic consequences ofepisodic ekwnsion in the
Lemitor Mountains, central Rio Grmds rift: Geological Socicty of ;\mericq Special Paper 291, pp. 157-170.
Cmazzr, \V.. 1986, hlio:ene sedinlcnt dispersal in the central Erpailola Basin, Rio Grander& New Slaxico: Sedinientary Geology,
Y. 51, pp. 119-135.
rift,Nzw
Cavuza, W.. 1989, Scdbnentation pancrnr of a riftfilling w i t . Tsruque Formation (Uiocene), Erpa%olaBasin, Rio -de
Slexico: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Y . 59. pp. 173-198.
Chaimov, T.A . 1988, A 3-D seismic modeling study oftha Ladron Hont near Socorro, New Mexico, Geophysical Rsseuch Lenen,
v. 15, no. 11, pp. 1207-1210.
e
Sacorro Peak volcanic center, centrnl N e w Mexico [unpublished
Chamberlin. R. XI., 1980, Cenozoic stmtigmphy and s t m ~ t ~ rofthe
Ph.D. dissenatian], Colorado School of &lines, 495 pp.
Chamberlin. R. Ll., 1982, Przliminar)' dvaluation of l l ~ emineral r<source potantial of the S i e m Ladrones wildernass study area,
Socom County, New Mexico: Yew llesico Bur*au of Miner and .Mineral Resources, Open-File Repon 141 pp.
Chamberlin. R. hl. and Catlter, S. G., 1994, Defmition of ths Xlogollon rlopr. west-central New Llsxico: New Slrsico Geological
Society, Guidebook 45. pp. 5-6.
Chapin, C. E.. 1971,nte Rio G r a d e rift, pan I: 11odfications and additions. James, H. L.. ed., Guidebook ofthhe San Luis Basin,
Colorado, N e w Mesico Geological Society, Guidebook 22, pp. 191-201.
Chapin. C. E.. 1979. Evolution of the Ria Gmnda rift: A summary h Riecker, R. E., rd., Rio Gmnde rift: Tectonics and magmatism:
\Vashington. D. C., Anericnn Geophysical Union, p. 1.5.
Chapin, C. E., 1983, .kt owxiow of Laramide wrencl~faulting ill the roulltern Rocky hlounwins with emphasis an petroleum
esplontion. k Lowell. J. D., ed., Rocky Llounwin forelands and uplifts: Denver, Colondo, Rocky Llounrain ,\srocintion
of geologists. pp. 169-180.
Chapin, C.E., 1988, Ayial basins of the nanhern m d central Rio Grande rifts, in Sloss, L. L., ed., Sedirnenwq cover-Noh
;\nlcrican Cntan (US.):Geological Society of America, Geology of Nonh America, V. D-2. pp, 165-170.
Chapin. C. E.. 1989, Volcanism along ths Socono accommodations zone, Rio Grande rift New Mexico: New Mexico Bureau of.Mines
m d LIincnl Resources, Memoir 46, pp. 46-57.
Chapin, C. E. 3nd Callender, J. F., edr., 1983, Socom Region 11: New >lesico Geological Society, Guidebook 34, 344 pp.
Chapin, C. E. and Call~er,S. X, 1981, Eocene tectonics mtd sedimentation in ths Colondo Plateau-Rocky Mountain area, h
Dickenson, W. R. and Payne, Ll. D.. eds., Rclations of tectonics to ore deposits in the soulhem Cordillera: Arizona
Geological Society Digest, v. 14, pp. 33-55.
Chapin, C. E. and Calhther, S. X, 1994. Tectonic sening of thd asial basins of the northern a d cenml Rio Grande rift: Geological
Society of .America, Spacial Papcr 291, pp. 5-25,
P
Open-fils Rcpon 402. Appendis K
Grant, P. R., Jr., 1982. Geathernnl potential in lllz Albuquerque area, New Sldxico: New Mesic0 Geological Society, Guidebook 33,
pp. 325-331.
G n n t , P. R., Jr.. 1981, Geothermal Potenlial on Kinland Air Force Base Lands. Bemalillo County. New Slviexic0,U.S.D.O.E. Sandia
National Laboratories. Contrxtor Report SAND81-7141, Unlimited Release, UC-66, 67 pp.
Gregory, K, >I. and Chase. C. G., 1992. Tectonic significance of paleobotanically ertimnted & m e and altitude of the I a u Eocene
erosion surface, Colorado: Geology, v. 20. pp. 581-585.
Griggs. R. L.,1964, Gaology and groundwater resources ofthe Los Alamos m a , New Slesico: US. Geological Survey Water-Supply
P3pr.r 1753, 107 p.
Gustovson, T.C., 1991, Arid basin dcparitional syrtmr and pnleosols: Fort Hancock and Camp Rice Formation (Pliucene-Pleislocene)
Hueco Bolron, West Tesas and adjacent hlesico: University of Texas 81 Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Repon of
Investigations No. 198, 49 pp.
Haase, C. S., 1992. Borehole geophysical d m hHydrogeologic framelvork of the n o n h m .Albuquerque Basin. New Mexico Bureau
of Llinas and Minard Resources, Open-File Repon 387, pp. V-l to V-18.
Haase, C. S. and Lozinsky,R. P., 1992. Estimation ofhydrologic parameters b Hydrogeologic framework ofthe nonhem Albuquerque
Basin, Nerv hlesico Bureau of !dines and \liner31 Resources. Open-Fils Repon 387, pp. VI-1 to VI-13.
Hacker, L. \V., 1977, Soil survey of Bemalillo County andpans of Sandoval and w b n i i a Counties, Nzw Mexico: US. Soil
Conservation Service. 101 pp.
Hamilton. W. B. , 1988. Plate t ~ ~ l o n and
i ~ sisland arcs: Geological Society of America Bulletin, Y . 100, pp, 1503-1527, 9 figs,
Hammond, C. XI., 1987, Gcology of 1111 Navajo Gap area betrvzm the Ladron Slountains and Mesa S a m . Socorro County, New
.Llzsico [ M S .Thesis]: Socorro. New llexico Institute of llining and Tcchnology, 212 pp.
Hamberg, W . C., 1995, Depth-porosity r&riotlrhips and virgin specific storage estimntzs for tha upper Snnra Fe Group aquifer system,
central Albuquerque, Bwin. New Slesico: Nsw Mexico Geology. v. 17, no. 4, pp. 62-71.
Harts+ H. E. and Sadord. A. R., 1992, A new map of the Socorro magma body: Geosciencz Depanment and Geophysical Research
Center, Gaophysics Open-File R<pon 66, Nsw Mexico Tech, Socorro, NM.
Hawlry, J. W., compiler, 1978 Guidcbook to the Rio Gmnde rift in Nsw Mexico and Colorado: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and
hlineral Raourcar. Circular 163, 241 pp.
Hawley, J. W., 1984, Hydrogeologic cross sections of the Slerilln Bolron, New hlesico and Texas: New Mesico Bureau of Mines and
Minrml Resources, Open-file Repon 190, 10 pp.
Haxvley, J. W., 1986, Physiographic provinces (and) landforms of Nzw Mexico, b Williams, J. L.,ed., New Blexico in Maps:
Albuquerque, T h d University of New Slesim Press, pp. 28-31.
Hawley, J. W., 1992. A conceptual hydrogeologic model and ill hydrostratigraphic, lithofacies, S ~ N C ~ U T ~ Iand bedrock boundary
components h Hydrogeologic fnmework of the norhem Albuquerque Basin, Nerv Mexico Bureau of Mines and hlinenl
Resources. Open-File Rspon 387, pp. 111-1 to Ill-14.
Hawley, I. W..1995. Geology and gaund water of the El Llano area: New Uesico Geological Socizty, Guidebook 46, pp. 16-18.
Hawley, I. W., and Haase. C. S., 1992, compilers, Hydrogeologic frmework ofthe nonhem AlbuquerqueBasin: Kicw Mexico Bureau
of U n e s and Mineral Resourczs. Open-file Rspon OF-387, 74 pp.. 8 Appendices, Glossary.
Hawley, J. W. nnd Longmire, P. A. 1992, Site characterization and selection b Reith, C. C. and Thornson, B. X , edr, Deserts as
Rumps? The disposal ofhazardous materialsn
i a i d ecosystems: Albuquerque:University ofNew Mexico Press, pp. 57-99.
~ C T O E Ethe Colorado Plateau and Basin
Hawley, J. W . and Love, D. W., 199 1, Quaternary and Neogene landscape evolution: a trann~e~t
nnd Rangc provinces in west-central and central New Ifexico b Julian. B. and Zidek, J. (eds.), Field guide to geologic
excursions in New llesico and adiacmt araw of T ~ s z sand Colorado: New Mexico Bureau of S h e s and Mineral
Resources. Bulletin 137, pp. 105-148 (130-133)
Hawley, J. W. and Lozinsks. R. P., 1992. Hvdrozsolosi;
framework ofdte Mesilla Basin in New Slesico and westdm Tesas: New
. "
Slesico Bureau of S h e s and Mineral Rdsources. Open-file R<pon 323, 55 pp.
Hawley, I. W.. Bachman, G. 0.. and hlanley, K., 1976, Q u a t e r n q stratigraphy in 1111 Basin and Range and Great Plains provinces.
New hlesiso and westsm Tesas. m &hhmey, W . C.. ed., Quaternary stratigraphy of Nodl America: Straudsborg, PA,
Dowdm, Hutchinson. and Ross, lnc., pp. 235-274.
HaWlry, J. W., Hanse. C. S.. and Lozinsky, R. P.,1995, An underground view ofthe Albuquerque Basin, New hlexico OnepKleR
C. T.,sd., Pro;eedinge of thz 39th . h n u d New M a i m Water Conference, "The watdr future of Albuquemqe and Middle
Rio Gmnde Basin": New Llesico Water Resources Rdsrnrch Institute Repon 290, pp. 37-55.
Hawley, J. W., Konlowski, F. E.. Stager, W. R, King, W. E., Strain, W. S., and LsMone. D. V., 1969, The Sana Fe Group in the
south-central New Llesico borddr region, & Bordcr rvatigraphy symposium: New Mesico Bureau of Mines and ivfinenl
Rcsources, Circular 104, pp. 52-76.
Hayden, F. V., 1873, First. second, and third annual repans of t h d Uniwr SWt*s Geological Survey of the Territories for the y e m
1867, 1868. and 1869 [repr]: Washington, US. Govt. Printing Offiae, 261 pp.
Hayden, S.N.. 1991, Demal oblique-slip deformation along the Slontosa fault zone at Ab0 Pass, Valencia and Socorn Counties, N*w
hlesico [nbr.]: New Mexico Geology, v. 13, pp. 64.
H e m e , G. A,. 1980, Mathemntical model of the Tesuque aquifer system underlying Pojoaque River Basin and vicinity, New Uexico:
U S . Geological Suwey. Open-Fila Repon 80-1023, 181 pp.
6
L
Open-file Repon 402. .Appendis K
Kelky, V. C., 1955, Regional tectonics of the Colorado Plateau and its relationship to the origin and distribution of uranium:
University of New Mexico Publications in Geology, no. 5 , 120 pp.
Kelley, V. C.. 1977. Geology of Albuquerque Basin, New Llaaieo: New Slesico Bureau of Miner and Mineral Resources, Memoir
33,59 pp.
Kdlley, V. C.. 1978. Geology of Erpailoln Basin, New Slrsico: Sew Mexico Bureau of >liner and Mineral Rdsourcer, Geologic Map
GXI-48. scale 1:LZS.OOO.
Kelley, V. C.. 1979, Tectonics, middle Rio Grmde rift. New hlesico, & Rircker, R.E., rd., Rio G n n d s rift: Tectonicsand
nngnratirm: W:uhington, D.C., .American GmphYsimI Union, pp. 57-70.
Kcllev.
1982a..~
.Albuaueroue: Its mounuius. YPIICY.
:
Mesico Bureau of Mines and $liner4 Resources.
1.V. C..
~~.
. . water. a d ~ o l c m o e s Sew
Sczni: Trips to tha Gdologic Past No. 9.106 pp.
K;dllev. V. C.. l982b. T l ~ erieht-relaved Rio Grande rift. Tzos to Hatch. ?dew Slerico: New Slesico Geolozical
Guidebook
.~
- Society.
33. pp. 147-151.
Kelley, V. C. end Kudo. A, SI., 1978, Volcmoes and relntzd bassalts ofthz .Albuquerque Basin. N w Slesico: New Llvlexico Bureau
of S h e s and Slineral Resources, Circular 156, 320 pp.
Kelley. V. C. and Sonhn~p.S..A,. 1975. Geology oiSandia Slountaim and vicinity, N w Llexico: Sew Mesiao Bureau of Miner and
hlineml Resources, hlemoir 29, 136 pp.
Kzlley, V. C. and Wood, 0.H., Jr., 1946, Lucero uplift. Vslcnzia, Socomo and Bernalillo c'ountier, New Mesico: US.Geological
Survey, Oil and Gas Invertigations Pr2liminnr). &lap 47.
Kelly, T.E., 1982. History of water use in the greater Albuquerque am: New lldxico Gzologicd Society, Guidebook 33. pp. 351-355.
Kelson. K. 1. and Olig, S. S., 1995, Estimated rates ofQuaternary crustal esension in the Rio Grmde rift nonhern New Mexico: New
hlesico Geological Society, Guidebook 46, pp. 9-14.
Kamodk, I. SL,1991, S~tn~nw.ry
of V.S. Gdog,iical Sun.%? g,round-water-flow models of basin-fill aquifm in1 h e Southwest Alluvial
Basins R q i a n of Colorado, N m Sksiuo. and Tdsas: U.S.Grolgoical Open-Fils Repon. 158 pp.
Kernodk, I. XI.. 1992a, R*sults of simulations by a preliminar). uumwiid mods1 of land subSiddnce in the El Paso. Tlxas, area: U S .
Geological Survay, \Voter Resoumas Invertigntions Rrpon 92-4037, 35 pp.
Kernodle, I. SI., 1992b, Summary of U S . Gzalogicnl Sunre!' ground-watw.flow models of basin-fill aquifen in the southwestern
alluvial basins region, Colorado, Nsw Mexico, and Tcsas: US. Geological Survey, Open-File Repon 90-361, 81 pp.
Kernodle. J. X , blcAda. D. P., and Thorn, C. R., 1995, Simulation of ground-water flaw in thz Albuquerque Basin, central New
Slesico: U S . Geological survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4251, 114 pp.
King, W. W., Hawley, J. W., Taylor, A. hl., and Wilson. R P.. 1971, Geology and ground-watsr resources of cenu31 and western
Dofia . h a County, New Slerico: Xew Mexico Bureau of Slinrs and Mineral Resources, Hydrologic Report 1, 64 pp.
Kuss, G., 1986, Ground-water levels and d i r 4 o n ofground-water flow in the ~ e n t m pun
l of Bernalillo County, New Xlzsico, summer
1983: US. Geological Survey Water-Resources larenigationr R*pon 85-4325, 24 pp.
Kues, G. E., 1987. Ground-water-level data for 111s.Albuquwqud-Belen Basin, New Mexico, througll water year 1985: U S . Geological
Survdy Opm-File Repon 87-116. 51 pp.
Lagasse, P. R., 1981. Geomorphic response of the Rio Gnnde 10 dam Coustruction & Wells. S. 0. andLamben, W. (eds.),
Environmental geology and hydrologyin New .\lesico: N*w Xlcsico Geological Society, Special Publieaiton 10, pp. 27-46.
Lambett, P. W..1968, Qua.tamnry stcdgraphy ofthe AlbUbuquerqua area. New Xlasico: [unpublished Ph.D. dissenation): Albuquerque,
University of New Mexico, 329 pp.
Lamben, P. W., 197-1, Slap showing present and potantidsources ofblowing sandin La Merita Negra soutllsut quadrangle, Bzrnalillo
Cosnly. Nsw Slcsico: US. Geological Suwdy. Slircellaneour Field Studies Map, MF-600,scale 1:24000.
Lamben, P. W . , 1978, Southm Rio Grandc rift guide 2, Rio Grande Bridge (1-25) to Bernalillo: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and
W n m l Resources, Cir:ular 163, pp. 144-158.
Lamben, P. W., Hawley, I. W., and Wells, S. G., 1982, Supplementnl road-log segment Ill-S: Urban and environmental geology of
t h Albuquerque area: New Mexico Geologic4 Society, Guidebook 33, pp. 97-124.
Larsan, S., Rrilinger. R., and Brown, L., 1986, Evidence of ongoing emstd deformation related to magmatic activity near Sosorro,
New hlcsico: Joumal of Geophysical Research. v. 91, no. 86, pp. 6283.
Lmghlin, A. W.. Charles. R, W., Reid, K., and White, C.. 1993, Fielt-trip guidl l o the geochronology of El Malpais National
Mont~memand the Zuni-Banddra volcanic field, S:ew Llcsim: Ndrv Mexico Bureau OF Mines and M n m l Resources,
Bulletin 149,23 pp.
Laughlin. A . W., Potlts. J.. Healey, H. ,A,, Reneau, S. WoldeGabriel, G., 1994, Dating of Quatzmary basalts ushlg the cosmogenic 'He
and "C mzthods with implications for ~ C ~ "SA rS Gdology, v. 22, pp. 135-138.
Lmarur, I. and Drakoos. P., 1995. Geohydrologic chamctarirticr a d hydmcmbon contamination of the shaIlo\v alluviaVTesuque
Fonnstion aquifq S a m Fe. New Xesico: N w hlcsico Geolo~icalSociety Guidsbook 16tl1 Field Confercnce, pp. 307312.
Lee. W.T., 1907, Water re~ourceoof the Rio Grandr valley in S e w Xlrsico and their development: US.Geological Survey Watcrsupply Pap" 188.59 pp.
~.
1
~
8
Open-file Rapon 402, Appendix I;
Lredrr. 51. R., 1993,Tectonic controlsupondrainage basin devrlopmenLrivcr channel migration andalluvial archilecture: implications
far hydrocarbon reservoirdevelopment and characterization IcJNonh, C. P. and Prosser, D. I., eds. chmctrrization offluvial
and aeolian reservoirs: Gcologic.4 Society of London Special Publication 73, pp. 7-22.
Leeder, !.I. R. and Gawthorpe. R. L., 1987, Scdimenmry models for extensional rilt-blocM,3lf-grabm basins, IcJ Coward, !,I. Pp., et
91.. rdr, Continental exwnsiond tectonics: Gdologieal Soeidy of London Special Publication 28. pp. 139.152.
Lrdder. Ll. R. nod lackon. I. .A,. 1993. The interaction between normal faulting and drainage in active emensional basins,with
examples fromt be wdstem United S1at.s and c e n l n l Greece: B s i n Research, v. 5 , pp. 79-102.
Lewis, A. C. and West. F., 1995. Conceptual hydrologic systems for S a m Fe County: Ndw .Mexico Geological Society, Guidebook
46. pp. 299.306.
Lewis. C. L.and Baldridge. W. S., 1994, Crustal estenrion in the Ria Gnnde rift, New Mesico: Half-grabens, accommodation zones,
and shoulder uplifis in the Ladrone Pak-Sierra Lucdro area: Geological Society of Amrric4 Special Paper 291, pp, 135155.
L i n d g r q Waldemar, Graton, L. C., and Gordon, C. H., 1910, Thhe ore deposits of Nia LlLiesico: US.Geological Survey Professional
Paper 68. 361 pp, 22 plr.
Lipmun, P. W.. Llehnen, H.H.. and Saes?r. C. W., 1986, Evolution ofthe Latir volcnni~field. northern Sew Llesico, and its relation
to the Rio Grands rift, GS indicated by potassium-argon m d fission-track dating: Journal o f Geophysical Research, v. 91,
pp. 6329.6345.
Lisenbee, A. L.. Woodward, L. A,, and Connolly, I. R., 1979, Tijrras-Cniloncito fault system - a major zone of recurrent movement
in nonh-centnl New Llasizo: Sew Mexico Gdologi;al Society, Guidebook 30, pp. 89-99.
Lister, G. S.,Etheridge, X[. A,. and Symonds. P. A,, 1986a, Detachment faulting and the evolution ofpassive iotinentll mugins:
Geology. I?, pp. 246-250.
Lister. G. S., Ethcridgd, &I. .A,, and Symondr, P. A,, 1986b. R<ply to comment on "Detachment faulting and ths dvolution ofpassive
continental margins": Gdology 14. pp. 891-892.
Lagan. L. XI., 1990, Geochemisty ofthe .Albuquerque nuni;ipal arm. Albuquerque, N e w Mexico: unpublished indspendmstudy,
I l s t c r o f Science and Technology, New Llesico lnrtit~%tr
of !.lining m d Technology, 282 pp.
Lolunm, R. C.. Davis. J. 11.. Love, D. W., and Phillips. F.. 1991. Hydrogeologic investigations ofupper Sierm Ladroner Formation
[Albuquerque Basin]: S e w \ldsifo Bureau of !.lines and hlineral Resources, Bulletin 137, pp. 164-166.
Love, D. W., 1986, A geological penpective ofsediment storage and delivery along the E o Pusrco, central New Mexico, Hadley,
R. F., ed.. Drainage basin sediment delively: Intrrnatianal Association of Hydrological Sciencss, Publication 159, pp, 305322.
Love, D.W. and Gillam, M a r y L.. Tlte Navajo and Acama-Zuni Sections, IcJ llorrison, R. B., ed., Quaternary non-glacisl geology;
Contemlinous US.:Boulder. CO, Gdogieal Society of h r r i c a , Thhe Geology of Nonh hnlcricn. Y. I;-2, pp. 1-25
Love, D. W. and Young. I. D., 1983, Progress Repon on the Late Cenozoic Geologic Evolution of 11,s lower Rio Puerco, New Mexico
Geological Sosiety. Guidebook 34, pp. 277-284.
Lozinsky, R. P.. 1986. Geology and late Ccnozoic histoy of the Elephant Butte area, Sierra County, N e w Ilcxico: New Mexico
Burdau of blinrs and Xlinervl R*sources, Circular 187, 40 pp.
Lozinsky, R. P., 1988, Stratigraphy, sedimentology, and sand petrology of the Santa Fe Group and prr-Smta Fe Teniary deposits in
111s Albuquerque Basin, central X.iew Mesico: [unpublirhzd Ph.D. dissennion]: N e w Mexico Institute of Mining u d
Technology, Socorro, ?M298 pp.
Lozinsky, R. P., 1994, Cenozoic stratigraphy, sandstone petrology, and depositional history of the Albuquerque Basin, central New
Xlesico: Gealogicnl Society o f h e r i c n . Special Paper 291, pp. 73-81.
Lozinsky, R. P. and Hawley. J. W., 1986a, Upper Csnaroic Palomas Formation ofsouth-centml Szrv Mexico: Sew Llesico Geological
Society, Guidebook 37, pp. 239-247.
Lozinsky, R. P. and Hawky, I. W.,1986b, The Palomas Formation of south-central S e w Mssico a formal definition: New Mexico
Geology, v. 8, pp. 73-18.
Lorinsky, R. P. and Hawley, I. W., 1992, Geologic setting of the Albuquerque Basin IcJ Hydrogeologic framework of the northern
Albuquerque Basin, New Mexico Burem of llirtes m d Mineral Resources, Open-File Repon 387, pp, 11-1 to 11.7.
Lozinskyy.R. P. and Tedford. R. H,1991, Geology and poleontology oflhe S a m Fr Group, soulhwestdrn Albuquerque Basin, Valmeia
County, New blcsica: New Llesico Bureau of Miner and Uineml Resources Bullatin 132, 35 pp.
Lozinsky. R. P., Hawley, I. W., and Love, D. W., 1991, Geologic overview and Pliocene-Quaternary history ofthe Albuquerque Basin,
central New hlesico: New blesico Bureau of Miner and blinernl Resoar:rs, bulletin 137, pp. 157-162.
Lucas, S. G.. 1982, Venebmte paleontology, suatignphy, and biostmtigmphy of Eocena Gdirleo Fornmion. nonhaenual Nsw
blesico: New Mesic0 Bureau of Miner and Minerd Resources. Circular 186, 34 pp.
Lucns, S. G.. 1984, Conelation of Eocene rocks of the narrhern Rio Grande rift and adjacent veas: Implications for b i d e
tectonics: New Uesico Geological Saeiety, Guidebook 35, pp. 123-128.
Lucas, S. G., Williamson, T. E.,and Sobur, I.. 1993, Plio-Pleistocene stratigraphy, paleoecology, and mmmulian, biachronology,
Tijeras Arroyo, i\lbuquerqus we4 New Uesico: New Mexico Geology, Y. IS, no. 1, pp. 1.8. 15.
Machdnr, SI.X., 1978a, Geologic map ofthe Sun .Acacia quadrangle, Socorro County, New bllesico:US.Geological Survey, Gcologic
Quadrangle Map GQ-1.115, scale 1:24.000.
.
9
Open-fib Repon 402, Appcndis R
blachene. SI. S.. 1978b. Prelinlitrary gsologic map of the Socarro I’ by 2‘ qundrmgle, central New Mexico: US.Geological Survey,
Open-file Report 78-607. scald 1:250.000.
Uacllette, 11. S,. 1 9 7 8 ~Dating
.
Quatr.mary faults in the southwestem united Stater by using buried calcic puleorols: US.Geological
Suwey, Joumol of Research, v. 6. pp. 369-381.
hlachette. SI. X., 1978d. Late Cenozoic geology of lhe Sa” .icxin-Bemardo area: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Llinsnl
Reraurccr. Circular 163, pp. 135-138
Llachene. \I. N., 1982, Quaternary and Pliocene faults in the La Jrncia and southern pan of the Albuquerque-Belen Basins, New
Llcsico: Evidence of fault Ihistory from fault scarp morphology and Quaternary geology: Ndw Xlesico Geological Society,
Guiddbook 33. pp. 161-169.
Llachette. X. N.. 1985, Calcis soils of the soulhwzstern United States. in Weide, D. L., ed., Quaternary soils and geomorphology of
the ,American Soutl~wvest:Geological Society of America Special Paper 203, pp. 1-21.
!daehenc.. &I. X., 1987, Quaternary movenwnl dong the La Jencia fault, central New Meaico: U.S. Gcological Survey Professional
Paper 14.10.
Mauhstts. XI. S , and SlcGimsey, R. G.. 1982, Slap of Quaternary and Pliocene faults in the Sozom and westem pan of Fon Sumner
1”s 2’ qondmngles. ccntrd S‘ew Xlesico: US. Geologicnl Survdy hlireellmeous Field Studies Map LIF-1465.4 Scale
1:250,000, with ten, 12 pp.
Mack, G. H. and James. W. C.. 1993. Control of basin symmetry on fluvial lithofacies. Camp Rice and Palomas Formations (PlioPlsirtocane), southdm Rio Gnnde rift. USA h Mano. SI. and Puigdefabrdgw, C., eds.. Al1uvi;ll szdimentation: Internation
Assolintion ofSedimentologirts Special Publication 17, pp. 439-450.
lrlnck G. H. and Seager. W. R., 1990, Tectoniz control on facies distribution of tha Camp Rice and Palomvr Formations (PliocenePleistocene) ih the routhem Rio Grande rift Geological Society of America Bulletin, Y. 102, January, pp. 45-53
Slack, G. H.. Sdynrds, S . L., and Jnmcr, W. C., 1994. Slagnetostratigraphy ofthe Plio-Pleistocene Camp Ricc m d Palotnas Formations
in the Rio grande rift of southern X u Mesico: . h a r i c n n Journal of Science, v. 293, pp. 49-77.
Llanldy, K.. 1978, Gsalogic map of Bernnlillo NW Quadrangle, Sandoval County, N w Nesico: U.S.Geological Survey, Geologic
Quadrangle Map GQ-14.16, scale I:24,00
Xlmley, K.. 1979, Stratigraphy and ~tmctureof llle Espafiola Basin; Rio Grand* rift,New Xleaico, h Riecker, R. E., ed., Rio Grande
rift: Tactonism and magnetism: American Geophysicd Union. pp. 71-86.
Slasey,G.B.. 1964, Hydrostratigraphic units: Journal of Hydrology, v. 2, pp. 124-129.
>lay, S . J. and Russell, L. R., 1994, Thicherr of the r p r i f t Smtn Fe Group in the Albuquerque Basin and its r h t i m IO structural
style: Geological Socialy of America, Special Paper 291, pp. 113-123.
May, S. J.. K;elley. S. A,. and Russell. L. R..1994. Footwall unloading and rift slmulder uplifts n
i the Albuquerque Basin: Their
r&tion to syn-rif~fmglomemtes and apatite fission-tract ages: Geological Society of America, Special P q c r 291, pp. 125134.
Maynard, S. R.. 1995, Gold miilmlization arsocintcd with mid-Tcniary magmatism and tectonism, Gnir Mountains, Santa Fe County,
Xiaw llesico: N w Xlesico Geologioal Society, Guiddbook 46, pp. 161-166.
%laynard, S. R.. Woodward, L. A,, and Gilcs, D. L., 1991, Tecrooics, intrusive rock, and min~ralizationof the San Pzdro-Oniz
porphyy bel\ ~nonh-centralN.icw Llasico: New Llesico Bureau of Miner and Mineral Resources Bulletin 137, pp, 57- 69.
LlcAda, D. P.. 1996, Plan of study to quantify the hydrologic relations between tha Rio Grande m d the Smta Fa Group Aqnifer
Syrrc~~~n~nr.ilbuqusrque,CdntmlNew
hbsico: U.S. GeologicallLSurvey Water-Resources Investigations Rqon96-4006,
5 5 PP.
Mc,Ada, D. P. and Wasiolek. SI.. 1988. Simulation of the regional geohydrology of the Tssuqua aquifsr system near S a m Fe, New
hlesiso: US. Geological Survey, Water-lnvertigationr Rspon 87-4056.
)rlcCl;ly, K. and Dooley, T..1995, Annlogue models of pull-span bwins: Geology, pp. 711-714.
~ I c l n t o s hW.
~ C. and Quade. I., 1995. “Ari”Ar gaoshrunology of tdphm layen in tllr S a m Fe Group, Erpaiiola Basin, New Lleaico:
S e w Llssioo Geologicnl Society, Guidebook 46,pp. 279-287.
McQuillan, D. \I.. 1982. Pollution ofthe Rio Grande vallcg-fill aquifer: New Mexico Gdological Society, Guidebook 33, pp. 357-360.
bleinzer, 0. E.. 19 11, Geology and ~vaterresources of Estancinl Valley, New Mlesico: US. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper
275. 89 pp.
Xlenne. B.. 1989. Stntcture ofthe Placitas a r q northern Sandia uplift. Sandoval Couoty, New blesico [LIS. Thesis]: Albuquerque,
University of New Mesico, 163 pp.
hlorgan, P.. Seager, W. R., and Golombdk XI. P., 1986, Cdnozoic thermal, mechanical and tectonic evolution ofthe Rio Gnnde rift:
Journal of Gsophysicd Resrmh, Y. 91, pp. 6263.6276,
Morl+y, C. K..Sdlron, R. A,, Pmon, T. L., and blunn, S. G., 1990, Transfer zones in the E s t Africa rift system and their relcvmce
to hydrocarbon dsploratlon in rib: h s r i c m Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, Y. 74, pp. 1234-1253.
hlozley, P. S.. Beckner. J., and Whimonh, T. &I., 1995, Spatial distribution of calcite cement in the Snnrn Fe Group, Albuquerque
Basin. NLI: Implievlions for ground-water ~ ~ S O L I R - C SNew
:
Mcsico Geology, Y. 17, no. 4, pp. 88-93.
Mlozlsy, P. S. and Goodwin, L. B., 1995, Panemr ofoemdntation along B Cenozoio nornml fault: A record of palmflow orientations:
Geology, Y . 23. no. 6. pp. 539-542, 4 figs.
10
Opdn-file Report 402, Appendis K
Xlozldy, P. S.. Chnmberlin. R.. Gillentine, 1. \I., and Lozinrky. R. P., 1992, Petrologic data: Hydrogeologic fmmework ofthe northern
Albuqucrqw Basin. Sew Mesieo Bureau of Mines and Mineral Rerourcrs. Open-File Repon 387, pp. 1V-1 to IV.17.
Llyen, D. .A,. 1966. Geology of the Tajique quadrangle. Tomnce and Bemnlillo Counties, New !drxico: US. Geological Survey,
Gdologic Quadrangle \lap GQ-551.
Myen, D. ,A,, 1967, Geologic map of the Torreon quadrangle. Torrance Caunty, New Xlsxico: US. Geological Survey, Geologic
Quadrangle \lap GQ-639, scale 1:24.000.
Myen. D. A,. 1969, Geologic Map of the Escabosa quadrangle. Bernalillo County, New Mexico: US. Geological Survey, Geologic
Qundmngla Nap GQ-795, scale 1:24.000.
Myers, D. .A,, 1977, Geologic map of the Schollc quadrangle, Socorro, Vdencia and Torrance Counties: New Mexico: US.geological
Survey, Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-1412. scale 1:24.000.
Myen, D. A,, 1982, Stratigraphic summa? of Pennrylvanian and lower Pemim rocks, Llanzano Mountains, New hlasico: New
Llasico Geological Society, Guidebook 33. pp. 233-237.
Slydn. D. A . and >IcK;ay. E. J.. 1970. Geologic map of the hlount Washington quadrangle, Bernnlillo and valencia c o d e s , New
Yesico: U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Qu;ldrangld \lap GQ-886.
Xlysn. D. ,A, and hlcKay. E. J.. 197 I, Geologic map of the Borqur Peak quadrangle. Torrance. vdencia and Bsrnalillo Counties. New
Xlesico: U S Gcologicd Survey, Geologic. Qundrangk Map GQ-948. scale l:24,000.
Myen. D. .A. and Xlcfky. E. 1.. 1972, Geologic map of the Capilla Peak quadrangle. Torrance and Valencia Counties, New Mexico:
U.S. Gcologicd Survey, Geologic Qundrangle Map GQ-1008, scale 1:24,000.
Myen, D. ,A. and McKay, E. J., 1974, Geologic map of the southwest quaner of the Torreon 15-minute quadrangle, Torrance and
Vnlencia Counries. New Xlesico: US. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map 1-820, scale 1:24,000.
Myen, D. A. m d blcKa?. E. I., 1976, Geologic map of the nonh end of the hlanrano Xlountains, Tijcras and Sedillo Quadrangles,
Bernalillo Count?, New 1lcsi;o: US.Geological Survey, Ilircullaneour GeologicInvertigarions Map 1-968, scale 1:24,000.
Xlyen, D. ,A,, XIcKay, E. 1.. and Sharps, J. A,, 1981, Geologic map ofthe Backer quadmlgle, Valencia and Socorro Counties, Yew
llesico: US. Geological Survey. Geologio Quadrangle Slap GQ-1556. ~ c n l e1:24,000.
hlyen, D. A,. Sharps. I. A,. and !deK;sy, E. J., 1956, geologic map of the B*cker S W and Crrro Slontose Quadrangles, Sosorro
County, New Maxim: U.S. Gdologicsl Survay, Misssllaneous geologic Investigations .\lap 1-1567. scale 1:24,000.
Nelson, E.P. and Hunter. 1.. 1986. Laramide thin-skinned dcfonnotion in Pmnian rooks, Fra Crirtobal range, south-sentral Xew
h s i c o , pp ll5.12l.
Wson, R. .A,. Panon. T. L.. and Ilorky. C. K.. 1992. Riir-sdgment interaction and its relation lo hydrocarbon axplomtion in
m ~ t i n e n t drift syrtams: .American Associxion of Petroleum Geologists Bullatis. VOI,
76, no. 8, pp. 1153-1169.
Osburn. 0. R. and Chaph. C. E,, 1953. Somenclaturd for Ccnozoic rock of nonheast I*logollon-Dstil volcanic field, New Llmico:
Saw blesico Bureau of Mnar and >liner31 R e s a t ~ e s Stratigraphic
,
Chan 1.
Peassc, D. D.. 1975, Soil survey of Valenaia County, New Ilesico. lastrrn pan: U.S. Soil Conservation Service, I21 pp.
Petcr, K. D.. 1987, Ground-wter flow and shallow-aquifer propcnies in ths Ria Gmnde inner valley south of Albuquerque,Bemalillo
County, New I1esic.o: U S . Geological Survey \V~tsr-ResourcesInvestigations 87-4015, 29 pp.
Petenon. D. \I.. Khaleel, R.. and Hawlay, J. W., 1984, Quasi Ihrce-dimensional modeling ofgroundwater flow in the Mesilla bolron,
Sew Slerico: S e w llesico Water Resources Rcrcarsh Institute, Tcchnicnl Completion Repon Project No. 1-3-4564. WRRI
Rdpon No. 175. 185 pp.
Ramberg, 1. 9. and Smithson. S. B., 1975, Gridded fault patterns in P late Cenozoic and Paleozoic continental rift: Geology, Y. 3, no.
4. pp. 202-205.
Ramberg, 1. 9.. Cook. F. A , and Smithson. S. 9.. 1978. Structure of the Rio Gmnde rift in southern New hlerico and \vest Tdxas
based on gravity ioterpretntion: Geological Society of .-\merica Bulletin, Y. 89, no. 1, pp. 107-123.
Rsadrr, H. 0.. Bjorklund. L. J., and Dinwiddid. G. A,, 1967. quantitative Analysis of water rwxrcer in the Albuquerque area, New
Mexico: ?&\v lrlssico State Engineer Technical Repon 33, 34 pp.
Rriche. P.. 1949, Geology of the Ilanzanita and nonh Llanzmo Slountains, Ndw Xlesico: Geological Socidly of America Bulletin,
v. 60. no. 7, pp. 1183-1212.
Reicker, R.E..dd., 1979, Rio Grande rift:tsctonics and magmatism: .American Gcophysical Union, Wwhingon, D. C., 425 pp.
Reneao, S. L.. Gudner, J. X. Forman. S. L., 1996, Nsw svidrnce for the agd of the youngest eruptions in the Valles caldera, Nsw
Usxiso: Geology, v. 24, no. I, pp. 7-10.
Richey, S. F., 1991, Conrlruction, lithologic. and geophysical data from monitoring wells in Albuquerque, Bcrnalillo County, N.iew
Mexico: U.S.Geological Survey, Open-File Repon 90-578, 83 pp.
R d w , XI.. Eggldrtan, R. E.. Broadwell, 9. R., and Minier, 1.. 1986: Estimates of terrestrial heat flow from deep petroleum tests along
tlle Rio Grnnde rifi in cunlrd and s ~ u t l ~ eNew
m hksiso: Journal ofGeophysicnl Research, v. 91, no. B6, pp. 6225-6245.
Riecker, R E.. rd., 1979. Rio Grmde rift: Tectonics and mngmatism: .4mericm Geophysical Union. Washington, D. C., 428 pp.
Rojstaczcr, S.. 1996, Ground-water modeling: The digital bock of the envelope, hlolnia, B.F. (ed.), Fomm: hlodeling Geology
lhs ideal world YS. the reill world: Geotimes, pp. 17-14.
Romero. D.. 1994, A three-dimlnsionJI conceptud model oithe wBer quality distribution in the Albuquerque Basin: Onega-Klen
C.. dd.. Pro:eedings ofthe 39th r\nnanl Xew llasico Wntdr Confdrence, "The w a t a future of Albuquerque and hliddle Rio
Grande Basin": Sew llaxico Water Resources Research Institute Repon 290, pp, 219-228.
~
Opdn-file Repon 402. Appendix K
Rosanddll, B.R.. 1987, Architecture ofcontinentd r i b with special refsrence to East Africa, Annual Reviews ofeanh and Planewry
Scibnces, v. I S . pp. 445-503.
Russell, L. R. nnd Snelson. S., 1994a. Strucmml style and tectonic e~olutionof the Albuquerque Basin segment of the Rio Grade
rifl. N W Mexico. U.S..A., . in Landan. S. .\I.. . ed... Interior Rifl Basins: American Association of Pcvoleum Geoloeists.
Slamoir 59, pp. 205-253.
Russell, L. R. and Snelron. S.. 1994b. Smlcture and tectonics of the Albuquemue
. . Basin seement
- of the Rio Gnnde rift: lnriehts from
reflection seismic data: Geological Society of America. Spdeiol Paper 291, pp. 83-1 12.
Salcs. J. K., 1983. Collaprd of Rocky Ilountrin basSement uplitis. h Lowell. J. D. and Gries, R., eds., Rocky !vlounlain foreland basins
and uplib: Danver, Colorado. Rasky Ilountain .Association of Gaologists, pp. 79-97.
Salyardr. S. L., Xi, I. F.. and Aldrich. 11. J.. Jr.. 1994. Variation ill paleomagnetic rolationr and kinematics of the nonh-central Rio
Grmdc rift. Nsw Ilaxico, h Kdler, G. R. and Cather. S. I[.. eds.. Bmins of the Rio G m d e rift: Struulure, stratigraphy,
nnd teetonic saing: Boulder. Colondo, Geological Sociaty of America Special Paper 291, pp. 59-71.
Sanford. .A. R.. 1994, The July 1960 emhquake sequence in thc Central Rio G m d e RiR of New Mexico: Geoscience Ddpanment and
Geophysienl Rdsearclt Cantar, Geophysics Open-File Rdpon 64, New 1lexico Tech, Socorro, NM, 16 pp.
Sanford, A. R.. 1994. An estimatc of the rmhquakc hazard in the Socorra area based on insfmntentd dam: July 1960 - Decembsr
Rerewch Cdnter, Geophysics Open-File Repon 72, Xew Uaxico T ~ I ,
1993: Geoscience D e p ~ n and
~ ~Gcophysicd
t
Socorro. NXI, 3 pp.
Sanford, A. R.. Jakha, L. H., and Cash. D. J., 1991, Seismicity of thc Rio Grande rift in New Uerieo, hSlcmmonr, D. B., Engdahl,
E. R., Zoback XI. D.. 2nd Bhckwell. D. D., edr., Seotcctonics ofNonh A n l e r i u ~Oeologicd Society of Americq Decade
a h p , v. 1, pp. 229-244.
Sanford, .A. R.; Balch, R. S., Lakings, I. A,, Hame, H. E., House, L. S., 1993, A link between listric faulting and recdnt seismicity
in the central Rio Grmde rift ofNiew Llesieo: Geoscience Depanment and G ~ p h y s i Research
~d
Ccnter, Geophysics OpenFile Rapon 65, Net" Sksico Tsch, Sozorro, YXl, 16 pp.
Sanford, A. R.. Lin, K. W., 1994, .A r*pon on the sdismicity of New Llexico and bordering regions: Geoscience Dapanment and
geophysical Research EenlCr. Geophysics Open-File Repon 75, %w Slesico Tech, Socorro, NSl, 3 pp.
Sanford, A. R.. Lin, K. \I., Tsai. I. C., Jakshn, L. H., 1995. Preliminary listing and discussion of New Slexico eanhquakdr 1962-1994
with duration magnitudes of 3.0 and greater: Gsosciens* Dcpanment and Geophysical Research
Center, , Gaophysicr GpenFila Repon 79, Naw llesico Tech. Socorro, XM, 11 pp.
Schneiddr. R. V. and Kdler, G. R., 1994, Cmstd stn~ctureofth* western margin oftha Rio Grnnde rift and Llogollon-Datil volcanic
field. southwrst~mNew Mexico and soutllel~ternArizona: Geological Society of ..hllericq Special Paper291,pp, 207-226.
Seagar. W. R. and $lack, G. H.,1986, Lnnmide paleotectonics of southern Yew Mexico: hPetenon, I. A,, ad.. Palmtectonics and
sedimentation in lhe Rocky Ilottntain Rsgion, United Stntcs, AAPG Memoir 41, ?he h d c a n Association of Petrolzurn
Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma. pp. 669-685.
Seagsr, W. R. and Slorgan, P., 1979, Rio Gmnde rift i h southzrn New Xlesico, west Texas and nonhern Chihuahuq Riecker, R
E (ed.), Rio Grande rift. tdctonics w d magmatism: Washingon, D.C., American Geophysical Union, pp. 87-106.
Srqer. W . R., Shafiqullah, If.. Hnwley, J. W., and .\lsn,in, R.F., 1984, Yaw K-Ar dates from basalts and the evolution of the
outh hem Rio grande: Geological Society of America Bulletin, Y. 95, pp. 37-99.
Shomaker, I. v i . . 1988, Hydrogeologic investigations ut proposed Socorro county landfill sites, veguita and Socorro, New Mexico:
Consulting repon, J. W . Shomaker Inc.. 62 pp.
Shomaker, J. W., 1995, Hydrology of Oniz Iloantains and vicinity: New Mexico Geological Society, Guidebook 46, pp. 313-318.
Shomaker, I. W and Collier, H..A,. 1995, Transmissivity of the Albuquerque Aquifc Estimates by Advanced Logging Techniqws,
n
i Onega-Klen, C., ed., Proceedings of the 39111 r\lmud New Xlesico Water Conference, "The water h t u r e of Albuquerque
and Sliddk Ria Grande Basin": S'cn Sksico Water Resources Rssearch In%kuta Repon 290, pp. 199-207
Sigda, J. Xl., 1994, Examining the impacts oifaults an aquifer flow systems: Implications for regional groundwvater flow modeling:
in Onrga-Klett, C., sd., Proc*edings ofthd 39th Annual New Mexico Watar Conference, "The water future of Albuquerque
and Middle Rio Grand* Basin": New blcsico Water Resources Research Institute Repon 290, pp. 237-244.
Slack P. B. and Campbell, J. A , 1976, Structuml Gcology of the KOPuerco fault zone and its relationship to Central New Mexico
tectonics. hWoodward. L. A. and Nonhrup, S. A,. (eds.), Tectonics andm i n e d reso~hrcesof'Southwrstern Nonh America:
N e w .\lesieo Geological Society Special Publication No. 6,pp. 46-52.
Smith, G. A,, 1995. Paleog*ograpldc. volcanologic and t e m n i s significance oftlte upperAbiquiu Formation at ;\rroyo del Cobre, New
Mexico: S e w 11rxico Geological Society, Guidebook 46, pp. 261-270.
Smith, G. A. and Lavine, A,, 1994, W h a t is the Cachiri Fonnation? New Masico Gmlogy, Y. 16, no. 3.
Smith, G. A. and Pazznglia, F. 1.. 1995, Tile Pliocene (?) Borrego pediment surfwe and development of the westem Sangre de Cisto
Xloontains f r o x New Mexico Geologiad Society, Guidebook 46. pp, 6-9.
Smilh, G. A,. L m d n , D..Harlan, S. S.. SleIntoah, W. C., Erskine. D. W., and Taylor, S., 1991, A u l e of two volcaniclastic aprons:
Fizld guide to ths sadimcnrology and physical volcmology of lhe Oligocene Espinaro Formation and Miocene Pemlu Tuff,
nonh-cenval New Slesico: S w Slesico Burau of lliner and Uineml Resources Bullelin 137, pp. 57-103.
Smith, H. T. U.. 1938, Tsniary geology of the Abiquia quadrangie, New ilesico: Journal of Geology, Y. 46, pp. 933-965, 12 figs.
*,Xlp.
-~~.
~~~
-
Smith, R. L.. Bliley. R. .A,, and Ross, C.
S.. 1970, Geologic map of the Jernez Slountainr, New Mexico: US.Grologicai Survey,
>Iirc+llaneous Investigations L h p 1-571, scale 1:125,QOQ.
Spiegel. Z., 1955. Geology 2nd ground-water rcsoursss of Inortheastern Socorn, County, New Mexico: Xsw Mexico Bureau of Mines
and Llinerai Resources. Ground-Water Repon 4, 99 pp.
Spirgel, Z., 1961, Late a n o m i e redimcnls ofllte lowvrrlemez River region: New Llexico Geological Society, Guidebook 12, pp. 132138, Figs. 1.2.
Spiegri. 2.. 1962. Hydraulics of cennin stream-connected aquifer systems: New LIerico State Engineer, Speciai Repon, 105 pp.
Spiegrl. 2. and Baldwin. B.. 1963. Geology and water resources of the S a m Fe area, New \lesico. US. Gsoiogicd Survey, Watersuppiy Paper 1525, 258 pp.
Stark. I. T.. 1956, Geology af thc south Llanz;mo Slountdnz, S'ew Mexico: New h x i c o Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources
Bullctin 34. 49 pp.
Stark J. T. nnd Dapples, E. C.. 1946, Geology of the Lor Pinos Mounmins, New Mexico: Gcological Society of ,Ameiica Bulletin,
v. 57. pp. 1121-1172.
Steams, C. E.. 1943. The Galistso rorm=tion of nonh-central. S e w hlesico: Journal of Geology, v. 51, no. 5 , pp. 301319, 10 figs.
Staantr. C. E.. 1953.1, Teniaw p l o g y ofilla Galistao-Tonque
New l l e s i w : Geologi-al Sosiely of America Builetin, v. 64, pp.
459-508, nmpr.
Steams.,~
C. E.. 1953b. Eariv Teniam volcanism in tile Galisteo-Tonane area. nonh-centra1 New Slexico: h\mcricanJournal ofScirncd.
Y . 2S1, pp. 415.452, maps.
Stone, \V.J., 1984, Localized fr& ground-water bodies -- a special consideration in siting landfills along the Ria Grand6 Valley: Nlw
hlesico Bureau of Mnar and Mineral Resources, Hydrologic Repon 7, p. 229-238.
Stone, W.J.. 1988a, Recharge at the Veguita landfill site, Socorro County, New Mexico: New Slesico Burenu of Miner and hlineml
Resources, Opnl-File Report 338.22 p.
Stone, W.I., 1988b, Recharge at the Cai-West Xletdr Site, Lernitor, Socorro County,N e w Xlesico: New Irlesico Bureau of Mines and
Xlinemi Resources, Open-File Repon 340, 17 p.
Stone. W.J., 1990. Index to NMOS guidebook papen on lhydrology and rzintsd topics -- 40 yern of water-resource information: New
Skxico Geology, F s b m q issue, p. 8-14
Stone, \\'.J., 19923. Estimating mntamin31iou potentia1 at wvaste-disposal sites using B natural tracw: Enviroamental Gaology and
W m r Science. v. 19, no. 3. p. 139-115.
Stone, W . I. and Mizell. S. H.,1979, Availability of groiogiuri and geophysicnl data for thc eastern half of the US. Geological
Survey's Soutlwestsrn Alluvial Basin rr+xnl Aquifer Stndy: Nzw lrlesico Bureau of Mines and Mineral R*sources OpenFils R q o n 109, 80 pp.
Stone. Ut. I.. hiinnis. 11.. Thompson. S., and Nunn. S. C.. 1990. The Rio Omnde Basin: Proceedings, T h e Rio Grandc Basin - Global
climate changz scenarios, New h1esi;o Watw Resource Research Institute Repon No. M24, pp. 17-26.
Sumn~en.W . X., 1992, Albbuqwrque's watu table -Winter 1988-89: New >llssico Geology, pp 8.
Sun, SI. S. and Baldwin, Brewster, 1958. Volcanic r o c k of the Cienega area, Santa Fr County, New Mexico: New Mexico Bureau
of Mines and Slinrrai R.%ources Bulletin 54, 80 pp. 6 pis, 8 figs.
Tedford. R. H.. i981, Mmunalian biocilronology ofthe late Cenozoic basins o f N e w Llesico: Geological SocielyofAmerica Bulletin,
Part I, \'. 92. pp. 100%-1022.
Trdford. R. H.. 1982. Seogene stratigraphy ofthd nonilwestem Albuquerque Basin: New M e x i c o Geoiogicai Society, Guidebook 33,
pp. 273-278.
Tedford. R. H. end Barghoorn. S. 17..1993, Neogdna stratignpity and nummalian biochronology oftllr Erpaiioia Basin. northern New
llesico il? Lucas. S. G . and Zidek 1.. eds, Vcrtebrats paleontology in New Mexico: New bIEsico Museum of Natural
History and S;ienue Bulletin 2. pp.159.168.
Thheis, C. V., 1938. Ground water in the middle Rio Grmdc vailay. h (US.) National R*rources Cornmind*, Rqional Planning, pt.
VI, The Rio Grnnde joint investigation in the upper Rio Grande basin in Colorado, New Mexico. and Texas, 1936-37 U.S.
Govdmruem Printing Office, Y . I, pp. 268-291.
Thrlhl, G. P. and Pike, P.J.. 1991, Landforms oftha conterminous Unitad States - A digital shaded-reiiaf ponrayal: US.Geological
Survey. to accompany Map 1-2206.
Thorn. C.R., SlcAda. D. P., and Kcmodla, J. M., 1993. Geohydrologic framework and hydrologic conditions in the Albuquerque
Basin central New SLesico: US.Galo$icd Suwcy. Water-Resources Investigations Repon 93-4149, 106 pp.
Tight. W. G.. 1905, Boiron plains of the Southwest: Americm Geologist. v. 36. pp, 271-281.
Tirnmons, 1. Ll., Karistronl. K. E., and Kirby, E., 1995, Geology of dia MonteLargo Hills 8rea, New Mexico: structural and
metmvxphic study of tils eastern aureola of the Sandia pluton: New Mcsico Geological Society, Guidebook 46, pp. 227232.
Titns, F. B. Jr.. 1961. Ground-mater geology of thz Rio Grand2 nou& in north-cenmi Nlem Mlesico, wiUl sections on Ihe Janez
Caldera and the Lucaro Uplift New Mvlesico Geological Society, Guidebook 12, pp. 186.192.
Titus. F. B., 11..1963. Geology 2nd ground-water eondirionr in eastern Vnlencin County, New Slexico: New Mcxiso Bureau of Mines
and Slinersl Rwurces. Ground-Water Repon 7, 113 pp.
.
I
13
Open-fils Repon 402. .Appendis K
F. B.. Jr., 1980. Ground water in the Smdia and nonhem k1mzmo Ilountains,
New Urxico: S e w Llexico BurraU ,,fL[.liner
and Uinerd Rasourcer, Hydrologic Repon 5, 66 pp.
Tolman. C. F.. 1909, Erosion and deposition in routhem ,Arizona bolron region: Journal of Geology, Y. 17. pp. 136-163.
Tolman. C. F., 1937. Ground water: Xew York, hlcCrw-Hill Book Co., 593 pp.
USBR. 1996, !diddle Rio GrandeWater .Asessnlenl. Draft Repon: US. Depmment of the Intdrior, B u r u u of Reclamation,
.Albuquerque Area Office.
Vmzann. 11. E. and Ingenoll. R.V.. 1981. Stratigaphy. sedimentology, petrology, and basin evolution
of the Abiquiu Formation
(Oligo-Slioaenc), uonh-ienval S e w i1esiL.a: Gcolgoical Society of h a r i c o Bulletin. Pur I, v. 92. pp. 990.992, pan 11,
v. 92. pp. 2101-2483.
Wells. S. G., Kelson, K. I.,and Mcnges. c. If.. 1987. Quaternary evolution of fluvial systems in Ihe nonllem Rio Gnnde rift New
Mexico and Colorado: Implic3tiuus for entrenchment and inlegation of drainage systems: Albuquerque, Friends of the
Pleirtocdne-Rocky Ilountain Cell Field Trip Guidebook, pp. 55-69.
Wemicke. E. and .Asen. G. J., 1982. On t l x m I a of isortsry in the evolution of normal fwlt systems: Geolopy, Y. 16. pp. 848.851,
Whitwonh, T. AI.. 1995, Hydrogeoclwnicnl computer modcling of proposed anificial recharge of the upper Sanfa Fe Group aquifer,
.Albuquerque. Sew Mrsico: New Mexico Geology. Y. 17, no. 1. pp. 71-75.
Wiikins. D. W., 1987, Choraetrrir1i;s and propenids of the basin-fill nquif?r dzlsrmined from illred tdst wells west of Albuquerque,
Bemalillo County, Nsw Mexico: U.S. Gaologicnl Survey, Water Rcsourcrs Investigations Repon 86-4187, 78 pp.
Wilcox, R. W., 1994, .halflical results from an environmcntd investigation of six sites on Kinland .Air Forca Bass, New Mexico,
1993.1994 US. Geological Survey, OF 94-0547, prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Air Force, 1995, 55 pp,
WOW, I. A. m d Gnrdner, J. X., 1995, Is the Valles caldera entering 3 nzw cycle of activily?: Geology, v. 23. no. 5 , pp. 411-414, 3
figs.
Wood, G . H. and S o n h ~ p S.
, A,. 1946, Geology of the S:acimiento Mountains, San Pedro Slountnin. and adjacent plntenvs in parts
ofSandivnl and Rio k i b n Counties, New Mexico: US.Geological Survey, Oil and Gas Investigations MapOM-57, Scale
1:96,000.
Woodwvard, L. A,, 1977, Rate of CNE1.l ehlension a~lrossthe Rio Grand* rift near Albuquerque, Naxv hlesico: Geology. Y . 5, pp. 269272.
Woodward. L.A.. 1982. Tectonic iramework d.Albuquerque Cauutry: Xew Slesico Geological Society. Guidebook33. pp. 273-278.
Woodward, L.A,, 1984, Basdment eontrol ofTdninr). intmsions and associated lmineml depmiu along Tijeras-Caiioncito fault system,
New Mexico: Geology, Y. 12; pp. 531-533.
Woodward, L. A.. 1987, Geology and mineral resoumds of Sierra Nacimicnto a d vicinity, Xew Mexico: New blesico Bureau of
Miner and \Linen1 Resources, Xlemoir 42. 84 pp.
Woodward. L. A,, 1994, Restoration of Laramide right-lateral strikd slip in nonhem Nsw XLexico by using Proterozoic piercing poinu:
Tectonic implications from tho Proterozoic to thz Cenozoic: Commsnt and Reply: Geology, September, pp. 862-863.
Woodrvard. L. A. and Xionluup, S. A,, (rds.) 1976, Tectonics and miueml N S O U ~ ~ofS Southwertdm Nonh .Amcricn: New 41axico
Geological Society Special Publication No. 6. 218 pp.
Woodward, L. .A. and Slenne. B., 1995. Down-plunge structural intcrpraation of the PlacitJs a r u . &nonhwesternpan of Sandin uplift,
evolution ofthe Rio Gmndz
rifl, N a v L1esic-o Geological S o c i y . Guidebook
Centnl Sew Ilcsico-implic~tionr fortectonic
46;pp. 127-133.
Woodward, L. .A. and Ruetschilling, R. L., 1976. geology a i San Ysidro Quadrangle, New Mexico: New Llesico Bureau of ,Minds
and Ilincral Rssourcrr. Oeologic Map 37, scab 1:125,000.
Woodward, L. A,. Callendar. I. F.. Senger. W. R., Chapin. C. E.. Cries. J. C.. ShntEr, W. L., and Zilinski, R. E., 1978, Tectonic map
oithe Rio Grande rifl region in N e w hlerica, Chihuahua, and Texas, itl Guidebook lo the Ria Grande in New Xlsxico and
Colorado: New Mexico Burouu of Mines zud Iliuerd Resources, Circular 163, plate 2, scale 1:1,000.000.
Wright. A. F.. 1975. Bibliography of the the geology and hydrology of the Albuquerque grentar urbon area. Bernaliilo 2nd parts of
Sandoval, Smta Fz, Socorro, Torrance, and Vddncia Counridr. X w Llarico: US. Geological Survey, bulletin 1455, 31
Titus.
""
14
, 107 107°15'.
45'
'00'
30'
i
1C)6°1S'
3!
3(
I!
35[' oc
4 5'
30'
34"
10
0
"
20
+-
I
0
10
20
30
30 MILES
KILOMETERS
Plate 1.
Major Geomorphic Subdivisions
of the Albuquerque Basin Area.
hawley-aib basin
geo map w/NE addition
piate 2
rjt 2/96
Major Geologic Subdivisions
of the Albuquerque Basin Area,
Rio Grande Rift.
(Includes basin-bounding upliffs, intra-basin depressions,
fault zones, transfer zones,and volcanic centers)
Plate 2-Abbreviations
Explanation of Lithostratigraphic Units
"
Faultzonesandotherstructuralfeatures:AtriscoBarelasflexurezone(A-Bzone),Algodonesfault
zone (Afz), AtriscoRincontransferzone
(ARtz),
Belen Valley fault zone (BVfz), Casa Colorada fault
zone (CCfz), Calabacillas fault zone(Cfz), Cliff Fault
(CLf), Comanche-Saiz fault zone (Cmfz), Cat Mesa
fault
zone
(CMfz),
Coyote
fault
zone (Cyfz),
Gabaldonfaultzone(Gafz),HubbellSpringsfault
zone (HSfz), Jemez fault zone (Jfz), Luce fault
LomaBlancafault
(LBO, La Bajadafault
zone
(LBfz), Loma Pelada fault zone
(LPfz), Los Pinos
fault (LPf), Manzano fault zone (Mfz), Moguno fault
(Mof), Nine Mile fault zone M f z ) , Paradise fault
zone (Pdfz), Pajarito fault zone
(Pfz), Placitas fault
(PO, Puerco Valley fault zone(Pvfz). Ridgecrest fault
zone (RCfz), Rio Grande fault system (RGfs),Rincon
fault (RO, Rosario-Bajada fault zone (TiBfz), Santa
Ana fault (Saf), Santa Ana-Borrego accommodation
zone (SBaz), Santa Fe fault zone (Sefz), Sandia fault
zone (Sfz), San Francisco fault (SFf), Sand Hill fault
zone (SHfz), Santa Fe River fault zone (SRfz), Star
Heightsfaultzone(STfz),Tijeras-Cafioncitofault
Rio Grande and Rio Puerco fluvial deposits defined in
RA'- AppendrxC
Rio Grande Valley-border alluvium and alluvial fill of the
lower Jemez River and Rio Salado Valleys defined in
Appendix C (includes unit TA)
Lake Estancia sediments; late Quaternary
Basaltic volcanics of the Albuquerque and Cat Hills fields;
extensive lava flows, with localized vent units such as
cinder cones, and possible feeder dikes and sills in subsurface; late middle Pleistocene
(Lo,
Silicic volcanics, primarily BandelierTuff; early Pleistocene
alluvium with local travertine and eolian deposits;
C
equwalent to USF-1 defined in Appendix
..
Andesitic volcaaics of the Las Lunas field; Pliocen- and
early Pleistocene
Upper and Middle Santa Fe Group, primarily USF and
MSF units defined inAppendix C (includes discontinuous
veneer of units VA and PA)
Basaltic and andesitic volcanics of the Cat Mesa,Wind
Mesa, San Felipe, Cerros del Rio, Tomt, and Isleta fields,
extensive lava flows, with localized vent units; include
possible sills andlor buried flows west of the Albuquerque
volcanoes; Pliocene and Miocene
system(TCfs),Tijeras-Gabaldonaccommodationzone
(TGaz), Tenorio fault zone (Th), Valley View fault
zone (VVf), West Mesa fault zone (Wfz), Zia fault
zone (Zfz)
Lower and MiddleSanta Fe Group, primarily LSF,and
MSF untts defined ln Appendur C (tncludes dlscontlnuous
veneer of units PA and VA)
Other Symbols
6
~
6
" . to basaltic intrusive and volcanic rocks; Miocene
Sillclc
and Ohgocene
c.* Late Cenozoic normal fault, bar &ball on
downthrown side; dashed where approximate; dotted
where concealed
,
* U t e Cenozoic transverse structural zone with some
oblique- or strike-slip fault displacement noted
hramide reverse fault, arrows show directions Of
transpression and dip of fault planes
A
o o o
Approximate eastem and western boundaries of
axial Rio Grande deposits (USF-2)
* "'
and Middle Tertiary rocks undivided; primarily
with sandstone and mudstone dominant;
includes "unit of Isleta #2"of Lozinsky (1988), and Galisteo
and Espinosa Formation correlatives
Mesozoic rocks-undivided; pimarily upper Cretaceous
sandstone and mudstone, Triassic sandstone and mudstone,
and local Jurassic clastic rocks with gypsite and limestone
rocks-undivided; including 1)sandstone, mudand gypsite of the PermianAbo,Yeso,
Glorieta, and San Andres Formation: and 2) limestone.
sandstone, and shale of the Pennsylvanian Madera Group
and Sandia Formation
Undifferentiated pre-Santa Fe bedrock units
350 45
30'
~
15'
0
I
0
10
I
I
10
%
20
I
I
20
30
I
30
I
KILOMETER
Plate 3.
MILES Major Hydrogeologic
Subdivisions
of the Albuquerque Basin Area.
(Includes basin-bounding uplifts, intra-basin
depressions, and buriedstructural highs)
R I
Mz
....
0
R A N C H 0
I
-
MSF-
I
I
.
w
n
3
d
;
,&
3 in... .
I
I
I
"
MSF/LSF
j/
!
"
"
"Is
"
"
LL
J
3
"
"
"
i:
- e-
9
k?
@
" - -& -" ~
- I ,- - - -t-- 9
"L"~-"--""""
"~"""""
"5-b
d
""
2
z
T
6%.'
\t\
Mapped, edited, and published by the
Ge6logic;il Survey
"
Control by USGS and USC&GS
-.
"
*
1
SCALE 1:24000
1 MILE
n
"
"
".
Heavy.duty
Culture and drainage in part co-mpiled from aerial photographs
taken 1959,Topography by planetable surveys 1954. Revised 1960
Polyconic projection. 1927 North American datum
10,000-foot grid based on New Mexico coordinate system, central zone
1000-meler Universal Transverse Mercator grid ticks, zone 13, shown in blue
Red tint indicates areas in which only landmark buildings are shown
Areas
covered
by
light.blue pattern are subject to controlled inundation
West boundary of Sandia Pueblo Grant adjacent to Rio Grande omitted
because of insufficient data "
/
Revisions shct.*.:n in purple compiled from aerial photographs
taken 1967 and 1972. Thisrnformatlonnotfieldchecked
Purple tint indicates extension of urban amas
-I"-,
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
.
Mediumduty
D
0
Light-duty .
. .
,.. L
:~,.C1--
Interstate Route
cJ
Unimproved dirt = _ = _= = _ =
,,-,
U.S. Route
State Route
L!
NEW MEXICO
v
-
UTM GRID A N 0 1972 M A G N E TNI CO R T H
DECLINATION A T CENTER OF S H E E T
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
T H I SM A PC O M P L I E SW I T HN A T I O N A LM A PA C C U R A C YS T A N D A R D S
- .
FOR SALE BY U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.DENVER, COLORADO 80225, OR RESTON, VIRGINIA 22092
AFOLDERDESCRIBINGTOPOGRAPHICMAPS
AND SYMBOLS IS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST
.r
"
".,%
$2
'x
=_=-=
ALAMEDA, N. MEX.
c o m p i l e d by J . Hawley 2 / 9 6
N3507.5-W10630/7.5
.lYbU
^"
PHOTOREVISED 1967 AND 1972
A M S 4654 I I N E - SERIES '4881
-9
h
+A
?
:
& ’I
?<
‘L.
VG
’r.
6
9
e,
Plate 1 7
Surficial Hydrogeologyof the Rio Grande ValleyLos Griegos Quadrangle
UNI PED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERiOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
LOS CRIECOS QUADRAN(2L.E
NEW MEXICO
7.5 MINIJTE SERIES (TOPOCRAPtiIC)
h‘
4L\“bo’
””&‘
P
h
.06
I.
i
I
!
Red tint indicates areas In which only landmark buildings are 5how.n
West boundaty of Elena Gallegos
Grant
adjacent
to
omitted because of insufficient data
Rio Grande
Revisions shown in p u r p l e c o m p i k d f r o m a eri a l p h o to g ra p h s
fit.ld checked
t a k e n1 9 6 7a n d1 9 7 2 .T h i si n f o r r n a t i o nn o t
Purple t h t indlcates extehslon of urban areas
”
- ....
U T M G R I D A N D 1972 M A G N E T I C NORTH
DECLINATION A T CENTER OF S H E E T
BY U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,
DENVER. COLORADO 80225, OR RESTON. VlRGlINlA
A FOLDER OESCRIOINGTOPOGRAPHICMAPSANDSYMBOLS
IS AVAILABLE ON REQUESl
LOS GRIEGOS, 11. MEX:
compiled by 1. H a w l e y 2 / 9 6
N3507.5--W10637.5/7.5
T H I SM A PC O M P L I E SW I T HN A T I O N A LM A PA C C U R A C YS T A N D A R D S
FOR SALE
I
22092
1960
PHOTOREVISED 1967 AND 1972
A M S 165-1 !I N W SERIFS V S e l
I”
Plate 17
Plate 18
L
iorl
r,
%%
i
+
,
-3 ze
"-to*I,
Surficial Hydrogeologyof the Rio Grande ValleyAlbuquerque West uadrangle
UNITED STATES
D E P A R T M E N T OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL S U R V E Y
..
-p\
0
*e
,\"i6Controlby
\'I
63
\
M a p p e de, d i t e da, n d
NEW
+b ;.'
MEXICO-EIEKNALILLO CO
7.5MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
$l"
hb
\ o
,\et6
J
\?
.-
published b y the GeologicalSurvey
USGS and
USC&GS
Culture and drainage in part compiled from aerial photographs
taken 1959. Topographybyplanetable
surveys 1954. Revised 1960
-
h0
ALBUQUERQUE WEST QUADRANGLE
.
!
.
,
,
-
zone
Red tint indicates areas in which only landmark buildings
are shown
East boundary Pajarito Grant, east bolundary Town'of Atriwo Grant;and west boundary Town of Albuquerque Grant adjacenl to
Rio Grande omitted because of insufficient data
checked
Revis;ons shown in purple cornplod from aerial photographs
taken 1967 and 1972. This
not field
t i
UTM GRID A N D 1972 M A G N E r l CN O R T H
DECLINATION AT C E N T E R O F w e E r
-
Q,!JADKANGL E LGCATlClN
AL.BUQUE:KQUE WEST,N . MEX
compiled by J , H a w l e y 2/96
N3500-W10637.5/7.5
T H I SM A PC O M P L I E SW I T HN A T I O N A LM A PA C C U R A C YS T A N D A R D S
FOR SALE B Y U. S . GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY,
DENVER,
COLORADO
A FOLDERI)ESCRlBINGTOPOGRAPHIC
80225, OR RESTON.
VIRGINIA
MAPS ANDSYMBOLS
IS AVAILABLEONREQUEST
22092
1960
PHOTOREVISED 1967 AND 1972
A M S 465-1 I I S W - SERIESV881
Plate 18