Heat as a Ground-Water Tracer at the Russian River RBF Facility, Sonoma County, California

  • Jim Constantz
  • Grace W. Su
  • Christine Hatch
Part of the Nato Science Series: IV: Earth and Environmental Sciences book series (NAIV, volume 60)


Temperature is routinely collected as a water quality parameter, but only recently utilized as an environmental tracer of stream exchanges with ground water (Stonestrom and Constantz, 2003). In this paper, water levels and seasonal temperatures were used to estimate streambed hydraulic conductivities and water fluxes. Temperatures and water levels were analyzed from 3 observation wells near the Russian River RBF facility, north of Forestville, Sonoma County, CA. In addition, 9 shallow piezometers were installed in 3 cross-sections across the stream near a pair of collector wells at the RBF facility. Hydraulic conductivities and fluxes were estimated by matching simulated ground-water temperatures to the observed ground-water temperatures with an inverse modeling approach. Using temperature measurements in the shallow piezometers from 0.1 to 1.0 m below the channel, estimates of infiltration indicated a distinct area of streambed clogging near one of the RBF collector wells. For the deeper observation wells, temperature probes were located at depths between 3.5 m to 7.1 m below the channel. Estimated conductivities varied over an order of magnitude, with anisotropies of 5 (horizontal to vertical hydraulic conductivity) generally providing the best fit to observed temperatures.

Key words

Heat temperature water levels hydraulic conductivity infiltration streambed clogging 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bartolino, J.R. and Niswonger, R.G, 1999, Numerical simulation of vertical ground-water flux of the Rio Grande from ground-water temperature profiles, central New Mexico, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4212, pp. 4–24.Google Scholar
  2. Boyle, J.M. and Saleem, Z.A., 1979. Determination of recharge rates using temperature-depth profiles in wells, Water Resources Research, 15(6): 1616–1622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bravo, H. R., Feng, J., and Hunt, R. J., 2002, Using groundwater temperature data to constrain parameter estimation in a groundwater flow model of a wetland system. Water Resources Research, 38(8), 10.1029/2000WR000172: 28-1-28-14.Google Scholar
  4. California Department of Water Resources, 1983, Evaluation of ground water resources: Sonoma County, Volume 5, Alexander Valley and Healdsburg Area.Google Scholar
  5. Constantz, J. and Thomas, C.L., 1996, The use of streambed temperature profiles to estimate the depth, duration, and rate of percolation beneath arroyos, Water Resources Research, 32(12): 3597–3602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Constantz, J. 1998, Interaction between stream temperature, streamflow, and groundwater exchanges in alpine streams, Water Resour. Res., vol. 34(7), 1609–1615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Constantz, J., Stonestrom, D. A., Stewart, A.E., Niswonger, R., and Smith. T.R., 2001, Analysis of streambed temperatures in ephemeral channels to determine streamflow frequency and duration, Water Resources Research, 37(2): 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Constantz, J., Stewart, A.E., Niswonger, R., and Sarma, L., 2002, Analysis of temperature profiles for investigating stream losses beneath ephemeral channels, Water Resources Research, 38(12) 52-1–52-13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Constantz, J., Cox, M.H., and Su, G.W., 2003, Comparison of heat and bromide as ground water tracers near streams, Ground Water, 41(5), 647–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Marsily, G. 1986. Quantitative hydrogeology: Groundwater hydrology for engineers. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 440 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Ferguson, G., Woodbury, A.D., and Matile, G.L.D., 2003, Estimating Deep Recharge Rates Beneath an Interlobate Moraine Using Temperature Logs, Ground Water, 41(5), 640–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Healy, R.W., and Ronan, A.D., 1996, Documentation of computer program VS2DH for simulation of energy transport in variably saturated porous media. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4230.Google Scholar
  13. Hsieh, P.A., Wingle, W., and Healy, R.W., 2000, VS2DI—A graphical software package for simulating fluid flow and solute or energy transport in variably saturated porous media. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4130.Google Scholar
  14. Lapham, W.W. 1989. Use of temperature profiles beneath streams to determine rates of vertical ground water flow and vertical hydraulic conductivity. U.S. Geol. Survey Water Supply Paper 2337.Google Scholar
  15. Mihevc, T., Pohll, G., Niswonger, R., and Stevick, E., 2001, Truckee canal seepage analysis in the Fernley/Wadsworth area. Desert Research Institute Publication No. 41176.Google Scholar
  16. Ronan, A.D., Prudic, D.E., Thodal, C.E., and Constantz, J., 1998, Field study and simulation of diurnal temperature effects on infiltration and variably saturated flow beneath an ephemeral stream, Water Resour. Res., vol.34(9), 2197–2153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Silliman, S.E. and Booth, D.F., 1993, Analysis of time-series measurements of sediment temperature for identification of gaining vs. losing portions of Judy Creek, Indiana, Journal of Hydrology, 146(1): 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stonestrom, D. A. and Constantz, J., 2003. Heat as a tool for studying the movement of ground water near streams. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1260, 96 p.Google Scholar
  19. Su, G.W., Jasperse, J., Seymour, D., and Constantz, J, 2004, Estimates of hydraulic conductivity in an alluvial system using temperature, Ground Water, 42(6), 890–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Taniguchi, M., 1993, Evaluation of vertical groundwater fluxes and thermal properties of aquifers based on transient temperature-depth profiles, Water Resources Research, 29(7), 2021–2026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jim Constantz
    • 1
  • Grace W. Su
    • 2
  • Christine Hatch
    • 3
  1. 1.U.S. Geological SurveyMenlo Park
  2. 2.Lawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBerkeley
  3. 3.University of CaliforniaSanta Cruz

Personalised recommendations