United States

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Reclamation

THE 1957 SEDIMENTATION

SURVEY OF

ELEPHANT BUTTE RESERVOIR

Sedimentation Section

Hydrology, Branch

Division of Project Investigations

Denver, Colorado

'overn her I 96()
I

••:

'

- - .-

a .

•

. -

: - t':

V T

I1EPEAiT BTJTI'E DAM
CONTENTS

.....................

.................

.................

..............

................

...........

.....................

..................

......................

....................

......................

....................

....................

......................

......................

......................

...............

...........

.................

.................

.................

................

............

.........

...............

......................

.............

......................

.......

.............

Page

Introduction 1

Purpose and Scope 2

General Information 3

Location and Ownership 3

Date of Completion 3

Description of the Dam and Dike 3

Reservoir 4

Use or Purpose 4

Datum 5

Drainage Area 6

Geology 6

Topography 7

Land Cover 7

Rainfall 7

Inflow 8

Outflow 8

Slope of River Channel 8

Surveys, Sampling, and Equipment 10

History of Surveys 10

Method of Survey 10

Sampling of Reservoir Deposits and Equipment Used. 12

Density Currents 14

Methods of Computation 15

Reservoir Area and Capacity 15

Unit Weights of Deposited Sediments 15

Analysis of Sedimentation 18

General 18

Effects of Sediment Sources 19

Frequency and Magnitude of Run-off Transporting

Sediment 19

Size of Available Material for Transport 20

Total Capacity, Area, and Sediment Volume of

Elephant Butte Reservoir 22
CONTENTS - -Continued

........

...............

.................

................

...................

................

.................

.....................

..................

.............

...............

............

....................

Page

Effects of Reservoir Stage Fluctuations 23

Effects of Vegetation- -Elephant Butte Reservoir 25

Longitudinal Distribution 26

Lateral Distribution 28

Sediment Disposition 28

Trap Efficiency 30

Unit Weight Analysis 30

Conveyance Channel 35

Change of Sediment Inflow Rate into Elephant Butte

Reservoir 37

Density Currents 38

Statistical and Data Summary 39

Summary and Conclusions 40

Acknowledgments and Personnel 42

Literature Cited 43

U
LIST OF TABLES

Number Title Page

1. Unit Weight Data--1952 Samples ....... . 45

2. Unit Weight Data--1957 Samples ....... . 49

3. Unit Weight Data--1957 Samples--Subaqueous

vs. Radioisotope Sampler .......... . 51

4. Summary of Previous Studies of Unit Weights . . . 52

5. Density and Mechanical Composition of Middle

Rio Grande Valley Sediment Samples ..... . 53

6. Unit Weight Data 1952 vs. 1957 Samples

Gathered at Same Ranges .......... . 54

7. Density Currents Data ............ . 55

8. Statistical Summary ............. . 56

9. Reservoir Sedimentation Data Summary .... . 58

111
LIST OF FIGURES

Number Title Page

1. General Plan and Sections of Dam ........ 63

2. Discharge Curves for Spiliway, Outlets, Sluice

Gates, and Powerplant ............. 64

3. Rio Grande Project Map ............ 65

4. Drainage Area Map .............. 66

5. Elephant Butte Reservoir,

Hydrographic Record ............. 67

6. Area-Capacity Curves ............. 68

7. Nomograph Relating Probe Reading, Sediment

Wet Density, Sediment Dry Density, Specific

Gravity and Void Space ............ 69

8. Longitudinal Profiles ............. 70

9. Cross Sections--Ranges 57 and 89 ....... 71

10. Cross Sections--Ranges 29, 2l, 12, and 10 . . 72

11. Cross Sections--Monticello and Nogal Canyons . 73

12. Sediment Disposition Curves ........... 74

13. Depth-Capacity Curve ............. 75

14. Sediment Distribution in Various Elevation

Intervals .................. 76

15. Unit Weight Correlation--1952 Data ....... 77

16. Unit Weight Correlation--1957 Data ....... 78

17. Unit Weight Correlation--Densitometer Data . . 79

18. Unit Weight Correlation of Reservoir Deposits

Gathered at Same Range Lines in 1952

and 1957 ................... 80

19. Underflowing Turbidity Current in a ReservoirPlunging Type ................ 81

iv
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

..............

.................

................

..............

...................

..............

...........

................

..............

..............

..................

..................

.......

...........

..................

.............

..........

.............

................

Number Description Page

1 Elephant Butte Dam Frontispiece

2 Cotton Field 82

3 Torreon Arroyo 83

4 Montano Grant Gully 84

5 Air Boat 85

6 Subaqueous Sampler 86

7 Radioisotope Densitometer 87

8 Piston Sampler 88

9 Pipe Driven Sampler 89

10 Sounding Apparatus 90

11 Rio Puerco 91

12 Rio Salado 92

13 Mud Balls Observed in Rio Puerco 93

14 Rio Puerco Bed Sediments 94

15 Types of Sediment Movement in Rio Puerco * 95

16 Salt Cedars 96

17 Ash Canyon Arm of Elephant Butte Reservoir . 97

18 Elephant Butte Reservoir near Hidden Cove. * 98

19 Elephant Butte Area from Three Sisters

Triangulation Station 99

20 Mouth of Monticello Canyon 100

21 Elephant Butte Area from Eagle Point

Triangulation Station 101

22 Elephant Butte Reservoir at the Narrows

Gaging Station 102

V
Number Description Page

23 San Marcial Conveyance Channel--Initial

Excavations ................. 103

24 San Marcial Conveyance Channel--Initial

Excavations ................. 104

25 San Marcial Conveyance Channel--Present

Conditions .................. 105

vi
THE 1957 SEDIMENTATION SURVEY OF

ELEPHANT BUTTE RESERVOIR

RIO GRANDE PROJECT, NEW MEXICO-TEXAS

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the 1957 sedimentation survey

conducted of Elephant Butte Reservoir on the Rio Grande near Truth

or Consequences, New Mexico. The primary purpose of the survey

was to determine the amount of reservoir storage depletion. Other

data gathered in the course of this survey were used to investigate

additional sediment features such as:

a. Quantitative sediment yield rates for the drainage area

above the reservoir

b. Sediment distribution within Elephant Butte Reservoir

c. Trap efficiency of the reservoir

d. Density currents

e. Evaluation of the quantity of sediment deposited in the reservoir based on the suspended sediment measured at the San

Marcial sampling station

f. Study of the grain size and unit weight characteristics of

the stream and reservoir sediments

g. Practicability of measuring densities of reservoir deposits

with a radioisotope densitometer (Timblin and Florey, 1957)

h. Effects of the conveyance channel on sediment deposition in

the reservoir

i. Influence of salt cedar infestation on reservoir sedimentation

The 1957 survey of Elephant Butte Reservoir was begun on October 1,

1956, by personnel of the Rio Grande Project, Bureau of Reclamation.

Personnel from the office of the Assistant Commissioner and Chief

Engineer, Denver, Colorado, assisted in the review and completion of

the survey during intermittent periods from October 16 to October 23,

1956, and February 4 to February 14, 1957. Two additional days were

needed in March 1957 to obtain field data of areas which were inaccessible during the course of the survey. By that time, the reservoir

waters had risen high enough to allow a boat to be piloted in these

areas. Data obtained during this investigation were analyzed and new

area-capacity charts were prepared by the office of the Project Manager, El Paso, Texas.
Since there are numerous other reports published or written concerning the sedimentation aspects of the Rio Grande and Elephant

Butte Reservoir, general information pertaining to the river, reservoir, and drainage area is presented briefly herein. Some of

the previous reports are cited for reference.

Purpose and Scope

The primary purpose of this investigation was to obtain the required

data for defining a new area-capacity curve. This, in turn, provides basic information needed to compute water delivery by New

Mexico into Elephant Butte Reservoir as provided in the Rio Grande

Compact. Surveys of this nature are to be performed whenever the

capacity curves and tables appear to be as much as 5 percent in

error because of sediment accumulation in the reservoir.

Sediment data from these surveys also provide information needed

for secondary purposes. Among them are:

a. Furnish information necessary in the study of control

measures on the Rio Grande and its main tributaries upstream

to reduce sediment contribution to the reservoir.

b. Serves to maintain a progressive check of the unit weights

of sediments deposited in the reservoir. The lateral and longitudinal sediment depositional patterns are both important.

c. Various sedimentation features of general interest can be

investigated such as the particle size characteristics of the

inflowing sediments and the yield rates determined for the

drainage area.

2
GENERAL INFORMATION

Location and Ownership

Elephant Butte Reservoir is located in Sierra and Socorro Counties,

New Mexico. The dam on the Rio Grande is approximately 4 miles

east of Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, and 125 miles north

of El Paso, Texas. The dam and reservoir are owned by the

United States and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior.

Date of Completion

Construction of the dam began with foundation excavations in 1911

and was completed in 1916. Storage of water, however, began on

January 6, 1915. At the time of its completion, the storage capacity of Elephant Butte Reservoir was the largest in the United States.

•As of 1957 there were four other Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs

larger than it.

Description of the Dam and Dike

The type of dam is straight gravity, Cyclopean rubble concrete

(Photograph No. 1, Frontispiece). The structural height is 301

feet, hydraulic height 193 feet, base width 228 feet, crest width

18 feet, and the crest length 1, 162 feet. The total length including

the spillway and abutments is 1, 674 feet. Elevation of the roadway

on the dam is 4419. A drawing of the general plan and sections of

the dam is shown in Figure 1.

The spillway is a chute at the west end of the dam. There are

five 51-foot spans of overflow weir crest, with a concrete arch

bridge; 4-cylinder drum gates, 10 feet in diameter by 4 and 3/4

feet in height, with sills 11 feet below the overflow crest. Elevation of the overflow crest is 4407 and the elevation of the sill of

the cylinder drum gates is 4396.

The Elephant Butte Dam outlet works, in addition to the spillway,

consist of two sluicing conduits through the dam, each with a 47-

inch by 60-inch sluice gate, four 5-foot diameter service conduits,

each with a 60-inch balanced valve control, and six 5-foot diameter

power penstocks each with a 47-inch by 60-inch gate.

Total discharge capacities of the spiliway and the lower and upper

service outlets are as follows:

3
Elevation Discharge

(feet) (cubic feet per second)

4, 407 12, 760

4, 415 39, 770

Discharge curves for spiliway, outlets, sluice gates, and powerplant are shown in Figure 2. The sluice gates are operated only

for removing sediments from in front of the penstock openings and

also at heads not exceeding 80 feet.

Elephant Butte Dike, erected in 1915 and 1916, is located along a

low gap in the hills 1 mile west of the dam. It is constructed of

earth and rock fill and paved with concrete on the upstream slope.

The crest altitude is at elevation 4, 425 feet with a crest width of

20 feet and 2, 000-foot length. The dike has no spiliway.

Reservoir

At crest stage (elevation 4407) the length of lake measures approximately 41 miles along its axis. Its original area was 40, 060 acres.

The area in 1957 was 36, 584 acres which shows a loss of 3, 476

acres because of sedimentation during the 1915-1957 period.

The original storage capacity of the lake was 2, 634, 800 acre-feet

and the 1957 capacity was 2, 206, 780 acre-feet, indicating a loss

of 428, O20acre-feet from January 6, 1915 to February 12, 1957,

(42. 1 years). The percent of capacity lost was 16. 2 which amounts

to 0. 39 percent annually.

Use or Purpose

Elephant Butte Reservoir of the Rio Grande Project (Figure 3)

provides water storage for irrigation uses and the generation of

power for several New Mexico communities and for the El Paso

area in Texas. There are three identical units located in the

powerplant having a total kva rating of 27, 000 and total kilowatt

capacity of 24, 300. A regulating reservoir 25 miles downstream

from the dam at Caballo, New Mexico supplements Elephant Butte

Reservoir.

Approximately 159, 650 acres of lands are irrigated in New Mexico

and Texas from the Rio Grande waters resulting from the Elephant

Butte storage and regulation and other smaller downstream structures not mentioned herein. Additional acreages are irrigated in the

Juarez Valley of Mexico opposite El Paso, by the use of 60, 000

acre-feet of water allowed annually as provided by the treaty with

Mexico proclaimed January 16, 1907.

4
The principal crops grown in the irrigated areas include cotton,

alfalfa, truck, pecans, and small grains. Photograph 2

shows a view of one of the cotton fields.

Additional factual data relative to the location description, water

supply, major structure features of the project plan, general

conditions on the project, and historical facts about the Rio Grande

Project are contained on the reverse side of Figure 3.

Datum

All of the elevations quoted are based on the project datum. To

adjust these elevations to mean sea level datum, 43. 3 feet should

be added.
DRAINAGE AREA

The drainage area above Elephant Butte Dam for the Rio Grmde

at San Marcial, New Mexico, is 27, 700 square miles which includes

2, 940 square miles in the closed basin in the northern part of the

San Luis Valley, Colorado. In this report, however, the drainage

area above the dam (Figure 4) is determined to be 25, 923 square

miles. The area can be divided into two major parts:

a. The main drainage area above San Marcial, New Mexico,

is 24, 176 square miles.

b. The side drainage area which drains directly into the sides

of the lake and lies below San Marcial is 1, 747 square miles.

The drainage areas of the San Luis Valley in Colorado and parts of

Catron and Socorro Counties, New Mexico, are not included in the

total drainage area quoted above. These areas are considered as

noncontributors of sediment.

Table of Land Ownership

Land Status Percent of Watershed

National forests 20

Indian lands 12

Public domain 12

State lands 6

Private lands 40

Miscellaneous, urban, and

railroad 10

TOTAL 100

Geology

The Rio Grande rises in the San Juan Mountains of Colorado and

flows between the Conejos Mountains and La Garita Hills. Water

surface slopes in the mountainous headwater region are steep,

but most of the rocks are igneous or metamorphic and are not easily

erodible. Lateral erosion occurring in the alluvium of the San Luis

Valley is insignificant. Just above the New Mexico state line the

river enters a deep canyon. It flows through lava-capped canyons

of low sediment contribution until it enters Espanola Valley near

the confluence with Rio Chama.

Upon leaving the Espanola Valley, it enters White Rock Canyon in

the vicinity of Otowi Bridge. The unconsolidated sediments of the

6
Santa Fe formation (Miocene and Pliocene continental deposits)

have been eroded to form the valley of the Rio Grande from the

lower end of White Rock Canyon near Cochiti Diversion Dam, to

near San Acacia. The flood plains and terraces of the valley are

composed of alluvium which is available for transport and which

contributes large quantities of sediment to the Rio Grande.

From the mouth of Rio Salado, just upstream from San Acacia, to

the headwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir, the Palomas formation

of the Quaternary Period has been eroded to form the river valley.

The major geologic formations of the Rio Grande Valley are of the

Cenozoic Era.

Topography

The topography of the drainage area is varied. The extreme upper

portion is mountainous and rugged. South of Santa Fe, New Mexico,

the topography is less rugged and consists of isolated mountains,

separated by desert plains and the Rio Grande Valley. The ranges

of the drainage area elevation vary from 12, 000 feet at the Continental Divide in the upper portion to 4, 210 feet stream bed elevation at

the dam.

Land Cover

The higher elevations are forested with pine and fir trees; the

slopes are sprinkled with cedars along the foothills. The natural

cover of plains consists chiefly of creosote bush, sagebrush,

greasewood, cactus, and natural grasses. There are thick growths

of salt cedar (tamarisk), willows, and cottonwoods along the river

banks above the reservoir and particularly at the head of the reservoir

Rainfall (U. S. Department of Commerce, 1956)

The annual rainfall in the watershed varies from less than 9 inches

in the lower altitude to over 20 inches in the mountainous area.

The mean annual rainfall for New Mexico weather stations in the

mountains, foothills, and valley of the drainage area is listed

below:
Name of Station Average Annual Rainfall--Inches

Wolf Canyon 22. 35

Chama 21.49

Red River 21.22

Regina 16.67

Santa Fe 14. 39

Albuquerque 8. 68

Socorro 9. 85

Most of the precipitation in the higher altitude occurs during winter

as snowfall. The greatest precipitation in the lower altitude usually

occurs during the spring and summer months. Frequently the rainfall

for 1 month is equal to a third or a fourth of the yearly total. A large

proportion of rainfall for 1-month periods in the lower altitude is often

attributable to cloudbursts.

Inflow (U. S. Geological Survey, 1958)

The average annual discharge of the Rio Grande at San Marcial, New

Mexico, for 60 years of record (1896-1956) is 1, 004, 000 acre-feet.

The run-off at San Marcial is affected by many upstream diversions

for irrigation.

During the period between the 1947 and 1957 surveys, an average discharge of 427, 000 acre-feet per year was recorded at the San Marcial

gaging station on the Rio Grande. This amounts only to 43 percent of

the long-term average quoted above.

Outflow (U. S. Geological Survey, 1958)

Based on 40 years of record, the average annual discharge of the Rio

Grande below Elephant Butte Dam amounted to 784, 100 acre-feet. For

the 1947-1957 period, this average was 487, 000 acre-feet or 62 percent

of the preceding 40-year mean value. Average annual releases were

701, 500 acre-feet from Caballo Dam (25 miles downstream from Elephant Butte Dam) for 18 years of record.

The Elephant Butte Reservoir hydrographic record in Figure 5 shows

the inflow, outflow, and storage for the period 1915 to 1956, inclusive.

Slope of River Channel

Average slopes of the Rio Grande above Elephant Butte Dam as determined from the 1951 to 1954 surveys are as follows:

8
Miles above

Elephant Butte Dam

50-55

55-65

65-75

75-90

Slope

feet per mile

3.47

3. 90

4.28

5. 07

The decreasing slopes indicated above tend to reduce or flatten

the peak flows, thus, retarding rapid run-off. This, along with

normal diversions for irrigation has caused bank caving, stream

braiding, meandering, or aggrading of the main channel. The

general over-all meander pattern of the Rio Grande is very characteristic of a stream heavily laden with sediment.

The slopes of many of the tributaries and arroyos flowing into the

Rio Grande are generally much higher than those cited above for

the main stem. Bank caving (Photographs 3 and 4) is often

severe in these tributaries during high flows which are capable of

moving large quantities of coarse sediments into the main river

channel of the Rio Grande.
SURVEYS, SAMPLING, AND EQUIPMENT

History of Surveys

The original survey of Elephant Butte Reservoir was made by the

Bureau of Reclamation during the periods 1903-1904 and 1907-1908.

Additional level lines run by the same agency in 1916 and 1917 provided data which were used to correct maps made from the original

survey.

In 1925, the upper two-thirds of the reservoir was resurveyed by

this Bureau. The capacity curve, drawn from these data, was

extended to cover the lower portion of the reservoir.

The Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, resurveyed this reservoir during the period March 2 to

May 15, 1935 (Eakin, 1936). Final computations of the data from

this survey were made by the Bureau of Reclamation.

The Bureau also conducted the following reservoir resurveys subsequent to 1935:

a. In 1940 the lower two-thirds was surveyed with curve

extension for the upper portion.

b. A complete resurvey in 1946-1947 (Seavy, 1949).

c. Estimate and partial survey for silt deposits in 1951.

d. A complete resurvey in 1957 (subject of this report).

Area and capacity curves, dated September 17, 1957, prepared

by the Rio Grande Project office, El Paso, Texas, are plotted in

Figure 6 for the original 1935 and 1957 surveys. This figure also

shows a table of the areas and capacities for all records of survey.

Present plans call for the continuation of partial resurveys of the

reservoir about every 5 years and a complete instrument survey

each 10-year period.

Method of Survey

The method of surveying the inundated area of the reservoir involved

taking soundings generally along each range line and at other random

points necessary for defining the contours. A plane table was cut in

at the various points near the shoreline as necessary, using secondary horizontal control which had been previously established. Vertical control was obtained by using the reservoir water surface

10
elevation which was read at the dam at the beginning and end of each

survey period generally consisting of 1 day. Two men worked the

table; one man locating the boat as to direction with the alidade and

the other man obtaining distances to the boat by shooting stadia with

a transit. The boat party, consisting of three men, proceeded along

flagged sedimentation ranges or at random locations as determined

from inspection of the plane table sheets. Soundings were taken as

necessary. At the instant each sounding was made, a member of

the boat party signaled the tablemen so that its location could be

plotted on the plane table sheet. Soundings were reduced to elevations and plotted on the plane table sheets. Additional shots

above shoreline were taken in several areas where it appeared

that a significant amount of sediment deposition had occurred.

Between sedimentation Ranges 73 and 68 there were large swamp

areas of extremely unstable and dangerous silt beds which could

not be traversed by foot. An air boat (Photograph 5) and

another small, flat-bottomed boat equipped with a Clinton aircooled outboard motor were used to travel over these areas. Both

horizontal and vertical secondary controls established from the

primary system were run in on each side of these silt beds. A

plane table traverse was then run along the accessible shoreline

of the silt beds and into them as required.

The remainder of the "lower reservoir" or that area located

between Range 59 and Elephant Butte Dam was surveyed by plane

table. The area through the Narrows, Ranges 59 to 50, was profiled along the sedimentation ranges and a plane table traverse was

run along the axis to locate the river channel and side sediment

deposits. Secondary control in the "upper reservoir" area from

sedimentation Ranges 50 to 9 was established from the head of the

reservoir and along the conveyance channel (discussed later in the

report) down to about Range 50. From Range 50 to the Nogal

Canyon area in the vicinity of Range 38, regular plane table topography and range profiles were taken.

Heavy brush and dense undergrowth were observed above Range

38 to the head of the reservoir and between the conveyance channel

and the west side of the reservoir. Accordingly, a tractor with a

dozer attachment was needed to clear the range lines. Intermediate

lines roughly parallel to the sedimentation ranges were also cleared

at intervals of from 1, 500 to 2, 000 feet. These sediment ranges and

intermediate lines were run in with a plane table or profiled with a

level.

Topography was taken in the San Marcial vicinity and the 4420

contour established in the extreme upper limit of the reservoir

area.

11
The reservoir elevation and capacity varied during the survey

periods as follows:

Year Month Day

Elevation

(feet)

Capacity

(acre-feet)

1956 October 16 4,269.51 28,000

1956 October 23 4,269.75 28,500

1957 February 4 4,277.90 50,400

1957 February 14 4,279.41 55,900

1957 March 7 4,283.78 74,400

1957 March 8 4,283.91 75,000

Because the reservoir was at such low levels, the echo sounder

could not be used in performing the survey.

Sampling of Reservoir Deposits and Equipment Used

Samples of the reservoir sediment deposits were obtained with

four different instruments:

a. Subaqueous sampler

b. Radioisotope densitometer or RSD (Timblin and Florey,

1957)

c. Piston sampler

d. Pipe sampler

Photographs 6, 7, 8, and 9, show views of each type sampler

used.

The subaqueous and pipe samplers were used to secure a total of

75 samples in March 1952. The results of the laboratory analysis

made of these samples are listed in Table 1. Data for each sample

include: sample number, unit weight, percentage gradation within

specific micron ranges, and location where the sample was taken.

12
In the 1957 resurvey a total of 39 samples was taken using the subaqueous, piston, radioisotope densitometer, and pipe-driven samplers.

Twenty of the samples were obtained from within the inundated area

of the reservoir, 17 in the exposed deposits, and 2 in San Marcial

Lake. Table 2 contains the information compiled for these samples.

The radioisotope densitometer and subaqueous sampler were used to

obtain a total of 16 samples at relatively the same location. The

information pertinent to these samples is recorded in Table 3. The

piston sampler was used to take three samples, two of which were in

the San Marcial Lake area and the third at Range 68. The pipe-driven

sampler was used to remove samples in the exposed areas of the reservoir delta.

The maximum sample depth obtained by the subaqueous sampler was

about 6 feet in a recorded 10-foot penetration. Reasons for this incomplete recovery were not immediately evident because the instrument

could not be observed as it traveled downward through the water and

when it penetrated the reservoir deposits. Factors contributing to

such poor recoveries include compaction, tube plugging, nonvertical

penetration, and excessive friction between the sampler and sampler

tube. The point of compaction in this instrument is described as a

pressure bulb formed below the tube sampler. When a slight amount

of compacted sediment is captured in the sampling tube, it acts as a

plug in the lower end. As the sample plunges to a lower depth, there

is an increase in the intensity of the pressure bulb below the tube sampler.

Practically full recovery was obtained for the 2-foot penetration samples that were taken for the purpose of comparing with those measured

of in-place deposits by the radioisotope densitometer. Penetration

depths of samples taken by the subaqueous sampler equaled or exceeded

those taken by the radioisotope instrument. Retraction of the RSD

from the deposits, however, was sometimes difficult. This was

primarily due to the physical structure of the instrument. Because

of the consolidated, dried-out condition of the exposed deposits, the

depth of penetration was limited for samples taken with the pipe

sampler. In most cases, the top 3 inches to 1 foot of overlying

material in the exposed deposits was removed before taking the

sample. Full recovery (8 inches) was accomplished for all samples

taken by the piston sampler.

A sounding weight operated by a reel was used to measure the depths

at intermediate points along the range lines and at other locations as

required. Photograph 10 shows how this apparatus was rigged

for operation.

13
Photograph 5 shows the special air boat used to traverse the

shallow areas of mud deposits at the head end of the reservoir for

survey and sampling purposes. Another boat was rented for these

same purposes during the survey. No photographs are shown for

this second boat, but it is described as a small aluminum boat with

a shallow draft and propelled by a small air-cooled outboard motor.

Density Currents

Periodic observations of density flows have been made throughout

the history of the Elephant Butte Reservoir operations. Table 7

contains the record of all inflowing and outfiowing density currents

that have been observed to the present time.

14
METHODS OF COMPUTATION

Reservoir Area and Capacity

Personnel of the El Paso, Texas office were responsible for computing the area and capacity of Elephant Butte Reservoir from the

1957 survey data.

It was first necessary to retrace a new topographic map of the

reservoir from the original topography sheets used in making the

1935 map. The new map having a contour interval of 10 feet,

furnished the base for computing areas and volumes of the reservoir.

The reservoir areas were determined by planimetric measurement.

First, the contour lines taken from the plane table sheets were

plotted on the new reservoir topographic map. Next, the areas

bounded by each 10-foot contour were planimetered beginning at

elevation 4230 and ending at elevation 4410. A special measurement was also made of the area encompassed by elevation 4407

which is at the spillway crest level. An areal table and curve

resulting from these planimetric measurements are presented in

Figure 6.

To determine the reservoir volume it was necessary to read the

area values (a1, a2) at each 2-foot contour from the area curve

of Figure 6. The average end-area formula was used to compute

volumes, thus: Volume = (a1 -i- a2) (ci/2) where ci is the 2-foot

contour interval.

Since ci = 2, the formula reduces to: Volume = al + a. Totaling

these computed incremental volumes resulted in the capacity curve

and table also shown in Figure 6 for the 1957 survey.

From Figure 6, total sediment volume accumulated for any survey

period can be determined by subtracting the differences in capacities

at the reservoir level and period involved. For example, the sediment volume at spiliway crest elevation (4407) between the original

and 1957 surveys is 2,634, 800 - 2,206, 780 = 428, 020 or about

428, 000 acre-feet.

Unit Weights of Deposited Sediments

Unit weights of reservoir deposits were determined by laboratory

analysis of the samples obtained with the subaqueous, piston, arid

pipe samplers. Grain size analyses were also made of each sample.

Unit weights computed from this grain size information were compared with the unit weights determined by laboratory analyses of the

collected field samples. Millers (1953) computational procedure

was followed.

15
An example of the computation for one of the samples is illustrated

below. First, the unit weight of the sediments for a 1-year period

is computed. Next, a computation is made to determine a compaction correction for the sediments in a reservoir of specified operation. In the example a 5-year compaction period is considered.

Given:

Sample No. 46

a. Unit weight determined by laboratory analysis = 35. 5

pounds per cubic foot.

b. Size analysis shows composition of sample as follows:

Material Micron Range

Clay less than 4

Silt 4 to 62.5

Sand 62. 5 to 2, 000

Percent

63. 2

33. 3

3. 5

Total 100.0

c. Reservoir operation: Sediments always submerged or

nearly submerged.

Computations:

Unit weight (1 year) = (0.632 x 13) ^ (0. 333 x 67) + (0. 035 x 88)

33. 6 pounds per cubic foot

Compaction correction:

K = (0. 632) (16) + (0. 333) (5.7) = 12.0

W (average 5 year) = 33. 6 + 0. 4343K 5 \ (in 5) - 1

[5 - 1)

33.6 + (0.4343)[(12.0) (1.25) (1.61) - 1]

= 38. 9 pounds per cubic foot (compared to

to 35. 5 pounds per cubic foot--unit weight

by laboratory analysis)

Unit weights from radioisotope measurements were determined

from the equation:

D

G (W - 62. 4)

(G -1)

16
where:

D = dry density or unit weight in pounds per cubic foot

G = specific gravity

W = wet density as determined by the radioisotope densitometer

A nomograph (Timblin and Florey, 1957, page 27) has been constructed (Figure 7) to show the above relationship. To use this

nomographthewet density of the saturated sediment field sample

is determined by the RSD which indicates the relative proportions

of two materials, water and sediment. Knowing the specific gravity

of these two constituents and their proportion, the dry density or

unit weight of the sediment can be determined through the scaler

relationships of Figure 7.

An average unit weight of 54 pounds per cubic foot was computed

by using the data of all samples taken in 1952 and 1957.

Approximately 577 million tons of suspended sediment were measured

at the San Marcial gaging station for the period covering 1915 through

the end of 1957 resurvey. Using the 428, 000 acre-feet sediment

volume in the reservoir, another estimate of the unit weight was

made as follows:

577x106x2 000

__________________ = 62 pounds per cubic foot

428 x l0 x 43,560

This computation neglects any correction for the unmeasured load

which may amount to 10 percent which, if included, would increase

the unit weight only a half a pound per cubic foot.

An evaluation of the results of each of the methods to determine

unit weights will be discussed subsequently in this report.

17
ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENTATION

General

The various factors influencing sedimentation in Elephant Butte

Reservoir, are similar to those characteristic of other reservoirs

in the southwestern United States, where extreme variation in both

inflow and concomitant sediment loads is common. The manner and

rate of sediment deposition are dependent on numerous interrelated

factors characteristic of the watershed above the reservoir, influence by man, and type of reservoir operation. Some of these factors are as denoted below:

a. Effects of sediment sources including vegetation and extent

of source areas, geology and soils, and land use

b. Frequency and magnitude of run-off transporting sediment

c. Size of available material for transport

d. Total capacity, area, and sediment volume of reservoir

e. Effects of reservoir stage fluctuations

f. Effectiveness of vegetation along the channel and in the

reservoir headwaters

g. Effectiveness of such other factors as follows:

(1) Longitudinal distribution

(2) Lateral distribution

(3) Sediment disposition

(4) Trap efficiency

(5) Unit weight analysis

(6) Conveyance channel

(7) Density currents

Data are not sufficient to make a thorough quantitative evaluation of

each factor listed. The following discussion, however, presents a

practical analysis of some of these factors.

18
Effects of Sediment Sources

The source areas producing sediment above Elephant Butte Reservoir have been generally described in a previous section (page 6)

discussing the drainage area. Use of land in the Rio Grande watershed is limited primarily to agricultural development. This is

classified either as irrigated farming or as ranching. A relatively

minor amount of dry farming is done in the higher elevations. Some

mining and timber production are present, but in small quantity.

Highways and railroads have been constructed through the most

accessible and scenic portions. Towns are scattered and numerous

dams and irrigation systems have been constructed. A considerable amount of grazing is also carried on.

The influence of all of the fore-mentioned activities on sediment

production in the Rio Grande watershed is not evaluated in this

report, but they undoubtedly would have considerable effect upon

such production.

The following is a rough estimate of the 5roportion of sediment

carried by the Rio Grande contributed by each of the respective

tributary sources:

Tributary Percent

Rio Grande above Cochiti 19

Santa Fe Creek 1

Galisteo Creek 3

Rio Jemez 12

Rio Puerco 35

Rio Salado 13

Minor tributaries 17

Frequency and Magnitude of Run-off Transporting Sediment

The frequency and magnitude of run-off from the sediment producing areas above Elephant Butte Dam are extremely variable owing

to the changes in elevation, channel length and slope, climate,

rates of precipitation, soil types, vegetation, land use, and other

causes. These factors have been described previously.

The action of surface run-off is the immediate source of all sediment. Frequency and magnitude of run-off, therefor, determine

to a great extent the amount of sediment picked up from previously

weathered material, the extent to which a surface may be cut by

the moving water, and the ability of the stream to move sediment

in the channel.

19
When an area is subject to intense rains for short durations, as is

the case over most of the sediment contributing area above Elephant

Butte Dam, sheet and gully types of erosion occur and large quantities of sediment may be moved during short periods. This is

especially characteristic of the Rio Puerco (Photograph 11), a

large upstream tributary, and numerous other arroyos. The stream

beds of these tributaries become clogged with sediment and bank

cutting is often severe. At the mouths of the short arroyos leading

into the tributaries, debris cones are often formed, followed by

lateral erosion and bank cutting which, in turn, feeds the tributary

with readily available sediment. It is not uncommon to measure

sediment concentrations of as much as 10 to 20 percent, by weight,

in these streams, but the peaks are sharp and flow duration short.

Photographs 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 depict the material carried by

streams of this type.

Sediment production from the mountainous areas of southern Colorado

and northern New Mexico is governed to a great extent by the rate

of weathering and would be onsiderab1y less than that for the plains

portion where it is governed by the intensity of surface run-off

acting upon previously weathered material and soft deposits.

Tributaries in the plains portion are generally longer and of much

larger drainage area than those of the mountainous area. These

areas are subject to thunderstorm activity and their flood peaks

are sharp. Concentrations of sediment in these tributaries will

vary, depending on antecedent conditions and duration of the storm.

For example, a large flood following a period of low flow tends to

have high concentrations during its rise on up to its peak flow,

whereas there is considerably lower concentration on its recession.

With the successive occurrence of a number of medium or highpeak flows, spaced only a few days apart, the sediment concentration pattern shows a marked decrease for the same discharge of

successive flow on a rising and falling stage. Because of a diversity of soil types, vegetal cover, and other factors, there is much

variation in relationship between the quantity of run-off and sediment concentration, even along the same tributaries.

Size of Available Material for Transuort

The size of material available for transport is an important factor

influencing the quantity of sediment and the manner of transport in

the stream system. It also determines to a great extent where the

sediments will be deposited along the stream channel and in the

reservoirs. Sediment studies conducted on the Upper and Middle

Rio Grande indicate that steep side tributaries and arroyos carry

appreciable quantities of coarse material having variable effects

on the stream regimen. Most of these streams lose a considerable

20
amount of their coarse load before reaching the main stem; however, that part which does reach the Rio Grande is dropped mainly

at the confluence where the sediment transport capacity changes

owing to such factors as the change in slopes and average material

size and the difference in hydraulic systems of the tributary and

main channel. The remaining load is spread generally throughout

the reach immediately downstream from the confluence. Photographs 13, 14, and 15 show some of the types of sediments

carried by tributary streams.

The following tabulation shows the average for clay, silt, and

sand in the suspended sediment load at six stations on the Rio

Grande above Elephant Butte Reservoir. They are listed in downstream order.

Suspended_sediment samples*

Station Percent Percent Percent

__________________________ clay silt sand

Dtowi Bridge 20. 5 33. 9 45. 6

Bernalillo 26.1 40.5 33.4

Bernardo 25.6 38.6 35.8

San Acacia 33.6 44.9 21.5

San Antonio 45.9 37.7 16.4

San Marcial 45.4 31.9 22.7

*Using the American Geophysical Union Classification of soils.

The above suspended sediment data show a gradual increase of

clay content progressing downstream with the silt content remaining fairly constant and the sand amounts decreasing. This indicates

that the bulk of suspended sediments being in clay and silt range is

carried in suspension downstream until they are either diverted

from the river by irrigation works or are deposited in Elephant

Butte Reservoir.

For the same stations, size analyses were made of the sediments

representing the bed material. These results are shown below:

21
1-verage oeci material

Station Percent clay Percent Percen

and silt sand gravel

Otowi Bridge 0. 5 80. 2 19. 3

Bernalillo 2.0 96.0 2.0

Bernardo 2.0 97.4 0.6

San Acacia 1. 1 96. 0 2. 9

San Antonio 7. 2 92. 7 0. 1

San Marcial 11.8 88.0 0.0

Samples collected for compiling the above table were very meager

for some of the stations. The size analyses performed in the laboratory were not carried out to determine the break-down between

the clay and silt ranges because of the small amount available in

these ranges. This is not too significant, however, as the greatest

amount shown is only 11. 8 percent. The above tabulation indicates

a trend of reducing sand size quantities for stations in downstream

order as was similarly indicated for the suspended sediments listed

previously.

Using all 114 samples taken in 1952 and 1957 of the sediments

deposited in the reservoir and averaging the gradation in the various size ranges gives the following results: clay, 54. 6 percent;

silt, 32. 7 percent; and sand, 12. 7 percent. Assuming this to be

representative of the general gradation of the deposits, it can be

reasonably concluded that most of the sediments are trapped by the

reservoir. The increase in clay content indicates that the majority

of fines are settling in the reservoir.

Total Capacity, Area, and Sediment Volume of Elephant Butte

Reservoir

Results of the 1957 resurvey of Elephant Butte Reservoir indicate

its present capacity is 2, 206, 800 acre-feet at spillway crest elevation 4, 407 feet. This amounts to a depletion of 16. 2 percent or

428, 000 acre-feet considered as the total sediment volume. The

current survey shows there was a net capacity gain of 9, 200 acrefeet since the 1947 survey and a gain of 21, 400 acre-feet since the

partial survey of 1951.

Comparing the results of the 1957 and 1947 surveys shows greater

volumetric deposits of sediment in the lower portion of the reservoir, particularly below elevation 4, 290 feet at which there was a

reduction in reservoir capacity of about 17 percent. In this 10-year

interim period the reservoir was operated at rather low stages

22
during which time it is apparent the main channel traversing the

reservoir area seldom overflowed its banks and the bulk of incoming sediments consequently were conveyed to the lower reservoir

levels.

The period between 1947 and 1957 also showed (Figure 6) there were

areal gains in elevations ranging from 4, 330 to 4, 390 feet, with a

maximum gain of 707 acres at elevation 4, 370 feet. For this same

range in elevations the period between the 1947 and the 1951 partial

surveys showed generally the opposite, that is, a loss in areas.

In 1951 reservoir conditions showed the entire upper lake was

largely a swamp. The water table was lowered in this area upon

construction of a conveyance channel which drained the area for a

period of more than 5 years after the 1951 survey. Lowering the

water table accelerated the compaction of sediments in the upper

reservoir, particularly between the Narrows and Nogal Canyon.

This lowering or settling of sediments by compaction, however,

was not as severe in the upper end of the reservoir, as the areas

above elevation 4, 390 feet did not show any significant changes

since the 1947 survey.

There was a decrease of 3, 476 acres in the reservoir area at

spillway crest elevation since the original survey. The present

area at this same elevation is 36, 584 acres (Figure 6).

The seemingly paradoxical gains both in reservoir capacity and

area between the 1947 and 1957 surveys are presumably due to the

compaction or settling of sediments as previously described.

Inflows to the reservoir being far below average during this period

would also tend to increase the compaction of sediments since they

remain in a prolonged desiccated state.

Complete area and capacity data both in tabular and graphical form

for all surveys are shown in Figure 6.

Effects of Reservoir Stage Fluctuations

The following table shows the average annual month-end elevations

for Elephant Butte Reservoir from 1945 to 1956:

Month- end

Year elevations in feet

1945 4, 374. 63

1946 4,348.72

1947 4,321.37

1948 4, 329. 67

1949 4,338.02

23
Month- end

Year elevations in feet

1950 4,325.21

1951 4)283.38

1952 4, 300.23

1953 4,296.25

1954 4, 279. 70

1955 4,287.79

1956 4,283.45

The average month-end reservoir elevation from 1945 to 1950 was

4, 329. 60 feet at which the capacity is less than 500, 000 acre-feet

based on the 1957 capacity curve. For the 1951 to 1956 period) the

respective values were 4, 288. 47 at less than 200, 000 acre-feet

capacity. The maximum month-end elevation 4, 384. 74 feet during

this period was in June 1945 and the minimum of 4, 260. 33 feet

occurred in July 1954. In general, during these 12 years, drought

conditions prevailed.

Since the 1947 survey, the reservoir has operated between a maximum stage of 4, 351. 30 feet on July 29, 1949, and a minimum of

4, 258. 03 feet on August 6, 1954. During the period between the

1947 and present surveys, the mean monthly reservoir stage was

below elevation 4340, and the storage was confined to the lower

reservoir during 101 months. Inflow at San Marcial during the

period between the 1947 and 1957 surveys was 4, 165, 438 acre-feet.

About 90 percent of this inflow, or 3, 760, 000 acre-feet, entered

the reservoir while the stage was at or below elevation 4, 340 feet.

The continual change in pool stage has a material effect on the

depositional pattern of sediments entering the reservoir. There is

a tendency for the finer-grained sediments to settle toward the dam

with the coarser material depositing more at the head end of the

reservoir. This condition is very evident from the samples of

reservoir deposits collected in 1952 and 1957. The unit weight

graphs in Figures 15 and 16 show the results of the samples taken

during these years. The cluster of points of lower unit weights

were of the samples gathered nearer the dam; those clustered at

the higher unit weight range were taken from the head end of the

reservoir. There are very few samples that appear between the

40- to 60-pounds-per-cubic-foot range.

The continual draw-down of the reservoir during this period undoubtedly had a significant effect on the compaction of reservoir sediments. The deposits were exposed to the sun for prolonged periods,

hence, they tended to dry out which would increase the initial unit

weight.

24
Effects of Vegetation- - Elephant Butte Reservoir

There is a prolific growth of salt cedars at the head of the reservoir and along the upstream areas of the drainage basin as can be

seen in Photographs 16 and 20. Prior to 1930, relatively few

salt cedar plants were known to inhabit these upstream areas.

Infestation of salt cedar in the Middle Rio Grande Valley increased

significantly in both areal and density between 1935 and 1947. A

study conducted in the reach of the Rio Grande between Bernardo

Bridge and San Marcial showed there had been more than 3, 000 acres

equivalent area, or an increase of slightly more than 50 percent

for the 1947 to 1955 period.

Salt cedar infestation is an important factor in the aggradation of

the channel and flood plain of the Rio Grande. Its presence along

the channel of the stream accelerates the natural levee-building

process by causing a decrease or slackening of the stream velocity

next to the banks. When overflow occurs, coarser sediments are

deposited in the vegetated areas. In this manner, the rate of the

natural levee building is increased and the slope of the natural

levee away from the channel is steeper than it would be without the

influence of vegetation. Vegetation causes immediate deposition of

sediments adjacent to the stream and lessens the amount that will

be deposited on the flood plain some distance from the stream. An

avulsion can occur breaking through this levee which is strengthened

by the presence of vegetation; the size of the avulsion is larger than

it would be otherwise. Downstream from the avulsion, the river

is effectively blocked from re-entering its old channel and is held

to a new course by the natural levee. The presence of vegetation

in the flood plain accelerates the deposition of sediment, and if

the flood plain has a dense vegetative cover when the avulsion

occurs, practically all of the sediment load of the stream will be

deposited in this area.

The building of a natural levee and aggradation of the stream channel

is frequently the cause of swamp or seeped areas that occur on the

adjacent flood plain. These areas are conducive to a further growth

of vegetation. If the vegetation is luxuriant, a sediment plug may

be formed which splits the stream into many channels. This, in

turn, encourages deposition and further increases the size of the

sediment plug. The plug generally forms when there is a large flood

and an avulsion occurs at a point where the stream channel is several

feet above its flood plain. When the stream is split into different

channels, it is unable-to scour any one particular channel to convey

the water through this reach.

No studies have been made to determine the amount of sediment which

these salt cedars have prevented from flowing into Elephant Butte

25
Reservoir. From numerous field observation of the infested areas,

it can be concluded that salt cedars and other vegetation play a

significant part in the complex process of sediment transport and

deposition. Determining how much sediment is deposited by action

of salt cedars would make an interesting and useful study. Continued studies are also necessary in the development of newer and

effective methods of controlling or preferably totally eradicating

these nonbeneficial phreatophytes.

Longitudinal Distribution

The variation of the sediment thickness in Elephant Butte Reservoir

is presented graphically in Figure 8. The original 1935, 1947, and

1957 longitudinal profiles of the main arm thalweg* are shown. It

is noted that two profiles for the 1957 survey are shown beginning

approximately at 22 miles upstream from the dam. One of the profiles is based on the thalweg as defined by the conveyance channel

which was constructed in 1954 and extended down the reservoir to

about this point. The other profile is based on the thaiweg defined

by the floodway contours above the 22-mile point.

This graph shows that between the 1947 and 1957 surveys considerable channel degradation occurred in the vicinity of the Narrows

particularly between the elevations of 4300 and 4340. Degradation

averaged about 3 feet from Range 21 to Range 40, below Nogal

Canyon. Maximum vertical degradation of about 20 feet is noted

at approximately 1 mile below Range 57. The area from the dam

to about 10 miles upstream indicates some aggradation occured.

Below normal inflows prevailing in the last 10 years and the accompanying changes in reservoir operation had definite effect on the

shape of the 1957 profile. A change in the climatic conditions

causing sustained normal or above normal inflows with proportional

changes in sediment movement would define another longitudinal

profile for the main channel.

A further examination of the 1957 profile shows considerable movement of the top-set and fore-set bed sediments into the area occupied by bottom-set bed sediments. This movement, however,

applies only to the thalweg as defined by the single profile shown

for the reach between the dam and the 22-mile point upstream from

which the floodway profile should be applied. Long-term movement

of sediments in the valley areas follow a different pattern as discussed in the next section of this report on lateral distribution of

sediments.

*Thalweg fn this report is the trace defined by projecting each contour at its farthest upstream point normal to a pre-established base

reservoir axis.

26
The following tabulation lists the 1915 (original) and 1957 thaiweg

elevations to the nearest 1/2 foot at 2-mile intervals up to spillway

crest elevation. These values, scaled off Figure 8, typify the

general trend of sediment movement within the reservoir:

THALWEG ELEVATIONS

Miles above Elevation Elevation Elevation

Elephant Butte (feet) (feet) (feet)

Dam 1915 1/ 1957 2/ 1957

0 4,214.0 3/4,221.0 3/4,221.0

2 4,220.0 47 4,246.0 4/ 4,246.0

4 4, 234. 5 4, 256. 5 - 4, 256. 5

6 4, 246. 0 4, 266. 5 4, 266. 5

8 4, 254. 0 4, 277. 0 4, 277.0

10 4, 262. 0 4, 286. 0 4, 286. 0

12 4, 273. 0 4, 295. 5 4, 295. 5

14 4, 282. 5 4, 305. 0 4, 305.0

16 4,294.0 4,315.5 4,315.5

18 4,304.5 4,325.0 4,325.0

20 4,312.0 4,333.0 4,333.0

22 4,325.0 4,346.0 4,344.5

24 4,334.0 4,360.5 4,355.0

26 4,340.0 4,368.5 4,363.0

28 4, 342. 5 4, 374. 5 4, 370.0

30 4,358.5 4,380.0 4,376.0

32 4,368.0 4,385.5 4,383.0

34 4,375.5 4,391.0 4,390.5

36 4, 383.0 4, 398. 5 4, 395. 0

38 4,391.0 4,406.0 4,400.0

40 4,399.0 - 4,405.5

41.2 4,407.0 5/4,407.0 6/ 4,407.0

The above data indicates average slopes of 0. 000888 and 0. 000922

for the years 1915 and 1957 (based on floodway profile), respectively.

General breaks in the profiles are noted at the following locations:

1/ Based on floodway contours above 22-mile point.

/ Based on conveyance channel contours above 22-mile point.

/ 1935 thalweg.

/ 1947 thalweg.

ff/ At 38.2 miles.

/ At 40. 6 miles.

27
Miles above Slopes in foot per foot

dam 1915 1957

(along reservoir axis) (based on floodway profile)

6 0.00110 0.000843

16 .000909 .000861

24 .000947 .000949

38 .000865 .000636

Photographs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 show views typical of

the upstream areas.

Lateral Distribution

The lateral distribution of sediments in the lake is depicted by

typical cross sections of Ranges 89, 57, 29, 21, 12, and 10 in

upstream order shown in Figures 9 and 10.

Examining the 1947 and 1957 profiles shows there has not been any

extreme change in the cross-sectional areas of the ranges depicted.

Range 57 in the Narrows area shows the greatest change that occurred

and this was due to the degradation process described in the preceding section. Ranges 89, 21, and 29 show slight degradation in

the western side of the valley cross section. Range 12 shows some

aggradation in the eastern side of the valley and negligible changes

in the western valley.

Cross-section profiles of Monticello and Nogal Canyons in Figure 11

also show very little change.

The upstream cross-sectional profiles remained practically

unchanged primarily because of the drought conditions during the

1947 to 1957 period and the reservoir operating at levels considerably below the lower elevations of these ranges. A tabulation of

the average annual month-end reservoir elevations discussed in a

previous section shows the reservoir seldom exceeded the 4300

elevation during that period.

Sediment Disposition

The 1957 sediment disposition is portrayed by the curve plotted in

Figure 12. This curve indicates that the sediment was deposited

relatively uniform in the lower part of the reservoir with greater

amount in the upper areas.

Initial sediment studies made of the reservoir when constructed in

1915 did not include the determination of a disposition curve.

Studies in the sediment field at that time had not advanced to the

28
stage of predicting the pattern of sediment distribution within the

reservoir. As a matter of further practical interest, an analysis

was made of the curve based on current procedures (Borland and

Miller, 1958) using the 1915 data. A logarithmic plotting (Figure 13)

was made of depth versus capacity to classify the reservoir by

type. From this plotting, it was found that the reservoir would have

been classified as Type I to a depth of about 60 feet and Type II

above this depth. A study of the 1957 curve defined from observed

data in Figure 12 shows a reversal of this classification. The plot

in this figure shows the 1957 curve follows a Type II curve to about

the 30-percent depth range, and from the 30- to 60-percent depth

it is in transition to a Type I. It follows a Type I closely on upward

to the 100 percent of the total reservoir depth.

The preceding analysis points up the need for considering factors

other than just the depth-capacity reLationship in sediment disposition studies. Among the other major factors to be considered are

the following as quoted from the report (Borland and Miller, 1958)

previously referred to:

a. Reservoir shape

b. Sediment characteristics:

(1) Textures of sediments

(2) Grain sizes and shapes

c. Reservoir operation

d. Sediment-reservoir volume ratio

e. Inflow-capacity relationship

Each of the above factors has an effect on the sediment disposition

in Elephant Butte Reservoir. AU of them, however, have not been

quantitatively evaluated. Two additional important factors influencing the pattern of sediment deposition in this particular reservoir are the salt cedar infestation in the delta area and the

sediment-laden flows of the side tributaries which drain directly

into the reservoir.

Sediment distribution in various elevation intervals is represented

by the bar graph in Figure 14. The elevation range in feet above

and below crest elevation is plotted on the abscissa and there are

two ordinates representing the sediment volume and percent of total

sediment on the left- and right-hand scales, respectively. The

percentage values are based on the 428, 000 acre-feet total sediment volume for the 1915 to 1957 period.

29
The greatest percent of total sediment is accumulated in the upper

area where it is noted that about 62 percent of the total lies above

elevation 4340. The greatest sediment accumulation lies in the

4360 to 4380 elevation range which amounts to about 96, 300 acre-feet.

By way of contrast, the longitudinal thalweg profile in Figure 8

shows some degradation in excess of 20 feet in the 4300 to 4340

elevation range; the bar graph of Figure 14 indicates that 13 percent of the total sediment has accumulated in this same range.

Trap Efficiency

A determination of the trap efficiency for this reservoir could not

be made because of the insufficient records of sediment inflow and

outflow available as of this resurvey. The capacity-inflow ratio

for the reservoir computes to 2. 17 based on the present storage

capacity of 2, 206, 708 acre-feet. This ratio indicates a trap efficiency of 97 percent from Brunes (1953) median curve for normal

ponded reservoirs. Brune determined a trap efficiency of 98. 6 percent for Elephant Butte Reservoir in his original investigations.

A trap efficiency estimate of 95 percent is judged reasonable upon

considering the slow rate of reservoir releases which, in turn,

allows more time for the incoming sediments to settle out.

Unit Weight Analysis

Establishing a unit weight for Elephant Butte Reservoir has been

a long sought and interesting objective. Follett (1914) who pioneered

the work in this field arrived at a unit weight of 53 pounds per cubic

foot. He based this determination on a single sample consisting of

a 3-inch cube taken under carefully selected conditions. Admittedly

he made a realistic appraisal of the results arriving at this unit

weight as evidenced from his concluding remarks quoted below:

"ft may be objected that the results involved are too

important to make them depend upon one single observation, as was done in this case. In reply it should

be stated that the conditions under which the silt will

settle in the reservoir are not well known and that

there are enough other indeterminate factors in the

problem to render it probable that this one sample,

deliberately and intelligently chosen by two trained

men (Follett and B. M. Hall) who were fully conversant with all the conditions confronting them and

who were careful in their selection of the sample,

would give a result fully as good as might come from

30
the mean of many samples taken with less care.

Moreover, the result appeared to be reasonable. H

It is of further interest that Follett took this sample in 1904, 12

years before Elephant Butte Dam was completed.

Hemphill (1931) in a later survey further appraised Follett's results

and summarized them as follows:

Foflett made no estimate of the silt rolled along the

bottom of the stream but stated the belief that it might

possibly amount to as much as 25 percent of that suspended. Accepting this ratio as a maximum, the

results of the survey gave a unit value of 65 pounds

per cubic foot of deposit. It is believed that they

(the Rio Grande sediment records) were accurate

enough to indicate fairly that suspended silt in the

Rio Grande will form deposits containing from

55 to 65 pounds per cubic foot of silt.

Seavy (1949) estimated the average unit weight to be 65. 9 pounds

per cubic foot based on the 1947 survey data and further predicted

the ultimate unit weight of sediment deposits would be slightly more

than 73. 3 pounds per cubic foot. He arrived at these values applying the formula developed by Lane and Koelzer (1943). In the

summary of his report, Seavy is quoted as follows:

"When adequate sampling equipment is available for

obtaining representative samples of the sediment

deposited in Elephant Butte Reservoir, it would be

very desirable to obtain samples in order that the

average density (unit weight) of the deposited materials could be determined."

Mr. H. Stabler (1911) carried out studies on a unit weight assumption of 85 pounds per cubic foot. He believed this weight to be

representative of the sediments carried by the Rio Grande flowing

past San Marcial and down in the vicinity of the proposed Elephant

Butte Dam known then as Engle Dam.

Coglilan and Lieb (1916) obtained 17 samples during 1916 at various

locations in the delta area about 15 miles upstream from the dam.

Their results are tabulated below:

31
Sample Unit weight Sample Unit weight

No. pounds per cu ft No. pounds per cu ft

A-i 90. 99 B-3 94. 59

A-2 91.03 B-4 92.25

A-3 93.36 B-S 88.21

A-4 88. 58 B-6 94. 09

A-5 101. 18 c-i 94. 83

A-6 66.38 C-2 90.68

B-i 87.90 C-3 90.22

B-2 91.74 C-4 99. 57

They averaged the above results and obtained a 92. 34-poundsper-cubic-foot unit weigut.

Mr. A. E. Fenz (Bureau of Reclamation, 1914) derived a unit

weight of 97. 6 pounds per cubic foot from analyses tnat were made

of 96 samples collected in 1914. Unfortunately the analytical results

of any of the observed samnles were not recorded.

Mr. J. C. Stevens (1946) arrived at a unit weight value of 65 pounds

per cubic foot by analysis of the San Marcial sediment records

available covering the period from January 1915 to September 1940

or 25. 75 years. To the total recorded sediment passing San Marcial,

he added 15 percent for the bed load or 73. 5 million tons and

another 72 million tons for the sediment contributed by the tributary drainage area below San Marcial. From this total he subtracted an estimated 6. 4 million tons of sediment outflow which

determined a net sediment inflow of 629. 2 million tons. Knowing

the measured deposits to be 442, 900 acre-feet ne then performed

the following computation to determine the unit weight:

629.2 x io6 T 2, 000 lbs 65.3 pounds per Unit weignt = 42,00 ac-ft X 560 cu

= cubic foot

S. C. Happ (1944) conducted a study of the alluvial deposits in the

Middle Rio Grande. His published results include a derivation of

an average unit weight of 86 pounds per cubic foot for the Middle

Rio Grande Valley sediments. A partial tabulation of the unit

weights and size analyses of the samples collected during the year

1941 is shown in table 5. Over 600 samples were also gathered

during the period 1937 to 1940, however, unit weight data of each

sample were not readily available.

The International Boundary and Water Commission (1937), United

States and Mexico, uses an average unit weight of 66. 7 pounds per

cubic foot. This value was arrived at by a study of the pertinent

literature on unit weights available in 1937.

32
Table 4 summarizes the unit weight results obtained by all the

fore-mentioned investigators.

The 114 samples of Elephant Butte Reservoir sediment deposits

gathered by Bureau of Reclamation personnel in 1952 and 1957 are

the most extensive of record. Results of the unit weight tests of

these samples showed values varying from 16 to 100 pounds per

cubic foot. The unit weights of all samples collected in these years

were arithmetically averaged and resulted as follows:

No. of Average unit weight

Year samples pounds per cubic foot

1952 75 53.0

1957 39 55.5

A comparison of the computed and observed unit weights is shown

in Figures 15 and 16 for the 1952 and 1957 samples, respectively.

The procedure set forth by Miller (1953) was used to compute the

unit weights (example on page 16). It is noted in these graphs there

is a cluster of data about each end of the 100-percent correlation

curve somewhat in the form of a dumbbell pattern. Only a few

samples lie in the 45- to 65-pounds-per-cubic-foot range. The

relationship displayed by either curve is judged to be very good

since the majority of points fall within a plus or minus range of

5 pounds per cubic foot which is well within practical limits. This

relationship also tends to confirm the applicability of Miller1s

(1953) procedure to determine the theoretical unit weight of sediment deposits for this particular reservoir.

The graph in Figure 17 plotted from 1957 data in table 3 shows

another comparison of unit weights between the observed as gathered

by the subaqueous sampler and the unit weights determined by the

radioisotope densitometer. Most of the samples were collected in

the lower portion of the reservoir and all except one had a unit

weight of less than 50 pounds per cubic foot indicating a high clay

content.

The relationship in Figure 17 is remarkably well for the 16 samples

tested. As a result of these tests and those conducted at other

reservoirs, the RSD sampler has demonstrated that it is a highly

practical instrument for determining in-place sediment unit weights.

The principal advantage over the subaqueous sampler is its ability

to secure the samples at a lower cost. Two major disadvantages,

however, are the potential radiation hazard involved in operating

the instrument and its inability to obtain the gradation of the deposited sediments which is important to the theoretical determinations

33
of unit weight such as prescribed by Miller (1953) discussed previously. Timblin and Florey's (1957) report also includes the

results of the samples taken by the radiisotope densitometer during

this 1957 resurvey of Elephant Butte Reservoir. Their report

contains a detailed description of the operation and applicability of

the instrument. Future plans include further tests of the radioisotope densitometer.

In Figure 18, an attempt was made to investigate the occurrence of

compaction of the deposited sediments which played an important

part in the unit weight analyses and helped to explain the increase

in capacity since the 1947 survey. This graph shows the unit weight

results of 12 reservoir deposit samples gathered at the same ranges

for the years 1952 and 1957. It is noted that all but two of the sampies showed an increase in unit weight during this period substantiating the conclusion that the sediments were compacting. Table 6

containing the basic information for plotting the graph of Figure 18,

shows: range location, sample number, unit weight, and the percentage gradation of clay, silt, and sand. Although the samples

were not taken at precisely the same location on the range lines in

either year, they are judged to be adequately representative of the

sediment depositional characteristics and of the compaction conditions developed in the interim period between surveys.

Because of the extreme variance in unit weights of samples gathered

in 1952 and 1957, it is difficult to estimate the unit weight representative of all inflowing sediments. Many factors are involved in

a unit weight analysis such as the reservoir size (36, 600 acres),

reservoir operation, size and texture of inflowing sediments,

settlement rate or fall velocity, density currents, and compaction

rates. In order to determine the representative unit weight for

this reservoir further analyses were carried out based on the quantitive results of the 1952 and 1957 samples.

One calculation resulted in a unit weight of 62 pounds per cubic

foot based on the total measured sediment load at San Marcial and

the total volume of sediments (below spillway crest) in the reservoir for the period 1915 to 1957. Another computation showed a

unit weight of 54 pounds per cubic foot on the basis of a straight

arithmetic average of all samples collected in 1952 and 1957.

Using Seavys data (1949), a unit weight of 54 pounds per cubic foot

was computed from total measured sediment loads at San Marcial

and total sediment volume in the reservoir as of 1947. As mentioned previously, unit weights of 53 and 55. 5 pounds per cubic

foot were calculated for the years 1952 and 1957, respectively.

Because of the varying conditions under which the samples were

gathered, no quantitative adjustment could be made for such factors

34
as differences in depth of penetration for each sample; granular

settlement of some samples while in transit to the laboratory for

analysis; and differences in compaction rates of in-place sediments.

However, an upward correction in the unit weight is apropos to

allow for some of the unaccountable factors, particularly that of

compaction. As related before, the trend toward compaction is

evident by analysis of the data in table 6 and Figure 18. Accordingly, a value of 60 pounds per cubic foot is selected to be representative of the over-all unit weight of the sediments in Elephant

Butte Reservoir. This value does not agree with the conclusions

reached by some of the previous investigators; however, it is

judged to be reasonable owing to the fact that it is based on more

expansive supporting data.

It is interesting to note that Follett's (1914) original unit weight of

53 pounds per cubic foot based on a single observed sample (table 4)

is practically identical to the arithmetic average unit weight of all

samples collected in 1952 and 1957. It is predicted that in 100 years

the average unit weight of the sediment deposits in Elephant Butte

Reservoir will be about 70 pounds per cubic foot. This value was

arrived at by a review of the past records of the suspended sediment

loads of the Rio Grande at San Marcial. Analyzing these records

by plotting a relationship of the unit weights against time resulted

in a trend which indicated the 70-pound value would be approached

in the 100-year period. In the analysis, a 10-percent correction

was made for the unmeasured load and it was assumed that 5 percent of the total incoming sediment load would deposit above spillway crest.

Conveyance Channel

The proposed channel rectification work from the head of the

Espanola Valley to the backwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir was

approved by the Congress as part of a comprehensive plan for the

Middle Rio Grande Project.

Prior to any channelization work in the backwater area of Elephant

Butte Reservoir by the Bureau of Reclamation, the state of New

Mexico financed some of this type of work through its Rio Grande

Development Fund. The Elephant Butte Irrigation and Middle Rio

Grande Conservancy Districts provided further assistance in the

form of actually supervising the construction work and furnishing

the equipment. The Bureau of Reclamation assisted in the engineering work. Under this plan, four channels of approximately

1, 000 cubic feet per second and varying in length 1/2 to 3 miles

were constructed in the San Marcial area. This area extends

approximately 10 miles north of the old town of San Marcial to the

Fish and Wildlife Refuge and south 20 miles into Elephant Butte

35
Reservoir. Many direct benefits resulted from this work including

a considerable quantity of water saved and draining and drying of

the area in which the first conveyance channel was constructed.

Construction of the first portion of the conveyance channel under

the Bureau of Reclamation channelization plan previously mentioned

was begun in 1951 and completed in 1954. It was designated as the

San Marcial conveyance channel and covered the river stretch from

San Marcial to the Narrows of Elephant Butte Reservoir, New

Mexico. The construction work was performed under the contract

awarded to McGinnes Brothers, Incorporated. Photographs 23

and 24 show two separate views of the channel in the initial construction stage. The conveyance channel was designed for a capacity of 2, 000 cubic feet per second and with a bottom width of 32 feet,

side slopes of two to one, and average depth of approximately

11 feet.

In the original design of this channel, cognizance was taken of the

difficulties involved in maintaining its stability in the future. Many

complexities were faced, such as how to predict the amount of

scour and fill for the channel. This, in turn, required some means

of predicting the size of bed material that would eventually line the

channel. Another factor was to predict the channel shape subsequent

to its construction which presented difficulties because of the variable sediment transport loads and the effectiveness of vegetation

to protect the banks. The original design was based on the assumption that the soil masses were homogeneous. Such assumption may

not be realistic, but it is commonly done in problems of this nature.

Photograph 25 showS a current view of extreme channel instability which has resulted in one of the areas of the conveyance channel. These results point up the need for continuing research work

in the field of stable channels.

The elevation of the lower end of the conveyance channel is 4, 395

feet (4, 341. 7 feet using datum of Elephant Butte Reservoir surveys).

Thus, should Elephant Butte Reservoir ever be filled to the spiiway

crest level (4, 407 feet), the channel would be inundated for a considerable distance above the Narrows which is its downstream

termination point.

There has not been any quantitative estimate made of the sediment

load being transported by the conveyance channel. Periodic sampling of the suspended sediment is continuing and as these records

are compiled, some determination of the sediment load will be made

in future studies. The effect of the conveyance channel on sediment

inflow into Elephant Butte Reservoir, therefor, cannot be evaluated

at this time although more sediment will be transported into the

reservoir by the channel because it is more efficient.

36
A satisfactory measure of control of many sediment problems which

heretofore have plagued the Rio Grande should eventually be brought

about by the channel control program as proposed in the Middle Rio

Grande comprehensive plan. These measures include the completion of all channelization work, levee construction, bank revetment,

floodway excavation, and construction of dams on the main stem

and tributaries of the Rio Grande. It is pointed out, however, that

water salvage is another major aim of this comprehensive plan.

Change of Sediment Inflow Rate into Elephant Butte Reservoir

In the original studies in 1950, an average unit weight of 70 pounds

per cubic foot was used to determine the change of rate of sediment

inflow into Elephant Butte Reservoir. The results obtained by this

original study are compared with the measured loads in the following tabulation. Another calculation of sediment tonnages is also

included, based on a unit weight of 60 pounds per cubic foot as

determined by the 1957 survey.

Annual Rate of Sediment Inflow into Elephant Butte

Reservoir Below San Marcial, New Mexico

Tons x 106 * Tons x 106 **

Period Acre -feet (computed) (computed)

Tons x i06 ;c**

(measured)

1915-47 14,370 21.9 18.8 16.9

1935-47 7,806 11.9 10.2 9.9

It is noted that the computed exceed the measured tonnages. Assuming this difference to be the unmeasured load the following computations are made to determine the percentage of such load for the

1915 to 1947 period:

Based on 70 pounds per cu ft

(21.9 - 16.9) (100)

Percent unmeasured = __________________ 21.9 = 23 percent

Based on 60 pounds per cu ft

Percent unmeasured (18. 8 - 16. 9) (10c) 18. 8 10 percent

*Based on 70 pounds per cubic foot unit weight

**Based on 60 pounds per cubic foot unit weight

***Measured at San Marcial

37
Computations of the unmeasured load for the 1935 to 1947 period

show 20 and 3 percent for the 70- and 60-pounds-per-cubic-foot

unit weights, respectively.

The above calculations indicate that a 60-pounds-per-cubic-foot

unit weight appears more representative of the reservoir sediments.

An unmeasured load of 10 to 15 percent is judged to be reasonable

for this river channel.

Assuming the average sediment inflow td Elephant Butte Reservoir

to remain approximately 10, 200 acre-feet per year as indicated by

this survey, the sediment volume would occupy 1, 020, 000 acre-feet

of reservoir storage space at the end of a 100-year period at which

time the original capacity would have been reduced to 1, 614, 800

acre-feet or by 61 percent. In view of this remaining capacity, it

is concluded that the reservoir would have served a useful life

(period 1915 to 2015) insofar as present-day Bureau project economic studies are concerned.

Density Currents

Lane and Carlson (1954) summarized the results of studies that

were made of density currents observed in several reservoirs

including Elephant Butte. A general discussion on density currents

presented herein includes some of the information and data contained

in their report.

It is very probable that flows from the Rio Puerco have been responsible for most of the density currents observed in Elephant Butte

Reservoir. This ephemeral stream which joins the Rio Grande

approximately 59 miles from the head end of the reservoir, carries

one of the highest measured concentrations of sediment in the world;

samples of 680, 000-parts-per-million concentration or weighing up

to 68 percent of the total weight have been observed. The composition of sediments flowing from this stream is largely of clay-size

particles.

In practically all cases it is noted from table 7 that concentrations

of outfiowing currents are less than those of the inflowing currents.

Some observations show the reverse of this condition which is due

probably to the variation of the sediment flow not being accurately

defined, sediment samples not being taken often enough, or the

flashy nature of the inflow.

Only one density current flow in Elephant Butte Reservoir has

occurred since 1935. There were 13 flows in the first 20 years

and only one in the second 20-year period. This is probably due

to a variety of causes, among them being the growth of vegetation

38
in the upper end of the basin and the shallow nature of the density

flows occurring mainJy as turbid underfiows (Figure 19). Another

reason is that present conditions show the channels in the reservoir

area are filled. Therefor, the density currents no longer being

able to concentrate in a channel must spread out in a thin sheet

causing them to disintegrate.

Little data are available on the quantity of sediment carried by

density currents. The outflow of July 1919, was estimated to carry

2, 500 acre-feet of sediment. Up to about the year 1933, it was

estimated that the total sediment outflow amounted to less than

4, 000 acre-feet, or under 2 percent of the total sediment inflow

for the 1915 to 1933 period. Since that time, the percent removed

has been estimated to be less than 2 percent.

Periodic measurements and observations of density currents are

being continued. No critical analyses of any of these observed data

are contemplated because of the negligible amount of sediments

passed through the dam by these density currents. Total sediment

passing the dam as of this 1957 resurvey is probably between 4, 500

and 5,000 acre-feet or less than 1 and 1/2 percent of the sediment

inflow (428, 000 acre-feet) for the 1915 to 1957 period involved.

Statistical and Data Summary

A detailed statistical summary shown in table 8 lists the sedimentation and capacity information for Elephant Butte Reservoir based

on the 1957 resurvey. Only the sediment deposition below the crest

elevation was considered.

Table 9 contains a special summary of additional reservoir sedimentation data. Information of this particular type is compiled for

all reservoirs in the United States by the Inter-Agency Committee

on Water Resources, Washington, D. C.

39
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The period between the 1947 and 1957 resurveys of Elephant Butte

Reservoir was characterized by severe drought conditions. Total

water inflow into the reservoir during this period amounted to

4, 165, 438 acre-feet which averaged 427, 000 acre-feet per year or

about 43 percent of the long-term(60-year)mean annual of

1,004,000 acre-feet. It is noted from the hydrographic record in

Figure 5 that the minimum inflow of record occurred during this

period when in 1951 it amounted only to 114, 100 acre-feet or 11

percent of the long-term mean. Critical irrigation shortages were

experienced for several years.

Total sediment accumulated in the reservoir since the original survey amounted to 428, 000 acre-feet. The present storage capacity

is 2,206,780 acre-feet and the area is 36, 584 acres. There has

been a loss of 16. 2 percent of the original capacity as of the time

of this 1957 survey. The annual average sediment inflow is 10, 200

acre-feet. Sediment yield per square mile per year is 0. 39 acrefoot. It is reasonably concluded that compaction was one of the

major factors causing an increase in the reservoir capacity and

area since the last major survey of 1947. Pertinent information

on sedimentation and capacity of this reservoir is shown in Figure 6

and Tables 8 and 9. Trap efficiency of Elephant Butte Reservoir is

reasonably estimated to be greater than 95 percent. Based on the

present trend, the trap efficiency should not reduce appreciably for

the next 2 decades.

Analyses and study of the data from representative samples of the

reservoir deposits collected in 1952 and 1957 indicate a unit weight

of about 60 pounds per cubic foot as an average for Elephant Butte

Reservoir. Averaging the gradation curves of the 114 samples collected, results in percentages of 54. 6, 32. 7, and 12. 7 for clay(less

than 4 microns), silt (4 to 62. 5 microns), and sand (62. 5 to 2,000

microns), respectively.

Of the various instruments used to obtain samples of the reservoir

deposits, the radioisotope densitometer proved to be the most economical. The major shortcomings of this instrument, however, are

its inability to determine the gradation of the deposited sediments

and its specific operational technique, particularly with regard to

the radiation hazard involved. The subaqueous sampler developed

in 1950 secures a fairly representative sample although it is a cumbersome instrument to operate because of its bulky physical structure. The main advantage, however, is its ability to secure an

actual physical sample which can be studied by observation for such

features as type and texture of sediments and layer formations and

40
can be analyzed in the laboratory for the two main sediment properties of unit weight and size gradation.

The continued salt cedar infestation of the upstream areas of the

reservoir poses a menace that is becoming more difficult to overcome. One of the most vicious characteristics of this phreatophyte is its ability to consume excessive quantities of water without

benefit to man. This exotic plant that develops a junglelike growth

continues defying all efforts to eradicate it. It can be controlled

only through considerable effort. A study conducted of an upper

reach of the Rio Grande between Bernardo Bridge and San Marcial

showed there had been an increase in salt cedar infestation amounting to 50 percent for the 1947 to 1955 period. Considerable channel

and overbank aggradation can result from the screening action by

the salt cedars of the sediments in transport by the stream. No

studies have been conducted to determine the total sediment load

intercepted by these phreatophytes.

The upstream channelization and other control works as proposed

in the Middle Rio Grande comprehensive pian, when completed,

should reduce sediment inflows to the Elephant Butte Reservoir.

The principal purpose of the channelization program, however, is

for water salvage which is estimated to amount to 170, 000 acrefeet per year.

The next partial survey of this reservoir is scheduled for the year

1962 and a detailed instrument resurvey in 1967.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND PERSONNEL

This report was prepared by Joe M. Lara under the supervision

of Whitney M. Borland, Head, Sedimentation Section, Hydrology

B ranch.

The report was reviewed by Mr. Borland and Carl R. Miller, former Assistant Head, Sedimentation Section.

Acknowledgment is made to Mr. Harris R. McDonald, Head, Water

Resources and Utilization Section, who provided the material in the

section on salt cedar infestation.

Planning and organizing the 1957 resurvey of the reservoir was

directed by Mr. William F. Resch, Project Manager, Rio Grande

Project, El Paso, Texas. Personnel of the El Paso field office

performed the work of drawing new reservoir topography maps

and computing new area-capacity tables.

Mr. Lloyd 0. Timblin, physicist of the Chemical Engineering

Branch, and Carl R. Miller, former Assistant Head of the Sedimentation Section, were responsible for gathering samples of the

reservoir deposits using subaqueous samplers and the radioisotope

densitometer.

The resurvey was performed at the request of Robert W. Jennings,

former Regional Director, Amarillo, Texas.

42
LITERATURE CITED

Borland, W. M. • and Miller, C. R., 1958, Distribution of sediment in large reservoirs: Am. Soc. Civil Engineers. Proc.,

v.84, no. HY 2, P. 1587-1 to 1587-18.

Brune, G. M., 1953, Trap efficiency of reservoirs: Am Geophys.

Union Trans., v. 34, no. 3, p. 407-418.

Bureau of Reclamation, 1914, Rio Grande project history, New

Mexico-Texas: unpublished report, p. 73-7 5.

Coghlan, R. R., and Lieb, V. E., 1916, Elephant Butte to serve

233 years: Engineering Record, v. 74, p. 349.

Eakin, H. M., 1936, Silting of reservoirs: U. S. Dept. of Agri.

Tech. Bull. 524, 142 p.

Follett, W. W., 1914, Silt in the Rio Grande: Engineering News,

v. 71, no. 1, p. 18-21.

Happ, S. C., 1944, Significance of texture and density of alluvial

deposits in the middle Rio Grande Valley: Jour. Sedimentary

Petrology, v. 14, no. 1, p. 3-19.

Hemphill, R. G., 1931, Silting and life of Southwestern reservoirs:

Am. Soc. Civil Engineers Trans., v. 95, p. 1060-1074.

International Boundary Comm., U. S. and Mexico, 193-7, Flow of

the Rio Grande and tributary contributions: Water Bull, no. 7,

p. 63.

Lane, E. W., and Carlson, E. J., 1954, Some hydraulic engineering aspects of density currents: Bur. of Reel. , Hyd. Lab.

Rept. no. Hyd-373, 22 p.

Lane, E. W., and Koelzer, V. A., 1943, Density of sediments

deposited in reservoirs, in A study of methods used in measurement and analysis of sediiTent loads in streams: Federal Inter-.

Agency River Basin Comm., rept. 9, 60 P.

Miller, C. R., 1953, Determination of the unit weight of sediment

for use in sediment volume computations: Bur. of Reel., 7 P.

Seavy, L. M., 1949, Sedimentation surveys of Elephant Butte

Reservoir: Bur. of Reel. , 18 p. , 36 figs.

43
Stabler, H., 1911, Some stream waters of the Western United

States: U. S. Geol. Survey Water Supply Paper 274, P. 151-164.

Stevens, J. C., 1946, Future of Lake Mead and Elephant Butte

reservoirs: Am. Soc. Civil Engineers Trans., v. 111, p. 1231-

1342.

Timblin, L. 0., Jr., and Florey, Q. L., 1957, Density measurement of saturated submersed sediment by gamma ray scattering:

Bur. of Reel., Chem. Engineering Lab. Rept. no. SI-li, 34 p.

U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Weather Bur., 1956, Climatological

data, New Mexico: v. LX, no. 13, p. 221-223.

U. S. Geol. Survey, 1958, Surface water supply of the United

States, 1956, pt. 8. Western Gulf of Mexico basins: U. S. Geol.

Survey Water-Supply Paper 1442, p. 347 and 350.

44
Table 1

ELEPHANT BUTTE SEDIMENT SAMPLES OF RESERVOIR DEPOSITS

March 1952

Unit Weight Percent Sediment

ample pounds per Grain Size Ranges in Microns Location

No. cu ft <5 5-74 74-#4

t 68. 1 26 56 18 Approximately 1,000 feet below

Range 25

2 87. 8 13 44 43 Approximately 1, 000 feet below

Range 25

3 85.7 5 40 55 Approximately 1,000 feet below

Range 25

4 76.0 55 44 1 Range 27 taken about 1,500 feet

from east bank of stream

5 75. 8 54 44 2 Range 27 taken about 1,500 feet

from east bank of stream

6 69.9 88 12 1/ 0 Range 27 taken about 1,500 feet

from east bank of stream

7 66. 6 72 27 1 Range 29E to Range 30W taken

150 feet west of west bank of

new canal

8 90. 0 24 12 64 Taken about 2, 000 feet above Range

30, 40 feet west of west canal

bank

9 66. 8 76 22 2 Range 36

10 80.7 28 56 16 Range 36

11 88.5 12 80 8 Range 36

12 93.8 10 76 14 Range 36

13 76.9 57 41 2 Range 36

14 76.7 33 66 1 Range 4

15 66. 2 89 10 1 Range 4

16 62.4 91 7 2 Range4

17 81. 6 22 33 45 Range 36 taken on east side of old

stream channel about 300 feet

from west side of reservoir

18 64.8 86 12 2 Range 36 taken on east side of old

stream channel about 300 feet

from west side of reservoir

19 58.0 82 16 2 Range 36 taken on east side of old

stream channel about 300 feet

from west side of reservoir

20 73. 5 39 8 53 Range 36 taken on east side of old

stream chanrel about 300 feet

from west side of reservoir
Table 1 - -Continued

Unit Weight Percent Sediment

amp1e pounds per Grain Size Ranges in Microns Location

No. cuft <5 5-74 74-#4 ___________________________

21 87.7 22 25 53 Range 19W to Range 18E taken

about 1, 000 feet from west edge of

reservoir

22 82.5 37 28 35 Range 19W to Range 18E taken

about 1,000 feet from west edge of

reservoir

23 85.0 13 70 17 Range 19W to Range 18E taken

about 1, 000 feet from west edge of

reservoir

24 88.8 8 19 73 Range 19W to Range 18E taken

about 1, 000 feet from west edge of

reservoir

25 86.4 7 37 56 Range 19W to Range 18E taken

about 1,000 feet from west edge of

reservoir

26 72.6 45 41 14 Range 21 taken from 1eftside overflow or high water channel about

1.3 miles downstream from Range

19, 1, 000 feet east of west bank

27 66. 7 54 44 2 Range 21 taken from left side overflow or high water channel about

1.3 miles downstream from Range

19, 1,000 feet east of west bank

28 71. 1 40 57 3 Monticello Canyon taken about 1

mile above mouth of canyon, 100

feet from left bank

29 52. 7 60 39 1 Monticello Canyon taken about 1

mile above mouth of canyon, 100

feet from left bank

30 82. 1 15 39 46 Monticello Canyon taken about 1

mile above mouth of canyon, 100

feet from left bank

31 35. 7 80 19 1 Range 66 (origin) to Range 66E

taken 200 feet east of the farthest

point extending into lake below

mouth of Monticello Canyon

32 35. 3 76 23 1 Range 66 (origin) to Range 66E

taken 200 feet east of the farthest

point extending into lake below

mouth of Monticello Canyon

33 28. 5 90 10 0 Range 66 (origin) to Range 66E

taken 200 feet east of the farthest

point extending into lake below

mouth of Monticello Canyon

34 30.9 92 8 1/ 0 Range 66 (origin) to Range 66E

taken 200 feet east of the farthest

point extending into lake below

mouth of Monticello CQnyon I
Table 1--Continued

Unit Weight Percent Sediment

ample pounds per Grain Size Ranges in Microns Location

No. cuft <5 5-74 74-#4

35 76. 8 17 56 27

___________________________

Nogal Canyon taken about midpoint

of canyon and 1 mile above mouth

36 100.0 2 7 76 2/ Nogal Canyon taken about midpoint

- of canyon and 1 mile above mouth

37 79. 3 23 55 22 Nogal Canyon taken about midpoint

of canyon and 1 mile above mouth

38 66. 2 27 62 11 Nogal Canyon taken about midpoint

of àanyon and 1 mile above mouth

39 40. 9 85 15 1/ 0 Jndian Grave to Three Cedars

40 39. 0 94 6 0 Indian Grave to Three Cedars

41 16. 3 83 17 0 Indian Grave to Three Cedars

42 29. 9 87 13 0 Indian Grave to Three Cedars

43 40. 9 90 10 0 Indian Grave to Three Cedars

44 34. 4 89 11 0 Indian Grave to Three Cedars

45 31.8 65 35 0 Opposite Range 77W

46 35. 5 79 21 0 Opposite Range 77W

47 40. 1 91 9 0 Opposite Range 77W

48 28. 3 73 27 0 Opposite Range 77W

49 34. 7 89 11 0 Opposite Range 77W

50 40. 2 85 15 0 Opposite Range 77W

51 38. 8 93 7 0 Old Glory to Range 82W

52 32.9 86 14 0 Old Glory to Range 82W

53 39.7 89 11 0 Old Glory to Range 82W

54 24.8 85 15 0 Range 90 (origin) to Range 90E

taken 100 downstream from nge

line

55 31.6 96 4 0 Range 90 (origin) to Range 90E

taken 100 downstream from range

line

56 39. 0 92 8 0 Range 90 (origin) to Range 90E

taken 100 downstream from range

line

57 19. 6 82 18 0 rassy Hill to Range 89W

58 29. 3 94 6 0 rassy Hill to Range 89W

59 39. 6 92 8 0 rassy Hill to Range 89W

60 19.6 83 17 0 Range 86G
f able 1--Continued

Unit Weight Percent Sediment

;ample pounds per Grain Size Ranges in Microns Location

No. cu ft <5 5-74 74-#4

61 29.1 94 6 0

_______________________________

Range 86G

62 38. 2 90 10 0 Range 86G

63 18.8 87 13 0 Range 84 to Range 85

64 29.9 91 9 0 Range 84 to Range 85

65 36. 5 93 7 0 Range 84 to Range 85

66 30.4 88 12 0 Range 83 to Range 84

67 36. 1 77 23 0 Range 83 to Range 84

68 41.0 90 10 0 Range 83 to Range 84

69 25. 8 91 9 0 About 200 feet above Range 83

70 34.3 92 8 0 About 200 feet above Range 83

71 41.0 92 8 0 About 200 feet above Range 83

72 29. 6 95 5 0 Range 81D to Eagle Point

73 35.9 73 27 0 Range 81D to Eagle Point

74 42. 7 88 12 0 Range 81D to Eagle Point

75 39.0 87 13 0 Range 81D to Eagle Point

1/100 percent finer than No. 200 sieve size--samples Nos. 6, 34, and 39 to 75, inclusive

2715 percent in range 4.7 mm to 3 inches
Table 2

ELEPHANT BUTTE SEDIMENT SAMPLES OF RESERVOIR DEPOSITS

February 1957

Sample Unit Weight Percent Sediment

No pounds per Grain Size Ranges in Microns Location

cu ft <5 5-74 74-4700 _________________________ ______

1 37. 90 63 37 0 Range 90 sampled at midchannel

2 37.46 76 24 0 Range 90 sampled at mid-.

channel

3 35.69 85 15 0 Range 89 sampled at midchannel

4 34.07 80 20 0 Range 89 sampled at midchannel

5 33.44 88 12 0 Range 86 sampled at midchannel

6 29.50 73 27 0 Range 86 sampled at midchannel

7 33.96 75 25 0 Range 85 to Range 84D

sampled at midchannel

8 30.24 85 15 0 Range 85 to Range 84D

sampled at midchannel

9 36. 23 88 12 0 Indian Grave to Three

Cedars sampled at midchannel

10 33.03 91 9 0 Indian Grave to Three

Cedars sampled at midchannel

11 34.07 84 16 0 Indian Grave to Three

Cedars sampled at midchannel

12 31.76 86 14 0 Range 72 sampled at

approximately 1, 000

feet from left bank

13 36. 54 81 19 0 Range 72 sampled at

approximately 1, 000

feet from left bank

14 35. 39 87 13 0 Range 68

15 42.50 72 28 0 Range 68

16 33. 67 88 12 0 Old Glory to Range 82W

17 38.62 83 17 0 Old Glory to Range 82W

18 54.80 82 18 0 Range 68

19 65.41 82 18 0 Line C (San Marcial

Lake)

20 67. 48 72 28 0 Line C (San Marcial

Lake)

21 77. 40 24 46 30 Line C (San Marcial

Lake)

22 38.40 86 14 0 Line F (San Marcial

______ ___________ ________ ________ _________

Lake)
Table 2-. -Continued

am le Unit Weight Percent Sedimentp

pounds per Grain Size RaiT es in Microns Location

No. cu ft <4 4-62.5 62. 5-250 ____________________________

23 67. 28 48.5 51.3 0. 2 Range 12

24 76.63 17.0 47.2 35.8 Line F (San Marcial

Lake)

25 64. 17 32.8 66.7 0. 5 Range 65 sampled at midchannel

26 72. 27 17.5 80. 3 2. 2 Monticello Canyon sampled

at midchannel about 1, 000

feet up canyon from origin

to Canada range line

27 64. 17 77.0 21.4 1.6 The Narrows sample

obtained from silt

deposits on right side of

channel just below gaging

station

28 71.65 74.5 25.3 0.2 Range 45

29 70.40 82.5 17.1 0. 4 Range 38 sampled about

midway on range line

30 82.86 11.6 59.7 28.7 NogalCanyon sampled

about midchannel on

range line

31 74. 14 84.3 15.5 0.2 Range 35 sampled at right

side of conveyance channel

about 200 feet from channel

bank

32 58.56 75. 1 24.5 0.4 Range 30 sampled at 1,000

feet west of conveyance

channel on range

33 72.27 34.7 35.6 29.7 Range 25 sampled at 200 feet

west of conveyance channel

on range line

34 79.12 20.7 65.9 13.4 Range 27 sampled on range

about 1, 200 feet west of conveyance channel

35 77. 25 67.2 32.3 0.5 Range 21 sampled about

300 feet from west side of

conveyance channel

36 87.84 5.4 51.4 43.2 Range 19 sampled approximately 300 feet west of

conveyance channel

37 87.84 3. 1 32. 1 73.8 Range 9 sample taken from

lake between Black Mesa

and railroad

38 74. 14 18. 1 73.3 8. 6 Range 23 sampled at 200 feet

from levee in floodway

39 85.97 14.1 18.8 67.1 Range 35 sampled at 300 feet

from levee in floodway
Table 3

1957 Results of Unit Weight Data

Collected by Subaqueous and RSD Samplers

Sample Subaqueous Sampler RSD Sampler

.Tumber )'iI D2J j y

Location

1 37.5 2.7 25.8 2 Range 90 sampled at midchannel

2 34. 1 2 23. 9 2 Range 89 sampled at midchannel

3 35.7 10 35.0 4 Range 89 sampled at midchannel

4 29.5 2 31.0 2 Range 86 sampi.ed at midchannel

5 33. 4 10 28. 7 4.8 Range 86 sampled at midchannel

6 30. 2 2 29. 6 2 Range 85 to 84 D sampled

at midchannel

7 34. 0 10 37. 2 5 Range 85 to 84 D sampled

at midchannel

8 33.6 1.9 31.1 2 Indian Graves to Three

Cedars sampled at midchannel

9 36. 2 10.4 49. 3 5 Indian Graves to Three

Cedars sampled at midchannel

10 31.8 2 32.8 2 Range 72 sampled at

approximately 1, 000 ft.

from left bank

11 36.5 6.3 45.2 5 Range 72 sampled at

approximatelyl, 000ft.

from left bank

12 67.5 2 59.0 2 Line C (San Marcial

Lake)

13 35.4 2 29.8 2 Range 68

14 42.5 5 50.1 5 Range 68

15 33. 7 2 39. 3 2 Old Glory to R82W

16 38.6 10 35.8 5 Old Glory to R82W

1/ 7 - Unit weight in pounds per cubic foot

27 D - Depth of penetration in feet
Table 4

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STUDIES OF UNIT WEIGHTS

Investigator Data used

Unit weight in

pounds per cubic foot

R. R. Coghian and Seventeen samples

V. E. Lieb observed in March 1916 92. 34

A. E. Fenz Ninety-six samples

observed 97.6

W. W. Follett One sample taken iii' 1904 53

S. C. Happ Over 600 samples

observed 86

R. G. Hemphill Qualitative analysis 55-65

L. M. Seavy Sediment records of the

Rio Grande at San

Marcial, New Mexico,

from 1915 to 1947 65.9

H. Stabler Same records as used

by Seavy above except

for period 1897-1908 85

J. C. Stevens Same records as used

by Seavy above except

for period September

1915 to September 1940 65

International Qualitative analysis 66. 7

Boundary and

Water Commission, United

States and

Mexico
Table 5

LnsUy artd rc1ornice7 cRoition nf 'idde Rio Grots'. Valloy sedios7rlt s'st'.pies

Mecbooicol con,poition by odo oLoe m oo(eroo

S*,,,. Typo of Lool1ty uoit 1,981 1,397 991 701 495 311 246 175 124 88 61 31.2 ,5.6 7.8 3.9 195 0.98

Wn.gbt >1 981 tO

1 397

to

991

to

701

to

495

10

351

to to

246 175

to

524

to

88

to

61

to

31 2

to

15 6

to

7 5

to

3 9

to

1 95

to

0 98

to

049

>61 <61 <1.95 <0.98 <0.49

, . . . , , ,

a/Ca. it. F5t. 79'? )-9't. F9't. Rt. Rt. Fri. Pet. t.9't. Fri. Pet. Pet. Pet. Fri. Fri. Fr? Fri. Pet. 1 t Pet. Pet. Pet.

35 Spot Roogo 860,4, tivos Sot tOt 0 04 1.2

0

4 7 13.7

1 7

24.2 24.3

5 4 0 6

20.1

15 8

7.1

13 0

1.9

7 1 25 4 6.7 2.7 1.4

, 7

578 422 49

36 Coogonito Rogo 860.4, tloo,twoy 3.9 0.4

.

.6 08 . . , .

18 6

. .

5 5

.

25 7 7.0 3.6 2.2 2.3 481 74

37 Cootpon(to Roogo 573, w.t oveoflow ote. 0.5 0.4

0 03

.

29 3

.

7 5

.

25 5 10.3 4.5 1.7 1.8 .

38 Coo,ponito Bolow Ango.turn Dtvor.)oo, floodooy . . 1,8 .

16.6

.

3.3

,

18.2 16.7 12.2 6.2 3.8 - . .3

39 Cowponoo Below Alwoeot. BrIdge. ftoodwy

' 20 1 4

0.2

171 13 7 3.2 12.2 5.2 3.6 3.1 3.1 3.1 . 54.2 43.8 9.0

40 CompoOlto Ronge 907.6, wont 1200 ot onlIop

'

.

15 2 4 5 21 4 6.2 4.5 4.2 4.1 4.6 4.8 42.1 57.9 8.0 41 Coe.pon(te Ronge 907.6, 1000 went (too, hlghn.y

'

0 7

. 10 76 159

,

4 6

.

16 9 8.2 8.2 6.3 9.0 5.5 5.3 29.4 20,6 19.2 42

43

Cooponlto

C

Rtogn 957.6,1000 went froo, Iloodwoy

R 7 6 f

' 10 12 9 236 32

.

215 16.0 8.9 3,2 1,8 40,8 59.2 7,5

44

owpo.Ite

Spot

ono 90 . , loodwny

Rnoge 907 6 nont floodotny 86,1 01

.

03 , 52,0 3,1 0,9 0,9 11.2 08.8 5.1

45 Coropontte

. ,

Roog. 922, Iloodotny 04 49 .2

.

9.8 6.3 4 5 1.4 48.4 51.5 s.i

46 Spot Roogn 922, tloodwny 86.9 TR 01. 03' 21.4 11.2 39,5 108 5.1 14 33.1 66.9 4.5

47 Spot tOnoge 822, floodwoy 73.2 5.7 533

.

27.5 10.5 5.2 4 1 7 98.3 8.7

48 Cowpon(te Range 934. floo'dwoy 0.1 0.2 1,2 5,0 12.8 5,3 37.2 10.0 8 34 2.8 2,9

4 9

24.6

49.9

75.4

50.2 9.8

49 Conon(to Bonqon Bridge, floodwoy 0.0 0.2 2.4 13.5 29.7 4.0 11.7

.

5 6 45 .

39 9 60 1 7 7

11 0

SO Componltr Rnnge 94$, e.nt ovOoworn. 0.1 0,5 4.7 25.2 9.8 30,6

'

3 18 .

71 2

.

28 8

.

2 0

51 Spot Rn.nge 945, root ovflownten 103,5 'rp,, 0.0 '110 0.1 0.1 7.2 6.1 28.2 24.4 11.2 21.8 2.9 S S 06 ,

4 '

.

93 9

.

7 7 52 Spot Rongo 945, nont ovrflowote. 81.7 2,1 2.0 23.9 27.4 1i.9 8,0 3j

. 7 3

.

61 2

.

38 8

.

7 0

53 Cotoponite Roogn 949, went overflow 0.1 0 4 6 4 20.1 28.4 1,8 104 4.2 4.3 3,6 2.5

.

I . . .

54 Spot Rooge 949, tonet ooerlloworen 76,4 , .

3 2 35,9 36.8 11.3 1.2 98.9 8,9

55 spot Rongo 949, eoent ov.rfloworoo 90.3 5.0 0.0 08 0 2 0 6 1 3 4.5 11 4 (7.3 15.1 8.4 .

23.8 5.7 1.9 1.9 0.9 596 404 6 2

59 Coorporite Ronge 949, floodwoy 0.0 ' 0 1

. . .

0.3 5.0 25.5 7.1 24.1 11.0 8.1 4.4 34 381 620 110

57 Con,po.ito Roogo 949, coot ooerflo,nreo .

0,5 5.6 2.2 17 4 18.5 19.8 11 7 os 83 917 9.9

58 Spot Roogn 949, onot overflow noon 79,0' .

10 5 174 32 4

.

9 6 2.7 2.4 23 977

59 Spot R.nge 949, non, b.r 102.0 0.0 "10. 0.1 0.3 0.8 3,7 17.7 32.0 20,2 8.1 , . .

8 . 17

60 Con,po.lto R.ngo 951, floodwny . 'fl, 0.8 19.5 8.0 13.8 9.5 5.3 .9 .9 .9.4 70,6

61 Spot tOonge 951. flo,vdwoy 87.5 9,3 ('2 02

.

0.2 0 1

,

05 16.5 0 2 1.4 28.8 2.0 0.7 8.6 0.5 55.0 35.0 2.4

62 Spot Roegn 951, floodwny 73.0 . 2.0 11,9 25.9 21.6 11.6 8.8 7.5 0,5 99.5 10.2 63 Cotoponite Rongo 951, w,•t ovenflow orno 10.7 3,3 16.1 11.4 11.3 9.6 7.0 7.2 5.3 14 0 55 0 16.6 64 Cotnpot(tn R.ngc 954, floodwoy 0,9 10.0 13.1 4.6 17.3 7.8 6.1 6.2 4.9 8.0 9.5

.

29 0

,

71 0 17 2

65 Compontte Rongo 966,7, wont overflow ore. 0.1 0.1 5.5 105 23.9 8.0 28.1 t6 4.6 3 0 2.6

.

43.7

,

56.3 9 4

.

66 Spot Rooge 966.7, wont voerflow ore. 83.1 TR. ,1 0.1 0.4 1.2 5.6 18, 34.6 21.9 7.6

.

90.0 15 5

,

67 Spot Roorge 966.7, wtovorflownnen 91,4 0,0 0.1 0.3 11.5 7.9 52.6 13.2 4.6 1 6 1.0 19.8

,

80.2 7 2 68 Cowponite Roogn 966,7, floodwoy 0.2 2.4 12,0, 5.1 29.5 15.9 9 2

.

3,6 5 1 2 6 4 , 20.3 79 7

,

65

70

Spot

Spot

Roog. 966.7, floodwoy

Roogo 966.7 riven bnr

80.2

98 0

T14.

2 0

0.1

TR

'110, 1'R 0.1 0.1 1.6 13,3 15,0 56,9 3.7

,

1.0 1.0

,

9.7

.

30,3

,

68.7 8,4

104

71

72

Cornpo.(te

Spot

,

Roogn 971.8, went Ovwov, nec.

Rnnge 971,6 wont overflow or..

,

87 0

, , 0,2 1.2 93

'

40.6 26,9

35

(2,4

6 5

3,5 1,2

2.1 16.6 14,2 15 10,2 6.1 5.5 4.9

97.3

12.1

2.7

87.9 14,9

73 Spot

,

Rnngo 971,6, wont ovo,flow even

,

48.3 TR. 1 8 229

'

2.7 5.6

0 5

1.1.0 16,

1

13.0 6,5 5,3

18.7

4.8 27.4 72,6 18.0

74 Cowponitn Rooge 973.9, coot overflow ore. 0.2 0,9 13.7 5.7

.

27.1

0.8

13 8

0,

8 1

12,6

5 4

14.7

4 2 4,3

18.4

4 4

0,2

20 0

99.8

79 5

28,5

75

76

Coepo.ite

Coewonite

Rnn.ge 990,9, went ovorfiow ore.

Son Aoton,o Bridge, floodwny

3,0 0,1 5,1 1,7 28.8 10.6 34.2

.

11,0

0 7

.

4.3

8 2

.

1.5 73

.

7.3

7 4

. .

41.3

.

58.7 6.1

12,2

77 Spot Se,o Antonio Bridge, floodw.y 94,2

3.4 6,9 2.9 20.9

0 3

1 .

0 8

.

4.1 11.7

.

16.8

7.1

24 0

7.3

19 9

10,2 89.8 209

78 Spot Son Anton,o Bridgo, 9oqdwny 81.4 0.3 1.8 3.2

.

45 2

.

22.7 9.0 3.8 2.9

,

2,3

, 0.2

53

99.8

79 947

80

Spot

S t

Son Aotonio Bn,dge, nioer b.n

S A t B id fl

501,2 3,9 0.0 TR. 0.1 8.0 0,2 1,0 14.5 25,6 14,4

,

33,4 4,1 0.9 1.2 1.0 95 8 44 2 3 6

55

81

po

Con,ponite

On n ototo r ge, oodw.y

Rooge 997(18), went onn,flo.e ore.

55 25.9 52.9 18.3 8.6 3,2 1.8 3.8

,

1.0

.

99.0

.

82 Co,rg,ocite : ::: 0 0 0 1

02 1 9 139 5.6 16.3 4,1 7.2 9.9 8.6 6.8 6,8 21 6 78.4

80.8 . , 0,1 1.5 18,4 8.3 28,4 71.5 6.3 it fltr 00 TR 01 01 03 10 45

30.1 21,0 9.9 6,6 6.3

786 184 259 1(4 218 508 392 67 86 Cowpo.ito Rooge 1004(F), eo,t overflow 0,00 11.1

'

307 6,9 8,0 o, 99s 87 Cotoponitn Roege 1005.7(C), went ol 14 roiiw.y 03 '

'

3.5 30 21.6 78.4

.6

88 Coo4,o.itn Roogo 1506,5(A), ooerflow One. 00 'OR, ' !

8.4 110 ,o o 10,3 7 7 923

94

89 Spot Roge 5009.5(A), wOCt ovenflowore. 75,5 , 38 199 8 36 5 8.7 45 26 3.8 2.2

.

32 1 67 9 10 5

22.3

80 Spot Rottge 1006,8(A), COOt overflow .ron 80.9 'OR 0 1 0.1 'OR. 0.

0 1

0 5

0 1 - '3 1

09

1 6' 14 9

II 462

9

70 79

:

42

:

. .

1 0 0

.

. . .

. . 19.7 .5 2.1 0 9 0 7 0.8 1.2 .
Table 6

UNIT WEIGHT DATA--1952 VS. 1957 SAMPLES GATHERED AT SAME RANGES

1952 1957 _________

S l

Unit

i ht

Gradation

________

S l

Unit

ei t

Gradation

Location

amp e

no.

we g

#/ft3 Clay Silt Sand

amp e

no.

w gh

#/ft Clay Silt Sand

Range 90 R-7 31.8 73 26 1 1 37.7 64 34 2

Range 89 R-8 29.5 71 27 2 2 34.9 79 20 1

Range 86 R-.9 29.3 72 26 2 3 31.0 76 23 1

Range 85 to 84D R-1O 28.4 72 26 2 4 31.6 75 24 1

Indian graves to R-1, 2 33.4 70 28 2 5 34.4 82 17 1

three cedars & 3

Range 72 B-5 35.1 72 25 3 6 33.6 78 21 1

Old glory to R-6 37.1 71 27 2 11 36.2 80 19 1

range 82W

Range 38 8 69.5 46 25 29 16 70.4 82 17 1

Range 381 to 13 80.6 14 41 55 17 82.9 11 60 29

creosote

Range 27 2 & 73.9 53 41 6 20 79.1 21 66 13

2A

Range 21 10 69.7 40 45 15 22 77.2 67 32 1

Range 19W to 18E 9 86.1 14 33 53 23 87.8 5 52 43

Total 604.4 668 370 172 636.8 720 385 95

Avg. 50.3 55 31 14 53.0 60 32 8
Table 7

DENSiTY CURRENTS

Elephant Butte Reservoir

INFLOWING OUTFLOWING

Water Cn- SedimeK€ Water ncen- Sediment WäT C9ë''- Sediment

Dischar e tration Discharge Discharge tration Discharge _______

Discharge tration Discharge

c s 33 T / da

________

Date Th pm TT8 Date ppm TI da

7-5-19 7,840 107,800 2,280;000 7-7-19 1885 37,800 199,000 9-26-29 574 39,700 61,500

7-8-19 2,611 24,700 l74;000 7-8-19 1,863 37,800 197,000 9-28-29 574 56,200 87,000

7-11-19 5,437 106,700 1560,000 7-9-19 1,895 37,800 201,000 10-1-29 482 61,400 80,000

7-14-19 2,273 34,400 211,000 7-10-19 1,895 37,800 201,000 10-4-29 482 55,600 72,500

7-16-19 8,450 68,400 1,560,000 7-15-19 1,627 37,800 172,000 9-22-31 644 29,800 51,800

7-19-19 8,017 66, 900 1,450,000 7-18-19 1,205 37, 800 127, 000 9-23-31 699 52, 100 98, 400

7-22-19 5,682 42,800 656,000 7-19-19 1210 37,800 128,000 6-23-33 991 26,800 71,800

7-31-19 2,340 43, 100 272, 000 7-20-19 1,220 66, 100 218, 000 6-24-33 1,007 24, 900 67, 600

8-2-19 7,600 147,600 3,030,000 7-21-19 1,220 42,400 140,000 6-25-33 1,296 41,600 146,000

8-6-19 2,300 31, 400 195, 000 7-22-19 1,230 64, 400 214, 000 6-26-33 1,598 38, 700 167, 000

8-9-19 1,424 26, 900 103, 000 7-23-19 1,300 80, 500 283, 000 6-27-33 1,683 49, 000 223, 000

7-23-21 3, 530 70, 500 672, 000 7-24-19 1, 300 80, 500 283, 000 6-28-33 1, 793 26, 800 130, 000

7-26-21 8,650 80,700 1,890,000 7-25-19 1,278 80,500 278,000 6-29-33 1,793 41,500 201,000

7-29-21 6,205 112,600 1,890,000 7-26-19 1, 185 77, 300 248, 000 6-30-33 1,793 2,000 9,700

8-1-21 5,403 70,000 1.030,000 7-27-19 1,170 92,600 293,000 7-2-33 1,574 300 1,270

8-4-21 3,808 35, 100 361, 000 7-28-19 1, 190 40, 300 129, 000 7-3-33 1,954 300 1,580

9-9-27 3, 930 102, 100 1,080, 000 8-6-19 1, 785 40, 300 194, 000 8-9-35 2, 193 36, 960 219, 000

9-15-27 7, 100 36, 400 698, 000 8-7-19 1,670 40, 300 182, 000 8-10-35 2,020 22, 960 125, 000

8-8-29 4,860 107, 200 1,410,000 8-8-19 1,750 72, 400 342, 000 8-11-35 1,951 380 2,000

8-16-29 5,970 8,900 144, 000 8-1-21 2, 121 200 1, 140 8-25-35 1,904 18, 200 93, 700

8-25-29 1,220 480 1,580 8-2-21 2, 121 260 1,490 8-26-35 1,904 12, 520 64, 500

8-31-29 2,950 67, 200 535, 000 8-3-21 2,020 360 1,960 8-20-54 368 19, 710 19, 600

9-5-29 3,180 60,500 520,000 9-22-23 1,400 18,400 69,600 8-21-54 371 11,210 11,210

9-19-31 2,670 104,000 750,000 9-23-23 1,400 16,600 62,800

9-25-31 4,950 72,200 965,000 9-24-23 1,400 8,700 32,900

-15-33 3,240 31,500 276,000 9-25-23 1,400 5,200 19,700

-17-33 2, 755 13, 300 99, 000 9-26-23 1, 400 3, 000 11, 300

6-18-33 4,591 57,800 716,000 9-19-27 1,050 61,000 173,000

6-19-33 6,446 91,600 1,600,000 9-20-27 1,050 59,500 169,000

i-20-33 9, '377 78, 000 2, 100, 000 9-21-27 1, 050 54, 400 154, 000

6-23-33 11,240 42, 600 1,290,000 8-13-29 675 21, 600 39, 400

6-25-33 4,882 35, 700 470, 000 8-14-29 675 27, 100 49, 400

6-26-33 5, 744 26, 500 410, 000 8-15-29 675 24, 100 43, 900

6-28-33 2, 722 9, 100 66, 900 8-16-29 675 47, 200 86, 000

7-1-33 1,371 5,800 21, 500 8-17-29 740 43, 900 87, 600

7-28-35 50 1, 140 154 8-19-29 935 17, 600 44, 400

8-5-35 5,700 33, 130 510, 000 8-21-29 1,094 25, 200 74, 500

8-6-35 11,500 70,830 2,200,000 8-23-29 1,283 26,600 92,300

8-18-35 1,050 20, 320 56, 200 8-25-29 1, 283 7,500 26, 000

8-22-35 6, 480 125, 630 2,200,000 8-26-29 1,405 22, 000 83, 500

8-20-54 368 19, 710 19, 600 8-29-29 1,700 22, 100 103, 000

8-21-54 371 11,210 11,210 8-31-29 1,700 200 920
Table 8

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

ELEPHANT BUTTE RESERVOIR

Quantity Unit

Age 1/ ..............................42.10 Years

Drainage Area 2/

......................

.......

.......

.........

.........

.....

.....

..................

.....................

.....................

............

............

............

................

................

................

............

Total Area

Below San Marcial, New Mexico.

25, 923

1,747

Square miles

Square miles

Reservoir 3/

Original area at crest stage

Present area at crest stage

Original storage capacity

Present storage capacity

Original storage capacity per

square mile of drainage area

Present storage capacity per

square mile of drainage area

40, 060

36, 584

2, 634, 800

2, 206, 780

102 Acre-feet

85.2 Acre-feet

Acres

Acres

Acre -feet

Acre -feet

Sedimentation

(Below crest deposits)

Total sediment

Accumulation per year average. .

Accumulation per year average

(1915-1935)

Accumulation per year average

(1935-1957)

Sediment yield per square mile

per year (1915-1957)

Sediment yield per square mile

per year (1915-1935)

Sediment yield per square mile

per year (1935-1957)

Depletion of Storage

Loss of original capacity per

year (1915-1957)

Loss of original capacity per

year (1915-1935)

Loss of original capacity per

year (1935-1957)

Loss of original capacity to

date of survey (1957)

428,020 Acre-feet

10, 200 Acre-feet

18,225 Acre-feet

2,890 Acre-feet

0. 39 Acre-feet

0. 70 Acre-feet

0. 11 Acre-feet

0. 39 Percent

0. 69 Percent

0. 11 Percent

16.2 Percent

1
Table 8--Continued

.......

Quantity Unit

Depletion of Storage (Continued)

Loss of original capacity per

year to date of survey (1957) 0. 39 Percent

1/ Date storage began: January 6, 1915, Date of last survey:

October 16, 1956 to February 14, 1957. Field work was not continuous during this period.

2/ Does not include the noncontributing sediment area, such as

The San Luis Valley (Figure 4 ). The reservoir area, however,

is included.

3/ The elevation at crest stage is 4, 407. 0 feet, project datum,

dd 43. 3 feet to adjust elevations to mean sea level datum.

2
UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

_ _ _ _ _

RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION

DATA SUMMARY

Table 9

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Elephant Butte 57-

NAME OF RESERVOIR DATA SHEET NO.

-

OWNER Bureau of Reclamation 2. RIVER Rio Grande STATE New Mexico jJ

4-SEC. 2/ TWP. 135 RANGE 4W NEAREST TOWNrUth Ilpflpg 6. COUNTY Sierra

'STREAM BED ELEV. TOP OF DAM ELEV. SIDILLWAY CREST ELEV.

- 0.

STORAGE

II.

ELEVATION

12.

SURFACE

13.

STORAGE

4.

ACCUMULATED

5,

DATE STORAGE

ALLOCATION TOP OF POOLS AREA ACRES ACRE - FEET ACRE-FEET BEGAN

°' FLOOD CONTROL 4407 36, 584 _____________

2, 206, 780

b. POWER Jan. 6, 115

C. WATER SUPPLY 6, DATE NORMAL

U)

w

d. IRRIGATION OPER. BEGAN

______________

°' CONSERVATION

_____________

1915 .

INACTIVE 4231 5 Negligible Negligible

LENGTH OF RESERVOIR 41 MILES AV.WIDTH OF RESERVOIR 1. 69 MILES

18. TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA 25, 923 SGMl. 22. MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION 10 to 15 INCHES

9. NET SEDIMENT CONTRIBUTING AREA 25, 866 SQ. MI. ' MEAN ANNUAL RUNOFF INCHES

20 LENGTH 305 MILESAV. WIDTH 85 MILES 24. MEAN ANNUAL RUNOFF 1, 004, 000 (60) AC-FT.

21, MAX. ELEV. 12, 000 MIN.ELEV. 4407 'CLIMATIC CLASSIFICATION Semi-arid

26. DATE OF 27PERIOO 28'ACCL. 2

TYPE OF 30NO.OF RANGES 31. SURFACE 32, CAPACITY C RATIO

SURVEY YEARS YEARS SURVEY OR CONTOUR INT. AREA ACRES ACRE-FEET AC-FT. PER SGMl.

Jan. 6, 1915 0 0 ontoui 10 feet 40, 060 2, 634, 800 102

Dec. 1916 1.9 1.9 2,584,865 100

Aug. 1920 3.7 5. 6 2,498, 850 96

Aug. 1925 5.0 10.6 ontoui 39,406 2,389,380 92

April 1935 9. 7 20. 3 ontoux 5 feet 38, 140 2, 270, 300 88

Oct. 1940 5.5 25.8 ontoui 37, 670 2, 219, 000 86

26.

DATE OF PERIOD ANNUAL

__________

' PERIOD WATER INFLOW ACRE-FEET 36'WATER INFL.TO DATE AC.Ft

SURVEY PRECIPITATION °' MEAN ANNUAL b. MAX. ANNUAL 0'PERIOD TOTAL °' MEAN ANNUAL b. TOTAL TO DATE

Jan. 6, 1915

Dec. 1916 1, 573, 665 3, 005, 700 1, 573, 665 3,005,700

Aug. 1920 1,413, 845 2, 250, 100 5, 188, 810 1,463, 305 8,194,510

Aug. 1925 1, 130, 348 1, 690, 900 5, 651, 742 1, 306, 250 13,846,252

pri1 1935 853, 428 1,444, 200 8, 252, 648 1, 088, 616 22,098,900

Oct. 1940 945, 761 1, 597, 000 5, 201, 730 1, 058, 164 27,300,630

26. DATE OF

___________

'' PERIOD SE DIMENT DEPOSITS ACRE-FEET 38'TOTAL SED. DEPOSITS TO DATE ACRE-FEET.

w SURVEY °' PERIOD TOTAL b, AV. ANNUAL 'PER SGMl-YEAR TOTAL TO DATE b. AV. ANNUAL C.PER SGMl-YEAR

Jan. 6, 1915

Dec. 1916 49, 900 26, 300 1.02 49, 900 26, 300 1.02

kug. 1920 86, 000 23, 200 0. 899 136, 000 24, 300 0. 939

.ug. 1925 109, 000 21, 900 0.846 245, 000 23, 200 0.895

.pril 1935 119,000 12,300 0.475 365,000 18,000 0.694

___________ (125 000) (12 900) (0. 498) (370, 000) (18, "00) (0. 705)

26. DATE OF

,

39AV. DRY WGT.

,

40'SED.DEP. TONS PER SQ.MI.-'YR. 41'STORAGE LOSS PCT. 42SED. INFLOW P PM

SURVEY LBS.PER CU.FT. ° PERIOD bTOTAL TO DATE aAV. ANNUAL b.TOTTOOATE ° PERIOD b.TOTTODATE

Jan. 6, 1915

Dec. 1916 0.998 1.89

ug. 1920 0.922 5.16

ug. 1925

621 907

0.881 9.30

13,900 15,900

-

pril 1935 60 (est.) (651) (921)

0.683 13.9 14, 600) (16, 100
Table 9--Continued

_

26, DEPTH DESIGNATION RANGE IN FEET ABOVE,AND BELOW, CREST ELEVATION

lEO 5JlT751 f4'- J { i j'I'X I I67-47I 47-2'427-1lI ll-Cr.r.-3

PERCENT OF TOTAL SEDIMENT LOCATED WITHIN DEPTH DESIGNATION

Aug. 1925 1. 26 -0.05' 7. 18 11. 1 9.03 5. 86 9. 19 14.3 25. 1 8. 9 4.53

April 1935 0.869 0.38( 5.70 8.3 7.22 4.81 8.14 16.4 27.1 12.9 6.54 1.46

Oct. 1940 0.760 0.33( 5.10 7.45 6.83 5.06 8.32 15.4 26.1 16.3 6.69 1.70

Apr.28,194 0.719 0.321 4.75 7.07 6. 53 5.64 8.66 15.0 24.9 16.0 8. 14 2.21

Feb.12,195 0. 73' 0.32 6.04 10.0 7.64 5.42 7.83 13. 1 22.5 15.6 8.40 2.31

26. ' REACH DESIGNATION PERCENT OF TOTAL ORIGINAL LENGH OF RESERVOIR

DATE OF

SURVEY

0-10 110 -20 20-3030-40 140-50 50-60 I60-70l0-80 I80-90J90-IOO1 -1051 -1101 -115 1

_120J -125

PERCENT OF TOTAL SEDIMENT LOCAED. WITHIN REACH DESIGNATION

Dat not avai able due o c ntou me hod

of sedi ient corn utaf.on.

___________ _________

RAN GE IN RES ERVOIR OPERATION

WATER YEAR MAX. ELEV. MIN. ELEV. INFLOW AC-Ft WATER YEAR MAX. ELEV. MIN. ELEV. INFLOW AC-FT.

1915 4321. 81 l,443,90( 1923 4374. 20* 4368.3* 964, 500

1916 4346.85 4307.29* l,420,90( 1924 4395.80 4370.4* l,690,90(

1917 4354.0 4331.0* 1,310,60( 1925 4379. 20 4354•7* 320, 80(

1918 4326.28 4290. 30* 379,l0( 1926 4378.10 4355. 68* 1, 120, 90(

1919 4364.0 4267. 7Q* l,527,00( 1927 4371. 96* 4363. 02* 1, 178, 40(

1920 4393.87 4351.5* 2,250,10( 1928 4379.10 4359.70* 772,70(

1921 4392. 5 4378. 2* l,607,30( 1929 4374.80 4354. 00* 1, 238, 90(

1922 4389. 50* 4377•5* 1,069,10( 1930 4384.5 4372. 27* 930, 20(

46. ELEVATION-AREA-CAPACITY DATA

ELEVATION AREA CAPACITY ELEVATION AREA CAPACITY ELEVATION AREA CAPACITY

4220

4240 4

1

22

4310

20

, 993

10, 804

259,940

358,450

4390

4396

29, 226

32, 140

1,642,790

1,826,570

50 312 1, 298 30 12, 556 475,150 4400 34, 117 1,959,06(

60 1, 220 8, 590 40 14, 290 608,930 07 36, 584 2,206,780

70 2, 343 26, 253 4350 16, 506 762,940 4410 37, 884 2,318,460

80 4, 004 57, 680 60 18, 504 937,850

90 6,005 107, 730 70 21, 328 1,135,660

4300 7, 698 176, 810 80 25, 455 1,369,87.0

REMARKS AND REFERENCES

1/Headquarters for operation of darn located at El Paso, Texas.

''/Sections not determined--Located inAmendariz Grant No. 33.

*Mean monthly elevations

48. AGENCY SUPPLYING DATA Bureau of Reclamation 49. DATE Jan. 8, 1959
UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

RESERVOIR SEDIMEAITATION

DATA SUMMARY

Table 9--Continued

Elephant Butte (Continued) -

NAME OF RESERVOIR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

DATA SHEET NO,

OWNER 2 RIVER STATE

0

4'SEC. TWP. RANGE NEAREST TOWN 6 COUNTY

7'STREAM BED ELEV. 8'TOP OF DAM ELEV. ' SPILLWAY CREST ELEV.

0.

STORAGE

II,

ELEVATION

2.

SURFACE

3.

STORAGE

4.

ACCUMULATED

5,

DATE STORAGE

ALLOCATION TOP OF POOL AREA ACRES ACRE - FEET ACRE-FEET BEGAN

' FLOOD CONTROL

b. POWER

WATER SUPPLY 16'DATE NORMAL

i)

w

d. IRRIGATION OPER. BEGAN

______________

e. CONSERVATION

_____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ ___________

INACTIVE

7. LENGTH OF RESERVOIR MILES AV. WIDTH OF RESERVOIR MILES

18, TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA SQ. MI. 22. MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION INCHES

9. NET SEDIMENT CONTRIBUTING AREA SQ. MI. 23. MEAN ANNUAL RUNOFF INCHES

20. LENGTH MILESkV. WIDTH MILES MEAN ANNUAL RUNOFF AC..-FT.

21. MAX. ELEV. MIN.ELEV. 'CLIMATIC CLASSIFICATION

28. DATE OF 27'PERIOD 28'ACCL. 29. TYPE OF 30'NO.OF RANGES 3, SURFACE 32. CAPACITY C/ RATIO

SURVEY YEARS YEARS SURVEY OR CONTOUR INT. AREA ACRES ACRE-FEET AC-FT,PER SQ.MI.

Apr.28,1947 6. 5 32.3 Range 90 feet 36, 772 2, 197, 600 85

Feb.12,1957 9.75 42. 1 ontour 10 feet 36, 584 2,206,780 85

26,

DATE OF PERIOD ANNUAL PERIOD WATER INFLOW ACRE-FEET 36 WATER INFL.TO DATE AG-FT

SURVEY PRECIPITATION ° MEAN ANNUAL b. MAX. ANNUAL 0'PERIOD TOTAL °'MEAN ANNUAL b. TOTAL TO DATE

Apr.28,1947 1,154,862 2,440,000 7, 506, 600 1,077,623 34, 807, 230

Feb.12,1957 441,776 1,036,000 4,307,318 930,191 39,114,548

I0 26.

DATE OF PERIOD SEDIMENT DEPOSITS ACRE-FEET 38TOTAL SED. DEPOSITS TO DATE ACRE-FEET.

w SURVEY °

PERIOD TOTAL b. AV. ANNUAL 0'PER SGMl-YEAR °' TOTAL TO DATE b, AV. ANNUAL CPER SGMl-YEAR

Oct. 1940 51,300 9,330 0.361 416,000 16,100 0.623

Apr.28,1947 21, 400 3,290 0, 127 437, 000 13, 500 0, 523

(43, 000) (6, 620) (0, 256) (465, 000) (14, 400) (0. 556)

Feb.12,1957 3/ 428,000 10,200 0.390

26 DATE OF 39'AV, DRY WGT. 40'SED.DEP.TONS PER SQ.MI.-YR. STORAGE LOSS PCI. 42SED. INFLOW PPM

SURVEY LBS. PER CU.FT. ° PERIOD bTOTALTO DATE 'AVANNUAL b.TOT TO DATE °'

PERIOD "TOT. TO DATE

Oct. 1940 0.611 15.8

Apr.28,1947 65. 9 (Est) 182 751 0. 512 16.6 3,010 13, 300

(367) (798) (6,050) (14,100

Feb.12,1957 60.0 3/ 0,463 19.4
Table 9--Continued

28. DEPTH DESIGNATION RANGE IN FEET ABOVE,AND BELOW, CREST ELEVATION

DATE OF

SURVEY

PERCENT OF TOTAL SEDIMENT LOCATED WITHIN DEPTH DESIGNATION

2e. REACH DESIGN ATION PERCENT OF TOTAL ORIGINAL LENGH OF RESERVOIR

OF

SURVEY

0-10 110_20120_30130-40140-50 50_60J 60._70I20_80 J80_90 I90-)0O -10Sf -1)01 .)I5[ -1201 -125

ERCENT OF TOTAL SEDIMENT LOCATED WITHIN REACH DESIGNATION

RANGE IN RES ERVOIR OPERATION

WATER YE ELEV. MIN. ELEV. jINFLOW AC._Ft LMAX. l WATER YEAR MAX. ELEV. J MIN. ELEV. INFLOW AC-FT.

1931

_

4374.17 4351,66* 417,900 1948 4349.22 4313.08 1,036,000

1932 4384.5 4353,26*1,444,200 1949 4351.30 4329.69 1,031,000

1933 4377.9 4365.02* 716,800 1950 4346.01 4315.46 364,100

1934 4367.2 4325.00* 298,300 1951 4315.79 4262.30 132,900

1935 4342.2 4324. 50* 917, 700 1952 4324. 59 4261.64 487, 500

1936 4354.90 4331.83 872,800 1953 4320.49 4283.19 286,800

1937 4380.7 4336.48*1,597,400 1954 4297.30 4258.03 198,500

1938 4377.1 4365.6 1,003, 500 1955 4295.46 4276. 58 257, 900

1939 4378.4 4348.6 615,700 1956 4304.40 4268.44 174,830

1940 4357.04 4323.2 333,100

1941 4399. 2 4324. 3 2,440, 500

1942 4409.15 4397.00 2,322,000

1943 4398.96 4380.82 441,600

1944 4385. 68 4369. 16 982, 500

1945 4385.60 4372.28 851, 500

1946 4375.66 4339. 52 224, 900

1947 4339.36 4311.94 419,200

REMARKS AND REFERENCES

Values listed in parentheses include above crest deposits.

3/ Total storage shows a gain of 9, 180 acre-feet since 1947 survey attributable

primarily to compaction.

U. S. D. A. Technical Bulletin No, 524, August 1939, "Silting of Reservoirs. U

Bureau of Reclamation, February 1949, "Sedimentation Surveys of Elephant

Butte Reservoir." Only the upper two-thirds of the reservoir was surveyed

in 1925 and 1940. Curves from these data were extended over the remaining

lower one -third of the reservoir.

48. AGENCY SUPPLYING DATA 49. DATE___________________
Depth

be I ow

CAPACITY

Table 9--C'oOltthl6d

SEDIMENT VOLUME

crest Omginal 1925 1935 1940 1947 1957 1925 1935 1940 1947 1957 1925 1935 1940 1947 1957

193 0 0 0 0 0 0

3,215 0 0 0 0 0 3,215 3,215 3,215 3,215 3,215 1.26 0.869 0.760 0.719 .734

175.5 3215 0 0 0 0 1

1,445 1,590 40 50 10 21 -145 1,405 1,395 1,435 1,424 0.057 0.380 0.330 tl.321 .325

167 4,660 1590 40 50 10 22

35,040 16,760 13,960 13,450 13,790 8,568 18,280 21,080 21,590 21,250 26,472 7.18 570 5.10 4.75 6.04

147 39, 700 18, 350 14, 000 13, 500 13, 800 8,590

93, 100 64,950 62 100 61, 600 61, 500 49, 090 28, 150 31, 000 31, 500 31, 600 44, 010 11. 1 8. 38 7.45 7.07 10.0

127 132,800 83,300 76,100 75,100 75,300 57,680

152,600 129, 620 125, 900 123, 700 123, 400 119, 130 22, 980 26, 700 28, 900 29, 200 33, 470 9.03 7.22 6.83 6.53 7.64

107 285,400 212,920 202,000 198,800 198,700 176,810

20S,400 190,490 187,600 184,000 180,200 181,640 14,910 17,800 21,400 25,200 23,760 5,86 4.81 5.06 5.64 5.42

87 490,800 403,410 389,600 382,800 378,900 358,450

284, 800 261,410 254, 700 249, 600 246, 100 250, 480 23, 390 30, 100 35, 200 38, 700 34, 320 9. 19 8. i4 8.32 8.66 7.83

67 775,600 664,820 644,300 632,400 625,000 608,930

336, 500 350, 060 325, 700 321, 400 319, 500 328, 920 36, 440 60, 800 65, 100 67, 000 57, 580 14.3 16.4 15.4 15,0 13.1

47 1,162,100 1,014,880 970, 000 953, 800 944, 500 937, 850

530, 700 466, 890 430, 400 420, 400 419, 200 432, 020 63, 310 100, 300 110, 300 111, 500 98, 680 25. 1 27. 1 26. 1 24.9 22.5

27 1,692,800 1,481,770 1,400,400 1,374,200 1,363,700 1,369,870

525,000 502,130 477,100 456,100 453,300 456,700 22,870 47,900 68,900 71,700 68,300 8.99 12.9 16.3 16.0 15.6

11 2,217,800 1,983,900 1,877,500 1,830,300 1,817,000 1,826,570

417,000 405, 480 392, 800 388, 700 380, 600 380, 210 11,520 24, 200 28, 300 36, 400 26, 790 4. 53 3.54 6.69 8. 14 8.40

Crest 2,634, 800 2,389, 380 2,270,300 2, 219, 000 2, 197, 600 2,206,780 254, 420

121,800 116,400 114,600 111,900 111,680 5,400 7,200 9,900 10, 120 1.46 1.70 2.21 2.31

3 2,756,600 2,386,700 2,333,600 2,309,500 2,318,460 369,900 423,000 447,100 438,140
Space intentionally left blank due to security concerns 

___

;-:-' /

1' -

ij I \ ---t------1(-- T] ' /_ :: -44t SLETAINDJI 4 ,

____

.1 - / '

k\ RESERON ,

\

r i ' - - z_

: ' ff/4r1L® LL __* :i :Lr

l

X\LAI A

NCE

NL,-7 LA

;

-3.. 1 ReyI ----:

L

UPPER RI 0 GNDE DRAI NAGE BAS IN on

,

-

9

-

T5S r LV 1ft: 1 L\r\: N

"wj t5 i 4

£ -

N

)i :- -

:1

\

Jfl

r

t A S I E- A )) 4 TUL4ROA

fo 1RsERyt

L :

LD

J0TEStT4

6 G t AT i :

\, J LAM?GORDO - --

_ P(cH4DWER$/ON 01 1AORCE

rIey 4

9 1 \. /

/

H EXENTAL z j

9

4

*RAGE

r-- /

C \j /. 4SURC O/VER OM\L /1

- /

S8U4AML - \

- - -

CC N \ 4 1 OflC j PROVNGGROUNOS Orogonde -- -

j

D 0 N

!ANA

L

4 7, TN

WE5TS1LJ[ i

t--I H NEC

4js * - - MONTOVA S/HON -

/29S H E L P A S 0

A QSHOHASE

*

N

MEAN Of V(RSfON O4M T E X A S

VERSOEAO(P YSLERAJ CANAL /

- - MONTANA DAIIOTA

-

7 H U D s

/ 1-1 7ACANJ/AM4

04N4L

UTAH CotORAT:5\

DEPARTMENT OF THE tNTERIOR

/ (XICO OSCAR L CHAPMAN S(CR(TARY FAkS IW$Tt CHANYWL /

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION fSLANO DRAIN SIP - - osir REGLILATAO

-__Lr* 1(%A5 MICHAEL W STRAUS COMMISSIONER INJOSPETH F((O(R CANAL NO / NYSERVOIR NV I

ME x o N ,NJOSPFTN FEEDER CANAL NO S /

IIQOSP(TN CANAL R I 0 G RAND E P R 0 J E CT /

INDEX ' N E W M E XI CO -T E X A s

COtETEQ AYW NATMORIZED WORKS ALAMO HEADING - -

- CANAL POWER PLANT

tRKSION V) - - - SIPHON SUBSTATION

MAP NO 23-503-5059 FLUME * PROJECT HEADQUARTERS

TRANS*SSICR LINE AREA SERVED BY PROJECT WORK SCALE OP MIlES

9 6 24 32 TRAN955SlON L& AREA UNDER WERNER ACT CONTRACT - PROPOSED

JANUARY isso FORT 01/IT4N

LAMSENE GSE PNOJIETU U4ofNo STATION
/

/

/

(-II-)---

/

/

/

/

/

\\

)

(

1

,,0

I)

Il-I'

\

I

/

/

/

/

/

/

I

)

__)

1

'0

/

_

,0

,,0

/

/

I

0LOrdSbo.9 '0

Prb/,c

'O,__ '0

/

'00I

*1NTA FE

0L0s Vegos

CONE HAS

MESERVOrN

BRIOOII)IO

to LOS

A oag fE /rE L,*P0l voogho 50)040*00)000

I W,II000 0 11000000IM

(

ID Co,ooo E/ectr'c Cope'o/.'e

S P MOuntC'flOlr ,

0,0

)

/0

(1000*1000,0) -'°

,,Coo000

MOOdOINnO

U

Socorro E/Rcfr,c Cooperctio'e

EP1IANT

10(5(04(1

04)0 SAIL'

,,

offlot5pr;tlçs Ll,04tAfll 0

IL°I CASA110

j'0/,0510 volt

0

oRu

POWER & STORAGE DIVISION

HEADQUARTERS AT ELEPHANT BUTTE I

FOR ALL POWER AND STORAGE FACILmES

50100(15 SU.S10100NS AMA IRAN$NlS01000 LIONS

ttftsO,5G INTO 5500*050154 1(10,11001

Honda Roswe)l

Rodos% Coo,tv Po,A/,C Serv,0e Cpooy

U

Otero Coototy Electric CooperQtl5

00

(1

PLANT

TutorOSO

C)oudcroft

ID

/100'omCo !' ""°

Otoro CQoAtyC/eCtlOc CooperoSve

0 A)amogordo

Covn*tooty P&O),c Sero,ce Cgypoa

____________________________

LAKE

LAS CRUCES DIVlSON MOU/LLA

EADQUARTERS AT LAS CRUCES

FOR IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE

CrlibRd

$04t,e Sonds Prov,,,ç Groundg, Army

UN/TED STATES 0C04osnbA

MEXICO

I RIO GRANDE PR

I L READQUARI

[öJECT OFFICE AT EL F

SCALE OF MILES

0 20

El Paso E/eolr,c Compoay

dOTh EsS 5515 toLl Poo, 000

SAIs',OQ 01101 ProJ.vt 400*,

• wild (ofenvon fo Yap Horn

-- NEW MEXICO__

TEXAS

CNT0 IMPROvEMENT DIS TROd

HEADQUARTERS AT EL PASO TERAS ____________________

HEADQUARTERS AT YSLETA I \ FOR IRRIGATION D DRAINAGE I

JECTI \,ro RATN AND MAWTENANCE I

0405000k ___________________ -

/TH COUNTY CONSERVATION

----_AND RECLAMATION DISTRICT SQl

WARREN ACT CONTRACT)

jARTERS AT FT ((ANGOLA TEXAS

OA?mon

0von Horn

LOCATION DESCRIPTION

Tb, G,o G,.oiIr Ibrn,,01 oo, ,,00 II, 0101 holl,,0 load of III

R,oli),,.od,VoI)n,,tn.o,rhognlr.I\,,oM,,oo.od r*lrrITNIIOII

Trot,,lhOorot00lrd 5,,. 1 *10510101010INI1 110)010 orT,,I

I'rop'oI".I,r right Ion,) ,tlrhd,n, fr,,!, 10(1 n,,)?. 11,10th 0 II)

n,,s)l,r.,,I of hr ('lIT of Ill Pot,, Tooo,,oh N IlOtITlONO ,ooollh (If

on)vlTn,Ion Ihnll,,,fNpIh),'ooi,l, ii,,,,t,r,tI1o,to,,,I0,,1.n,*1,,T

110*,,,, 1 10 flg loll.,! or,rral,00 11*0, *,oI lIrEOAAr ,,,,ll,n, 0,,"

0*1,1 **orl0,g 0,, loo.o otol of lb. )0o, I. !,0l,bOlI* • ),110T,?'f

IOolI,00 5.10,1 th. I',,,,,o t,,,fh ,rr,g.b)r.r,'.,foprr,,oInlAIn)0

10)0*1* rOt fIt l,IIIr,1.l,,,,,Nl T*,,.tr NIt •flhO,l0 ,I,,t,*fl,oof 00)40*

N rI tool of ,,.lrl triO 'ToO ',OO 1' 00 0 TtA), .,.,tth),, for I,,,,,

Soot, ,, ,,,o* tO( 1,1 1 l,,sr,,, *r,.,ot hr SI, 11010(0

..,*orNr,n,o,lho 1,1,, ),,l,lo ) 0, 0,oo,,t ,,t'.ob

*1)1, 00*0.010.10,,) I,, ololIro,,, 0,,' 0" lOIN Thro' iT, It,,

F),,tths,t br, 0,101,,! I oItoV, U -oorio,, o,,dIhr )'OolrI I *011

011(110,) ROlot lIt,,)),, *,,,)0 '000 ViGOr

till 'I,, Stool). I oIl,', lorIs',, .o,ri)s,),,) Ut,, tIlT I,000htOt N,,,)

11,11* lo I, Tb,, 0,,,,,,. 0,ols,, o,,boIr,,,t too 0l"l1)lth)

lh,*IrT,,0011110

TI,. Pr,r', I it opo,ooo) to II,,.,, 0,oos,o 11,1 )',,,,,,ro,,

SI, nor 11,,.,,,, , 1, Or,) I,nI,toorllro*t E)rpOo,,r Roll,, SIll

S1,,fi,ohr b*o (r,,,r It,, .,on ,toh ON' 0 11*0,, .10.0 NI 3,0,

roll o h(r,,,,O II, 5,,, Moot,, p ,,,,,,,o)thrrr000,l.ro4

tO 0, o,000)M 0,1* OoIl,,o N,,,) oh,,) 11(001 0 roN l *1*, 1.0*,

0o)tlTlhO lo,,,ood of rh, Strolls U.)),,, oodth,, Yt),)A

I1,,,o,o,,01 To),) h,,.,),j,,zrl,.o El I/ott Traso (or lb. 0) I,,,,,

liii,, ,,T,.go Th,,,,,*,,, l'rorol odrn,n,flIrtl,,,,00lO,, Il toot,,,) NI

F)lS,, Too

),,Olrt,-tfi p0, ',),ool ,r tO, ,.,r,010t00t10ll opor*tton 01,) tO,,

100*004,0) ot,t, 0111 I the ,,stoo0lhrl1r,0*tIn0fil0Y1tl h.sr

b,,o,),ot,,r,1 *110 ,,1h/fi,, E)nph.or OnTo Irrtg.l,00 l(,,,lTot oilS

,10 ,o or l,sn 010,,, 5,,,, 04,,,,,,, In,, 5,, Oem I1,otoo poll,ntt of Ii.

'llUo t.ro,tlO100t0000,,f ,,.tor,, ghI).,,,)t,,th otOft 'OIl

.,,T,,t0000lrnt,otfln,toOI,00llo,l 1 15,01115 *ol ,,,fh hr

F) l's'.,, (0(1,11, lOot.,- )mpr,ronrt,l 0,11101 5,, 1 OttO 0ff0 01

El l*o, T,,** 1,1 tSr boo, pool 0l of ho Proj. l.rrt ,,f 07 104)

011,1,1 l',torlli),tlt,OtOlh ol,lol,,,n,Irtol,no ,-o,l,,r000nl,of

oh) got,,,,, I,) 14211 tb

O 11',,,,, h,r tol,to,tl, ho fl,l,)rprlb Co,,,,l, 10010rt*l000

.,,,Oo,).o,oto,, tro,tr,tNo)o,thh,,a,1,I,,.rl,,rrtl FIOI.,,o, A.

Tort) 1,ro,,,loolt,tob, th*t,l,,rrt t,fl0,,r',-torr,,,lO,gt't*tr

sod ,lro,,,*g,, 11,11,, II ,,,oN, I, oo hr 01,01 'ti) oIlS,' l'r,orotto

.t,pooro*t 10(04) jlr,ol to,) 1,,!,,, tI )'tijeo I U. 11,1,,,

0) 011th 10 "III 1.0 tI,,, 1,,t,,,, It, ,''lo 0/Ito,,,,) lr,t*,r

.1,1 on ooprrol br sod too

11111,',tl lIthor,,gr,o,,,',,t,,O plo boo' 0011,00 .,t,l

tt*,g,',lot,org' 0,00 '1 ,,,ol,,p,t,a lIar 010101 one) TO,,

,,t,,l',,o,at'tte,o' I olt,l,1011poloIt)o loot

04ATER SUPPLY

It,. Pr,1o ttt*lor r,,ppl 000,00,, toO *rgo*trd 10

l,,*o,,t)thrtloo,) t,*t,,roo)th,0,otirs 0, 11,00 Gntt,00

dnnsg, 1*,,,, .5 Ulophnot 10,111 P1*o,,oOto,flo

o,4t,orr In 11*101) h,,or,,ot,oogotfl,,5) noff ,1 .00 I

'tO)ttOOO t ,o 1,ot ot 5, 1l,r,,t' 'So 5.',' o' 0.11,50'

0,,1te Ilrlnt 0 0 TOT 0000) * t,t,*I tolrt,,fto,, IT, PIll

,,,t'tro,ertoro1o,,rrgot,,t,,,,)t,,IngI0,0(00'',1r1l*

0100,00(0,10)10) t'tl ltl )°oo1rt,p,rtt I, m*otr

I,,so*gr,,rr,oo T,,,onrd,,,rt,,,I 01,0 0011) trto,,gh IS,'

,,o'i rOot 0 00 1* 1 I he 01,000'

idUJOR STRUCTURE FEATO RES OF TIdE

PROJECT PlAN

ELIoI'IIA',T IICTTE (IA',f bOlt 000501'tIft o,, rho

RIO )'rol,Ir 125 mtlr, ,,,trttr ,,l C) l'tt TrnaOtlo','O

O)'lIOlO)ai,o 1001,1 SIll lt7 0,11 S,,otot101,r,llott

g,o*l ,sp*o,t, too" ),.t0 loOt OIl,, 1,-ott,, p*oi,lr t tlg*

1,011 tlttlr, Or 10100,0,) g,,*,rrtltnl, ,It,ot,,,n Tb 0 tot

1,55 r,o,lotr*tl,ttttel 311) fret high, l,,00,l*liOn II 201*

p.1 200 loot o)d o,teo ho,) to 1,10000, .00 1674 f,,01 1,0(1

,rl)tOd,n0 the ,pd)t'oe TIlT lot, tot, 00510110 ,o )tbI tot

nt010groportt,to begat, In

15,001105101110 (IISA\K0IE'OT ,ofioototb 0,1,1

rook 00, 01000,tr fs,'r,) trr,,torn ),at,o)o 1000 *

to,, roll,, forth,, ,,*1 ol II,, (to, I help lot,, lb treer,,to

13 0.1* 01*111,1 t,, bo,ght of 50 )o,,l*n,l is 111(1) 5.1101,0

It,*oeoT,Ir,1,tod I, '0,16

E000I(AST StIlE l'tIlO'Ett 31,1ST 00100*1 111 0

h,don/rot,,,o poi,01 pItOt0*thrd,tt0l,tIt hr,,,d,,ol,,*

g001lttflR oTto opr,,ar,,d It, ,rtUr tom thro 1,,,,,, poll

ot,,hs F,o,htn,lht, trnlr,l topa r, ofTlOOkl000tt

I

pot,.o pIt0! t,*,,oo.l*o,led 011mg rho poliol) 1100 -III

)SGR,6l,1,t) 1)511 AOl) RF,OEft0'ItIl) o,,tt,T 0,, 1 tori,)

* 1,1.. doti lill0040 Iron E)rphsrl Doll, 110,0 t Itt A

'.po,itilf t-l,l70 otrr tool TI ,n ,, Nfl .t,'rh II), *mL 1. .1

,ltoot,,00 lhlr,,Ih,gb.otdA190fool)Ong T)t,,l*norottIo'

pi)rrd In 10)0 01.1,0 otod for "'file, ger,ornr,000Iporol

or 0l,,pT*or 0101, A hId hr. m Oltlo(1, f,,r,r1t001,00 to,,

0,010(1 the

l'ERCItA 00*1011) P110 0111041115 0)0<01 A°711 ('HAS

SE) •rr too.l,d 000 lolIr 100.1 01 Cob.15. Onto br Il,,,

of food ,o*,rrf 11116, 0,1010 SIt IS,, o0000I,,,

Tb, d,ko,.*,t,Arrb (II 23 fret 0o*,o,,ttn h,,,ght 34(I) (o,t

long ,o,,glot,rl,d fl 1335

000(115 l)IVEOSIOI. DAM ot, ho R,o br*I,dl,lr'l,,*

do,on,rrs.m loom (01.1)0 Ibm 0,loo! solo,- sIn hr 0,0)0!,

boll,,, hItiT I oot In,, to,g*l,oo pootto,,. ThIs ,. o rt,I,I,

1,tO,nrtr 0111 14 1,0 h,gh.nd fIb fort loOn Ogol .r,tIOfl

,o,00!t,l0l0tO0l' g.,,goad,.rrhGlld'keN Tb INtroelol.

,,s*on,p)rlod fl 110)

010)1)5 04) LEG' 445)1 (ASS) for loll') 0(1 n,tto

1,,,, ho ,,t,g,roO of 1615,1) *or,* 1 5, Rtfi,on 5.11,,, .301

m)rn,,, g,ndh*oon 01,0) o.pn,d,ofSlHN00*'dlOOt

)lAftFIEl,l) 01,1140 ,,retI,,, 5,0 o00000 4 m,br*n,,rh

'or, ho lI,orrs,on Ohm so .INOI r,,-o.. ,InirIflrr 1000500

t,oo, borroIt tOtS torI org lo, r.rr),05 the trr,05r000t,,.lrO

nf lIt? R,goofi Stir) Sh,n (*o,o tIer lb. Ro (Oooodn

HAICII 01011111 ,od,o ISO Ro 1)0010.0 oIls. .o,*h

olrh,A.rlodFlomn,*o,TnII,fo.rrtotOlirN bf.rtmd,.m

.1.1 toO 610 torI long fo,,ootrooog 'Tgttion 10.100 of rIse

fI,0,'nn I'ItIro Slam ('On. to,d,r br Aro C,,40,fr

11)501)0 0101100 mOor rho l1,o tlr.oofo 0 mtt,, toolS'

roOt of rho 14.000 Siphon ISO on,roro,rrts,,l,100 5 focI In

dsrn,ter,od 550 tool org foo r.lrnolg 11 gNl,00 n.1N1Of

ho Utnooo 041101 Mom ('on.) ondo,, ISo Iho torondo

LEAO0I,'00 ))IVEASI1II' 3350 On ho Uo Grind, 12

n,1t,.n1r,,b,111lPo*oo*fboho.,Iotth.jA*,00"*A0l 0

• eubbtr,00lIrl, mo,., 10 fnor blob ond 600 trot long 0*15

*,rnh OIl 0,15, 1U,o .lrorraro ,tinrll. ,00I,r 1110 hr ISO.

FACTUAL DATA ABOUT THE RIO GRANDE PROJECT

bnlg (sn,l foe hr Apper 41,0(01 ocr,. n1 NRC Moollo V/I.)

r,,gor0T orotom COnlpIol.o4 ,n '100 ,I, roo.Ib,,r 'rIb 0

on,)o. ol tbo Lrtafo,g Coo/, roo.n,lof,d ISo 0n,*Ieo,,.frtoo

100 monk on hr Potojoo* by nh Bnooto of Rool.m.r,on

LEA55000 CASA,f to, rorolmg N'r,ottnon StIr? 0

hr ((0.11)0 O'.l)r) 0*16 Ott.. long .00 hi. 011 0101*10*040,11

,,IOSbto,o,rdforO

p)CA(IlA Ft1'AAE o'er oh, Us, Orood, 0 10,105 .oolh

nt L,,oohtsrg 0,1015000 üon, so nnool tens, .l,,00forr 10)2 Trrt

long 1,11010(00 hr lmgNtooo ,ralrrof fho 1'i .tbo Boon, It

otIS, I,ooob, rA OIofi*J 0, CI hr ho, Io'ro,rdr

MUSII,Ld DttPRROlo,(lL DAM 01 16, 0,,, band, 40

ml., torIb II El Ptso too loon , 11T lOre H0l. nthal 1*11

01Il 1,1015? foIl blAb aol N) fr,,t long. • lb b,do or,)

nob OIl 3,110. Ito, slroorot, d,,Orli 10*1000101 be UsnI

00? .,,d 01001 04, Coo.L,, loo IS, onCe 13)110 0' IrE of II,,-

1t,,o,lla 0*1 rt lrb0A*,0050.lenI II on ooo,plotn,I ,, 1310

EAST 0100' 0551, foe 000r, ttl ,oogOr,00 0.1cr 10 ISo

01,tolIoV*ll0o ,tlkAmd,n),,og*odI,os.m,ot,t) opt,r, 01

IGEgoo000frot

0)015? 0)118 CANAL for e.rrlmo 00(1*1,00 nO,., In

tb,Mr,,ll.Otltrr'OSllmIIrtlongondboaon,fi,t,il

it, ofhlon,,otodllet

SfOOTItl'A Alf'R1t10 ,00or Is,. RIo t',,,t,,0 02 to,l,,,

do,,nontroro to,,,,, fhr 5f.,dlo Ift,t'r,,,o flog, ,00',,o,,rrt,,

or, 03 rI DIr,' 3 tnobr, In dto,n,,,le nnd Aol loot l,rog 1,,,

*n.,l,0,rOI(1*t '0 ,enror ,s,dre ho Ron Ilotod,, Itt 10,, toot

,od of Gl,,,ll, O'tllop

1405105,5 P016515 SIPItItY ,0000t,00lr 01101100,

l.rlnd,oterl,,I OodGOOfoofiloogto,oanyll,.dloVo)l,,,

00,1 s,d,, 010(0 tOtter onotrr t1*r root too oIo'ro 001 ft

lb. rNlrrnlI lomtr *040105. vo1)e

AMERICAS 10150051115 ttdfd on he II,,, 131*ndo 2

),noortSoert oSRI Pono, ond Imt000ISf,It .11,0, IS? p0fl,

,h,on the o,,to h,lfilflrN 16, IoI,t'oot,,nNI Robl001tn 1,10,,

of ,rr gOrlon ,r,erl, 5,01 l'.m 0'.de,

for Ito 0,' II, binro,, on n,Oe Tb,, tot tod,.( *010 orrolton,,

lOfeelhI000,,,tDtOtr,,Ibongo,lho.elhOI)dk,,,iro.,

I ,,ntr,,t,,I) t, 0)8 and o 05,0010,1 5, rh,, Antor '4! 00,11 on

,,( the l,Irr,ot, tb) Roonlort (',,rr,mno,,t,l,Ileg,t).ro do

0100 to Mx,o In o,,00,Io,,,e 0,15 TrotI p,,o

104001, 45 (AbA) ol.o,o,,olr,otr,) t,,1 ,,lmlorod I,,

ISo 50cc,, 00 tt,,IIionof be Ioloe,,,gl,00aI (lotsd.ro ('to,

10 00,00 I ,ttlltO,loflt, ,th 15,, Amer 040, l),,or,,t,,,, Don,.

*lt,ea?t,ot,OI,O (100,0,' lIlt he Ar,rr,*n ,,(e It,,,, rOT dot

It ho too) ,l thl Pr.t,hbul,ntl

lb * tst,0 It II 1,00) to oo,l I

01001) 0', llll'ERS),t\ ItAM hr R,t 11000110 atE)

I Ill' I ,,oott,ti of rrloror, atoll Sfo,,o IS,,

,00rIO),, 110 III ood ,,o ,,,t,,oIe,,lllro it hood nI

Tot,) loll 5041 o,,,l 1110 for' lo,,p It,,oa otto (o,,o,.tlt

010C01111 belt',*t,h),,, )ot,*l II 0 t,01

O 1t*l0Ith'I'ID0Iltlb*

I'005f,I IS' AIIM I,,tInrrl Og 05111' III II, F) 'on,

b'oI),,N)IOI lrolofigNodSnso,OtIloI,opOI'Ilb of lIt

lr,',,,,Il bolt ,, ,rrol"IGIIlo,r,,n,,, IS, lIppeO Poll 00 Ii) ISO

,orrt,,l,,)oI,o,,r lot I all lrI,pattttt, oIl,

I '0 oIto,rt h, he S,tr ,, ol So,I*,tttl'o,

l'll''l,t, I'ti to of ttI' I'!ll

0110115)1 0 flEAItI\t , rho,,,, I I'?l)rlt,,olO,l,

loot, '1, t),,l 000tbIlo lott, Os Ol'l broIl ,I 0 I'*o,

I ,,1,,r,,Irorh,' flt,'o,tIlo 0',,,,oI',,l,rt,,al,o,

111rt01 II , oro,I,filroI,,, ,I't0,tlI,Itt 10 loot hot

o,,,21,01,,',,t or,,tSl,o,lb pot*ooo*ttdr0rlh)I

(bra I,,o olr,t,tI,) 10 tl'

OIl LOSI 00 0,05 0 ),,100lo" It rltI It lle1

r,oI7l)'o lol , ,,lSl t,,l,,),,,,ro ,hos ,t'lNl,fiP*'

11 (10 o,,,,llc,,ttoo lIt, flt,t,,,t tI 1,

I tl,I 1/10) SIt) 010,11101 ),ib olrpI 0

III ,,ot, I,, Al II ,dflpolh 1)1111?

11,0', I I (AbAl,. 0 '001111, oh ,lbl,oroI)e I

1,11 'or,., t,( rt,041,00 10101 1,i II,, ,,,,ll,,,,,t El I'ao,

0*3 ot nl2 00 bar .rd h.o an

151.0511 00035 I)l'lIlt't an,,t,,-oI 0111,1110 U fool

tl00oli1ol 07t'tloetl,,,g lt,oero, '001,0 04r,olt)0o,l

log,, ,*t,r I, tI 'f 1000*6,0005 OlIo honor,), 1,10111 rho

II,,,',, 0,101 0, tlr't ),rl,,tt ho ott 0001 ,,lth,, pr,ol

1100. I'htl,tl3Cl 11111 01 )I', 5051011 ,,,,,,,oln 0) a

11001,, 0,1000) ,tto hI,tI,tttIttll,O

nI lo.p

mo ,lro,ooo )tl,00rgn,) 14 I,, )t ,') ,1l, Ithht tr,th

td,ll,o,,l,),,,1o,oIr,t'ttroo 3,010 ,) .b'to

II 310 '01)) 131110111 SG),,ITlIl', 'ITOTOOI

0 ''0 '1'50, I ,,pof*ftog 0.01, jIll) ,lra,o,r 1010.1 tot,

,ote1to I o

tAo lo,trr ofi,) 00th '1 pt l,dnt * 0001,0,,

01,10,1*1 l,ted 1024 ,o,l ,ro OlloONhellI 10100 0'OO,

Ib,,, , 001110 I rmal) rr',ol,I,,rs sod t 004.rXlOt )'O 0,10

Oo Sto I 0 In tolls, for doatroo,o, 1 4)) toll,, bol 0 lhr

PIlE rtlI(SII1 510105 10*1010 1 IS,, '40)0) Ott'

h,,Ire,et,,p,ore ptont ot Ehphool St,ttg lIon tot tEl

3l,l\ IILEODKOT,tj,.,,*,lr.,or,tno,00 I,,,., nO,

01 10 lot, , Th,oo •re rho Fl ,phort ltttllr I,.r I

A)*olOgI,l)1 30 ItmoOd lIot,Ioe, Ir oilS lop', I Tb 0

0*0)0 Alto, trAnanot t'ro,,og Or,,,,d 00,3 AIs ,,lgordo

*0100 5,1 F,e),l 17371 r,000, enl,Nloo, led 0 br tot on to

3040 ootro lod 1345-47 rho 11I,phonl Rotln Efrto,t

ooh •5 I, tIofi Epo ng*, 110500105 ,'onatoo, to, 341,

ttnr Opr,Og, lop 0100 to r,pl4000 13(0<0,3700). 1,10

ItflCOn,l0,ItOI) or 1045 ond the E),pho,,t II ,'t 'r,,,o*,t

In,, 710, , I oo, oonalr,, 1,0 II 347 3040 Tbo,o.ro/to

lilt ro,lrt ,,t ,IittlobfitlOn mes fl lh 8I,phol t PI,lte I 011)2

5000 0,bolat,o,,o Ate 40051.0 or rho •botttte,,t,o,,r, 110111,

00011,1 SI lt I ltffl ,obere there ,sodt.N,tl h,ng ttatt,tl

r,rh,t.I,ot, IN Ito, fhrre Sr,flg oIl rod 51 lb. OIlS,'. It,,

too Coo,pant Fr,rlh,tO1)010SOrll .04 'onoe,toont,,thr

elnIomplotlol

GENERAl. CIS6DH'IONS ON TIlE PROJECT

Sb) MOEG ,tF IROIOABLO ,tL'RSl, 101110 I'Otl,IECT

0 .pp000,00lo) 135,505 tore, of bOO 000)01 .orto 0 5,0

Slo*m,, mb 0 ,050n,re, In Iron oo tr got,d to ho Peo3

001, mod Opproo,WAfOly 17,856 0110* .rc Io,,,00t.) In Hod,

pm5 ColboIr, bOSS,

CIIARACTP.1600 15111,15 TIlE 1100101051,0 AEF,65

O h,,r,l, 'sIlo, .(Nm010 0th r oo,oblo 10510CC raTgno from

.dnbe 0)., .,lr,n 40(56 i.ndt bOO, ,f.peodng on m*on.e

of 1*00,4,1 to. do0ng n,r.odorAg of lb Oril Or ooo? rho tall,,

Al,TlTCtth 001 IRRITABLE AREAS II 5, I'rolnrfi

rongo* frIll 5(10)104250 1,04

01115(30 WATER .tor.gr* oppoootmatolp 1*,oo fool

p.r toe. 041 5000 doponlIrnl ,,n rope of .o,l od loop

1,16131)141 1(4' IRRITATIOn SEA500 eoled. for op.

pro,IttNtOlt 31E1 lop,, More0!,! Ompnro,,r(oo plo. oomo 0,01.0

10,001.0,, for •horl prtIodS

O'Ilbl,IAI BAISFAII, n ISO l'rolroI 0000 •000N40t

oppro,,nolo)r 01 ooho's 00 IbtOd, 01 oh,, h oao.lIo 010005

do,,tog InIr tuto,no, 0101 oooly lot)

RANGE tIP TRMPERATI RE o*,/I, bog.. Iron,

11,1001 14 degn,,.o oboor 400,nlhr ,01lot' 10

mogtnt'tm Inn6 of 111) dogrrr, 0 IhI ,un,mor. bItT ,0000,n[lOl

poor. has ,ng reeo,d 001001000 1 boor,r 1100r o,,ro, and S gh.

cot of 106 dng.neo.

PfOItlO'IFAI F14110l'I'TS of otIloe crop. ore lollOnOtId

•)l/f., 1 ,nt,o'k food ,rgo,.hl,r arid l,,I,,r00100 Sn pro

do,o,Iot0600,ttnleO Soon,, p,00ooro 11*1 Oc ,rnpped on,),,,

* lear ('onl,n I, nom tO, pr,,t)onl,Thtlng loop

old, ol more thor I 5/to pnr OeIO, mtflh Or oorbg0 of

.000,fl4S/,.foo,ob,,o*,00kIo,dlogaoddo,ryb1010

ho, rt (1 moe toe .0

PRINCIPAL MAI4I,ETO for prodools ,f ISO Frn1ml

not oon*om,d tootlIt, ooe Ihets ho ft,,l,lI,,t .t,tl,blo m El

0.0,, to ntorkob. 0 he F,oon, Wr.I nod I,l1 ('oa,I El Paso

,oe,nt 01 .50,1 140,551 popnlolbon 0't,o Abs., on. 0116,

boogrIr p.01000110 ,bomt Poole. to tb, located odjoitIng El

lOr*tor,,)olnlod a,r000 hr 11*, Groodo

TRA\Ol'ItOTATIII\ tpr,t, dol bo so ool.o.d Into

IS. ino,tth,rn P.,-,Ro 5.0,00 too r,.to lint 0151 tn., pooong

Ih000h El Ptoo boa.,, 00) l'o,,IIe old N botoch 01 Ihr

O*nIo O'o lo,n,00r,00 ,,,El (boo '*0ot.tt Teofrol 'b.l,oflN

M,,oon Oorthoootrro t,rnt,o*l,flg fl Jn*mo, .tn 10

lfohroior,o,,n,herfibt4,62 (1,01 (0*00*80 *oth*h,ghp

IrOpOlIrIt blaIr on,) C,on,o o,o',,nt of Inril mOON, alto rho

AO,nrtl .n, (onl,o,,t,t.) fl1,,s,,,tt.od oooondoro o,tI,n,,o

OIITE 0)5,6. 15,, lot ,rl,00blo *t'o, ohsoh IN I m,tod to

It,, or,, for oh,, h lhrrr In ,flrrA,d,1,,Il 10 ho a,, 000000*0

nol,.blootootll0P)t bong 115151 Nor., pitto • 3%

morgt,, hn ar's, tro* of n.llep b,,llnn, toO oIlh,n

II, Oof ho,lndAr000I Ia ,ppro*:o.o.ls olS bOlt on-. b,,t

ho 00111dm II o,0I ot ron if nor.ot,eongSf ltuapend,d

b.ntb nrd all r,ghlfi,INflI for oor0l,. boa,,,,, 111.0,

0501000. IttIOr CI,

HISTORICAL

TtoRI0000000FlOlOetISOIllO flgnh,fnrofbhr 5,040.1.

tor000l,o II 0,11001100, 1 Fedrral R,eboo,ottoo s,ot, ,ftrr

ho paoo*ge ,tf hr 01,1 .040100 Lob tn 1002 In000ItgOl,bfi

o,Iltrl, 00 6,g01100n ho F mo3ootnP .01) A fci.,asJnp

0l 5nOOtTNO nsdr In 1004 151 F rb1o,0 0000ppro *odby 15,

0,, 'nd,,, ol he In 10011,00 n Oro,e brt 2, 1300 I,, 400€ fib,

Ileclnn,o1,oo A 'lit On otIrn dod II T,n*o a T000*0, ninE

Steo,o,,rooalgor ,l peoridmg foo I,roen 01110* ) .1 ,t*I,onof

otIros ,,)lhel,oU,000e,n jn,nleont,,ttOI000Iort40,o1o

IltIS 010lor loon' Aono ,,al,nn. proldmg Inrr,,00lrnotloO,

rb000,ogrlot a gOl000I,0,r lb,00t,,IIl dons, tad 1*041*000

'lobe, I e oI,0tIott,fltiolh000 hr go,,onl b, 4111,1,10 of

Lesohoog I),o,,r, to 11.01 01,11 ('aol) LI dam old I ro,,r, of

anal 00110 Oml,IOlrOb 111,15 11000 0 101,1*10011 00 Ar 1,0100

ltt' gh l'Oobel,,or k rlOlht000l0000, oI,n,t) d,loh,* p00.

I ,d,og prrl00000 I 0 ,o,,r,,o 0 l, 110,, Im lhrll,400ItIo

)tOOblOlO ol rr, g0100N atIhal t,I00 Set0O hr d,0,eollb of

0,01,11 *1 mg IS o,oIrokfa It II 010fro,oro I1,,n lbreter

( ,00IottellItt )E),0h0010,llIot-Ioo,,oggothortor00y

I 00 0110" TMn 4 1 ltl,,0000 Al €15 001 n,ooeo,hs,,Snhlo

Oltlr prNt,00,,.nOl*,It t,*pplog*I0It00olt

of 'h I tool,ol,r,arll I ,,ll,,rlo M,,o,o I'roporolory

,,,ok ,,at begI I fl 131,0 0, I pOOpoO On ,,as 40)0100 ,Ih,,fi

I II ,oIlt,,,btn, nogoro,roteltb, I ,l,,,,bop,, I I'oopooolorv,

,t,IhOtll II> Solo g,ombort, lb O0l,OtlO,ttll,ll I, dan,

p t13101 t't't gloOl0 lhr,tigh tO,, plo od l'JIt 1' 3011 but,to,,

Ol 'loot 0 togao 0 onll000 101,,

Ilt P,n,,I, n (0041 ,010,,,,ItIol,, 3 , loll 30 0 rho

El l's 1t, got 1lI I o,, p*o, so I oltrI p *o,,00lheoo gO to,

ral 000r,Iat ,,15a,00,'oostnNI o l11 10, ho HOrr*,

tf It oaISltt 0 Pt I 00 0 0 1 1), 't,,hlt,t,oo)l he

''"4,,aIn Ad I ,t,t,a I titlIll 0 lotIhI,OtO,01II,gofro,00.

,lr,,,,toftt,ol'lat,h 11 '*1,41 OltrilO, 11011 1,1 1010 114 1100,

o 1) tt Eo,l 1, 1,01,1 010,1 Soil I o,,ola I'eroho Ohm ofid

hn,,,,lttll,,, (01,01,01,1 stot,,,,nolLeosboglaonln,,,,

00 olopllrhr, 011,1(1 tOe potod lIt) 3111

1, 33101)18 II,, bOiler (0,10' A000',o,,000 00101 000'

ordoll by ho 311,001,0 OIOtr,lt, to) ',,olr,eIa ,toc 00

10001,1,1, 1,,, rho 0,t,t It?,,,,,1 01100 1,ntr,Itot,00,on*1,

.1) b,,,,,00r,,rfitoo ,t, aol 1,1,1 It rogi of) tl,,,,r,om

,t,0l1* S 011 Al oolp*gotlltIItl 5& 0( do,e P0) *00

1110,11 tI lb O0I rgeo,oll l,Ottlahl,,o,,tl100I,000flGo

lma,togeootblt, (I ('"on Irg,,o 0 tIll too npld,t,,o)

rl,h,npoblolIt,r,l,g?IrpeooIl1l0iI"1t,,b1og,1,r

I lt,h,o boo elnIrol" 00 aud 0*110

loI,,tr,00, lopleto

I tl0l,, 0,01111 I,,,, U,OtoO 0111 11,0 ,lto,oig,,o,otorn

l0 lore l,o,,d b,,t ocoto hot * boo,! odd.)

oh/b,, lIon, Sm .ror 1001,5011 hon 1 10*0 lOt odrd

,,,ItI,,II,SItI,loIdtS IIOlOlIPtOJOOl

ottpoot,) a ?abI,'ot 011101 pIrIlono lIt,00rl?Ot

* 1,, l 3Ior 001110' ,,t,,1 Elrptta,,t 0,111 Oat, polo SIr

ttdto toltol,t,s, I I Olndt that porpoo 0,11 101,0

10 ,t,00gr It lIlt 0, II 1311.1100

bOo ,el 11 '6 ,t,ot'n, I,',, ,'t 6 po"o, pl,o 1130 304

(0001011,0 , lthr-,tr'*stIott,,lOoo,ol,,o, boo Son

''I ltIIlRI0l1l1 I'll?

Iro 00 to,, oo 'SI '00 Ott 011100 Ole', oOi,o,I,o*, SI Ofi

00011 ,, I ,n,ly,l 01010 I Itt *11010* 001111 201 Itt 1051 ,00ro

prltbObI,OIttl,OtlO fig ttlIt IhI 10100 1,000001 ,l Pt,o dml

O oIl, tIlt, JotI,,o Sfo* , bt ISo Spot ,Ol,IO.O.,l*t,Io

600 Ira, cot, 1001,1 to,,o, Moo,, t,Ihro,to

I Set' Moo,,, I l,g III 00th 0001,101 It 0 001

616,1*,,, '*1111 00 401 tIl '0* 500 1100) fl Ihe

,Oltt100tt,tlt ho l'o 0110.00.00,.) Ir dnotok,

og plO' 1,011 ,l Il),r •,,,t 101 fl ltrt*r1 t'IflOrob,p,

III, t,,*,t,t to t* ,t,g laIr) ,o ,,td Spoo,nh Ion,)

I0.,tI 0' ttto*,,I 0000fi ,I lIt, 10,1,1) ,lf 00.1

IC tloot,,ntn,,otItol t,g pt0000 t 10 I, Iii's of ISO tot.)

'loJllt.,,00ll,rlIolttNtIOO,*1,g.Ilng troll,

(or moStly 0,) boo o, S hal Ig III o,pooolrrnokr.hsfl

6,0,100 otbtr,1,,h,, I ,o,/lp ItoO100 osl doe,n hIgh

Silo, I,,eO,,,nt I o ooq,,,,ng r,,pl*,otnoo, Or . Iboogo

Storogo Orol hogo, 0 So ofioId,00d ohoor 1(30 nb,,o

0011 rfl rtb red rrlgol,01 do, .)opn,ool no,oolh000

I'o ,,000 to •d,l I,,o to 501 oh oh hod 0 rood1 ,ahn place

,n,ooleoI \etr 51cr,, ,h0000el) 050 0011101 o,jn,nleo 50,0

I he Ro, Porio,I, 1000 ng I II, So 11) st Fl Ti.,, thor,og

01011 100000,1 00) loogem poe,m(,, h,,rr*I local md tmo)l,r

olor,00 dn,ebopt000tr tIer. 00 p0ad, boo oonbf,,b,ng,ntrr

04*, pIl000lod tho,,I,000t,I,o Ion,' tf them Tb,,.. ,*tlod

log 1100,0, to 100,010 10? .001 'lone boo.) 0140t,Ot,l prIor

1,gbl lob orto lIlt St ?hr po,pno0 ploo for Prl300l d,ool

opnoolondoo IS, Ill, .001,10 5,1 ml, 0 II 000 o,pmrIed

190.1 Ib,l0l000rt tIb ,told 0,010,10,0 510 0.1*01100 of

d.mol P,)oplt*nr flOlSe ob,oh ,ooold proS 0, toO,,,mob

Oho ,oqosrrm*aao ,0 off too,oOO.,, ond bp Obo TrasOp

A Ioo,000r 001 11101 eoolh,.bbotl 00 of lb. l'ppor Ron

Ibran,I000100 boroamo rIse Soil, It O'toboooln, Nm Mro,re

*n,I 100.1 ,t,olodt,,g lb. 01500 oblosono, I,, Meotco, so,

OltelOIllItOtO 0034

F,ARI,V 0ETTLEMENT Moper poornd. And .doooo.

tn0000t 100 oolllrm COtOtI0 dro,Iopnaomr of 150 F,npeof 00-es

otohr oem 0100010140w.

Eopmlroot ol '.1.10 d Vaea Ihlblogh hr foothsho a

I 016 f,tbl,,00,I ho ho I, ,olt,,a do Eop,d,I,r,, In 15411

.l ,,,,o,r,01f.l,,OrtIOl(nOIrtopI ho R,o Il,.t.do fran

44 rS,t0lo'OIl,lOOltI U,tr'lh.rn Soo ((.000. 1518

0,105 otto1101,, 1 0 m'SOl* 01 10am dod '0omotfl 1658

I o, of 'no ,tl 0000, 1110 00.000 No.400, SI Nb.

0rat,,oolIa 00 0*01014t,,tolllh,,,rlr*o1I tool, 10 old 0*1011

St ,Ol,OIOlhO,1,ltl,bll O't and oototo,001,00 of Noonborn N,,

H ,'o,t,,ll*tlgt ho IllS .o,d loll, C,,nf,,r,*'.

Hr I000toIlSO Op** oh ,,rn ,rtrr,05 000 thor Indoso eon.

00101,1 '0,00 lIrl 130,10 tO 1555 ole', d rn,000t nf Solo

Root,, S tlbrl,,,, hilt bo,(,On, I nroo,,lt, eooolfsog 5 Oh.

mlobl,,h*,r,0lt of o,ootal noIllOltleOtO bolos 15.0 dot 0oof,

otlIbO 0) nO,, h, Tot rr*tI d Moo or,, , too mo on Ibo A,,00roe.n

,,do of 1Sf 0, or

11,, 0*0). No.0o0I(ltsr f boo Mcoo,,o 1642

lo,totooll 01,0 ,.Iona* Op.o.40 and 04oa,00000h,n,nfono

o6.,,,t 1041 1041) 0,16 ool.bl,olom,,lI of ,olIb,ttoofil,,nol,,Itnn

boor A,,o End Moo,bI, ,hono P000 1,1 4 00*0,00Ito, oohto,oo

1111111161 ,,,lh,otl 'coo 44 e,,10w.NnnIOO OOmPl,*Ib0l beo.nao

of 00,11.1 told,

AoSlcondmIlOn d,n,, loom Sp.on 822

1100 nO Aoolo Am,,r,o,o afrrt,co 00 o..tjfO of Oh. fAt'

los, nil 01004000000, .5001 ISo m,ddl, of lbs lOb CnnfoN'y

Toot, 000p,od0000 fnolO Al0N100 101,6 brIlowod by 1100000

Sralm .on000Iloo 1)145 Coasot, obo,nPI,rr 100101 obooo, 5051

oflhoG,olo,*lldrbtMea,100tctasmollhoMo*tooo W*o

040 lb,d..l,n I'ooohon. from M,,g,eo ISO) Wo.O*aord

mlgrol,or tobloo,ng dI0000rmy of gohI ,n C,lsfornoa,o 1(48,

400 oomtr,ng of It, nno,n Sen 000,t',, ond 01,0000

Eiob,bl,ahm.o,nd omop.Ion000000*on 00 fools

Ibroogh ho Oo,orhoml for p0000lbrn ngntooI 00*011 rosdi

.odtltropooatoonofoolrloOd aflogs ond OaJo*n Imotn 000015

0401802

torI 0*1,00 eoh,oh (140 fn,,om, o mope p000nonool Ao,op

goOf, 000 Orllfrnallt l,ooogd on the 'rIo of .*hofi boo-soar Oh,

lIp,t El bn.o llrh,,? lomnnh,oh n,rr bocorotnI lhr Fmjoot

nor, I0orf Qa,rm,oo an0 horN ltonoook loc.I.0 65 0,1.5

arid 45 ooIrN r,opoo tolp Aoolbeaot of ISO •,lr of El Foss

F,,rn#')Imorooodp'nolOoldro 7ot,INOobONhOIsdl4mlf05

ooorh of IS, 5,10 of 1,*o Coseon, torI Tt*nnt 6 mOo. otolb

.185001 ho otIr ,l blar,h, ('not MoNo,, .nd Fool Cro,g 0000

16,, 40orr rod ond ISo utp,,r ,00of tho ,n,rol Eb,phoot Roll,

Itr,or-o,,r TI,,t, loom or,'tIPIod 01 rsnstoa r,toro and ab.o

doood nboo 00 l,,or noodod Oth,rt,000 00 oO Oat, F,b,oo,ro,

MoolbIt trot lIon. A It 'roro oo'eop,nI 0, otl InNS 110,0 0000

rrmjntror,b'ssnttltIoOypOOlO

I,,n'&n,,,l Angbo-Amrr,lNn n,000lt,,0 following .)0.nr

of ,o lr',o,Io,,to El 'so,, 5ot,Ihllo Foo,h,' .00 iloolA b'e

1(101 Troso o,,d to, 101 1801 El Pioo NootheosOoto Sooth'

000t,'.,, bnO'IbSIt rlrrod o,th So iboilSoro P.otfie)S?l

ISo SOrr,too I'o,ntmn 0,00 Opel.?' I II tI 00000, 10 1(82

It,, M,,s,,oy S otnomtlrO btl'th

jan11 &tq,l,olI,00 re,l

o,th t,o,,,00,, NOd 100111101 ,f 110 laroSI, it, 1,010 I dovol

1,11o,,l I,',,,,,n,,,,,o,nasIo,tr t'Oth

04,, I?' Ob,,,,l,OtI rI I'r,lbfi f II OtlOlt ooeL, 1011€ 10)0

,le,o),tplnrot ''10 3301

5l*0,nollOt tI loll .gm,,,,ltorob ,tooolOpo,00l ti t'o,4oet

*00* f,,II,,o 00 e,mpllI,Ont,I l'Oo4or? ,oorkr 0100-n,, II,- Orln0r

100,0013,, • '1)11 10101 oo oI,,10Iet( 5, rhr,000 p000labI,

pTatbItlIltlIlilnlOl, foIIt,tItt,g Ito h,hlp oti,oo*nl,,I ,,,,t000e

Ito so * )'?ttjolte,il 0 I'll"
------------------ -----------------------

- IND/TX MAP

+

NOT!

&IAWT air,, awaIt .wA

r_ - - - S 541 1*T 4 '4 04/74 54 N_-

rh. h.I d*fl4 fl, M b4* Sal NI/ (4/4.SSI

-- --' ._ -- a. -

air,, A - *.(M Chq** I 474.00 St

• - llfl, Clql* . 43,04 -- -

- Sm. .5.4 C 4431 l.a o . .3.74 S.

I - . dfl.u S.-

1-P t.S.frIc . l&31 fla.

• I £.. . ,t,fl 5.,Mk.

- - S AMI4* a.. 41.31 54 41*4

I - I A- km. . tiFf S. -.

- 0-s. 5.. (704 S 415*

if - MSWI - 3004 St

- I 0 -. SOil S-I N - N Nf 4/fl 1510 3

0 N A' k4 I 1Ifl . an.

- 0Ir-*4l-I #00/0 S4 S

131 44*4 __jflS. 2._ti

/74731k- a

n.e m-.*.r Pt, '31s /747 a

law N* 44 fl *4

511(00

--- ./'- 44.1.4,.

- -,- 44--

S C45.ST

- <.1031 n.

Figure 4
ELEPHANT BUTTE RESERVOIRIIYDROGBAPHIC RECORD

4IINFLow, SAN MARCIAL N M OUTFI.OW ELEPHANT bUTTE DAM '.AMOUNT IN STORAGE m SECOND FEET IN S(COND FElT N ACRE FEET

'LOWAIICtMADL $fli Ouo.rr UCOPT ACCUMULATED MICUNT

*fl.ISD3. I*40,I14T

b. U*AINS TO PO ,.rnc PCT Tu-a, 4*3 t 11* IEUI.

nmrrn TJIJ ___

9

__

___

W1 it 1T

t: __; m _ .

;1j. i.''p

,,- 4Li 4.Zf - -

-

+ - -

*

'

'.

A

I - -

i

-

.

•-

:

; -

- - __,__.___ _Q 23L - -- -.-- _Tii

,. ,

-

. : :'',

- +

J+- j,., .

UTh.

... .. .........................

4 MAJ-rn

7 FT:

- .

Fioure 5

I


4400

4380

4360

t.

2

z

0

I-

'3

4340

-J

4320

4300

Crest Elevot ion- 4407--.

MONTICELLO CANYON

SECTIN A-A

-

S

_

- --1947 Prof

--i935 Prof

--Original P

ile

ile

rofile (/915)

i

9Pfil -

0

4400

IU2

Crest Elevation- 4407

FEET

_____ _______

NOGALTCANYON

SECTION A-A

"S /957 Profile- -- -,

-

----- -

/947 Profile

/' ---Origrnol Prof,le(1915)

:SI935PrOfile

0

2 4380

0

'3

>

Ui

-J

Ui

4360

000 U00

FEET

3000

Profiles of 1957

- - Profiles of 1947

- - - Profiles of 1935

Profiles of 19/5 (Original)

6000 7000

RIO GRANDE PROJECT

NEW MEXICO-TEXAS

ELEPHANT BUTTE RESERVOIR

TYPICAL CROSS - SECTIONS

Figure 11

I
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
rH i

t I i

'

1 t

I T Th

H HJ ___

i h1Ji ThHTh f

__ __ __ ___

T I

H _

L

f j :

4 1 _

I I J i_____

40 50 60 70 80 90 tOO

Figuie 1 5
E E

H L

I

f

}

= = = I

t

lhH H - fl I H t

-

I

Li - + + - L I I J-

- rf -L r

r 4-

r ,

4

I

•

L

44.

- H

L

- - L

L - 4-

L 1 H +1H H

I IL

t

-, 1

I -

Uj 1Y rff tHH rLHj HLHH THHH 4-t

H

_

1

L

L

I

I-F I

-

t- H -

L

I I H H

L H + -

--

H

:thLi

4

_ti__

f

tH_ HLH

i

Lt iiL

-

LHlii

+ - ; :

I

____ _ __

III

_

_______ _

1

+ H

/1 I

11

-

I

-

LrLi

I

r

IL I

F

LI+i HHI

H L ( U I H
_

_______ H ______ _____ PH4NT8 ?TE_ft

t A4 •1

-

1ff

JT4 J

j6 1Th8

e

)

:
'+0 60 70 80 90 Figure 18
:". Ori9inaI river bottom --'

p--Dam

FIGURE I - UNDERFLOWING TURBIDITY CURRENT IN A RESERVOIR

PLUNGING TYPE

Figure 19

Photograph No. 2 View of one of the cotton fields in one of the

irrigated areas of the Rio Grande Project.

Cotton is the predominant crop produced.
-

lotogiaph o. :t br-icon .\crovo in the Rio Pueico Basin. Rock ledge in the picture controls the

st ieam gradient

- a.

I'M

47

•

I

I

I
; -

.' - -

.

e

lit

\ta

t,

:.

Photograph No. 4 - Montano Grant gully--Tributary to Rio Puerco.
-a!

-

-

_1llfIl!1.. - - 1 -

-

I

k

Photoiaph o. 5 rna 11 aluminum flat -bottomed boat used for traversing shallow areas of mud deposits

'[hr boat is powerod by an at rplane-type outboard motor.
'F

Photograph No. 6 - View of the subaqueous sampler with a 2-foot

length pipe attachment. Five-and ten-foot

pipes are also used in securing samples at

greater depths. The sampler consists

essentially of a steel pipe, inner plastic tube,

valve, lead weights, and -cutter head.

Also seen in this photograph is the apparatus

used for raising and lowering the subaqueous

and radioisotope densitometer samplers. A

Class "B' reel is attached to a plate on the

"A" frame. The "A" frame is adjustable to

fit boats having beams as wide as 8 feet. The

cantilevered section is also adjustable.
Photograph No. 7 - View of the radioisotope densitometer used for

determining the in-place densities of reservoir

deposits. Major components of the sampler are

storage shield, working shield, dosimeter charger,

probe shell, lead column to separate source and

detector, dosimeter, and dosimeter holder.
-

*

4a 1

'I

fhotograph No. t l'hotogiaph of the piston -type sampler used to obtain some of the samples of the resevvoi deposits in areas that were accessible by foot. The sampler is generally used

for securing scniplcs of the bed material of stream channels.

d' ..

' :

-

I

',., ) - a

LiL .

Photograph No. 1 0 - View of the sounding apparatus used in the survey of Elephant Butte Reservoir. The

steel ball suspended over the side of the boat is lowered to determine the reservoir

depth.
a

•t

-

V

V

- -

-

• C V

•

V• •

c ••-' -

V

'

-•

V,

-: -' •:-

,• •V..L$

•

-:

- •

V - •••• •• r- •

-. •• 'V ' '1- ••-

-

* ( 4 :

• V. • - V

••• • )

- -• • . •. - V

V

V - - - : : •' a

hoi ogroph No. I - I >hotograph of the Rio Puereo taken (Iownst ream from bridge of U. , Highway No 65

hear mouth of the ri ocr
I

4

-. V -

••V

- -..

•_ .. - a .

VV V V• . .I.-,-

-- V-' V . .V - - -

f t

• - V

V.V V V VVV

I ' -. - .

-

V

:-

V

V

._

.

.V'

4.. a

r

V

••

-

V

'V

•

V

--:

-

V.

Phu aph NOV 12 - The Rio Salado photographVd from a bridge on IT. S. Highway 85. \ flood hal

passed down the channel s tVo.. days previous
4

•

)

I 'hotograph NO. I - Mud ha Is ol lected from the Rio Pue ire ehanne I. irno ring ot the sand and gi ave s

pa rtieula ely e\ ident.
, c i.

•i :

t; 1

•:' : ' ' ': : :

I;

1 ! •

'

4 •? 'f I

4 / I ? k:i' / -

-' ,'

1 2, )

p b. J'J

-

'I

i!; : - I

t : I t

..

'

It'4

i,

--

-

:;V I
p

-

I;I,_

V - . 4

,4W

-

- :'- "

-

'qw ... 4

-, V --•l

-

r -. -

,

- - - - _

-

-l

.-- 4 -':. 1

-- :.

-

-

', - 4 '

. /

1

/

I I

.0;

-

'-

Photograph No. 15 - Upstream view of the Rio Puerco. Three types of sediment movement along the channel bed are portrayed by this photograph- -sand dunes, ripples, and over a smooth hard

surface.
.-.

r 4.

Photograph No. 16 - Typical view of the salt cedars growing in the delta

and backwater areas of the reservoir.
.'"k:; -'

4U1'I 1P44,fr

7

L-

-

.t.' ____

_ . .-. i- .;

.-

:-

.

;.•_ 4..-

0•

• -

•

; I

.-

-

II

B ..c1ç4

. p •

-

-

.

._I.I__.'- • .-

- . - T.

. #_t'.

-v :

-

•-:#' - .:

Photograph No. 17 - Ash Canyon arm of Elephant Butte Reservoir as seen from a point near the dam.

Taken October 16, 1956.
a

*

_____' •

Photograph No. 18 - Elephant Butte Reservoir near Hidden Cove--Present head end of reservoir storage.

Extent of mud flats can be noted. This is a view looking across and upstream from

the right bank. Elephant Butte Reservoir was at elevation 4269. 5. Taken October 16,

1956.
Photograph No. 19 - Elephant Butte Reservoir area as seen from Three Sisters triangulation station. Salt

cedars are among the types of vegetation growing in this area. Taken October 1 7, 1 956.
h.

á'•&*t"

4

W

p

* 1 •

•%)

Photograph No. 20 Mouth of Monticello Canyon as seen from Olguin Point. Heavy salt cedar growth is

prevalent in this area. Taken October 17, 1956.
P., V

-

-

*.V

- *--, -.'-

-

-

_____

- . -

V.

:: :

Photograph No. 21. - Elephant Butte Reservoir as seen from Eagle Point triangulation station. Eleptiant

Butte rock is at left center of the photograph. Reservoir water level elevation was

about 4, 279 feet at the time this photograph was taken. Photographsed on February 9,

19 57 V
'C,'

4'.

,

.

-

--

I

b

- -

.

.

I

.,

.

4 ..... .-

'-'

. p.

•

- •I

'

:'; :c

I

'-

.:

.

' - 4tlIhI -

..

.•,I'I.tr

•

- -

.,.

.

-:• •

., f ..-

.

.-

.. -/ -.

'.?

- .

-

.' '. ; •

A

-

•

• P •

•

--- . -

't

•• - - -'. -

--- • .--.- q;

hotograph No. 22 Elephant Butte Reservoir at the Narrows gaging station. This is a view looking

upstream and across from the right bank. This area is inundated at higher reservoir stages. The gaging station is operated in conjunction with the upstream channelization work. Taken Jchruarv 11, 1 957.
4

C-

-C

z

0

)fl

c1

1!

-C

o11
.7

-

*

__

1 .

I.; -

Phof og aph No. 24 4 view of the initial exavation operations looking upsi ream from one of the stations

of the conveyance channel .4 6 -cubic -vaid dragline is working in the background

excavating 20 feet of west side of channel .4 3-cubic-yard dragline shown in the fore

ground is excavating the remainder of the channel prism.
-

-

'•.••_J'._ .'.

.,- .:.4.-- - ••

• •-;'

i-I-

._,

Photograph No. 25 - View looking downstream toward the extreme lower end of the conveyance channel in

the reservoir headwater area. Instability of the banks is very evident as one of the

residual effects of the channelization. Taken October 1956.

•kt-,.• r