U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5207

Prepared in cooperation with the Coalition of Six Middle Rio Grande Basin Pueblos

Survey of Hydrologic Models and Hydrologic Data Needs for 

Tracking Flow in the Rio Grande, North-Central New Mexico, 

2010
 
Survey of Hydrologic Models and 

Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking Flow 

in the Rio Grande, North-Central New 

Mexico, 2010

By Anne Tillery and Jack R. Eggleston

Prepared in cooperation with the Coalition of Six Middle Rio Grande Basin 

Pueblos

Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5207

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Tillery, Anne, and Eggleston, J.R., 2012, Survey of hydrologic models and hydrologic data needs for tracking flow in 

the Rio Grande, north-central New Mexico, 2010: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5207, 

39 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

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

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

U.S. Geological Survey

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

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

1-888-ASK-USGS

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

U.S. Government.
Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank individuals who volunteered their time and knowledge 

of the hydrologic models surveyed during interviews on the models. Surface-water-model 

interviews were conducted with Marc Sidlow, Darrell Eidson, and Ryan Gronewold of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nabil Shafike of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, and Vince Tidwell and Jesse Roach of Sandia National Laboratories. Groundwater-model 

interviews were conducted with Peggy Barroll of the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 

Maryanne Wasiolek of Hydroscience Associates, Inc., Bruce Robinson of Los Alamos National 

Laboratory, Nabil Shafike of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, and Steve Finch 

of John Shomaker and Associates.

Doug McAda and D. Michael Roark, hydrologists with the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), were interviewed for their working knowledge of the hydrologic models. David 

Bjerklie of the USGS was very helpful in the survey of several surface-water models.

v

Contents

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

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

Purpose and Scope .............................................................................................................................2

Description of the Study Area ...........................................................................................................2

Previous Work ......................................................................................................................................5

Methods Used To Survey Hydrologic Models and Assess Data Needs ..............................................6

Gains and Losses Identified ...............................................................................................................6

Model Surveys ......................................................................................................................................6

Hydrologic Data Needs .......................................................................................................................8

Hydrologic Models Surveyed ......................................................................................................................8

Surface-Water Models .......................................................................................................................8

Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model ..........................................................................8

The Upper Rio Grande Simulation Model ...............................................................................9

The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District Decision Support System .......................10

The Middle Rio Grande FLO-2D Flood Routing Model ........................................................10

Groundwater Models ........................................................................................................................10

Model 1: Hearne (1985a) Mathematical Model of the Tesuque Aquifer System 

Near Pojoaque, New Mexico ....................................................................................11

Model 2: Kernodle and Scott (1986) Three-Dimensional Model Simulation of 

Steady-State Ground Water Flows in the Albuquerque–Belen Basin, 

New Mexico .................................................................................................................11

Model 3: Kernodle and others (1987) Three-Dimensional Model Simulation of 

Transient Ground-Water Flow in the Albuquerque–Belen Basin, New 

Mexico ...........................................................................................................................11

Model 4: McAda and Wasiolek (1988) Simulation of the Regional Geohydrology 

of the Tesuque Aquifer System near Santa Fe, New Mexico ..............................11

Model 5: McAda (1990) Simulation of the Effects of Ground-Water Withdrawal 

from a Well Field Adjacent to the Rio Grande, Santa Fe County, New 

Mexico ...........................................................................................................................11

Model 6: Frenzel (1995) Geohydrology and Simulation of Ground-Water Flow near 

Los Alamos, North-Central New Mexico ................................................................13

Model 7: Kernodle and others (1995) Simulation of Ground-Water Flow in the 

Albuquerque Basin, Central New Mexico, 1901–1994, with Projections 

to 2020 ............................................................................................................................13

Model 8: Tiedeman and others (1998) Application of Nonlinear-Regression 

Methods to a Ground-Water Flow Model of the Albuquerque Basin, New 

Mexico ...........................................................................................................................13

Model 9: Barroll (2001) Documentation of the Administrative Groundwater Model 

for the Middle Rio Grande Basin ..............................................................................13

Model 10: McAda and Barroll (2002) Simulation of Ground-Water Flow in the 

Middle Rio Grande Basin Between Cochiti and San Acacia, New Mexico ......13

Model 11: Sanford and others (2003) Use of Environmental Tracers To Estimate 

Parameters for a Predevelopment Ground-Water Flow Model of the 

Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico ..................................................................14
vi

Model 12: Keating and others (2005) Development and Application of Numerical 

Models To Estimate Fluxes Through the Regional Aquifer Beneath the 

Pajarito Plateau ...........................................................................................................14

Model 13: MacClune and others (2006) High-Resolution Groundwater Models for 

the Assessment of Riparian Restoration Options and River Conveyance 

Efficiency ......................................................................................................................14

Model Surveys .............................................................................................................................................14

Surface-Water Models .....................................................................................................................14

Diversions and Return Flow ....................................................................................................15

Seepage ......................................................................................................................................15

Changes in Reservoir Storage ................................................................................................15

Evapotranspiration ...................................................................................................................16

Elements Not Addressed by Surface-Water Models .........................................................16

Groundwater Models ........................................................................................................................16

Model Characteristics .............................................................................................................16

Hydrologic Elements ................................................................................................................16

Model Calibration .....................................................................................................................16

Recharge ....................................................................................................................................17

Surface-Water/Groundwater Interaction .............................................................................17

Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking Flow on the Rio Grande .............................................................17

Model Ability To Track Flow ......................................................................................................................18

Surface-Water Models .....................................................................................................................18

Groundwater Models ........................................................................................................................18

Summary .......................................................................................................................................................19

References Cited .........................................................................................................................................20

Figures

1. A, Rio Grande Basin from headwaters in southern Colorado to Elephant Butte 

Reservoir, New Mexico ..............................................................................................................3

 B, Detail from 1A showing stream network .4

2. Conceptual model diagrams. A, Generalized surface-water conceptual model. 

B, Generalized groundwater conceptual model .....................................................................7

3. Generalized geographic extent of the surveyed groundwater models ............................12

Tables

1. General characteristics of the surveyed surface-water models ......................................22

2. Summary of treatments of hydrologic elements by the surveyed surface-water 

models .........................................................................................................................................23

3. Characteristics and hydrologic elements of the surveyed groundwater models ..........30

4. Well fields included in each groundwater model ................................................................34

5. Factors used by each surveyed groundwater model to simulate recharge ....................36

6. Methods used for modeling surface-water/groundwater interactions in the 

groundwater models surveyed ................................................................................................38
vii

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2

)

acre 0.4047 hectare (ha)

acre 0.4047 square hectometer (hm2

) 

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2

)

square mile (mi2

) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3

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

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 

(NGVD 29).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1988 (NAD 88).

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.
 
Abstract 

The six Middle Rio Grande Pueblos have prior and 

paramount rights to deliveries of water from the Rio Grande 

for their use. When the pueblos or the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Designated Engineer identifies a need for additional flow on 

the Rio Grande, the Designated Engineer is tasked with deciding the timing and amount of releases of prior and paramount 

water from storage at El Vado Reservoir to meet the needs of 

the pueblos. Over the last three decades, numerous models 

have been developed by Federal, State, and local agencies in 

New Mexico to simulate, understand, and (or) manage flows 

in the Middle Rio Grande upstream from Elephant Butte 

Reservoir. In 2008, the Coalition of Six Middle Rio Grande 

Basin Pueblos entered into a cooperative agreement with the 

U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a comprehensive survey 

of these hydrologic models and their capacity to quantify 

and track various components of flow. The survey of hydrologic models provided in this report will help water-resource 

managers at the pueblos, as well as the Designated Engineer, 

make informed water-resource-management decisions that 

affect the prior and paramount water use. Analysis of 4 publicly available surface-water models and 13 publicly available 

groundwater models shows that, although elements from many 

models can be helpful in tracking flow in the Rio Grande, 

numerous data gaps and modeling needs indicate that accurate, 

consistent, and timely tracking of flow on the Rio Grande 

could be improved.

Deficient or poorly constrained hydrologic variables 

are sources of uncertainty in hydrologic models that can be 

reduced with the acquisition of more refined data. Data gaps 

need to be filled to allow hydrologic models to be run on a 

real-time basis and thus ensure predictable water deliveries to meet needs for irrigation, domestic, stock, and other 

water uses. Timeliness of flow-data reporting is necessary 

to facilitate real-time model simulation, but even daily data 

are sometimes difficult to obtain because the data come from 

multiple sources. 

Each surface-water model produces results that could 

be helpful in quantifying the flow of the Rio Grande, specifically by helping to track water as it moves down the channel 

of the Rio Grande and by improving the understanding of 

river hydraulics for the specified reaches. The ability of each 

surface-water model to track flow on the Rio Grande varies 

according to the purpose for which each model was designed. 

The purpose of Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model 

(URGWOM)—to simulate water storage and delivery operations in the Rio Grande—is more applicable to tracking flow 

on the Rio Grande than are any of the other surface-water 

models surveyed. Specifically, the strengths of URGWOM in 

relation to modeling flow are the details and attention given to 

the accounting of Rio Grande flow and San Juan–Chama flow 

at a daily time step. The most significant difficulty in using 

any of the surveyed surface-water models for the purpose of 

predicting the need for requested water releases is that none of 

the surface-water models surveyed consider water accounting 

on a real-time basis. 

Groundwater models that provide detailed simulations 

of shallow groundwater flow in the vicinity of the Rio Grande 

can provide large-scale estimates of flow between the Rio 

Grande and shallow aquifers, which can be an important 

component of the Rio Grande water budget as a whole. The 

groundwater models surveyed for this report cannot, however, 

be expected to provide simulations of flow at time scales of 

less than the simulated time step (1 month to 1 year in most 

cases). Of those of the currently used groundwater models, 

the purpose of model 13—to simulate the shallow riparian 

groundwater environment—is the most appropriate for examining local-scale surface-water/groundwater interactions. The 

basin-scale models, however, are also important in understanding the large-scale water balances between the aquifers and the 

surface water. In the case of the Upper and Middle Rio Grande 

Valley, models 6, 10, and 12 are the most accurate and current 

groundwater models available.

Introduction 

The Coalition of Six Middle Rio Grande Basin Pueblos in 

New Mexico would like to ensure predictable water deliveries 

to meet their needs for irrigation, domestic, stock, and other 

water uses at the six pueblos. The six Middle Rio Grande 

Survey of Hydrologic Models and Hydrologic Data Needs 

for Tracking Flow in the Rio Grande, North-Central New 

Mexico, 2010

By Anne Tillery and Jack R. Eggleston 
2 Survey of Hydrologic Models and Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking Flow in the Rio Grande, North-Central New Mexico

Basin Pueblos are Native American tribes whose lands are 

located on the main stem of the Rio Grande downstream from 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Rio Grande at Otowi 

stream-gaging station (fig. 1) and are within the Middle Rio 

Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD) service area, which 

extends from below Cochiti Lake downstream to the northern 

boundary of the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge 

(Oad and others, 2009). From north to south, the six Middle 

Rio Grande Basin Pueblos include the Pueblos of Cochiti, 

Santo Domingo (Kewa), San Felipe, Santa Ana, Sandia, and 

Isleta (fig. 1).

The pueblos’ rights to deliveries of water from the Rio 

Grande are based on laws spanning multiple centuries and 

multiple crowns (Mann, 2007). The pueblos’ “prior and 

paramount” rights to water deliveries were recognized by 

the act of March 13, 1928 (45 Stat. 312) (hereafter, the act). 

The act authorized the Secretary of the Interior to execute 

an agreement with the MRGCD providing for, among other 

things, conservation, irrigation, drainage, and flood control 

for the Pueblo Indian lands in the Rio Grande Valley, New 

Mexico (Sanchez, 2007). A quantity of water based on historically irrigated pueblo acreage—called prior and paramount 

water—is stored at El Vado Reservoir (fig. 1) each year to be 

delivered when needed to the pueblos. Storage and release 

of water for the six Middle Rio Grande Pueblos have taken 

place at El Vado Reservoir since the reservoir was first used in 

1935 (Sanchez, 2007). Procedures for the storage and release 

of prior and paramount water were outlined and agreed upon 

in a December 28, 1981, agreement titled “Procedures for the 

Storage and Release of Indian Water Entitlements of the Six 

Middle Rio Grande Pueblos, Between the Six Middle Rio 

Grande Pueblos and the Department of Interior” (Chemanji 

Shu-Nyamboli, written commun., Hydrologist, Pueblo of San 

Felipe, Sept. 2011). An analysis of the policies and procedures 

relating to calculations of storage and release of prior and 

paramount water is not addressed in this report.

The prior and paramount water is delivered as a parcel of 

water along the Rio Grande and then through the MRGCD’s 

diversions and canal system. The Secretary of the Interior 

through the Bureau of Indian Affairs has designated a technical expert, called the Designated Engineer, to oversee the 

delivery of prior and paramount water to the pueblos, among 

other tasks. 

When the pueblos identify a need for prior and paramount water releases, the Designated Engineer is responsible 

for deciding the timing and amount of releases of prior and 

paramount water to meet the needs of the pueblos. Deliveries 

of prior and paramount water that occur too late or that are 

of insufficient quantity may be unusable by the pueblos. The 

challenge to the pueblos and the Designated Engineer is to 

know, with sufficient warning time, when steamflows in the 

Rio Grande will become too low for the pueblos’ needs and to 

correctly estimate timing and volume of prior and paramount 

water releases from El Vado Reservoir so that the release will 

fulfill the needs of the pueblos. 

Over the last three decades, numerous hydrologic models 

have been developed by Federal, State, and local agencies in 

New Mexico to simulate, understand, and (or) manage flows 

of the Rio Grande upstream from Elephant Butte Reservoir. 

None of these models were developed specifically to manage 

prior and paramount water; however, certain elements within 

some or all of the models that can account for or quantify 

and track various hydrologic elements might be applicable to 

the management of prior and paramount waters and therefore helpful to the pueblo water-resource managers and the 

Designated Engineer. In 2008, the Coalition of Six Middle Rio 

Grande Basin Pueblos entered into a cooperative agreement 

with the USGS to conduct a comprehensive survey of these 

hydrologic models and their capacity to quantify and track 

various components of flow. The survey of hydrologic models 

provided in this report will help water-resource managers 

at the pueblos, as well as the Designated Engineer, make 

informed water-resource-management decisions that affect the 

prior and paramount water use. 

Purpose and Scope 

This report provides a detailed survey of selected hydrologic models in the form of comparison tables to be used as 

tools to help readers evaluate the models for multiple uses, 

including tracking of flow on the Rio Grande. The report also 

includes discussion of hydrologic data that are not yet being 

collected but would be useful in facilitating a more accurate 

accounting of water in the Rio Grande. Hydrologic elements 

that can be accounted by the hydrologic models can include 

stored water, tributary inflow, intermountain transfer water, 

prior and paramount water, or any other specified flow to be 

accounted or tracked along the Rio Grande. The hydrologic 

models surveyed for this report are all publicly available 

surface-water or groundwater models covering some portion 

of the reach of the Rio Grande and its tributaries from the 

Rio Grande at Embudo, New Mexico, downstream to Isleta 

Pueblo, New Mexico. 

The areal extents of surface-water models surveyed 

in this report were from the Rio Grande at Embudo, New 

Mexico, stream-gaging station to a diversion structure at Isleta 

Pueblo (figs. 1A and 1B). The areal extents of groundwater 

models surveyed were from the Rio Grande at Otowi streamgaging station to Elephant Butte Reservoir (fig. 1A). Some of 

the models surveyed have areal extents that are beyond the 

study area; however, only the portions of those models that 

are within the study area were surveyed. The models’ documentations were acquired, and the assumptions and dependencies upon which these models are based are presented in this 

report. Because documentation for each model is available to 

the public, indepth descriptions of model processes are not 

included in this report. 

Description of the Study Area 

The study area encompasses the Rio Grande, its valley, 

and major tributaries in north-central New Mexico from the 

USGS stream-gaging station on the Rio Grande at Embudo 
Introduction 3

Figure 1. A, Rio Grande Basin from headwaters in southern Colorado to Elephant Butte Reservoir, New Mexico. B, Detail from 1A

showing stream network. 

Rio Grande

Basin

Española

Los Alamos

Santa Fe

Albuquerque

Rio Rancho

Taos

La Puente

Bernalillo

CONTINENTAL DIVIDE

Sangre de Cristo Mountains

San Juan Mountains

BOSQUE DEL APACHE

NATIONAL WILDLIFE 

REFUGE

Rio Grande

Rio Salado

Rio San Jose

Rio Puerco

Embudo Creek

Abo Arroyo

Willow Creek

Horse Lake

Creek

Rio Chama

Conejo s River

Rio Grande

Red River

Galisteo Creek

Jemez River

Elephant 

Butte 

Reservoir

Cochiti 

Lake

Heron Reservoir

El Vado Reservoir

Abiquiu 

Reservoir

Santa Cruz 

Reservoir

Nambe Lake

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

106°

107°

108°

38°

37°

36°

35°

34°

TEXAS

UTAH COLORADO

ARIZONA NEW

MEXICO

Colorado River

San Juan River

Rio Grande

Rio Grande Basin

from headwaters to 

Elephant Butte, New Mexico

El Paso

EXPLANATION

Middle Rio Grande Basin Pueblo

Urban area

Selected U.S. Geological Survey 

 stream-gaging station

Santo Domingo

Cochiti

San Felipe

Sandia

Santa Ana

Isleta

0 30 60 MILES 15

0 30 60 KILOMETERS 15

45

45

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2000, 1:24,000

Universal Transverse Mercator, zone 13

North American Datum of 1988

Rio Grande near Lobatos

Rio Chama near Chamita

Rio Grande at Isleta Lakes

Rio Grande at Otowi Bridge

Rio Grande at Embudo

Rio Chama below Abiquiu Dam

Rio Chama near La Puente

Rio Grande near Del Norte

Costilla Creek near Costilla

Azotea Tunnel at outlet 

near Chama

Rio Grande below Cochiti Dam

Rio Grande Floodway at San Acacia

A
4 Survey of Hydrologic Models and Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking Flow in the Rio Grande, North-Central New Mexico

Figure 1. A, Rio Grande Basin from headwaters in southern Colorado to Elephant Butte Reservoir, New Mexico. B, Detail from 1A

showing stream network.—Continued 

Española

Los Alamos

Santa Fe

Albuquerque

Taos

Rio Rancho

Bernalillo

CONTINENTAL DIVIDE

Sangre de Cristo Mountains

Santo Domingo

Cochiti

San Felipe

Sandia

Santa Ana

Isleta

Rio San Jose

Rio Puerco

Embudo Creek

Rio Chama

Galisteo Creek

Jemez River

Tijeras Arroyo

Rio Puerco

El Rito

Rio Pueblo de Taos

Rio Guadalupe

Rito de los Frijoles

Las Huertas

Creek

Rio

Grande

Rio M

Guaje C

edio

anyon Sa nta Clara Creek

Santa Cruz River

Rio Frijoles

Pojoaque

River

Rio Ojo Caliente

Arroyo Tonque

Rio Grande

Basin

Rio Grande

Rio Salado

Angostura

Diversion

Dam Cochiti Main Canal

Sili Main Canal

North Diversion

 Channel

South Diversion

 Channel

Borrego

Canyon

Cochiti 

Lake

Abiquiu 

Reservoir

Santa Cruz 

Reservoir

Nambe Lake

Jemez Canyon

Reservoir

0 9 18 27 36 MILES

0 9 18 27 36 KILOMETERS

107° 106°

36°

35°

TEXAS

UTAH COLORADO

ARIZONA NEW

MEXICO

Colorado River

San Juan River

Rio Grande

Rio Grande Basin

from headwaters to 

Elephant Butte, New Mexico

El Paso

Area enlarged

EXPLANATION

Middle Rio Grande Basin Pueblo

Urban area

Selected U.S. Geological Survey 

 stream-gaging station

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2000, 1:24,000

Universal Transverse Mercator, zone 13

North American Datum of 1988

Rio Chama near Chamita

Rio Grande at Isleta Lakes

Rio Grande at Otowi Bridge

Rio Grande at Embudo

Rio Chama below

 Abiquiu Dam

Rio Grande below Cochiti Dam

Rio Pueblo de Taos below Los Cordova

East Fork Jemez Riv er

Rio Tesuque

Santa Fe River

Rio Nambe

B

downstream to the diversion at Isleta Pueblo south of Albuquerque (figs. 1A and 1B). For the purposes of this report the 

terms “Upper Rio Grande Valley” and “Middle Rio Grande 

Valley” refer to the geographic location of the Rio Grande 

within the State of New Mexico. “Upper Rio Grande” generally refers to the Rio Grande north of Cochiti Lake (fig. 1B) 

(although two of the models surveyed include the word 

“upper” in their titles and have geographic domains that 

extend some distance south of Cochiti Lake). “Middle” refers 

to the section of the Rio Grande roughly between Cochiti Lake 

and Elephant Butte Reservoir. 

At the Rio Grande at Embudo stream-gaging station, the 

drainage area of the Rio Grande is 10,400 square miles (mi2) 

with 7,460 mi2 contributing to the flow of the Rio Grande. 

Internally drained basins such as playas and the closed basin 

in Colorado make up the difference between noncontributing and contributing areas in the watershed. The elevation 

of the gage at Embudo is 5,789 feet (ft) above the National 

Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29). At Isleta, the 

drainage area is 17,666 mi2 with 14,626 mi2 contributing to 

the flow of the Rio Grande. The elevation of the gage at Isleta 

is 4,870 ft (NGVD 29). Precipitation for the study area ranges 
Introduction 5

from 45 inches annually at the higher elevations of the Sangre 

de Cristo Mountains at the headwaters of Embudo Creek to 

9 inches annually in the lower elevations of the study area 

around Albuquerque (PRISM Climate Group, 2009). The river 

reaches specified in this study include five reservoirs: 

•	 Heron Reservoir on Willow Creek, a tributary to the 

Rio Chama, 

•	 El Vado Reservoir on the Rio Chama, 

•	 Abiquiu Reservoir on the Rio Chama, 

•	 Jemez Canyon Reservoir on the Jemez River, and 

•	 Cochiti Lake on the Rio Grande (figs. 1A and 1B). 

Two small reservoirs, Nambe Lake and Santa Cruz 

Reservoir, are on tributaries of the Rio Grande near the City of 

Española (fig. 1B). Many of the tributaries to the Rio Chama 

and Rio Grande are ephemeral, flowing only in response to 

precipitation events or snowmelt in the higher elevations.

The alluvial basins in the study area formed as a result of 

extension associated with the Rio Grande Rift. The basins are 

bounded by faults and are filled with sediment derived locally 

from adjacent uplifted areas and from upstream basins to the 

north. The total thickness of the basin fill may be in excess of 

15,000 ft in some locations (Kernodle, 1992). Most basins in 

New Mexico are shallower, with 2,000–3,000 ft of basin fill 

being the most common range (Kernodle, 1992). The fill material is identified as the Santa Fe Group of the Cenozoic Era, 

which is generally unconsolidated and consists of fine-grained 

playa and lacustrine deposits, alluvial fan conglomerates, 

eolian fine sands, fluvial gravels, and occasional lava flows 

and ash deposits (Kernodle, 1992). 

The northwestern and eastern boundaries of the upper 

Rio Grande system are defined by the San Juan and Sangre de 

Cristo Mountains, respectively. These mountains also provide 

snowmelt, a primary source of runoff, to the river system. In 

north-central and northwestern New Mexico, the upper Rio 

Grande and Rio Chama valleys are entrenched in deep, narrow canyons. Agricultural development along these reaches is 

limited by the narrow width of the flood plains on the canyon 

floors. In this reach, the Rio Grande tends to gain water from 

mountain-front recharge and tributary inflows faster than the 

water is lost to the atmosphere or to human or agricultural 

consumption, resulting in a net gain in flow (Roach, 2007). 

Between the Rio Grande at Otowi stream-gaging station and 

Cochiti Lake, the river is entirely entrenched in deep canyons 

and there is no flood plain to speak of.

Downstream from Cochiti Lake, the Middle Rio Grande 

Valley becomes shallower and begins to widen. The flood 

plain reaches widths of up to 5 miles (mi) downstream from 

Isleta Pueblo. The increased width of the flood plain is accompanied by an increase in agricultural development downstream 

from Cochiti Lake. Agricultural development continues 

southward until it is replaced by the urban development of 

the Albuquerque metropolitan area; south of Albuquerque, 

agricultural development continues. In 2010, the combined 

population of the cities of Albuquerque (545,852 people) and 

nearby Rio Rancho (87,521 people) made up nearly 31 percent 

of the population of the entire State of New Mexico (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2010). Flow in the Rio Grande decreases 

between Cochiti Lake and Albuquerque. Irrigation diversions, 

evapotranspiration, and seepage losses to groundwater are 

the primary factors that reduce flow in this reach of the Rio 

Grande (Kernodle, 1992). The potential annual evapotranspiration rate alone can be as much as 6 ft of water per year 

(Kernodle, 1992), particularly in the riparian areas in proximity to the Rio Grande. Historical accounts indicate that the Rio 

Grande would frequently cease to flow by the time it got to the 

Mesilla Basin upstream from El Paso, Texas, until reservoirs 

began to be constructed in the early 1900s (Kernodle, 1992). 

Riverside drains and levees run along both banks of the 

Rio Grande starting a few miles south of the diversions at 

Cochiti Lake and continuing intermittently as far south as Elephant Butte Reservoir (Oad and others, 2009). The locations 

of the riverside drains range from several hundred to several 

thousand feet from the river. The drains are designed to intercept shallow groundwater resulting from irrigation return flow 

and river seepage. By intercepting this shallow groundwater, 

the drains function to keep the ground surface surrounding 

the river from becoming saturated. Intercepted groundwater is 

funneled back to the river downstream through the drains. 

Colorado River water is delivered to users along the 

Rio Grande by the San Juan–Chama Project (Oad and others, 2009). The San Juan–Chama project takes water from the 

San Juan River Basin, a tributary of the Colorado River, and 

diverts it under the Continental Divide into the Rio Grande 

Basin by use of 27 mi of tunnels. The diverted water from the 

Azotea Tunnel discharges into a tributary of the Rio Chama 

upstream from Heron Reservoir. Water that is transported from 

the San Juan River Basin to the Rio Grande Basin by way of 

intermountain tunnels is locally referred to as the “San Juan–

Chama water” or “SJC” water. 

Previous Work 

Published documentation for most models includes a 

synopsis of previous models and reasons for the development of the new model (Roach and Tidwell, 2009; McAda 

and Barroll, 2002; Sanford and others, 2003). Reports have 

been written that compare the output of two or more models 

that model the same hydrogeologic setting (Reddi and others, 

1990). Documents designed to compare and contrast large 

numbers of existing models, however, have not been developed for the Middle Rio Grande area. The only comprehensive 

report summarizing multiple hydrologic models including 

models of the Middle Rio Grande area was published by 

Kernodle (1992) in a study that evaluated USGS groundwaterflow models for multiple States in the Southwest. The report 

by Kernodle (1992) was designed to summarize the available 

models developed by the USGS, identify commonly simulated 

hydrogeologic characteristics, and isolate preferred approaches 
6 Survey of Hydrologic Models and Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking Flow in the Rio Grande, North-Central New Mexico

to simulating groundwater flow in the various basin-fill 

aquifer systems in Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. The 

models discussed in that report that include the Middle Rio 

Grande Valley were Hearne (1985a, 1985b), Reeder and others 

(1967), and Kernodle and Scott (1986). 

Methods Used To Survey Hydrologic 

Models and Assess Data Needs 

All publicly available surface-water and groundwater 

models, including those that model surface-water/groundwater interactions that have been developed for the Rio Grande 

within the study area, were identified and surveyed for this 

study. The models were surveyed by using comprehensive lists 

of hydrologic elements identified by generalized conceptual 

models developed for this study. Data needs identified during the model-survey process were documented to facilitate 

improvements in future data-collection activities.

Gains and Losses Identified 

Generalized conceptual models that include the substantial gains and losses of water that affect the amount of water in 

those systems were constructed for both the surface-water and 

groundwater systems (fig. 2). In the surface-water conceptual 

model, hydrologic gains are characterized as inflows to the 

surface-water channel, and losses are characterized as outflows (fig. 2A). In the groundwater conceptual model, hydrologic gains are characterized as recharge to the aquifer, and 

losses are characterized as discharge from the aquifer (fig. 2B). 

In general, hydrologic gains to a surface-water body such 

as a river can be divided into the naturally occurring gains 

such as rainfall runoff, snowmelt runoff, seepage gains, tributary contributions, and springs and the human-induced gains 

such as effluent/irrigation return and intermountain transfer of 

water (for example, the water transferred from the San Juan 

River Basin to the Rio Grande Basin). Hydrologic losses to a 

surface-water body also occur naturally or by human induction. Examples of naturally occurring hydrologic losses from a 

surface-water body are evapotranspiration and seepage loses. 

Human-induced losses from a surface-water body include 

diversions of water for municipal or irrigation use. Diversions on the Rio Grande downstream from the Rio Chama can 

involve Rio Grande water or San Juan–Chama water. Water 

that is stored in reservoirs and later released creates a humaninduced hydrologic gain to the river downstream at the time of 

the release. When the volume of water in storage in a reservoir 

is increased, a human-induced hydrologic loss occurs in the 

river downstream. The distinction between naturally occurring and human induced, as applied to hydrologic gains or 

losses, is required for tracking or “accounting” natural flow 

in a river. “Natural flow” is a term that is commonly used 

among hydrologists, ecologists, and persons with an interest in 

water rights. Although there is no single accepted definition, 

natural flow is generally accepted as the flow that would have 

passed a certain point in a stream without upstream human 

intervention.

Hydrologic gains and losses affecting aquifers also can 

be characterized as naturally occurring or human induced. An 

example of naturally occurring hydrologic gains to an aquifer 

would be precipitation recharge, and an example of humaninduced gains would be seepage from drains and canals and 

artificial recharge (intentionally injecting surface water into 

an aquifer for storage [Reese, 2009]). An example of a 

naturally occurring hydrologic loss from an aquifer would be 

groundwater discharge to rivers, and a human-induced loss 

would be groundwater pumping for municipal or agricultural 

purposes.

Physical processes occurring at reservoirs involve a 

variety of gains and losses occurring simultaneously, such 

as precipitation, infiltration, evaporation, and transpiration, 

in addition to the storage of inflow or release of previously 

stored water. The net difference between the gains and losses 

occurring at a reservoir at any given time may vary in relation 

to temperature, recent precipitation patterns, or other factors. 

Hydrologic processes acting on the water stored in a reservoir 

can cause either net gains or net losses to the stored water 

depending on conditions. The river reaches specified in this 

study include 

•	 five major reservoirs

•	 Heron Reservoir

•	 El Vado Reservoir

•	 Abiquiu Reservoir on the Rio Chama

•	 Jemez Canyon Reservoir on the Jemez River

•	 Cochiti Lake on the Rio Grande

•	 and two minor reservoirs

•	 the Santa Cruz Reservoir and 

•	 Nambe Lake. 

Interactions between surface water and shallow groundwater also can vacillate between net flow into or out of the 

surface-water body in relation to the season, temperature, or 

water-use patterns and are ultimately dependent on hydraulic head or stage in the surface-water body in relation to the 

hydraulic head in the aquifer (Winter and others, 1998). For 

the purpose of this survey, surface-water/groundwater interactions are characterized as seepage gains to or seepage losses 

from the surface-water system. 

Model Surveys 

The generalized conceptual models (fig. 2) were used to 

design a framework for comparison of model treatments of 
Methods Used To Survey Hydrologic Models and Assess Data Needs 7

Figure 2. Conceptual model diagrams. A, Generalized surface-water conceptual model. B, Generalized groundwater conceptual 

model. 

CHANGES IN

AQUIFER

STORAGE RECHARGE

DISCHARGE

• Precipitation recharge

• Seepage gains from 

river

• Seepage from drains 

and canals*

• Artificial recharge*

• Evapotranspiration/

riparian losses

• Seepage losses to 

rivers

• Groundwater 

pumping*

• Discharge to drains*

CHANGES IN STORAGE 

Rio Grande water

• Released from reservoir 

storage*

• Retained in reservoirs*

San Juan–Chama water

• Released from reservoir 

storage*

• Retained in reservoirs* INFLOW

OUTFLOW

• Rainfall runoff

• Snowmelt runoff

• Springs

• Tributary contributions 

• Seepage gains from

groundwater

• San Juan–Chama inflow*

• Effluent/irrigation return*

• Evapotranspiration/

riparian losses

• Seepage losses to 

groundwater

• Irrigation diversions*

• Municipal diversions*

• San Juan–Chama

diversions*

EXPLANATION

* Human induced

Note: Seepage gains or losses can be due to naturally occurring or human-induced conditions.

A

B
8 Survey of Hydrologic Models and Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking Flow in the Rio Grande, North-Central New Mexico

the known gains and losses specific to the study area. Physical 

occurrences of the types of elements identified in the conceptual model (such as tributary inflow) were identified for the 

study reach on the basis of maps and interviews with pueblo 

personnel. In the survey, known significant tributaries in the 

study area are identified by name whenever possible. 

Each publicly available model was surveyed for the 

inclusion and treatment of the various hydrologic elements 

identified through the use of the conceptual model. Surfacewater models and groundwater models were surveyed separately. Model characteristics such as time steps and calibration 

methods were included in the surveys to give readers additional information about how the individual models operate. 

Tabular documentation of model characteristics and model 

treatment of identified hydrologic elements identified provide 

a summary comparison of the models for each element of 

interest (tables 1–6 at end of report). 

The tables of detailed information on the hydrologic 

models (tables 1–6) can be used as tools to help readers evaluate the models for multiple uses, including accounting types 

of flow in the Rio Grande. The hydrologic elements presented 

in the surface-water hydrologic element table (table 2) are 

divided into three river reaches and generally presented in an 

upstream to downstream order, starting with inflow elements 

and followed by outflow elements. The three reaches are 

(1) the Rio Grande from Embudo to Otowi Bridge, (2) the Rio 

Chama, and (3) the Rio Grande from Otowi Bridge to Isleta 

Pueblo. A list of hydrologic elements also was designed for the 

groundwater resources in the study area. 

Each gain and loss identified contributes to a category 

of water in the Rio Grande such as natural flow, stored water 

released, or intermountain transfer water. For example, inflow 

from the Azotea Tunnel would be a component of intermountain transfer water but not of natural flow. Although the tables 

herein do not have the hydrologic gains and losses identified 

as naturally occurring or human induced, each gain and loss is 

identified such that the user can follow those hydrologic elements of interest for their purposes. 

The surveys were completed by using model documentations and interviews. Interviews were conducted with people 

who previously used or currently use the hydrologic models or 

were involved in their development. The purpose of the interviews was to get information from people most familiar with 

the models on the model utility and applicability in accounting 

or tracking types of flow in the Rio Grande.

Hydrologic Data Needs 

During the course of conducting the model surveys, 

hydrologic data were identified that are needed to accurately 

account water in the Rio Grande but do not exist. Data needs 

were identified from a combination of (1) observations of 

data that were approximated in all models and (2) suggestions 

from authors for ways to improve upon their models or model 

calibrations.

Hydrologic Models Surveyed 

For each model surveyed, a brief overview is provided 

that describes model development and purpose. The individual 

elements surveyed for each model are generally presented in 

tabular form (tables 1–6). Elements that cannot be presented in 

tabular form are discussed in the Model Surveys section. 

Surface-Water Models 

Four publicly available surface-water models were 

identified for this study: (1) the Upper Rio Grande Water 

Operations Model (URGWOM) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] and others 2005a, 2005b); (2) the Upper Rio 

Grande Simulation Model (URGSiM) (Roach, 2007); (3) the 

Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District Decision Support 

System (DSS) (Oad and others, 2009); and (4) the Middle Rio 

Grande FLO-2D Flood Routing Model (FLO-2D) (Tetra Tech, 

Inc., 2004, and Riada Engineering, Inc., 2008). Each of the 

models was created for different purposes by using different 

software packages. The two large-scale surface-water models 

(URGWOM and URGSiM) cover the entire reach of the Rio 

Grande between Embudo and Isleta Pueblo. The third model 

(DSS) was designed to account flow in the Rio Grande irrigation canals from Cochiti Dam downstream to the Bosque del 

Apache National Wildlife Refuge, south of Isleta Pueblo. The 

fourth model (FLO-2D) was designed to simulate the hydraulics of the Rio Grande reach from Cochiti Dam to Elephant 

Butte Reservoir. Although additional surface-water models 

have been developed for discrete sections of the Rio Grande, 

their limited spatial extent and design excluded them from the 

current survey. 

The four surface-water models surveyed produce results 

that could be useful in quantifying the flow of the Rio Grande, 

specifically by tracking water as it moves down the channel of 

the Rio Grande and by improving the understanding of river 

hydraulics for the specified reaches. The applicability of each 

model with respect to accounting different components of flow 

varies according to the purpose for which each model was 

designed. Table 1 lists some general characteristics of the four 

surface-water models.

Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model 

URGWOM is one of two publicly available surfacewater models that cover the entire reach of this study. The 

geographic extents of URGWOM actually extend beyond the 

study reach. According to the URGWOM documentation, the 

upper Rio Grande is the reach of the Rio Grande between the 

Colorado–New Mexico State line and Cochiti Dam in New 

Mexico (USACE and others, 2005a). URGWOM was initially 

developed starting in 1996 through an interagency effort of six 

Federal agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR), U.S. Fish 
Hydrologic Models Surveyed 9

and Wildlife Service, USGS, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and 

International Boundary and Water Commission. In 2007, other 

State and local agencies joined the effort for continuous development and improvement of the model. 

URGWOM was envisioned as simulating water storage 

and delivery operations in the Rio Grande from its headwaters 

in Colorado to below Caballo Dam in southern New Mexico. 

The current model extents are from the Colorado–New Mexico State line to Caballo Reservoir. The model incorporates 

all water management rules (such as dam releases and other 

diversions) for managing reservoirs along the Rio Grande 

from the Colorado–New Mexico State line to Elephant Butte 

Reservoir. It simulates the physical system and tracks San 

Juan–Chama and Rio Grande waters separately. 

There are four separate modules within URGWOM 

that are utilized for decision support: Planning, Forecast, 

Accounting, and Water Operations. The Planning module 

is used to simulate different operation scenarios to evaluate 

long-term impacts of proposed actions. The Forecast module uses hydrologic data from past records for similar years 

along with current forecasted runoff information provided by 

the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the 

National Weather Service (NWS) to compute inflows for the 

Water Operations and Planning modules. The Accounting and 

Water Operations modules are the most useful URGWOM 

modules for estimating and tracking prior and paramount 

water releases. The Accounting module can be run on a daily 

time step and is used to simulate year-to-date conditions and 

provide updated status of account storage in reservoirs and 

deliveries made to water users (USACE and others, 2005b). 

The Water Operations module is run on a daily time step to 

simulate forecast operations, deliveries, and resulting flows 

through the end of a calendar year. Output from the Water 

Operations module is used for determining forecasted flows 

and reservoir storage for annual operating plans in order to 

reduce waste, eliminate unnecessary reservoir spills, prevent 

downstream flooding, and allow effective distribution of available water supplies.

The Accounting module tracks reservoir storage and 

release of 20 different water user accounts starting at Heron 

Reservoir. The accounts modeled at Heron Reservoir include 

one Rio Grande water account and 19 San Juan–Chama water 

accounts including accounts for various counties, municipalities, tribes, recreation areas, MRGCD, and uncontracted water. 

Downstream from Heron Reservoir at El Vado Reservoir, the 

Rio Grande accounts of (1) Supplemental ESA (Endangered 

Species Act), (2) Rio Grande, (3) MRGCD Drought, and 

(4) Indian Storage (prior and paramount storage) are simulated 

in the model. All accounts are tracked downstream as far as 

Elephant Butte Reservoir or to appropriate storage or diversion locations. Diversions include the MRGCD diversions at 

Cochiti Dam, near San Felipe, and at Isleta and the Drinking 

Water Project at Albuquerque. Accounting module simulations 

are completed by using inputs for actual operations, whereas 

the Water Operations module simulations are completed by 

using rules for reservoir operations.

The basic inputs to URGWOM are gaged streamflows at 

Rio Grande near Lobatos, Colorado, and at northern tributaries 

of the Rio Grande including Red River, Rio Pueblo de Taos 

below Los Cordovas, and Embudo Creek (figs. 1A and 1B). 

Other inputs include San Juan diversions through the Azotea 

Tunnel, Willow Creek, Rio Chama above El Vado Reservoir, 

Galisteo Creek, Jemez River, Albuquerque’s North and South 

Diversion Channels, Tijeras Arroyo, and the Rio Puerco. The 

model does not incorporate or predict monsoonal precipitation 

variables. The model is divided into 23 total reaches: five main 

reaches on the Rio Chama; eight reaches on the upper Rio 

Grande from the Rio Grande near Lobatos, Colorado, streamgaging station to Cochiti Lake, New Mexico; six reaches on 

the Middle Rio Grande from Cochiti Lake to Elephant Butte 

Reservoir, New Mexico; and four reaches from Elephant Butte 

Reservoir, New Mexico, to El Paso, Texas (USACE and others 

2005a). 

Upstream from Cochiti Lake, URGWOM uses a variable time lag for river routing, which is based on comparisons 

with historical data. The variable time lag is a simplified 

routing method based on a relation between velocity (hence 

lag time) and flow. Downstream from Cochiti Lake a straight 

time lag is used. Tables are developed (USACE and others, 

2002) that relate discharge to time lag for each river reach 

modeled.

Although URGWOM is primarily aimed at quantifying 

flow on the Rio Grande, it also incorporates surface-water/

groundwater interaction in two ways. The Middle Rio Grande 

portion of the model contains a shallow groundwater component that is three cells wide for each of the 21 subreaches of 

the 6 river reaches modeled. The three cells represent the 

right and left flood-plain areas, with widths ranging from 

0.1 mi to nearly 3 mi, and the area directly below the river 

channel, extending to the riverside drains and with a width 

of about 0.5 mi. Each cell is 5–7 mi long. The purpose of 

including this shallow groundwater component is to capture 

the head-dependent flux between the river and the shallow 

aquifer, which is based on difference in head and a conductance term. The deep aquifer groundwater head values 

calculated by the McAda and Barroll (2002) regional groundwater model are inputs to the groundwater simulation in 

URGWOM.

The Upper Rio Grande Simulation Model 

URGSiM is the second of two models that cover the 

entire reach of the study area and continue south of Elephant 

Butte Reservoir. URGSiM is an integrated climate, hydrologic, 

groundwater, and socioeconomic model of the upper Rio 

Grande that serves as a future water-planning decision support 

tool. URGSiM was funded by Sandia National Laboratory 

and created through a cooperative effort with the URGWOM 

technical committee. Additional funding provided by the 

USACE and the USBOR allow for continual updates to the 

model. 
10 Survey of Hydrologic Models and Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking Flow in the Rio Grande, North-Central New Mexico

URGSiM is a monthly time step Powersim (http://www.

powersim.com) model that employs a system dynamics 

computational technique. It is a water-balance model that 

dynamically integrates surface-water, reservoir operations, water demand, and groundwater models for the entire 

New Mexico reach of the Rio Grande. The model uses data 

recorded from 1975 through 1999 for calibration, uses data 

recorded from 2000 through 2004 for validation, and then runs 

forward from 2005 in a scenario-evaluation mode (Roach, 

2007). 

URGSiM simulates groundwater with coarsely gridded 

variants of the regional groundwater model by McAda and 

Barroll (2002), the Española Basin model by Frenzel (1995), 

and a Socorro Basin model by Shafike (2005). Reservoir 

operations and water demand are also integrated into the 

URGSiM model. Groundwater contributions are determined 

by the coarsely gridded groundwater model as adapted and 

integrated in URGSiM. Surface-water contribution is determined by streamflow gages, and mass balance is closed by 

ungaged surface-water inflows and crop consumption.

URGSiM runs well on a personal computer and is 

designed to be a rapid screening tool for use in stakeholder 

outreach for water-resource planning and management 

decisions. It was designed so that it could be operated in 

support of URGWOM. URGSiM is designed to be consistent 

with URGWOM regarding model structure, physical processes, operations rules, equations, and inputs. Basic inputs 

to URGSiM include total gaged surface-water flows at the 

upstream model boundary, monthly climate data, human 

groundwater extraction and wastewater returns, and agricultural and riparian areas by plant type. It does not incorporate 

rainfall runoff or snowmelt relations. URGSiM is divided 

into 17 surface water reaches and 79 groundwater cells based 

on the locations of available stream-gaging stations. The 

reaches between Embudo and Isleta are covered by 10 of these 

surface-water reaches and 50 of the groundwater cells.

The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District 

Decision Support System 

The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District DSS was 

developed during 2004 and 2005 through cooperative work 

between the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, 

Colorado State University, and the MRGCD. The purpose 

of the DSS is to help water managers and farmers determine 

when, how often, and for how long to irrigate in an effort to 

better serve farmers and their crops for more efficient use of 

water. The DSS can be updated and linked directly to water 

releases. The DSS does not allow for simulation of flow in 

the Rio Grande but does allow for water in the MRGCD canal 

system to be simulated. Because the DSS does not simulate 

flow in the Rio Grande, many of the elements identified in the 

hydrologic element table are not applicable. 

The DSS uses a detailed simulation of the MRGCD 

canal system along with carefully measured and known crop 

data, weather data, and canal seepage losses to estimate water 

demand and develop water delivery schedules for the main 

canals and feeder channels. The DSS uses flow data for diversions and return flows that are collected by the MRGCD’s 

real-time telemetry network. The DSS assumes that the 

estimated evaporation demand is representative of the study 

area as a whole, that seepage gain (return flow to the channel) 

is a fixed percentage of the water delivered, and that measurements of seepage loss to the groundwater for the canals and 

feeder channels are accurate and representative. Extensive 

collection of field data, including soil characteristics, water 

delivery rates, and on-farm water use, was conducted in 2008 

(Oad and others, 2009) to validate the assumptions of the DSS. 

The model does not incorporate groundwater data.

The Middle Rio Grande FLO-2D Flood Routing 

Model 

The Middle Rio Grande FLO-2D Flood Routing Model 

was developed by Tetra Tech, Inc. (2004), with the support of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bosque Initiative Group, 

USACE, USBOR, and the New Mexico Interstate Stream 

Commission. The model is a two-dimensional, volumeconservation, flood routing model that distributes a flood 

hydrograph over a system of square grid elements. The model 

was designed to simulate river and overbank flow on the Rio 

Grande from Cochiti Dam to Elephant Butte Reservoir. It 

was initially completed with 500-ft grid spacing, but updates 

in 2007 reduced the grid spacing to 250 ft (Riada Engineering, Inc., 2008). The purposes of the model are to simulate 

flooding, to map inundated areas and depths, to assess riverine 

habitat conditions, to support habitat restoration efforts, and to 

simulate water transport traveltime. The model operates under 

the assumptions that flow is one dimensional in the channel 

but closer to two dimensional in the flood-plain areas. Inputs 

and land cover characteristics can be updated. There are no 

groundwater inputs to the program.

Table 2 summarizes how select hydrologic gains and 

losses (or elements) identified are treated by each of the 

surface-water models evaluated. Note that the DSS and 

FLO-2D models do not cover the entire reach surveyed. 

Groundwater Models 

Rivers in the Middle Rio Grande Basin interact with 

groundwater. Human activity also affects exchanges between 

groundwater and surface water: pumping from wells brings 

groundwater to the surface, while irrigation and wastewater 

discharges can infiltrate back to groundwater. The timing, 

location, and rate of these exchanges between groundwater 

and surface water are constantly changing. Models that 
Hydrologic Models Surveyed 11

simulate groundwater flows and, in most cases, simulate 

surface-water/groundwater interactions were surveyed in this 

study. Although many of the groundwater models surveyed 

do simulate exchange of groundwater with the surface, none 

of the groundwater models can simulate overall surface-water 

flows. In the discussion of the models below, if a river is 

listed as being simulated by a model, it means that a boundary condition has been included in the model to represent the 

river. In these cases, flows between the river and underlying 

aquifer and the effects of pumping on the river are, or can 

be, calculated by the model. If, however, the model was not 

designed for the purpose of determining the effects of pumping on the rivers listed, then the model should not be used for 

that purpose.

Thirteen groundwater models were identified for inclusion in this study and, for the purpose of discussion in this 

report, are identified as models 1 through 13. The geographic 

extents (domains) for the models are shown in figure 3. All 

but one of the groundwater models evaluated, model 12, were 

based on the software package MODFLOW (Harbaugh and 

others, 2000) or a precursor to MODFLOW. The URGSiM 

groundwater model was not evaluated in this section because 

it is based on two other models that were evaluated, model 

6 and model 10. Seven of the thirteen models were extended 

or substantially modified versions of earlier models. For 

example, the model developed by McAda and Barroll (2002), 

model 10, was built on the foundation of three earlier models (Kernodle and others, 1995; Tiedeman and others, 1998; 

Barroll, 2001). In general, this is a common occurrence with 

groundwater models and results both from the desire to have 

models reflect the most recent data available and from the 

need to adapt old models to new uses. Table 3 indicates the 

relations between the models. 

Table 4 lists the well fields that are included in each 

groundwater model. The Los Alamos, Santa Fe, and Albuquerque well fields are located in or near the communities bearing 

those names. The Guaje well field is located in Guaje Canyon 

(fig. 1B). The Pajarito well field is located south of the community of Los Alamos. The Buckman well field is located 

several miles south of the Rio Grande at Otowi Bridge gage 

and on the east side of the Rio Grande.

Model 1: Hearne (1985a) Mathematical Model 

of the Tesuque Aquifer System Near Pojoaque, 

New Mexico 

Hearne (1985a) developed a transient groundwater model 

of the Tesuque aquifer. The model was capable of simulating groundwater interactions with the Rio Grande, Santa Fe, 

Pojoaque, and Santa Cruz Rivers. As described by Hearne 

(1985a), “The model was used to simulate the response of 

the aquifer system to an irrigation-development plan in the 

Pojoaque River Basin.” Modifications of this model exist but 

are not published or publicly available (Doug McAda, written 

commun., 2011).

Model 2: Kernodle and Scott (1986) ThreeDimensional Model Simulation of Steady-State 

Ground Water Flows in the Albuquerque–Belen 

Basin, New Mexico 

Kernodle and Scott (1986) developed a steady-state 

model of the Albuquerque–Belen Basin aquifer. The model 

simulated flood-plain alluvium for the Rio Grande, Rio 

Puerco, Rio Salado, and Jemez River. The model was developed as part of the Regional Aquifer System Analysis (RASA) 

Program, a national research effort that studied 25 major aquifer systems across the Nation. The purpose of the model was 

to simulate steady-state groundwater flow conditions prior to 

1960 in the Albuquerque–Belen Basin aquifer. This model was 

superseded by models 7 through 11.

Model 3: Kernodle and others (1987) ThreeDimensional Model Simulation of Transient 

Ground-Water Flow in the Albuquerque–Belen 

Basin, New Mexico 

Kernodle and others (1987) extended the model by 

Kernodle and Scott (1986) (model 2) to perform transient 

simulations. This effort was again part of the RASA Program, and the model was used to evaluate water budgets and 

pumping-induced leakage to groundwater from surface water. 

The model simulated transient (1907–79) groundwater flow in 

the Albuquerque–Belen aquifer. This model also was superseded by models 7 through 11.

Model 4: McAda and Wasiolek (1988) Simulation 

of the Regional Geohydrology of the Tesuque 

Aquifer System near Santa Fe, New Mexico 

McAda and Wasiolek (1988) developed a transient 

groundwater model of the Tesuque aquifer. The purpose of the 

model was to serve as a tool for water-resources management, 

specifically to simulate the effects of groundwater withdrawals 

on the Tesuque aquifer. The Rio Grande, Pojoaque River, Rio 

Tesuque, and Santa Fe River are individually simulated by the 

model. At the request of their cooperator, representations of 

geologic structure and surface-water/groundwater interactions 

were simplified (D. McAda, oral commun., 2010). Modified 

versions of this model are being used. 

Model 5: McAda (1990) Simulation of the Effects 

of Ground-Water Withdrawal from a Well Field 

Adjacent to the Rio Grande, Santa Fe County, 

New Mexico 

McAda (1990) modified the model by McAda and 

Wasiolek (1988) (model 4) to simulate proposed groundwater 
12 Survey of Hydrologic Models and Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking Flow in the Rio Grande, North-Central New Mexico

Figure 3. Generalized geographic extent of the surveyed groundwater models.

Rio Grande

Basin

Los Alamos Española

Santa

 Fe

Albuquerque

Taos

Rio Rancho

Jemez River

La Puente

Bernalillo

CONTINENTAL DIVIDE

Sangre de Cristo Mountains

San Juan Mountains

BOSQUE DEL APACHE

NATIONAL WILDLIFE 

REFUGE Rio Grande

Rio Salado

Rio San Jose

Rio Puerco

Embudo Creek

Abo Arroyo

Willow Creek

Horse Lake

Creek

Rio Chama

Conejo s River

Rio Grande

Red River

Galisteo Creek

Elephant 

Butte 

Reservoir

Cochiti 

Lake

Heron Reservoir

El Vado Reservoir

Abiquiu 

Reservoir

Santa Cruz 

Reservoir

Nambe Lake

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

106°

107°

108°

38°

37°

36°

35°

34°

EXPLANATION

Middle Rio Grande Basin Pueblo

Urban area

Model area, by number

 1

 12

 13

 2, 3

 4, 5, 6

 7, 10, 11

 8, 9

Selected U.S. Geological Survey 

 stream-gaging station

0 30 60 MILES 15

0 30 60 KILOMETERS 15

45

45

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 2000, 1:24,000

Universal Transverse Mercator, zone 13

North American Datum of 1988

Santo Domingo

Cochiti

San Felipe

Sandia

Santa Ana

Isleta

Rio Grande near Lobatos

Rio Grande at Isleta Lakes

Rio Grande at Otowi Bridge

Rio Grande at Embudo

Rio Grande near Del Norte

Costilla Creek near Costilla

Azotea Tunnel at outlet 

near Chama

Rio Grande at Cochiti Dam

Rio Grande Floodway at San Acacia

Rio Chama near Chamita

Rio Chama below Abiquiu Dam

Rio Chama near La Puente
Hydrologic Models Surveyed 13

withdrawals at the Buckman well field to supply the City of 

Santa Fe. The transient simulations demonstrated that the 

proposed pumping wells would capture water from the Rio 

Grande, Pojoaque River, and Tesuque River. 

Model 6: Frenzel (1995) Geohydrology and 

Simulation of Ground-Water Flow near Los 

Alamos, North-Central New Mexico 

Frenzel (1995) modified the McAda and Wasiolek (1988) 

model (model 4). Changes were made to hydraulic conductivity and storage values and to specified head boundary conditions that affected simulated recharge to the aquifer (table 4). 

The purpose of the model was to incorporate new geologic 

understanding into the Tesuque aquifer model and to compare 

alternative groundwater withdrawal options. The Rio Grande, 

Pojoaque River, Rio Tesuque, and Santa Fe River are again 

simulated by the model. Modified versions of this model are 

being used by the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer 

(NMOSE) and engineering consultants (P. Barroll, oral commun., May 2010).

Model 7: Kernodle and others (1995) Simulation 

of Ground-Water Flow in the Albuquerque 

Basin, Central New Mexico, 1901–1994, with 

Projections to 2020 

Kernodle and others (1995) developed a transient 

groundwater model of the Albuquerque Basin to represent a 

new understanding of the basin hydrogeologic framework. 

New features of the model, as compared to Kernodle and 

others (1987), included a geographic information system (GIS) 

database to organize and facilitate changes to the model and 

a more detailed representation of surface-water/groundwater 

interactions. The authors used the model to examine a number 

of groundwater-withdrawal scenarios and to quantify head 

declines, induced recharge (surface water drawn into an aquifer by groundwater pumping), and detailed hydrologic budgets. The Rio Grande, Santa Fe River, Galisteo Creek, Tijeras 

Arroyo, Jemez River, Rio Puerco, Abo Arroyo, Rio Salado, 

and Cochiti Lake are simulated by the model along with canals 

and drains. Kernodle (1998) subsequently modified some of 

the hydraulic conductivity zones and extended the period of 

historical simulation by 1 year, from 1994 to 1995. This model 

was computationally intensive to run and has been superseded 

by models 8 through 11. 

Model 8: Tiedeman and others (1998) Application 

of Nonlinear-Regression Methods to a GroundWater Flow Model of the Albuquerque Basin, 

New Mexico 

Tiedeman and others (1998) applied nonlinear regression methods in modifying the model by Kernodle and others 

(1995). The revised transient model had a new grid based on 

information learned from the previous model, an improved 

representation of the hydrogeology, and revised aquifer parameters that resulted in a more robust model performance. The 

revised model was used to simulate a variety of scenarios in 

which sensitivity of the most important hydraulic characteristics was quantified by direct calculation. The Rio Grande, 

Santa Fe River, Galisteo Creek, Tijeras Arroyo, Jemez River, 

Rio Puerco, Abo Arroyo, Rio Salado, and Cochiti Lake 

are simulated by the model. This model was designed as a 

research model and is not in use.

Model 9: Barroll (2001) Documentation of the 

Administrative Groundwater Model for the 

Middle Rio Grande Basin 

Barroll (2001) combined one of the conceptual models 

from Tiedeman and others (1998) and hydraulic characteristics from Kernodle and others (1995) and Kernodle (1998) to 

produce a transient groundwater model for use by the NMOSE 

in water-resource planning. This model uses the Tiedeman and 

others (1998) grid, but the model hydraulic parameters are 

based on the Kernodle and others (1995) and Kernodle (1998) 

models. Modifications were made to hydraulic conductivity 

and specific storage values, the vertical grid discretization, and 

boundary conditions representing the Jemez River. The model 

was used to simulate stream depletions and groundwater drawdowns to support water rights in the Albuquerque Basin. The 

Rio Grande, Santa Fe River, Galisteo Creek, Tijeras Arroyo, 

Jemez River, Rio Puerco, Abo Arroyo, Rio Salado, and Cochiti 

Lake are simulated by the model. This model is being used 

by the NMOSE for water-resource planning and permitting 

(P. Barroll, oral commun., 2010).

Model 10: McAda and Barroll (2002) Simulation 

of Ground-Water Flow in the Middle Rio Grande 

Basin Between Cochiti and San Acacia, New 

Mexico 

McAda and Barroll (2002) built another transient model 

of the Albuquerque Basin. The new model included information learned from Barroll (2001), Tiedeman and others (1998), 

and Kernodle and others (1995) and featured a new grid and 

an extension of the simulation period to the year 2000. The 

purpose of the model was to (1) integrate the components of 

the groundwater-flow system, including the hydrologic interaction between the surface-water systems in the basin; (2) better understand the geohydrology of the basin; and (3) serve 

as a tool for water managers to plan and administer the use of 

water resources in the basin. The Rio Grande, Santa Fe River, 

Galisteo Creek, Tijeras Arroyo, Jemez River, Rio Puerco, Abo 

Arroyo, Rio Salado, Cochiti Lake, and Jemez Canyon Reservoir are simulated by the model in addition to canals and 

drains. Although interactions with surface water are modeled 

with limited detail and calibration, model output represents 
14 Survey of Hydrologic Models and Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking Flow in the Rio Grande, North-Central New Mexico

a reasonable reproduction of groundwater levels and stream 

losses (D. McAda, oral commun., May 2010). Modified 

versions of this model are being used by NMOSE for waterresource planning and to set boundary conditions for model 13 

and for URGWOM. 

Model 11: Sanford and others (2003) Use of 

Environmental Tracers To Estimate Parameters 

for a Predevelopment Ground-Water Flow 

Model of the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New 

Mexico 

Sanford and others (2003) built a steady-state model 

of the Albuquerque Basin and used environmental tracer 

and hydrochemistry data to calibrate hydraulic conductivity and recharge values. The purpose of the model was to 

demonstrate the use of tracers as a calibration tool and to 

construct an improved model. The Rio Grande, Santa Fe 

River, Galisteo Creek, Tijeras Arroyo, Arroyo Tonque, Jemez 

River, Rio Puerco, Abo Arroyo, and Rio Salado are simulated by the model. This is a steady state model with recharge 

calibrated on the basis of the geochemistry. The model was 

intended as a research model and is not in use.

Model 12: Keating and others (2005) 

Development and Application of Numerical 

Models To Estimate Fluxes Through the Regional 

Aquifer Beneath the Pajarito Plateau 

Keating and others (2005) developed a transient groundwater model to simulate a portion of the regional Española 

Basin aquifer. The model’s purpose was to provide new 

insight into large-scale aquifer properties and groundwater 

fluxes beneath the Pajarito Plateau in the vicinity of the Los 

Alamos National Laboratory. The Santa Clara River, Rito de 

los Frijoles, and Rio Grande are simulated in the model. This 

is a detailed and adaptable model, a modified version of which 

is currently in use at the Los Alamos National Laboratory 

(B. Robinson, oral commun., May 2010).

Model 13: MacClune and others (2006) HighResolution Groundwater Models for the 

Assessment of Riparian Restoration Options and 

River Conveyance Efficiency 

MacClune and others (2006) developed a set of transient groundwater models for simulating the shallow riparian 

environment along the Rio Grande in New Mexico to support 

analysis of restoration options and river management strategies. The model set primarily was used to simulate exchanges 

between surface water and shallow groundwater within 

the flood plain of the Rio Grande. The Rio Grande and its 

associated drains and conveyance channels are the surfacewater features simulated by the model. The model uses boundary conditions set by model 10 and land use data from 2002. 

The New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission uses the 

model to analyze river habitat.

Model Surveys 

The accuracy of any model is, among other things, a 

function of the data that are input. Accurate and current input 

data will provide for more accurate and current model output 

values. The model surveys focus mainly on how the different 

models are handling input values and on what data they are 

relying. 

Surface-Water Models 

Many of the hydrologic elements surveyed in table 2 

are shown as being included “implicitly” in a surface-water 

model. Implicit inclusion means that there is a place for that 

hydrologic element in the model, but instead of inputting data 

directly to represent that element, the element is either combined with other elements or is handled as a coefficient. Local 

flow calculations in URGWOM and URGSiM are examples 

of combining elements. Local flow is generally calculated as 

a portion of the difference between upstream main-stem flow 

and downstream main-stem flow for a particular reach, sometimes combined with irrigation diversions and return flows. 

In the case of the reach of the Rio Grande from Embudo to 

Otowi, even the largest tributary channels like the Santa Cruz 

River and the Pojoaque River, which flow much of the year, 

are included implicitly as a component of local flow. Although 

local flow is lumped for each reach, it does exhibit daily 

resolution in URGWOM because it is calculated for each 

day of the year, retroactively in that model. In URGSiM it is 

calibrated on a monthly basis. As shown in table 2, elements 

that are modeled implicitly as combined elements include 

tributary inflow, municipal and irrigation diversions, and 

return flows.

An example of using a coefficient would be to calculate 

a value as the difference between measured values and then 

to use the average of those differences over a time period in 

the model. Much of the flow loss for specific reaches above 

Cochiti Lake is addressed in both URGWOM and URGSiM 

through coefficients. Modeling elements implicitly through 

coefficients leads to an artificial smoothing in the temporal 

resolution of the model output. In other words, model outputs 

may agree with measured data on monthly, seasonal, or annual 

time scales, but the daily fluctuations of the hydrologic system 

will not be evident in the model output regardless of the model 

time step. As shown in table 2, elements that are modeled as 

coefficients include seepage gains and losses above Cochiti 

Lake. 
Model Surveys 15

For predictive and planning models such as URGSiM 

and the Forecast, Planning, and Water Operations modules 

of URGWOM, computed values rather than actual data must 

be used for certain hydrologic elements. Instead of using the 

stream-gaging station data at Otowi, for example, both URGWOM and URGSiM compute the flow at Otowi. Depending 

on the assumptions used, error may be introduced during these 

computations. URGWOM and URGSiM generally incorporate 

gage data inputs where they are available at the model margins 

and use gage data within the model extent for calibration. The 

Accounting module of URGWOM uses all gage data available 

to back-calculate the current conditions on the river.

Diversions and Return Flow 

For the Embudo to Otowi and Rio Chama reaches, 

URGWOM and URGSiM rely on similar assumptions for 

irrigable land and crop distribution to calculate irrigation 

diversions and return flows. URGWOM uses a variety of 

methods including calculations based on assumed irrigable 

acreages and assumed return flow, coefficients based on 

historical streamflow data (for the Rio Chama reach), and the 

lumping of diversions and return flows into the channel loss 

coefficient. In URGSiM, diversions are calculated on the basis 

of historical flow data during calibration and diversion rules 

during scenario runs. Crop consumption is calculated on the 

basis of climate data and assumptions about agricultural acreage and crop type. Return flows are then calculated as available water in the conveyance system less crop consumption, 

with some portion of those flows going back to the river and 

the rest continuing in the conveyance system to the next reach. 

Those ratios are based on model results during the historical 

period. 

For the Otowi to Isleta reach, diversions are handled 

differently by each of the four surface-water models. In 

URGWOM, average monthly hydrographs for Rio Grande 

water diverted at irrigation canals are input, but San Juan–

Chama water downstream from Cochiti Lake is not tracked. 

URGWOM handles municipal diversions by inputting data 

from the City of Albuquerque. By contrast, URGSiM continues to track Albuquerque’s allocation of San Juan–Chama 

water downstream to Albuquerque. URGSiM calculates irrigation diversions and lumps the values. URGSiM uses per capita 

water-use data to calculate municipal diversions. In the Otowi 

to Isleta reach, DSS uses gaged values for irrigation diversions but does not address municipal diversions because it is 

simulating flow only in the irrigation canals and not in the Rio 

Grande main-stem channel. The FLO-2D model uses outflow 

hydrographs to simulate both irrigation and municipal diversions and does not differentiate between Rio Grande water and 

San Juan–Chama water. In both URGWOM and URGSiM, 

irrigation return flows in the Otowi to Isleta reach are calculated on the basis of diversion schedules, crop evapotranspiration, seepage, and drain information. Irrigation return flows 

are measured in DSS and are based on historical records in 

FLO-2D. 

Seepage 

Values for seepage gains to and losses from surface 

water generally are taken from a groundwater component of 

the models when available and otherwise modeled implicitly 

as a component of local flow, a component of irrigation return 

flow, or with a coefficient. There are no publicly available 

groundwater basin models for the Rio Chama or the Rio 

Grande in New Mexico north of the City of Española. 

URGWOM uses a variety of methods to address 

surface-water interaction with groundwater. Where possible, 

surface-water/groundwater interactions were calculated as the 

difference between observed and routed flow for a calibration period (Embudo to Otowi reach and portions of the Rio 

Chama). In some reaches, surface-water gains were lumped 

with return flow into a monthly coefficient. For the San 

Juan–Chama water, a monthly coefficient for surface-water 

losses is used as defined in the Rio Grande Compact (Public 

Act No. 96, 76), and for the Otowi to Isleta reach a coarsely 

gridded component of the groundwater model is used. Tables 

of computed loss coefficients for each reach are available in 

the URGWOM physical model documentation (USACE and 

others, 2005a).

URGSiM models groundwater dynamics between the 

City of Española and Elephant Butte Reservoir by using a 

spatially aggregated representation of three groundwater basin 

models: the McAda and Barroll (2002) regional groundwater 

model, the Española Basin model by Frenzel (1995), and the 

Socorro Basin model by Shafike (2005). Upstream from the 

City of Española and in the Rio Chama reach, where there are 

no applicable groundwater basin models, URGSiM estimates 

a constant groundwater contribution to the river on the basis of 

winter gage analysis 1975–99 (Roach, 2007). 

DSS does not consider seepage gains to surface water but 

instead models return flow from the riverside drains. DSS uses 

a global value of 1.5 percent loss per mile for all irrigation 

canals. The FLO-2D model does not account for seepage gains 

to or losses from surface water.

Changes in Reservoir Storage 

Changes in storage for reservoirs included in the study 

area are modeled in similar ways by URGWOM and URGSiM 

but are not addressed by the DSS or FLO-2D models. Changes 

in reservoir storage are calculated as inflows less outflows in a 

given time step. Inflows include precipitation and river flows 

(Rio Grande water and San Juan–Chama water), and outflows 

include seepage, evaporation, and releases. Releases of Rio 

Grande water and San Juan–Chama water are controlled by 

a complex set of reservoir operation rules which guide all 

aspects of storage and release of water in the reservoirs. These 

reservoir operation rules, which are the most complex portions of both URGWOM and URGSiM, control release of Rio 

Grande water and San Juan–Chama water. El Vado Reservoir, 

Abiquiu Reservoir, and Cochiti Lake store Rio Grande water 

and San Juan–Chama water, but Heron Reservoir is authorized 
16 Survey of Hydrologic Models and Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking Flow in the Rio Grande, North-Central New Mexico

to store only San Juan–Chama water. Reduction in reservoir 

storage capacity due to sedimentation is also accounted for in 

Abiquiu Reservoir and Cochiti Lake by URGWOM.

The URGWOM Accounting module tracks four Rio 

Grande accounts for the El Vado Reservoir: Indian storage 

water (prior and paramount water), MRGCD drought water 

(based on a 2003 emergency drought water agreement), Rio 

Grande water, and supplemental water. According to the 

Accounting module documentation (USACE and others, 

2005b), the amount of storage required for the six Middle Rio 

Grande Basin Pueblos is computed by the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs and the USBOR. Released prior and paramount water 

is simulated in the URGWOM Accounting module but is not 

tracked downstream from El Vado Reservoir. 

Evapotranspiration 

URGWOM and URGSiM calculate evaporation losses 

at reservoirs as the surface area of the reservoir times 70 percent of the panevaporation measured at the reservoir in a 

given time step. Both models then apportion losses between 

San Juan–Chama water and Rio Grande water according to 

accepted San Juan–Chama accounting rules. URGWOM 

handles evapotranspiration losses at locations other than 

reservoirs in the Rio Chama reach indirectly by assuming 

consumptive use of half of all agricultural diversions. In the 

Embudo to Otowi reach, URGWOM uses loss rates calculated 

for the reach between El Vado and Abiquiu Reservoirs on 

the Rio Chama. The URGSiM calculation for the Rio Chama 

reach and the Embudo to Otowi reach considers riparian, 

irrigated agricultural, and open river areas and the calculated 

potential loss rates from each. The FLO-2D model calculates 

monthly evaporation averages on the basis of free-surface 

evaporation for each hour of the day for the area north of 

Otowi but does not address evapotranspiration losses south of 

Otowi. Both URGWOM and URGSiM calculate daily evaporation for open water in Cochiti Lake and daily evapotranspiration values from riparian and agricultural areas in the reach 

between Otowi and Isleta. The DSS calculates evapotranspiration losses only for irrigated areas in this reach.

Elements Not Addressed by Surface-Water 

Models 

None of the four surface-water models surveyed specifically address interaction between surface water and groundwater occurring at the wetlands downstream from Cochiti 

Lake. Both URGWOM and URGSiM do, however, model 

surface-water and groundwater interactions downstream from 

Cochiti Lake, an area that includes these wetlands. Other elements of interest that are not addressed by any of the surfacewater models include the hydrological aspects of Santa Cruz 

Reservoir and Nambe Lake, those of Horse Lake Creek above 

Heron Reservoir, or any aspect of water quality throughout the 

system.

Groundwater Models 

Model Characteristics 

Because only six of the groundwater models surveyed 

are identified as being currently in use (table 3, models 4, 6, 9, 

10, 12, and 13), this discussion will focus on those six models. 

URGSiM is not included explicitly here because its groundwater model is based on models 6 and 10. The purpose of models 

4, 6, and 9 generally is to simulate the effect of groundwater 

withdrawals and drawdown. The purpose of models 10 and 

12 is to improve understanding of the geohydrology of the 

areas modeled (Albuquerque Basin and the Los Alamos area, 

respectively). The purpose of model 13 contrasts with those 

of the other models in that model 13 is focused on simulating 

the shallow riparian groundwater environment. All six of these 

models are transient models, and all except model 13 have 

time periods beginning in the predevelopment period (predevelopment is considered to be prior to modern groundwater 

pumping). The ending time period for the six models is the 

early 21st century. Model 13 has higher temporal and spatial 

resolution with the shortest time step (2 weeks to 5 months) 

and the smallest cell sizes (0.02 mi horizontal and 20 ft vertical) of the six models. The more common time step for the 

groundwater models is months to years. Horizontal cell sizes 

for the other four models range from 0.1 mi to 1 mi, and the 

vertical cell sizes range from tens to thousands of feet. Unlike 

the other five models, however, model 13 is not calibrated. 

Models 4, 6, and 10 are manually calibrated, and models 9 and 

12 are automatically calibrated.

Hydrologic Elements 

Because of their lineage, models 9 and 10 have the most 

similarities in terms of how various hydrologic elements of 

interest are addressed by the six currently used models. Wastewater return flow is addressed in models 4 and 6 as wastewater return from the Santa Fe wastewater treatment plants and 

in models 9 and 10 as septic return, but it is not addressed in 

models 12 and 13. Agricultural withdrawals are not addressed 

by any of the six models, but domestic well withdrawals 

(table 3) are addressed in models 4, 9, and 10. Irrigation return 

flow is addressed by only model 10. Evapotranspiration is 

addressed and provided as an output in models 9, 10, and 13. 

With the exception of model 13, all of the models address 

groundwater withdrawals, usually based on NMOSE data. All 

five models provide groundwater levels as an output. 

Model Calibration 

All six currently used models employ water-level 

measurement data, but they differ in terms of model calibration and parameterization (table 3). Models 9 and 10 employ 
Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking Flow on the Rio Grande 17

in situ seepage tests for model calibration or parameterization. 

Flow measurements at stream-gaging stations and differential streamflow seepage calculations are used in calibration 

or parameterization by all six models with the exception of 

model 13. Land use and (or) vegetative cover data are used in 

calibration or parameterization by models 9, 10, and 13.

Recharge 

The surveyed groundwater models simulate recharge to 

the aquifer in different ways. Recharge to an aquifer can be 

dependent on elevation and surface geology. It can occur from 

mountain-front seepage, tributary seepage, septic return flow, 

or irrigation seepage. Table 5 indicates how rates, locations, 

and types of recharge were determined and simulated for each 

model. 

In terms of the six currently used models, recharge is 

modeled by all but model 13, although output values on 

recharge are provided by all models but model 12 (table 3). 

Factors used to assign recharge rates vary among models 4, 

6, 9, 10, and 12 (table 5). The list of factors used to assign 

recharge rates in models 4 and 6 is the most comprehensive; it 

includes elevation, surface geology, mountain-front seepage, 

tributary seepage, and irrigation recharge. Models 9 and 10 

both depend on irrigation recharge, septic return flow, tributary seepage, and mountain-front seepage to assign recharge 

rates. Additionally, model 9 uses surface geology in assigning 

recharge rates. Model 12 bases recharge rates on only elevation and tributary seepage.

Surface-Water/Groundwater Interaction 

Surface-water/groundwater interactions simulated by 

groundwater models can provide valuable information to the 

surface-water models. The exchange of water between the Rio 

Grande and underlying shallow aquifers is quite large under 

some conditions. For example, comparisons between McAda 

and Barroll (2002) model results and stream-gaging station 

data indicate that, during periods of average October flow, 

nearly the entire flow of the Rio Grande can be expected to 

cycle once through the riverside drainage network as it travels 

downstream from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia. The groundwater models that include surface-water/groundwater interactions can provide large-scale estimates of flow between the 

Rio Grande and shallow aquifers, which can be an important 

component of the Rio Grande water budget as a whole. Table 6

shows how each groundwater model simulates surface-water/

groundwater interactions. 

Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking 

Flow on the Rio Grande 

Several data gaps became apparent during the course of 

conducting the model surveys. Certain values in all models 

are estimated as coefficients or as calibration factors because 

the data do not exist or are insufficient. Deficient data or 

poorly constrained variables pertaining to surface-water 

models include data on seepage gains and losses in the Rio 

Grande, particularly upstream from Cochiti Lake and in the 

Rio Chama; irrigation return flows; seasonal and ephemeral tributary inflow; evapotranspiration rates; soil moisture 

values; high-flow, cross-section, and elevation surveys; and 

stream-gaging station data in sandy channels, which are of 

variable quality. Information on daily releases of San Juan–

Chama water from Abiquiu Reservoir is available only when 

the URGWOM accounting model is run daily. A simulation 

of past prior and paramount releases made by using streamgaging station data from the period of the release to quantify 

problems that occurred during the release (such as insufficient 

volume of water or a delay in delivery) has not been completed. Deficient data or poorly constrained variables affecting 

groundwater models include groundwater conditions including groundwater levels and hydraulic conductivities between 

Cochiti Lake and Albuquerque, recharge, basin geologic 

structure, and current riparian area coverage. 

Data on evapotranspiration, particularly from agricultural 

and riparian areas, are sparse. Groundwater and surface-water 

models both are sensitive to evapotranspiration values, but 

models evaluated in this study generally use assumed evapotranspiration values that do not reflect spatial or temporal 

variability and that have unknown associated errors. Both 

URGWOM and URGSiM calculate reference evapotranspiration based on climate data that are both spatially and temporally varying and use crop areas and crop types that are both 

spatially and temporally (by year) varying as well.

Statewide, there are little data on the contribution of flow 

from ephemeral channels to the main-stem rivers. This lack 

can be particularly problematic for tracking flow on a realtime or daily basis. Some ephemeral channels in the study 

area have drainage areas covering hundreds of square miles 

and can have flow rates of tens of thousands of cubic feet per 

second for large storm events. 

Gaged data also are lacking for numerous perennial 

streams, such as Rio Ojo Caliente and Rio Nambe, near tributary confluences with the main-stem rivers. The lack of data 

regarding perennial tributary inflow on Rio Ojo Caliente and 

El Rito prohibits accurate calculations of Rio Chama channel conveyance from Abiquiu to the confluence with the Rio 

Grande. Channel losses estimated by models could be different 

from actual losses. Differences between channel loss estimates 

and actual losses may be compensated for in some models by 

a tributary inflow factor. 

Hydrologic data are generally more complete for the 

reach of the Rio Grande between Cochiti Lake and Isleta 

Pueblo than they are for upstream from Cochiti Lake. The 

combination of continual urban development and large-scale 

agricultural use of the river valley downstream from Cochiti 

Lake has resulted in more interested stakeholders and has 

necessitated accurate monitoring of the water. 

In all cases, the model results are only as good as the 

input data. The most recent hydrologic data are needed to 
18 Survey of Hydrologic Models and Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking Flow in the Rio Grande, North-Central New Mexico

accurately track prior and paramount releases. Ideally, these 

data would be continuously updated; however, a comprehensive source of such real-time data does not exist. Even daily 

data are sometimes difficult to obtain in a timely fashion for 

model operators (D.M. Roark, oral commun., May 2010) 

because the data come from multiple sources. Analysis of the 

4 publicly available surface-water models and 13 publicly 

available groundwater models shows that, although elements 

from many models can be helpful in tracking flow in the Rio 

Grande, numerous data gaps and modeling needs indicate that 

accurate, consistent, and timely tracking of flow on the Rio 

Grande could be improved.

Model Ability To Track Flow 

Surface-Water Models 

Because it takes time for prior and paramount water to 

be released and to travel downstream to the pueblos, a model 

that is run in real time, or at least daily, could provide sufficient warning that streamflows are becoming low enough 

to require a release of prior and paramount water. Real-time 

or daily simulations would allow the Designated Engineer 

and the pueblos to monitor upstream indicators that prior and 

paramount water will be needed and thereby would help to 

prevent an unnecessary and perhaps costly delay in delivery 

of needed water. None of the surface-water models evaluated 

were designed to track flows on a real-time basis. URGWOM 

and DSS, for example, are capable of running on a daily time 

step; however, generally only the URGWOM accounting module is run daily, with a 1-day lag. URGSiM is designed to run 

on only a monthly time step. In some cases, the models are not 

run in real time because of the lack of real-time data to be used 

as inputs for the models. 

Although none of the four surface-water models surveyed 

were designed specifically to quantify flow in the Rio Grande 

on a real-time basis, each can be helpful in accounting for different aspects of flow on the Rio Grande. URGSiM is a comprehensive model used to simulate flow in the Rio Grande and 

is used primarily as a rapid screening tool. URGSiM, when 

compared to URGWOM, includes less detail and has coarser 

spatial and temporal resolutions. It is, however, simpler to use, 

and the runtimes for simulations are much shorter than those 

in URGWOM. The DSS does not simulate flow in the Rio 

Grande, but it does include highly detailed information on the 

canal system south of Cochiti Lake that directly affects flow in 

the Rio Grande. The DSS model could be used to account for 

water delivery efficiency or to assess losses in the MRGCD 

canal system. Part of the strength of the DSS is that it includes 

a large amount of measured data for various processes and 

elements in the Middle Rio Grande Valley, including soil 

moisture, canal seepage, and evaporation. The measured data 

and canal system simulation provided by the DSS could be 

incorporated into a comprehensive water-resource model.

The FLO-2D model also is not applicable for tracking separate flow accounts. The applicability of the FLO-2D 

model regarding accounting flow in the Rio Grande is in routing of total flow or providing accurate traveltimes for flow in 

the Rio Grande for different flow conditions. Use of the flowrouting information gleaned from the FLO-2D model would 

be valuable in a detailed water-resource model.

In the model documentation for both the URGWOM and 

FLO-2D there is minimal discussion of uncertainty and errors 

associated with the model analysis, including sources of errors 

such as data input errors, simulation output errors, and model 

simplifications. 

The FLO-2D model may provide the most realistic river 

routing since that is the purpose of the model. URGSiM and 

the DSS do not address routing, and URGWOM uses a simplified routing method.

The purpose of URGWOM—to simulate water storage 

and delivery operations in the Rio Grande—corresponds 

more closely than any of the other models evaluated to the 

mission of the Designated Engineer and the pueblos to track 

the available supply of flow to predict a need for prior and 

paramount water releases. Specifically, the strengths of 

URGWOM in relation to modeling flow are the detail and 

attention paid to the accounting of Rio Grande flow and San 

Juan–Chama flow. URGWOM relies on groundwater head 

values derived from the McAda and Barroll (2002) model, 

which means that URGWOM will be affected by any uncertainties that affect the McAda and Barroll (2002) model. 

Although URGWOM is designed to account for daily flows 

in the Rio Grande, only the Accounting module is run on a 

daily basis, although not consistently, mainly because daily 

data are not available in a timely manner from the various sources that supply it. There is a task in the Enhancement and Development section of the URGWOM 5-year 

plan schedule (http://www.spa.usace.army.mil/urgwom/

continuedevelopment.asp) for development of a real-time 

water operations model to be effective in 2015. 

Groundwater Models 

Basic differences between the processes governing 

groundwater and surface-water flow lead to basic differences 

in the way groundwater and surface-water models are developed. Groundwater generally moves much more slowly than 

does surface water, and therefore, groundwater-model time 

steps are generally much larger than those used by surfacewater models. In addition, groundwater models generally have 

monthly or longer stress periods or time steps because stress 

data (recharge and pumpage) are generally only available 

for monthly or longer time periods. The groundwater models 

surveyed for this report cannot be expected to provide simulations of flow at time scales less than the simulated time step 

(1 month to 1 year in most cases). 

Aquifers generally encompass areas much wider than 

do stream channels. Grid spacing in groundwater models is, 

therefore, often too large to accurately simulate local-scale 
Summary 19

processes active in surface-water channels. Although many 

groundwater models that include surface-water/groundwater interactions have smaller grid spacing near streams, the 

groundwater models surveyed in this report cannot provide 

accurate simulations of individual river drains or any feature 

that is smaller than the model cell size, for example, 0.6 mi in 

the case of the McAda and Barroll (2002) model. 

Of those of the currently used groundwater models, the 

purpose of model 13 (MacClune and others, 2006), to simulate the shallow riparian groundwater environment, is the 

most appropriate for examining local-scale surface-water/

groundwater interactions. The basin-scale models, however, 

are also important in understanding the large-scale water balances between the aquifers and the surface water. As evident 

in table 6, all of the groundwater models surveyed address 

surface-water/groundwater interactions at some level. Any 

surface-water model would benefit from incorporating data 

from the most accurate and current groundwater model available. In the case of the Upper and Middle Rio Grande Valley, 

models 6 (Frenzel, 1995), 10 (McAda and Barroll, 2002), and 

12 (Keating and others, 2005) are the most accurate and current groundwater models available. 

Summary 

The six Middle Rio Grande Basin Pueblos have prior and 

paramount rights to deliveries of water from the Rio Grande 

for their use. When the pueblos or the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Designated Engineer identifies a need for additional flow on 

the Rio Grande, the Designated Engineer is tasked to decide 

when and how much prior and paramount water to release 

from storage at El Vado Reservoir to meet the needs of the 

pueblos. Over the last three decades, numerous models have 

been developed by Federal, State, and local agencies in New 

Mexico to simulate, understand, and (or) manage flows in 

the Middle Rio Grande upstream from Elephant Butte Reservoir. Analysis of 4 publicly available surface-water models 

and 13 publicly available groundwater models shows that, 

although elements from many models can be helpful in tracking flow in the Rio Grande, numerous data gaps and modeling 

needs indicate that accurate, consistent, and timely tracking of 

flow on the Rio Grande could be improved.

Deficient or poorly constrained hydrologic variables are 

sources of uncertainty that can be reduced with the acquisition of more refined data. Data gaps need to be filled to allow 

hydrologic models to be run on a real-time basis and thus 

ensure predictable water deliveries to meet needs for irrigation, domestic, stock, and other water uses. Deficient data 

or poorly constrained variables pertaining to surface-water 

models include data on seepage gains and losses in the Rio 

Grande, particularly upstream from Cochiti Lake and in the 

Rio Chama; irrigation return flows; seasonal and ephemeral tributary inflow; evapotranspiration rates; soil-moisture 

values; high-flow, cross-section, and elevation surveys on the 

Rio Grande; and stream-gaging station data in sandy channels, 

which are of variable quality. Information on daily releases of 

San Juan–Chama water from Abiquiu Reservoir is available 

in only a provisional form from the Accounting module of 

the Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model (URGWOM) 

model with a 1-day lag. Deficient data or poorly confined 

hydrologic variables affecting groundwater models include 

groundwater conditions including groundwater levels and 

hydraulic conductivities between Cochiti Lake and Albuquerque, recharge, basin geologic structure, and current riparian 

area coverage. Data on evapotranspiration, particularly from 

agricultural and riparian areas, are sparse.

In all cases, the model results are only as good as the 

input data. The most recent hydrologic data are needed to 

accurately track prior and paramount releases. Ideally, these 

data would be continuously updated; however, a comprehensive source of such real-time data does not exist. Daily data 

are even sometimes difficult to obtain in a timely fashion 

for model operators because the data come from multiple 

sources. 

Each surface-water model produces results that could 

be helpful in quantifying the flow of the Rio Grande, specifically by helping to track water as it moves down the channel 

of the Rio Grande and by improving the understanding of 

river hydraulics for the specified reaches. The ability of each 

surface-water model to track flow on the Rio Grande varies 

according to the purpose for which each model was designed. 

The purpose of URGWOM—to simulate water storage and 

delivery operations in the Rio Grande—is more applicable 

to tracking flow on the Rio Grande than are any of the other 

surface-water models surveyed. Specifically, the strengths of 

URGWOM in relation to modeling flow are the details and 

attention given to the accounting of Rio Grande flow and San 

Juan–Chama flow at a daily time step. 

The most significant difficulty in using any of the 

surveyed surface-water models for the purpose of predicting the need for requested water releases is that none of the 

surface-water models surveyed consider water accounting 

on a real-time basis. The Accounting module of URGWOM 

is capable of tracking flows on a daily basis but does so only 

with a 1-day lag. In most cases, it is the lack of a dependable 

database or source of real-time data that prohibits the models’ 

abilities to run in real time.

Groundwater models that provide detailed simulations 

of shallow groundwater flow in the vicinity of the Rio Grande 

can provide large-scale estimates of flow between the Rio 

Grande and shallow aquifers, which can be an important 

component of the Rio Grande water budget as a whole. The 

groundwater models surveyed for this report cannot, however, 

be expected to provide simulations of flow at time scales of 

less than the simulated time step (1 month to 1 year in most 

cases). Although many groundwater models that include 

surface-water/groundwater interactions have smaller grid 

spacing near streams, the groundwater models surveyed in 

this report cannot provide accurate simulations of individual 

river channels, drains, or any feature smaller than the model 

cell size, for example, 0.6 miles in the case of model 10. Of 
20 Survey of Hydrologic Models and Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking Flow in the Rio Grande, North-Central New Mexico

those of the currently used groundwater models, the purpose 

of model 13—to simulate the shallow riparian groundwater 

environment—is the most appropriate for examining localscale surface-water/groundwater interactions. The basinscale models, however, are also important in understanding 

the large-scale water balances between the aquifers and the 

surface water. In the case of the Upper and Middle Rio Grande 

Valley, models 6, 10, and 12 are the most accurate and current 

groundwater models available.

References Cited 

Barroll, P., 2001, Documentation of the administrative groundwater model for the Middle Rio Grande Basin: Office of the

State Engineer, Technical Services Unit, Hydrology Bureau 

Report 99–3.

Chestnut, Peter, 1999, A Pueblo Perspective on the Rio Grande 

Compact, WRRI Report No. 312, The Rio Grande Compact—It’s the Law!: Water Resources Research Institute, 

44th Annual New Mexico Water Conference Proceedings.

Frenzel, P.F., 1995, Geohydrology and simulation of groundwater flow near Los Alamos, north-central New Mexico:

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 95–4091, 92 p.

Harbaugh, A.W., Banta, E.R., Hill, M.C., and McDonald, 

M.G., 2000, MODFLOW-2000, the U.S. Geological Survey 

modular ground-water model—User guide to modularization concepts and the ground-water flow process: U.S.

Geological Survey Open-File Report 00–92, 121 p.

Hearne, G.A., 1985a, Mathematical model of the Tesuque 

aquifer system near Pojoaque, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2205, 75 p.

Hearne, G.A., 1985b, Simulation of an aquifer test on the 

Tesuque Pueblo Grant, New Mexico: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2206, 24 p.

Keating, E.H., Robinson, B.A., and Vesselinov, V.V., 2005, 

Development and application of numerical models to estimate fluxes through the regional aquifer beneath the Pajarito

Plateau: Vadose Zone Journal, v. 4, p. 653–671.

Kernodle, J.M., 1992, Summary of U.S. Geological Survey 

ground-water-flow models of basin-fill aquifers in the

southwestern alluvial basins region, Colorado, New 

Mexico, and Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 90–361.

Kernodle, J.M., 1998, Simulation of ground-water flow in the

Albuquerque Basin, central NM, 1901–1995, with projections to 2020 (supplement two to U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 94–4251): U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 96–209, 54 p.

Kernodle, J.M., McAda, D.P., and Thorn, C.R., 1995, Simulation of ground-water flow in the Albuquerque Basin, central

NM, 1901–1994, with projections to 2020: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 94–4251.

Kernodle, J.M., Miller, R.S., Scott, W.B., 1987, Threedimensional model simulation of transient ground-water 

flow in the Albuquerque–Belen Basin, New Mexico:

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 86–4194.

Kernodle, J.M., and Scott, W.B., 1986, Three-dimensional 

model simulation of steady-state ground-water flows in the

Albuquerque–Belen Basin, New Mexico: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 84–4353.

MacClune, K.L., Barth, G., Shafike, N., and Hathaway, D.,

2006, High-resolution groundwater models for the assessment of riparian restoration options and river conveyance 

efficiency, in Poeter, E., Hill, M., and Zheng, C., eds., 2006, 

MODFLOW and More—Managing Ground-Water Systems: 

Conference Proceedings, p. 159–163.

Mann, Joshua, 2007, A reservoir runs through it—A legislative 

and administrative history of the six pueblo’s right to store 

“prior and paramount” water at El Vado: Natural Resources 

Journal, v. 47, no. 3, p. 733–768.

McAda, D.P., 1990, Simulation of the effects of ground-water 

withdrawal from a well field adjacent to the Rio Grande,

Santa Fe County, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 89–4184.

McAda, D.P., and Barroll, P., 2002, Simulation of groundwater flow in the Middle Rio Grande Basin between Cochiti

and San Acacia, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4200.

McAda, D.P., and Wasiolek, M., 1988, Simulation of the 

regional geohydrology of the Tesuque aquifer system near 

Santa Fe, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 87–4056.

Oad, Ramchand, Kristoph-Dietrick, K., Manana, N., Garcia, 

L., Patterson, D., and Shafike, N., 2009, Implementation of

efficient irrigation water delivery in the Middle Rio Grande

utilizing a decision support system: New Mexico Interstate 

Stream Commission, ESA FY 2008 project report, 108 p., 

accessed May, 26, 2010, at http://mrgcd.com/DSS.aspx.

PRISM Climate Group, 2009, Prism products matrix, U.S. 

precipitation, 1971–2000, 30-arcsec (800m) normals: 

Oregon State University, accessed November 2009 at 

http://prism.oregonstate.edu/products/matrix.phtml.

Reddi, L.N., Lee, I.M., and Wu, T.H., 1990, A comparison of 

models predicting groundwater levels on hillside slopes: 

Water Resources Bulletin, American Water Resources Association, v. 26, no. 4.
References Cited 21

Reeder, H.O., Bjorklund, L.J., and Dinwiddie, G.A., 1967, 

Quantitative analysis of water resources in the Albuquerque 

area, New Mexico—Computed effects on the Rio Grande of 

pumpage of ground water, 1960–2000: New Mexico State 

Engineer Technical Report 33, 34 p.

Reese, April, 2009, Aquifer recharge projects catching on in 

water-strapped cities: Washington, D.C., E&E Publishing, 

LLC, Land Letter, accessed April 26, 2011, at http://www.

eenews.net/public/Landletter/2009/04/02/12.

Riada Engineering, Inc., 2008, FLO-2D flood routing model

development Middle Rio Grande Cochiti Dam to Elephant 

Butte Reservoir 250-foot grid system: Prepared for the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers Albuquerque District.

Roach, J.D., 2007, Integrated surface-water groundwater 

modeling in the Upper Rio Grande in support of scenario 

analysis: University of Arizona, Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, Ph.D. dissertation, accessed 

March 11, 2011, at http://etd.library.arizona.edu/etd/

GetFileServlet?file=file:///data1/pdf/etd/azu_etd_2030_1_m.

pdf&type=application/pdf.

Roach, Jesse, and Tidwell, V., 2009, A compartmental-spatial 

system dynamics approach to ground water modeling: 

Ground Water, v. 47, no. 5, p. 686–698. 

Sanchez, V., 2007, Carryover storage of Indian prior and paramount water in El Vado: Natural Resources Journal, v. 47, 

p. 697–732.

Sanford, W.E., Plummer, L.N., McAda, D.P., Bexfield, L.M.,

and Anderholm, S.K., 2003, Use of environmental tracers 

to estimate parameters for a predevelopment ground-waterflow model of the Middle Rio Grande Basin, NM: U.S.

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

03–4286. 

Shafike, N.G., 2005, Linked surface water and groundwater

model for Socorro and San Marcial Basins between San 

Acacia and Elephant Butte Reservoir, appendix J of Upper 

Rio Grande Water Operations Review DEIS, p. J-59 to J-94, 

accessed March, 11, 2010 at http://www.spa.usace.army.

mil/urgwops/deis/URGWOPS%20DEIS%20Volume%202/

URGWOPS%20Appendix%20J.pdf.

Tetra Tech, Inc., 2004, Development of the Middle Rio Grande 

FLO-2D flood routing model, Cochiti Dam to Elephant

Butte Reservoir: Prepared for the Bosque Initiative Group, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Albuquerque, New Mexico accessed January 2010 at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/bhg/PDFs/

FLO2D04.pdf.

Tiedeman, C.R., Kernodle, J.M., and McAda, D.P., 1998, 

Application of nonlinear-regression methods to a groundwater flow model of the Albuquerque Basin, New Mexico:

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 98–4172. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, and International Boundary 

and Water Commission, 2002, Upper Rio Grande water 

operations model, physical model appendix (PHYGRAPH): 

accessed March 29, 2010, at http://www.spa.usace.army.mil/

urgwom/documentation/PHYGRAPH%20(December,%20

2002).pdf.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, and International Boundary 

and Water Commission, 2005a, Upper Rio Grande water 

operations model, physical model documentation—Third 

technical review committee draft: accessed March 29, 2010, 

at http://www.spa.usace.army.mil/urgwom/documentation/

Physical%20Model%20Documentation%20(June,%20

2005)%20(PHYMOD).pdf.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, and International 

Boundary and Water Commission, 2005b, Upper Rio 

Grande Water Operations Model, Physical Accounting Model Documentation: accessed March 29, 2010, at 

http://www.spa.usace.army.mil/urgwom/documentation/

Physical%20Accounting%20Model%20(June,2005)%20

(PHYACCT).pdf.

Winter, T.C., Harvey, J.W., Franke, O.L., and Alley, W.M., 

1998, Ground water and surface water—A single resource: 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1139, 79 p.
22 Survey of Hydrologic Models and Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking Flow in the Rio Grande, North-Central New Mexico

Table 1. General characteristics of the surveyed surface-water models. 

[SNL, Sandia National Laboratory; USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; MRGCD, Middle Rio Grande Conservancy 

District; N/A, not applicable]

Model number 1 2 3 4

Model

Upper Rio Grande 

Water Operations Model 

(URGWOM)1

Upper Rio Grande 

Simulation Model 

(URGSiM)2

Middle Rio Grande 

Conservancy District 

Decision Support System 

(MRGCD DSS)3

Tetra Tech, Middle 

Rio Grande FLO-2D 

Flood Routing Model4

Responsible agency URGWOM Executive 

Committee

SNL Interstate Stream 

Commission

USACE

Individual interviewed Mike Roark, USGS; Mark 

Sidlow, USACE

Vince Tidwell and Jesse 

Roach, SNL

Nabil Shafike, MRGCD Marc Sidlow, Darrell 

Eidson, Ryan 

Gronewold, USACE

Model type Management (forecast, 

planning, accounting, 

operations)

Water balance (planning) Management (operations) Process

Software or platform Riverware Powersim Specific to project Flow-2D

Time step used Daily Monthly Daily Seconds

Time steps capable of Daily Monthly Daily Daily or less

Upstream model extent Lobatos, Colo. Lobatos, Colo. Cochiti Dam, N. Mex. Cochiti Dam, N. Mex.

Downstream model extent El Paso, Tex. Caballo Reservoir, N. 

Mex.5

Bosque del Apache 

National Wildlife 

Refuge, N. Mex.

Elephant Butte Reservoir, 

N. Mex.

Reaches 23 17 N/A Gridded, 250-foot spacing

How often is the model 

run?

Several times/year Intermittently Weekly Intermittently

Model simulation period Variable from 1975–

present

1960–2004 2003–present Present

Model updated Monthly for operations 

model; daily for 

accounting module.

Continually, published 

every 2 years.

Yearly When needed

River routing Variable time lag None None Purpose of model

Groundwater data used From McAda and Barroll 

(2002) model output

Per capita consumption None None

Geospatial coverages 

incorporated

Agricultural and crop 

information

Agricultural and riparian 

area information

Rainfall and soils Topography, geology, 

vegetation

1

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and others, 2005a and 2005b.

2

Roach, 2007.

3

Oad and others, 2009.

4

Tetra Tech, Inc., 2004, and Riada Engineering, Inc., 2008.

5

Caballo Reservoir is approximately 25 river miles downstream of Elephant Butte Reservoir.

Table 1
Table 2 23

Table 2

Table 2. Summary of treatments of hydrologic elements by the surveyed surface-water models.—Continued 

[N/A, not applicable; EPA, Environmental Protection Agency; %, percent; cfs, cubic feet per second; SJC, San Juan–Chama; DD, diversion dam; AMAFCA, 

Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority]

Model number 1 2 3 4

Hydrologic elements

Upper Rio Grande 

Water Operations Model 

(URGWOM)1

Upper Rio Grande 

Simulation Model 

(URGSIM)2

Middle 

Rio Grande 

Conservancy 

District Decision 

Support System 

(MRGCD DSS)3

Tetra Tech, 

Middle Rio Grande 

FLO-2D Flood 

Routing Model4

Rio Grande, Embudo to Otowi Bridge reach

Inflow

Rio Grande at 

Embudo

Computed from upstream 

inflows.

Computed from upstream inflows. N/A N/A

Santa Cruz River Included implicitly5

 as component of local flow.Included implicitly as component of 

local flow.

N/A N/A

Pojoaque River Included implicitly as component of local flow

Included implicitly as component of 

local flow.

N/A N/A

Ephemeral channel 

storm-water flow

Included implicitly as component of local flow.Included implicitly as component of 

local flow, calibrated to historical

rainfall data.

N/A N/A

City of Española 

effluent return

Input EPA time series data. Calculated on the basis of population 

and water use characteristics.

N/A N/A

Irrigation return 

flows

Model assumes approximately 

5,000 acres of irrigable 

land and assumes 50% 

return flow.

Model assumes approximately 

5,000 acres of irrigable land, assumes crop distribution is same 

as Rio Chama reach, and assumes 

double potential crop consumption 

diverted and half of that returns.

N/A N/A

Seepage gains Simulated by using the Riverware “Seasonal Gain Loss 

Flow Table” and part of the 

local inflow hydrograph.

Above Española, it is a component 

(71 cfs) of the local inflow; downstream of Espanola it is taken from 

the Espanola basin groundwater 

model in URGSiM.

N/A N/A

Outflow

Rio Grande at Otowi 

Bridge

Computed from upstream 

inflows in Water Operations

Module and input directly 

into the Accounting module 

to compute local inflows.

Computed from upstream inflows. N/A Model simulates a 

variety of flows

at Otowi.

Rio Grande water irrigation diversions; 

Los Chicos, La 

Canova, El Medio, 

Garcia, Lyden, 

Rinconada Isla, 

Alcalde, El Guique, 

San Juan

Included implicitly within input time series “return flow

amount” derived during 

calibration.

Model assumes approximately 5,000 

acres of irrigable land, assumes crop 

distribution is same as Rio Chama 

reach, and assumes double potential 

crop consumption diverted.

N/A
24 Survey of Hydrologic Models and Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking Flow in the Rio Grande, North-Central New Mexico

Table 2. Summary of treatments of hydrologic elements by the surveyed surface-water models.—Continued 

[N/A, not applicable; EPA, Environmental Protection Agency; %, percent; cfs, cubic feet per second; SJC, San Juan–Chama; DD, diversion dam; AMAFCA, 

Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority]

Model number 1 2 3 4

Hydrologic elements

Upper Rio Grande 

Water Operations Model 

(URGWOM)1

Upper Rio Grande 

Simulation Model 

(URGSIM)2

Middle 

Rio Grande 

Conservancy 

District Decision 

Support System 

(MRGCD DSS)3

Tetra Tech, 

Middle Rio Grande 

FLO-2D Flood 

Routing Model4

Municipal diversions, Española diversion and groundwater development, 

tribal drinking 

water systems

Included implicitly as part of 

the “return flow” calibration values.

Based on per capita use and overall 

county use. Pumping data comes 

from groundwater models. Groundwater diversion only.

N/A Not addressed.

Evaporation losses at 

Santa Cruz Reservoir 

and Nambe Lake

Calculated for Nambe Lake 

only, in accounting model.

Not addressed. N/A Channel only; 

not for 

reservoirs.

Evapotranspiration 

losses

Used loss rates calculated for 

reach between El Vado and 

Abiquiu.

Calculated directly for riparian, 

irrigated agricultural, and open 

river areas.

N/A Calculates 

monthly average, free surface 

evaporation for 

each hour of the 

day.

Seepage losses Calculated as a function of the 

difference between observed 

flow and routed flow for the

period 1975–86.

Calculated by the Española basin 

groundwater model included in 

URGSiM.

N/A Not addressed

Changes in storage 

Santa Cruz Reservoir Not addressed. Not addressed. N/A Not addressed.

Nambe Lake Will be included in future 

updates.

Not addressed. N/A Not addressed.

Rio Chama reach

Inflow

Horse Lake Creek 

above Heron 

Reservoir

Not addressed. Part of native contributions to Heron 

Reservoir.

N/A N/A

Willow Creek above 

Heron Reservoir

Calculated as the difference 

between the Heron Reservoir outlet and the gage 

above Heron Reservoir.

Calclulated as tunnel flows less losses,

plus native contributions to Heron.

N/A N/A

Rio Chama near 

La Puente

Included implicitly as component of local flow.

Input gage data. N/A N/A

Rio Ojo Caliente Included implicitly as component of local flow.

Input gage data. N/A N/A

Ephemeral channel 

storm-water flow

Included implicitly as component of local flow.Included implicitly as component of 

local flow.

N/A N/A
Table 2 25

Table 2. Summary of treatments of hydrologic elements by the surveyed surface-water models.—Continued 

[N/A, not applicable; EPA, Environmental Protection Agency; %, percent; cfs, cubic feet per second; SJC, San Juan–Chama; DD, diversion dam; AMAFCA, 

Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority]

Model number 1 2 3 4

Hydrologic elements

Upper Rio Grande 

Water Operations Model 

(URGWOM)1

Upper Rio Grande 

Simulation Model 

(URGSIM)2

Middle 

Rio Grande 

Conservancy 

District Decision 

Support System 

(MRGCD DSS)3

Tetra Tech, 

Middle Rio Grande 

FLO-2D Flood 

Routing Model4

Intermountain 

transfer from Azotea 

Tunnel

Gaged at the tributary tunnels 

to Azotea Tunnel and caluclated for Azotea Tunnel.

Input gage data (from Azotea Tunnel). 

(Recent versions of URGSiM calculate Azotea flows based on flows in

San Juan tributaries that are diverted 

and diversion rules).

N/A N/A

Irrigation return 

flows

Included implicitly as part 

of the channel loss coefficient. Calculated by using

1971–85 historical streamflow data and assuming 50%

return flow.

Model uses Chama adjudication 

agricultural areas and crop mix and 

calculates crop demand. Returns 

diversions in excess of crop demand.

N/A N/A

Seepage gains Included implicitly, lumped 

in with the irrigation return 

flow coefficient.

Uses a constant groundwater inflow

based on winter gage analysis.

N/A N/A

Outflow 

Rio Chama at 

Chamita gage

Calculated. Calculated. N/A N/A

Chama water irrigation diversions Included implicitly, lumped 

with the irrigation return 

flow coefficient.

Model uses Chama adjudication 

agricultural areas and crop mix and 

calculates crop demand. Diversions 

are historical values during calibration and double crop demand in 

scenario period.

N/A N/A

Evaporation losses 

from Rio Chama 

reservoirs

Total is 70% of panevaporation 

multiplied by surface area 

at gaged reservoir elevation. 

SJC portion is based on 

accounting calculations.

Total is 70% of panevaporation 

multiplied by surface area at gaged 

reservoir elevation. SJC portion is 

based on accounting calculations.

N/A N/A

Evapotranspiration 

losses

Combined with seepage loss 

calculations.

Calculated. N/A N/A

Seepage losses For SJC water, uses monthly 

loss coefficient defined in

the Rio Grande Compact, 

otherwise calculated the 

same as for Embudo reach 

for Rio Grande Water.

None; all reaches modeled as constant gaining based on winter gage 

analysis.

N/A N/A

Distinction between 

stored and nonstored 

water in Rio Chama

Calculates total Rio Grande 

and SJC project water 

storage.

Calculates total Rio Grande and SJC 

project water storage.

N/A N/A
26 Survey of Hydrologic Models and Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking Flow in the Rio Grande, North-Central New Mexico

Table 2. Summary of treatments of hydrologic elements by the surveyed surface-water models.—Continued 

[N/A, not applicable; EPA, Environmental Protection Agency; %, percent; cfs, cubic feet per second; SJC, San Juan–Chama; DD, diversion dam; AMAFCA, 

Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority]

Model number 1 2 3 4

Hydrologic elements

Upper Rio Grande 

Water Operations Model 

(URGWOM)1

Upper Rio Grande 

Simulation Model 

(URGSIM)2

Middle 

Rio Grande 

Conservancy 

District Decision 

Support System 

(MRGCD DSS)3

Tetra Tech, 

Middle Rio Grande 

FLO-2D Flood 

Routing Model4

Changes in storage 

Rio Grande water

El Vado Reservoir Calculated as the difference 

between Rio Grande inflow

and outflow minus the SJC

water.

Calculated similar to URGWOM by 

using reservoir release rules in combination with a mass balance to track 

inflows and outflows while accounting for seepage, ice cover, and other 

variables.

N/A N/A

Abiquiu Reservoir Calculated similar to El Vado 

except sediment displacement calculations are added.

Calculated as with El Vado Reservoir. N/A N/A

SJC water

El Vado Reservoir 

(mainly stores native 

runoff but can store 

SJC water)

Calculated in accounting, water operations, and planning 

models.

Calculated similar to URGWOM by 

using reservoir release rules in combination with a mass balance to track 

inflows and outflows while accounting for seepage, ice cover, and other 

variables.

N/A N/A

Abiquiu Reservoir 

(mainly flood control and some SJC 

storage)

Calculated in accounting, water operations, and planning 

models.

Calculated as with El Vado Reservoir. N/A N/A

Heron Reservoir 

(SJC water storage)

Calculated in accounting, water operations, and planning 

models.

Calculated as with El Vado Reservoir. N/A N/A

Rio Grande, Otowi Bridge to Isleta Pueblo reach

Inflow

Rio Grande at Otowi 

Bridge

Calculated. Calculated. Not addressed. Input hydrographs.

Jemez River Input gage data near Jemez 

Pueblo with modeled gains 

and losses between there 

and Rio Grande.

Input gage data near Jemez Pueblo 

with modeled gains and losses between there and Rio Grande.

Not addressed. Input hydrographs.

Rito de los Frijoles Not addressed. Not addressed. Not addressed. Input hydrographs.

Santa Fe River Present, but input data not 

populated.

Input data. Not addressed. Input hydrographs.

Galisteo flood

control

Input data. Input data. Not addressed. Input hydrographs.
Table 2 27

Table 2. Summary of treatments of hydrologic elements by the surveyed surface-water models.—Continued 

[N/A, not applicable; EPA, Environmental Protection Agency; %, percent; cfs, cubic feet per second; SJC, San Juan–Chama; DD, diversion dam; AMAFCA, 

Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority]

Model number 1 2 3 4

Hydrologic elements

Upper Rio Grande 

Water Operations Model 

(URGWOM)1

Upper Rio Grande 

Simulation Model 

(URGSIM)2

Middle 

Rio Grande 

Conservancy 

District Decision 

Support System 

(MRGCD DSS)3

Tetra Tech, 

Middle Rio Grande 

FLO-2D Flood 

Routing Model4

Ephemeral channel 

storm-water flow

Included implicitly as component of local flow and

explicitly from gages on 

north and south AMAFCA 

channels and Tijeras arroyo 

gages.

Included implicitly as component of 

local flow and explicitly from gages

on north and south AMAFCA channels and Tijeras arroyo gages.

Not addressed. Not addressed.

Intermountain transfer inflow at Otowi

Calculated explicitly. Calculated explicitly. Not addressed. Not addressed.

Irrigation return 

flows

Calculated by using diversion 

schedules, crop information, and seepage and drain 

information.

Calculated by using diversion schedules, crop information, and seepage 

and drain information.

Measured in main 

canals.

Major return flows

are lumped and 

input as hydrographs, created 

in collaboration 

with MRGCD 

and based 

on historical 

records. 

Municipal effluent

return (Albuquerque, 

Rio Rancho, 

Bernalillo, Cochiti)

Input wastewater treatment 

plant return flows.

Calculated as roughly 50% of total 

municipal use.

Not addressed. Not addressed.

Wetlands Not addressed. Not addressed. Not addressed. Not addressed.

Seepage gains Calculated in URGWOM with 

a coarsely gridded groundwater model.

Calcluated in URGSiM based on 

coarsely gridded regional groundwater model based on Frenzel 1995 

and McAda Barroll 2002.

No seepage gains 

for this reach, 

but drain 

return flow is

included.

Not currently 

addressed, but 

the model is 

capable of addressing it.

Outflow

Rio Grande at Isleta 

Lakes

Calculated. Input data. Not addressed. Not addressed.

Rio Grande water 

irrigation diversions 

(Sili Main Canal, 

Cochiti Main Canal, 

and Angostura DD)

Input to the program as average monthly hydrographs.Calculated and lumped per model 

reach.

Input measured 

data but not 

identified as

Rio Grande or 

SJC water.

Modeled as 

outflow hydrographs subtracted from the Rio 

Grande flow,

not identified as

Rio Grande or 

SJC water.
28 Survey of Hydrologic Models and Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking Flow in the Rio Grande, North-Central New Mexico

Table 2. Summary of treatments of hydrologic elements by the surveyed surface-water models.—Continued 

[N/A, not applicable; EPA, Environmental Protection Agency; %, percent; cfs, cubic feet per second; SJC, San Juan–Chama; DD, diversion dam; AMAFCA, 

Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority]

Model number 1 2 3 4

Hydrologic elements

Upper Rio Grande 

Water Operations Model 

(URGWOM)1

Upper Rio Grande 

Simulation Model 

(URGSIM)2

Middle 

Rio Grande 

Conservancy 

District Decision 

Support System 

(MRGCD DSS)3

Tetra Tech, 

Middle Rio Grande 

FLO-2D Flood 

Routing Model4

Irrigation diversions 

of SJC water (Sili 

Main Canal, Cochiti 

Main Canal, and 

Angostura DD)

SJC water is tracked separately 

from Rio Grande water 

as far downstream as the 

Elephant Butte Reservoir. 

Irrigation diversions of 

SJC water may be tracked, 

depending on model settings 

selected by the user.

Only the City of Albuquerque’s 

allocation of SJC water is tracked 

downstream of Cochiti.

Input measured 

data but not 

identified as

Rio Grande or 

SJC water.

Modeled as 

outflow hydrographs subtracted from the Rio 

Grande flow,

not identified as

Rio Grande or 

SJC water.

Municipal diversions 

of Rio Grande water 

(including Buckman 

well field)

Input data from City of 

Albuquerque.

Calculated by using population and 

per capita water use data. Buckman 

well field is incorporated into the

Española groundwater model.

Not addressed. Not addressed.

Municipal diversions 

of SJC water 

(Albuquerque SJC 

DD)

SJC water is tracked separately 

from Rio Grande water as 

far downstream as Elephant 

Butte Reservoir. Municipal 

diversions of SJC water are 

input for the Albuquerque 

diversion.

Model tracks four types of SJC water 

downstream to Cochiti. Only 

Albuquerque’s SJC allocation 

is tracked from Cochiti to Albuquerque. According to model, all 

Albuquerque SJC water is diverted 

at Albuquerque.

Not addressed. Municipal diversions are accounted for but 

not identified

as SJC or Rio 

Grande water.

Evaporation losses 

from Cochiti 

Reservoir

Calculated in accounting, water operations, and planning 

models.

Calculated. Not addressed. Not addressed.

Evapotranspiration 

losses

Calculated incorporating 

panevaporation, crop area, 

riparian area, and evapotranspiration rates from each 

reach in middle valley.

Calculated for crops, riparian vegetaion, and open water.Calculated for 

irrigated areas.

Not addressed.

Seepage losses Comprehensive calculation 

based on hydraulic gradients 

between the river and the 

drains and compared with 

actual seepage measurements. Values range from 

85–95 cfs lost to seepage per day during winter 

months.

Calcluated in URGSiM based on 

coarsely gridded regional groundwater model based on Frenzel 1995 

and McAda Barroll 2002.

Use global value 

of 1.5% loss 

per mile for 

all irrigation 

canals.

Not currently 

addressed, but 

the model is 

capable of addressing it.

Wetlands Not addressed. Not addressed. Not addressed. Not addressed.
Table 2 29

Table 2. Summary of treatments of hydrologic elements by the surveyed surface-water models.—Continued 

[N/A, not applicable; EPA, Environmental Protection Agency; %, percent; cfs, cubic feet per second; SJC, San Juan–Chama; DD, diversion dam; AMAFCA, 

Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority]

Model number 1 2 3 4

Hydrologic elements

Upper Rio Grande 

Water Operations Model 

(URGWOM)1

Upper Rio Grande 

Simulation Model 

(URGSIM)2

Middle 

Rio Grande 

Conservancy 

District Decision 

Support System 

(MRGCD DSS)3

Tetra Tech, 

Middle Rio Grande 

FLO-2D Flood 

Routing Model4

Changes in storage 

Rio Grande waters

Cochiti Reservoir Calculated in accounting, 

water operations, and 

planning models including 

considerations for sediment 

deposition.

Calculated with reservoir release rules. Not addressed. Not addressed.

SJC water

Cochiti Reservoir Calculated with reservoir 

release rules.

Calculated with reservoir release rules. Not addressed. Not addressed.

Water-quality 

component

Not addressed. Not addressed currently, but the model 

is capable of including it.

Not addressed. Sediment 

transport.

1

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and others, 2005a and 2005b.

2

Roach, 2007.

3

Oad and others, 2009.

4

Tetra Tech, Inc., 2004.

5

The term “implicitly” is used when a flow element is not included explicitly in the model but is addressed in combination with other hydrologic elements or

as a coefficient.
30 Survey of Hydrologic Models and Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking Flow in the Rio Grande, North-Central New Mexico

Table 3

Table 3. Characteristics and hydrologic elements of the surveyed groundwater models.—Continued 

[Shaded columns indicate models currently in use. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; NMOSE, New Mexico Office of the State Engineer; LANL, Los Alamos

National Laboratory; SSPA, S.S. Papadopulos & Associates Inc.; ISC, New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission; NA, not applicable; predevel, predevelopment; mi, miles; ft, feet; ET, evapotranspiration] 

Model number 1 2 3 4 5 6

Model authors Hearne, 

1985a

Kernodle and 

Scott, 1986

Kernodle and 

others, 1987

McAda and 

Wasiolek, 1988

McAda, 

1990

Frenzel, 

1995

Characteristics

Agency USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

When/how often is the model 

run?

Discontinued Discontinued Discontinued Occasionally Unknown Occasionally

When/how often is the model 

input updated?

Discontinued Discontinued Discontinued Unknown

Is it recalibrated when updated? NA NA NA

Who runs (ran) the model? BIA NA NA NMOSE, consulting firms

NMOSE, consulting firms

Precursor model(s) -- -- 2 -- 4 4

Model platform/software used precursor to 

MODFLOW

MODFLOW MODFLOW MODFLOW MODFLOW MODFLOW

Is the model steady state or 

transient?

Transient Steady state Transient Transient Transient Transient

If transient: What is the model's 

time period?

1947–80 Predevelopment1907–79 1947–2020 1972–2045 1947–2012

What is the model time step? 1 year NA 2–25 years 1 year Monthly 1–20 years

How many spatial dimensions 

(1 or 2 or 3)?

3 3 3 3 3 3

Horizontal cell size 1–4.5 mi 0.5–6 mi 0.5–6 mi 1 mi 0.33–1 mi 1 mi

Vertical cell size 650–1,950 ft 220–2,250 ft 220–2,250 ft 800–1,800 ft 300–650 ft 200–1,400 ft

Surficial aquifer layer

unconfined

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Does the model have a component specifically designed for

simulation of riparian areas?

Yes No No No No No

How are riparian areas simulated?

Specified flux

to river cells 

represents 

vegetative ET 

-- -- -- -- --

Model calibration Manually Manually Manually Manually Manually Manually

Water quality component No No No No No No

Does the model include the following inputs?

Surficial recharge from natural

infiltration

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Is surficial recharge spatially

variable? See table (5)

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Wastewater return flows No No No Yes Yes Yes

How is wastewater return flow

input to the model? 

NA NA NA Wastewater to tributaries recharges 

aquifer

Wastewater to tributaries recharges 

aquifer

Wastewater to tributaries recharges 

aquifer
Table 3 31

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Kernodle and 

others, 1995

Tiedeman and 

others, 1998

Barroll, 

2001 

McAda and 

Barroll, 2002

Sanford and 

others, 2003

Keating and 

others, 2005

MacClune and 

others, 2006

Characteristics

USGS USGS NMOSE USGS USGS LANL SSPA

Not used Not used Regularly Occasionally Not used Often Weekly or monthly

Not used Not used Regularly Unknown Not used Monthly When run

NA NA No Unknown Not used Yes Yes, annually

NA NA NMOSE USGS, ISC, consulting 

firms, and students

USGS LANL ISC

-- 7 7, 8 7, 8, 9 7, 8, 9, 10 -- --

MODFLOW MODFLOW MODFLOW MODFLOW MODFLOW, 

MODPATH

FEHM MODFLOW, FLO2D

Transient Transient Transient Transient Steady state Transient Transient

1901–94 1900–95 predevel to 2040 predevel to 2000 NA 1945–2004 2003–4

3 months to 5 

years

2–5 years 2.5 months to 5 

years

2.5 months to 5 years NA 1 year 2 weeks to 5 months

3 3 3 3 3 3 3

0.1–0.6 mi 0.5–3.1 mi 0.5–3.1 mi 0.6 mi 0.6 mi 0.1–0.2 mi 0.02–0.05 mi

200–500 ft 40–1,800 ft 40–800 ft 30–7,800 ft 20–6,000 ft 135–21,000 ft 20–100 ft

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

ET rates depend 

on riparian area 

in cells

ET rates depend 

on riparian area 

in cells

ET rates depend 

on riparian area 

in cells

ET rates depend on 

riparian area in cells

ET rates depend 

on riparian area 

in cells

-- Riparian ET rates 

depend on vegetation cover

Manually Automated Automated Manually Automated Automated Not calibrated

No No No No No No No

Does the model include the following inputs?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA

Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

Septic return flow

recharges 

aquifer

Septic return flow

recharges 

aquifer

Septic return 

flow recharges

aquifer

Septic return flow

recharges aquifer

NA NA NA
32 Survey of Hydrologic Models and Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking Flow in the Rio Grande, North-Central New Mexico

Table 3. Characteristics and hydrologic elements of the surveyed groundwater models.—Continued 

[Shaded columns indicate models currently in use. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; NMOSE, New Mexico Office of the State Engineer; LANL, Los Alamos

National Laboratory; SSPA, S.S. Papadopulos & Associates Inc.; ISC, New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission; NA, not applicable; predevel, predevelopment; mi, miles; ft, feet; ET, evapotranspiration] 

Model number 1 2 3 4 5 6

Model authors Hearne, 

1985a

Kernodle and 

Scott, 1986

Kernodle and 

others, 1987

McAda and 

Wasiolek, 1988

McAda, 

1990

Frenzel, 

1995

Wastewater inputs NA NA NA Santa Fe wastewater treatment 

plants (Siler Rd 

& SF Airport)

Santa Fe wastewater treatment 

plants (Siler Rd 

& SF Airport)

Santa Fe wastewater treatment 

plants (Siler Rd 

& SF Airport)

Agricultural withdrawals Yes No No No No No

Domestic well withdrawals No No No Yes No No

Groundwater injection No No No No No No

Are the following processes explicitly modeled?

Irrigation return flows No No No No No No

How is irrigation return flow

modeled?

NA NA NA NA NA NA

Evapotranspiration Yes No No No No No

Is ET time varying? No NA NA NA NA NA

Springflow No No No No No No

Groundwater withdrawals Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Data source for groundwater 

withdrawals

Data from Public Service 

Co. Of NM

NA NMOSE Data from NMOSE 

and Sangre de 

Cristo Water 

Company

Data from NMOSE 

and Sangre de 

Cristo Water 

Company

Data from NMOSE 

and Sangre de 

Cristo Water 

Company

Does the model include the following outputs explicitly?

Groundwater Levels Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Base flow/Streamflow Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

Evapotranspiration No No No No No No

Recharge/seepage from surface 

water to aquifer

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Discharge from aquifer to surface waterYes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Springflow No No No No No No

Were the following data used to calibrate or parameterize the model?

Water level measurements in 

wells

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

In-situ seepage tests Yes No No No No No

Stream gage flow measurements Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

Differential streamflow seepage

calculations

Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

Land use/vegetative cover data Yes No No No No No
Table 3 33

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Kernodle and 

others, 1995

Tiedeman and 

others, 1998

Barroll, 

2001 

McAda and 

Barroll, 2002

Sanford and 

others, 2003

Keating and 

others, 2005

MacClune and 

others, 2006

Domestic septic 

discharges

Domestic septic 

discharges

Domestic septic 

discharges

Domestic septic 

discharges

NA NA NA

No No No No No No No

Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

No No No No No No No

Are the following processes explicitly modeled?

Yes No No Yes No No No

Recharge rates 

increased in irrigated areas

NA NA Recharge rates increased in irrigated 

areas

NA NA NA

Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes NA NA Yes

No No No No No No No

Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No

NMOSE NMOSE NMOSE NMOSE and City of 

Albuquerque

NA Not specified in

documentation

NA

Does the model include the following outputs explicitly?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No No No No No

Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

No No No No No No No

Were the following data used to calibrate or parameterize the model?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
34 Survey of Hydrologic Models and Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking Flow in the Rio Grande, North-Central New Mexico

Table 4

Table 4. Well fields included in each groundwater model.

[Shaded columns indicate models currently in use]

Model number 1 2 3 4 5 6

Model Hearne, 

1985a

Kernodle and 

Scott, 1986

Kernodle and 

others, 1987

McAda and 

Wasiolek, 1988

McAda, 

1990

Frenzel, 

1995

Well field name

Guaje Yes No No Yes No Yes

Los Alamos Yes No No Yes No Yes

Panjarito Yes No No Yes No Yes

Buckman Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

Albuquerque No No Yes No No No

Otowi No No No No No No

Santa Fe No No No Yes No Yes
Table 4 35

Model number 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Model Kernodle and 

others, 1995

Tiedeman and 

others, 1998

Barroll, 

2001 

McAda and 

Barroll, 2002

Sanford and 

others, 2003

Keating and 

others, 2005

MacClune and 

others, 2006

Well field name

Guaje No No No No No Yes No

Los Alamos No No No No No Yes No

Panjarito No No No No No Yes No

Buckman No No No No No Yes No

Albuquerque Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

Otowi No No No No No Yes No

Santa Fe No No No No No No No
36 Survey of Hydrologic Models and Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking Flow in the Rio Grande, North-Central New Mexico

Table 5

Table 5. Factors used by each surveyed groundwater model to simulate recharge. 

[Shaded columns indicate models currently in use]

Hearne, 

1985a

Kernodle and 

Scott, 1986

Kernodle and 

others, 1987

McAda and 

Wasiolek, 1988

McAda, 

1990

Frenzel, 

1995

1 2 3 4 5 6

Is recharge spatially variable? 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Factors used to assign recharge rates

Elevation dependent No No No Yes Yes Yes

Surface geology dependent No No No Yes Yes Yes

Mountain-front seepage Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Tributary seepage Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Septic return flow No No No No No No

Irrigation recharge No No No Yes Yes Yes
Table 5 37

Kernodle and 

others, 1995

Tiedeman and 

others, 1998

Barroll, 

2001 

McAda and 

Barroll, 2002

Sanford and 

others, 2003

Keating and 

others, 2005

MacClune and 

others, 2006

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Is recharge spatially variable? 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Factors used to assign recharge rates

Elevation dependent No No No No No Yes No

Surface geology dependent No Yes Yes No No No No

Mountain-front seepage Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

Tributary seepage Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Septic return flow Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

Irrigation recharge Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No
38 Survey of Hydrologic Models and Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking Flow in the Rio Grande, North-Central New Mexico

Table 6

Table 6. Methods used for modeling surface-water/groundwater interactions in the groundwater models surveyed. 

[Shaded columns indicate models currently in use]

Model 1 2 3 4 5 6

Hearne, 

1985a

Kernodle and 

Scott, 1986

Kernodle and 

others, 1987

McAda and 

Wasiolek, 1988

McAda, 

1990

Frenzel, 

1995

Methods used to model surface-water recharge to groundwater

Specified heads Yes Yes Yes No No No

Specified flux boundaries Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Head dependent flux boundaries Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

Methods used to model groundwater discharge to surface water

Specified heads Yes Yes Yes No No No

Specified flux boundaries No No No No No No

Head dependent flux boundaries Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Table 6 39

Publishing support provided by

Lafayette Publishing Service Center

Model 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Kernodle and 

others, 1995

Tiedeman and 

others, 1998

Barroll, 

2001 

McAda and 

Barroll, 2002

Sanford and 

others, 2003

Keating and 

others, 2005

MacClune and 

others, 2006

Methods used to model surface-water recharge to groundwater

Specified heads No No No No No Yes No

Specified flux boundaries Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Head dependent flux boundaries Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Methods used to model groundwater discharge to surface water

Specified heads No No No No No Yes No

Specified flux boundaries No No No No No No No

Head dependent flux boundaries Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes


Tillery and Eggleston—Survey of Hydrologic Models and Hydrologic Data Needs for Tracking Flow in the Rio Grande, North-Central New Mexico—SIR 2011–5207

Printed on recycled paper

I SBN 978- 1- 4113-3316- 1

9 7 8 1 4 11 333161