Surface Water – Groundwater Interaction in San Acacia Reach

Nabil Shafike

New Mexico Interstate

Stream Commission

SW/GW A Single Resource

Gaining / Losing Streams

Winter et al. 1998.

Disconnected Stream

Winter et al. 1998.

Stream Aquifer Interaction Under Stress

Winter et al. 1998.

Mathematical Representation

Stream –aquifer System

Representation of the Stream –aquifer System

Land Surface

River Surface

Water Table

Head in Cell (h)

Streambed

River Stage (HRIV)

Impermeable Walls

M

WRBOT

If h > RBOT

Leakage = Cond (HRIV – h)

If h <= RBOT

Leakage = Cond (HRIV – RBOT)

Riverbed Conductance = KLW/M

MODFLOW River Packages:

- Riv1 (MODFLOW 83)

- Riv2 (Miller 1988)

- Stream Pckg (Prudic, 89)

- BRANCH (Swain et al, 97)

- SFR-1 (Prudic et al, 2004)

Conceptualization of the SW System

Dra

in U

nit

7

Rio

Gra

nde

Lemitar

1200Neil Cupp

Waste Way

BDA Diversion

BDA Diversion

Waste Way

Irrigation System

Bosque del Apache NWR

San Marcial

San Acacia

Elephant Butte Reservoir

9 Mile outfall

Ri p

aria

n S

yst e

m

Rip

aria

n S

yste

m

LF

C C

han

nel

Socorro Main Canal

Storm Water

Storm Water

Conceptualization of the Groundwater System

(Anderholm 1987)

Shallow SW/GW Interaction

FLOOD PLAIN CROSS SECTION AT RIVER MILE 99NEAR SOCORRO

4570

4575

4580

4585

4590

4595

4600

4605

4610

0100200300400500600700800900100011001200130014001500160017001800190020002100

DISTANCE (Feet)

EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

am

sl)

R io GrandeLFC

Channel Agr.Drain

Riparian ETOpen Water Evaporation

EastWest

River Seepage

LFCC Gain

??

Levee

Surface Water Depletion

MASS CURVE OF SURFACE WATER DEPLETION OF SAN ACACIA REACH

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

YEAR

CU

MM

UL

AT

IVE

FL

OW

(A

F)

Average Depletion = 103,000 afy

(1987 to 1999)

Average Depletion = 69,800 afy

(1959 to 1978)

Rio Grande Seepage Analysis

Distance (mile)

Loss (cfs/mile)

10 9.5 6.5 3.5 12 6.5 4

1 to 4 5 to 10 13 to 20 5 to 12 4 to 10 2 to 10 1 to 2

San

Aca

cia

Bro

wn

Arr

oyo

HW

380

Nor

th B

dA

Sou

th B

dA

San

Mar

cial

For

t Cra

ig

Esc

ondi

da B

r.

Aquifer Test Analysis

Analysis of HW-380 Aquifer Test

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Ellapsed Time (min)

Dra

w D

ow

n (

ft)

PWl

Simulated PW

OW-07a

Sumulated 7a

OW-07b

Simulated 7b

OW-07c

Simulated 7c

H. Hydrauic Conductivity (Kx) = 72.0 ft/dayV. Hydraulic Conductivity (Kz) = 3.6 ft/dayKh : Kz = 20 : 1 Specific Yield (Sy) = 0.15Specific Storage (Ss) = 6.0e-07 1/ftDischarge (Q) = 76.0 gpm

CONSUMPTIVE USE OF SAN ACACIA TO SAN MARCIAL REACH

59% 31%

9%1%

Riparian ET Crop ET Open Water Evap M&I Depletion

Regional GW/SW ModelMODEL CROSS SECTION ALONG ROW #7

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00

DISTANCE (mile)

EL

EV

AT

IOM

(ft

ms

l)

Layer - 4

Layer - 3

Layer - 2

Layer - 1

MODEL CROSS SECTION ALONG MODEL ROW #100

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

10 12 14 16 18 20 22

DISTANCE (mile)

EL

EV

AT

IOM

(ft

ms

l)

Layer - 4

Layer - 3

Layer - 2

Layer - 1

Layer - 5

Riparian Vegetation

Measured vs Simulated Steady StateWater LevelsOBSERVED VS SIMULATED WATER TABLE ELEVATION

4400

4420

4440

4460

4480

4500

4520

4540

4560

4580

4600

4620

4640

4660

4680

4700

4400 4420 4440 4460 4480 4500 4520 4540 4560 4580 4600 4620 4640 4660 4680 4700

OBSERVED (ft)

SIM

UL

AT

ED

(ft

)

R 2 = 0.86RMSE = 24 ft

Simulated Steady State Water Levels

Measured Water Levels at HW-380

HWY-E03 Wells Daily Data

4537.0

4540.0

4543.0

4546.0

4549.0

4552.0

4555.0

3/20/03 6/28/03 10/6/03 1/14/04 4/23/04 8/1/04 11/9/04 2/17/05 5/28/05

Date

Wate

r E

levati

on

in

Feet

HWY-E03A Daily Data HWY-E03B Daily Data HWY-E03A Manual Data HWY-E03B Manual Data

Measured Water Levels Near San Marcial

SMC-W06 Wells Manual Data

4459.00

4462.00

4465.00

4468.00

4471.00

4474.00

4477.00

4480.00

3/20/03 6/28/03 10/6/03 1/14/04 4/23/04 8/1/04 11/9/04 2/17/05 5/28/05

Date

Wa

ter

Ele

va

tio

n in

Fe

et

SMC-W06A Manual Data SMC-W06B Manual Data

Inflow Hydrograph at San Acacia(Transient Run)

Riparian Evapotranspiration RateRiparian Evapotranspiration Rate (year 2001)

0.00000

0.00500

0.01000

0.01500

0.02000

0.02500

0.03000

0.03500

0.04000

0.04500

Jan-01 Jan-01 Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01

Date

ET

Rat

e (f

t/d

ay)

Rio Grande Flow at San MarcialSimulated and Measured Rio Grande Flow at San Marcial

0.0

400.0

800.0

1200.0

1600.0

2000.0

2400.0

2800.0

Jan-01 Jan-01 Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01

Date

Flo

w (

cfs)

Simulated

Measured

LFCC Flow at San MarcialSimulated and Measured LFCC Flow at San Marcial

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Jan-01 Jan-01 Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01

Date

Flo

w (

cfs)

Measured

Simulated

Simulated Groundwater Levelsat Escandida and San Antonio

Groundwater Elevation at Escandida

4601

4602

4603

4604

4605

4606

4607

4608

4609

4610

Jan-01 Jan-01 Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01

Date

Ele

vatio

n (

ft m

sl)

West LFCC

East of RG

Groundwater Elevation at San Antonio

4535

4536

4537

4538

4539

4540

4541

4542

4543

4544

4545

Jan-01 Jan-01 Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01

Date

Ele

vatio

n (

ft m

sl)

West LFCC

East RG

Operation Scenarios:

1- Max diversion of 500 cfs and min of 100 cfs

2- Max diversion of 1000 cfs and min of 100 cfs

3- All flow diverted to LFCC with a max of 2000 cfs

Hydrology of year 2001 was used in all scenarios

Water Budget Analysis

ScenarioSocorro

MainDepletion ET

Inflow Outflow Inflow Outflow Inflow Inflow Outflowaf af af af af af af af af

No Diversion to LFCC 394,328 228,868 - 173,494 112,000 506,328 402,362 103,966 66,950

Max Diversion 500 cfs 201,459 76,933 192,869 321,218 112,000 506,328 398,151 108,177 69,330

Max Diversion 1000 cfs 174,389 54,538 219,939 343,310 112,000 506,328 397,848 108,480 69,601

LFCC up to 2000 cfs 3,055 1,656 391,273 418,276 112,000 506,328 419,932 86,396 53,096

RIO Grande LFCC Total

Water Above Land Surface

Current Operation Maximum Operation

Concluding RemarksFor this specific year (2001-hydrology) and given the model input conditions:

1- SW Operations impact its interaction with the groundwater system.

2- There is no significant difference in depletions between current operation of the LFCC as a drain and a maximum diversion between 500 cfs to 1000 cfs.

2- Operating the LFCC up to its maximum capacity (2000 cfs) provides the most efficient way to convey water to Elephant Butte because evapotranspiration losses are reduced.