U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

San Isidro Wash

Arroyo Piedra Lumbre

Vicente Arroyo

Papers Wash

Penistaja Arroyo

Arroyo Jarido

La Saladita

Encino Wash

Horn Arroyo

Lopez Arroyo

Toledo Arroyo

Arroyo Empedrado

Torreon Wash

Torreon Wash

Torreon Wash 

Tinian watershed

Torreon

Penistaja

Ojo Encino

Torreon

Navajo Mission

Scientific Investigations Report 2018–5026

Prepared in cooperation with the Rio Puerco Alliance

Effects of Hillslope Gully Stabilization on Erosion and 

Sediment Production in the Torreon Wash Watershed, 

New Mexico, 2009–12
Front cover:

Left. Erosion-control structures in the Penistaja Arroyo drainage, July 24, 2009, near the start of the 

study period.

Right. Erosion-control structures in the Penistaja Arroyo drainage, July 2, 2013, after completion of the 

study.

Back cover:

Top. Erosion-control structures on Papers Wash, July 24, 2009, near the start of the study period. 

Bottom. Erosion-control structures on Papers Wash, July 1, 2013, after completion of the study.
Effects of Hillslope Gully Stabilization on 

Erosion and Sediment Production in the 

Torreon Wash Watershed, New Mexico, 

2009–12

By Anne Marie Matherne, Anne C. Tillery, and Kyle R. Douglas-Mankin

Prepared in cooperation with the Rio Puerco Alliance

Scientific Investigations Report 2018–5026

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

RYAN K. ZINKE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

William H. Werkheiser, Deputy Director 

 exercising the authority of the Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2018

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit https://store.usgs.gov.

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

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Matherne, A.M., Tillery, A.C., and Douglas-Mankin, K.R., 2018, Effects of hillslope gully stabilization on erosion 

and sediment production in the Torreon Wash watershed, New Mexico, 2009–12: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2018–5026, 35 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185026.

ISSN 2328-031X (print)

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)
iii

Acknowledgments

This study was conducted with the help of the Ojo Encino Chapter of the Navajo Nation, working 

with support from the Rio Puerco Alliance. In particular, we would like to thank Watson Castillo 

and Tammy Herrerra for their support; Tiffany Herrerra, Ryan Yazzie, and Leslynn Vandever for 

data collection; and members of the Navajo Youth Summer Program for construction of the 

mitigation structures. We thank Craig Conley, of New Mexico Highlands University, for useful 

discussions in the field and for assistance in locating the field sites. Ellen Soles conducted the 

field surveys of the study sites.

v

Contents

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

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

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

Purpose and Scope .............................................................................................................................3

Physical Setting ....................................................................................................................................4

Previous Investigations .......................................................................................................................4

Erosion in Rio Puerco Watershed ............................................................................................4

Gully Erosion-Control Measures ..............................................................................................6

Approach ........................................................................................................................................................6

Gully Erosion Control in the Torreon Wash Watershed ..........................................................................6

Methods of Investigation .............................................................................................................................7

Upland Paired Drainages ...................................................................................................................7

Main-Stem Channel Characterization ............................................................................................13

Topographic Survey Methods ..........................................................................................................13

Geomorphic Surface Analysis .........................................................................................................13

Effects of Gully Erosion Control on Sediment Stabilization and Erosion ...........................................14

Precipitation Characteristics ...........................................................................................................14

Runoff and Sediment Transport in Response to Precipitation ...................................................16

Comparison of Net Aggradation in the Upland Paired Drainages .............................................21

Channel Adjustment in Penistaja Arroyo and Torreon Wash .....................................................23

Effects of Upland Mitigation on Sediment Production in the Torreon Wash Watershed ......23

Summary .......................................................................................................................................................31

References Cited .........................................................................................................................................32

Figures

1. Map showing location of the Torreon Wash watershed and the Rio Puerco 

watershed in northwestern New Mexico ................................................................................2

2. Photographs showing typical main-stem channel morphology in the Torreon 

Wash watershed including incised and shallow channels ..................................................5

3. Maps showing study-related aspects of the Penistaja Arroyo tributary paired 

drainages ......................................................................................................................................8

4. Maps showing study-related aspects of the Papers Wash paired drainages ..................9

5. Photographs showing channel configuration at the beginning of the study 

period, untreated sites ..............................................................................................................11

6. Map showing location of study sites within the Torreon Wash watershed ....................12

7. Graph showing monthly precipitation at Torreon Navajo Mission for the 30-year 

normal period 1981–2010, and for 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 .............................................15

8. Scatterplot showing storm intensity compared to storm duration at the Penistaja 

Arroyo and Papers Wash sites ................................................................................................16

9. Photographs showing sediment movement in Papers Wash treated channel 

following June 9, 2009, 2-year-recurrence-interval precipitation .....................................17

10. Photographs showing erosion-control structures on Papers Wash ................................18
vi

11. Photographs showing erosion-control structures in the Penistaja Arroyo 

drainage ......................................................................................................................................19

12. Graphs showing comparison of aggradation amounts between untreated and 

treated drainages ......................................................................................................................22

13. Main-stem channel cross sections in Penistaja Arroyo and Torreon Wash, 2009 

and 2011 .......................................................................................................................................24

Tables

1. Paired drainage characteristics and surveyed surface comparisons from 2009 

to 2012 ..........................................................................................................................................21

2. Change in cross-sectional area of cross-section clusters, Penistaja Arroyo and 

Torreon Wash, 2009–12 .............................................................................................................30
vii

Conversion Factors

U.S. customary units to International System of Units

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square foot (ft2) 929.0 square centimeter (cm2)

square foot (ft2) 0.09290 square meter (m2)

square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) 

Rainfall rate

inch per hour (in/h) 25.4 millimeter per hour (mm/h)

inch per year (in/yr) 25.4 millimeter per year (mm/yr)

Erosion rate

foot per year (ft/yr) 304.8 millimeter per year (mm/yr)

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

°F = (1.8 × °C) + 32.

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

°C = (°F – 32) / 1.8.

Datum

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

(NAVD 88).

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

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

Supplemental Information

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given in milligrams per liter (mg/L).
viii

Abbreviations

CSG crest-stage gage

DEM digital elevation model

GIS geographic information system

GPS Global Positioning System

NMED New Mexico Environment Department

RPA Rio Puerco Alliance

USGS U.S. Geological Survey
Effects of Hillslope Gully Stabilization on Erosion and 

Sediment Production in the Torreon Wash Watershed, 

New Mexico, 2009–12

By Anne Marie Matherne, Anne C. Tillery, and Kyle R. Douglas-Mankin

Abstract

Sediment erosion and deposition in two sets of paired 

(treated and untreated) upland drainages in the Torreon Wash 

watershed, upper Rio Puerco Basin, New Mexico, were 

examined over a 3 1/2-year period from spring 2009 through 

fall 2012. The objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of 

shallow, loose-stone check dams, or “one-rock dams,” as a 

hillslope gully erosion stabilization and mitigation method, 

and its potential for retaining upland eroded soils and 

decreasing delivery of sediment to lower ephemeral stream 

channels. Two high-resolution topographic surveys, completed 

at the beginning and end of the study period, were used to 

assess the effects of the mitigation measures at paired-drainage 

sites in both Penistaja Arroyo and Papers Wash watersheds, 

and at six main-stem-channel cross-section clusters along 

Penistaja Arroyo and Torreon Wash in the Torreon Wash 

watershed.

For both drainage pairs, the treated drainage had greater 

sediment aggradation near the channel than the untreated 

drainage. Erosion was the dominant geomorphic process in 

the untreated Penistaja Arroyo drainage, whereas aggradation 

was the dominant process in the other three drainages. For the 

Penistaja Arroyo paired drainages, the treated site showed a 

51-percent increase in area aggraded and 67-percent increase 

in volume aggraded per area analyzed over the untreated site. 

Both Papers Wash drainages showed net aggradation, but 

with similar treatment effect, with the treated site showing a 

29-percent increase in area aggraded and 60-percent increase 

in volume aggraded per area analyzed over the untreated site. 

In the untreated Penistaja Arroyo drainage, the calculated 

minimum erosion rate was 0.0055 inches per year (in/yr; 

0.14 millimeters per year [mm/yr]), whereas the calculated 

aggradation rates for the three drainages for which aggradation 

was the dominant geomorphic process were 0.0063 in/yr 

(0.16 mm/yr) for the Penistaja Arroyo treated drainage, 

0.012 in/yr (0.31 mm/yr) for the Papers Wash untreated 

drainage, and 0.988 in/yr (2.51 mm/yr) for the Papers Wash 

treated drainage.

Changes in the channel cross section along the mainstem Penistaja Arroyo and Torreon Wash were also examined. 

Channel-bank slumping and erosion of previously deposited 

bed material were apparent sources for sediment suspended 

in ephemeral streamflow. Cross-sectional channel surveys 

indicated examples of both erosion and deposition along each 

channel over the study period. Because the drainage area of 

the treated drainages is small compared to that of the Torreon 

Wash watershed, the upland mitigation measures would not 

be expected to measurably affect short-term concentrations of 

suspended sediment in main-stem channels.

One-rock-dam mitigation structures in the upland 

drainages appear to have resulted in a decrease in sediment 

delivery to the main-stem channel. One-rock-dam mitigation 

structures may affect streamflow through their influence on 

runoff volume (via infiltration) and runoff rate (via detention), 

both of which may vary with time after structure installation.

Introduction

The Rio Puerco, in west central New Mexico (fig. 1), 

is the largest tributary to the middle Rio Grande. The Rio 

Puerco watershed, as referred to in this report, is composed 

of the Rio Puerco Subbasin, the Arroyo Chico Subbasin, and 

the Rio San Jose Subbasin (Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, 2017). The Rio Puerco watershed encompasses 

approximately 7,350 square miles (mi2) that contribute flow to 

the Rio Grande near Bernardo, New Mexico. The watershed is 

underlain by poorly consolidated sedimentary strata consisting 

of Cretaceous and lower Tertiary age sandstones and shales, 

overlain by Tertiary to Quaternary age sediments along the 

valley margins and floor (Love, 1986). The stream system 

is characterized by deeply incised channels, called arroyos, 

and ephemeral or intermittent streams that transport high 

suspended-sediment loads. The present incised landscape in 

the Rio Puerco watershed originated during an episode of 

rapid downcutting and arroyo formation from about 1880 to 

1920, attributed to a complex of factors including climate 

change (Leopold and Snyder, 1951; Leopold and others, 1966; 

Cooke and Reeves, 1976; Graf, 1986; Balling and Wells, 

1990; Elliott and others, 1999), land use (Thornwaite and 

others, 1942; Cooke and Reeves, 1976), land management 
2 Effects of Hillslope Gully Stabilization on Erosion and Sediment Production in the Torreon Wash Watershed, N. Mex. ARIZONA

COLORADO

UTAH

OKLAHOMA

TEXAS

NEW MEXICO

Rio Grande

Rio Puerco

 watershed**

Torreon Wash 

watershed*

Rio Grande Floodway

near Bernardo, NM

(08332010)

Rio Puerco near

Bernardo, NM

(08353000)

 *Composed of the following hydrologic units from the USGS WBD: 

San Isidro Watershed, Headwaters Torreon Wash Watershed, and 

Outlet Torreon Wash Watershed

 **Composed of the following hydrologic units from the USGS WBD: 

Rio Puerco Subbasin, Arroyo Chico Subbasin, and Rio San Jose Subbasin

USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; WBD, Watershed Boundary Dataset

Base modified from USGS digital data 

Universal Transverse Mercator, zone 13

North American Datum of 1983

0 5 10 15 KILOMETERS

0 5 10 15 MILES

Rio Puerco

Chaco R

Rio San Jose

Acoma Creek

Rio Salado

Arroyo Colorado

Torreon Wash

Alamocita Cr

Puerco R

Arroyo Chico

Tinaja Arroyo

Seboyetta Creek

San Miguel Cr

MCKINLEY

COUNTY

CIBOLA

COUNTY

SOCORRO

COUNTY

VALENCIA

COUNTY

BERNALILLO

COUNTY

SANDOVAL

COUNTY

RIO ARRIBA

COUNTY

36°00'

35°45'

35°30'

35°15'

35°00'

34°45'

34°30'

107°45'

107°15'

107°00'

107°30'

108°15'

108°00'

Rio Puerco

watershed

San Isidro Wash

Chico,

Chaco

Arroyo Piedra Lumbre

Puerco,

Vicente Arroyo

Papers Wash

Penistaja Arroyo

Chijuilla,

Arroyo Jarido

Corrales,

La Saladita

Encino Wash

Horn Arroyo

North Fork Arroyo

Lopez Arroyo

Toledo Arroyo

Kinaird

Arroyo Empedrado

Torreon Wash

08332612

08332610

08332616

08332614

08332624

08332620

08332622

Torreon Wash

Torreon Wash 

Tinian watershed

Torreon

Penistaja Ojo Encino

36°00'

35°45'

107°15'

107°30'

Penistaja 1

Penistaja 2

Penistaja 3

Torreon 3

Torreon 2

Torreon 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS

0 1 2 3 4 5 MILES

Crest-stage gage and identifier

 Paired drainage

 Penistaja main-stem channel

Cross-section survey location

Rainfall site and identifier

Continuous-record streamgage

 and identifier

EXPLANATION

08332624

08332610

Torreon

Navajo Mission

Rio Puerco near

Bernardo, NM

(08353000)

Torreon

Navajo Mission

Figure 1. Location of the Torreon Wash watershed and the Rio Puerco watershed in northwestern New Mexico.
Introduction 3

(Schumm and Hadley, 1957; Leopold and others, 1966), and 

long-term arroyo cut-and-fill cycles occurring on a geologic 

time scale (Schumm and Hadley, 1957; Love, 1986; Elliott 

and others, 1999). 

The Rio Puerco is the primary source of sediment to 

the Rio Grande. In the 2012 water year (October 1, 2011–

September 30, 2012), the Rio Puerco contributed about 

70 percent of the annual suspended-sediment load to the Rio 

Grande Floodway near Bernardo, New Mexico (fig. 1; U.S. 

Geological Survey [USGS] station identification number 

08332010; data available at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nm/

nwis/qw/). A water-quality assessment of the upper Rio Puerco 

by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) listed 

selected reaches of the river as impaired because of excessive 

sedimentation or siltation (Surface Water Quality Bureau, 

2006). Sediment derived from a variety of erosion sources in 

the upper watershed is presumed to contribute to these high 

downstream sediment loads and consequent siltation. 

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known 

as the Clean Water Act, was established to “restore and 

maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity 

of the Nation’s waters” (U.S. Congress, 2002). Ephemeral 

or intermittent streams, such as the Rio Puerco and its 

tributaries, are included under the Clean Water Act and were 

part of the assessment by the NMED Surface Water Quality 

Bureau (Surface Water Quality Bureau, 2001). Ephemeral or 

intermittent streams are considered important in a watershed 

context in “maintaining water quality, overall watershed 

health, and provisioning of the essential human and biological 

requirements of clean water” (Levick and others, 2008). 

Levick and others (2008) estimate that more than 88 percent of 

New Mexico streams are ephemeral or intermittent; therefore, 

assessing these streams is essential to accurately evaluate 

water quality and watershed health in New Mexico. 

The characteristics of the contributing watershed 

influence hydrologic processes, hydrologic function, and 

watershed health (Levick and others, 2006). Hydrologic 

function involves, in part, the transport of water, sediment, 

and other constituents within and through the watershed. Soil, 

topographic, and vegetation characteristics, along with storm 

characteristics, influence the degree to which precipitation 

infiltrates the soil, where it contributes to the soil moisture 

available to support vegetative growth and evapotranspiration. 

Rainfall that does not infiltrate flows downhill along the 

land surface (as runoff) in a dendritic network of increasing 

flows. When concentrated-flow rills accumulate flows with 

sufficient energy, available sediment is eroded and transported 

downgradient. As the eroded concentrated-flow paths, or 

gullies, grow, they provide steeper and more direct flow 

paths and act to transfer water and sediment more efficiently 

downstream. Land use, vegetation, and storm characteristics 

that lead to infiltration are associated with sediment retention 

in the landscape, whereas characteristics that lead to runoff 

generation and convergence in the landscape increase 

sediment export because of increased contributions of 

overland and channelized erosion processes (Levick and 

others, 2006). Because of this, the condition of the upland 

watershed area is integral to hydrologic function and 

watershed health.

This study focused on Torreon Wash, a tributary to 

Arroyo Chico, which flows into the Rio Puerco (fig. 1). 

The Torreon Wash watershed, as referred to in this report, 

is composed of the Headwaters Torreon Wash watershed, 

the San Isidro Wash watershed, and the Outlet Torreon 

Wash watershed (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

2017). The Torreon Wash watershed is bounded to the north 

and northeast by the Continental Divide and has an area of 

about 470 mi2, composing 8 percent of the entire Rio Puerco 

watershed. The Torreon Wash watershed encompasses multiple 

landowners and includes portions of the eastern Navajo 

Nation. In 2000, the eastern Navajo Chapters began a program 

of watershed improvement under the auspices of the nonprofit Rio Puerco Alliance (RPA). The mitigation program was 

initiated in upland portions of the Torreon Wash watershed to 

install shallow, loose-stone check dams, generically termed 

“one-rock dams,” to stabilize channel erosion at established 

gully locations or to prevent channel erosion at potential gully 

locations (Zeedyk and Jansens, 2009). In a related effort, dirt 

roads and two-tracks in the same area were also remediated 

(Zeedyk, 2006; Schultz, 2008, 2011). Some 2,000 structures 

were constructed by Navajo youth groups over a 12-year 

period as part of an ongoing summer training program. 

Although the use of sustainable catchment structures has 

increased in New Mexico during the last decade, for reasons 

of affordability and emphasis on local materials and labor, 

the effectiveness of this methodology has not been formally 

evaluated. In 2009, the USGS, in cooperation with the RPA, 

initiated a study to examine the effectiveness of these upland 

erosion mitigation methods and their potential utility in 

improving watershed health and decreasing sediment export to 

the lower ephemeral stream channels.

Purpose and Scope

This report documents a study designed to evaluate 

the changes to erosion and sediment transport by erosion 

mitigation projects in the Torreon Wash watershed, Rio Puerco 

Basin, northwestern New Mexico. The effectiveness of upland 

mitigation treatments in managing gully development and 

retaining sediment on hillslopes was examined using two 

methods: (1) sediment erosion and deposition were measured 

and compared in two sets of paired (treated and untreated) 

upland drainages (subwatersheds) over a 3 1/2-year period 

from spring 2009 through fall 2012; and (2) downstream 

changes in channel erosion were evaluated through repeated 

channel cross-section measurements in the main-stem 

Penistaja Arroyo and Torreon Wash over the same time period. 

Data that support the analyses in this report are available in 

Matherne and others (2018).
4 Effects of Hillslope Gully Stabilization on Erosion and Sediment Production in the Torreon Wash Watershed, N. Mex.

Physical Setting

The Torreon Wash watershed is composed of Cretaceous 

and lower Tertiary age sandstones and shales (Love, 1986; 

Anderson and others, 1997), which produce easily erodible, 

well-drained, loamy soils (Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, 2013a, b). Deposits of fine windblown sands are 

also present over much of the Rio Puerco watershed (Norden, 

1963). Elevations in the Torreon Wash watershed range from 

near 7,300 feet (ft) above the North American Vertical Datum 

of 1988 (NAVD 88) at the headwaters to about 6,100 ft at 

the confluence with Arroyo Chico (fig. 1). The watershed 

is characterized by a rolling landscape that has numerous 

drainages and arroyos incised into the alluvial valley fill. In 

some locations, Torreon Wash and its tributaries are incised 

to more than 30 ft below the valley surface, whereas in other 

reaches, such as upstream from the confluence with Papers 

Wash, the channel is wide, shallow, and non-incised (fig. 2A). 

Streamflow is ephemeral in all drainages within the 

Torreon Wash watershed. Episodic streamflow is associated 

with snowmelt runoff and (or) summer monsoonal convective 

storms. Based on the 30-year normal record for Torreon 

Navajo Mission, located about 2.5 miles south of the study site 

(1981–2010; National Climatic Data Center, 2013), average 

annual precipitation is 10.77 inches (in.), with 44 percent of 

precipitation occurring during the monsoonal period from 

July through September. Since record keeping began in 1961, 

temperatures at Torreon Navajo Mission have ranged from 

-33 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in 1971 to 107 °F in 1962.

Vegetation in the Torreon Wash watershed is semi-arid 

brush and grassland (Phippen and Wohl, 2003), with scattered 

habitations and settlements. Range use consists of small-herd 

livestock grazing by cattle, sheep, and horses, including a wild 

horse population. A variety of natural and human management 

factors have resulted in sparse vegetative cover. Measures 

to stabilize hillslopes and increase infiltration of rain and 

snowmelt runoff would improve hydrologic function both by 

decreasing the erosive power of runoff events and increasing 

subsurface recharge that supports vegetative cover. 

Previous Investigations

Erosion in Rio Puerco Watershed

Numerous studies have examined the causes and timing 

of arroyo incision in the Rio Puerco watershed and the arid 

Southwest, including Rich (1911), Bryan (1925, 1928, 1940), 

Bailey (1935), Leopold (1951), Leopold and Snyder (1951), 

Antevs (1952, 1954), Schumm and Hadley (1957), Leopold 

and others (1966), Tuan (1966), Cooke and Reeves (1976), 

Hall (1977), Graf (1986), Love (1986, 1997), Balling and 

Wells (1990), and Huckleberry and Duff (2008), among others. 

Elliott and others (1999) reviewed the literature regarding 

forcing functions for arroyo formation in the southwestern 

United States, and placed the Rio Puerco Basin within the 

framework of models of arroyo evolution. The Rio Puerco is 

a large-scale arroyo whose watershed integrates the effects of 

numerous tributary basins, each with its own cycle of arroyo 

evolution contributing to the main-stem Rio Puerco.

A second body of work has focused on sediment storage 

and delivery within and out of the Rio Puerco watershed. 

Channel-scale studies have used radiometric techniques 

(Popp and others, 1988) and tree-ring dating (Friedman and 

others, 2005) to examine the timing and spatial variability 

of historical floodplain sediment deposition. Griffin and 

others (2005) and Vincent and others (2009) examined the 

importance of riparian vegetation on bank stability. Nordin 

(1963) and Amin and Jacobs (2007) discussed sediment 

transport characteristics of the Rio Puerco based on the 

sediment transport record for the Rio Puerco near Bernardo 

(USGS station identification number 08353000). Gellis (1991) 

found that annual suspended-sediment concentrations for 

Arroyo Chico near Guadalupe (08340500) and the Rio Puerco 

above Arroyo Chico near Guadalupe (08334000) and near 

Bernardo (08353000) declined over the period 1948–90. Plot 

studies of soil types common in the Rio Puerco watershed 

(Scholl and Aldon, 1988; Aguilar and Aldon, 1991) found 

differences in sediment production to depend primarily on soil 

texture, especially in the upper layers, with 6 to 8 times the 

runoff production and 10 to 15 times the sediment production 

from the finer textured than the coarser textured soil (Aguilar 

and Aldon, 1991). 

Several studies have considered sediment storage 

and delivery in the Rio Puerco watershed as a whole. On 

the basis of cosmogenic isotope analyses in the Arroyo 

Chico watershed, Clapp and others (2001) suggest that a 

basin-wide, steady-state erosion process has existed over 

the depositional history of the basin, without long periods 

of storage. Gellis and others (2004, 2012) calculated 

basin-wide erosion rates, expressed as bedrock-equivalent 

lowering rates, of 102 ±24 meters per million years (m/m.y.), 

or 0.10 ±0.02 millimeters per year (mm/yr) (335 ±79 feet 

per million years [ft/m.y.], or 0.004 ±0.0008 inches per 

year [in/yr]). In addition, calculated hillslope colluvium 

erosion rates were 149 ±51 m/m.y., or 0.15 ±0.05 mm/yr 

(489 ±167 ft/yr, or 0.006 ±0.002 in/yr). These rates are 

similar to short-term (3 year) rates determined from direct 

measurements. Based on these measurements, Gellis and 

others (2004, 2012) consider the Rio Puerco to be in a stage of 

channel aggradation, supplied primarily by alluvial sediments. 

Love (1986), considering sediment storage and delivery at the 

basin scale from a geologic perspective, stated that the present 

Rio Puerco drainage is extremely inefficient in sediment 

delivery compared to some periods in the geologic past. 

Phippen and Wohl (2003) found that sediment load 

for small subbasins in the Rio Puerco watershed was most 

strongly determined by physical characteristics, such as basin 

relief and percent area having poorly drained soils, and found 

a positive correlation between sediment yield and unpaved 

road density. With respect to the precipitation patterns that 

drive sediment delivery, Molnár and Ramírez (2001) found a 
Introduction 5

Figure 2. Typical main-stem channel morphology in the Torreon Wash watershed including incised 

and shallow channels. A, Torreon Wash above Papers Wash, July 27, 2009. (Photograph by Ellen Soles.) 

B, Penistaja Arroyo. Crest-stage gage and single-stage sediment sample bottles attached to bridge piers 

are shown, July 24, 2009.

A

B
6 Effects of Hillslope Gully Stabilization on Erosion and Sediment Production in the Torreon Wash Watershed, N. Mex.

long-term (1948–97) increasing trend in precipitation in the 

Rio Puerco Basin, with a general increase in precipitation in 

the non-summer months, but did not find a corresponding 

increase in runoff, expressed as downstream discharge, 

reflecting high in-channel transmission losses in the Rio 

Puerco and its tributaries.

Gully Erosion-Control Measures

A number of studies have documented land degradation 

by soil erosion throughout the world and the substantial 

contribution by shallow upland gullies, which act as a 

sediment source (Poesen and others, 2003; Douglas-Mankin 

and others, 2011; Daggupati and others, 2013, 2014). Factors 

that affect gully formation and development include storm 

depth and intensity, soil type, surface roughness, land-cover 

characteristics, slope, drainage area, and soil moisture. Land 

use plays an important role in gully formation and sediment 

contribution, and studies have documented that shifts in land 

use can trigger gullying or increase gully erosion rates, as 

summarized in Poesen and others (2003). Changes in land 

use or management can also decrease gully erosion (DouglasMankin and others, 2011).

Numerous methods can be used to control or reduce 

gully formation and expansion, as indicated by Kraebel 

and Pillsbury (1934), Geyik (1986), Poesen (1993), and 

Zeedyk and Jansens (2009). Studies by Kraebel and Pillsbury 

(1934) and Geyik (1986) found that effective management 

methods generally have (1) managed the upland drainage 

area properly to maintain vegetation and reduce (or divert) 

runoff and erosion, (2) stabilized and caused filling of the 

gully using structural measures, (3) maintained and improved 

the longevity of control with revegetation, and (4) provided 

for necessary maintenance. The study described in this report 

builds on prior studies of gully erosion-control measures by 

assessing a structural measure to stabilize gullies and initiate 

gully filling and revegetation within the context of a larger 

watershed restoration plan (Surface Water Quality Bureau, 

2001) that includes remediation of dirt roads and two-tracks 

(Zeedyk, 2006; Schultz, 2008, 2011), and livestock grazing 

management and public education (Arvidson and Coleman, 

2003). 

Approach

Watershed assessment studies typically follow either a 

“pre/post-treatment” or “paired watershed” design. In pre/

post-treatment watershed studies, the study watershed is 

measured for a period of time both before and after a treatment 

is applied, so that the change in response caused by the 

treatment can be isolated (Clausen, 1993; Downes and others, 

2002). In paired watershed studies, two similar watersheds 

are selected, a treatment is applied to one watershed, and 

watershed response is measured and compared between the 

sites. Because of the limited duration of this study and the 

possibility of measuring relatively few runoff events in a semiarid environment over the short timespan of the study, the pre/

post-treatment study design was not possible; thus, the paired 

watershed design was selected. Because of the relatively small 

drainage areas of the paired upland sites as compared to that 

of the Torreon Wash watershed, and the fact that the channels 

at one of the upland sites do not directly connect to a larger 

channel, the upland sites will be referred to as drainages 

in the context of this report. The initial treatments and first 

topographical survey were completed at the beginning of 

the study period (spring and summer 2009) in both paired 

drainages. It was assumed that conditions in the untreated 

drainage in each pair were similar to conditions in the treated 

drainage without mitigation structures, and that geomorphic 

and runoff responses reflected the effects of the mitigationstructure treatments. 

This study examined sediment sources and supply at 

two scales: that of upland hillslopes, where one-rock dams 

were focused, and that of two downstream incised mainstem channels. The monitoring was designed to focus on key 

characteristics for which changes could be detected over the 

timespan of the study, and to be potentially extendable beyond 

the study period as part of a long-term monitoring plan. The 

study was designed so that data collection and monitoring 

would be performed by several groups and agencies, with 

the USGS responsible for data analysis and interpretation. 

The data analysis and interpretation were designed to be 

based on two high-resolution topographic surveys, completed 

at the beginning and end of the study period (spring 2009 

through fall 2012), and supplemented with selected onsite 

data collection (crest-stage gages [CSGs], sediment samplers, 

and precipitation gages). Because of a combination of factors, 

including the remoteness of the sites and unusually dry 

conditions, limited information was obtained from onsite 

instrumentation. Nonetheless, this information added to the 

general characterization of the instrumented sites during 

the study period and was useful in exploring monitoring 

techniques and protocols under difficult conditions with 

limited resources.

Gully Erosion Control in the Torreon 

Wash Watershed

This study assessed a type of small-gully erosion-control 

structure, generically termed a “one-rock dam” (Zeedyk 

and Jansens, 2009), as being indicative of the general scale 

and methodology of the technique (that is, a single layer of 

rock arranged within a concentrated flow path and designed 

as a flowthrough impoundment). The goals of this uplandgully erosion-control measure are to limit channel erosion 

and sediment transport and to enhance water retention and 

infiltration, which increase soil moisture and enhance the 

establishment of stabilizing vegetative cover in and around the 

one-rock dam. 
Methods of Investigation 7

One-rock dams are generally small-scale structures a few 

to several tens of feet wide that are built at gully headcuts or 

incipient gully headcuts, or in shallow gullies. The structures 

are referred to as “one-rock dams,” because they are generally 

one rock in depth and of varying spatial configuration, 

depending on the landscape feature being treated (figs. 3 

and 4). The structures are built using local materials and 

can often be constructed using manual labor. The longterm effectiveness of the technique depends on repeated 

applications of rock layers as sediment is retained behind the 

structures, to build up a stable, vegetated, unchannelized land 

surface. The establishment of stabilizing vegetation is often 

aided by applying grass seed beneath the rock cover. The rock 

cover acts as a mulch to retain soil moisture, promote seed 

germination, and prevent the grazing of the plants, so that 

germinated vegetation can become established. 

Multiple one-rock dams were installed in the spring 

and summer of 2009 at two hillslope study sites in the 

Torreon Wash watershed, Penistaja Arroyo, and Papers Wash. 

Installation locations ranged from incipient hillslope channels 

(or gullies) to existing incised channels, so as to span the 

range of conditions for which the one-rock techniques were 

thought to be effective. A total of 17 one-rock dams were 

installed in the Penistaja Arroyo treated site (fig. 3), and 

16 one-rock dams were installed in the Papers Wash treated 

site (two dams were installed below the surveyed study 

site after the initial survey) (fig. 4A–E). Soils at both sites 

were primarily fine, loamy sands developed on flat to gentle 

slopes (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2013a, b). 

The Penistaja Arroyo sites (fig. 5A) exhibited characteristics 

associated with greater geomorphic stability compared to the 

Papers Wash sites. The channel banks were well-defined, and 

average channel depth was about 2 ft. The channel bed was 

unvegetated at the start of the study period, and the hillslope 

areas were covered with mature sage and native grasses. The 

Papers Wash sites included geomorphically active channels 

that responded to events through erosion or aggradation 

and had no stable form. The Papers Wash site channels had 

poorly developed, unstable banks and a shallow channel depth 

(fig. 5B). Knickpoints (points of abrupt change in channel 

slope) along the channels indicated possible points of active 

downcutting. Poorly consolidated sandstone outcrops and 

upslope colluvium supplied sediment to both Papers Wash site 

drainages. The Papers Wash treated-site headcut terminated 

within the hillslope; the Papers Wash untreated-site headcut 

had progressed further upslope into the sandstone and 

colluvial sediments, and the channel was poorly defined in the 

lowest portions of the drainage. 

Methods of Investigation

The study methods described herein involved selecting 

paired upland drainages and downstream main-stem channels 

deemed appropriate for analysis. Changes in channel 

morphology and general terrain in the drainages were 

investigated using intensive topographic surveys, followed 

by geographic-information-system (GIS) based analyses. 

Changes in the main-stem channels were characterized by 

means of monumented cross-section surveys, followed by 

comparisons of cross-section data. An attempt was made 

to characterize surface runoff and sediment transport using 

instrumentation designed to measure precipitation, peak stage, 

and suspended-sediment concentration. 

Upland Paired Drainages

Two pairs of upland drainages were chosen for the study, 

designated the Penistaja Arroyo sites and the Papers Wash 

sites. The Penistaja Arroyo sites were located in drainages 

that have channels joining a tributary to Penistaja Arroyo, 

which is a tributary to Torreon Wash. The Papers Wash sites 

were located in the uplands of the Papers Wash watershed, 

but do not have channels directly joining Papers Wash. Papers 

Wash is tributary to Torreon Wash (fig. 1). The site locations 

chosen were deemed appropriate for studying one-rock dam 

gully-erosion-control techniques. Drainage pairs were chosen 

through field reconnaissance on the basis of similarity in 

contributing area, slope, degree of channel development, land 

cover and land use, and precipitation. Because of the localized 

nature of summer monsoonal convective storms, paired 

drainages were located close to each other. The Penistaja 

Arroyo sites were located adjacent to each other, and the 

Papers Wash sites were about 1,200 ft apart (figs. 3, 4, and 6). 

The period of study was spring 2009 through fall 2012, 

with treatment structures installed in the spring and summer 

of 2009. Most precipitation in this region occurs during the 

summer monsoonal season. Because of the short-duration, 

high-intensity rain typical of monsoonal precipitation, most 

erosion and sediment transport occurs during the summer 

monsoonal season of July through September. The study 

period included four monsoon seasons, during which the 

greatest active erosion was expected.

Intensive channel topographic surveys (described 

in Topographic Survey Methods) were performed at the 

beginning and end of the study period (2009 and 2012) to 

assess the effectiveness of mitigation treatments in controlling 

and minimizing erosion and channel evolution. Transverse 

transects were surveyed along each drainage at a resolution 

sufficient to capture channel and drainage topography. 

One or more physical monuments were established at each 

drainage as a basis for a repeat survey. Transverse transects 

and general terrain were surveyed at the beginning and end of 

the 3 1/2-year data collection period. Survey data are available 

at Matherne and others (2018).
Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Elevation Model data Universal Transverse Mercator, zone 13 North American Datum of 1983 0 

0 

107°16'58" 107

35°56'46" 35°56'45"

107°16'58" 107°16'57"

35°56'46" 35°56'45"

A

B

EXPLANATION

Change in volume Net gain Unchanged Net lossTreatment location

Drainage boundaryTopographic contour—Interval 0.5 foot. Datum is North American Vertical  Datum of 1988Paired drainage crest-stage gage and identifier

6,720

08332622

Penistaja Arroyo 

treatment drainage

Penistaja Arroyo 

untreated draina

Penistaja Arroyo 

treatment drainage

Penistaja Arroyo 

untreated drainage

6,719.5

6,720

6,718

6,717

6,718.5 6,719

6,716.5

6,720.5

6,719.5

6,719.5

6,719.5

6,719.5

6,719.5

6,720

6,719.5

6,719

6,717

6,720

6,719

6,719.5

6,719.5

6,720

6,718.5

6,718 6,718

6,719

6,719.5

6,719

6,719.5

6,720

6,719.5

6,719.5

6,720

6,718

6,717

6,718.5 6,719

6,716.5

6,719.5

6,719.5

6,719.5

6,719.5

6,720

6,719.5

6,719

6,717

6,719.5

6,718.5

6,718 6,718

6,719

6,719.5

6,719

6,719.5

6,720

6,719.5

6,719.5

Torreon Wash 

watershed

Area enlarged

08332620

08332622

08332620

08332622

08332620

08332622

08332620

08332622

Figure 3. Study-related aspects of the Penistaja Arroyo tributary paired drainages. 

A, Paired drainages, instrumentation, and treatment location

B, Areas of net aggradation (gain) or erosion (loss) between 2009 and 2012.
Methods of Investigation 9

107°20'51" 107°20'50" 107°20'49" 107°20'48"

35°55'33" 35°55'34" 35°55'35"

107°20'59" 107°20'58" 107°20'57" 107°20'56"

35°55'46" 35°55'45" 35°55'44"

107°21' 107°20'55" 107°20'50" 107°20'45" 107°20'40"

35°55'45" 35°55'40" 35°55'35"

0 75 150 FEET

0 20 40 METERS

0 70 140 FEET

0 15 30 METERS

100 METERS

0 145 290 FEET

0 50

EXPLANATION

Treatment location

Boundary of drainage area

Crest-stage gage and identifier

Sole juniper tree at site

08332610

Papers Wash

treatment channel

Papers Wash 

untreated channel

Papers Wash 

treated drainage

Papers Wash 

untreated drainage

Torreon Wash 

watershed

Papers Wash

paired drainages

Area enlarged

Area enlarged

08332612

08332610

08332616

08332614

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Orthophoto Quarter-Quadrangle

Ojo Encino Mesa, New Mexico Statewide Orthophotography Project

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 13 

North American Datum of 1983

 

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Elevation Model data

Universal Transverse Mercator, zone 13

North American Datum of 1983

A

B C

Figure 4. Study-related aspects of the Papers Wash paired drainages. A–C, Paired drainages, instrumentation, and treatment 

locations (one-rock dams). D–E, Areas of net aggradation (gain) or erosion (loss) between 2009 and 2012.
Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Digital Elevation Model data Universal Transverse Mercator, zone 13 North American Datum of 1983 EXPLANATION Change in volume Net gain Unchanged Net loss Treatment location Topographic contour—Interval 0.5 foot. Datum is North American Vertical Datum of 1988 Paired drainage crest-stage gage Sole juniper tree at site 6,705

6,710

6,711

6,708

6,712

6,707

6,713

6,706

6,714

6,715

6,719

6,716

6,705

6,720

6,721

6,717

6,718

6,709

6,709

6,710

6,711

6,712

6,708

6,707

6,706

6,713

6,714

6,715

6,716

6,717

6,688

6,686

6,687

6,689

6,690

6,691

6,688

6,689

6,690

6,692

6,692

6,693

6,694

6,696

6,695

6,6

6,685

6,684

6,687

6,686

6,691

6,685

6,709

6,693

6,694

6,695

6,696

6,697

6,698

6,699

6,701

6,700

Papers Wash

untreated channel

Papers Wash

treatment channel

35°55'36" 35°55'34" 35°55'32"

107°20'58" 107°20'52" 107°20'50" 

35°55'46" 35°55'44"

0 55 110 FEET0 15 30 METERS

0 70 20 

D

E

Figure 4. Study-related aspects of the Papers Wash paired drainages. A–C, Paired drainages, instrumentation, and treatment locations (one-rock daggradation (gain) or erosion (loss) between 2009 and 2012.—Continued
Methods of Investigation 11

Figure 5. Channel configuration at the beginning of the study period, untreated sites. A, Penistaja 

Arroyo site. Instrumentation in channel is mini-crest-stage gage. B, Papers Wash site.

A

B
12 Effects of Hillslope Gully Stabilization on Erosion and Sediment Production in the Torreon Wash Watershed, N. Mex.

Papers Wash

paired drainages

Penistaja Arroyo

paired drainages

Papers Wash

paired drainages Penistaja Arroyo

paired drainages

Torreon Wash

San Isidro Wash

Chico, Arroyo

Chaco Wash

Arroyo Piedra Lumbre

Puerco, Rio

Vicente Arroyo

Papers Wash

Penistaja Arroyo

Chijuilla, Arroyo

Arroyo Jarido

Corrales, Cañada

La Saladita

Encino Wash

Horn Arroyo

North Fork Arroyo Chico

Lopez Arroyo

Toledo Arroyo

Kinaird Arroyo

Arroyo Empedrado

Cañada Cebo

08332624

Torreon Wash

Tinian

Torreon

Penistaja

Ojo Encino

Paired drainage boundary

Crest-stage gage and identifier

 Paired drainage

 Penistaja main-stem channel

Torreon 3 Cross-section survey location and identifier

08332610

08332624

EXPLANATION

Penistaja 1

Penistaja 2

Penistaja 3

Torreon 3

Torreon 2

Torreon 1

0 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS

0 1 2 3 4 5 MILES

36°00'

35°45'

107°15'

107°30'

Base modified from

Universal Transverse Mercator, zone 13

North American Datum of 1983

Torreon Wash 

watershed

ARIZONA

COLORADO

UTAH

OKLAHOMA

TEXAS

NEW MEXICO

Rio Grande

Rio Puerco

watershed

Torreon Wash 

watershed

08332620

08332622

08332612

08332610

08332616

08332614

Figure 6. Location of study sites within the Torreon Wash watershed.
Methods of Investigation 13

The initial and final survey data were used to generate 

topographic surfaces that were compared to determine the 

extent of changes in channel morphology. Areas of sediment 

aggradation and related moisture retention and grass 

germination near the treatment sites would be indicative 

of long-term successful channel restoration. Although a 

downstream channel is unlikely to completely adjust to 

hillslope mitigation in the upland drainage within 3 1/2 

years, these datasets can form the basis of a long-term study 

of the effects of upland mitigation on downstream channel 

stability.

To further characterize surface runoff and sediment 

transport, CSGs, sediment samplers, and precipitation gages 

were installed in the paired drainages. Small (about 2-ft high) 

CSGs were installed at the outlets of the treated and untreated 

drainages in Penistaja Arroyo (fig. 3A), and in upstream and 

downstream locations in the treated and untreated Papers 

Wash drainages (fig. 4A–C). Construction followed standard 

USGS protocols (Sauer and Turnipseed, 2010), except for 

the small size, and included pressure transducers (3001 

Levelogger Gold, Solinst Canada Ltd., Georgetown, Ontario; 

±0.002-percent resolution) and a rod and cork (Waltemeyer, 

2005). Because of the flashy, infrequent nature of surface 

runoff in this semi-arid environment, multilevel singlestage sediment collection bottles (Federal Inter-Agency 

Sedimentation Project, 1961; Edwards and Glysson, 1999) 

were installed at the Penistaja Arroyo treated and untreated 

sites. Single-stage sediment collection bottles were not 

installed at the Papers Wash sites, because these sites lacked 

a deep channel to concentrate and contain flow. The one-rock 

dam erosion-control methods are best used in portions of a 

drainage where channels and gullies have not fully developed, 

which precludes sufficient depth of flow to carry suspended 

sediment above the bedload transport layer. A data-logging 

tipping-bucket rain gage (Hobo RG3, Onset Computer 

Corporation, Bourne, Mass.; ±0.01 in. resolution) was 

installed at each paired site. All monitoring equipment was 

serviced and data downloaded by local observers from the Ojo 

Encino Navajo Youth Group.

Main-Stem Channel Characterization 

The main-stem channel portion of the investigation 

focused on two channel segments, as characteristic of 

established arroyos in the basin: one along Penistaja Arroyo 

from downstream from the Penistaja Arroyo paired drainages 

to the confluence with Torreon Wash, and the other along 

Torreon Wash from just upstream from the confluence with 

Penistaja Arroyo to the confluence with Papers Wash (fig. 6). 

Penistaja Arroyo was instrumented with a standard CSG with 

a pressure transducer, and a set of multilevel single-stage 

(500 milliliter) sediment collection bottles (fig. 2B, station 

08332624). The Penistaja Arroyo CSG was not tied directly 

to the paired drainage CSGs but was intended to measure 

larger-scale effects. A detailed topographic survey of the site 

was conducted. The CSG was visited by a local observer on 

a periodic basis over the study period, but no stage data were 

collected by the CSG during the time that it was in operation. 

Temporal changes in channel morphology along the 

main-stem channel were characterized by establishing and 

surveying clusters of 12 monumented cross sections at each 

of 3 locations in Penistaja Arroyo and 3 locations in Torreon 

Wash (72 cross sections in total). Cross-section locations 

were established at channel sections that appeared to be 

actively adjusting, on the basis of field observations of bank 

collapse and channel bar locations made at the beginning of 

the investigation (figs. 1 and 6). Monumented cross sections 

were established during the first year and surveyed during 

the first and fourth years of the project. Analyses consisted of 

quantifying the changes in channel morphology at the cross 

sections for the time period between the surveys. 

The one suspended-sediment sample collected in 

Penistaja Arroyo during the study was analyzed by the USGS 

Sediment Laboratory in Albuquerque, New Mexico, for total 

suspended sediment concentration and for percent sand- and 

silt-size fractions in the sample (Guy, 1969).

Topographic Survey Methods

All topographic surveys for this study were conducted 

by a private contractor with an electronic total station 

(GTS 226, Topcon Corporation, Singapore) and a handheld 

data logger (Recon, Trimble Inc., Sunnyvale, Calif.) using 

standard plane surveying methods. Surveying with the 

total station (1) enables rapid collection of mapping data 

at sufficient intensity to provide detailed topographic maps 

(0.5- to 1-ft contour intervals) and shapefiles for input to GIS, 

(2) minimizes the need for physical monumenting at each site, 

and (3) provides for highly accurate repeat surveys. Permanent 

survey controls were identified or installed and surveyed to 

ensure repeatability in future comparative surveys. A highaccuracy Global Positioning System (GPS) (GeoExplorer II, 

Trimble Inc., Sunnyvale, Calif.) was used to collect waypointaveraged GPS locations at three to four survey controls at each 

site; these coordinates were used to transform the arbitrary 

survey grid coordinates to the New Mexico State Plane grid 

system. These GPS points provided positional accuracy within 

±3 ft (horizontal). Internal baseline survey precision with 

the total station was ±0.05 ft. Topography was built from 

the survey data using Trimble Terramodel (v. 10.4) terrain 

mapping software (Trimble Navigation Limited, 2004). 

Geomorphic Surface Analysis

Total drainage areas for the 4 paired-drainage sites 

and 2 main-stem-channel segments were delineated on the 

basis of the digital elevation models (DEMs), at a scale of 

1:24,000 using a 10×10-meter (33×33-ft) grid (https://viewer.

nationalmap.gov/basic/), with the mouth of the drainage 

or segment measured from below the furthest downstream 

mitigation structure. Surveyed terrain data for the paired 
14 Effects of Hillslope Gully Stabilization on Erosion and Sediment Production in the Torreon Wash Watershed, N. Mex.

drainages were analyzed using GIS techniques. The survey 

data were converted into raster surfaces representing the 

2009 and 2012 topographic conditions. A raster is a grid of 

cells, called pixels, each of which contains information, in 

this case, elevation data. Because of the density and precision 

of the survey points, it was possible to create rasters using a 

0.5-ft pixel size. For each drainage, the 2009 and 2012 raster 

surfaces were compared using the cut and fill tool in ArcMap 

(http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/). This tool calculates 

the difference in surface elevation between the raster surfaces 

for each raster pixel and displays the results as a net gain 

(representing aggradation) or a net loss (representing erosion) 

in surface elevation. Using the difference in surface elevation, 

the cut and fill tool also calculates the changes in volume 

between the two surfaces. These differences in volume are 

grouped together to show areas where volume changes are 

positive (aggradation) and areas where volume changes are 

negative (erosion). The cut and fill tool was applied to an 

area around the channels where the most active aggradation 

or erosion would be expected. Specifically, the area analyzed 

was established by applying a buffer around each streamline 

extending generally to the width of the channel banks or 

surveyed cross sections, and including the full extent of any 

encompassed channel treatments. The net erosion rate was 

computed as follows: 

*365*304.8 V ER t

A

 ∆   =   ÷    

, (1)

where

ER is the erosion rate, in millimeters per year;

∆V is the negative change in volume from the cut 

and fill analysis, in cubic feet;

A is the basin area, in square feet; 

t is the time passed between the survey 

measurements, in days;

365 is a time conversion factor, from days to 

years; and 

304.8 is a distance conversion factor, from feet to 

millimeters. 

Similarly, aggradation rates were calculated when the change 

in volume was positive.

Survey data for the monumented cross sections along 

the main-stem channels were analyzed by computing the 

change in cross-sectional area from 2009 to 2012 for each of 

the 12 monumented cross sections. For each of the six crosssection clusters, the mean, standard deviation, maximum, 

and minimum change in area for the 12 cross sections were 

computed. 

Effects of Gully Erosion Control on 

Sediment Stabilization and Erosion

Precipitation in the study area, although not fully 

characterized, was drier than average during the study period 

and followed a typical monsoonal pattern, with storm intensity 

negatively related to storm duration. Suspended sediment 

transport during rain events was substantial during the study 

period, as indicated by channel infilling and by suspendedsediment concentration measured during a single rain event. 

The one-rock dams were effective in preventing gully 

formation, as indicated by comparisons of channel infilling 

and net aggradation at the treated sites relative to the untreated 

sites. Longitudinal variation observed in cross sections of 

main-stem channel segments downstream are consistent with 

an inferred pattern of dynamic channel adjustment.

Precipitation Characteristics 

Based on the long-term (118-year, 1895–2012) 

precipitation record for New Mexico, the study period was 

drier than average, with statewide deficits relative to the 

long-term average in 3 of the 4 years (2009, 2011, and 2012) 

(National Climatic Data Center, 2013). Calendar year 2012 

was the second driest year on record, and 2011 was the 

eighth driest year on record (Charles Jones, National Weather 

Service, written commun., 2013). 

The 30-year normal (1981–2010) annual precipitation for 

Torreon Navajo Mission was 10.77 in/yr (National Climatic 

Data Center, 2013). Average annual precipitation in 2009 

was 9.76 in., -1.01 in. below normal, and in 2010 was exactly 

normal at 10.77 in. There were 6 months of missing data at 

Torreon Navajo Mission in 2011, and 2 months of missing 

data in 2012, so onsite annual precipitation values were not 

calculated for those years. Comparison of monthly values 

for 2009–12 to station normals shows seasonal patterns and 

variability among years (fig. 7). Monthly normal values 

generally demonstrate the expected monsoonal precipitation 

pattern, with maxima in July and August (33 percent of 

annual rainfall), tapering through September and October 

(20 percent of annual rainfall). Precipitation for 2009 was 

below normal for all months except May and June, whereas 

2010 was wetter than normal during winter and spring months 

(January–April and December) and drier than normal for the 

remaining months. For the 6 months having reported data in 

2011, precipitation was below normal through July and above 

normal from September through December. Precipitation for 

2012 was below normal for all months except July.
Effects of Gully Erosion Control on Sediment Stabilization and Erosion 15

M M M M M M M M

Torreon Navajo Mission

Zero value

1981–2010 normal

2009

2010

2011

2012

EXPLANATION

M Missing value

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Month

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Precipitation, in inches

Figure 7. Monthly precipitation at Torreon Navajo Mission for the 30-year normal period 1981–2010, and for 2009, 2010, 

2011, and 2012.

About 1 year of precipitation data (June 2009–June 

2010) from both study sites were collected by volunteers at 

a resolution of 0.01 in. Data are available at Matherne and 

others (2018). These data were separated into distinct storm 

events using the following criteria: (1) 15 minutes or less 

between two records of 0.01 in. of rain, and (2) greater than 

0.02 in. of total rain for the event. Together, these criteria 

define a distinct precipitation event as three or more “tips” 

at 15 minutes or less apart. By these criteria, 66 events were 

recorded for the Penistaja Arroyo site and 39 were recorded 

for the Papers Wash site over the 13-month period. For the 

time period reported, most events were of low intensity and 

short duration. Normalizing the events to event-average 

intensities (measured in inches per hour), 71 percent of the 

events recorded at the Penistaja Arroyo site and 72 percent of 

the events recorded at the Papers Wash site were less than or 

equal to 0.3 inch per hour (in/h), and about 85 percent at the 

Penistaja Arroyo site and 95 percent at the Papers Wash site 

were less than or equal to 0.5 in/h (fig. 8). The longer-duration 

events (>1 hour) recorded rainfall within an intensity range 

of less than 0.4 in/h. Of the few higher intensity events, most 

were only a few minutes in duration, with the exception of 

one event at both sites on June 9, 2009. On this date, 0.36 in. 

of precipitation was recorded at the Penistaja Arroyo site 

and 0.29 in. was recorded at the Papers Wash site in about 

10 minutes, which is approximately a 2-year-recurrenceinterval, 10-minute-duration event (0.315 in.) for the 

Torreon Navajo Mission station location (Bonnin and others, 

2011). A more extended precipitation record would allow 

precipitation to be better characterized at these sites, including 

more events at the extremes of intensity and duration. 
16 Effects of Hillslope Gully Stabilization on Erosion and Sediment Production in the Torreon Wash Watershed, N. Mex.

0.01 0.1 1 10

Storm duration, in hours

0.01

0.1

1

10

Storm intensity, in inches per hour

Penistaja Arroyo tributary

Papers Wash

EXPLANATION

Figure 8. Storm intensity compared to storm duration at the Penistaja Arroyo and Papers Wash sites.

Runoff and Sediment Transport in Response to 

Precipitation

Crest-stage gages at the two hillslope locations did not 

successfully record flow in response to precipitation events. 

The Penistaja Arroyo site had defined channels, but the 

depth of flow was insufficient to be recorded by the CSGs 

and allow collection of suspended-sediment samples. At the 

Papers Wash site, which had shallower and less well-defined 

channels, flow likewise was not successfully measured by 

the CSGs, but sediment transport was sufficient to bury the 

base of the CSGs several times during the course of the study 

(fig. 9A). The CSGs were raised to accommodate the new 

channel base, but burial of the equipment when sediment was 

transported and deposited, and infilling of the channel to create 

an unchannelized surface as the study progressed, meant 

that the CSGs were ineffective in measuring flow in these 

geomorphically unstable channels.

Despite lacking flow of sufficient depth to be registered 

by the CSGs, sediment transport and deposition at the study 

sites was substantial. Following the 2-year-recurrence-interval 

event of about 0.29 in. of precipitation in 10 minutes on June 

9, 2009, about 4 in. of sediment were deposited in the vicinity 

of the CSG at Papers Wash, burying the base. Sediment 

was both captured by the one-rock dams and deposited 

in the channel upstream from the structures (fig. 9A, B), 

indicating loss of surface-flow energy and increased potential 

for infiltration to the subsurface in the area of sediment 

deposition. By the end of the study period, one-rock dams at 

the Papers Wash treated site were wholly or nearly buried in 

the channel area, and the channel itself was largely infilled 

(fig. 10). At the Penistaja Arroyo treated site, some channel 

infilling also occurred but was not as pronounced as at 

the Papers Wash site, and grasses seeded beneath the onerock dams at construction were well-established (fig. 11). 

The implication of the lack of recorded flow at both sites, 

along with sediment deposition and channel infilling, is that 

sediment movement in the upland portions of the drainage is 

by overland runoff or bedload transport and is not dependent 

on suspended-sediment channel transport. Channel infilling 

also indicates the effectiveness of the one-rock dams in 

reversing incipient gully formation and forming a more stable 

unchanneled hillslope.
Effects of Gully Erosion Control on Sediment Stabilization and Erosion 17

A

B

Figure 9. Sediment movement in Papers Wash treated channel following June 9, 2009, 2-yearrecurrence-interval precipitation. A, Buried base of crest-stage gage. B, Sediment captured by one-rock 

dam and channel infilling above structure.
18 Effects of Hillslope Gully Stabilization on Erosion and Sediment Production in the Torreon Wash Watershed, N. Mex.

A

B

Figure 10. Erosion-control structures on Papers Wash. A, July 24, 2009, near the start of the study 

period. B, July 1, 2013, after completion of the study.
Effects of Gully Erosion Control on Sediment Stabilization and Erosion 19

Figure 11. Erosion-control structures in the Penistaja Arroyo drainage. A, July 24, 2009, near the start of 

the study period. B, July 2, 2013, after completion of the study.

A
20 Effects of Hillslope Gully Stabilization on Erosion and Sediment Production in the Torreon Wash Watershed, N. Mex.

Figure 11. Erosion-control structures in the Penistaja Arroyo drainage. A, July 24, 2009, near the start of 

the study period. B, July 2, 2013, after completion of the study.—Continued

B
Effects of Gully Erosion Control on Sediment Stabilization and Erosion 21

A single suspended-sediment sample was collected in 

Penistaja Arroyo on June 23, 2011, having a concentration of 

196,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L). This value is within the 

range of concentrations reported for the Arroyo Chico near 

Guadalupe (08340500; drainage area 1,390 mi2; maximum 

recorded concentration 293,000 mg/L on July 2, 1980) and the 

Rio Puerco above Arroyo Chico near Guadalupe (08334000; 

drainage area 420 mi2; maximum recorded concentration 

495,000 mg/L on July 31, 1982) (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/

nm/nwis/qw/). Earlier studies in the Rio Puerco established 

that Rio Puerco flow is well-mixed and that the distribution 

of total suspended-sediment concentration is nearly uniform 

throughout the vertical water column, so that a single sample 

is considered representative of the average suspendedsediment concentration transported by that flow event (Nordin, 

1963). The high suspended-sediment concentration of flow 

in Penistaja Arroyo is typical of flows in the Rio Puerco and 

reflects abundant, easily mobilized sediment sources on the 

hillslope and in the channel.

Comparison of Net Aggradation in the Upland 

Paired Drainages

The data on which this net-aggradation analysis is based 

are available at Matherne and others (2018). To compare 

results across the pairs of drainages analyzed in this study, the 

results of the cut and fill analysis were normalized for each 

channel using a variety of methods. For each channel, the 

total stream length and area of active aggradation or erosion 

was calculated, and the total area and volume of net gain (or 

aggradation) were divided by the streamline length or the area 

analyzed.

For both drainage pairs, aggradation in the active areas 

close to the channel was greater over the 3 1/2-year study 

period in the treated compared to the untreated drainage 

(table 1). Columns 1–4 in table 1 are descriptive attributes 

specific to the channels analyzed and are independent of 

the changes that occurred during the span of the study. 

Columns 5–6 are ratios of area aggraded to area eroded 

and volume aggraded to volume eroded for each channel. 

Columns 7–10 summarize area and volume aggraded 

normalized by streamline length and total area analyzed. Data 

from columns 5–10 are presented graphically in figure 12. 

Both of the Papers Wash sites aggraded more than 

the Penistaja Arroyo sites over the 3 1/2-year study period, 

reflecting the more geomorphically active channels at the 

Papers Wash sites compared to those at Penistaja Arroyo. 

Further, for both of the paired drainages and by all measures 

evaluated, the treated sites aggraded more than the paired 

untreated sites over the 3 1/2-year period. The normalized 

data indicate that erosion of the near-channel zone was the 

dominant geomorphic process only at the untreated Penistaja 

Arroyo site (ratio of area aggraded to area eroded or volume 

aggraded to volume eroded < 1.0), whereas aggradation in the 

near-channel zone was the dominant process at the other three 

sites (ratios > 1.0) (table 1). Area-normalized data indicate that 

the treated site in Penistaja Arroyo had 51 percent greater area 

aggraded and 67 percent greater volume aggraded per area 

analyzed compared to the untreated site over the 3 1/2-year 

study period. Although both Papers Wash sites showed net 

aggradation, the trends were similar to the Penistaja Arroyo 

sites, with the treated site having 29 percent greater area 

aggraded and 60 percent greater volume aggraded per area 

analyzed compared to the untreated site over the 3 1/2-year 

study period. 

The net negative change in sediment volume was used to 

calculate a minimum erosion rate over the period of study for 

the Penistaja Arroyo untreated drainage. This erosion rate is a 

minimum estimate, because it is based only on the net change 

in surface elevation in the surveyed portion of the study 

area. Sediment movement through the study reach would 

add to the calculated erosion rate but was not measured for 

this study. A total aggradation volume of 179 cubic feet (ft3) 

Table 1. Paired drainage characteristics and surveyed surface comparisons from 2009 to 2012.

[ft, foot; ft2, square foot]

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Drainage

Total 

streamline 

length 

(ft)

Total 

drainage 

area 

(ft2)

Area 

analyzed 

(ft2)

Ratio of 

area 

aggraded 

to area 

eroded

Ratio of 

volume 

aggraded 

to volume 

eroded

Aggradation 

area 

per 

streamline 

(ft)

Aggradation 

volume 

per 

streamline 

(ft2)

Aggradation 

area 

per area 

analyzed

Aggradation 

volume 

per area 

analyzed 

(ft)

Penistaja Arroyo 

Untreated 114.6 134,234 2,899 0.56 0.45 9.10 1.56 0.39 0.06

Treatment 273.4 147,533 5,043 1.44 2.06 10.80 1.96 0.59 0.10

Papers Wash

Untreated 449.9 201,366 22,899 1.42 1.45 29.74 4.82 0.58 0.10

Treatment 514.0 291,106 54,803 3.05 8.36 79.74 17.50 0.75 0.16
22 Effects of Hillslope Gully Stabilization on Erosion and Sediment Production in the Torreon Wash Watershed, N. Mex.

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

Ratio of area

aggraded to area

eroded

Ratio of volume

aggraded to

volume eroded

Aggradation area

per streamline,

in feet

Aggradation

volume per

streamline, in

square feet

Aggradation area

per area

analyzed

Aggradation

volume per area

analyzed, in feet

Ratio of area

aggraded to area

eroded

Ratio of volume

aggraded to

volume eroded

Aggradation area

per streamline,

in feet

Aggradation

volume per

streamline, in

square feet

Aggradation area

per area

analyzed

Aggradation

volume per area

analyzed, in feet

Untreated drainage

Treated drainage

EXPLANATION

B. Papers Wash paired drainages

A. Penistaja Arroyo paired drainages

Figure 12. Comparison of aggradation amounts between untreated and treated drainages. 

A, Penistaja Arroyo paired drainages. B, Papers Wash paired drainages. The y-axis units are 

variable.
Effects of Gully Erosion Control on Sediment Stabilization and Erosion 23

and a total eroded volume of 401 ft3 was calculated, yielding 

a net change in volume of -222 ft3. The original survey 

was conducted on April 29, 2009, and the final survey was 

conducted on November 15, 2012. Over the 1,296 days of the 

study, the calculated minimum erosion rate was 0.00046 ft/yr 

(0.14 mm/yr) for the 134,234-square-foot drainage area at the 

untreated Penistaja Arroyo site, which is similar to historical 

regional hillslope erosion rates (0.15 mm/yr; Clapp and others, 

2001; Gellis and others, 2004; Gellis and others, 2012).

The aggradation rate represents the rate at which 

sediment accumulated in the study channel during the study 

period, and it was calculated in a manner similar to that for 

the erosion rate. Calculated aggradation rates for the three 

sites where aggradation was the dominant geomorphic process 

were 0.0063 in/yr (0.16 mm/yr) for the Penistaja Arroyo 

treated drainage, 0.012 in/yr (0.31 mm/yr) for the Papers 

Wash untreated drainage, and 0.988 in/yr (2.51 mm/yr) for the 

Papers Wash treated drainage.

Channel Adjustment in Penistaja Arroyo and 

Torreon Wash

The data on which this channel-adjustment analysis is 

based are available at Matherne and others (2018). The three 

survey sites on each main-stem channel segment, Penistaja 

Arroyo [P] and Torreon Wash [T], included cross-section [XS] 

clusters that showed erosion by both bank failure (P2 XS 7-12; 

P3 XS 4, 12; and T1 XS 7-8) and partial or complete removal 

of channel bars (P1 XS 7-10; and T3 XS 6) (figs. 6 and 13). 

Other cross sections showed deposition, including channelbank deposition (T2 XS 5; and T3 XS 8) and channel-bar 

deposition (T1 XS 2-12; T2 XS 1-2, 7-8, 11-12; and T3 XS 7).

Analysis of the clustered cross sections on the main-stem 

reaches of Penistaja Arroyo and Torreon Wash do not support 

a broad picture of arroyo downcutting or aggradation but 

rather suggest dynamically adjusting channel cross sections. 

For each cross section in a cluster, the 2012 cross-sectional 

area was subtracted from the 2009 cross-sectional area, 

and a mean change in area for the cluster was calculated. 

A positive difference indicates erosion or a net increase in 

cross-sectional area, and a negative difference indicates 

aggradation or a net decrease in cross-sectional area. Based 

on the mean change in cross-sectional area for each cluster of 

12 cross sections (table 2), 3 of the clusters (P2, P3, and T1) 

show net aggradation for the period and 3 (P1, T2, and T3) 

show net erosion. The longitudinal change along the Penistaja 

Arroyo and Torreon Wash channels indicates variation along 

the channel. A general downstream pattern of net erosion, 

followed by net aggradation, followed by net erosion, may 

indicate a pulse of sediment moving downstream, with the 

most recent (2012) survey indicating the pulse resides in the 

three middle cross sections (P2, P3, and T1). A longer time 

series of data would be needed to confirm this hypothesis. 

Effects of Upland Mitigation on Sediment 

Production in the Torreon Wash Watershed

Over the 3 1/2-year data-collection period, suspendedsediment data were difficult to acquire and could not be 

used to establish baseline discharge and suspended-sediment 

concentrations. Documentation of changes in channel 

morphology proved to be more effective than suspendedsediment measurements in quantifying the effects of mitigation 

activities to the drainages. 

The results of the paired drainage study indicate that 

the drainage treated with one-rock dams showed a 60- to 

67-percent increase in sediment volume aggraded per 

unit area compared to the untreated drainage at both the 

channelized (Penistaja Arroyo) and geomorphically active 

(Papers Wash) sites (table 1). Evidence of gully stabilization 

and infilling was observed at both locations, along with 

the establishment of vegetation at some treated locations, 

indicating retention of soil moisture beneath the one-rock 

dams. The study was conducted during a dry period; therefore, 

calculated aggradation and erosion rates probably represent 

below-average rates of runoff-mediated sediment transport 

and aggradation for the upland areas. The upland mitigation 

measures appeared to store surface runoff, with increased 

infiltration and soil moisture, based on observed vegetation 

growth in and around the one-rock dams. The decrease in 

surface runoff appeared to decrease channel incision and gully 

formation or maintenance. 
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 0 50 100 150 200 250 

Distance, in feet 6,730 6,735 6,740 6,745 6,750 6,730 6,735 6,740 6,745 6,750 6,730 6,735 6,740 6,745 6,750 6,730 6,735 6,740 6,745 6,750

Elevation, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

Penistaja 1 cross section 1 Penistaja 1 cross section 5 Penistaja 1 c

Penistaja 1 cross section 2 Penistaja 1 cross section 6 Penistaja 1 c

Penistaja 1 cross section 3 Penistaja 1 cross section 7 Penistaja 1 c

Penistaja 1 cross section 4 Penistaja 1 cross section 8 Penistaja 1 c

2009 2012

EXPLANATION

A

Figure 13. Main-stem channel cross sections in Penistaja Arroyo and Torreon Wash, 2009 and 2011. Locations of stream reaches are shown on figuB, Penistaja 2. C, Penistaja 3. D, Torreon 1. E, Torreon 2. F, Torreon 3.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 20

Distance, in feet 6,665 6,670 6,675 6,685 6,680 6,690 6,665 6,670 6,675 6,685 6,680 6,690 6,665

6,6706,6756,6856,6806,6906,6656,6706,6756,6856,6806,690

Elevation, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

Penistaja 2 cross section 1 Penistaja 2 cross section 5 Penistaja 2 c

Penistaja 2 cross section 2 Penistaja 2 cross section 6 Penistaja 2 c

Penistaja 2 cross section 3 Penistaja 2 cross section 7 Penistaja 2 c

Penistaja 2 cross section 4 Penistaja 2 cross section 8 Penistaja 2 c

B

2009 2012

EXPLANATION

Figure 13. Main-stem channel cross sections in Penistaja Arroyo and Torreon Wash, 2009 and 2011. Locations of stream reaches are shown on figB, Penistaja 2. C, Penistaja 3. D, Torreon 1. E, Torreon 2. F, Torreon 3.—Continued
Distance, in feet 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 50 100 150 

Elevation, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

6,6206,6256,6306,6356,6406,6456,650

6,6206,6256,6306,6356,6406,6456,650

6,6206,6256,6306,6356,6406,6456,650

6,6206,6256,6306,6356,6406,6456,650

Penistaja 3 cross section 1 Penistaja 3 cross section 5 Penistaja 3 cross sect

Penistaja 3 cross section 2 Penistaja 3 cross section 6 Penistaja 3 cross sect

Penistaja 3 cross section 3 Penistaja 3 cross section 7 Penistaja 3 cross sect

Penistaja 3 cross section 4 Penistaja 3 cross section 8 Penistaja 3 cross sect

2009 2012

EXPLANATION

C

Figure 13. Main-stem channel cross sections in Penistaja Arroyo and Torreon Wash, 2009 and 2011. Locations of stream reaches are shown on figuB, Penistaja 2. C, Penistaja 3. D, Torreon 1. E, Torreon 2. F, Torreon 3.—Continued
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 50 100 150 200 25

Distance, in feet

6,5906,5956,6006,6056,6106,5906,5956,6006,6056,6106,5906,5956,6006,6056,6106,5906,5956,6006,6056,610

Elevation, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

Torreon 1 cross section 1 Torreon 1 cross section 5 Torreon 1 cross s

Torreon 1 cross section 2 Torreon 1 cross section 6 Torreon 1 cross s

Torreon 1 cross section 3 Torreon 1 cross section 7 Torreon 1 cross s

Torreon 1 cross section 4 Torreon 1 cross section 8 Torreon 1 cross s

2009 2012

EXPLANATION

D

Figure 13. Main-stem channel cross sections in Penistaja Arroyo and Torreon Wash, 2009 and 2011. Locations of stream reaches are shown on figB, Penistaja 2. C, Penistaja 3. D, Torreon 1. E, Torreon 2. F, Torreon 3.—Continued
Distance, in feet 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 3

6,555 6,560 6,565 6,570 6,575 6,580 6,555 6,560 6,565 6,570 6,575 6,580 6,555 6,560 6,565 6,570 6,575 6,580 6,555 6,560 6,565 6,570 6,575 6,580

Elevation, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

Torreon 2 cross section 1 Torreon 2 cross section 5 Torreon 2 crosTorreon 2 cross section 2 Torreon 2 cross section 6 Torreon 2 crosTorreon 2 cross section 3 Torreon 2 cross section 7 Torreon 2 crosTorreon 2 cross section 4 Torreon 2 cross section 8 Torreon 2 cros

2009 2012

EXPLANATION

E

Figure 13. Main-stem channel cross sections in Penistaja Arroyo and Torreon Wash, 2009 and 2011. Locations of stream reaches are shown on fB, Penistaja 2. C, Penistaja 3. D, Torreon 1. E, Torreon 2. F, Torreon 3.—Continued
Distance, in feet 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 50 100 150 

Elevation, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

6,4906,4956,5006,5056,5106,515

6,4906,4956,5006,5056,5106,515

6,4906,4956,5006,5056,5106,515

6,4906,4956,5006,5056,5106,515

Torreon 3 cross section 1 Torreon 3 cross section 5 Torreon 3 cross section 9

Torreon 3 cross section 2 Torreon 3 cross section 6 Torreon 3 cross section 1

Torreon 3 cross section 3 Torreon 3 cross section 7 Torreon 3 cross section 1

Torreon 3 cross section 4 Torreon 3 cross section 8 Torreon 3 cross section 1

2009 2012

EXPLANATION

F

Figure 13. Main-stem channel cross sections in Penistaja Arroyo and Torreon Wash, 2009 and 2011. Locations of stream reaches are shown on figurB, Penistaja 2. C, Penistaja 3. D, Torreon 1. E, Torreon 2. F, Torreon 3.—Continued
30 Effects of Hillslope Gully Stabilization on Erosion and Sediment Production in the Torreon Wash Watershed, N. Mex.

Table 2. Change in cross-sectional area of cross-section clusters, Penistaja Arroyo and Torreon Wash, 2009–12.

[A negative change indicates aggradation and a positive change indicates erosion]

Cross-section 

cluster

Number of 12 total cross 

sections showing 

net erosion

Change in cross-section area from 2009 to 2012, in square feet

Mean Standard 

deviation Maximum Minimum

Penistaja 1 11 69.1 61.8 192.1 -11.1

Penistaja 2 6 -6.3 40.0 53.7 -67.8

Penistaja 3 1 -43.0 36.6 0.4 -99.8

Torreon 1 2 -99.5 77.1 41.5 -191.8

Torreon 2 8 22.4 59.1 107.5 -60.7

Torreon 3 7 10.5 45.6 72.1 -61.5

Gullies have been shown to be important in the 

hydrologic function of a watershed by concentrating 

runoff in channels, which serve both to contribute eroded 

sediment by channel degradation processes and transport 

eroded material from the hillslope to downstream locations 

(Evans, 1993; Poesen and others, 2003). In the arid Walnut 

Gulch Experimental Watershed, Arizona, an estimated 

60–81 percent of sediment production was attributed to gully 

erosion (Osborn and Simanton, 1989). In the Torreon Wash 

watershed, hillslopes provide sediment to stream channels 

primarily by transport in established drainages or through 

gully erosion such as measured in the paired drainages. Once 

established, gullies typically continue to develop over time, 

deepening and cutting headward, developing a more complex 

branched drainage pattern and an increased drainage density 

(channel length per unit area) as eroded sediment is moved 

down channel (where it may cause local aggradation). An 

increased drainage density shortens the travel distance for 

eroded hillslope soils to reach a channel, which increases 

the efficiency of sediment transport. Gully erosion can 

enhance the export of sediment produced on intergully areas 

by increasing connectivity between hillslopes and channel 

systems, thereby increasing the potential for sediment 

transport and deposition in the main-stem channels (Stall, 

1985; Poesen and others, 2003). Placement of one-rock dams 

in incipient or active gully channels promotes discontinuity 

in the drainage network, which ultimately could decrease 

the effective drainage-network density of the watershed. By 

reversing channelization and gully formation, the one-rock 

dam structures retain sediment and runoff on the hillslope, 

as indicated by the increase in sediment aggradation at the 

treated compared to the untreated sites and infilling of an 

incipient gully at the Papers Wash treated site. By increasing 

the opportunity for water detention and infiltration on the 

hillslopes and limiting the continuity of the drainage system, 

hillslope stabilization by simple mitigation structures, such 

as one-rock dams, decreases the erosive effect of moderate, 

frequent precipitation events.

In Penistaja Arroyo and Torreon Wash, channel-bank 

slumping and erosion of bed material were apparent sources 

for sediment suspended in ephemeral streamflow. Results 

of the cross-sectional channel surveys indicate a channel in 

a state of dynamic adjustment. Comparison of changes in 

cross-sectional area between 2009 and 2012 show examples 

of both erosion and deposition along each channel over 

the time period. The single suspended-sediment sample 

collected confirmed the potential for high suspended-sediment 

concentrations in fluvial events.

Studies of the effects of soil conservation and slope 

stabilization measures on basin-scale sediment yields have 

reported lags of several decades between implementation of 

mitigation measures and a reduction in downstream sediment 

loads, because of intermediate storage within the watershed 

(Trimble, 1975, 1999; Trimble and Lund, 1982; Bruijnzeel, 

1990). Because the drainage area of the treated drainages 

is small compared to that of the Torreon Wash watershed, 

the upland mitigation measures would not be expected to 

measurably affect short-term concentrations of suspended 

sediment in main-stem channels.

The effects of upland mitigation structures on 

downstream water quality (such as suspended-sediment 

concentration) could not be evaluated in this study. Analysis 

of changes in cross-sectional area over the course of the 

study suggest that the main-stem channels are in a state 

of dynamic adjustment, with the channel itself being an 

abundant source of suspended sediment during flow events. 

One-rock-dam mitigation structures in the upland watershed 

appear to have caused a decrease in sediment delivery to 

the main-stem channel. However, downstream channel 

sediment aggradation and degradation processes depend not 

only on sediment delivery but also on channel bed and bank 

sediment availability and erodibility, channel geomorphologic 

characteristics, and streamflow hydraulic characteristics. 

The streamflow factors may be affected by one-rock-dam 

mitigation structures through their influence on runoff volume 

(via infiltration) and runoff rate (via detention), both of 

which may vary with time after structure installation. Further 

research is needed to assess the effects of one-rock dams on 

hydrologic processes, such as infiltration and runoff timing 

and amount, as well as the sediment- and flow-reduction 

effectiveness over time and the longevity of these effects 

before structural maintenance or rehabilitation is needed. 
Summary 31

Summary

The Rio Puerco is the primary source of sediment to 

the Rio Grande in New Mexico. A water-quality assessment 

of the upper Rio Puerco listed selected reaches of the river 

as impaired because of excessive sedimentation or siltation. 

More than 88 percent of New Mexico streams are ephemeral 

or intermittent, making the assessment of ephemeral and 

intermittent streams an essential component of the evaluation 

of water quality and watershed health in New Mexico. 

The condition of the upland watershed area is integral to 

hydrologic function and watershed health.

In 2000, the eastern Navajo Nation Chapters began a 

program of watershed improvement in upland portions of the 

Torreon Wash watershed, in the upper Rio Puerco watershed 

of New Mexico. The mitigation program installed shallow, 

loose-stone check dams, generically termed “one-rock dams,” 

to stabilize channel erosion at established gully locations or 

to prevent channel erosion at potential gully locations. In 

2009, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Rio 

Puerco Alliance, initiated a study to evaluate the effectiveness 

of these upland mitigation methods and their potential utility 

in improving watershed health and decreasing sediment export 

to the lower ephemeral stream channels. Sediment erosion and 

deposition in two sets of paired (treated and untreated) upland 

drainages were examined over a 3 1/2-year period from spring 

2009 through fall 2012. Downstream changes in the channel 

cross section in the main-stem Penistaja Arroyo and Torreon 

Wash were also examined.

By the end of the study period, one-rock dams at the 

Papers Wash drainage treated site were wholly or nearly 

buried in the channel area, and the channel itself was largely 

infilled. At the Penistaja Arroyo drainage treated site, some 

channel infilling also occurred but was not as pronounced as 

at the Papers Wash treated site, and grasses seeded beneath 

the one-rock dams at construction were well-established. 

The lack of recorded flow at both sites, along with sediment 

deposition and channel infilling, implies that sediment 

movement in the upland portions of the drainage is by 

overland runoff or bedload transport and is not dependent 

on suspended-sediment channel transport. Channel infilling 

also indicates the effectiveness of the one-rock dams in 

reversing incipient gully formation and forming a more stable 

unchanneled hillslope. A single suspended-sediment sample 

was collected in Penistaja Arroyo on June 23, 2011, having 

a concentration of 196,000 milligrams per liter. The high 

suspended-sediment concentration of flow in Penistaja Arroyo 

is typical of flows in the Rio Puerco and reflects abundant, 

easily mobilized sediment sources on the hillslope and in the 

channel.

For each drainage pair, aggradation in the active areas 

close to the channel was greater over the 3 1/2-year study 

period in the treated compared to the untreated drainage. 

For both of the paired drainages, the treated sites as a whole 

aggraded more over the 3 1/2-year period than the paired 

untreated sites. Erosion of the near-channel zone was the 

dominant geomorphic process only at the untreated Penistaja 

Arroyo site (ratio of aggraded to eroded area or volume 

< 1.0), whereas aggradation in the near-channel zone was 

the dominant process at the other three sites (ratios > 1.0). 

Area-normalized data indicate that the treated site in Penistaja 

Arroyo had 51 percent greater area aggraded and 67 percent 

greater volume aggraded per area analyzed compared to the 

untreated site over the 3 1/2-year study period. Although both 

Papers Wash sites showed net aggradation, the trends were 

similar to the Penistaja Arroyo sites, with the treated site 

having 29 percent greater area aggraded and 60 percent greater 

volume aggraded per area analyzed compared to the untreated 

site over the 3 1/2-year study period. In the untreated Penistaja 

Arroyo drainage site, the calculated minimum erosion rate was 

0.0055 inches per year (in/yr; 0.14 millimeters per year [mm/

yr]), which is similar to historical regional hillslope erosion 

rates. Aggradation rates for the three sites where aggradation 

was the dominant geomorphic process were calculated at 

0.0063 in/yr (0.16 mm/yr) for the Penistaja Arroyo treated 

drainage, 0.012 in/yr (0.31 mm/yr) for the Papers Wash 

untreated drainage, and 0.988 in/yr (2.51 mm/yr) for the 

Papers Wash treated drainage.

Analysis of the clustered cross sections on the main-stem 

reaches of Penistaja Arroyo and Torreon Wash do not support 

a broad picture of arroyo downcutting or aggradation but 

rather suggest dynamically adjusting channel cross sections. 

Longitudinal channel change along the Penistaja Arroyo 

and Torreon Wash channels indicates a general downstream 

pattern of a reach of net erosion, followed by a reach of net 

aggradation, followed by a reach of net erosion. This pattern 

of sediment erosion and deposition may indicate a pulse of 

sediment moving through the three middle cross sections 

(Penistaja 2, Penistaja 3, and Torreon 1). 

In Penistaja Arroyo and Torreon Wash, channel-bank 

slumping and erosion of bed material were apparent sources 

for sediment suspended in ephemeral streamflow. Studies 

of the effects of soil conservation and slope stabilization 

measures on basin-scale sediment yields in previous studies 

have reported lags of several decades between implementation 

of mitigation measures and a reduction in downstream 

sediment loads, because of intermediate storage within the 

watershed. Because the drainage area of the treated drainages 

is small compared to that of the Torreon Wash watershed, 

the upland mitigation measures would not be expected to 

measurably affect short-term concentrations of suspended 

sediment in main-stem channels.

One-rock-dam mitigation structures in the upland 

watershed appear to have resulted in a decrease in sediment 

delivery to the main-stem channel. One-rock-dam mitigation 

structures may affect streamflow through their influence on 

runoff volume (via infiltration) and runoff rate (via detention), 

both of which may vary with time after structure installation. 
32 Effects of Hillslope Gully Stabilization on Erosion and Sediment Production in the Torreon Wash Watershed, N. Mex.

References Cited

Aguilar, R., and Aldon, E.F., 1991, Runoff and sediment rates 

on San Mateo and Querencia soils, Rio Puerco Watershed 

Management Area, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station Research Note RM–506, 7 p.

Amin, I.E., and Jacobs, A.M., 2007, Accounting for sediment 

sources and sinks in the linear regression analysis of the 

suspended sediment load of streams—The Rio Puerco, New 

Mexico, as an example: Environmental Sciences, v. 14, 

no. 1, p. 1–4.

Anderson, O.J., Jones, G.E., and Green, G.N., 1997, Geologic 

map of New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report OF–97–52.

Antevs, E., 1952, Arroyo cutting and filling: Journal of 

Geology, v. 60, p. 375–385.

Antevs, E., 1954, Climate of New Mexico during the last 

glacio-pluvial: Journal of Geology, v. 62, p. 182–191.

Arvidson, J., and Coleman, M., 2003, EPA awards $700,000 to 

work in the Rio Puerco watershed, in Clearing the waters: 

Santa Fe, N. Mex., New Mexico Environment Department, 

v. 8, no. 2, p. 1–2, accessed December 28, 2016, at https://

www.env.nm.gov/swqb/documents/swqbdocs/WPS/CTW/

ClearingTheWaters-Summer2003.pdf.

Bailey, R.W., 1935, Epicycles of erosion in the valleys of 

the Colorado Plateau province: Journal of Geology, v. 43, 

p. 337–355.

Balling, R.C., and Wells, S.G., 1990, Historical rainfall 

patterns and arroyo activity within the Zuni River drainage 

basin, New Mexico: Annals of the Association of American 

Geographers, v. 80, p. 603–617. [Also available online at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1990.tb00320.x.]

Bonnin, G.M., Martin, D., Lin, B., Parzybok, T., Yekta, M., 

and Riley, D., 2011, Precipitation-frequency atlas of the 

United States: Silver Spring, Md., National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, 

NOAA Atlas 14, v. 1, version 5.0, accessed December 28, 

2016, at http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/.

Bruijnzeel, L.A., 1990, Hydrology of moist tropical forests 

and effects of conversion—A state of knowledge review: 

UNESCO International Hydrological Programme, 

224 p. [Also available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/

images/0009/000974/097405eo.pdf.]

Bryan, K., 1925, Date of channel trenching (arroyo cutting) in 

the arid Southwest: Science, v. 62, p. 338–344.

Bryan, K., 1928, Historic evidence on changes in the channel 

of Rio Puerco, a tributary of the Rio Grande in New 

Mexico: Journal of Geology, v. 36, p. 265–282.

Bryan, K., 1940, Erosion in the valleys of the Southwest: New 

Mexico Quarterly, v. 10, p. 227–232.

Clapp, E.M., Bierman, P.R., Pavich, M., Nichols, K.K., and 

Caffee, M.L., 2001, Rates of sediment supply to arroyos 

from upland erosion determined using in-situ-produced 

cosmogenic 10Be and 26Al: Quaternary Research, v. 55, 

p. 235–245. [Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/

qres.2000.2211.]

Clausen, J.C., 1993, Paired watershed study design: 

Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Water, EPA 841–F–93–009, accessed August 22, 

2013, at http://www.in.gov/idem/nps/files/iwpg_paired_

watersheds.pdf.

Cooke, R.U., and Reeves, R.W., 1976, Arroyos and 

environmental change in the American Southwest: Oxford, 

Clarendon Press, Oxford Research Studies in Geography.

Daggupati, P., Douglas-Mankin, K.R., and Sheshukov, A.Y., 

2013, Predicting ephemeral gully location and length using 

topographic index models. Transactions of the American 

Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), 

v. 56, no. 4, p. 1427–1440.

Daggupati, P., Sheshukov, A.Y., and Douglas-Mankin, K.R., 

2014, Evaluating ephemeral gullies with a process-based 

topographic index model: Catena, v. 113, p. 177–186.

Douglas-Mankin, K., Daggupati, P., Sheshukov, A., Barnes, 

P., Devlin, D., and Nelson, N., 2011, Cheney Lake 

watershed—Erosion from ephemeral gullies: Manhattan, 

Kans., Kansas State Research and Extension Publication 

no. MF-3030.

Downes, B.J., Barmuta, L.A., Fairweather, P.G., Faith, D.P., 

Keough, M.J., Lake, P.S., Mapstone, B.D., and Quinn, 

G.P., 2002, Monitoring ecological impacts—Concepts and 

practice in flowing water: New York, Cambridge University 

Press.

Edwards, T.K., and Glysson, G.D., 1999, Field methods for 

measurement of fluvial sediment: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations 03–C2, 89 p. 

[Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/twri/twri3-c2/pdf/

TWRI_3-C2.pdf.]

Elliott, J.G., Gellis, A.C., and Aby, S.B., 1999, Evolution 

of arroyos—Incised channels of the southwestern United 

States, in Darby, S.E., and Simon, Andrew, eds., Incised 

river channels: processes, forms, engineering, and 

management: Chichester, J. Wiley and Sons, Ltd., p. 153–

185.
References Cited 33

Evans, R., 1993, On assessing accelerated erosion of arable 

land by water: Soils and Fertilizers, v. 56, no. 11, p. 1285–

1293.

Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation Project, 1961, The 

single stage sampler for suspended sediment: Federal 

Inter-Agency Sedimentation Project, Subcommittee on 

Sedimentation Report 13, 105 p.

Friedman, J.M., Vincent, K.R., and Shafroth, P.B., 2005, 

Dating floodplain sediments using tree-ring response to 

burial: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 30, 

p. 1077–1091.

Gellis, Allen, 1991, Decreasing trends of suspended sediment 

concentrations at selected streamflow stations in New 

Mexico, in Proceedings of the 36th Annual New Mexico 

Water Conference: Las Cruces, N. Mex., New Mexico 

Water Resources Research Institute Report no. 265, 

p. 77–93. 

Gellis, A.C., Pavich, M.J., Bierman, P., Ellwein, A., Aby, S., 

and Clapp, E., 2004, Modern sediment yield compared to 

geologic rates of sediment generation in a semiarid basin, 

New Mexico—Assessing the human impact: Earth Surface 

Processes and Landforms, v. 29, p. 1359–1372. [Also 

available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/esp.1098.]

Gellis, A.C., Pavich, M.J., Ellwein, A.L., Aby, S., Clark, I., 

Wieczorek, M.E., and Viger, R., 2012, Erosion, storage, and 

transport of sediment in two subbasins of the Rio Puerco, 

New Mexico: Geological Society of America Bulletin, 

v. 124, no. 5/6, p. 817–841.

Geyik, M.P., 1986, FAO watershed management field 

manual—Gully control: Rome, FAO Conservation Guide 

13/2, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations.

Graf, W.L., 1986, Fluvial erosion and Federal public policy in 

the Navajo Nation: Physical Geography 7, p. 97–115.

Griffin, E.R., Kean, J.W., Vincent, K.R., Smith, J.D., and 

Friedman, J.M., 2005, Modeling effects of bank friction 

and woody bank vegetation on channel flow and boundary 

shear stress in the Rio Puerco, New Mexico: Journal of 

Geophysical Research, v. 110, F04023. [Also available at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005JF000322.]

Guy, H.P., 1969, Laboratory theory and methods for sediment 

analysis: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 5, chap. C, 58 p. 

Huckleberry, G., and Duff, A., 2008, Alluvial cycles, 

climate, and Puebloan settlement shifts near Zuni Salt 

Lake, New Mexico, USA: Geoarchaeology, v. 23, no. 1, 

p. 107–130. [Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/

gea.20204.]

Hall, S.A., 1977, Late quaternary sedimentation and 

paleoecologic history of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico: 

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 88, p. 1593–

1618. 

Kraebel, C.J., and Pillsbury, A.F., 1934, Handbook of erosion 

control in mountain meadows: Berkeley, Calif., U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 69 p., accessed 

December 28, 2016, at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/

FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs144p2_053967.pdf. 

Leopold, L.B., 1951, Rainfall intensity—An aspect of climatic 

variation: AGU Transactions, v. 32, p. 347–357.

Leopold, L.B., Emmett, W.W., and Myrick, R.M., 1966, 

Channel and hillslope processes in a semiarid area, New 

Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 352–G, 

243 p. [Also available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/

pp352G.]

Leopold, L.B., and Snyder, C.T., 1951, Alluvial fills near 

Gallup, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 1110–A, 19 p. [Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

wsp/1110a/report.pdf.]

Levick, L.R., Goodrich, D.C., Hernandez, Mariano, Fonseca, 

Julia, Semmens, D.J., Stromberg, Juliet, Tluczek, Melanie, 

Leidy, R.A., Scianni, Melissa, Guretin, D.P., and Kepner, 

W.G., 2008, The ecological and hydrological significance 

of ephemeral and intermittent streams in the arid and 

semi-arid American Southwest: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency and USDA/ARS Southwest Watershed 

Research Center, EPA/600/R–08/134, ARS/233046, 116 p. 

[Also available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/

P100E5HB.PDF?Dockey=P100E5HB.PDF.]

Levick, L.R., Reed, M., vanderLeeuw, E., Guertin, D.P., and 

Uhlman, K., 2006, NEMO watershed based plan Agua Fria 

Watershed: Tucson, Ariz., University of Arizona, variously 

paged. [Also available at http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/

water/watershed/download/nemo-agua_fria-wp.pdf.]

Love, D.W., 1986, A geological perspective of sediment 

storage and delivery along the Rio Puerco, central New 

Mexico in Hadley, R.F., ed., Drainage basin sediment 

delivery: IAHS Publication no. 159, p. 305–322.

Love, D.W., 1997, Historic incision of the middle Rio 

Puerco of the East—Implications for models of arroyo 

entrenchment and distribution of archaeological sites, in 

Duran, M.S., and Kirkpatrick, D.T., eds., Layers of time, 

papers in honor of Robert H. Weber: Archaeological Society 

of New Mexico, v. 23, p. 69–84.

Matherne, A.M., Tillery A.C., Douglas-Mankin, K.R., and 

Soles, Ellen, 2018, Effects of hillslope gully stabilization 

on erosion and sediment production in the Torreon Wash 

watershed, New Mexico, 2009–12 – associated data: U.S. 

Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/

F7Q52NK3.
34 Effects of Hillslope Gully Stabilization on Erosion and Sediment Production in the Torreon Wash Watershed, N. Mex.

Molnár, Peter, and Ramírez, A.R., 2001, Recent trends in 

precipitation and streamflow in the Rio Puerco Basin: 

American Meteorological Society, v. 14, p. 2317–2328. 

National Climatic Data Center, 2013, Climate data online: 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National 

Climatic Data Center, accessed July 24, 2013, at http://

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2013a, Soil data 

mart, Cabezon area, New Mexico: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, accessed August 22, 2013, at http://

soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Survey.aspx?State=NM.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2013b, Soil data 

mart, McKinley County area, New Mexico, McKinley 

County and parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, accessed August 22, 2013, at 

http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Survey.aspx?State=NM. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2017, Geospatial 

data gateway: U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural 

Resources Conservation Service website, accessed July 31, 

2017, at https://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/.

Nordin, C.F., 1963, A preliminary study of sediment transport 

parameters Rio Puerco near Bernardo, New Mexico: 

Sediment transport in alluvial channels: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 462–C, 21 p. [Also available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0462c/report.pdf.]

Osborn, H.B., and Simanton, J.R., 1989, Gullies and sediment 

yield: Rangelands, v. 11, no. 2, p. 51–56.

Phippen, S.J., and Wohl, E., 2003, An assessment of land use 

and other factors affecting sediment loads in the Rio Puerco 

watershed, Rio Puerco: Geomorphology, v. 52, p. 269–287.

Poesen, J., 1993, Gully typology and gully control measures 

in the European loess belt, in Wicherek, S., ed., Farm 

land erosion in temperate plains environment and hills: 

Amsterdam, Elsevier, p. 221– 239.

Poesen, J., Nachtergaele, J., Verstraeten, G., and Valentin, 

C., 2003, Gully erosion and environmental change—

Importance and research needs: Catena, v. 50, p. 91–133.

Popp, C.J., Hawley, J.W., Love, D.W., and Dehn, Michael, 

1988, Use of radiometric (Cs-137, Pb-210), geomorphic, 

and stratigraphic techniques to date recent oxbow sediments 

in the Rio Puerco drainage Grants uranium region, New 

Mexico: Environmental Geology and Water Sciences, v. 11, 

no. 3, p. 253–269.

Rich, J.L., 1911, Recent stream trenching in the semi-arid 

portion of southwestern New Mexico, a result of removal 

of vegetation cover: American Journal of Science, v. 32, 

p. 237–245.

Sauer, V.B., and Turnipseed, D.P., 2010, Stage measurement 

at gaging stations: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and 

Methods, book 3, chap. A7, 45 p. [Also available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/tm3-a7/.]

Scholl, D.G., and Aldon, E.F., 1988, Runoff and sediment 

yield from two semiarid sites in New Mexico’s Rio Puerco 

Watershed: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station 

Research Note RM–488, 4 p.

Schultz, K.M., 2008, Modeling road erosion in the upper 

Torreon Wash, New Mexico: Albuquerque, N. Mex., The 

University of New Mexico, Water Resources Program, 

Water Resources Professional Project Report, 43 p. 

Schultz, K.M., 2011, Modeling road erosion in the upper 

Torreon Wash, New Mexico: Washington, D.C., 

Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 

Transportation Research Record—Journal of the 

Transportation Research Board, no. 2203, p. 27–35. [Also 

available at http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2203-04.]

Schumm, S.A., and Hadley, R.F., 1957, Arroyos and the 

semiarid cycle of erosion: American Journal of Science, 

v. 25, p. 161–174.

Stall, J.B., 1985, Upland erosion and downstream sediment 

delivery, in El-Swaify, S.A., Moldenhauer, W.C., and Lo, 

A., eds., Soil erosion and conservation: Ankeny, Iowa, Soil 

Conservation Society of America, p. 200–205.

Surface Water Quality Bureau, 2001, Watershed Restoration 

Action Strategy (WRAS) for the Rio Puerco watershed of 

New Mexico: Santa Fe, N. Mex., New Mexico Environment 

Department, 20 p., accessed December 28, 2016, at 

https://www.env.nm.gov/swqb/documents/swqbdocs/WPS/

WRAS/RioPuercoWRAS-May2001.pdf.

Surface Water Quality Bureau, 2006, WQCC approved 

total maximum daily load (TMDL) for the Rio Puerco 

watershed—Part 1: Santa Fe, N. Mex., New Mexico 

Environment Department, 76 p., accessed August 28, 

2012, at http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdldocs/32770_

RioPuercoTMDL.pdf.

Thornwaite, C.W., Sharpe, C.F.S., and Dosch, E.F., 1942, 

Climate and accelerated erosion in the arid and semiarid 

southwest, with special reference to the Polacca Wash 

drainage basin, Arizona: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Technical Bulletin 808, 134 p.

Trimble, S.W., 1975, Denudation studies: Can we assume 

stream steady state?: Science, v. 188, p. 1207–1208.

Trimble, S.W., 1999, Decreased rates of alluvial sediment 

storage in the Coon Creek Basin, Wisconsin, 1975–1993: 

Science, v. 285, p. 1244–1246.
References Cited 35

Trimble, S.W., and Lund, S.W., 1982, Soil conservation 

and the reduction of erosion and sedimentation in the 

Coon Creek Basin, Wisconsin: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1234, 35 p. [Also available at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp1234.]

Trimble Navigation Limited, 2004, Terramodel release 

notes—Version 10.4: Dayton, Ohio, Trimble Navigation 

Limited, 10 p., accessed at http://trl.trimble.com/docushare/

dsweb/Get/Document-319067/Terramodel%2010.40%20

Release%20Notes.pdf.

Tuan, Y., 1966, New Mexican gullies—A critical review and 

some recent observations: Annals of the Association of 

American Geographers, v. 56, p. 573–597.

Vincent, K.R., Friedman, J.M., and Griffin, E.R., 2009, 

Erosional consequence of salt cedar control: Environmental 

Management, v. 44, p. 218–227. [Also available at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9314-8.]

U.S. Congress, 2002, Federal Water Pollution Control Act—

As amended through Public Law 107-303: U.S. Congress, 

234 p., accessed August 2013 at https://www.epw.senate.

gov/water.pdf.

Waltemeyer, S.D., 2005, Automated crest-stage gage 

application in ephemeral streams in New Mexico: U.S. 

Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2005–3136, 4 p. [Also 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3136/pdf/fs2005-

3136.pdf.]

Western Regional Climate Center, [2013], Cooperative 

climatological data summaries: Western Regional Climate 

Center website, accessed May 30, 2013, at https://wrcc.dri.

edu/Climate/west_coop_summaries.php.

Zeedyk, Bill, 2006, A good road lies easy on the land—Water 

harvesting from low-standard rural roads: The Quivira 

Coalition; Zeedyk Ecological Consulting, LLC; The Rio 

Puerco Management Committee–Watershed Initiative; 

and the New Mexico Environment Department–Surface 

Water Quality Bureau, 46 p. [Also available at http://

quiviracoalition.org/images/pdfs/1888-A_Good_Road_

Lies_Easy_on_the_Land.pdf.]

Zeedyk, Bill, and Jansens, Jan-Willem, 2009, An introduction 

to erosion control (3d ed.): Joint Publication from Earth 

Works Institute, The Quivira Coalition and Zeedyk 

Ecological Consulting, 28 p.

For more information about this publication, contact

Director, New Mexico Water Science Center

6700 Edith Blvd. NE 

Albuquerque, NM 87113

For additional information visit 

https://nm.water.usgs.gov/

Publishing support provided by

Lafayette Publishing Service Center
Matherne and others—Effects of Hillslope Gully Stabilization on Erosion and Sediment Production in the Torreon Wash Watershed, N. Mex.—SIR 2018–5026

ISSN 2328-031X (print)

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)

https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185026

I SBN 978- 1- 4113-4220- 0

9 7814 1 1 342 200