U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5238

Prepared in cooperation with San Miguel County, New Mexico

Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of 

San Miguel County, New Mexico, and Identification of 

Hydrologic Data Gaps, 2011
Cover: Canadian escarpment rising above the plains, northeastern San Miguel County (photograph by 

David Lutz). 
Characterization of the Hydrologic 

Resources of San Miguel County, 

New Mexico, and Identification of 

Hydrologic Data Gaps, 2011

By Anne Marie Matherne and Anne M. Stewart

Prepared in cooperation with San Miguel County, New Mexico

Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5238

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012

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

U.S. Geological Survey

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

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

1-888-ASK-USGS

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

U.S. Government.

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

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Matherne, A.M., and Stewart, A.M., 2012, Characterization of the hydrologic resources of San Miguel County, New 

Mexico, and identification of hydrologic data gaps, 2011: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2012–5238, 44 p.
iii

Acknowledgments

This study was conducted with the cooperation of San Miguel County, New Mexico. We 

would also like to thank Lani Tsinnajinnie and Catherine Lucero for their assistance with parts 

of this report.

v

Contents

Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................................iii

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

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Scope ......................................................................................................................................1

Physical Setting of San Miguel County .....................................................................................................2

Approach ......................................................................................................................................................11

Written Resources .............................................................................................................................11

Surface-Water Resources ...............................................................................................................11

Groundwater Resources ..................................................................................................................11

Data Gaps and Suggestions for Future Study ...............................................................................13

Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County ..............................................13

Surface-Water Resources ...............................................................................................................13

Streamflow in the Pecos River and Tributaries ...................................................................15

Streamflow in the Gallinas River and Tributaries ................................................................18

Streamflow in the Canadian River and Tributaries ..............................................................18

Major Surface-Water Bodies and Springs ...........................................................................20

Surface-Water Budget and Potential for Groundwater Recharge from 

Streamflow ...................................................................................................................20

Surface-Water Quality .............................................................................................................21

Groundwater Resources ..................................................................................................................22

General Stratigraphic and Hydrogeologic Framework ......................................................22

General Structural Geology ....................................................................................................28

Current (2011) Understanding of Hydrogeologic Framework and Groundwater 

Conditions by Physiographic Area ...........................................................................28

Griggs and Hendrickson Area 1 ....................................................................................29

Griggs and Hendrickson Area 2 ....................................................................................31

Griggs and Hendrickson Area 3 ....................................................................................31

Area 3 – Taylor Well Field Area ............................................................................31

Griggs and Hendrickson Area 4 ....................................................................................32

Summary of Hydrogeologic Framework and Groundwater Conditions by 

Physiographic Area ...........................................................................................33

Data Gaps and Suggestions for Future Study ........................................................................................33

Data Gaps Identified and Suggestions for Future Study To Assess Surface-Water 

Resources ..............................................................................................................................33

Data Gaps Identified and Suggestions for Future Study To Assess Surface-Water/

Groundwater Interactions ..................................................................................................33

Data Gaps Identified and Suggestions for Future Study To Assess Groundwater 

Resources ..............................................................................................................................34

Data Gap Identified and Suggestions for Future Study: A Comprehensive Geographic 

Information System Hydrologic Geodatabase ................................................................35

Summary .......................................................................................................................................................35

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................37
vi

Figures

1. Maps showing the study area of San Miguel County, New Mexico ...................................3

2. Map showing major surface-water features and measurement sites, including 

precipitation and Snowpack Telemetry (SNOTEL) stations, crest-stage gages, 

and streamgages, in San Miguel County, New Mexico ........................................................5

3. Graphs showing mean monthly precipitation for the period of record and 

percent of mean annual precipitation at climate stations in San Miguel County, 

New Mexico .................................................................................................................................7

4. Graphs showing mean monthly discharge for the period of record for six 

streamgages in San Miguel and Guadalupe Counties, New Mexico .................................8

5. Map showing Griggs and Hendrickson physiographic areas and subareas, 

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer underground water basins, locations 

of wells in the U.S. Geological Survey groundwater-monitoring well network, 

and hydrographs for selected U.S. Geological Survey groundwater-monitoring 

wells with periods of record longer than 2 years in San Miguel County, 

New Mexico ...............................................................................................................................10

6. Graphs showing annual discharge for the period of record for six streamgages 

in San Miguel and Guadalupe Counties, New Mexico ........................................................16

7. Graphs showing probability that a given discharge will be equaled or 

exceeded for the period 1981–2010 for six streamgages in San Miguel and 

Guadalupe Counties, New Mexico .........................................................................................17

8. Graphs showing groundwater hydrographs for the period of record for 

U.S. Geological Survey monitoring wells with a period of record of 2 or 

more years within the vicinity of the Taylor well field, San Miguel County, 

New Mexico ...............................................................................................................................30

9. Graphs showing groundwater hydrographs for U.S. Geological Survey 

monitoring wells in the southern hogback area, San Miguel County, 

New Mexico ...............................................................................................................................32
vii

Tables

1. Location of selected National Weather Service precipitation stations and 

Natural Resources Conservation Service Snowpack Telemetry (SNOTEL) 

station in San Miguel County, New Mexico, and mean annual precipitation for 

the period of record .....................................................................................................................6

2. Location of streamgages and crest-stage gages operated by the U.S. Geological 

Survey in San Miguel and Guadalupe Counties, New Mexico, period of record, 

contributing drainage area of gaged stream, and 30-year mean annual discharge 

of selected streamgages ..........................................................................................................12

3. Location of U.S. Geological Survey groundwater-monitoring wells in San Miguel 

County, New Mexico, period of record, measuring schedule, New Mexico Office 

of the State Engineer point of diversion number, and aquifer of completion ..................14

4. Annual maximum peak discharges at selected recurrence intervals for 

streamgages and crest-stage gages in San Miguel and Guadalupe Counties, 

New Mexico ...............................................................................................................................19

5. Summary of hydrostratigraphic nomenclature and description of rock-aquifer 

units in San Miguel County, New Mexico, as derived from cited literature ....................24

6. Summary of shallow, moderately deep, deep, and very deep New Mexico 

Water Rights Reporting System database wells in each of Griggs and 

Hendrickson’s physiographic areas and subareas, San Miguel County, 

New Mexico ...............................................................................................................................28
viii

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter (m3)

acre-foot (acre-ft) 0.001233 cubic hectometer (hm3) 

Flow rate

acre-foot per year (acre-ft/yr) 1,233 cubic meter per year (m3/yr)

acre-foot per year (acre-ft/yr) 0.001233 cubic hectometer per year (hm3/yr)

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

Hydraulic conductivity*

foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meter per day (m/d)

Transmissivity**

foot squared per day (ft2/d) 0.09290 meter squared per day (m2/d) 

Storage coefficient***

dimensionless (ft3/ft2/ft) or (ft3/ft3) 0.0001 dimensionless (m3/m2/m) or (m3/m3)

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C=(°F-32)/1.8

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

(NAVD 88).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 

*Hydraulic conductivity (K): Defined as T divided by the saturated aquifer thickness, foot 

squared per day per foot. In this report, the mathematically reduced form, foot per day (ft/d), is 

used for convenience.

**Transmissivity: The standard unit for transmissivity is cubic foot per day times foot of aquifer 

thickness per square foot [(ft3/d × ft) / ft2]. In this report, the mathematically reduced form, foot 

squared per day (ft2/d), is used for convenience.

***Storage coefficient: The volume of water an aquifer releases from or takes into storage per 

unit surface area of the aquifer per unit change in head. 
Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of 

San Miguel County, New Mexico, and Identification 

of Hydrologic Data Gaps, 2011

By Anne Marie Matherne and Anne M. Stewart

Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation 

with San Miguel County, New Mexico, conducted a study to 

assess publicly available information regarding the hydrologic 

resources of San Miguel County and to identify data gaps in 

that information and hydrologic information that could aid 

in the management of available water resources. The USGS 

operates four continuous annual streamgages in San Miguel 

County. Monthly discharge at these streamgages is generally 

bimodally distributed, with most runoff corresponding to 

spring runoff and to summer monsoonal rains. Data compiled 

since 1951 on the geology and groundwater resources of San 

Miguel County are generally consistent with the original 

characterization of depth and availability of groundwater 

resources and of source aquifers. Subsequent exploratory 

drilling identified deep available groundwater in some 

locations. Most current (2011) development of groundwater 

resources is in western San Miguel County, particularly in the 

vicinity of El Creston hogback, the hogback ridge just west 

of Las Vegas, where USGS groundwater-monitoring wells 

indicate that groundwater levels are declining. 

Regarding future studies to address identified data gaps, 

the ability to evaluate and quantify surface-water resources, 

both as runoff and as potential groundwater recharge, could 

be enhanced by expanding the network of streamgages and 

groundwater-monitoring wells throughout the county. A series 

of seepage surveys along the lengths of the rivers could help 

to determine locations of surface-water losses to and gains 

from the local groundwater system and could help to quantify 

the component of streamflow attributable to irrigation return 

flow; associated synoptic water-quality sampling could help 

to identify potential effects to water quality attributable to 

irrigation return flow. Effects of groundwater withdrawals 

on streamflow could be assessed by constructing monitoring 

wells along transects between production wells and stream 

reaches of interest to monitor decline or recovery of the 

water table, to quantify the timing and extent of water-table 

response, and to identify the spatial extent of capture zones. 

Assessment of groundwater potential could be aided by a 

county-wide distribution of water-level information and 

by a series of maps of groundwater potential, compiled for 

each individual aquifer, including saline aquifers, for which 

the potential for municipal use through desalination could 

be explored. A county-wide geographic information system 

hydrologic geodatabase could provide a comprehensive 

picture of water use in San Miguel County and could be used 

by San Miguel County as a decision-support tool for future 

management decisions. 

Introduction 

The surface-water and groundwater resources of San 

Miguel County, New Mexico, are increasingly relied upon to 

meet growing municipal, domestic, livestock, and agricultural 

needs. San Miguel County is an area with an expanding 

economy and population, and to meet future water demands, 

aquifers may be further developed. Periodic dry periods 

further focus attention on the quantity and sustainability of 

the surface-water and groundwater resources. Since a study 

by Griggs and Hendrickson (1951), however, only a few 

published studies have focused on the hydrogeology and 

associated surface-water/groundwater interactions within San 

Miguel County. As a result, there are limited publicly available 

fundamental groundwater data (such as long-term groundwater 

levels) and surface-water data upon which to interpret 

hydrologic processes. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 

in cooperation with San Miguel County, conducted a study to 

assess publicly available information regarding the hydrologic 

resources of San Miguel County and to identify data gaps in 

that information and additional hydrologic information that 

could aid San Miguel County’s management of available 

water resources. 

Purpose and Scope

This report characterizes the current (2011) state of 

knowledge of the hydrologic resources of San Miguel 

County, N. Mex., by using publicly available reports and 

existing sources of data. Streamflow data are presented for 

six streamgages, including two streamgages in the adjacent 
2 Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County, New Mexico

county, with respect to annual and monthly flow. Flow 

characteristics are discussed on the basis of daily and annual 

maximum discharge. Surface-water quality, based on New 

Mexico Environment Department assessments, is summarized. 

A general hydrostratigraphic framework for San Miguel 

County is developed on the basis of a compilation of previous 

work in the area. Well logs from the New Mexico Office of the 

State Engineer and USGS databases and groundwater levels 

from the USGS monitoring network are used to determine 

the current (2011) understanding of the hydrogeologic 

framework and groundwater conditions. On the basis of 

this characterization, critical data gaps in understanding and 

assessing the hydrologic resources of San Miguel County 

are identified, and options for future study, assessment, and 

monitoring are presented. 

Physical Setting of San Miguel County

San Miguel County covers an area of about 4,750 square 

miles (mi2) in northeastern New Mexico (fig. 1A). The longest 

east-west dimension of the county is about 117 miles (mi), and 

the longest north-south dimension is about 57 mi. The county 

seat, Las Vegas, lies about 40 mi due east of the New Mexico 

State capital, Santa Fe (fig. 1A). 

San Miguel County comprises four physiographic 

areas: the Sangre de Cristo Mountains in the northwest, 

Glorieta Mesa in the southwest, the Las Vegas Plateau and 

outliers, which includes escarpment areas, in the north-central 

and eastern areas, and the plains and southern hogback 

(monocline) east of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains and 

Glorieta Mesa (Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951) (fig. 1B). 

Elevations range from a high of about 11,800 feet (ft) above 

the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) in the 

Sangre de Cristo Mountains to a low of about 3,900 ft where 

the Canadian River exits the county (fig. 1A). Glorieta Mesa 

ranges in elevation from about 7,000 to 8,000 ft, and the Las 

Vegas Plateau ranges in elevation from about 5,000 to 6,800 ft. 

The topography declines steeply along the winding Canadian 

Escarpment to the plains, which range in elevation from about 

4,000 to 5,000 ft (Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951).

The types of principal aquifers in the study area vary 

by physiographic area. In the northwest mountainous area, 

fractured granitic bedrock and localized shallow alluvial 

deposits are the primary sources of groundwater. On Glorieta 

Mesa, groundwater occurs primarily within Permian 

sedimentary formations, including the Yeso Formation, the 

Glorieta Sandstone, and the Triassic Santa Rosa Sandstone. 

Well depths in this area range from less than 100 ft below 

land surface (bls) to more than 1,100 ft bls (Griggs and 

Hendrickson, 1951). The major aquifer within the Las Vegas 

Plateau is the Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone. Depth to water is 

generally less than 250 ft bls. In the plains area, groundwater 

is derived primarily from the Triassic Chinle Formation and 

Santa Rosa Sandstone, at depths of about 100–300 ft bls.

San Miguel County is drained primarily by the Pecos 

and Canadian Rivers (fig. 1A). The Pecos River and its major 

tributaries originate in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, as 

do the headwaters of the Sapello River, which flows into the 

Mora River in Mora County to the north. The Mora River 

flows into the Canadian River south of the San Miguel–Mora 

County line (fig. 1A). The principal tributaries of the Pecos 

River are, in downstream order, the Rio Mora (distinct from 

the Mora River), Bull Creek, Tecolote Creek, and the Gallinas 

River. The Gallinas River and Tecolote Creek drain to the east 

and southeast, cutting through a series of hogback monoclines, 

which are steep structural ridges in transition areas between 

the western mountains and the eastern plains. The valleys 

of these streams are generally narrow and confined. The 

Canadian River, in the eastern plains region, enters San 

Miguel County at the northern county border and flows in 

a southerly direction through the Canadian River canyon to 

Conchas Lake and then continues generally easterly below 

Conchas Lake to the eastern county line. 

Temperatures in San Miguel County range from winter 

low temperatures below 0 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in the 

Sangre de Cristo Mountains (Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, 2011a) to summer high temperatures greater than 

100 °F in the eastern plains (Western Regional Climate 

Center, 2011). Mean monthly temperatures range from about 

21–51 °F in the western mountains (1990–2011 period of 

record) (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2011a) to 

about 39–81 oF around Conchas Dam (30-year normal climate 

record, 1981–2010) (Western Regional Climate Center, 2011).

Precipitation decreases from the mountains in the 

northwestern part of the county to the south and to the eastern 

plains. Mean annual precipitation, as recorded at six climate 

stations with long continuous records (longer than 30 years) 

and at one high-elevation Snowpack Telemetry (SNOTEL) 

station (22 years of record), ranges from about 40 inches per 

year at the Wesner Springs SNOTEL station in the Sangre de 

Cristo Mountains to about 13 inches per year at the Villanueva 

precipitation station (fig. 2 and table 1) (Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, 2011a; Western Regional Climate 

Center, 2011). Monthly precipitation at low-level to mid-level 

elevations is greatest during the summer monsoons, with an 

average of about 37 percent of mean annual precipitation 

occurring during July and August (fig. 3A–E and G). 

Precipitation at the Wesner Springs SNOTEL station, at 

an elevation of 11,120 ft, is bimodally distributed, with 27 

percent of the mean annual precipitation occurring during July 

and August and 18 percent of the mean annual precipitation 

occurring during March and April (fig. 3F). The Wesner 

Springs SNOTEL station measures snowpack and snow-water 

equivalent, which is the amount of water contained within the 

snowpack (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2011b). 

Mean monthly snow water equivalent at Wesner Springs for 

March and April is 13 inches (Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, 2011a). Spring snowmelt runoff generally occurs 

from April through June, and the irrigation season is April 1 

through October 31 in San Miguel County (Aguirre, 2008). 

Responding to precipitation and snowmelt runoff, more than 

80 percent of the mean annual discharge at the six streamgages 

occurs during the 7-month period from April through October 

(fig. 4A–F).
§ ̈¦25

Terrero

Pecos and East Pecos

Las Vegas

Conchas Lake 

State Park

Conchas Lake 

104°00'

104°30' 105°00'

105°30'

105°15'

35°45'35°30'

35°15'

104°15' 104°45'

Albuquerque ^ Santa Fe 

MORA C

SAN MIGUEL

COUNTY

GU

C

NEW MEX

Base from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earth Resources Observation and Science Center, 2008–11, 1:24,000 County lines from USGS digital data, 1:100,000Water bodies from USGS digital hydrologic unit data, 2009–10 Roads and cities from Environmental Systems Research Institute digital data, 1:500,000Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 13 NorthNorth American Datum of 1983

0 10 20 30 40 MILES0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS

Taylor well field

Canadian River

Gallinas River

Conchas River

Sapello River

Conchas 

Lake

Lake Isabel

Laguna La Monia

McAllister Lake

Canadian River

Storrie Lake Bull Creek

Mora River

Cow Creek

Gallinas Creek Tecolote 

Creek

Pecos River

Rio

Mora

Canadian River

Gallinas River

Conchas River

Sapello River

Conchas 

Lake

Lake Isabel

Laguna La Monia

McAllister Lake

Canadian River

Storrie Lake Bull Creek

Mora River

Cow Creek

Gallinas Creek Tecolote 

Creek

Pecos River

Rio

Mora

HARDING COUN

TORRANCE COUNTY

GUADALUPE COUNTY

QUAY C

SANTA FE COUNTY

SAN MIGUEL COUNTY

MORA COUNTY

Sangre de Cristo Mountains

A

Figure 1. The study area of San Miguel County, New Mexico. A, Topography, major water bodies, roadways, cities, towns, and physical features. B, described by Griggs and Hendrickson (1951) and the Gallinas Creek area as described by Baltz (1972).
Gallinas Creek area (Baltz, 1972) 104°00' 104°30' 105°00' 105°30' 105°15' 35°45' 35°30' 35°15' 

104°15' 104°45' HARDING COUN

TORRANCE COUNTY

GUADALUPE COUNTY

QUAY C

SANTA FE COUNTY

SAN MIGUEL COUNTY

MORA COUNTY

Las Vegas Plateau

Sangre de Cristo

Mountains

Glorieta Mesa

Canadian Escarpment Canadian Escarpment Las Vegas Plateau

Plains and southern hogback

S

o

uth

e

rn

hogback

m

o

n

ocline ridges

E

l

C

r

eston

hogbac

k

m

o

n

o

cl ine

North

-south

trending transition

zone

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 1:100,000-scale digital dataUniversal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 13 NorthNorth American Datum of 1983

0 10 20 30 40 MILES0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS

Physiographic area— Hendrickson (1951) Sangre de Cristo Mo Glorieta Mesa Plains and southern  Las Vegas Plateau aEscarpment area

EXPLANATION

B

Figure 1. The study area of San Miguel County, New Mexico. A, Topography, major water bodies, roadways, cities, towns, and physical features. B, described by Griggs and Hendrickson (1951) and the Gallinas Creek area as described by Baltz (1972).—Continued
M

M

M

M

M

M

M

Pecos River 

near Anton Chico 

(08379500)

Gallinas Creek near 

Montezuma (08380500)

Pecos River 

near Pecos 

(08378500)

Rio Mora near 

Terrero 

(08377900)

Gallinas River 

near Colonias 

(08382500)

Canadian River 

near Sanchez 

(07221500)

Gallinas River 

near Lourdes 

(08382000)

Pecos River 

near Anton Chico 

(08379500)

Gallinas Creek near 

Montezuma (08380500)

Pecos River 

near Pecos 

(08378500)

Rio Mora near 

Terrero 

(08377900)

Gallinas River 

near Colonias 

(08382500)

Canadian River 

near Sanchez 

(07221500)

Gallinas River 

near Lourdes 

(08382000)

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

Villanueva (299496)

Mosquero (29

Pecos Ranger Station

 (296676) 

Las Vegas 

Sewage Plant (294862)

Conchas Dam (292030)

Bell Ranch (290858)

Villanueva (299496)

Mosquero (29

Pecos Ranger Station

 (296676) 

Las Vegas 

Sewage Plant (294862)

Conchas Dam (292030)

Bell Ranch (290858)

k

Wesner Springs 

SNOTEL (854)

Wesner Springs 

SNOTEL (854)

O

O

O

O

Tecolote Creek 

at Tecolote 

(08379300)

Sandoval Canyon at Gallinas

(08380300)

Trementina Creek 

at Trementina

(07222300)

Lagartija Creek Tributary

 near Sanchez

(07221600)

Tecolote Creek 

at Tecolote 

(08379300)

Sandoval Canyon at Gallinas

(08380300)

Trementina Creek 

at Trementina

(07222300)

Lagartija Creek Tributary

 near Sanchez

(07221600)

104°00'

104°30' 105°00'

105°30'

105°15'

35°45'35°30'

35°15'

104°15' 104°45'

HARDING CO

TORRANCE COUNTY

GUADALUPE COUNTY

QUAY 

SANTA FE COUNTY SAN MIGUEL COUNTY

MORA COUNTY

Canadian River

Gallinas River

Conchas River

Sapello River

Conchas 

Lake

Lake Isabel

Laguna La Monia

McAllister Lake

Canadian River

Storrie Lake

Bull Creek

Mora River

Cow Creek

Gallinas Creek

Tecolote Creek

Pecos River

Rio Mora

Trementina

Lagartija

Creek Creek

Garita Cre ek

Canadian River

Gallinas River

Conchas River

Sapello River

Conchas 

Lake

Lake Isabel

Laguna La Monia

McAllister Lake

Canadian River

Storrie Lake

Bull Creek

Mora River

Cow Creek

Gallinas Creek

Tecolote Creek

Pecos River

Rio Mora

Trementina 

Lagartija

Creek Creek

Garita Cre ek

Uppe

 Ute 

1

Pecos 

Headwaters

13060001

Conchas 

11080005

Upper 

Canadian 

11080003

Mora 

11080004

Pintada Arroyo 

13060002

Western

Estancia 

13050001

Rio Grande–

 Santa Fe 

13020201

Ute 11080007

Uppe

 Ute 

1

Pecos 

Headwaters

13060001

Conchas 

11080005

Upper 

Canadian 

11080003

Mora 

11080004

Pintada Arroyo 

13060002

Western

Estancia 

13050001

Rio Grande–

 Santa Fe 

13020201

Ute 11080007

O Garita Creek Tributary near Variadero

(07222800)

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 1:100,000-scale digital dataUniversal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 13North American Datum of 1983

Land use cove

National Land 

SNOTEL station data from Natural Resou

Precipitation station data from Weste

0 10 20 30 40 MILES

0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS

Land use (major categories) Evergreen forest Shrubland Grasslands/herbaceous Open waterWatershed boundary and name (hydrologic unit code)

EXPLANATION

Precipitation statiSNOTEL station anU.S. Geological Su gage (in use, 20U.S. Geological Su streamgage (in  name (number)

M

#

k

O

Ute 11080007

Villanueva (299496)

Wesner Springs 

SNOTEL (854)

Wesner Springs 

SNOTEL (854)

Pecos River 

near Pecos 

(08378500)

Pecos River 

near Pecos 

(08378500)

Tecolote Creek 

at Tecolote 

(08379300)

Figure 2.

Major surface-water features and measurement sites, including precipitation and Snowpack Telemetry (SNOTEL) stations, crest-stage ga

San Miguel County, New Mexico.
6 Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County, New Mexico

Climate in New Mexico exhibits alternating wet and 

dry periods (Committee on the Scientific Basis of Colorado 

River Basin Water Management, 2007). In the latter decades 

of the 20th century, regional climate records show a tendency 

toward greater variability in precipitation and multiyear 

episodes of both wet and dry conditions. The early years of 

the decade beginning in the year 2000 were drought years 

(Committee on the Scientific Basis of Colorado River Basin 

Water Management, 2007). The 2011 water year (October 

2010 through September 2011) was the driest year on record; 

statewide, precipitation was only 52 percent of normal (the 

mean precipitation value for the period 1980–2010) and, 

in San Miguel County, averaged 20–40 percent of normal 

(National Weather Service, 2011). 

Seventy-four percent of the land of San Miguel County, 

about 3,500 mi2, is agricultural, of which about 92 percent 

is in pasture (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2007). Within 

the remaining, nonagricultural lands, there are two major 

population centers. The county seat, Las Vegas, had a 2010 

population of about 13,750, or about 20,000 when the 

surrounding area was included (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). 

The Village of Pecos had a 2010 population of 6,445 (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2010). Projected population increase is 

primarily along the Interstate 25 corridor between Santa Fe 

and Las Vegas (fig. 1A) from individuals living in San 

Miguel County and commuting to Santa Fe for work 

and other activities (Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, 

Inc., 2005).

Surface water supplies about 97 percent of the water 

demand in San Miguel County. Of the total surface-water 

consumptive use in San Miguel County, 51 percent is used 

for irrigated agriculture, and 45 percent is lost to reservoir 

evaporation. About 3 percent serves public water supplies, 

and less than 1 percent serves commercial and livestock uses 

(Longworth and others, 2008). San Miguel County contains 

parts of five New Mexico Office of the State Engineer 

(NMOSE) declared underground water basins (fig. 5): 

the Upper Pecos, the Canadian River, and the Tucumcari 

underground water basins, with minor areas of the Northern 

Rio Grande and Estancia underground water basins included 

along the western county border. Seventy-two percent of 

groundwater withdrawals in San Miguel County supplies 

individual domestic wells and public water supplies, with the 

remainder divided between livestock and commercial uses 

(Longworth and others, 2008). 

Both surface-water and groundwater rights in San Miguel 

County are managed by the NMOSE. Historically, acequias, 

or community ditch irrigation systems, are managed as 

principal local government units for the distribution and use 

of surface water (New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 

2011a). A total of 10,986 acres of land are irrigated with 

surface water in San Miguel County (Longworth and others, 

2008). Surface water in the Pecos River and Canadian River 

is regulated under the Pecos River and Canadian River 

Interstate Stream Compacts (New Mexico Office of the State 

Engineer, 2011b). Conchas Lake, managed by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, provides storage for irrigation water near 

Tucumcari, N. Mex., about 35 mi to the southeast, and to the 

Bell Ranch, northeast of the reservoir (University of New 

Mexico, 2012).

Table 1. Location of selected National Weather Service precipitation stations and Natural Resources Conservation Service Snowpack 

Telemetry (SNOTEL) station in San Miguel County, New Mexico, and mean annual precipitation for the period of record.

[°, degrees; ′, minutes]

Site 

identification 

number

(fig. 2)

Site name Latitude Longitude Period 

of record 

Mean annual 

precipitation

(inches)

290858 Bell Ranch 35°32′ 104°06′ 1899–2010 14.89

292030 Conchas Dam 35°24′ 104°11′ 1936–2010 14.31

294862 Las Vegas Sewage Plant 35°32′ 105°12′ 1983–2010 18.05

296676 Pecos Ranger Station 35°35′ 105°41′ 1916–2010 16.30

295937 Mosquero 35°48′ 103°56′ 1915–2010 16.48

299496 Villanueva 35°16′ 105°22′ 1942–2010 12.67

854 Wesner Springs SNOTEL 35°47′ 105°33′ 1988–2010 39.95
Physical Setting of San Miguel County 7

Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept.

0

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

0

1

2

3

4

0

1

2

3

3

Precipitation, in inches

2% 2%

4%

7%

11%

13%

18% 17%

11%

8%

4% 3% 3% 3%

5% 6%

11%

12%

18% 18%

11%

8%

3% 3%

3% 3%

4%

5%

9%

11%

17%

20%

12%

8%

3% 4%

2% 2%

4%

6%

13% 12%

18% 19%

12%

7%

3%

4%

4% 4%

6% 5%

7% 7%

18%

20%

12%

7%

4% 4%

3%

3% 6% 6% 7%

9%

18%

20%

12%

7%

3% 5%

7% 7%

10%

8%

5% 6%

13%

14%

7% 7% 7%

8%

A. Bell Ranch B. Conchas Dam

C. Las Vegas Sewage Plant

E. Mosquero

D. Pecos Ranger Station 

G. Villanueva

F. Wesner Springs SNOTEL

Figure 3. Mean monthly precipitation for the period of record and percent of mean annual precipitation at climate stations in San 

Miguel County, New Mexico. A, Bell Ranch. B, Conchas Dam. C, Las Vegas Sewage Plant. D, Pecos Ranger Station. E, Mosquero. 

F, Wesner Springs Snowpack Telemetry (SNOTEL). G, Villanueva. 
8 Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County, New Mexico

Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept.

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

0

0

Mean monthly discharge, in acre-feet

A. 08377900 Rio Mora near Terrero

B. 08378500 Pecos River near Pecos

C. 08379500 Pecos River near Anton Chico

Figure 4. Mean monthly discharge for the period of record for six streamgages in San Miguel and Guadalupe Counties, New Mexico. 

A, Rio Mora near Terrero (08377900). B, Pecos River near Pecos (08378500). C, Pecos River near Anton Chico (08379500). D, Gallinas 

Creek near Montezuma (08380500). E, Gallinas River near Colonias (08382500). F, Canadian River near Sanchez (07221500).
Physical Setting of San Miguel County 9

Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Mean monthly discharge, in acre-feet

D. 08380500 Gallinas Creek near Montezuma

E. 08382500 Gallinas River near Colonias

F. 07221500 Canadian River near Sanchez

Figure 4. Mean monthly discharge for the period of record for six streamgages in San Miguel and Guadalupe Counties, New Mexico. 

A, Rio Mora near Terrero (08377900). B, Pecos River near Pecos (08378500). C, Pecos River near Anton Chico (08379500). D, Gallinas 

Creek near Montezuma (08380500). E, Gallinas River near Colonias (08382500). F, Canadian River near Sanchez (07221500).—Continued
1c 1d 2a 2a 2b 1a 1b 1b 1e 2b 1a 4c 4b 4a 4a 4a 4a 4a

3 

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

354724105144601

354643104074101 354553104523901

354155104325101

354103103535701

353917104110801

353748104533801

353715105045601

353657103535

353441105150401 353643104055401

353301105154501 353211104455001

352747104294301

351809104204101 351544104022101 35155

351121105235001 351118104070501

353146105144801352949105144301

354310105035801

353001105402601

352725105160901

354537104500301

353902104045601

353136104401101

353418105145601

353346105145201

354054105092101

353318105025601

353438105013701

354724105144601

354643104074101 354553104523901

354155104325101

354103103535701

353917104110801

353748104533801

353715105045601

353657103535

353441105150401 353643104055401

353301105154501 353211104455001

352747104294301

351809104204101 351544104022101 35155

351121105235001 351118104070501

353146105144801352949105144301

354310105035801

353001105402601

352725105160901

354537104500301

353902104045601

353136104401101

353418105145601

353346105145201

354054105092101

353318105025601

353438105013701

6,0776,1776,2776,3776,477

01/2000

01/2002

01/2004

01/2006

01/2008

01/2010

01/2012

353418105145601

(fig. 8)

Water level, in feet

above NGVD 29

6,0126,1126,2126,3126,412

01/2000

01/2002

01/2004

01/2006

01/2008

01/2010

01/2012

353346105145201

(fig. 8)

Water level, in feet

above NGVD 29

6,2286,2486,2686,2886,3086,3286,3486,368

09/2010

12/2010

03/2011

06/2011

09/2011

12/2011

353146105144801

(fig. 9)

Water level, in feet

above NGVD 29

6,6,6,6,6,36,36,36,3

Water level, in feet

above NGVD 29 104°00'

104°30' 105°00'

105°30'

105°15'

35°45'35°30'

35°15'

104°15' 104°45'

HARDING COUNTY

TORRANCE COUNTY

GUADALUPE COUNTY

QUAY 

SANTA FE COUNTY

SAN MIGUEL COUNTY

MORA COUNTY

Upper Pecos

Canadian River

Tucumcari

Estancia

Northern 

Rio Grande

Upper Pecos

Canadian River

Tucumcari

Estancia

Northern 

Rio Grande

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 1:100,000-scale digital dataUniversal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 13 NorthNorth American Datum of 1983

0 10 20 30 40 MILES

0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS

Physiographic subarea—Griggs and Hendrickson (1951) Sangre de Cristo Mountains 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e

EXPLANATION

!!!!

1a1b1c1d1e

2a2b

3

4a4b4c

 Glorieta Mesa 2a 2b Plains and southern hogback 3 Las Vegas Plateau and outliers 4a 4b 4c

EscarpmenUndergrou boundaU.S. Geolo groundw

well an

 measur Semiann Annually 5 year Recorde

NGVD 29, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

Estancia

Declared undergrou

 New Mexico Office of the S

Figure 5. Griggs and Hendrickson (1951) physiographic areas and subareas, New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (2011d) underground water bathe U.S. Geological Survey groundwater-monitoring well network, and hydrographs for selected U.S. Geological Survey groundwater-monitoring welllonger than 2 years in San Miguel County, New Mexico.
Approach 11

Approach

Written Resources

Current understanding of the hydrologic resources of San 

Miguel County was summarized on the basis of a review of 

available literature and of existing groundwater and surfacewater data. Written information used in characterizing the 

hydrologic resources was obtained from publicly available 

sources, including site-specific, privately prepared reports 

on file at the library of the New Mexico Office of the State 

Engineer. Written resources reviewed for this report are 

compiled in the bibliography.

Surface-Water Resources

Streamflow and peak discharge data for rivers and 

streams in San Miguel County were obtained from USGS 

streamgage and crest-stage gage records, archived in the 

USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) database 

(http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nm/nwis/sw). A total of 19 

streamgages and 9 crest-stage (peak streamflow) gages have 

been operated by the USGS in San Miguel County (table 2). 

Five continuous streamgages are currently (2011) operated 

by the USGS on the major rivers in San Miguel County: 

Canadian River near Sanchez (07221500); Rio Mora near 

Terrero (08377900); Pecos River near Pecos (08378500); 

Gallinas Creek near Montezuma (08380500); and Gallinas 

River near Lourdes (08382000). The streamgage Gallinas 

River near Lourdes, in operation from 1952 to 1963, was 

reestablished in 2005 as a seasonal gage (April through 

September). Data from this station are not included in this 

discussion because current annual records are not available 

for comparison to the other station records. The stations 

Pecos River near Anton Chico (08379500) and Gallinas 

River near Colonias (08382500) (table 2), both in northern 

Guadalupe County, are included to represent downstream flow 

conditions on the Pecos and Gallinas Rivers. There are no 

current pairs of upstream and downstream streamgages for a 

similar comparison of the Canadian River. Peak streamflow is 

currently (2011) recorded at five crest-stage gages: Lagartija 

Creek Tributary near Sanchez (07221600); Trementina Creek 

at Trementina (07222300); Garita Creek Tributary near 

Variadero (07222800); Tecolote Creek at Tecolote (08379300); 

and Sandoval Canyon at Gallinas (08380300) (fig. 2 and 

table 2). 

Data are presented in this report for the six continuous 

streamgages, including the two in northern Guadalupe 

County, in the form of monthly and annual hydrographs and 

flow duration curves. Flow duration curves characterize 

the distribution of annual flow at a streamgage in terms of 

the exceedance probability, the percentage of time a given 

discharge is equaled or exceeded. Annual maximum discharge 

for a range of recurrence intervals is also presented for 

the streamgages and crest-stage gages to characterize the 

occurrence of extreme flows at those locations. 

The exceedance probability of discharge at a streamgage, 

on which the flow duration curves are based, was calculated 

for the 30-year period 1981–2010 on the basis of the mean 

daily discharge values by using the following equation (Dunne 

and Leopold, 1978):

P = 100 * [M/(n+1)] (1)

where

P = the probability, in percentage of time, that 

a given discharge will be equaled or 

exceeded;

M = the rank value of the discharge, in descending 

order; and

n = the number of observations for the period.

Estimates of instantaneous annual maximum peak 

discharges were calculated for a range of recurrence intervals 

at stream and crest-stage gages by using the USGS statistical 

program PeakFQ (Flynn and others, 2006), which fits a 

Pearson Type III frequency distribution to the logarithms of 

instantaneous annual peak flows for the period of record at 

a gage. The parameters of the Pearson Type III frequency 

distribution are estimated by the logarithmic sample moments 

(mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of skewness) with 

adjustments for low outliers, high outliers, historical peaks, 

and generalized skew. The recurrence interval of a peak 

discharge is based on the probability that an event of a given 

magnitude will be equaled or exceeded in any given year (U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2011a). A peak discharge with a 1 in 100 

chance of occurrence in any given year is said to have a 100-

year recurrence interval. 

Groundwater Resources

Data on groundwater wells in San Miguel County, 

including well locations and water levels, were obtained from 

the New Mexico Water Rights Reporting System (NMWRRS) 

(http://nmwrrs.ose.state.nm.us/nmwrrs/index.html) and the 

USGS NWIS (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/gw) databases. 

These data, and information regarding acquisition and 

reporting of the well records, are presented in Matherne and 

Stewart (2012). The NMWRRS dataset contained 2,176 well 

records for San Miguel County, of which only 11 did not 

include data for total well depth. The USGS NWIS database 

contained 317 well records for San Miguel County, of which 

297 were cross-indexed with NMWRRS point-of-diversion 

(POD) identification numbers and for which tapped aquifers 

were identified. Because the NWIS dataset was, in general, a 

subset of the NMWRRS dataset, the larger NMWRRS dataset 

was used to locate well-completion depths, and the more 

detailed NWIS dataset was used to identify tapped aquifers.
12 Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County, New Mexico

Table 2. Location of streamgages and crest-stage gages operated by the U.S. Geological Survey in San Miguel and Guadalupe 

Counties, New Mexico, period of record, contributing drainage area of gaged stream, and 30-year mean annual discharge of selected 

streamgages.

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, miles squared; o, degrees; ′, minutes; ′′, seconds; - -, not reported]

USGS site 

identification 

number

Site name

Period 

of record 

(water year)

Latitude Longitude

Contributing 

drainage 

area of gaged 

stream

(mi2)

30-year mean 

annual discharge 

1981–2010

(acre-feet 

per year)

Streamgages

07218700 Manuelitas Creek near Rociada 1957–63 35°49′30′′ 105°23′55′′ 52

07220000 Sapello River at Sapello 1918; 1957–73 35°46′11′′ 105°15′05′′ 132

07220100 Lake Isabel Canyon near Sapello 1965–74 35°44′42′′ 105°09′25′′ - -

07220600 Sapello River near Watrous 1957–63 35°46′′05′′ 105°02′28′′ 213

07221500 Canadian River near Sanchez 1913–14; 

1937–2011

35°39′17.4′′ 104°22′43′′ 5,712 97,800

07222000 Canadian River near Bell Ranch 1930–38 35°30′00′′ 104°15′00′′ 5,900

07222500 Conchas River at Variadero 1937–96 35°24′10′′ 104°26′35′′ 393

07223000 Bell Ranch Canal below Conchas Dam 1971–84 35°24′10′′ 104°11′07′′ - -

07223300 Conchas Canal below Conchas Dam 1971–89 35°22′35′′ 104°10′03′′ - -

07224500 Canadian River below Conchas Dam 1937–38; 

1943–72

35°24′32′′ 104°10′10′′ 6,984

08377900 Rio Mora near Terrero 1964–2011 35°46′38′′ 105°39′29′′ 53.2 26,330

08378500 Pecos River near Pecos 1920; 1924; 

1931–2011

35°42′30′′ 105°40′58′′ 189 79,100

08379178 Tecolote Creek at Wright Canyon near 

El Porvenir

1989–90 (18 

months)

35°41′20′′ 105°28′49′′ - -

08379185 Wright Canyon at Mile 0.55 near El Porvenir August 1990 35°41′44′′ 105°28′45′′ - -

08379187 Tecolote Creek below Wright Canyon near 

El Porvenir

summer months, 

1989–92

35°40′19′′ 105°27′58′′ 5.42

08379200 Tecolote Creek near San Pablo 1961–65 35°33′10′′ 105°22′10′′ 83

08379500 Pecos River near Anton Chico 

(Guadalupe County)

1929–2011 35°10′43′′ 105°06′32′′ 1,050 90,730

08380500 Gallinas Creek near Montezuma 1927–2011 35°39′07′′ 105°19′08′′ 84 16,260

08381000 Gallinas Creek at Montezuma 1907–66 35°39′15′′ 105°16′30′′ 87

08382000 Gallinas River near Lourdes 1952–63, 2005–

11 (seasonal)

35°28′08′′ 105°09′41′′ 313

08382500 Gallinas River near Colonias 

(Guadalupe County)

1952–2011 35°10′55′′ 104°54′01′′ 610 13,470

Crest-stage gages Number of peaks 

recorded

07221600 Lagartija Creek Tributary near Sanchez 1972–2011 35°38′19′′ 104°24′56′′ 1.16 22

07222300 Trementina Creek at Trementina 1959–2011 35°28′02′′ 104°25′00′′ 64 49

07222800 Garita Creek Tributary near Variadero 1971–2011 35°20′09′′ 104°21′50′′ 12 36

08378000 Pecos River near Cowles 1911–19 35°45′08′′ 105°40′30′′ 189 9

08379300 Tecolote Creek at Tecolote 1937–2011 35°27′27′′ 105°16′41′′ 122 55

08379550 Canon Blanco near Leyba 1971–83 35°13′14′′ 105°40′12′′ 11.2 12

08379600 Pecos River Tributary near Dilia 1952–84 35°12′50′′ 105°04′50′′ 0.16 33

08380300 Sandoval Canyon at Gallinas 1957–2011 35°41′13′′ 105°21′30′′ 7.60 48

08381700 Canon Piedra Lumbre near Las Vegas 1971–75 35°34′14′′ 105°17′50′′ 8.06 5
Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County 13

Groundwater levels in San Miguel County are monitored 

as part of a groundwater-monitoring network maintained by 

USGS in cooperation with the NMOSE. Groundwater levels 

are generally measured by using a steel tape and by following 

standard USGS protocols (Cunningham and Schalk, 2011). 

Prior to 2010, the USGS groundwater-monitoring network 

in San Miguel County, maintained in cooperation with the 

NMOSE, consisted of seven wells: one well that was part 

of a statewide network monitored on a 5-year basis, two 

wells monitored semiannually, and four wells monitored 

annually. The network was focused in western San Miguel 

County, that part of the county with the greatest population 

density (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). The USGS, in 

cooperation with the NMOSE, expanded and amended this 

monitoring network in 2010–11 to a total of 33 wells by 

including private stock and domestic wells for which access 

and permission could be obtained; the result is greater 

inclusion of eastern San Miguel County (fig. 5 and table 3). 

Twenty-four of these wells will be measured on a 5-year 

schedule to provide a record of background groundwater 

levels in San Miguel County.

Hydrographs (time series of water-level elevations) are 

presented in this report from six network monitoring wells 

measured on an approximately annual basis and having a 

period of record longer than 2 years as of October 2011, two 

of which are located in the Taylor well field, and from two 

network monitoring wells measured on a bimonthly basis 

and having 1 year of record as of October 2011 (fig. 1A and 

fig. 5), both of which are located south of the Taylor well field 

(fig. 1A and fig. 5). The water level measured in a well at a 

given point in time depends on water levels in the aquifer(s) 

in which the well was completed, as well as on the degree, if 

any, of hydraulic connection with adjacent aquifers. The water 

level in a well is also affected by how recently the well was 

pumped or by possible interference from pumping in nearby 

wells (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Water-level measurements 

for which field observations indicated that the well was 

being pumped (P), the well was recently pumped (R), or a 

nearby well was pumping (S) are noted in the groundwater 

hydrographs presented. Water-level data from the USGS 

groundwater-monitoring network are archived in the USGS 

NWIS database and are available through the NWIS Web 

site (http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nm/nwis/gwlevels). 

Groundwater quality is summarized on the basis of Griggs and 

Hendrickson’s (1951) characterizations; otherwise, no countyscale groundwater-quality data were located for review.

Griggs and Hendrickson’s (1951) plate delineating 

physiographic areas and subareas of San Miguel County was 

scanned and imported into a geographic information system 

(GIS) project. The county map was registered to allow the 

boundaries of Griggs and Hendrickson’s (1951) designated 

physiographic areas to be digitized as a basis for organizing 

hydrogeologic data for this report.

Data Gaps and Suggestions for Future Study

Information from the literature review and data identified 

from written reports and existing data sources were used 

to summarize the current understanding of the hydrologic 

resources of San Miguel County. Spatial data gaps and topical 

areas that might benefit from additional monitoring and/or 

assessment were identified, and suggestions for future study 

were presented.

Characterization of the Hydrologic 

Resources of San Miguel County

The current understanding of the hydrologic resources 

of San Miguel County is summarized in the following 

sections on the basis of information from the review of 

existing documents and data. Data are presented from 

streamgages and crest-stage gages currently (2011) operated 

in San Miguel County and are described with respect to 

monthly, annual, and daily discharge and with respect to 

gains and losses to local aquifers, as existing data permit. 

Surface-water quality is summarized with reference to U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) water-quality 

standards (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011a). 

Updates to the general stratigraphic and hydrostratigraphic 

framework and groundwater conditions of San Miguel 

County are presented. Hydrographs from monitoring wells 

are provided to establish recent (2011) trends in groundwater 

levels in parts of the county.

Surface-Water Resources 

San Miguel County has been included in assessments 

of surface hydrologic resources at regional to drainagebasin scales (for example, Jansen, 1935; Dice, 1954; New 

Mexico State Engineer Office, 1975; Glorieta Geoscience, 

Inc., and James W. Siebert & Associates, 1990; Martinez, 

1990; Chavez, 2004; and Aguirre, 2009). The most recent 

comprehensive study (Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc., 

2005) was part of the Region 8 Water Plan that included Mora, 

San Miguel, and Guadalupe Counties. 

Streamflow characteristics in the Pecos River, Gallinas 

River, Canadian River, and their tributaries are discussed 

with reference to the location on the stream channel where 

data were collected by using the location as referenced in the 

name of the streamgage. Thus, a discussion of streamflow 

characteristics at the Pecos River near Pecos refers to 

streamflow characteristics of the river at the location of the 

streamgage near Pecos.
14 Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County, New Mexico

Table 3. Location of U.S. Geological Survey groundwater-monitoring wells in San Miguel County, New Mexico, period of record, 

measuring schedule, New Mexico Office of the State Engineer point of diversion number, and aquifer of completion.

[NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; NMOSE, New Mexico Office of the State Engineer; POD, point of diversion; PROJECTED, extrapolated from 

surrounding Public Land Survey System]

Site 

identification 

number

Local 

identification 

number

Latitutude 

(NAD 83)

Longitude 

(NAD 83)

Period 

of record

Measuring 

schedule

NMOSE POD 

number

Aquifer of 

completion

353418105145601 16N.16E.33.143 35.5718 -105.2486 1999–2011 Semiannually -- Santa Rosa Sandstone

352725105160901 14N.16E.08.321 

(PROJECTED)

35.4568 -105.2691 2006–10 Annually -- --

353001105402601 15N.12E.28.233 

(PROJECTED)

35.5004 -105.6738 2006–10 Annually -- --

354054105092101 Stock Well 35.6817 -105.1558 2006–10 Annually -- --

354310105035801 Ranch Windmill 35.7194 -105.0662 2006–9 Annually -- --

352949105144301 15N.16E.28.414 35.4970 -105.2454 2010–11 Recorder -- --

353146105144801 15N.16E.16.1444 35.5295 -105.2467 2010–11 Recorder -- --

353346105145201 15N.16E.04.242 35.5630 -105.2472 1999–2011 Semiannually -- Santa Rosa Sandstone

353418105145601 16N.16E.33.143 35.5718 -105.2486 Semiannually -- Santa Rosa Sandstone

351118104070501 11N.27E.09.333 35.1883 -104.1181 2011 5 year TU-1056 --

351121105235001 11N.14E.12.44421 35.1888 -105.3972 5 year UP-1912 Yeso Formation

351544104022101 12N.27E.14.434 35.2622 -104.0393 2011 5 year TU-1084 --

351553103483301 12N.29E.13.423 35.2646 -103.8091 2011 5 year -- --

351809104204101 12N.24E.01.211 35.3024 -104.3447 2011 5 year CR-04906 --

352747104294301 14N.23E.03.3333 35.4629 -104.4952 2011 5 year -- --

353136104401101 16N.21E.13.324 35.5267 -104.6698 2011 5 year -- --

353211104455001 15N.20E.12.443 35.5364 -104.7640 2011 5 year CR-04792 --

353301105154501 15N.16E.05.434 

(PROJECTED)

35.5503 -105.2631 5 year UP-2234 Dockum Group

353318105025601 15N.18E.05.431 35.5550 -105.0489 2011 5 year UP-2836 --

353438105013701 16N.18E.33.423 35.5773 -103.0269 2011 5 year UP-1399 --

353441105150401 16N.16E.33.114 35.5781 -105.2517 5 year TAYLOR 5 Santa Rosa Sandstone

353643104055401 16N.27E.29.3 35.6119 -104.0984 2011 5 year -- --

353657103535701 17N.28E.31.212 35.6158 -103.8988 2011 5 year TV00200 --

353715105045601 16N.17E.16.4 35.6208 -105.0823 2011 5 year -- --

353748104533801 16N.19E.01.324 35.6299 -104.8939 2011 5 year CR-0-5102 POD1 --

353902104045601 16N.27E.04.123 35.6506 -104.0823 2011 5 year TU-01599 --

353917104110801 17N.26E.31.44 35.6548 -104.1854 2011 5 year -- --

354103103535701 17N.29E.19.343 35.6843 -103.8991 2011 5 year TU-01015 --

354155104325101 17N.22E.13.442 35.6986 -104.5474 2011 5 year CR-00282 --

354537104500301 18N.20E.29.421 35.7602 -104.8341 2011 5 year CR-00706 --

354553104523901 18N.19E.25.231 35.7647 -104.8775 2011 5 year CR-04267 --

354643104074101 10N.26E.24.2133 35.7787 -104.1274 2006–11 5 year -- --

354724105144601 18N.16E.16.22331 35.7900 -105.2467 5 year CR-2394 San Andres Limestone -

Glorieta Sandstone
Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County 15

Streamflow in the Pecos River and Tributaries

The Pecos River and tributary stations include 

streamgages at the Rio Mora near Terrero, the Pecos River 

near Pecos, and the Pecos River near Anton Chico and a 

crest-stage gage at Tecolote Creek at Tecolote (fig. 2). Mean 

monthly discharge at the streamgages (fig. 4A–C) increases 

downstream and is generally bimodally distributed, with 

about 47 percent of annual streamflow occurring during 

April through June, corresponding to spring runoff, and 

with a lesser peak in August, representing about 11 percent 

of annual streamflow, corresponding to summer monsoonal 

rains. Annual discharge on the Rio Mora and the Pecos River 

generally increases downstream, with maximum annual 

discharge for the period of record on the Pecos River near 

Pecos and near Anton Chico occurring in 1941 and 1942, 

respectively (fig. 6A). There were periods when annual 

discharge near Anton Chico was of lower magnitude than near 

Pecos, indicating a loss of flow between the upstream Pecos 

River near Pecos and the downstream Pecos River near Anton 

Chico streamgages (fig. 6A) and possibly reflecting localized 

differences in runoff within the watershed, flow loss to 

groundwater, or irrigation diversions. Mean annual discharge 

for the 30-year period 1981–2010 was 26,330 acre-feet/year 

(acre-ft/yr) at Rio Mora near Terrero and 79,100 acre-ft/yr 

at Pecos River near Pecos (table 2). The Rio Mora enters the 

Pecos River about 5.6 mi upstream from the Pecos River near 

Pecos streamgage. Mean annual discharge at Pecos River 

near Anton Chico for the same period was 90,730 acre-ft/yr 

(table 2), an average gain of 11,630 acre-ft/yr over about 91 mi 

of river length. 

In figure 7, the shape of the flow duration curve 

characterizes the hydrologic response of a basin and the 

expected distribution of flow in that basin on an annual basis. 

A curve with a steep slope through all portions of the curve 

denotes a stream with highly variable flow largely from 

direct runoff, whereas a curve with a flatter slope indicates 

the presence of surface-water or groundwater storage and a 

substantial component of base flow, which tends to stabilize 

flow through the year. The shape of the curve in the highflow region (the left side of the curve) indicates the type of 

flood regime the basin is likely to have, whereas the shape of 

the curve in the low-flow region (the right side of the curve) 

indicates the ability of the basin to sustain low flows during 

dry seasons (Searcy, 1959; Oregon State University, 2011). 

A curve with a steep slope in the high-flow region reflects 

high-intensity, short-duration flows, such as might be expected 

in response to summer monsoonal rains. Snowmelt runoff or 

releases from reservoir storage for irrigation or flood control 

can result in sustained higher magnitude flows, resulting in a 

flatter curve near the high-flow region of the curve. In the lowflow region of the flow duration curve, an intermittent stream 

exhibits periods of no flow. A flatter slope in the low-flow 

region indicates that moderate flows occur throughout the 

year because of either sustained base flow to the stream, 

reflecting a large groundwater storage capacity, or artificial 

streamflow regulation. 

Days with zero discharge were included in the calculation 

of exceedance probability. The percent of time a given 

discharge was equaled or exceeded does not accumulate to 

100 percent for the Pecos River near Anton Chico, Gallinas 

River near Colonias, and Canadian River near Sanchez curves 

because the zero values are not included in the logarithmic 

scale of the discharge axis but are included in the calculation 

of values (fig. 7A). The smallest discharge value recorded by 

the USGS was 0.01 ft3/s, below which discharge is considered 

to be zero. The difference between 100 percent and the 

maximum percentage value of a curve is the percentage of the 

discharge record with zero discharge (no flow). 

Flow duration curves based on mean daily discharge 

values for the period 1981–2010 were computed for Rio 

Mora near Terrero, Pecos River near Pecos, and Pecos River 

near Anton Chico (fig. 7A). Excluding the upper and lower 

5 percent of discharge values, where the curves change most 

rapidly, mean daily discharge for the middle 90 percent of 

discharge values ranges over two to three orders of magnitude, 

reflecting higher flows during spring and summer runoff as 

compared to flows during the winter months (fig. 4A–C). 

The middle 90 percent of expected mean daily discharge for 

the Rio Mora near Terrero ranges from 4.8 to 152 cubic feet 

per second (ft3/s), with a midvalue (50 percent probability 

of occurrence) of 15 ft3/s; for the Pecos River near Pecos, 

20–430 ft3/s, with a midvalue of 51 ft3/s; and for the Pecos 

River near Anton Chico, 2.4–561 ft3/s, with a midvalue 

of 45 ft3/s (fig. 7A). The high-flow area of the curves are 

characterized by a short upward tail before the curve flattens, 

indicating that high-magnitude flows at these sites consist 

of a small contribution from high-intensity, short-duration 

monsoonal rains and a sustained snowmelt runoff component 

(fig. 7A), consistent with the distribution of the mean monthly 

discharge (fig. 4A–C). The low-flow area of the curves for 

the Rio Mora near Terrero and the Pecos River near Pecos 

are relatively flat compared to the curve for the Pecos River 

near Anton Chico and never drop to zero (fig. 7A), indicating 

sustained, perennial base flow. Although the Pecos River 

near Anton Chico is the most downstream gage and has the 

largest drainage area, low-flow values at that gage are lower 

than at the Rio Mora near Terrero or the Pecos River near 

Pecos. The slope of the curve for the Pecos River near Anton 

Chico is steeper than for the other two curves for low flows, 

with occasional days of zero flow recorded (29 days over the 

30-year period considered).The decline in low-flow values at 

the downstream Pecos River near Anton Chico streamgage 

may reflect flow loss within the channel and withdrawals for 

irrigation between the streamgages at Pecos River near Pecos 

and Pecos River near Anton Chico.
16 Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County, New Mexico

1910

1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960

Period of record

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

Annual discharge, in acre-feet -

A

B

C

Rio Mora near Terrero

Pecos River near Pecos

Pecos River near Anton Chico

Gallinas Creek near Montezuma

Gallinas River near Colonias

Canadian River near Sanchez

Figure 6. Annual discharge for the period of record for six streamgages in San Miguel and Guadalupe Counties, New Mexico. A, Rio 

Mora near Terrero (08377900), Pecos River near Pecos (08378500), and Pecos River near Anton Chico (08379500). B, Gallinas Creek near 

Montezuma (08380500) and Gallinas River near Colonias (08382500). C, Canadian River near Sanchez (07221500). 
Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County 17

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of time indicated discharge is equaled or exceeded

0 20 40 60 80 100

100,000

10,000

1,000

100

10

1.0

0.10

0.01

1,000

4,000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

Mean daily discharge, in cubic feet per second

0.004

10,000

1,000

100

10

1.0

0.10

0.01

0.004

0 5 95 100

0 5 95 100

0 5 95 100

Mid 90 percent

Mid 90 percent

Mid 90 percent

High flow

Low flow

Canadian River near Sanchez

Gallinas River near Colonias

Gallinas Creek near Montezuma

High flow

Low flow

High flow

Low flow

Rio Mora near Terrero

Pecos River near Pecos

Pecos River near Anton Chico

C

B

A

Figure 7. Probability that a given discharge will be equaled or exceeded for the period 1981–2010 for six streamgages in San Miguel 

and Guadalupe Counties, New Mexico. A, Rio Mora near Terrero (08377900), Pecos River near Pecos (08378500), and Pecos River near 

Anton Chico (08379500). B, Gallinas Creek near Montezuma (08380500) and Gallinas River near Colonias (08382500). C, Canadian River 

near Sanchez (07221500). 
18 Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County, New Mexico

The peak flow analysis describes the instantaneous 

annual maximum daily flow in terms of the probability of 

occurrence of a given magnitude flow in any given year on 

the basis of the probability of occurrence of that magnitude 

flow for the period of record at that gage (Flynn and others, 

2006). For example, a discharge with a 2-year recurrence 

interval would have a 50 percent probability of occurrence in 

any given year, while a discharge with a 50-year recurrence 

interval would have a 2 percent probability of occurrence 

in any given year. Thus, the expected discharges for the 2- 

and 50-year recurrence interval flows indicate the range of 

expected streamflows for fairly common and more extreme 

flows at that location. Differences in the magnitude of 

peak discharges among gaging stations can be attributed to 

differences in such characteristics as size of the contributing 

drainage area, topography, land cover, antecedent soil 

moisture, or the areal extent and intensity of the precipitation 

event that resulted in the peak flow.

Observed instantaneous annual maximum peak 

discharges on the Pecos River and tributaries, represented by 

the 2- and 50-year recurrence interval flows, are, for the Rio 

Mora near Terrero, 257 and 910 ft3/s; for the Pecos River near 

Pecos, 623 and 2,622 ft3/s; for Tecolote Creek at Tecolote 

(Tecolote Creek is a tributary to the Pecos River with a similar 

drainage area to the Pecos River near Pecos [table 2]), 853 and 

9,385 ft3/s; and for the Pecos River near Anton Chico, 6,029 

and 24,250 ft3/s (table 4).

Streamflow in the Gallinas River and Tributaries

The Gallinas River and tributary stations include the 

continuous streamgages Gallinas Creek near Montezuma 

and Gallinas River near Colonias and the crest-stage gage 

Sandoval Canyon at Gallinas (fig. 2 and table 2). Mean 

monthly discharge on the Gallinas Creek near Montezuma 

is bimodally distributed, with 38 percent of the mean annual 

discharge in April and May, corresponding to spring runoff, 

and a lesser peak in August representing 14 percent of 

the mean annual discharge and corresponding to summer 

monsoonal rains (fig. 4D). Mean monthly discharge on the 

Gallinas River near Colonias shows a subdued response to 

spring runoff, with 16 percent of the mean annual discharge 

occurring in April and May and 47 percent in July and August 

corresponding to summer monsoonal rain (fig. 4E). Annual 

hydrographs at Gallinas Creek near Montezuma and Gallinas 

River near Colonias do not show a consistent increase or 

decrease between the two streamgages, and the hydrographs 

sometimes diverge in trend, for example, during the periods 

1981–87, 1992–95, and 2007–8 (fig. 6B). Mean annual 

discharge for the period 1981–2010 was 16,260 acre-ft/yr 

at Gallinas Creek near Montezuma and 13,470 acre-ft/yr at 

Gallinas River near Colonias (table 2), a loss of about 2,800 

acre-ft/yr along about 72 mi of river length.

Flow duration curves based on mean daily discharge 

values for the period 1981–2010 were computed for Gallinas 

Creek near Montezuma and Gallinas River near Colonias 

(fig. 7B). Excluding the upper and lower 5 percent of 

discharge values, where the curve changes most rapidly, 

mean daily discharge for the middle 90 percent of discharge 

values for Gallinas Creek near Montezuma ranges from 85 to 

3.1 ft3/s, with a midvalue of 10 ft3/s. For the Gallinas River 

near Colonias, mean daily discharge ranges from 61 to 2.1 

ft3/s between 5 and 75 percent probability of occurrence, after 

which the curve declines to zero, with a midvalue (50 percent 

probability of occurrence) of about 6 ft3/s. The low-flow area 

of the Gallinas Creek near Montezuma curve is relatively 

flat compared to the Gallinas River near Colonias curve, 

indicating more sustained base flow or snowmelt runoff than 

is indicated by the somewhat steeper slope of the Gallinas 

River near Colonias curve. These flow patterns are consistent 

with the distribution of mean monthly discharge (fig. 4D–E) 

and indicate that while discharge at Gallinas Creek near 

Montezuma is broadly distributed, discharge at Gallinas River 

near Colonias is dominated by summer monsoonal rains. 

The high-flow areas of the flow duration curves indicate a 

greater percentage of high-intensity, short-duration flow on 

the Gallinas than on the Pecos River (fig. 7A–B), as indicated 

by the comparatively longer vertical tails in the high-flow 

region of the curves. Comparison of the flatter slope of the 

Gallinas Creek near Montezuma curve to the Gallinas River 

near Colonias curve within the lower 5 percent of flow 

indicates that a more sustained snowmelt runoff component 

likely contributes to low flows on Gallinas Creek (fig. 7B). 

The low-flow portion of the Gallinas Creek near Montezuma 

curve indicates that, while discharge declines, flow remains 

perennial and has not been measured at less than 1.2 ft3/s at 

the streamgage during the period of record. By comparison, 

no flow was recorded at Gallinas River near Colonias about 

14 percent of the time. The Gallinas River at this location 

is characterized by declining base flow or snowmelt runoff, 

with periodic high-flow events and periods of no flow. 

Observed instantaneous annual maximum peak discharges on 

the Gallinas River and tributaries, represented by the 2- and 

50-year recurrence interval flows, are, for Sandoval Canyon 

at Gallinas, tributary to Gallinas Creek, 73 and 1,531 ft3/s; 

for Gallinas Creek near Montezuma, 514 and 6,118 ft3/s; and 

for the Gallinas River near Colonias, 2,851 and 15,040 ft3/s 

(table 4).

Streamflow in the Canadian River and Tributaries

The Canadian River and tributary stations include the 

streamgage at the Canadian River near Sanchez and creststage gages at Lagartija Creek Tributary near Sanchez, 

Trementina Creek at Trementina, and Garita Creek Tributary 

near Variadero. Lagartija Creek is tributary to the Canadian 

River, and Trementina Creek and Garita Creek Tributary 

flow into Conchas Lake. Mean monthly discharge at the 

Canadian River near Sanchez is bimodally distributed, with 

about 29 percent of flow in May through June, corresponding 

to spring runoff, and 15 percent in August, corresponding 

to summer monsoonal rains (fig. 4F). As for the other three 
Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County 19

Table 4. Annual maximum peak discharges at selected recurrence intervals for streamgages and crest-stage gages in San Miguel and 

Guadalupe Counties, New Mexico.

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

USGS station 

identification number Name Recurrence interval(years)

Annual maximum peak discharge

(cubic feet per second)

08377900 Rio Mora near Terrero 2.0 257

10 565

50 910

08378500 Pecos River near Pecos 2.0 623

10 1,550

50 2,622

08379300 Tecolote Creek at Tecolote 2.0 853

10 3,887

50 9,385

08379500 Pecos River near Anton Chico (Guadalupe County) 2.0 6,029

10 14,840

50 24,250

08380300 Sandoval Canyon at Gallinas 2.0 73

10 451

50 1,531

08380500 Gallinas Creek near Montezuma 2.0 514

10 2,360

50 6,118

08382500 Gallinas River near Colonias (Guadalupe County) 2.0 2,851

10 8,796

50 15,040

07221500 Canadian River near Sanchez 2.0 5,996

10 27,340

50 74,820

07221600 Lagartija Creek Tributary near Sanchez 2.0 207

10 665

50 1,454

07222300 Trementina Creek at Trementina 2.0 1,639

10 6,929

50 15,570

07222800 Garita Creek Tributary near Variadero 2.0 1,995

10 3,567

50 9,643
20 Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County, New Mexico

streamgages which cover a similar time period (fig. 6A–B), 

the maximum annual discharges for the period of record for 

Canadian River near Sanchez occurred in 1941 and 1942 

(fig. 6C). Mean annual discharge for the 30-year period 

1981–2010 was 97,800 acre-ft/yr (table 2).

A flow duration curve based on mean daily discharge 

values for the period 1981–2010 was computed for the 

Canadian River near Sanchez (fig. 7C). Excluding the upper 

and lower 5 percent of discharge values, where the curve 

changes most rapidly, mean daily discharge for the middle 

90 percent of discharge values for the Canadian River near 

Sanchez ranges from 505 to 2 ft3/s, after which the curve 

declines to zero, with a midvalue (50 percent probability of 

occurrence) of 54 ft3/s. The curve in the high-flow area is 

constrained by a few high-intensity, short-duration events 

over the period considered, and then the slope of the curve 

declines steadily, with a sharp drop at the low-flow portion of 

the curve. The Canadian River near Sanchez drains 5,712 mi2

(table 2) of the upper Canadian River basin (fig. 2) and is 

dry at this location about 2 percent of the time. The gradual 

decline of the flow duration curve in the middle 90 percent 

likely reflects greater temporal and spatial variability with 

respect to precipitation, runoff, and potential transmission 

losses associated with the larger and more diverse contributing 

source area, as compared to the contributing source areas for 

the Pecos and Gallinas Rivers and tributaries (fig. 7A–F). 

Observed instantaneous annual maximum peak discharges on 

the Canadian River and tributaries, represented by the 2- and 

50-year recurrence interval flows, are, for Lagartija Creek 

Tributary near Sanchez, 207 and 1,454 ft3/s; for Trementina 

Creek at Trementina, 1,639 and 15,570 ft3/s; for Garita Creek 

Tributary near Variadero, 1,995 and 9,643 ft3/s; and for the 

Canadian River near Sanchez, 5,996 and 74,820 ft3/s (table 4).

Major Surface-Water Bodies and Springs

There are three major lakes in San Miguel County: Lake 

Isabel, Conchas Lake on the Canadian River, and Storrie Lake 

on the Sapello River (New Mexico State Engineer Office, 

1975; Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc., 2005). Conchas 

Lake is a 25-mi-long water body with a surface area of about 

6,419 acres and average storage of 61,532 acre-feet (acre-ft) 

(Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc., 2005) that is fed 

by the Canadian and Conchas Rivers; the reservoir supplies 

appropriated water to irrigated lands around Tucumcari, about 

35 mi to the southeast (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1979). 

Lake Isabel, averaging 530 acres in surface area and 6,500 

acre-ft of storage (Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc., 

2005), also supplies irrigation water. Storrie Lake, averaging 

907 acres in surface area and 21,747 acre-ft of storage (Daniel 

B. Stephens & Associates, Inc., 2005), supplies water to 

Las Vegas and acequias of the Las Vegas Acequia Association 

(Ebright, 2009). 

Twenty-two springs have been located in San Miguel 

County (Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951; White and Kues, 

1992). Most are reported to yield less than 12 gallons per 

minute, with five of the springs reported to yield 40–150 

gallons per minute and one reported to yield an anomalously 

high 400 gallons per minute. No other published sources 

updating spring yields reported by Griggs and Hendrickson 

(1951) were located.

Surface-Water Budget and Potential for 

Groundwater Recharge from Streamflow

Longworth and others (2008) reported an annual total 

for 2005 of 71,152 acre-ft of surface-water withdrawals in 

San Miguel County, including 32,292 acre-ft lost to reservoir 

evaporation. Of the total surface-water withdrawals, 2,314 

acre-ft were allocated to public water supply, 277 acre-ft to 

livestock, and 164 acre-ft to commercial use. In 2005, an 

annual total of 36,105 acre-ft of surface-water withdrawal 

supplied 10,986 irrigated acres for agriculture (Longworth 

and others, 2008). In a water budget for river reaches in San 

Miguel County, based on median conditions for the period 

1950–2002, Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. (2005), 

reported 10,783 acre-ft/yr in surface-water depletions on 

the Pecos River between the Pecos River near Pecos and 

the Pecos River near Anton Chico, and an estimated 4,351 

acre-ft/yr gain due to irrigation return flow and a gain of 

10,038 acre-ft/yr attributed to other sources. On the Gallinas 

River between Montezuma and Colonias, surface-water 

withdrawals totaling 17,462 acre-ft/yr were attributed to use 

for public supply and irrigation and to losses from reservoir 

and riparian evapotranspiration; 4,031 acre-ft/yr of gain in the 

water balance was attributed to return flow; and 9,655 acre-ft/

yr of gain was attributed to other sources, based on median 

conditions for the period 1950–2002 (Daniel B. Stephens & 

Associates, Inc., 2005). The water balance for this reach of the 

Gallinas River implies a gain in streamflow despite the loss 

calculated solely on the difference between median discharge 

at the upstream and downstream gages (discussed in the 

section “Streamflow in the Gallinas River and Tributaries” and 

based on mean annual discharge for the period 1981–2010). 

A surface-water withdrawal of 3,414 acre-ft/yr for irrigation 

occurred in San Miguel County above the Canadian River near 

Sanchez (Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc., 2005). 

A stream channel may exchange water with the 

aquifer that it overlies. In a gaining reach, there is a gain 

in flow to the stream channel, fed by a corresponding loss 

from groundwater; in a losing reach, there is a loss in flow 

from the stream channel and a corresponding gain to the 

underlying aquifer. A stream may be alternately gaining 

and losing along the length of the channel (Rushton, 2007). 

Focused groundwater recharge, streamflow transmission 

loss that recharges the underlying groundwater system, is 

characteristic of many arid and semiarid streams (Stonestrom 

and others, 2007). Both focused groundwater recharge and the 

groundwater contribution to streamflow along a stream reach 

may be estimated by a seepage survey, which is a synoptic 
Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County 21

measurement of discharge at the upstream and downstream 

ends of a reach and of all identified inflows and outflows 

within the reach. 

Seepage surveys conducted in the upper Gallinas River 

reported the presence of both losing and gaining reaches in 

that part of the river (Jansen, 1935; U.S. Geological Survey, 

1978, 2006), but the seepage investigations of the Gallinas 

River were not areally extensive. No seepage surveys 

were identified for other reaches of the Gallinas River or 

for other rivers in San Miguel County. The geologic strata 

through which the rivers of San Miguel County flow vary 

with location, and the degree of hydrologic connection with 

the underlying aquifers is not known in detail; as a result, 

extrapolation of results from the available seepage surveys to 

other parts of the river network is not feasible. In the Region 8 

Water Plan, Daniel B. Stephens &Associates, Inc. (2005), 

developed groundwater budgets for declared underground 

water basins in the three-county study area but did not develop 

groundwater budgets at a more detailed scale because of the 

lack of local-scale supporting data. Similarly, supporting 

data are not sufficient to account for potential recharge to 

underlying aquifers from streams in San Miguel County, 

making a county-wide coupled surface and subsurface water 

balance infeasible.

Surface-Water Quality

A baseline water-quality study of the headwaters of 

Gallinas Creek upstream from the Las Vegas water-supply 

diversion, located about 0.5 mi downstream from the Gallinas 

Creek near Montezuma streamgage, was conducted from 

1987 to 1990 (Garn and Jacobi, 1996). The study found 

water quality in the upper reaches of Gallinas Creek to be 

nonimpaired and in the lower reaches to be slightly impaired 

with respect to pH, temperature, and turbidity when compared 

to New Mexico State water-quality standards. Water-quality 

concerns included grazing, recreational use, septic systems 

along the river, roads, and insect invasion in national forest 

lands (New Mexico Soil Conservation Service, 1994). 

Sampling for major ions, nutrients, and field parameters 

(temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific conductance) 

by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) in 

2007–9 to assess the potential impacts of forest thinning in 

the Gallinas River watershed upstream from Las Vegas found 

exceedances of only the temperature and turbidity criteria. 

The temperature exceedance for the High Quality Aquatic 

Life designated use is consistent with the historical finding of 

nonsupport of that use in this assessment unit (New Mexico 

Environment Department, 2009, 2010). 

Total maximum daily load (TMDL) studies assess 

whether a water body is in compliance with water-quality 

standards, address aggregate pollutant loads from point and 

nonpoint sources, and identify the amount or concentration of 

a given pollutant that the water body under consideration can 

contain while allowing the water body to remain viable for 

its designated use(s) (New Mexico Environment Department, 

2011). Results of TMDL studies were summarized in the New 

Mexico water-quality assessment report (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2011a) for the Pecos Headwaters 

watershed, which includes the Pecos and Gallinas Rivers, and 

the upper Canadian watershed. Within San Miguel County, 

approximately 270 river miles of the Pecos Headwaters 

watershed and 100 river miles of the upper Canadian 

watershed were listed as impaired, meaning that water quality 

for specific criteria did not meet standards for a specific use 

in monitored reaches. Impairments were primarily for the 

uses High Quality Cold Water Aquatic Life and Marginal 

Cold Water Fisheries but included the uses Secondary Contact 

Recreation and Domestic Water Supply in selected reaches 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011a). Criteria 

for which there were findings of impairment were primarily 

temperature and turbidity but also included nutrients, 

ammonia, nitrate and nitrite, pH, dissolved oxygen, specific 

conductance, siltation, and mercury in fish tissue in selected 

reaches. Causes of impairment were variously attributed to 

loss of riparian habitat, rangeland grazing, watershed runoff 

following forest fires, road runoff, streambank modification 

or destabilization, livestock, low flow alterations, Escherichia 

coli, aquaculture (permitted), atmospheric deposition, inactive 

mine reclamation, and natural sources. 

Conchas Lake is impaired as a warm water fishery 

because of eutrophication and the presence of mercury and 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in fish tissue exceeding 

established criteria. Storrie Lake is impaired for cold and 

warm water fisheries because of the presence of mercury 

in fish tissue exceeding established criteria. McAllister 

Lake is impaired for cold water fisheries because of 

atmospheric deposition of arsenic (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2011a).

Three sites on the upper Pecos River, all part of an 

inactive lead-zinc mining and milling complex near the town 

of Pecos (Robinson, 1995), are listed as Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Information System (CERCLIS) sites under the EPA 

Superfund program: Terrero Mine (EPA identification 

[ID] NMD986668820) near Terrero, El Molino Mill (EPA 

ID NMD981057292) near Pecos, and East Pecos (EPA 

ID NM0000605422) near Pecos (fig. 1A). Leachate from 

mine waste was cited as a concern by Johnson and Deeds 

(1995a, b). Terrero Mine has undergone remediation and 

is listed as “archived” in the EPA Abandoned Mine Lands 

CERCLIS inventory (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2011b), meaning that the site does not require cleanup under 

the Federal Superfund program. El Molino Mill is listed as 

a No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) site (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2011c), and the East Pecos 

site is listed as Preliminary Assessment Start Needed (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2011d).
22 Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County, New Mexico

Groundwater Resources

The first county-wide characterization of the geology 

and groundwater resources of San Miguel County was 

compiled in Griggs and Hendrickson (1951). The general 

stratigraphy and hydrogeologic framework of San Miguel 

County are described here on the basis of Griggs and 

Hendrickson (1951), updated with data compiled from the 

NMWRRS and USGS NWIS Groundwater Site Inventory 

databases (as summarized in Matherne and Stewart, 2012) 

and with reports that provide localized hydrogeologic 

information. Groundwater resources of San Miguel County 

are summarized and updated in this report by using the 

physiographic provinces described in Griggs and Hendrickson 

(1951) (fig. 1B) as an organizational framework. 

General Stratigraphic and Hydrogeologic 

Framework

The availability of groundwater is a function of the 

configuration of water-bearing rocks and unconsolidated 

sediments in the subsurface, known as the hydrogeologic 

framework, and of groundwater recharge to, discharge from, 

and water flux through that framework (Heath, 1983). 

The water-bearing rock strata and important geological 

and structural features of San Miguel County were reported 

at a regional scale by Griggs and Hendrickson (1951) 

and at a variety of local to regional scales by others (for 

example, Read and others, 1944; Spiegel, S.J., 1956; Baltz, 

1972; Glorieta Geoscience, Inc., and James W. Siebert & 

Associates, 1990; Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc., 

2005). Hydrostratigraphic nomenclature and description of 

rock-aquifer units are summarized in time-stratigraphic order 

in table 5, where nomenclature and age ranges correspond to 

cited reports. The USGS National Geologic Map Database 

Geologic Names Lexicon (GEOLEX; U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2011b) was the authority for accepted rock-formation 

nomenclature, except where noted. Reported rock-strata 

thickness estimates may not be equivalent to aquifer 

thicknesses, particularly with respect to crystalline bedrock, 

for which fracture flow may be dominant (Freeze and 

Cherry, 1979). 

The oldest described water-bearing unit in San Miguel 

County is Precambrian granite (Griggs and Hendrickson, 

1951). Precambrian metamorphic and igneous rocks—which 

include gneiss, schist, quartzite, and pegmatite, as well as 

granite—form the cores of two southern Rocky Mountain 

ridges that bound the upper Pecos River Valley (Griggs and 

Hendrickson, 1951, p. 22; Baltz, 1972). The Precambrian 

Embudo(?) granite of Montgomery (the formation name, 

with question mark, is as noted by Baltz [1972]; this usage 

is not included in GEOLEX) was mapped by Baltz (1972) 

in the upper reaches of Gallinas Creek. The Tusas Mountain 

Granite is the only Precambrian granitic aquifer identified by 

name in NWIS records of wells located in San Miguel County 

(Matherne and Stewart, 2012); no other Precambrian granitic 

aquifers are identified (table 5). Granite may bear groundwater 

in faults and fractures at shallow depths (Freeze and Cherry, 

1979); however, with increasing depth and associated 

increasing overburden weight, the volume of water-bearing 

fractures and associated groundwater in such crystalline rock 

decreases markedly (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Fractured 

Precambrian granite is considered to be the basal (bedrock) 

water-bearing unit in San Miguel County and either crops out 

at land surface or is overlain by Paleozoic sedimentary rocks 

(table 5). In some areas, limestones of the Mississippian–

Devonian Arroyo Peñasco Group, including the Espiritu Santo 

Formation (Baltz, 1972; Glorieta Geoscience, Inc., 1986) 

and/or the Mississippian Tererro1 Formation (Baltz, 1972; 

Glorieta Geoscience, Inc., 1986; Garn and Jacobi, 1996), 

unconformably overlie granitic bedrock (table 5). Baltz (1972) 

mapped these rocks in the northwest quadrant of the Gallinas 

Creek area (fig. 1B).

Unconformably overlying either granitic bedrock or 

limestone of the Arroyo Peñasco Group is the Paleozoic–

Mississippian/Pennsylvanian Sandia Formation, which 

consists of interbedded limestone, shale, and sandstone 

(table 5). Overlying the Sandia Formation is the Madera 

Group, consisting of the Porvenir and Alamitos Formations. 

In combination, these rocks range from not present to as much 

as 2,000 ft in thickness (Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951); Baltz 

(1972) described local thicknesses in the same range in the 

Gallinas Creek area. Griggs and Hendrickson (1951) used the 

term “Magdalena Group” to describe these Pennsylvanian 

rock formations. Although this terminology was formally 

discontinued in 1984 (Baltz and Myers, 1984; MJDarrconsult, 

Inc., 2003), it persists in San Miguel County hydrologic 

reports, likely attributable to ongoing reliance on Griggs and 

Hendrickson’s (1951) report. 

Unconformably overlying Precambrian or older 

Paleozoic rocks are Pennsylvanian to Permian interbedded 

sandstones, shale, and limestone of the Sangre de Cristo 

Formation (table 5). In San Miguel County, the Sangre de 

Cristo Formation ranges between 600 and 1,300 ft in thickness 

(Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951; Baltz, 1972). The upper 

Sangre de Cristo Formation grades into the distinctive orange 

to orange-red Permian Yeso Formation (table 5) (Griggs 

and Hendrickson, 1951), which is composed of interbedded 

siltstone and sandstone and ranges from 170 to 1,000 ft in 

thickness (Baltz, 1972; Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951). The 

Permian Glorieta Sandstone overlies the Yeso Formation. The 

Glorieta Sandstone ranges from 100 to 240 ft in thickness 

(Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951; Baltz, 1972) (table 5). Griggs 

and Hendrickson (1951) placed the Glorieta Sandstone at the 

base of the San Andres Formation and noted that the Glorieta 

Sandstone contains a limestone middle member that may bear 

water and, where present, be as much as 30 ft thick. 

Baltz (1972) indicated that the Bernal Formation overlies 

the Glorieta Sandstone and further noted that the lower part 

1

Alternate spelling of “Terrero” was observed in the literature for this unit.
Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County 23

of the Bernal Formation may be equivalent to the San Andres 

Formation. The formal usage of the name “Bernal Formation” 

has since been discontinued in favor of the name “Artesia 

Formation” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2011b). For clarity, 

these rocks are referred to informally herein as the “Artesia 

(Bernal) Formation” (table 5). GEOLEX indicates that rocks 

formerly assigned to the Bernal Formation overlie the San 

Andres Formation (U.S. Geological Survey, 2011b) in the 

far western part of San Miguel County; Glorieta Geoscience, 

Inc. (1997a), also identified the occurrence of the Bernal 

Formation and placed these rocks above the San Andres 

Formation. Artesia (Bernal) Formation rocks have been 

correlated to members of the Permian Artesia Group in 

southern parts of San Miguel County and to the Anton Chico 

Member of the Triassic Moenkopi Formation in northern 

parts of San Miguel County (Lucas and Hayden, 1991; U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2011b). The Artesia (Bernal) Formation 

crops out along El Creston hogback (Baltz, 1972), the hogback 

ridge just west of Las Vegas. Albright (1962), in his study 

of the Taylor well field near Las Vegas (fig. 1A), noted that 

groundwater borne in the Artesia (Bernal) Formation is 

heavily mineralized and attributed degraded water quality 

in one production well in the Taylor well field to partial 

completion in this formation. Lazarus and Drakos (1998) 

described the Artesia (Bernal) Formation as an aquitard in 

the vicinity of the Taylor well field, southwest of Las Vegas, 

indicating the large variability of hydrologic characteristics of 

this formation in San Miguel County. 

Unconformably overlying Paleozoic and/or Artesia 

(Bernal) Formation rocks are sedimentary rocks of the 

Dockum Group of the Mesozoic Triassic period (Baltz, 1972). 

The stratigraphic designations and associated nomenclature of 

these rocks are in revision (Lucas and Hunt, 1987, 1989; see 

table 5), but usage of the Dockum/Chinle terminology persists 

in hydrologic reports of San Miguel County written since 

1987. The hydrostratigraphy in table 5 follows Griggs and 

Hendrickson’s (1951) stratigraphic designations and naming 

conventions, since nomenclature changes are not yet settled 

(2011). Dockum Group rocks are composed of the basal Santa 

Rosa Sandstone, which is overlain by the Chinle Formation 

(Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951). In some locations, the Santa 

Rosa Sandstone is interbedded with as much as 100 ft of shale 

(Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951, p. 26). The Chinle Formation 

consists of two shale members which, in some locations, may 

contain water-bearing sandstone lenses. The shale members 

are interbedded with a water-bearing sandstone member that 

ranges between 45 and 165 ft in thickness and in places is 

interbedded with shale. Griggs and Hendrickson (1951, p. 25) 

note that Dockum Group rocks range in combined thickness 

from about 1,000 to 1,200 ft. Aquifers contained within 

Dockum Group water-bearing rocks are of variable but lesser 

thicknesses (Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951). 

Where present, the Jurassic Entrada Sandstone of the 

San Rafael Group unconformably overlies Triassic rocks 

(table 5) (Baltz, 1972). The Entrada Sandstone ranges from 

“inconspicuous in the hogback zone west of Las Vegas” 

(Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951, p. 27) to about 120 ft thick 

(Baltz, 1972) and is overlain, if present, by up to 25 ft (Baltz, 

1972) of the Todilto Limestone Member of the Wanakah 

Formation of the San Rafael Group (U.S. Geological Survey, 

2011b). The Todilto Limestone is overlain by the Morrison 

Formation, which ranges in thickness from 250 ft (Griggs 

and Hendrickson, 1951) to as much as 445 ft (Baltz, 1972). 

Griggs and Hendrickson (1951) noted that these Jurassic 

rocks were not known to contain highly productive aquifers in 

San Miguel County.

Cretaceous rocks unconformably overlie Jurassic rocks 

(table 5) (Baltz, 1972). The base of the Cretaceous section is 

composed of the Dakota Sandstone. The Purgatoire Formation 

is present below the Dakota Sandstone in areas northeast of 

San Miguel County but is not observed within the county 

(Kilmer, 1987; U.S. Geological Survey, 2011b). The Dakota 

Sandstone ranges in thickness from 100 to 250 ft (Baltz, 

1972; Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951). Overlying the Dakota 

Sandstone are members of the Upper Cretaceous Mancos 

Shale (King, 1974); from older to younger the sequence 

consists of the conformable Graneros Member, the Greenhorn 

Limestone Member, the Carlile Member, and the Niobrara 

Member (table 5). North of San Miguel County these rocks 

have been assigned membership in the Colorado Group 

(U.S. Geological Survey, 2011b; M.J. Darr, oral commun., 

2011). In the Gallinas Creek area of San Miguel County, the 

Graneros Member ranges in thickness from 215 to 250 ft, the 

Greenhorn Limestone Member is 40–60 ft thick, the Carlile 

Member is about 340 ft thick, and the Niobrara Member 

varies from 250 to 700 ft thick (Baltz, 1972). The Niobrara 

and Greenhorn Members are currently the focus of regional 

oil and gas exploration, depending upon the organic fractions 

of the underlying Carlile and Graneros Members, respectively 

(Durham, 2011). The quality of groundwater contained in 

these rocks may be affected if the rocks also contain oil and/

or gas.

Although the Ogallala Formation of Cenozoic Neogene 

age is found locally in San Miguel County in thicknesses 

of as much as 50 ft, it is not regionally extensive and, in 

general, is not present because of erosion (Griggs and 

Hendrickson, 1951). The Tesuque Formation of the Santa Fe 

Group, also of Cenozoic Neogene age, was identified in the 

far western part of San Miguel County (Glorieta Geoscience, 

Inc., 1997a) in the Northern Rio Grande underground water 

basin (fig. 5).

Unconsolidated alluvium and pediment gravel and some 

igneous (volcanic) rocks of Quaternary age were described 

by Griggs and Hendrickson (1951). Alluvium, deposited by 

streamflow along perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral stream 

channels, may bear water sufficient for domestic purposes, for 

stock watering, or for small-scale irrigation projects (Griggs 

and Hendrickson, 1951).
24 Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County, New Mexico

Table 5. Summary of hydrostratigraphic nomenclature and description of rock-aquifer units in San Miguel County, New Mexico, as 

derived from cited literature.—Continued

[ft, foot; ft2/d, square foot per day; ft/d, foot per day; ft3/ft3, cubic foot per cubic foot; NA, not applicable; --, no data]

Era1,2,3 

Period1,2,3

(dashed border 

indicates 

uncertainty or 

inconsistency 

between sources)

Epoch/

series/

other 

temporal 

subdivision 

Group1 Formation 

or member1,2,3 Lithology2,3 Thickness2,3(ft)

Youngest

Cenozoic

Quaternary NA NA Alluvium

Alluvium; unconsolidated deposits of 

sediment including pediment, terrace, 

and other deposits of gravel, silt, 

sand, and locally, caliche

Multiple

Neogene

Miocene and 

Pliocene NA Ogallala Formation 

Unconsolidated to consolidated 

pebbles, gravel, sand, silt, and clay 

with caliche

0–50

Miocene and 

Pliocene

Santa Fe 

Group 

(far west 

parts of 

San Miguel 

County)

Tesuque Formation Pinkish to tan ledge-forming soft 

sandstone --

Mesozoic

Cretaceous

Late NA

Niobrara Member of 

Mancos Shale (b)

Gray shale interbedded with siltstone 

and a few thin limestone beds 250–700

Carlile Member of the 

Mancos Shale

Gray shale interbedded with silstone 

and a few thin limestone beds 340

Greenhorn Limestone 

Member of the Mancos 

Shale

Light gray limestone interbedded with 

gray-calcareous shale 40–60

Graneros Member of the 

Mancos Shale Dark gray shale, a few bentonite beds 215–250

Early NA Dakota Sandstone Brown sandstone interbedded with gray 

shale 100–250

Jurassic

Late

San Rafael 

Group

Morrison Formation

Interbedded greenish-gray siltstone, 

shale, sandstone, and conglomeritic 

sandstone

250–445

Middle

Todilto Limestone 

Member of the 

Wanakah Formation

Limestone, slightly sandy and gypseous 0–25

Entrada Sandstone Buff sandstone 0–120

Triassic

Late 

Dockum 

Group

(nomenclature in 

revision) (a)

Chinle Formation (formation versus group status 

in revision) (a)

Interbedded shale and sandstone, 

limestone lenses, limestone pebbles 

and limestone pebble conglomerate, water-bearing sandstone middle 

member

750–1,150

(middle member: 45–165)

Middle

Santa Rosa Sandstone 

(Santa Rosa Formation)

Light gray, tan, brown, gray sandstone 

interbedded with shale; limestone 

and chert pebble inclusions

200–400

Anton Chico Member of 

the Moenkopi 

Formation1, 7, 16

(depending on location 

may be equivalent to 

Artesia (Bernal) 

Formation1, 16)

1672 (at type section)

Table 5. Summary of hydrostratigraphic nomenclature and description of rock-aquifer units in San Miguel County, New Mexico, as 

derived from cited literature.

[ft, foot; ft2/d, square foot per day; ft/d, foot per day; ft3/ft3, cubic foot per cubic foot; NA, not applicable; --, no data]
Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County 25

Suitability as 

aquifer2, or as noted

Transmissivity

(ft2/d) (c)

Hydraulic conductivity

(ft/d) (c)

Storage coefficient

(ft3/ft3, unless noted otherwise)

Suitable 1474–1,685 (alluvium and weathered bedrock, undifferentiated) -- --

Locally useful but not extensive in San Miguel County -- -- --

-- 7490 -- Specific yield: 250.04–0.05

Locally suitable2; regional 

exploration for oil and gas21 -- -- --

Locally suitable2, 18 -- -- --

Locally suitable2; regional 

exploration for oil and gas21 -- -- --

Locally suitable2 -- -- --

Regionally suitable except near 

escarpments2, 18 -- -- --

Not known to contain 

productive aquifers2, 18; 

Entrada Sandstone may be a 

viable exploration target24

-- -- --

-- -- --

--

--

--

Suitable 

-- -- --

19227–2,273

Conchas Lake vicinity: 17188–194 

Glorieta - Santa Rosa undifferentiated 

(Taylor well field): 10, 15570–4,300 

Glorieta - Santa Rosa - Chinle - Bernal undifferentiated 

(Taylor well field): 20470–790

190.76–7.6

Glorieta - Santa Rosa 

undifferentiated 

(Taylor well field): 10, 151.5E-4; 

3E-3 to 203E-5

-- -- -- --
26 Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County, New Mexico

Table 5. Summary of hydrostratigraphic nomenclature and description of rock-aquifer units in San Miguel County, New Mexico, as 

derived from cited literature.—Continued

[ft, foot; ft2/d, square foot per day; ft/d, foot per day; ft3/ft3, cubic foot per cubic foot; NA, not applicable; --, no data]

Era1,2,3 

Period1,2,3

(dashed border 

indicates 

uncertainty or 

inconsistency 

between sources)

Epoch/

series/

other 

temporal 

subdivision 

Group1 Formation 

or member1,2,3 Lithology2,3 Thickness2,3(ft)

Oldest

Paleozoic

Permian

Late Artesia 

Group

Artesia (Bernal) Formation (in southeast New 

Mexico equivalent to 

Grayburg and Queen 

Formations of 

Artesia Group)16

Purplish-red sandstone interbedded with 

siltstone; some local gypsum beds 115–140 

NA

San Andres Limestone, San 

Andres Formation Gray limestone, sandy 0–180

Early

Glorieta Sandstone 

Member of the San 

Andres Formation 

(middle unit is 

water bearing)

Yellow to buff orthoquartzitic sandstone 

with thin shale beds 

Middle unit bears water

100–240 

(30, middle waterbearing unit)

Yeso Formation

Orange-red sandstone, siltstone, and 

shale, interbedded with a few thin 

limestone beds

170–1,000

Pennsylvanian/

Permian

Temporal 

divisions 

uncertain

Sangre de Cristo Formation

Red, purple, and greenish-gray shale 

interbedded with arokosic sandstone; 

contains thin beds of nodular or 

gray limestone; basal bed is massive 

arkosic conglomerate

600–1,300

Madera 

Group

Alamitos Formation

Red, gray, and greenish-gray shale interbedded with gray limestone; nodular 

limestone; red marly shale at base

0–1,000

Pennsylvanian

Middle Porvenir Formation

Gray fossiliferous limestone, 

interbedded with dark gray shale 

and sandstone

0–1,200

Early NA Sandia Formation Interbedded limestone, shale, 

and sandstone 0–400

Mississippian

Late

Arroyo 

Peñasco 

Group

Tererro Formation Sandy clastic limestone; gray 

crystalline limestone 0–100

Early Espiritu Santo Formation

Dark gray limestone, dolomitic limestone, sandy limestone, 

Devonian basal sandstone

Proterozoic

(Eon)

Precambrian NA NA

Tusas Mountain Granite Granite --

Embudo(?) Granite (of 

Montgomery)3

Granite and/or granodiorite intruded 

into schistosic rocks --

Pegmatites, Igneous and 

metamorphic bedrock

Pegmatite dikes, gneiss and schist inclusions; schist, gneiss, metaquartzite --

(a) Proposed nomenclature change to (younger to older rocks): Redonda Formatio; Bull Canyon Formation; Trujillo Formation; Garita Creek Formation (1, 23).

(b) Oil and gas exploration ongoing (21).

(c) Transmissivity values reported in other units converted to ft2/d. Hydraulic conductivity values reported in other units converted to ft/d.

Sources:

1

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011b [GEOLEX, National Geologic Names Lexicon].

2

Griggs, R.L., and Hendrickson, G.E., 1951.

3

Baltz, E.H., 1972.

4

Baltz, E.H., and Myers, D.A., 1984.

5

John Shomaker & Associates, 2007.

6

Souder, Miller & Associates, 1999.

7

Glorieta Geoscience, Inc., 1997a.

8

MJDarrconsult, Inc., 2003.

9

Energia Total, Ltd., 1997.

10Lazarus, J., and Drakos, P.G., 1998.

11Corbin Consulting, Inc., 2006.

12Glorieta Geoscience, Inc., 2003.
Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County 27

Suitability as 

aquifer2, or as noted

Transmissivity

(ft2/d) (c)

Hydraulic conductivity

(ft/d) (c)

Storage coefficient

(ft3/ft3, unless noted otherwise)

Very poor quality22, aquitard in 

some areas10 -- -- --

120,000 -- --

--

5

690; 190.13–9,400;

Glorieta - Santa Rosa undifferentiated: 10, 15570–4,300; 17188–194-- Specific yield: 11 0.01–0.1 10, 151.5E-4

Water may be mineralized2; 

water quality is poor18 Yeso/Sangre de Cristo undifferentiated: 5

985–5,300 -- --

Suitable 7, 120.5–12; 9

295–1,062; 124–23; 1313–20

Yeso/Sangre de Cristo undifferentiated: 5985–5,300 -- 131.85 E-4

Suitable 

Madera: 1335–43; 643; 735–43 

Madera/Sangre de Cristo undifferentiated: 1151–67

Alamitos Formation: 863–759

Porvenir Formation: 863–246

Madera undifferentiated: 611

Alamitos Formation: 82.5–30.4

Porvenir Formation: 84.2–31.6

--

Suitable 845–70 8 2.1–2.3 --

-- -- -- --

Suitable (if water found less 

than 10 ft below land surface)

4 (Unnamed granite-bedrock)7

74–1,685 (alluvium and weathered bedrock, undifferentiated)14 -- --

13Drakos, P., 1997.

14Shomaker, J.W., 1975a.

15Glorieta Geoscience, Inc., 1996.

16Lucas, S.G., and Hayden, S.N., 1991.

17Shomaker, J.W., 1976.

18Trauger, F.D., 1972.

19Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc., 2005.

20Glorieta Geoscience, Inc., 1986.

21Durham, L.S., 2011.

22Albright, J.L., 1962.

23Lucas, S.G., and Hunt, A.P., 1987.

24Kilmer, L.C., 1987.

25Darr, M., 2011, oral commun.
28 Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County, New Mexico

General Structural Geology 

During the formation of the present Rocky Mountains 

(55–80 million years ago), rocks in northwestern parts of 

San Miguel County were uplifted; these uplifted rocks now 

form the southern and eastern flanks of the Sangre de Cristo 

Mountains (Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951). In southwestern 

parts of the county, uplifting formed “a broad, nearly flat 

topped arch” now known as Glorieta Mesa (Griggs and 

Hendrickson, 1951; Baltz, 1972). With increased uplift in 

western parts of the county, surficial rocks were eroded, 

and older rocks were exposed at land surface. In central 

and southeastern parts of San Miguel County, distant from 

the western uplifted regions, the rock strata remained 

comparatively undisturbed and generally horizontal (Griggs 

and Hendrickson, 1951; Baltz, 1972). Trauger (1972) noted, 

however, that the rocks display a slight eastward regional 

dip in this region; that towards the northeast the basement 

dips steeply to form the Las Vegas Subbasin, an arm of the 

Raton Basin (Woodward and Snyder, 1976); and that the 

Mesozoic rock sequences thicken and change stratigraphic 

nomenclature (Mercer and Lappala, 1972; Bejnar and Lessard, 

1976; Kilmer, 1987). The rocks in the uplifted western part of 

the county meet the generally flat-lying rocks in the eastern 

part of the county along a generally north-south trending 

transition zone where the rocks are faulted, folded, and 

fractured, forming north-south trending subsurface anticlines, 

synclines, and faults (Baltz, 1972). In the transition zone 

at land surface, folding is expressed in a series of northsouth trending hogback monoclinal ridges (Griggs and 

Hendrickson, 1951); the hogback ridge just west of Las Vegas 

is known as El Creston, and elsewhere the ridges are referred 

to as “the southern hogback monocline ridges” (fig. 1B). 

Folds, fractures, and faults may control the direction and 

volume of groundwater flow in water-bearing rocks of the 

transition zone.

Current (2011) Understanding of Hydrogeologic 

Framework and Groundwater Conditions by 

Physiographic Area 

Groundwater conditions in San Miguel County are 

described on the basis of Griggs and Hendrickson (1951), 

updated with recent (March 1972 through November 2010) 

total well-depth data from the NMWRRS database and 

aquifer of completion2 data from the USGS NWIS database 

(summarized in Matherne and Stewart, 2012), and, where 

applicable, local-scale data from subdivision and other 

hydrologic reports archived at the NMOSE Library. Aquifer 

properties reported in site-specific hydrologic reports are 

summarized in table 5. Information derived from local-scale 

hydrologic reports, archived at the NMOSE Library, has been 

neither verified nor validated. 

Total well-depth data are assumed to represent likely 

water-well drilling depths. Reported total well-depth data are 

categorized as shallow if they are less than or equal to 300 ft 

below land surface (bls), moderately deep if they are greater 

than 300 ft to less than or equal to 600 ft bls, deep if they 

are greater than 600 to less than or equal to 900 ft bls, and 

very deep if they are greater than 900 ft bls (table 6). Water 

2

 “Aquifer of completion” refers to the aquifer formation(s) across which 

the well is screened and from which the well draws water.

Table 6. Summary of shallow, moderately deep, deep, and very deep New Mexico Water Rights Reporting System (NMWRRS) 

database wells in each of Griggs and Hendrickson’s (1951) physiographic areas and subareas, San Miguel County, New Mexico.

[TD, total depth; bls, below land surface]

Area Subarea

Number of 

wells with TD 

greater than 

0.0 feet bls

Range of 

reported 

total depths

(feet bls)

Shallow, TD less 

than or equal to 

300 feet bls

(percent)

Moderately deep, TD 

greater than 300 feet bls 

to less than or equal 

to 600 feet bls

(percent)

Deep, TD greater than 

600 feet bls to less than 

or equal to 900 feet bls

(percent)

Very deep, TD 

greater than 

900 feet bls

(percent)

1 a, b 747 10–950 77.9 19.3 2.5 0.3

c, d 612 40–922 60.3 36.0 3.6 0.2

e 69 39–2,134 72.5 20.3 4.4 2.9

2 a 110 53–1,570 36.4 27.3 29.1 7.3

b 23 60–995 34.8 39.1 17.4 8.7

3 249 35–880 65.9 28.9 5.2 0.0

4 a 112 24–805 56.3 39.3 4.5 0.0

b 153 13–2,345 81.1 10.5 6.5 2.0

c 90 25–1,237 63.3 24.4 5.6 6.7

All wells 2,165 67.3 26.4 5.2 1.1
Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County 29

quality, as summarized by Griggs and Hendrickson (1951, 

p. 60), is defined arbitrarily as “good” if groundwater samples 

contained less than 500 parts per million (ppm) of dissolved 

solids, “fair” if samples contained between 500 and 1,000 ppm 

of dissolved solids, and “poor” if samples contained more than 

1,000 ppm of dissolved solids.

Griggs and Hendrickson (1951) summarized their 

findings in relation to four major physiographic areas within 

the county, which generally correspond with the NMOSE 

declared underground water basins (fig. 5). The Upper Pecos 

underground water basin generally corresponds with Griggs 

and Hendrickson’s (1951) Areas 1 and 2 except that the 

northeastern part of Area 1 is located in the Canadian River 

underground water basin. Griggs and Hendrickson’s (1951) 

Areas 3 and 4 are located generally in the Canadian River and 

Tucumcari underground water basins, except that the western 

parts of both areas are located in the Upper Pecos underground 

water basin (fig. 5). Small portions of the headlands of the 

Northern Rio Grande and Estancia underground water basins 

are also present in Area 2. 

Griggs and Hendrickson Area 1

The northwestern part of the county includes the 

southeastern flank of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Griggs 

and Hendrickson (1951) designated this as Area 1 and 

included subareas 1a–1e (fig. 5) based on the characteristics of 

water-bearing rocks and associated groundwater availability of 

each subarea. 

In Area 1a, Precambrian crystalline rocks are exposed 

at land surface, whereas in Area 1b, Sandia Formation and 

Madera Group sedimentary rocks overlie Precambrian 

crystalline rocks (Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951). In rocks and 

alluvium of subareas 1a and 1b, groundwater of good quality 

in small to moderate quantities occurs at shallow depths 

(Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951). NMWRRS database wellcompletion depths in subareas 1a and 1b support the presence 

of groundwater at shallow depths (table 6). The USGS NWIS 

database indicates that wells in subarea 1b are completed in 

the Permian San Andres Formation and Glorieta Sandstone. 

Wells completed between 1973 and 2010 in subareas 1a and 

1b ranged in depth from 10 ft to 950 ft but were generally 

completed either at shallow depths (about 78 percent) or 

moderate depths (about 19 percent) and only a few at deep 

or greater depths (table 6). A review of well-completion data 

(Matherne and Stewart, 2012) indicates that wells in subareas 

1a and 1b generally continue to be completed at shallow 

depths, as predicted by Griggs and Hendrickson (1951), 

although between 1973 and 2010 a few wells were completed 

at depths deeper than predicted. Aquifer characterizations 

described in subdivision hydrologic reports were consistent 

with Griggs and Hendrickson’s (1951) characterizations of 

depth and available quantity of groundwater in subareas 1a 

and 1b (Spiegel, Zane, 1956; Gatlin, 1959; Benjar, 1973, 1974; 

Shomaker, 1975a, b; New Mexico Soil Conservation Service, 

1994; Garn and Jacobi, 1996; Heaton, 1999; MJDarrconsult, 

Inc., 2003).

Subareas 1c and 1d in the southern part of Area 1 (fig. 5) 

contain surficial rocks of the Pennsylvanian Sangre de Cristo 

Formation or of Permian Yeso and San Andres Formations. 

Reported well depths were generally shallow to moderate, 

with the Madera Group rocks ranging from near surface 

to very deep. Small to moderate quantities of fair to good 

quality groundwater in subareas 1c and 1d may be found 

either in surficial aquifers (in the Madera Group or Sandia 

Formation) or in valley alluvium, at shallow to moderate 

depths (Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951). Aquifers in which 

wells were reported as completed (Matherne and Stewart, 

2012), as well as aquifers identified in local-scale reports 

(Conover and Murray,1939; Murray, 1944; Sorensen and 

Gonzales, 1959; New Mexico State Engineer Office, 1960; 

Benjar, 1974; Shomaker, 1975b; Tolisano and others, 1993; 

Drakos, 1997; Energia Total, Ltd., 1997; Glorieta Geoscience, 

Inc., 1997b; Heaton, 1998; Souder, Miller & Associates, 1999; 

Corbin Consulting, Inc., 2006), are generally consistent with 

Griggs and Hendrickson (1951) aquifer designations. Wells 

completed in these subareas between 1972 and 2010 ranged 

in depth from 40 ft to 922 ft. About 60 percent of the wells 

were completed at depths of 300 ft or less, about 36 percent 

were reported as having been completed at moderate depths, 

while about 4 percent were completed at deep and one well 

was completed at very deep depths (table 6); these findings are 

generally consistent with well depths as reported by Griggs 

and Hendrickson (1951). In subarea 1c, groundwater levels 

in monitoring well 352725105160901 declined about 12.5 ft 

between 2006 and 2010 to about 42 ft bls (fig. 8D; location 

in fig. 5). Groundwater levels in USGS monitoring well 

353001105402601, in subarea 1d, showed some fluctuation 

but averaged about 64 ft bls from 2006 to 2009 (fig. 8C; 

location in fig. 5). At hogback monoclines, rock strata of 

all ages may be present and dip steeply toward the east, in 

places exposing nearly vertical rock outcrops that represent 

“a wide variety of ground-water conditions” (Griggs and 

Hendrickson, 1951, p. 61). In subarea 1e, within the rocks of 

the northern and central hogback monoclines and in alluvial 

deposits of streams that cut across the ridges, wells produce 

water at shallow depths in volumes sufficient for domestic 

use and livestock watering (Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951). 

About 72 percent of wells completed in subarea 1e between 

1974 and 2010 were 300 ft or less in depth, while about 20 

percent were moderately deep, about 4 percent were deep, and 

two wells were very deep (table 6), indicating that most wells 

produced water from shallow depths as described by Griggs 

and Hendrickson (1951) but that additional deeper aquifers are 

at least locally present. One exploration well in subarea 1e, in 

the area of El Creston west of Las Vegas, is recorded as having 

been completed at 2,134 ft bls; while it is not known if this 

well still exists, the record is mentioned to illustrate water-well 

exploration depths in this subarea.
01/01/99

01/01/00

01/01/01

01/01/02

01/01/03

01/01/04

01/01/05

01/01/06

01/01/07

01/01/08

01/01/09

01/01/10

01/01/11

01/01/99

01/01/00

01/01/01

01/01/02

01/01/03

01/01/04

01/01/05

01/01/06

01/01/07

01/01/08

01/01/09

01/01/10

01/01/11

1/1/1999

1/1/2000

1/1/2001

1/1/2002

1/1/2003

1/1/2004

1/1/2005

1/1/2006

1/1/1999

1/1/2000

1/1/2001

1/1/2002

1/1/2003

1/1/2004

1/1/2005

1/1/2006

1/1/2007

1/1/2008

1/1/2009

1/1/2010

1/1/2011

1/1/1999

1/1/2000

1/1/2001

1/1/2002

1/1/2003

1/1/2004

1/1/2005

1/1/2006

1/1/2007

1/1/2008

1/1/2009

1/1/2010

1/1/2011

1/1/1999

1/1/2000

1/1/2001

1/1/2002

1/1/2003

1/1/2004

1/1/2005

1/1/2006

050100150200250300350400450

Depth to water level, in feet below land surface 6,650 6,670 6,690 6,710 6,730 6,750 6,770 6,790

Groundwater level above NGVD 29, in feet

0255075100125150

Depth to water level, in feet below land surface 6,470 6,490 6,510 6,530 6,550 6,570 6,590 6,610

Groundwater level above NGVD 29, in feet

050100150200250300350400450

Depth to water level, in feet below land surface 6,012 6,062 6,112 6,162 6,212 6,262 6,312 6,362 6,412 6,462

Groundwater level above NGVD 29, in feet

0255075100125150

Depth to water level, in feet below land surface 6,525 6,545 6,565 6,585 6,605 6,625 6,645 6,665

Groundwater level above NGVD 29, in feet

6,0276,0776,1276,1776,2276,2776,3276,3776,4276,477

Groundwater level above NGVD 29, in feet

6,6506,6706,6906,7106,7306,7506,7706,790

Groundwater level above NGVD 29, in feet

S

R

P

R R

P

R 

EXPLANATION

Water-level measurement—Locations of wells shown on figure 5Pumping status Well was being pumped at time of measurement Well was recently pumped Nearby well was being pumped at time of measurement

PRS

A. 353418105145601 B. 353346105145201 C. 353001105402601

D. 352725105160901 E. 354054105092101 F. 354310105035801

VERTICAL SCALE OF A AND 

NGVD 29, National Geod

Figure 8. Groundwater hydrographs for the period of record for U.S. Geological Survey monitoring wells with a period of record of 2 or more years wTaylor well field, San Miguel County, New Mexico. 

A, 353418105145601. 

B, 353346105145201. 

C, 353001105402601. 

D, 352725105160901. 

E, 3540541050921
Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County 31

Griggs and Hendrickson Area 2

Area 2 is dominated in the southwestern region by 

Glorieta Mesa, a highland plateau (Griggs and Hendrickson, 

1951). The principal water-bearing rocks of Area 2 are the 

Pennsylvanian Sangre de Cristo Formation, the Permian Yeso 

Formation, and the Glorieta Sandstone member of the San 

Andres Formation. According to Griggs and Hendrickson 

(1951), groundwater in subarea 2a ranges from shallow to very 

deep and in subarea 2b is generally shallow. The few wateravailability reports in Area 2 focused on aquifers contained 

in Permian and Pennsylvanian rocks (Drakos, 1997; Heaton, 

1998; Glorieta Geoscience, Inc., 2003; Corbin Consulting, 

Inc., 2004); hydrogeologic characteristics derived from 

these reports are summarized in table 5. Along the western, 

southern, and eastern flanks of Glorieta Mesa, the Triassic 

Santa Rosa Sandstone or Chinle Formation rocks may also 

contain groundwater (table 5). In subarea 2a, wells completed 

between 1964 and 2010 ranged in depth from 53 to 1,570 feet 

bls (Matherne and Stewart, 2012). Shallow wells represent a 

large minority (about 36 percent) of well completions, while 

deeper well completions were common in subarea 2a, with 

moderately deep wells accounting for about 27 percent of 

the total reported completions, deep wells accounting for 

about 29 percent of well completions, and very deep wells 

accounting for about 7 percent of well completions (table 6). 

Wells completed in subarea 2b between 1964 and 2010 ranged 

from 60 to 995 ft bls (table 6). Well-completion depths in 

this subarea can be categorized as about 35 percent shallow, 

39 percent moderate, 17 percent deep, and 9 percent very 

deep. Well-completion depths by depth category are generally 

similar in subareas 2a and 2b for shallow, moderately deep, 

and deep well completions, indicating that Griggs and 

Hendrickson’s (1951) aquifer depth distinction between 

subareas of Area 2 may no longer apply. Water quality in 

Area 2 is generally fair except for water drawn from wells 

completed in the Yeso Formation, which may contain sulfate 

at concentrations sufficient to make it unsuitable for domestic 

use (Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951).

Griggs and Hendrickson Area 3

The western boundary of Area 3 incorporates the 

southern hogback, which extends between Area 2 and subarea 

1e (fig. 5). This part of Area 3 contains the Taylor well 

field, a supplemental groundwater source to the Las Vegas 

municipal surface-water supply. Area 3 is generally bounded 

to the south by the county line and to the north and east by 

the Canadian Escarpment, the steep ridge that separates 

the Las Vegas Plateau from the eastern plains (Griggs and 

Hendrickson, 1951) (fig. 1B), where the land surface has been 

lowered by erosion due, in part, to flow in tributaries to the 

Conchas and Canadian Rivers. Conchas Lake, in the eastcentral part of Area 3, stores waters of these river systems. 

Area 3 wells were generally completed at depths of 100–300 

ft bls and drew fair to good quality water from aquifers of 

the San Rafael Group and poor to fair quality water from the 

Triassic Santa Rosa Sandstone and Chinle Formation (Griggs 

and Hendrickson 1951). Wells in Area 3 are, however, also 

completed in alluvium, in terrace or pediment sediments, 

or in rocks ranging from Pennsylvanian to Triassic age 

(table 5) (Matherne and Stewart, 2012). Localized hydrologic 

reports describe groundwater in Area 3 southern hogback 

monoclinal ridges as found primarily in Permian and Triassic 

rocks (Albright, 1962; Horner, 1980; Lazarus and Drakos, 

1998; Heaton, 2000; John Shomaker & Associates, 2007). 

East of the hogback monoclinal ridges in Area 3, the nine 

wells with aquifer completion data in the USGS NWIS 

database are generally completed in terrace, pediment, or 

other deposits of gravel, sand, and caliche or in the Triassic 

Chinle Formation (Matherne and Stewart, 2012). Well 

completions in the Glorieta Sandstone, Santa Rosa Sandstone, 

and the Chinle Formation are also reported (Dice, 1954; 

Schlaikjar, 1971; Trauger, 1972; Shomaker, 1976; U.S. Bureau 

of Reclamation, 1979).

Between 1972 and 2010, NMWRRS well-completion 

depths in Area 3 ranged from 35 to 880 ft bls (table 6). 

About 66 percent of wells were completed at shallow 

depths, consistent with well depths reported by Griggs and 

Hendrickson (1951), but about 29 percent of wells were 

moderately deep and about 5 percent of wells were deep, 

indicating that groundwater may have been sought at greater 

depths after 1951. 

Near Conchas Lake State Park, groundwater of 

poor quality but adequate quantity for domestic use was 

encountered in a well completed at a total depth of about 

1,800 ft bls. The well, completed across both the Glorieta and 

Santa Rosa Sandstones (Shomaker, 1976), was not listed on 

the NMWRRS dataset downloaded for this report (2010).

Area 3 – Taylor Well Field Area 

About 76 percent of wells completed between 1972 

and 2010 in Area 3 were completed in the southern hogback 

area (Matherne and Stewart, 2012), indicating the current 

focus on groundwater resource development in this area. The 

Taylor well field, located west of El Creston in the southern 

hogback area, provides groundwater to Las Vegas (Albright, 

1962; Glorieta Geoscience, Inc., 1996; Lazarus and Drakos, 

1998). Many detailed hydrologic studies of the area have been 

performed to characterize hydrologic resources (Heaton, 1935; 

Jansen, 1935; Northrup and others, 1946; Spiegel, S.J., 1956; 

Albright, 1962; Molzen–Corbin & Associates, 1980; Molzen–

Corbin & Associates and Lee Wilson and Associates, 1985; 

Glorieta Geoscience, Inc., 1996; Lazarus and Drakos, 1998; 

Brinkman, 2004; New Mexico Environment Department, 

2009, 2010). As early as 1935, Heaton (1935) investigated 

“groundwater possibilities” in the vicinity of Las Vegas and 

recommended that an exploratory boring be undertaken at 

the lowest part of the Las Vegas structural basin, east of El 

Creston within Las Vegas. Correspondence from Heaton in 

1936, included in the NMOSE Library holdings with the 1935 

report, indicates that the exploratory well construction was 
32 Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County, New Mexico

undertaken at the recommended location but that water in 

quantities sufficient for municipal use was not encountered 

(Heaton, 1935). S.J. Spiegel (1956) stated that aquifers 

east of El Creston hogback ridge were likely recharge 

limited because of structural-geological characteristics of 

the ridge. S.J. Spiegel (1956) recommended that a test well 

be constructed southwest of Las Vegas on what is now 

the Taylor well field, noting that “the strike valleys of low 

dip provide an area of recharge that is favorable for the 

accumulation of groundwater, in strata of older age than the 

Dakota-Entrada horizon.” Following S.J. Spiegel’s (1956) 

recommendations, the Taylor well field was established during 

1956–57 (Albright, 1962). Albright (1962, p. 23) reported 

that groundwater supplies from the Taylor well field were 

sufficient to meet projected needs for Las Vegas through 1990 

and recommended acquisition of the Taylor Ranch property 

to “give protection from close drilling and provide additional 

locations.” A detailed study of the Taylor well field by Glorieta 

Geoscience, Inc. (1986), which included aquifer and well 

testing, recommended ongoing maintenance of well-field 

wells and exploration to locate and prove additional water 

supplies for Las Vegas. Efforts by Las Vegas to improve well 

efficiency in the Taylor well field and to identify, prove, and 

develop new municipal sources of groundwater are ongoing 

(John Shomaker & Associates, 2007), as are similar efforts 

among neighboring water users of El Creston and Area 2 

(Souder, Miller & Associates, 2010). Groundwater levels have 

declined markedly in the Taylor well field portion of Area 3 

since March 2009, as shown by hydrographs of groundwater 

elevations for wells completed in the Santa Rosa Sandstone 

(fig. 8A and B; well locations shown in fig. 5). Groundwater 

levels in monitoring well 353418105145601 (fig. 8A) declined 

about 136 ft to a depth of about 276 ft bls between March 

2009 and September 2011. Groundwater levels in monitoring 

well 353346105145201 (fig. 8B) declined about 361 ft to a 

depth of about 446 ft bls over the same time period, under 

pumping conditions, as noted in field notes. Groundwater 

hydrographs of monitoring wells located farther south in the 

southern hogback area (fig. 9A and B; well locations shown in 

fig. 5) also display a decline in groundwater levels, with water 

levels in monitoring well 352949105144301 declining about 

38 ft to a depth of about 131 ft bls and in monitoring well 

353146105144801 declining about 6.6 ft to a depth of about 

50.5 ft bls between September 2010 and October 2011. 

Griggs and Hendrickson Area 4 

The Las Vegas Plateau rises above the eastern plains 

along the Canadian Escarpment (Griggs and Hendrickson, 

1951) (fig. 1B). The plateau was eroded by action of 

the Canadian, Conchas, and Pecos Rivers (Griggs and 

Hendrickson, 1951, p. 14), leaving remnants of the plateau 

intact; Griggs and Hendrickson referred to these remnants 

as “outliers” of the main part of the plateau (fig. 1B, fig. 5) 

and grouped them with the main plateau into Area 4: “Las 

Vegas Plateau and outliers” (Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951). 

Area 4 is divided into three subareas. Subarea 4a, the main 

portions and outlying remnants of the Las Vegas Plateau, are 

found in the eastern two-thirds of the county (fig. 5), while 

subareas 4b and 4c are located in the north-central part of 

the county. Although Las Vegas (fig. 1A) is located in the 

southwestern part of subarea 4b, Las Vegas’ Taylor well field 

is located in Area 3 (fig. 5). Subarea 4a wells were generally 

completed in the early-Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone at depths 

of 250 ft bls or less. In subarea 4b, wells were completed 

in the mid-Cretaceous Graneros and Greenhorn Limestone 

Members of the Mancos Shale at depths of 250 ft bls or less. 

Figure 9. Groundwater hydrographs for U.S. Geological Survey monitoring wells in the southern hogback area, San Miguel County, 

New Mexico. A, 352949105144301. B, 353146105144801. 09/01/10 12/01/10 03/02/11 06/01/11 09/01/11

12/01/11

09/01/1012/01/1003/02/1106/01/1109/01/1112/01/11

Depth to water level, in feet below land surface 

Groundwater level above NGVD 29, in feet

Depth to water level, in feet below land surface

Groundwater level above NGVD 29, in feet

6,228

6,248

6,268

6,288

6,308

6,328

6,348

6,368

6,233

6,253

6,273

6,293

6,313

6,333

6,353

6,373

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

A. 352949105144301 B. 353146105144801

EXPLANATION

Water-level measurement—Locations of wells shown on figure 5 NGVD 29, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
Data Gaps and Suggestions for Future Study 33

In subarea 4c, wells were completed in the late Cretaceous 

Carlile and Niobrara Members of the Mancos Shale (Griggs 

and Hendrickson, 1951) (table 5). Some reviewed studies 

recommended drilling into deeper, older rocks if groundwater 

of sufficient quantity was not found in shallow rocks (Heaton, 

1935; Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951; Spiegel, S.J., 1956). 

Between 1973 and 2010, approximately 56 percent, 81 

percent, and 63 percent of wells were completed at depths 

of 300 ft bls or less in subareas 4a, 4b, and 4c, respectively 

(table 6), consistent with well depths reported by Griggs and 

Hendrickson (1951). Moderately deep well completions were 

more prevalent in subarea 4a than in subareas 4b or 4c (about 

39 percent, 11 percent, and 24 percent, respectively), whereas 

few deep and very deep well completions were reported (in 

combination, about 5 percent, 8.5 percent, and 12 percent, 

respectively) (table 6). Water levels in USGS monitoring wells 

in subarea 4b (fig. 8E and F; locations shown in fig. 5) show 

some fluctuation but averaged about 11 ft bls for the period 

2006–10 for well 354054105092101 (fig. 8E) and about 7 ft 

bls for the period 2006–9 for well 354310105035801 (fig. 8F).

Summary of Hydrogeologic Framework and Groundwater 

Conditions by Physiographic Area

Data compiled since Griggs and Hendrickson’s (1951) 

report on the geology and groundwater resources of San 

Miguel County are generally consistent with Griggs and 

Hendrickson’s (1951) original characterization of depth and 

availability of groundwater resources and of source aquifers. 

Subsequent exploratory drilling identified deep available 

groundwater in Area 3 (Shomaker, 1976) but did not identify 

groundwater sufficient for municipal use in Area 4c, in the 

vicinity of Las Vegas (Matherne and Stewart, 2012). Most 

current (2011) development of groundwater resources is in 

western San Miguel County, particularly in the vicinity of 

El Creston, where USGS groundwater-monitoring wells 

indicate that groundwater levels are declining (fig. 8; locations 

shown in fig. 5). Most wells in the eastern part of the county 

are limited to domestic and stock wells, and little information 

is available regarding additional groundwater resources in 

that area. 

Data Gaps and Suggestions for Future 

Study

Publicly available hydrologic reports and datasets were 

used to summarize the current understanding of the hydrologic 

resources of San Miguel County and to identify gaps in 

hydrologic data and understanding necessary for informed 

management of county-wide water resources. The Region 

8 Water Plan, which considered San Miguel, Mora, and 

Guadalupe Counties, was one of the reports reviewed for the 

present work (Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc., 2005). 

The Region 8 Water Plan represents findings of a 5-year 

assessment process, which included a series of community 

meetings to obtain public input, that characterized the water 

supply, projected future demand, and presented alternatives 

for meeting projected demand throughout the three-county 

study area (Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc., 2005). 

The present summary of available literature and data for San 

Miguel County supports the findings of the Region 8 Water 

Plan with respect to data gaps identified in San Miguel County 

and also with respect to potential projects that could assist San 

Miguel County managers in assessing and planning for future 

needs (Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc., 2005). 

Data Gaps Identified and Suggestions for Future 

Study To Assess Surface-Water Resources

The ability to evaluate and quantify surface-water 

resources, both as runoff and as potential groundwater 

recharge, could be enhanced by expanding the network of 

measurement stations throughout the county. Currently, highelevation precipitation is monitored by a single SNOTEL 

station at Wesner Springs (fig. 2). Additional SNOTEL 

stations in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains and Glorieta 

Mesa could improve spatial and temporal estimates of highelevation precipitation and snow pack and could be used 

to improve estimates of potential recharge and runoff for 

irrigation, reservoir storage, and management.

At lower elevations, although 19 USGS streamgages 

have been operated at various times within San Miguel 

County, only 5 continuous streamgages are currently in 

use (fig. 2), so that the ability to monitor and quantify 

contributions from tributaries and within the major river 

basins is limited. Tecolote Creek, a major tributary of the 

upper Pecos River, is currently gaged for peak flows only 

(fig. 2). The Conchas River above Conchas Lake and 

the Canadian River below the reservoir are not gaged within 

San Miguel County. Streamgages on these stream reaches 

within San Miguel County, and more detailed monitoring 

of the timing and volume of surface-water withdrawals 

and return flows for municipal and irrigation purposes, 

could contribute to quantification of volumes and sources 

of available surface water within the county and the 

quantification of channel transmission losses and associated 

focused groundwater recharge. 

Data Gaps Identified and Suggestions for Future 

Study To Assess Surface-Water/Groundwater 

Interactions

Flow characteristics of the Pecos, Gallinas, and Canadian 

Rivers with respect to locations and potential quantities of 

recharge to groundwater, or contributions of groundwater to 

base flow, have not been systematically defined, based on 

the review of available literature. In particular, the magnitude 

of recharge to groundwater from unlined diversion canals 
34 Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County, New Mexico

and return to base flow from irrigation and municipal use, 

the potential effects of groundwater withdrawals as flow 

loss captured from nearby streams, and contributions of 

mountain-front groundwater recharge are components of the 

groundwater/surface-water system that could be improved 

with further delineation and quantification. 

Only a few seepage surveys have been performed in 

San Miguel County (Jansen, 1935; U.S. Geological Survey, 

1978, 2006). A series of additional seepage surveys along 

the lengths of the rivers could help to determine locations of 

surface-water losses to and gains from the local groundwater 

system and identify reaches of interest for more detailed study. 

Seepage surveys coinciding with irrigation and nonirrigation 

seasons could help to quantify the component of streamflow 

attributable to irrigation return flow; associated synoptic 

water-quality sampling could help to identify potential effects 

to water quality attributable to irrigation return flow. Specific 

seepage surveys along diversion canals could help quantify 

groundwater recharge from unlined diversion canals.

Studies characterizing the effects of groundwater 

withdrawals on streamflow in San Miguel County were not 

identified in the assessment of available literature on which 

this report is based. To assess such effects, monitoring wells 

could be constructed along transects between production 

wells and stream reaches of interest to monitor decline or 

recovery of the water table, to quantify the timing and extent 

of water-table response, and to identify the spatial extent of 

capture zones. Streamflow discharge measurements upstream 

and downstream from capture zones could help to define 

flow loss or gain in the vicinity of production wells to aid in 

assessment of gains or losses along the reach. A series of such 

studies could provide necessary information for conjunctive 

management of surface-water and groundwater supplies in 

water-critical areas of the county.

The spatial distribution and quantity of mountain-front 

and mountain-block groundwater recharge are currently 

unknown; these data could be estimated theoretically by using 

precipitation data, land use coverages, topography, digital 

elevation models, and hydrogeologic properties estimated 

from geologic maps and available aquifer tests. Systematic 

acquisition of such recharge data would allow local waterbalance estimates to be expanded to a county-wide scale. 

Data Gaps Identified and Suggestions for Future 

Study To Assess Groundwater Resources 

The literature review for this study indicated that there is 

a county-wide lack of systematic information about depth to 

water and associated potential for groundwater development. 

While it is reasonable to assume that shallow groundwater 

flow in San Miguel County, as elsewhere, generally follows 

topography, existing data are not sufficient to construct 

groundwater-flow maps for the county. Aside from the Griggs 

and Hendrickson (1951) county-wide study, groundwater 

investigations have been localized and tied to suburban 

development projects, although some investigations 

have located sources of groundwater at depths deeper 

than early drilling efforts in some areas of the county. 

Hydrogeologic investigations and well drilling have been 

generally focused on the western third of the county, where 

population density is greatest, and information about 

groundwater resources in the eastern two-thirds of the county 

is sparse. Assessment of groundwater occurrence and location 

could be aided by a county-wide distribution of water-level 

information and by a series of maps of groundwater potential, 

compiled for each individual aquifer, including saline aquifers, 

for which the potential for municipal use through desalination 

could be explored. 

Two steps necessary to address the identified data 

needs have been met by the present USGS effort. First, in 

cooperation with the NMOSE, the groundwater-monitoring 

network has been expanded, by using existing domestic or 

livestock wells, to include representation across San Miguel 

County (fig. 5). The expanded groundwater-monitoring 

network includes 33 wells, most measured on a 5-year 

schedule. Annual or biannual monitoring could increase the 

utility of the monitoring network in documenting and tracking 

changes in groundwater levels throughout the county. Second, 

results of local hydrogeologic studies, including reported 

aquifer properties, have been compiled in this report to 

update understanding of the hydrogeologic framework of 

San Miguel County (table 5). The expanded groundwatermonitoring network and the updated hydrogeologic framework 

form the first two steps in developing regional-scale waterlevel (potentiometric) maps for individual aquifers in San 

Miguel County.

Well logs from well drillers’ reports provide spatially 

related hydrologic data, including total well depth, first 

encounter with groundwater, water level after well completion, 

strata encountered, and results of aquifer testing, if any tests 

were performed. The aquifer of completion is generally 

not described by the well driller; however, the aquifers 

of completion were interpreted and correlated for a small 

number of the NMWRRS database wells in the USGS NWIS 

database for wells drilled between 1991 and 1996 (Matherne 

and Stewart, 2012) . This correlation effort could be renewed 

and expanded in selected areas of interest for groundwater 

development by using information from the drillers’ reports 

to identify the aquifer of completion and to estimate aquifer 

productivity and hydraulic characteristics of the aquifers of 

interest. A limited number of drillers’ reports would have 

sufficient information to make these determinations. Providing 

that a sufficient number of wells were found to be completed 

in given aquifers of interest, potentiometric maps for these 

aquifers could be developed. Well location information for 

many wells used in the present study was approximated by 

well drillers using techniques available at the time of drilling. 

Estimation and mislocation of well locations introduce an 

unknown amount of uncertainty in interpretive results, and 

verification and resurvey of well locations by using Global 

Positioning System (GPS) technology should be part of an 
Summary 35

effort to develop potentiometric maps based on information 

derived from drillers’ reports. Water levels could be measured 

when wells are resurveyed to develop current potentiometric 

maps for individual aquifers. Once developed, potentiometric 

maps could be used to characterize regional-scale aquifers and 

would provide information that could be used to generate a 

conjunctive (combined surface-water/groundwater) countywide water balance, as well as to help identify new areas 

and depths for test drilling to further delineate the depth of 

groundwater for unique aquifers. 

Change in the volume of groundwater storage in the 

vicinity of the Taylor well field (fig. 8) has increased with 

increased development and consequent increased reliance 

on local groundwater resources. Microgravity measurements 

have proven useful in tracking temporal changes in volumetric 

groundwater storage in the semiarid southwestern United 

States (Pool and Schmidt, 1997; Parker and Pool, 1998); 

small changes in the strength of the local gravitational 

field are measured at gridded locations along a predefined 

network at time intervals of interest (for example, annually). 

Temporal differences observed in the local gravitational field 

are attributed to changes in the volume, or total mass, of 

groundwater stored over time. Microgravity techniques can 

quantify changes in groundwater storage but cannot quantify 

the absolute volume of stored groundwater. Nevertheless, 

microgravity studies may be useful in San Miguel County 

where quantification of the change in groundwater storage 

in areas such as the Taylor well field vicinity is of sufficient 

importance to justify the acquisition of specialized equipment, 

site setup, and long-term microgravitational-field monitoring.

Data Gap Identified and Suggestions for 

Future Study: A Comprehensive Geographic 

Information System Hydrologic Geodatabase

Development of a county-wide geographic information 

system (GIS) hydrologic geodatabase could provide a 

decision-support tool for future water-management decisions. 

Such a geodatabase could provide a place to aggregate, store, 

and manage hydrologic data and could provide a means to 

analyze, map, and display data spatially and temporally. For 

example, conjunctive water balances could be computed 

at scales from subbasin to municipal levels. The ability to 

perform hydrologic geospatial analyses would be tied to the 

scale and availability of the underlying data. Such a tool 

could aid in archiving and updating data, with associated 

uncertainty, both spatially and temporally; could allow 

ongoing assessment of spatial and temporal data gaps; and 

could allow information-gathering efforts to be focused to 

support water-management decisions.

Hydrologic data not currently in digital format could 

be converted to digital format and stored in the hydrologic 

geodatabase with associated location information and 

metadata. Data layers that should be included in a geodatabase 

include surficial geology, elevation and topographic 

information, soil types, land use and land cover, the 

hydrologic network of rivers and lakes, irrigation canals 

and diversions, streamgages and crest-stage gages, climate 

stations, validated NMOSE well locations, the USGS 

groundwater-monitoring network, spring locations, waterquality data collection points and tabulated results, and a 

bibliography of records pertaining to San Miguel County 

associated with respective study areas. Data layers could 

include hyperlinks to online reports and records, such as water 

levels and water-quality data, where possible. 

Summary

The surface-water and groundwater resources of San 

Miguel County, New Mexico, are increasingly relied upon to 

meet growing domestic, livestock, and agricultural needs. San 

Miguel County is an area with an expanding economy and 

population, and to meet future water demands, aquifers may 

be further developed. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 

in cooperation with San Miguel County, conducted a study to 

assess publicly available information regarding the hydrologic 

resources of San Miguel County and to identify data gaps in 

that information and hydrologic information that could aid in 

the management of available water resources. 

San Miguel County comprises four physiographic areas: 

the Sangre de Cristo Mountains in the northwest, Glorieta 

Mesa in the southwest, the Las Vegas Plateau and outliers in 

the north-central and eastern areas, and the plains and southern 

hogback (monocline) east of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains 

and Glorieta Mesa. The types of principal aquifers in the 

study area vary by physiographic area. San Miguel County is 

drained primarily by the Pecos and Canadian Rivers. Seventyfour percent of the land of San Miguel County, about 3,500 

mi2, is agricultural, of which about 92 percent is in pasture. 

The county seat, Las Vegas, had a 2010 population of about 

13,750, or about 20,000 when the surrounding area was 

included. Projected population increase is primarily along 

the Interstate 25 corridor between Santa Fe and Las Vegas. 

Surface water supplies about 97 percent of the water demand 

in San Miguel County. 

Mean monthly and annual discharge at USGS 

streamgages on the Pecos River generally increases 

downstream. Mean monthly discharge is generally bimodally 

distributed, with about 47 percent of annual streamflow 

occurring during April through June, corresponding to spring 

runoff, and with a lesser peak in August, representing about 

11 percent of annual streamflow, corresponding to summer 

monsoonal rains. Flow duration curves based on mean daily 

discharge values for the period 1981–2010 indicate that mean 

daily discharge for the middle 90 percent of discharge values 

ranges over two to three orders of magnitude, reflecting higher 

flows during spring and summer runoff as compared to flows 

during the winter months. Mean monthly discharge on the 

Gallinas Creek near Montezuma is bimodally distributed, with 

38 percent of the mean annual discharge in April and May, 
36 Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County, New Mexico

corresponding to spring runoff, and a lesser peak in August 

representing 14 percent of the mean annual discharge and 

corresponding to summer monsoonal rains. Mean monthly 

discharge on the Gallinas River near Colonias shows a 

subdued response to spring runoff, with 47 percent of runoff 

in July and August corresponding to summer monsoonal rain. 

The low-flow area of the Gallinas Creek near Montezuma 

curve is relatively flat compared to the Gallinas River near 

Colonias curve, indicating more sustained base flow or 

snowmelt runoff than is indicated by the somewhat steeper 

slope of the Gallinas River near Colonias curve. Flow in 

Gallinas Creek near Montezuma is perennial and has not 

been measured at less than 1.2 cubic feet per second during 

the period of record. The Gallinas River near Colonias is 

characterized by periods of declining base flow or snowmelt 

runoff, with periodic high-flow events and periods of no flow. 

Mean monthly discharge at the Canadian River near Sanchez 

is bimodally distributed, with about 29 percent of flow in May 

through June, corresponding to spring runoff, and 15 percent 

in August, corresponding to summer monsoonal rains. The 

gradual decline of the flow duration curve for the Canadian 

River near Sanchez in the middle 90 percent of the curve 

likely reflects greater temporal and spatial variability with 

respect to precipitation, runoff, and potential transmission 

losses associated with the larger and more diverse contributing 

source area, as compared to the contributing source areas for 

the Pecos and Gallinas Rivers and tributaries. 

Within San Miguel County, approximately 270 river 

miles of the Pecos Headwaters watershed and 100 river miles 

of the upper Canadian watershed were listed as impaired by 

the New Mexico Environment Department. Impairments were 

primarily for the uses High Quality Cold Water Aquatic Life 

and Marginal Cold Water Fisheries. Criteria for impairment 

were primarily temperature and turbidity but also included 

nutrients, ammonia, nitrate and nitrite, pH, dissolved oxygen, 

specific conductance, siltation, and mercury in fish tissue in 

selected reaches. 

Data compiled since 1951 on the geology and 

groundwater resources of San Miguel County are generally 

consistent with the original characterization of depth and 

availability of groundwater resources and of source aquifers. 

Subsequent exploratory drilling identified deep available 

groundwater in some locations. Most current (2011) 

development of groundwater resources is in western San 

Miguel County, particularly in the vicinity of El Creston, 

where USGS groundwater-monitoring wells indicate that 

groundwater levels are declining. Most wells in the eastern 

part of the county are limited to domestic and stock wells, and 

little information is available regarding additional groundwater 

resources in that area. 

Regarding future studies to address identified data gaps, 

the ability to evaluate and quantify surface-water resources, 

both as runoff and as potential groundwater recharge, could be 

enhanced by expanding the network of measurement stations 

throughout the county. Additional SNOTEL stations in the 

Sangre de Cristo Mountains and Glorieta Mesa could improve 

spatial and temporal estimates of high-elevation precipitation 

and snow pack and could be used to improve estimates of 

potential recharge and runoff for irrigation, reservoir storage, 

and management. At lower elevations, additional streamgages 

within San Miguel County, and more detailed monitoring 

of the timing and volume of surface-water withdrawals and 

return flows, could contribute to quantification of volumes and 

sources of available surface water within the county and the 

quantification of channel transmission losses and associated 

focused groundwater recharge. 

A series of seepage surveys along the lengths of the 

rivers could help to determine locations of surface-water 

losses to and gains from the local groundwater system 

and identify reaches of interest for more detailed study. 

Seepage surveys coinciding with irrigation and nonirrigation 

seasons could help to quantify the component of streamflow 

attributable to irrigation return flow; associated synoptic 

water-quality sampling could help to identify potential effects 

to water quality attributable to irrigation return flow. Studies 

characterizing the effects of groundwater withdrawals on 

streamflow in San Miguel County were not identified in the 

assessment of available literature on which this report is based. 

To assess such effects, monitoring wells could be constructed 

along transects between production wells and stream reaches 

of interest to monitor decline or recovery of the water table, to 

quantify the timing and extent of water-table response, and to 

identify the spatial extent of capture zones. 

Hydrogeologic investigations and well drilling have 

been generally focused on the western third of the county, 

where population density is greatest, and information about 

groundwater resources in the eastern two-thirds of the county 

is sparse. Assessment of groundwater potential could be aided 

by a county-wide distribution of water-level information and 

by a series of maps of groundwater potential, compiled for 

each individual aquifer, including saline aquifers, for which 

the potential for municipal use through desalination could 

be explored. Once developed, potentiometric maps could be 

used to characterize regional-scale aquifers and would provide 

information that could be used to generate a conjunctive 

(combined surface-water/groundwater) county-wide water 

balance, as well as to help identify new areas and depths for 

test drilling to further delineate the depth of groundwater for 

unique aquifers. 

Development of a county-wide geographic information 

system (GIS) hydrologic geodatabase could provide San 

Miguel County with a decision-support tool for future watermanagement decisions. Such a geodatabase could provide a 

place to aggregate, store, and manage hydrologic data and 

could provide a means to analyze, map, and display data 

spatially and temporally.
Bibliography 37

Bibliography

Documents consulted for this report are from publicly 

available sources including libraries, the U.S. Geological 

Survey Publications Warehouse, the New Mexico Office of the 

State Engineer Library, and common online search engines.

Aguirre, L.P., 2008, Water master report, Gallinas River, 

2008: Santa Fe, N. Mex., New Mexico Office of the 

State Engineer, Interstate Stream Commission, 46 p., 

accessed November 10, 2011, at http://www.ose.state.

nm.us/publications/WaterMasterReports/Gallinas/

Gallinas2008Report.pdf.

Aguirre, L.P., 2009, Water master report, Gallinas River, 

2009: Santa Fe, N. Mex., New Mexico Office of the 

State Engineer, Interstate Stream Commission, 32 p., 

accessed November 10, 2011, at http://www.ose.state.

nm.us/publications/WaterMasterReports/Gallinas/

Gallinas2009Report.pdf.

 Aguirre, L.P., 2010, Water master report, Gallinas River, 

2010: Santa Fe, N. Mex., New Mexico Office of the 

State Engineer, Interstate Stream Commission, 36 p., 

accessed November 10, 2011, at http://www.ose.state.

nm.us/publications/WaterMasterReports/Gallinas/

Gallinas2010Report.pdf.

Albright, J.L., 1962, Groundwater supply and geology, Las 

Vegas, New Mexico: Prepared for the Public Service 

Company of New Mexico, on file at the Library of the New 

Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 24 p. 

Baltz, E.H., 1972, Geologic map and cross sections of the 

Gallinas Creek area, Sangre De Cristo Mountains, San 

Miguel County, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey, 

Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map I-673, scale 

1:24,000. (Also available at http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/

proddesc_9450.htm.)

Baltz, E.H., and Myers, D.A., 1984, Porvenir Formation (new 

name) and other revisions of nomenclature of Mississippian, 

Pennsylvanian, and lower Permian rocks, southeastern 

Sangre de Cristo Mountains, New Mexico: U.S. Geological 

Survey Bulletin 1537–B, Contributions to Stratigraphy, 

39 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1537b/

report.pdf.)

Banta, E.H., 1963, Water master report, Pecos Valley Surface 

Water District: Santa Fe, N. Mex., New Mexico Office of 

the State Engineer, Interstate Stream Commission, on file at 

the Library of the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 

41 p. 

Bejnar, C.R., and Lessard, R.H., 1976, Paleocurrents and 

depositional environments of the Dakota Group, San Miguel 

and Mora Counties, New Mexico in Ewing, R.C., and Kues, 

B.S., eds., Vermejo Park, northeastern New Mexico—New 

Mexico Geological Society, 27th annual field conference, 

September 30–October 1–2, 1976: New Mexico Geological 

Society, p. 157–163.

Benjar, Waldemere, 1973, Geologic and ground-water report 

of El Rancho del Canoncito area, San Miguel County, New 

Mexico: Prepared for Holiday Properties, Inc., on file at the 

Library of the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 

20 p.

Benjar, Waldemere, 1974, Geologic and ground-water report 

of Hermit’s Peak Ranch area, San Miguel County, New 

Mexico: Prepared for Hermit’s Peak Ranches, Inc., on file at 

the Library of the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 

35 p.

Berger, A.C., Bethke, C.M., and Krumhansl, J.L., 2000, A 

process model of natural attenuation in drainage from 

a historic mining district: Applied Geochemistry, v. 15, 

p. 655–666.

Brinkman, James, 2004, Evaluation of groundwater use and 

the effects of pumping on groundwater levels in the El 

Creston Area: Prepared for the Valle Viejo Water Users 

Association, on file at the Library of the New Mexico Office 

of the State Engineer, 36 p., 4 apps.

Chavez, M.A., 2004, Watermaster report, Gallinas River, 

2004: Santa Fe, N. Mex., New Mexico Office of the 

State Engineer, Interstate Stream Commission, 14 p., 

accessed November 10, 2011, at http://www.ose.state.

nm.us/publications/WaterMasterReports/Gallinas/

Gallinas2004Report.pdf.

Committee on the Scientific Basis of Colorado River Basin 

Water Management, 2007, Colorado River Basin water 

management—Evaluating and adjusting to hydroclimatic 

variability: Washington, D.C., The National Academies 

Press, 210 p. (Also available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.

php?record_id=11857.)

Conover, C.S., and Murray, C.R., 1939, Report on the artesian 

well at San Miguel, San Miguel County, New Mexico: On 

file at the Library of the New Mexico Office of the State 

Engineer, 4 p.

Corbin Consulting, Inc., 2004, Geohydrology report—“Tierra 

de Dios” Subdivision, (section 1, T12N, R12E), San Miguel 

County, New Mexico: On file at the Library of the New 

Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 15 p.

Corbin Consulting, Inc., 2006, Geohydrology report—

George Roybal Property, (section 31, T16N, R12E), 

San Miguel County, New Mexico: On file at the Library 

of the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 16 p., 

7 apps.

Cunningham, W.L., and Schalk, C.W., comps., 2011, 

Groundwater technical procedures of the U.S. Geological 

Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 

1–A1, 151 p., accessed May 29, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.

gov/tm/1a1/. 
38 Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County, New Mexico

Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc., 2005, Mora-San 

Miguel-Guadalupe regional water plan: Prepared for New 

Mexico Office of the State Engineer, Interstate Stream 

Commission, 377 p., accessed September 2, 2011, at 

http://www.ose.state.nm.us/isc_regional_plans8.html.

Davis, D.R., 2000, Water quality and biological assessment 

survey of Monastery Lake, San Miguel County, July 

11, 2000 in Surface Water Quality Bureau, eds., Water 

quality assessments for selected New Mexico Lakes, 

2000: Santa Fe, N. Mex., Monitoring and Assessment 

Section, Surface Water Quality Bureau, New Mexico 

Environment Department, 20 p., accessed August 18, 

2011, at http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb/Surveys/

LakeWaterQualityAssessments2000.pdf.

Dice, H.E., 1954, Report by watermaster of Gallinas River 

Water District for combined seasons of 1953 and 1954: 

Santa Fe, N. Mex., New Mexico Office of the State 

Engineer, on file at the Library of the New Mexico Office of 

the State Engineer, 15 p.

Drakos, Paul, 1997, Geohydrology of Vistas del Valle 

Subdivision, San Miguel County, New Mexico: Santa Fe, 

N. Mex., Glorieta Geoscience, Inc., on file at the Library of 

the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 23 p., 6 apps.

Dunne, Thomas, and Leopold, L.B., 1978, Water in 

environmental planning: San Francisco, W.H. Freeman, 

818 p.

Durham, L.S., 2011, New plays cropping up—Sprawling 

Niobrara has multiple models: AAPG Explorer, 

2 p., accessed October 2011 at http://www.aapg.org/

explorer/2011/06jun/niobrara0611.cfm.

Ebright, Malcolm, 2009, Storrie Lake State Park—History 

of title and history of the town of Las Vegas land grant: 

Prepared for the Commission for Public Records, 

61 p., accessed October 15, 2011, at http://www.

newmexicohistory.org/featured_projects/Legislative%20

Reports/documents/StorrieLake.pdf.

Energia Total, Ltd., 1997, Santa Fe Trail Ranch, water supply 

report: On file at the Library of the New Mexico Office of 

the State Engineer, 19 p.

Flynn, K.M., Kirby, W.H., and Hummel, P.R., 2006, User’s 

manual for program PeakFQ annual flood frequency 

analysis using Bulletin 17B guidelines: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques and Methods, book 4, chap. B4, 42 p. 

(Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/2006/tm4b4/.)

Freeze, R.A., and Cherry, J.A., 1979, Groundwater: 

Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 604 p.

Garn, H.S., and Jacobi, G.Z., 1996, Water quality and benthic 

macroinvertebrate bioassessment of Gallinas Creek, San 

Miguel County, New Mexico, 1987-90: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 96–4011, 

62 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1996/4011/

report.pdf.)

Garner, W.L., 1956, Report of water master of Pecos River 

Water District for season of 1956: New Mexico Office of 

the State Engineer, on file at the Library of the New Mexico 

Office of the State Engineer, 33 p.

Gatlin, J.C., 1959, Gallinas Project, Pecos River Basin, New 

Mexico: Prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation, Amarillo, 

Tex., Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife technical 

memorandum, on file at the Library of the New Mexico 

Office of the State Engineer, 3 p.

Glorieta Geoscience, Inc., 1986, Geologic and hydrologic 

survey of the Taylor well field and vicinity, Las Vegas, San 

Miguel County, New Mexico: Prepared for the City of Las 

Vegas and Bohannan-Huston, Inc., on file at the Library of 

the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 64 p., 7 apps.

Glorieta Geoscience, Inc., 1991, Mora San Miguel regional 

water study and forty year plan, summary report: Prepared 

for the Mora San Miguel Water Plan Committee, on file at 

the Library of the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 

14 p.

Glorieta Geoscience, Inc., 1996, Pumping test results Taylor 

well field 17-day pumping test and 27-day recovery test: 

Prepared for the City of Las Vegas, N. Mex., on file at the 

Library of the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 

3 p.

Glorieta Geoscience, Inc., 1997a, Geohydrology of Padre 

Springs Subdivision, San Miguel County, New Mexico: On 

file at the Library of the New Mexico Office of the State 

Engineer, 21 p., 5 apps.

Glorieta Geoscience, Inc., 1997b, Return flow credit plan for 

the Village of Pecos UP-86 et al.: Prepared for the Village 

of Pecos, on file at the Library of the New Mexico Office of 

the State Engineer, 14 p., 4 apps.

Glorieta Geoscience, Inc., 2003, Geohydrology of the Luz del 

Sol (II) Subdivision (5 lot addition to existing Luz del Sol 

Subdivision), San Miguel County, New Mexico: Prepared 

for Winstar, Inc., on file at the Library of the New Mexico 

Office of the State Engineer, 22 p., 4 apps.

Glorieta Geoscience, Inc., and James W. Siebert & Associates, 

1990, Hydrologic assessment of the Mora-San Miguel water 

plan area: Prepared for the Mora-San Miguel Water Plan 

Committee, on file at the Library of the New Mexico Office 

of the State Engineer, 49 p.

Green, Gregory, and Jones, Glen, 1997, The digital geologic 

map of New Mexico in ARC/INFO format, in USGS 

Geoscience Data Catalog: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 97–52, accessed June 10, 2011, at http://geonsdi.er.usgs.gov/metadata/open-file/97-52/metadata.faq.

html.

Griggs, R.L., and Hendrickson, G.E., 1951, Geology and 

ground-water resources of San Miguel County, New 

Mexico: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral 

Resources, Groundwater Report 2, 121 p. 
Bibliography 39

Heath, Ralph, 1983, Basic ground-water hydrology: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2220, 86 p. (Also 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/2220/report.pdf.)

Heaton, C.M., 1998, Reconnaissance hydrology report Mesa 

Vista Property, Township 14N Range 12E section 13, San 

Miguel County, New Mexico: Santa Fe, N. Mex., SinAgua 

Consultants, on file at the Library of the New Mexico Office 

of the State Engineer, 20 p.

Heaton, C.M., 1999, Groundwater hydrology report Bonnie 

McGowan property, township 16 North, Range 12 East, 

section 25, San Miguel County, New Mexico: Santa Fe, 

N. Mex., SinAgua Consultants, on file at the Library of the 

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 8 p.

Heaton, C.M., 2000, Aquifer hydrology report—Amadeo 

Tenorio Jr. property, township 14 North, Range 16 East, 

section 14, San Miguel County, New Mexico: Santa Fe, 

N. Mex., SinAgua Consultants, on file at the Library of the 

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 4 p.

Heaton, R.L., 1935, Geology and water possibilities of a 

portion of the Las Vegas Basin: Prepared for New Mexico 

Power Company, Las Vegas, N. Mex., on file at the Library 

of the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 9 p.

Hem, J.D., 1952, Quality of water, Conchas Reservoir, New 

Mexico, 1939–49: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply 

Paper 1110-C, 56 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

wsp/1110c/report.pdf.)

Hilley, T.E., McCarty, T.E., Martin, P.G., and Sellnow, S.L., 

1981, Soil survey of San Miguel County area, New Mexico: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 

and Forest Service, 169 p. (Also available at http://soils.

usda.gov/survey/online_surveys/new_mexico/.)

Hopkins, J.S., 2001, Water quality assessment of the Gallinas 

River and Tecolote Creek: Santa Fe, N. Mex., Monitoring 

and Assessment Section, Surface Water Quality Bureau, 

New Mexico Environment Department, 12 p., accessed 

September 2, 2011, at http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb/

Surveys/UpperPecosPartII-2001.pdf.

Horn, Marty, and Timmons, J.M., 2006, Preliminary geologic 

map of the Ojitos Frios quadrangle, San Miguel County, 

New Mexico: New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral 

Resources, Open-File Map OFGM-130.

Horner, W.P., 1980, Water availability Martinez tact, Las 

Vegas-Romeroville area, San Miguel County: On file at the 

Library of the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 

5 p.

Jansen, E.C., 1935, Investigation of the water supply of 

Las Vegas, New Mexico: Denver, Colo., Public Service 

Company of Colorado, on file at the Library of the New 

Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 20 p.

John Shomaker & Associates, 2007, Summary of information 

relating to wells, pumping tests and water quality high yield 

wells on Millikin Ranch, Las Vegas, New Mexico: Prepared 

for Millikin Ranch, on file at the Library of the New Mexico 

Office of the State Engineer, 16 p., 3 apps.

Johnson, P.S., and Deeds, J.L., 1995a, Summary of 

environmental issues at El Molino mill, north-central 

New Mexico, in Bauer, P.W., Kues, B.S., Dunbar, N.W., 

Karlstrom, K.E., and Harrison, Bruce, eds., Geology of the 

Santa Fe region—New Mexico Geological Society, 46th 

annual field conference, September 27–30, 1995: New 

Mexico Geological Society, p. 319–322.

Johnson, P.S., and Deeds, J.L., 1995b, A site conceptual model 

of environmental issues at the Pecos mine, north-central 

New Mexico, in Bauer, P.W., Kues, B.S., Dunbar, N.W., 

Karlstrom, K.E., and Harrison, Bruce, eds., Geology of the 

Santa Fe region—New Mexico Geological Society, 46th 

annual field conference, September 27–30, 1995: New 

Mexico Geological Society, p. 41–43.

Kilmer, L.C., 1987, Water-bearing characteristics of geologic 

formations in northeastern New Mexico – southeastern 

Colorado, in Lucas, S.G., and Hunt, A.P., eds., Northeastern 

New Mexico—New Mexico Geological Society, 38th 

annual field conference, September 24–26, 1987: New 

Mexico Geological Society, p. 275–279. 

King, Norman, 1974, The Carlile-Niobrara contact and lower 

Niobrara strata near El Vado, New Mexico in Woodward, 

L.A., and Callender, J.F., eds., Ghost Ranch (centralnorthern N.M.)—New Mexico Geological Society, 25th 

annual field conference, October 10–12, 1974: New Mexico 

Geological Society, p. 259–266. (Also available at http://

nmgs.nmt.edu/publications/guidebooks/downloads/25/25_

p0259_p0266.pdf.)

Lazarus, Jay, and Drakos, P.G., 1998, Geohydrologic 

characteristics of the Taylor well field, City of Las Vegas, 

New Mexico, in Annual New Mexico Water Conference, 

42d, Tucumcari, N. Mex., 1997, Proceedings: New Mexico 

Water Resources Research Institute report no. 304, p. 

59–71. (Also available at http://wrri.nmsu.edu/publish/

watcon/proc42/contents.html.)

Liebold, A.M., Saltus, R.W., Grauch, V.J.S., Lindsey, D.A., 

and Almquist, C.L., 1987, Mineral resources of the 

Sabinoso Wilderness Study Area, San Miguel County, 

New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1733-A, 

26 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1733a/

report.pdf.)

Lisenbee, Alvis, 2003, Preliminary geologic map of the Las 

Vegas NW 7.5-minute quadrangle, San Miguel County, 

New Mexico: New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral 

Resources, Open-File Map OFGM-78. (Also available at 

http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/maps/geologic/ofgm/

details.cfml?Volume=78.)
40 Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County, New Mexico

Lohman, S.W., 1972, Ground-Water Hydraulics: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional paper 708, 70 p. (Also 

available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp708.)

Longworth, J.W., Valdez, J.M., Magnusen, M.L., Albury, 

E.S., and Keller, Jerry, 2008, New Mexico water use by 

categories 2005: New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 

Technical Report 52, 111 p., accessed September 12, 2011, 

at http://www.ose.state.nm.us/PDF/Publications/Library/

TechnicalReports/TechReport-052.pdf.

Lucas, S.G., and Hayden, S.N., 1991, Type section of the 

Permian Bernal Formation and the Permian-Triassic 

boundary in north-central New Mexico: New Mexico 

Geology, v. 13, no. 1, p. 9–15. (Also available at 

http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/periodicals/nmg/

downloads/13/n1/nmg_v13_n1_p9.pdf.)

Lucas, S.G., and Hunt, A.P., 1987, Stratigraphy of the Anton 

Chico and Santa Rosa Formations, Triassic of east-central 

New Mexico: Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science Journal, 

v. 22, no. 1, p. 21–33. 

Lucas, S.G., and Hunt, A.P., 1989, Revised Triassic 

stratigraphy in the Tucumcari basin, east-central New 

Mexico in Lucas, S.G., and Hunt, A.P., eds., Dawn of the 

age of dinosaurs in the American southwest: Albuquerque, 

N. Mex., New Mexico Museum of Natural History, p. 150–

170. (Also available at http://nmnaturalhistory.org/assets/

files/Bulletins/DawnAgeDinos/dawn_9_lucas.pdf.)

Maker, H.J., Derr, P.S., Anderson, J.U., and Link, V.G., 1972, 

Soil associations and land classification for irrigation, San 

Miguel County: New Mexico State University Agricultural 

Experiment Station Research Report 221, 44 p.

Martinez, F.J., 1990, Mora-San Miguel regional water study 

and forty year plan: Prepared for the Mora-San Miguel 

Water Plan Committee, on file at the Library of the New 

Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 193 p.

Matherne, A.M., and Stewart, A.M., 2012, Groundwater-well 

data of San Miguel County, New Mexico, 1970–2010: U.S. 

Geological Survey Data Series 686, 3 p., 2 tables. (Also 

available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ds686.)

Mattingly, B.E., 1990, A hydrogeologic evaluation of the 

Upper Pecos ground water basin in the vicinity of the 

Glorieta Baptist Conference Center, Glorieta, New Mexico: 

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer Technical 

Division Hydrology Report 90-1, 12 p., accessed September 

12, 2011, at http://www.ose.state.nm.us/PDF/Publications/

Library/HydrologyReports/TDH-90-1.pdf.

McAda, D.P., and Wasiolek, Maryann, 1988, Simulation of 

the regional geohydrology of the Tesuque aquifer system 

near Santa Fe, New Mexico: US Geological Survey WaterResource Investigations Report 87–4056. (Also available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1987/4056/report.pdf.)

Mercer, J.W., and Lappala, E.G., 1972, Ground-water 

resources of the Mora River drainage basin, western Mora 

County, New Mexico: New Mexico Office of the State 

Engineer Technical Report 37, 91 p. (Also available at 

http://www.ose.state.nm.us/PDF/Publications/Library/

TechnicalReports/TechReport-037.pdf.)

MJDarrconsult, Inc., 2003, Geohydrologic investigation 

report—Proposed “Santa Fe Mountain Ranches” 

subdivision, San Miguel County, New Mexico: Prepared 

for Santa Fe Mountain Ranches, on file at the Library of the 

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 17 p.

Molzen–Corbin & Associates, 1980, Wastewater re-use study: 

Prepared for the City of Las Vegas, N. Mex., on file at the 

Library of the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 

10 p.

Molzen–Corbin & Associates and Lee Wilson and Associates, 

1985, Las Vegas, New Mexico, water supply master plan 

status report: On file at the Library of the New Mexico 

Office of the State Engineer, 13 p., 13 apps.

Murray, C.R., 1943, Memorandum on ground-water conditions 

near the CAA Airfield northeast of Las Vegas, New Mexico: 

Prepared for the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 

U.S. Geological Survey technical memorandum, on file at 

the Library of the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 

2 p.

Murray, C.R., 1944, Memorandum on geology of Peterson 

Reservoir, Las Vegas, New Mexico: Prepared for the New 

Mexico Office of the State Engineer, U.S. Geological 

Survey technical memorandum, on file at the Library of the 

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 3 p.

National Eutrophication Survey, 1977, Report on Conchas 

Reservoir, San Miguel County, New Mexico: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Working Paper No. 819, 

46 p. 

National Weather Service, 2011, U.S. Drought Monitor, 

New Mexico Drought Summary, September 27, 2011: 

accessed October 3, 2011, at http://www.srh.noaa.gov/

abq/?n=drought.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2011a, New Mexico 

SNOTEL sites: accessed June 25, 2011, at http://www.wcc.

nrcs.usda.gov/snotel/New_Mexico/new_mexico.html.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2011b, What is snow 

water equivalent?: accessed September 25, 2011, at http://

www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/Snow/about/swe.html.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, [n.d.], Rapid 

watershed assessment—Western Estancia watershed: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 38 p., accessed September 2, 

2011, at http://www.nm.nrcs.usda.gov/soils/watershed/

RWAs/Western_Estancia.pdf.
Bibliography 41

New Mexico Environment Department, 2009, Gallinas River 

watershed monitoring, preliminary report: Santa Fe, N. 

Mex., New Mexico Environment Department Surface 

Water Quality Bureau, 20 p., accessed September 25, 2011, 

at ftp://ftp.nmenv.state.nm.us/www/swqb/MAS/Surveys/

GallinasWatershed-2007.pdf.

New Mexico Environment Department, 2010, Gallinas River 

watershed monitoring, final report: Santa Fe, N. Mex., 

New Mexico Environment Department Surface Water 

Quality Bureau, 26 p., accessed September 25, 2011, at 

ftp://ftp.nmenv.state.nm.us/www/swqb/MAS/Surveys/

GallinasMonitoringReport2010.pdf.

New Mexico Environment Department, 2011, Total maximum 

daily loads: accessed September 25, 2011, at http://www.

nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb/TMDL.

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 2005, The state 

of the river—The status of the adjudication of the Pecos 

River: Santa Fe, N. Mex., New Mexico Office of the State 

Engineer Interstate Stream Commission, 37 p., accessed 

June 25, 2011, at http://www.ose.state.nm.us/water-info/

legal/Pecos-RioGallinas/pecosRiverAdjudication.pdf.

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 2011a, Acequias: 

accessed September 25, 2011, at http://www.ose.state.

nm.us/isc_acequias.html.

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 2011b, Basins and 

programs: accessed September 25, 2011, at http://www.ose.

state.nm.us/isc_basins_programs.html.

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 2011c, Water rights 

research system—Areas abstracted into the database: New 

Mexico Water Rights Reporting System, New Mexico 

Office of the State Engineer disclaimer, accessed on 

October 3, 2011, at http://www.ose.state.nm.us/PDF/Maps/

WATERS-Abstract.pdf.

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 2011d, 

Underground water basins in New Mexico: accessed 

September 25, 2011, at http://www.ose.state.nm.us/PDF/

Maps/underground_water.pdf.

New Mexico Soil Conservation Service, 1994, Gallinas River 

Watershed natural resource plan: Santa Fe, N. Mex., New 

Mexico State Engineer Office Miscellaneous Documents 

No. 1297, on file at the Library of the New Mexico Office 

of the State Engineer, v. 1, 37 p., 2 apps. 

New Mexico State Engineer Office, 1960, Progress report 

repair and improvement of Guadalupe and San Miguel 

County dams and canals: Santa Fe, N. Mex., New Mexico 

State Engineer Office Miscellaneous Documents No. 792, 

on file at the Library of the New Mexico Office of the State 

Engineer, 27 p.

New Mexico State Engineer Office, 1975, San Miguel County 

water resources assessment for planning purposes: Santa 

Fe, N. Mex., New Mexico State Engineer Office Interstate 

Stream Commission, 31 p.

New Mexico State Engineer Office, 1991, Pecos River Stream 

system hydrographic survey report, Gallinas River section, 

irrigation uses tracts GR–1A.a thru GR–17.104: Santa Fe, 

N. Mex., on file at the Library of the New Mexico Office of 

the State Engineer, v. 1, 487 p.

New Mexico State Engineer Office, 1997, Galisteo drainage 

basin water use inventory basic data report: Santa Fe, N. 

Mex., New Mexico State Engineer Office Miscellaneous 

Documents No. 489, on file at the Library of the New 

Mexico Office of the State Engineer, v. 1, 155 p.

Northrup, S.A., Sullwold, H.H., MacAlpin, A.J., and Rogers, 

C.P., 1946, Geologic maps of a part of the Las Vegas Basin 

and of the foothills of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, San 

Miguel and Mora Counties, New Mexico: U.S. Geological 

Survey, Oil and Gas Investigations Map OM-54, scale 

1:253,440. (Also available at http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngmbin/ILView.pl?sid=5414_1.sid&vtype=a.)

Oregon State University, 2011, Analysis techniques—Flow 

duration analysis: Streamflow Evaluations for Watershed 

Restoration Planning and Design, accessed October 15, 

2011, at http://streamflow.engr.oregonstate.edu/analysis/

flow/index.htm.

Parker, J.T., and Pool, D.R., 1998, Use of microgravity to 

assess the effects of El Niño on ground-water storage 

in southern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Factsheet 

FS–060–98, 1 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/

FS-060-98/.)

Pool, D.R., and Schmidt, Werner, 1997, Measurement of 

ground-water storage change and specific yield using 

the temporal-gravity method near Rillito Creek, Tucson, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 97–4125, 30 p. (Also available at 

http://az.water.usgs.gov/pubs/WRIR97-4125intro.html.)

Read, C.B., Wilpolt, R.H., Andrews, D.A., Summerson, C.H., 

and Wood, G.H., 1944, Geologic map and stratigraphic 

sections of Permian and Pennsylvanian rocks of parts of 

San Miguel, Santa Fe, Sandoval, Bernalillo, Torrance, 

and Valencia Counties, north-central New Mexico: U.S. 

Geological Survey Oil and Gas Investigations Map OM–21, 

scale 1:190,080. (Also available at http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/

Prodesc/proddesc_5364.htm.)

Reynolds, C.B., and Reynolds, I.B., 2004, Petroleum 

possibilities of the Cuervo trough, Tucumcari Basin, New 

Mexico: New Mexico Geology, v. 26, no. 3, p. 83–89. (Also 

available at http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/periodicals/

nmg/downloads/26/n3/nmg_v26_n3_p83.pdf.)
42 Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County, New Mexico

Robinson, W.P., 1995, Innovative administrative, technical, 

and public involvement approaches to environmental 

restoration at an inactive lead-zinc mining and milling 

complex near Pecos, New Mexico, in Waste Management 

Conference, Tucson, Ariz., 1995, Proceedings: University 

of Arizona/DOE/WEC, accessed September 14, 2011, at 

http://www.sric.org/mining/docs/Pecos.html.

Rushton, Ken, 2007, Representation in regional models of 

saturated river-aquifer interaction for gaining/losing rivers: 

Journal of Hydrology, v. 334, p. 262–281. (Also available 

at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/

S0022169406005440.)

Saavedra, Paul, 1987, Surface water irrigation organizations 

in New Mexico: New Mexico State Engineer Office, 

Report TDDC–87–2, accessed August 31, 2011, at 

http://www.nmacequiacommission.state.nm.us/Publications/

ose-acequia-rpt1987.pdf.

Schlaikjar, E.M., 1971, Geologic and ground-water report 

Variadero–Conchas Lake Area: Prepared for Ranchos Lake 

Conchas, Inc., on file at the Library of the New Mexico 

Office of the State Engineer, 16 p.

Searcy, J.K., 1959, Flow-duration curves—Manual of 

Hydrology, Part 2. Low-flow techniques: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 1542-A, 33 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/1542a/report.pdf.)

Shomaker, J.W., 1975a, Ground water conditions, Pendaries 

area: Prepared for Drissel and Associates, on file at the 

Library of the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 

28 p. 

Shomaker, J.W., 1975b, Ground water conditions, Hermit’s 

Peak Ranch area: Prepared for Drissel and Associates, on 

file at the Library of the New Mexico Office of the State 

Engineer, 13 p.

Shomaker, J.W., 1976, Availability of ground water in Sec 8 

& 9, T13N, R26E: Prepared for E.M. Wilson Enterprises, 

on file at the Library of the New Mexico Office of the State 

Engineer, 17 p.

Skotnicki, S.J., 2003, Preliminary geologic map of the Las 

Vegas quadrangle, San Miguel County, New Mexico: New 

Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, OpenFile Map OF-GM-72, 5 p. (Also available at http://geoinfo.

nmt.edu/publications/maps/geologic/ofgm/downloads/72/

Las_Vegas_Report.pdf.)

Soil Conservation Service, 1959, Work plan for watershed 

protection and flood prevention, Pecos Arroyo Watershed: 

U. S. Department of Agriculture, 30 p.

Sorensen, Earl, and Gonzales, Ed, 1959, Reconnaissance 

of irrigated areas along the Pecos River between San 

Jose and Puerto de Luna, January 1959: Santa Fe, 

N. Mex., New Mexico Office of the State Engineer 

Miscellaneous Documents No. 1155, 30 p. (Also available 

at http://www.ose.state.nm.us/PDF/Publications/Library/

HistoricalReports/1959-SEO-PecosRiverBetweenSanJosePuertodeLuna.pdf.) 

Souder, Miller & Associates, 1999, Geohydrologic report—

Santa Fe Trail Ranch, San Miguel County, New Mexico: 

Prepared for Santa Fe Trail Ranch II, Inc., on file at the 

Library of the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 

22 p., 4 apps.

Souder, Miller & Associates, 2010, Draft preliminary 

engineering report, water supply project, El Creston 

Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association, San 

Miguel County, New Mexico: Prepared for El Creston 

Mutual Domestic Water Users Association, 21 p., accessed 

October 12, 2011, at http://elcreston.org/Welcome_files/

El_Creston%20Draft%20PER%20Alternatives%20

Considered.pdf.

Spiegel, S.J., 1956a, Geology and ground water possibilities in 

the vicinity of Las Vegas, New Mexico: Prepared for Public 

Service Company of New Mexico, on file at the Library of 

the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 9 p.

Spiegel, Zane, 1956b, Availability of ground water for North 

San Ysidro Domestic Water Consumers’ Association: Santa 

Fe, N. Mex., New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, on 

file at the Library of the New Mexico Office of the State 

Engineer, 1 p.

Stonestrom, D.A., Prudic, D.E., Walvoord, M.A., Abraham, 

J.D., Stewart-Deaker, A.E., Glancy, P.A., Constantz, 

Jim, Laczniak, R.J., and Andraski, B.J., 2007, Focused 

ground-water recharge in the Amargosa Desert Basin, in

Stonestrom, D.A., Constantz, Jim, Ferré, Ty, and Leake, 

Stanley, eds., Ground-water recharge in the arid and 

semiarid southwestern United States: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1703–E, p. 107–136. (Also 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1703/e/pp1703e.pdf.)

Summers, W.K., 1976, Catalog of thermal waters in 

New Mexico: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and 

Mineral Resources, Hydrologic Report 4, 79 p. (Also 

available at http://www.osti.gov/geothermal/purl.cover.

jsp?purl=/7327302-Ocz4ql/native/.)

Surface Water Quality Bureau, 2001, Lake water quality 

monitoring, trophic state evaluation, and standards 

assessments for McAllister Lake, Storrie Lake, Santa Rosa 

Reservoir and Blue Hole: Santa Fe, N. Mex., New Mexico 

Environment Department Water Quality Assessments for 

Selected New Mexico Lakes, 27 p., accessed August 15, 

2011, at http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb/Surveys/

LakeWaterQualityAssessments2001.pdf.
Bibliography 43

Surface Water Quality Bureau, 2004a, Water quality survey 

summary for the Upper Pecos River Watershed Part I 

(Between headwaters and Villanueva State Park), 2001: 

Santa Fe, N. Mex., New Mexico Environment Department, 

21 p., accessed August 16, 2011, at http://www.nmenv.state.

nm.us/swqb/Surveys/UpperPecosPartI-2001.pdf.

Surface Water Quality Bureau, 2004b, Water quality survey 

summary for the Upper Pecos River Watershed, Part III 

(Between Tecolote Creek and Sumner Reservoir), 2001: 

Santa Fe, N. Mex., New Mexico Environment Department, 

15 p., accessed August 16, 2011, at http://www.nmenv.state.

nm.us/swqb/Surveys/UpperPecosPartIII-2001.pdf.

Surface Water Quality Bureau, 2006, Lake water quality 

monitoring, trophic state evaluation, and standards 

assessments for Conchas Reservoir, Ute Reservoir, Upper 

and Lower Charette Lakes, Springer Lake, Lake Maloya, 

Lake Alice, Laguna Madre, Stubblefield Lake, Maxwell 12, 

13, and 14, Lower and Upper Shuree Ponds in New Mexico: 

Santa Fe, N. Mex., New Mexico Environment Department 

Water Quality Assessments for Selected New Mexico 

Lakes, 58 p., accessed August 18, 2011, at ftp://ftp.nmenv.

state.nm.us/www/swqb/MAS/Surveys/Lakes-2006.pdf.

Surface Water Quality Bureau, 2008, Water quality survey 

summary for the Canadian River Tributaries (Vermejo 

River, Ocate Creek, and Mora River), 2002: Santa 

Fe, N. Mex., New Mexico Environment Department, 

27 p., accessed August 16, 2011, at ftp://ftp.nmenv.

state.nm.us/www/swqb/MAS/Surveys/CanadianTribs2002SurveyReport.pdf.

Surface Water Quality Bureau, 2009, Gallinas Watershed 

thinning monitoring preliminary report: Santa Fe, N. Mex., 

New Mexico Environment Department, 20 p., accessed 

August 16, 2011, at ftp://ftp.nmenv.state.nm.us/www/swqb/

MAS/Surveys/GallinasWatershed-2007.pdf.

Surface Water Quality Bureau, 2010a, Water quality survey 

summary for the Canadian River and select tributaries 

(Canadian headwaters to the Texas border and Cimarron 

River, Conchas River, Ute Creek, and Revuelto Creek), 

2006: Santa Fe, N. Mex., New Mexico Environment 

Department, 33 p., accessed August 16, 2011, at 

ftp://ftp.nmenv.state.nm.us/www/swqb/MAS/Surveys/

CanadianRiver-2006SurveyReport.pdf.

Surface Water Quality Bureau, 2010b, Gallinas Watershed 

thinning monitoring final report: Santa Fe, N. Mex., New 

Mexico Environment Department, 26 p., accessed August 

16, 2011, at ftp://ftp.nmenv.state.nm.us/www/swqb/MAS/

Surveys/GallinasMonitoringReport2010.pdf.

The People of San Miguel County and Communitas-Tierra y 

Gente, 2004, San Miguel County—Comprehensive plan, 

2004–2014: 109 p., accessed June 13, 2011, at http://

www.smcounty.net/Public%20Notices/Draft%20Plan%20

October%202003%20.pdf.

Thomson, Bruce, and Ali, Abdul-Mehdi, 2008, Water 

resources assessment of the Sapello River: Albuquerque, 

N. Mex., University of New Mexico, Water Resources 

Program, 45 p., accessed May 7, 2011, at http://repository.

unm.edu/bitstream/handle/1928/6743/WR573_2008_

Report.pdf?sequence=1. 

Tolisano, Jim, Sharman, Jim, Brytowski, Jamie, and 

Friend, Harold, 1993, Environmental conditions, terrain 

management and geohydrology report for the Santa Fe Trail 

Ranch, San Miguel County, New Mexico: Prepared for 

Select Trading Group, Inc., on file at the Library of the New 

Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 32 p.

Trauger, F.D., 1972, Ground water in east-central New 

Mexico, in Kelley, V.C., and Trauger, F.D., eds., Eastcentral New Mexico—New Mexico Geological Society, 

23rd field conference, September 28–30, 1972: New 

Mexico Geological Society, p. 201–207. (Also available 

at http://nmgs.nmt.edu/publications/guidebooks/

downloads/23/23_p0201_p0207.pdf.)

University of New Mexico, 2012, New Mexico’s major 

reservoirs—An overview: Water matters! Background on 

selected water issues for members of the 51st New Mexico 

State Legislature 1st Session, 2012, p. 16-1–16-18.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2009, Environmental 

assessment for the Acequia Del Llano Rehabilitation 

Project, San Miguel County, New Mexico, Section 1113 

Water Resources Development Act: U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 36 p., accessed August 15, 2011, at http://www.

spa.usace.army.mil/Portals/16/docs/environmental/fonsi/

Del_Llano_Acequia_FEA.pdf.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1979, Tucumcari ProjectConchas Dam modification—Concluding report: Amarillo, 

Tex., U.S. Department of the Interior, on file at the Library 

of the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 22 p.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, 2010 population finder: accessed 

September 25, 2011, at http://www.census.gov/popfinder/.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2007, The census of 

agriculture, county profiles, New Mexico: National 

Agricultural Statistic Service, accessed September 25, 2011, 

at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_

Highlights/County_Profiles/New_Mexico/index.asp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011a, New Mexico 

water quality assessment report (2010)—Assessed waters of 

New Mexico by watershed: accessed September 25, 2011, 

at http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_state.control?p_

state=NM.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011b, Superfund 

sites—Terrero Mine site information: accessed September 

25, 2011, at http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.

cfm?id=0604054.
44 Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County, New Mexico

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011c, Superfund 

sites—El Molino Mill site information: accessed September 

25, 2011, at http://cfpub2.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/

csitinfo.cfm?id=0600944.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011d, Superfund 

sites—East Pecos site information: accessed September 25, 

2011, at http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.

cfm?id=0605422.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1978, Gallinas River seepage 

investigation, in Water resources data for New Mexico, 

water year 1977: U.S. Geological Survey Water Data Report 

NM-77-1, p. 520–521.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, Gallinas Creek seepage 

investigation, in Miller, L.K., and Styles, J.A., Water 

resources data, New Mexico, water year 2005: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water Data Report NM-05-1, p. 414. 

(Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/wdr/2005/

wdr-nm-05-1/.)

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011a, Floods—Recurrence intervals 

and 100-year floods: USGS Water Science for Schools, 

accessed October 15, 2011, at http://ga.water.usgs.gov/

edu/100yearflood.html.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011b, U.S. Geological Survey 

national geologic names lexicon (GEOLEX): accessed 

October 3, 2011, at http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/geolex_

home.html.

Western Regional Climate Center, 2011, Western U.S. 

historical summaries—New Mexico: accessed March 24, 

2011, at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmnm.html. 

White, W.E., and Kues, G.E., 1992, Inventory of springs in the 

State of New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 92–118, 251 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.

gov/of/1992/0118/report.pdf.)

Wilson, B.C., 2003, Water use by categories in New Mexico 

counties and river basins, and irrigated acreage in 2000: 

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, Technical 

Report 51, 164 p. (Also available at http://www.ose.

state.nm.us/PDF/Publications/Library/TechnicalReports/

TechReport-051.pdf.)

Woodward, L.A., and Snyder, D.O., 1976, Structural 

framework of the southern Raton Basin, New Mexico, 

in Ewing, R.C., and Kues, B.S., eds., Vermejo Park, 

northeastern New Mexico—New Mexico Geological 

Society, 27th annual field conference, September 30–

October 1–2, 1976: New Mexico Geological Society, 

p. 125–127.

Publishing support provided by

Lafayette Publishing Service Center
 
Matherne and Stewart—Characterization of the Hydrologic Resources of San Miguel County, New Mexico—SIR 2012–5238

Printed on recycled paper

I SBN 978- 1- 4113-3515- 8

9 7 8 1 4 11 335 158