Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5292

Prepared in cooperation with the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority

Traveltime of the Rio Grande in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, 

New Mexico, Water Years 2003–05

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover: Photograph courtesy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque District.
Traveltime of the Rio Grande in the 

Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico, 

Water Years 2003–05

By Jeff B. Langman

Prepared in cooperation with the Albuquerque Bernalillo County 

Water Utility Authority

Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5292

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2009

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

U.S. Geological Survey

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

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

1–888–ASK–USGS

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

U.S. Government.

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

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Langman, J.B., 2009, Traveltime of the Rio Grande in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, water years 2003–05: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5292, 34 p.
iii

Contents

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

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

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

Description of the Study Area ............................................................................................................1

Physiography................................................................................................................................3

Geology..........................................................................................................................................3

Climate ..........................................................................................................................................3

Streamflow of the Rio Grande ...................................................................................................3

Tributaries .....................................................................................................................................4

Ground-Water Inflows and Outflows........................................................................................4

Irrigation Diversions and Inflows..............................................................................................4

Channel Geometry .......................................................................................................................4

Previous Studies ...................................................................................................................................5

Methods of Analysis.............................................................................................................................5

Source and Description of Data................................................................................................5

Flow-Pulse Analysis ....................................................................................................................6

Traveltime Curves ........................................................................................................................6

Dispersion and Short-Term Storage.........................................................................................7

Quality Control..............................................................................................................................9

Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................9

Traveltime of the Rio Grande........................................................................................................................9

Estimating Traveltime for Any Two Points Between Cochiti Dam and Albuquerque .........................9

Rio Grande Traveltime Characteristics ....................................................................................................19

Dispersion ............................................................................................................................................24

Short-Term Storage............................................................................................................................25

Summary........................................................................................................................................................27

References....................................................................................................................................................27

Supplemental Information..........................................................................................................................

Figures

1. Map of the Middle Rio Grande Basin and the Rio Grande.................................................................2

2–26. Diagrams showing: 

2. Example of pulse releases of streamflow from Cochiti Dam, January to 

March 2005...............................................................................................................................7

3. Components of flow-pulse analysis............................................................................................. 8

4. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 1 (495 cubic feet per second) 

from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, November 2002...........................................................11

5. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 2 (528 cubic feet per second) 

from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, January 2004...............................................................11

30
iv

6. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 3 (588 cubic feet per second) 

from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, November 2003...........................................................12

7. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 4 (816 cubic feet per second) 

from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, January 2005...............................................................12

8. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 5 (1,060 cubic feet per second) 

from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, December 2004...........................................................13

9. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 6 (1,440 cubic feet per second) 

from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, May 2003......................................................................13

10. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 7 (3,350 cubic feet per second) 

from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, May 2004......................................................................14

11. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 8 (1,850 cubic feet per second) 

from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, May 2004......................................................................14

12. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 9 (2,280 cubic feet per second) 

from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, May 2004......................................................................15

13. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 10 (2,740 cubic feet per second) 

from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, May 2004......................................................................15

14. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 11 (3,350 cubic feet per second) 

from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, May 2004......................................................................16

15. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 12 (5,190 cubic feet per second) 

from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, May 2005......................................................................16

16. Traveltime curves for estimating leading-edge traveltime between 

any two points in the Rio Grande located between Cochiti and 

Albuquerque stream-gaging stations ................................................................................17

17. Traveltime curves for estimating trailing-edge traveltime between 

any two points in the Rio Grande located between Cochiti and 

Albuquerque stream-gaging stations ................................................................................18

18. Traveltime curves for estimating leading-edge and trailing-edge 

traveltimes for a distance equal to the stream length of the Rio 

Grande between the North Floodway Channel input and the 

Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority-proposed 

diversion structure................................................................................................................20

19. Median traveltimes for rising-limb leading edge and plateau leading 

edge of all pulse events .......................................................................................................20

20. Streamflow pulse traveltime distributions (plateau leading edge) for 

Rio Grande stream-gaging stations of San Felipe, Alameda, 

Albuquerque, Isleta, Bernardo, and San Acacia .............................................................21

21. Streamflow and wetted-channel width for stream-gaging stations in 

the Middle Rio Grande Basin, water years 2003 to 2005 ................................................22

22. Cross-sectional measurement of the Rio Grande near Bernalillo ......................................23

23. Traveltime for Rio Grande streamflow pulses (plateau leading edge) 

at the San Felipe, Alameda, Albuquerque, Isleta, Bernardo, and 

San Acacia stream-gaging stations...................................................................................23

24. Streamflow trends (local regression) at the Rio Grande stream-gaging 

stations of Cochiti, San Felipe, Albuquerque, and San Acacia 

during pulse event 1..............................................................................................................24

25. Mean streamflow velocity from Cochiti Dam to the downstream 

stream-gaging stations of San Felipe, Alameda, Albuquerque, 

Isleta, Bernardo, and San Acacia ......................................................................................26
v

26. Time of passage for pulses from Cochiti Dam normalized for 

changes in pulse volume for Rio Grande stream-gaging 

stations of San Felipe, Alameda, Albuquerque, Isleta, Bernardo, 

and San Acacia .....................................................................................................................26

Tables

1. Selected stream-gaging stations in the study area............................................................................6

2. Pulse components for flow-pulse analysis ..........................................................................................7

3. Pulse events at Rio Grande below Cochiti Dam selected for analysis of 

traveltime in the Middle Rio Grande Basin ................................................................................10

4. Streamflow velocities in feet per second at Rio Grande stations of 

San Felipe, Alameda, Albuquerque, Isleta, Bernardo, and San Acacia 

calculated by the traveltime of a pulse’s plateau leading edge and the 

distance between stations ...........................................................................................................21

5. Percent change in pulse volume from Cochiti stream-gaging station to 

downstream stations of San Felipe, Albuquerque, Bernardo, and 

San Acacia ......................................................................................................................................25

6. Skewness of the pulse distributions....................................................................................................27

SI–1. Traveltime of rising-limb leading edge of pulse event from Cochiti 

Dam stream-gaging station ..........................................................................................................30

SI–2. Traveltime of rising-limb centroid of pulse event from Cochiti Dam 

stream-gaging station ...................................................................................................................30

SI–3. Traveltime of plateau leading edge of pulse event from Cochiti Dam 

stream-gaging station ...................................................................................................................31

SI–4. Traveltime of plateau centroid of pulse event from Cochiti Dam 

stream-gaging station ...................................................................................................................31

SI–5. Traveltime of trailing edge of pulse event from Cochiti Dam 

stream-gaging station ...................................................................................................................32

Conversion Factors

Multiply By To obtain

inch (in) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

square mile (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

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

)

cubic foot per second (ft3

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

Vertical coordinate information referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 

88).

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

Water year is the 12-month period of October 1 through September 30, designated by the 

calendar year in which it ends.
Traveltime of the Rio Grande in the Middle Rio Grande 

Basin, New Mexico, Water Years 2003–05

By Jeff B. Langman

Abstract

The quality of water in the Rio Grande is becoming 

increasingly important as more surface water is proposed for 

diversion from the river for potable and nonpotable uses. In 

cooperation with the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water 

Utility Authority, the U.S. Geological Survey examined 

traveltime of the Rio Grande in the Middle Rio Grande 

Basin to evaluate the potential travel of a conservative solute 

entrained in the river’s streamflow. A flow-pulse analysis 

was performed to determine traveltimes of a wide range of 

streamflows in the Rio Grande, to develop traveltime curves 

for estimating the possible traveltime of a conservative solute 

in the Rio Grande between Cochiti Dam and Albuquerque, 

and to evaluate streamflow velocities and dispersion and 

storage characteristics of the Rio Grande in the entire Middle 

Rio Grande Basin. A flow-pulse analysis was applied to 12 

pulse events recorded during the 2003–05 water years for 

streamflow-gaging stations between Cochiti Dam and the city 

of San Acacia. Pulse streamflows ranged from 495 to 5,190 

cubic feet per second (ft3

/s).

Three points of each pulse were tracked as the pulse 

passed a station—rising-limb leading edge, plateau leading 

edge, and plateau trailing edge. Most pulses indicated longer 

traveltimes for each successive point in the pulse. Dispersion 

and spreading of the pulses decreased with increased 

streamflow. Decreasing traveltimes were not always consistent 

with increasing streamflow, particularly for flows less than 

1,750 ft3

/s, and the relation of traveltime and original pulse 

streamflow at Cochiti indicated a nonlinear component. 

Average streamflow velocities decreased by greater than 30 

percent from San Felipe to San Acacia. The expected trend 

of increasing dispersion with downstream travel was not 

always visible because of other influences on streamflow. With 

downstream flow, distributions of the pulses became more 

skewed to the descending limbs, indicating possible short-term 

storage of a part of the pulses.

Introduction

The quality of water in the Rio Grande in New Mexico 

is becoming increasingly important as more surface water is 

being proposed for diversion from the river for potable and 

nonpotable uses. Historically, water from the Rio Grande 

in the Middle Rio Grande Basin was typically diverted 

for agriculture during part of the year, but with proposed 

diversions for municipal supply, a contaminant spill into 

the Rio Grande could have a substantial effect on use of the 

resource and health of the populace. In cooperation with 

the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority 

(ABCWUA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) examined 

traveltime of the Rio Grande in the Middle Rio Grande 

Basin to evaluate the potential travel of a conservative solute 

entrained in the river’s streamflow (discharge or rate of flow). 

Traveltime refers to the time of movement of water and (or) 

waterborne solutes in a river from an upstream location to a 

downstream location under a given streamflow condition. In 

the event of contamination of water supplies, water-resource 

managers must decide when, and for how long, to suspend 

diversions. Knowledge of traveltime of the Rio Grande will 

allow water-resource managers to make informed decisions 

concerning the timing of diversions from the Rio Grande. 

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to describe traveltimes 

of the Rio Grande in the Middle Rio Grande Basin during 

selected times of the year during water years 2003–05. A 

flow-pulse analysis was performed by using streamflow data 

from USGS streamflow-gaging stations (stations). Results 

were used to (1) determine traveltimes of a wide range of 

streamflows, (2) produce traveltime curves for estimating the 

potential traveltime of a conservative solute in the Rio Grande 

between any two points from Cochiti Dam to Albuquerque, 

and (3) evaluate streamflow velocities, dispersion, and storage 

characteristics in the entire Middle Rio Grande Basin (Cochiti 

Dam to San Acacia, about 115 river miles [mi]). 

Description of the Study Area

The Middle Rio Grande Basin is the area within the Rio 

Grande Valley extending from Cochiti Lake to San Acacia 

(fig. 1). Rio Grande streamflow is released from Cochiti Dam 

and flows through the Cochiti, Santo Domingo, San Felipe, 

Santa Ana, and Sandia Pueblos prior to reaching the city of 
2 Traveltime of the Rio Grande in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico, Water Years 2003–05

 Figure 1. Middle Rio Grande Basin and the Rio Grande (modified from Bartolino and Cole, 2002).

Rio Puerco

Jemez River

Rio Salado

GRANDE 

RIO 

Cochiti

San Felipe

Bernalillo

Rio

Rancho

Albuquerque

Isleta

Los Lunas

Belen

San Acacia

Alameda

McKINLEY

CIBOLA

VALENCIA

SOCORRO

TORRANCESANTA FE

BERNALILLO

SANDOVAL

EXPLANATION

Rio Grande inner valley Middle Rio Grande Basin

0 20 40 MILES

0 30 60 KILOMETERS

35°30'

35°15'

35°

34°45'

34°30'

107°15' 107° 106°45' 106°30' 106°15' Sierra Nacimiento Range

Jemez

Mountains

Manzano Mountains

Manzanita

Mountains

Ladron

Peak

Mesa

Lucero

San

Juan

Basin

Sandia Mountains

Streamflow-gaging station City, township, or pueblo

Cochiti Lake

Los Pinos

Mountains

Española

Valley

Sierra Lucero

Escarpment

Sandia

Pueblo

Sevilleta 

National

Wildlife 

Refuge

 Isleta

Pueblo

Bernardo

RIO 

GRANDE 

Rio Puerco

North

Floodway

Santa Ana

Pueblo

San Felipe

Pueblo

Santo Domingo

 Pueblo 

Cochiti 

Dam

New Mexico

Las Cruces

Albuquerque

Middle Rio Grande Basin

Santa Fe

Base derived from U.S. Census Bureau and

U.S. Geological Survey digital data.

Scale 1:100,000

Cochiti

 Pueblo 
Introduction 3

Albuquerque. Downstream from Albuquerque, the Rio Grande 

flows through Isleta Pueblo, Los Lunas, Belen, Bernardo, and 

the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge before reaching San 

Acacia. Currently (2008), ground water is the principal source 

of water for municipal, domestic, commercial, and industrial 

uses in the basin, but water from the Rio Grande is the 

principal source of water for agriculture and imported water 

in the Rio Grande is being developed for municipal supply 

by the ABCWUA as part of the San Juan-Chama Drinking 

Water Project (Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility 

Authority, 2007). 

Physiography

The study area encompasses about 3,060 mi2 and is 

bordered by the San Juan Basin and Sierra Lucero Escarpment 

to the west and the Sandia, Manzanita, Manzano, and Los 

Pinos Mountains to the east (fig. 1). Elevations in the study 

area range from about 4,500 feet (ft) to greater than 10,000 ft. 

The Middle Rio Grande Basin varies from 20 to 40 mi wide 

and is bisected by the Rio Grande and its alluvial flood plain 

(inner valley), which varies in width from 0.5 to 5 mi. The 

Rio Grande is the main drainage in the study area, and the 

Jemez River and Rio Puerco are the main tributaries. Between 

Cochiti Dam and San Acacia, the river declines in elevation 

about 575 ft over the 115 river mi (average gradient of 5 ft per 

mi). The Rio Grande in the study area is generally 200 to 300 

ft in width, has a shifting sand substratum, and is braided with 

sandbars and islands (Lagasse, 1980).

Geology

The Middle Rio Grande Basin is part of a series of 

south-trending structural basins that compose the Rio Grande 

Valley (Kelley, 1977). The basin is constricted on the north 

and south by the convergence of eastern and western structural 

boundaries. The sedimentary fill of the basin is composed of 

the Neogene to Quaternary Santa Fe Group and Quaternary 

post-Santa Fe Group valley and basin-fill deposits. The 

upper part of the Santa Fe Group was deposited during the 

development of the ancestral Rio Grande and contains fluvial 

basin deposits as much as 1,500 ft thick (Hawley and Haase, 

1992). The alluvium in the inner valley (current flood plain, 

fig. 1) consists of post-Santa Fe Group deposits from the most 

recent erosion and deposition sequence of the Rio Grande 

(Hawley and Haase, 1992). These channel and flood-plain 

deposits are as much as 120 ft thick. 

Climate

Climate in the study area is mostly semiarid with 

substantial variation in precipitation from the lower 

valley areas to the mountains. Annual precipitation can 

exceed 40 inches in the mountains, whereas other areas 

in the watershed may receive less than 10 inches (Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, 1997). A majority of the 

annual precipitation typically occurs during the summer 

monsoon season (Western Regional Climate Center, 2002). 

Evapotranspiration from the Rio Grande riparian corridor 

is substantial because of the arid climate, reservoirs, broad 

channel areas, and larger riparian areas; mean annual 

evapotranspiration was estimated at about 155,000 acre-ft for 

the Rio Grande corridor from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia (S.S. 

Papadopulos and Associates, Inc., 2004). 

Streamflow of the Rio Grande

The Rio Grande typically flows year-round within the 

Middle Rio Grande Basin, but selected reaches of the river 

may have no flow during summer or fall months. Statistical 

analysis of Rio Grande streamflow in the Middle Rio Grande 

Basin from 1974 to 1985 indicated that the river might be 

dry at Albuquerque, Bernardo, and San Acacia for short 

periods (Waltemeyer, 1989). Through the Middle Rio Grande 

Endangered Species Collaborative Program, the U.S. Bureau 

of Reclamation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

and their State and local partners have been working to reduce 

periods of no flow in the Rio Grande in the Middle Rio 

Grande Basin for protection of the endangered silvery minnow 

(Hybognathus amarus) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004).

Within the study area, Rio Grande streamflow is 

controlled by releases from Cochiti Dam. Congress authorized 

construction of the dam in 1960 (completed in 1973) to 

provide flood and sediment control in the Rio Grande. 

Snowmelt runoff is stored in Cochiti Lake in April and May 

and is typically released from June through September, and 

releases can extend through October for irrigation purposes. 

After July 1, when streamflow in the Rio Grande at Otowi 

Bridge, located about 26 mi upstream of Cochiti Dam, is 

less than 1,500 ft3

/second (s), no floodwater is released from 

Cochiti Lake unless the reservoir has less than 212,000 acre-ft 

of summer flood storage (Bureau of Reclamation, 2005). 

Since installation of Cochiti Dam, annual mean releases from 

Cochiti Lake have ranged from 1,360 to 2,360 ft3

/s, and the 

largest daily mean streamflow recorded was 8,290 ft3/s (Byrd 

and others, 2005). Flood control requirements state that flow 

in the Rio Grande will be maintained at less than 7,000 ft3/s as 

measured at the Rio Grande at Albuquerque station (Bureau of 

Reclamation, 2005). 

The largest Rio Grande streamflows typically occur 

during the spring snowmelt, and the largest peaks typically 

occur during May (Langman and Anderholm, 2004; Langman 

and Nolan, 2005). Differences in streamflow volumes between 

stations increase from May and October because of irrigation 

diversions and return flows. Following the end of the irrigation 

season, streamflows increase, and differences in streamflow 

volumes between stations decrease (Langman and Anderholm, 

2004; Langman and Nolan, 2005). The frequency of large 

streamflows in the Rio Grande has been reduced because of 

installation of Cochiti Dam (Langman and Anderholm, 2004), 

but large streamflows still occur as was evident during 2005 
4 Traveltime of the Rio Grande in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico, Water Years 2003–05

when the daily mean streamflow from Cochiti Dam peaked at 

nearly 7,000 ft3/s in June and remained above 5,000 ft3/s from 

May 12 to June 15 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2005). 

Tributaries

Within the Middle Rio Grande Basin, perennial 

tributaries to the Rio Grande are few in number. Numerous 

intermittent and ephemeral drainages flow into the Rio 

Grande in response to snowmelt or summer thunderstorms, 

but only the Jemez River, Rio Puerco, and treated wastewater 

discharges typically provide intermittent or perennial inflow. 

The Jemez River has a drainage area of about 1,100 mi2

that includes parts of the Jemez Mountains and the Sierra 

Nacimiento Range. The Jemez River, which may go dry 

during different periods of the year at its confluence with the 

Rio Grande, has an annual mean streamflow of 60.6 ft3/s (1943 

to 2004), and the largest recorded daily mean streamflow 

was 3,640 ft3/s (June 19, 1958) (Byrd and others, 2005). 

Peak flows typically occur in late March, April, and May 

during snowmelt runoff with additional peak flows during the 

monsoon season (typically June through September). The Rio 

Puerco has a drainage area of about 7,350 mi2 (1,130 mi2 are 

noncontributing) and is the largest drainage contributing to the 

Rio Grande in the study area. The Rio Puerco originates in the 

San Juan Basin (fig. 1) and has a river length of about 110 mi. 

The Rio Puerco typically provides a small discharge to the Rio 

Grande (average annual mean streamflow was 40.2 ft3/s from 

1940 to 2004) but can provide substantial inflows during large 

storm events or during the spring snowmelt runoff (the largest 

recorded daily mean streamflow was 5,980 ft3/s on May 5, 

1941) (Byrd and others, 2005). 

Treated wastewater is discharged directly to the Rio 

Grande from treatment plants in Bernalillo, Rio Rancho, 

Albuquerque, Los Lunas, and Belen (fig. 1). This water was 

originally withdrawn from the Middle Rio Grande Basin 

aquifer and can be classified as perennial tributary inflow to 

the Rio Grande. The ABCWUA Southside Water Reclamation 

Plant is the largest wastewater treatment plant in the study 

area, and from 1985 to 2000, discharge to the Rio Grande 

averaged 80.4 ft3

/s (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2005). 

Individual discharges from all other treatment plants averaged 

less than 3 ft3/s from 1985 to 2000 (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 2005). Storm runoff from urban areas contributes 

to the Rio Grande in the study area, but only the Albuquerque 

Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority has a large 

stormwater-collection system that discharges directly to 

the Rio Grande. The largest conveyance channel (North 

Floodway) collects stormwater runoff from nearly 88 mi2

within Albuquerque’s eastside (U.S. Geological Survey, 2006) 

and discharges stormwater runoff into the Rio Grande just 

upstream from the Alameda station. This channel typically has 

no measurable flow, but the recorded peak flow was 12,300 

ft3/s on August 14, 1980 (Byrd and others, 2005). 

Ground-Water Inflows and Outflows

The Rio Grande is hydraulically connected with the 

basin-fill aquifer, which is composed of the saturated Santa 

Fe Group deposits (Kernodle and Scott, 1986). The basin-fill 

aquifer is recharged along the mountain fronts and from the 

Rio Grande and its tributaries, and recharge likely flows from 

the mountain areas towards the Rio Grande (Ellis and others, 

1993; Anderholm and others, 1995). Ground water in the study 

area predominantly flows north to south with a greater east to 

west direction at the basin margins because of mountain-front 

recharge (Plummer and others, 2004). The effects of irrigation, 

drains, and river leakage form complex interactions that make 

it difficult to determine ground-water inflows and outflows 

to the river through the Middle Rio Grande Basin. The Rio 

Grande likely both gains and loses streamflow because of 

ground-water inflows and outflows through the Middle Rio 

Grande Basin. S.S. Papadopulos and Associates, Inc. (2004) 

determined that the Rio Grande from Cochiti Lake to the town 

of Bernardo typically loses water but does gain flow in winter 

months. The Rio Grande is likely a losing stream overall from 

Cochiti Lake to San Acacia, as was determined by model 

simulations (McAda and Barroll, 2002).

Irrigation Diversions and Inflows

Agricultural sites in the study area rely on diversion 

of Rio Grande water for irrigation. The Middle Rio Grande 

Conservancy District (MRGCD) provides water for flood 

irrigation by diverting water from the Rio Grande and 

directing it into a system of canals while directing return flows 

to the Rio Grande through drainage ditches and interior and 

riverside drains. The riverside drains also collect water from 

the interior drains and canals and leakage from the Rio Grande 

to prevent the water table from rising outside of the riverside 

levees (Kernodle and Scott, 1986). Irrigation water diverted 

from the Rio Grande may return to the river as surface flow or 

as ground water discharged to the canals and drains. 

Channel Geometry

The Rio Grande channel typically consists of a shifting 

sand substrate and a braided channel pattern. Because of 

increased anthropogenic influences, channel geometry 

currently undergoes less change from geomorphological 

processes than before installation of Cochiti Dam, irrigation 

diversions, and the levee system installed by the MRGCD and 

the USACE in the 1930s and 1940s (Mussetter Engineering, 

Inc., 2002); however, the predominantly sand channel still 

allows for the movement of the thalweg within the stream 

banks and the formation and migration of sandbars. Analysis 

of channel lateral mobility from 1918 to 1992 by Richard 

(2001) indicated that the Rio Grande was previously a wide, 

braided river that was laterally mobile but became a narrower, 
Introduction 5

more stable channel with increased anthropogenic control. 

With a decreased sediment supply following installation 

of Cochiti Dam, bed sediment coarsened, and the channel 

degraded in the Middle Rio Grande Basin (Lagasse, 1980 and 

1994; Richard, 2001). 

Previous Studies

The Rio Grande through the city of Albuquerque 

was previously investigated for traveltime and reaeration 

characteristics. Waltemeyer (1994) determined that traveltime 

characteristics of the Rio Grande through Albuquerque 

were essentially the same for three methods used during the 

study—stream velocity, tracer dye, and tracer gas. The three 

methods indicated mean velocities of 1.06 to 1.13 mi per hour 

(h) (equivalent to 1.55 to 1.64 ft/s) at a flow of about 300 ft3

/s. 

Waltemeyer (1994) also performed a linear regression analysis 

of 22 streamflow values for the Rio Grande in Albuquerque 

that were recorded between 1985 and 1991 to derive a 

relation between streamflow and mean velocity. This equation 

was used to estimate traveltimes at various streamflows 

for multiple reaches of the Rio Grande within the city of 

Albuquerque. 

The Rio Grande in the Middle Rio Grande Basin is 

currently (2008) being modeled for flood control and water 

accounting as part of the Upper Rio Grande Water Operations 

Model (URGWOM). This model is used to simulate water 

storage and delivery operations in the Rio Grande from its 

headwaters in Colorado to below Caballo Dam in southwest 

New Mexico (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2005). As 

part of this model, streamflow traveltimes (lag times) have 

been estimated for reaches of the Rio Grande in the Middle 

Rio Grande Basin by using a wave-velocity method (KleitzSeddon or Seddon’s law), where traveltime is based on a 

calculated wave velocity determined from streamflow and 

cross-sectional areas. This procedure assumes a station’s cross 

section to be representative of the entire reach, and estimated 

traveltimes are based on application of the calculated wave 

velocity over the entire reach length (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 2005). 

The study reach also was analyzed for streamflow 

velocity and sediment transport prior to the construction of 

Cochiti Dam. Streamflow velocities in the Rio Grande at San 

Felipe ranged from about 2 to 7 ft/s for discharges ranging 

from 360 to 9,700 ft3

/s (Culbertson and Dawdy, 1964), and 

velocities of the Rio Grande near Bernalillo were reported 

to range from about 3 to 8 ft/s for discharges ranging from 

1,200 to 10,100 ft3

/s (Nordin, 1964). Streamflow velocities at 

the San Felipe station following installation of Cochiti Dam 

have ranged from about 1 to 7 ft/s during USGS streamflow 

measurements across a streamflow range of about 170 to 7,700 

ft3

/s (U.S. Geological Survey, 2006). 

Methods of Analysis

The method of analysis for this study is similar to the 

method used by Appel (1983) to estimate traveltimes of 

flood waves on the New River in West Virginia. Appel used a 

flow-pulse technique to produce traveltime curves that could 

be used to estimate the traveltime of a flood wave between 

any two points in the study area. For this study, traveltime 

curves were developed to estimate the potential traveltime of 

a conservative solute in the Rio Grande for any two points 

between Cochiti Dam and Albuquerque. Traveltime curves 

were developed through local-regression analysis of traveltime 

data for streamflow pulses. Additional points in the pulse 

shape and traveltime data for the entire Middle Rio Grande 

Basin also were examined to evaluate dispersion and storage 

characteristics of the Rio Grande that can affect traveltime.

An established method for determining traveltime 

characteristics of a river is the use of tracer dyes for tracking 

the movement of a solute particle as it is transported 

downstream (Kilpatrick and Wilson, 1989). Dyes are injected 

into a river to track movement of the streamflow because the 

dyes are transported with streamflow and behave in a similar 

manner as the water particles (Kilpatrick and Wilson, 1989). A 

flow-pulse analysis for traveltime determination uses existing 

streamflow data in which abrupt changes in a river’s flow can 

indicate transport characteristics of a river over a wide range 

of flows. Flow-pulse analysis is applicable to dam-regulated 

rivers where abrupt changes in streamflow are visible at 

downstream stream-gaging stations. Given that a tracer 

(solute) was not tracked within the study reach, the traveltimes 

provided by the flow-pulse analysis are estimates for a 

conservative solute entrained in a selected streamflow. The 

flow-pulse analysis does not account for any solute behavior 

that would cause an entrained particle to travel differently than 

the streamflow mass. 

Source and Description of Data

The study was based on available streamflow data from 

the USGS surface-water data collection program. Streamflow 

data from seven stations—Cochiti, San Felipe, Alameda, 

Albuquerque, Isleta, Bernardo, and San Acacia—on the Rio 

Grande in the Middle Rio Grande Basin were used for the 

flow-pulse analysis (table 1). Data consisted of continuous 

streamflow records (15-minute data) collected at each station 

for water years 2003–05, and pulse flow rates ranged from 

about 500 to 5,000 ft3/s. This short period of record was 

selected to minimize potential temporal differences from 

geomorphological changes to the stream channel because of 

aggradation/degradation processes. The streamflow record of 

each station contains data for the in-stream flow of the Rio 

Grande at each location. Streamflow diverted by agricultural 

or municipal canals or other diversions that may be adjacent to 

the Rio Grande channel is not included in the record.
6 Traveltime of the Rio Grande in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico, Water Years 2003–05

Flow-Pulse Analysis

The flow-pulse analysis consisted of tracking streamflow 

pulses released from Cochiti Dam that were subsequently 

detected at downstream stations. Changes to flow releases 

from Cochiti Dam occur in steps (fig. 2), thereby providing 

defined pulses that can be tracked at existing stations. A flow 

pulse released from Cochiti Dam is initially recorded by the 

Cochiti station 700 ft downstream from the dam spillway. 

Data from this station were used as the initial point for 

traveltime determination, and this station was considered 

the “zero location.” Pulses selected for analysis consisted 

of prepulse, steady-state streamflow conditions of at least 1 

day, followed by an abrupt rise in streamflow to a plateau 

stage substantially higher than the prepulse steady-state 

condition. The plateau stage would remain at a steady state for 

a minimum of 1 day, typically followed by a sharp decline in 

streamflow to a postpulse steady state with a similar flow rate 

to the prepulse condition. There are two parts of each pulse 

that were analyzed that likely have different velocities—the 

smaller initial streamflow of the rising limb (initial stage of 

the pulse) and the larger peak streamflow of the plateau stage. 

Examination of the traveltime of both parts is useful because 

of the operation of Cochiti Dam and the quick stage change in 

streamflow (fig. 2).

The different parts of a pulse were delineated by an 

increase or decrease in a streamflow record that was different 

from the “noise” in the record caused by turbulent flow or 

accuracy of the station equipment. The streamflow record 

was divided on the basis of three changes or points in the 

streamflow record—start of the pulse (rising-limb leading 

edge), transition from rising limb to steady pulse (plateau 

leading edge), and transition from the end of the pulse (plateau 

trailing edge) to a postpulse, steady-state flow (table 2 and fig.

3). The time for each point of a pulse to be detected at a station 

indicated the traveltime of that part of the pulse since its origin 

at Cochiti Dam. Centroids of the rising limb and plateau were 

calculated from these three points (table 2 and fig. 3). The 

transition from the plateau to falling limb was not analyzed 

because of problems identifying this point in the pulse shape.

Traveltime Curves

Average streamflow velocities (derived from traveltime 

and distance) of the leading edge and trailing edge of the pulse 

plateaus from Cochiti station to the Albuquerque station were 

used to develop traveltime curves for this reach of the study 

area. Local regression was used to determine the best-fit line 

for the velocity/streamflow relation. Local regression is a 

nonparametric technique that predicts a value at each point 

by fitting a weighted linear regression, where the weights 

decrease with distance from the point of interest (Helsel and 

Hirsch, 1991; Insightful Corporation, 2002). The window 

span controls the weighting interval and was individually 

adjusted for each relation (0.5 for leading edge and 1.6 for 

trailing edge) to minimize residuals while keeping the relation 

Table 1. Selected stream-gaging stations in the study area.

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; NAD 83, North American Datum 1983; mi2, square miles; ft, feet; NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum 1988; 

NA, not available]

USGS 

station 

number

Station name 

Report 

station name 

(fig. 1)

Latitude 

and 

longitude

(NAD 83)

Location 

(county, 

hydrologic 

unit code)

Drainage 

area 

(mi2

)

1

Elevation 

(ft above 

NAVD 88)

Distance 

from Cochiti 

Dam 

(river miles)

08317400 Rio Grande below Cochiti Dam Cochiti 35°37′04′′

106°19′28′′

Sandoval,

13020201 12,000 5,229 0.1

08319000 Rio Grande at San Felipe San Felipe 35°26′39′′

106°26′25′′

Sandoval,

13020201 13,200 5,119 16.0

08329928 Rio Grande near Alameda Alameda 35°10′54′′

106°39′22′′

Bernalillo,

13020203 NA 2

5,005 40.2

08330000 Rio Grande at Albuquerque Albuquerque 35°05′21′′

106°40′49′′

Bernalillo,

13020203 14,500 4,949 48.1

08330875 Rio Grande at Isleta Lakes near Isleta Isleta 34°56′49′′

106°40′47′′

Bernalillo,

13020203 15,100 4,873 59.2

08332010 Rio Grande Floodway near Bernardo Bernardo 34°25′01′′

106°48′02′′

Socorro,

13020203 16,300 4,725 100.3

08354900 Rio Grande Floodway at San Acacia San Acacia 34°15′23′′

106°53′20′′

Socorro,

13020203 23,800 4,657 115.4

1 Drainage area does not include noncontributing areas, closed basins, or out-of-basin areas associated with interbasin transfers.

2 Elevation is an approximation from a handheld Global Positioning System unit. No official elevation has been established for this station.
Introduction 7

 Figure 2. Example of pulse releases of streamflow from Cochiti Dam, January to March 2005.

01/01/2005 01/15/2005 01/30/2005 02/14/2005 03/01/2005

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

Streamflow, in cubic feet per second 

Streamflow at Rio Grande below Cochiti Dam

Table 2. Pulse components for flow-pulse analysis.

Pulse component Inflection point Description

Rising limb Leading edge Start of increase from prepulse steady-state streamflow

Centroid

Calculated (time) center of rising limb from leading edge of rising limb to trailing edge (plateauleading edge). Rising limb was calculated by time because of the changing streamflow, which 

precluded calculation by volume

Plateau Leading edge Transition from rising limb to plateau stage of the pulse

Centroid Calculated center of plateau stage where half the plateau flow volume has passed and half the 

volume remains to pass the stream-gaging station

Trailing edge End of pulse event where streamflow begins a post-pulse steady state

positively correlated (increasing velocity with increasing 

streamflow). Plots of predicted versus actual values, residuals, 

and R2

 values (measure of the goodness of fit) were used to 

evaluate the fit of each model and the variability explained by 

the regression.

Dispersion and Short-Term Storage

The effects of dispersion (longitudinal) and short-term 

storage were analyzed to understand river characteristics 

and processes that could affect the traveltime of streamflow 

and entrained solutes. Dispersion and short-term storage act 

to spread the pulse distribution and to slow traveltime. Both 

influences can vary by reach and stage, and both are likely 

highly dynamic in the study area because of the shifting sand 

substrate. Advection is determined by streamflow velocity 

and causes transport of a solute because of the motion of the 

fluid (Huber, 1993). Advection does not alter the shape of 

a solute distribution if the velocity distribution is uniform 

vertically and from bank to bank. Retardation and spreading 
8 Traveltime of the Rio Grande in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico, Water Years 2003–05

11/23/2003 11/24/2003 11/25/2003 11/26/2003 11/27/2003 11/28/2003 11/30/2003

400

450

500

550

Streamflow, in cubic feet per second

Station 1: upstream pulse

Station 2: downstream pulse

Rising-limb leading edge

Rising-limb centroid (calculated by time)

Rising limb to 

plateau transition 

(plateau leading edge)

Plateau centroid (calculated by volume)

Plateau trailing edge

600

 Figure 3. Components of flow-pulse analysis.

2

)1(

,

,)( 1

2/3

2

3

1

−

− =

=

= ∑ − =

n

nnb

skewness

m

m b

xx

n

m f n

i

f i

m = moment, the subscript (f) indicates the specific

 moment about the mean (i.e., the second 

 moment about the mean is the variance of the 

 sample population);

n = size of the sample population;

x = mean value of the sample population;

b = coefficient of skewness.

of a streamflow pulse are a result of dispersion and storage 

within the channel area. As defined for this study, dispersion 

includes all physical processes that would act on a pulse mass 

to disperse it and alter its travel within a stream channel, such 

as turbulent diffusion, mechanical dispersion, and differential 

advection. Additionally, dispersion is separated from shortterm storage for this study in an attempt to identify discrete 

processes that act to slow streamflow.

If dispersion acted equally on the pulse volume, the 

rising and descending limbs would spread similarly, and the 

time to the pulse midpoint from the leading edge would be 

equal to the time from the pulse midpoint to the end of the 

pulse. If there is a short-term storage component because of 

channel geometry, the rising and descending limbs of the pulse 

may not spread equally. A storage component may consist of 

channel features such as secondary channels, bank storage, or 

depressions that are not part of the wetted channel at the initial 

flow level, but with an increase to larger flows, these features 

are included in the wetted channel. A short-term storage 

component would retain a portion of the pulse and discharge 

it to the main channel at some delayed time when the delayed 

volume would still be a part of the pulse. Short-term storage 

is different from a long-term storage component that would 

retain a portion of the pulse and the reintroduction of the 

volume to the river would occur after the pulse has passed and 

would not be visible in the hydrograph. To examine short-term 

storage, streamflow pulse distributions were evaluated for 

changes in skewness that would indicate a delay in part of the 

pulses compared to the overall pulse volumes. Skewness was 

calculated by using Fisher’s measure of skewness:
Estimating Traveltime for Any Two Points Between Cochiti Dam and Albuquerque 9

Quality Control

As a streamflow pulse moves downstream, the sharp 

increase and decrease in flow degrades because of dispersion 

and short-term storage. The possible error of determining 

the time at which the streamflow changes begins to increase 

because of station “noise” and flattening of the inflection 

points. To reduce possible errors, the raw data were examined 

in conjunction with smoothed data (local regression was used 

with a variable window span that included cross-validation 

and a symmetric family assumption to reduce outlier 

distortion) to best fit the inflection points. Not all pulses were 

analyzed for each station or each part of the pulse because 

of incidences of apparent noise in the streamflow record that 

were sufficiently large to inhibit analysis of the data. 

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges the ABCWUA for providing 

the support to implement this study. In particular, the author 

expresses appreciation to John Stomp, City of Albuquerque 

Water Resources Manager, Engineering and Planning, for his 

guidance and support of this study to better understand the 

State of New Mexico’s water resources. 

Traveltime of the Rio Grande

The flow-pulse analysis was applied to selected pulses 

from the 2003–05 water years. Twelve pulses were analyzed 

for traveltime, and pulse streamflows ranged from 495 to 

5,190 ft3/s (steady-state plateau flow at the Cochiti station) 

(table 3). Seven pulses were analyzed for the traveltime of 

the rising-limb leading edge, rising-limb centroid, plateau 

leading edge, plateau centroid, and plateau trailing edge 

(full-pulse analysis). Five pulses were analyzed for risinglimb leading edge, rising-limb centroid, and plateau leading 

edge (plateau centroid and plateau trailing edge traveltimes 

were not available for these pulses because these pulses were 

part of “stair-step” increases that lacked descending limbs). 

Traveltimes for each inflection point on a pulse are presented 

as time since origin of that particular inflection point at the 

Cochiti station.

Most pulse events indicated longer traveltimes for each 

successive point in the pulse, which is an effect of dispersion 

and spreading of a pulse with downstream travel (figs. 4–15, 

tables SI-1 to SI-5, Supplemental Information). A large 

spreading occurred with pulse event 6 (fig. 9) between Isleta 

and Bernardo that is substantially different from all other 

pulse events. The cause of this large spreading is unknown, 

but it may be an effect of irrigation diversions and return 

flows. Pulse event 1 (fig. 4) also indicated more spreading 

than the other pulse events (except pulse event 6), but this 

spreading appears uniform from station to station. Spreading 

of the pulses typically decreased with increased streamflow 

except for the large spreading of pulse event 6. Pulse event 7 

indicated no differences in traveltimes for the different points 

of the plateau, and traveltimes for parts of the plateau for 

pulse events 4 and 6 were similar and alternated in longest 

traveltime at different locations. Given different release 

times for the leading and trailing edges of the plateaus (time 

separation was 1–10 days for the various pulse events, table 

3), these similar traveltimes of parts of the plateau may be 

a result of influences on a pulse—such as gains or losses—

during travel through the basin that affected these points in the 

pulse differently.

Estimating Traveltime for Any Two 

Points Between Cochiti Dam and 

Albuquerque

Because San Juan-Chama Project water will be diverted 

from the Rio Grande by the ABCWUA (diversion will be 

located about 1,500 ft south of the Alameda gage), it is useful 

to provide a method to estimate the possible traveltime of a 

conservative solute spilled into the Rio Grande upstream from 

Albuquerque. The velocities of the leading edge and trailing 

edge of the pulse plateaus from the Cochiti station to the 

Albuquerque station (as determined by traveltimes between 

Cochiti and Albuquerque stations) were used to develop 

traveltime curves for this reach of the study area (figs. 16 and 

17). 

Local regression was used to best fit the variable 

relation of the leading and trailing edge velocities and the 

original pulse streamflow at Cochiti station. The predicted 

values of these two relations were used to determine possible 

traveltimes of Rio Grande streamflow between any two points 

for 5-, 10-, 25-, and 50-mi distances (figs. 16 and 17). The 

local regressions produced R2 values of 0.94 and 0.75 for 

the leading and trailing edge velocities and residual standard 

errors of 0.13 and 0.34, respectively. The lesser fit of the 

local regression for the trailing edge relation was a result of 

a smaller sample size and greater variability of the data. A 

better fit of the model for the trailing edge data could have 

been achieved by decreasing the window span, but the relation 

would not have stayed positively correlated (increasing 

velocity with increasing streamflow). Because of the small 

sample size, a positive correlation was more appropriate for 

estimating potential traveltimes than creating a more complex 

model that explained a greater amount of the data variability. 

The traveltime curves can be used to estimate the 

beginning and ending traveltimes of a well-mixed conservative 

solute plume in the Rio Grande for any two points between 

Cochiti and Albuquerque stations. The multiple curves 

represent possible travel distances between any two points 

in this reach of the Rio Grande. These figures provide no 

indication of concentration of a potential plume, and these 

traveltimes are only estimates of how long it might take a 
10 Traveltime of the Rio Grande in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico, Water Years 2003–05

Table 3. Pulse events at Rio Grande below Cochiti Dam selected for analysis of traveltime in the Middle Rio Grande Basin.

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; h, hours; >, greater than; NA, not available]

Pulse 

event Beginning date/time1 Ending date/time2

Prepulse 

flow (ft3

/s)

Pulse 

plateau 

flow (ft3/s)

Postpulse 

flow (ft3/s)

Duration of 

steady state 

preceding 

pulse (days)3

Duration 

of rising 

limb (h)

Duration 

of pulse 

plateau and 

descending 

limb (h)

Full-pulse analysis

1 Nov. 12, 2002, 0930 Nov 13, 2002, 0930 396 495 396 5 0.25 23.75

2 Jan. 2, 2004, 1030 Jan. 6, 2004, 0915 411 528 425 2 0.25 94.50

3 Nov. 24, 2003, 0945 Nov. 28, 2003, 0945 425 588 448 >7 0.25 95.75

4 Jan. 9, 2005, 1015 Jan. 18, 2005, 0845 570 816 641 2 0.25 214.25

5 Dec. 13, 2004, 1015 Dec. 23, 2004, 1100 944 1,060 678 6 0.25 240.25

6 May 14, 2003, 0900 May 16, 2003, 0845 716 1,440 1,030 8 0.75 46.00

7 May 12, 2004, 1000 May 16, 2004, 1330 3,010 3,350 2,740 3 0.25 99.25

Partial-pulse analysis 4

8 May 3, 2004, 1030 NA 1,250 1,850 NA 4 0.50 NA

9 May 4, 2004, 1100 NA 1,850 2,280 NA 1 0.50 NA

10 May 6, 2004, 1400 NA 2,280 2,740 NA 2 0.50 NA

11 May 7, 2004, 1330 NA 2,740 3,300 NA 1 0.25 NA

12 May 11, 2005, 0815 NA 4,010 5,190 NA >5 0.25 NA

1

 Start of increased streamflow at the Cochiti station because of larger release from Cochiti Dam (rising-limb leading edge).

2

 Start of decreased streamflow at the Cochiti station because of smaller release from Cochiti Dam (plateau trailing edge).

3

 Time prior to pulse event during which flow release from Cochiti Dam remained at a steady state.

4

 Pulses were analyzed for rising-limb leading edge, rising-limb centroid, and plateau leading edge. Plateau centroid and plateau trailing edge traveltimes were 

not available for these pulses because these pulses were part of “stair-step” increases that lacked descending limbs.
Estimating Traveltime for Any Two Points Between Cochiti Dam and Albuquerque 11

 Figure 5. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 2 (528 cubic feet per second) from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, January 2004.

Miles downstream from Cochiti Dam

0

30

60

90

120

Traveltime from Cochiti Dam station, in hours

San Felipe Alameda ABQ Isleta Bernardo San Acacia

0 25 50 75 100 125

Rising-limb leading edge

Rising-limb centroid

Plateau leading edge

Plateau centroid

Plateau trailing edge

ABQ Station name and location downstream (ABQ is Albuquerque)

0

30

60

90

120

San Felipe Alameda ABQ Isleta Bernardo San Acacia

0 25 50 75 100 125

Traveltime from Cochiti Dam station, in hours

Miles downstream from Cochiti Dam

Rising-limb leading edge

Rising-limb centroid

Plateau leading edge

Plateau centroid

Plateau trailing edge

ABQ Station name and location downstream (ABQ is Albuquerque)

 Figure 4. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 1 (495 cubic feet per second) from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, November 2002.
12 Traveltime of the Rio Grande in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico, Water Years 2003–05

 Figure 7. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 4 (816 cubic feet per second) from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, January 2005.

 Figure 6. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 3 (588 cubic feet per second) from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, November 2003.

0

30

60

90

120

San Felipe Alameda ABQ Isleta Bernardo San Acacia

0 25 50 75 100 125

Rising-limb leading edge

Rising-limb centroid

Plateau leading edge

Plateau centroid

Plateau trailing edge

ABQ Station name and location downstream (ABQ is Albuquerque)

Traveltime from Cochiti Dam station, in hours

Miles downstream from Cochiti Dam

0

30

60

90

120

 San Felipe Alameda ABQ Isleta Bernardo San Acacia

0 25 50 75 100 125

Miles downstream from Cochiti Dam

Traveltime from Cochiti Dam station, in hours

Rising-limb leading edge

Rising-limb centroid

Plateau leading edge

Plateau centroid

Plateau trailing edge

ABQ Station name and location downstream (ABQ is Albuquerque)
Estimating Traveltime for Any Two Points Between Cochiti Dam and Albuquerque 13

 Figure 9. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 6 (1,440 cubic feet per second) from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, May 2003.

 Figure 8. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 5 (1,060 cubic feet per second) from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, December 2004.

0

30

60

90

120

San Felipe Alameda ABQ Isleta Bernardo San Acacia

0 25 50 75 100 125

Rising-limb leading edge

Rising-limb centroid

Plateau leading edge

Plateau centroid

Plateau trailing edge

ABQ Station name and location downstream (ABQ is Albuquerque)

Traveltime from Cochiti Dam station, in hours

Miles downstream from Cochiti Dam

0

30

60

90

120

San Felipe Alameda ABQ Isleta Bernardo San Acacia

0 25 50 75 100 125

Miles downstream from Cochiti Dam

Rising-limb leading edge

Rising-limb centroid

Plateau leading edge

Plateau centroid

Plateau trailing edge

ABQ Station name and location downstream (ABQ is Albuquerque)

Traveltime from Cochiti Dam station, in hours
14 Traveltime of the Rio Grande in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico, Water Years 2003–05

 Figure 11. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 8 (1,850 cubic feet per second) from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, May 2004.

 Figure 10. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 7 (3,350 cubic feet per second) from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, May 2004.

0

30

60

90

120

 San Felipe Alameda ABQ Isleta Bernardo San Acacia

0 25 50 75 100 125

Traveltime from Cochiti Dam station, in hours

Rising-limb leading edge

Rising-limb centroid

Plateau leading edge

Plateau centroid

Plateau trailing edge

ABQ Station name and location downstream (ABQ is Albuquerque)

Miles downstream from Cochiti Dam

0

30

60

90

120

San Felipe Alameda ABQ Isleta Bernardo San Acacia

0 25 50 75 100 125

Rising-limb leading edge

Rising-limb centroid

Plateau leading edge

ABQ Station name and location downstream (ABQ is Albuquerque)

Miles downstream from Cochiti Dam

Traveltime from Cochiti Dam station, in hours
Estimating Traveltime for Any Two Points Between Cochiti Dam and Albuquerque 15

 Figure 13. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 10 (2,740 cubic feet per second) from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, May 2004.

 Figure 12. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 9 (2,280 cubic feet per second) from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, May 2004.

0

30

60

90

120

San Felipe Alameda ABQ Isleta Bernardo San Acacia

0 25 50 75 100 125

Traveltime from Cochiti Dam station, in hours

Miles downstream from Cochiti Dam

Rising-limb leading edge

Rising-limb centroid

Plateau leading edge

ABQ Station name and location downstream (ABQ is Albuquerque)

0

30

60

90

120

 San Felipe Alameda ABQ Isleta Bernardo San Acacia

0 25 50 75 100 125

Rising-limb leading edge

Rising-limb centroid

Plateau leading edge

ABQ Station name and location downstream (ABQ is Albuquerque)

Miles downstream from Cochiti Dam

Traveltime from Cochiti Dam station, in hours
16 Traveltime of the Rio Grande in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico, Water Years 2003–05

 Figure 15. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 12 (5,190 cubic feet per second) from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, May 2005.

 Figure 14. Traveltime of streamflow pulse event 11 (3,350 cubic feet per second) from Cochiti Dam to San Acacia, May 2004.

0

30

60

90

120

San Felipe Alameda ABQ Isleta Bernardo San Acacia

0 25 50 75 100 125

Traveltime from Cochiti Dam station, in hours

Miles downstream from Cochiti Dam

Rising-limb leading edge

Rising-limb centroid

Plateau leading edge

ABQ Station name and location downstream (ABQ is Albuquerque)

0

30

60

90

120

San Felipe Alameda ABQ Isleta Bernardo San Acacia

0 25 50 75 100 125

Rising-limb leading edge

Rising-limb centroid

Plateau leading edge

ABQ Station name and location downstream (ABQ is Albuquerque)

Traveltime from Cochiti Dam station, in hours

Miles downstream from Cochiti Dam
 Figure 16. Traveltime curves for estimating leading-edge traveltime between any two points in the Rio Grande located between Cochiti and Albuque

stations (derived from pulse plateau-leading-edge data). 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 

Streamflow at Cochiti Dam stream-gaging station, in cubic feet per second 10

23456789

2030

Possible traveltime between any two points from Cochiti to Albuquerque stations, in hours 50 miles 10 miles 25 miles 5 miles

40
 Figure 17. Traveltime curves for estimating trailing-edge traveltime between any two points in the Rio Grande located between Cochiti and Albuque

stations (derived from pulse plateau-trailing-edge data).

500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 

Streamflow at Cochiti Dam stream-gaging station, in cubic feet per second

10

23456789

2030 50 miles

10 miles

25 miles

5 miles

40

Possible traveltime between any two points from Cochiti to Albuquerque stations, in hours 
Rio Grande Traveltime Characteristics 19

solute to travel any given distance in the Rio Grande between 

Cochiti and Albuquerque stations. The variability of Rio 

Grande streamflow and channel characteristics in the Middle 

Rio Grande Basin can influence the traveltime of streamflow 

and a possible solute. The traveltime curves were developed 

from pulses during a recent period (2003–05 water years) to 

estimate traveltimes from existing channel conditions, but 

channel processes (aggradation, degradation, riparian growth, 

diversions) could alter future channel conditions and could 

affect traveltimes. 

Of additional concern is the traveltime of Rio Grande 

streamflow from the North Floodway Channel input and the 

ABCWUA diversion below Alameda Bridge, a distance of 

about 2.5 mi. The stream reach containing the North Floodway 

Channel input and the ABCWUA diversion is similar to the 

larger upgradient reach (no major changes in channel gradient 

or geometry). To focus more closely on the issue of traveltime 

from the North Floodway Channel input and the ABCWUA 

diversion, velocities derived from the pulse traveltimes 

between Cochiti and Albuquerque were used to develop 

additional traveltime curves specific to the 2.5 mi distance 

(fig. 18). The traveltime curves can be used to estimate the 

beginning and ending traveltimes of a well-mixed conservative 

solute plume in the Rio Grande that enters through the North 

Floodway Channel input and its likely arrival at the ABCWUA 

diversion. Overall, the likely traveltimes between these two 

points is relatively quick and ranges from 1.1 to 1.7 h.

Rio Grande Traveltime Characteristics 

Traveltime of different parts of the pulse events indicates 

streamflow velocities, dispersion, and short-term storage 

of the Rio Grande. The shortest traveltimes for each pulse 

occurred with the leading edge of the rising limb. The rising 

limbs produced the largest velocities. A rising limb of a 

streamflow pulse benefits from a steeper hydraulic gradient 

and reduced inertia forces, allowing it to move more quickly 

than the steady-state flow of the pulse peak (Linsley and 

others, 1958). The difference in traveltime between the rising 

limb and plateau increased between San Felipe and San 

Acacia, although the percent difference decreased between 

the rising limb and plateau traveltimes (fig. 19). The increase 

in traveltime difference between the two parts of the pulse is 

likely a result of dispersion from streamflow interaction with 

the bed and bank of the channel that has a greater effect on the 

larger plateau flow. The decrease in percent difference is likely 

caused by a decrease in the difference in hydraulic gradients as 

the pulses flatten with downstream movement that reduces the 

contrast in velocities between the two parts of the pulse.

Increasing streamflows typically have larger velocities, 

but larger streamflows also encompass a greater amount of 

the stream channel and flood plain where increased dispersion 

and storage may occur. Mean streamflow velocities calculated 

from pulse traveltimes and distance between stations indicate 

that velocities were largest from Cochiti to San Felipe and 

San Felipe to Alameda (table 4). From Albuquerque to San 

Acacia, mean velocities were more variable with increases and 

decreases between stations dependent upon the pulse. Channel 

gradients are larger in the upper part of the basin compared 

to the middle and lower parts (Lagasse, 1980 and 1994; 

Mussetter Engineering, Inc., 2002), which can cause larger 

mean streamflow velocity. 

The largest percent decreases in traveltime because of 

increasing streamflow occurred near the basin margins (San 

Felipe and San Acacia), and the smallest percent decreases 

were near Albuquerque (Albuquerque and Isleta stations) 

(fig. 20). These differences are likely a result of a changing 

channel morphology that increases and decreases differences 

in traveltime over the range of flow. Although the study area 

stations are not wholly representative of the channel shape 

of the river for that reach (from the upstream station to the 

following station), the relation of streamflow and channel 

width for each station provides an indication of channel 

configuration. From the streamflow/channel-width relation 

(fig. 21), the river channel is constricted near Cochiti Dam, 

San Felipe, and San Acacia, and channel width is the broadest 

in the middle of the basin near Albuquerque. Lagasse (1980 

and 1994) and Mussetter Engineering, Inc. (2002) documented 

similar channel width trends through cross-sectional 

measurements. 

Broader channel areas lessen the potential increase in 

velocity with increasing streamflow because of available 

in-channel area for braiding, meandering, and filling, which 

create longer flow paths and increase dispersion because of 

larger wetted perimeters that increase interaction with the 

channel substrate. A cross-sectional view of the variable 

channel bottom in the Rio Grande near Bernalillo is shown 

in figure 22. The effect of broad channel areas is reflected 

in the variability of traveltime for flows less than 1,750 ft3

/s 

(fig. 23). This larger variability of traveltime for smaller 

streamflows is likely a result of channel geometry. The 

availability of in-channel space for lateral movement of 

the river during smaller streamflows may allow the river to 

braid, meander, and shift before rising up the banks with 

increasing streamflow, or the river may choose an established 

channel with increasing streamflow. With multiple possible 

channels and flow patterns within the broader channel, smaller 

streamflows are likely to be more variable in traveltime.

Traveltime of streamflow at each station is inversely 

correlated to the originating pulse flow at Cochiti station 

(Pearson correlation coefficient ranging from -0.71 to -0.82 

for plateau leading edge at all stations), but the relations 

appear to have a nonlinear component, particularly for smaller 

streamflows (fig. 23). A test of the linearity of the relation of 

traveltime (plateau leading edge) and streamflow at Cochiti 

station through least-squares regression indicates R2

 values 

ranging from 0.50 to 0.68. Explaining less than 70 percent 

of the data variability for all traveltime-Cochiti streamflow 

relations, a linear regression of the data is not a strong 
20 Traveltime of the Rio Grande in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico, Water Years 2003–05

 Figure 19. Median traveltimes for rising-limb leading edge and plateau leading edge of all pulse events.

 Figure 18. Traveltime curves for estimating leading-edge and trailing-edge traveltimes for a distance equal to the stream length 

of the Rio Grande between the North Floodway Channel input and the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authorityproposed diversion structure (derived from pulse leading-edge and plateau-trailing-edge data). 

500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

Leading-edge traveltime

Trailing-edge traveltime

Estimated trailing-edge traveltime

Streamflow at Cochiti Dam stream-gaging station, in cubic feet per second

Possible traveltime for a 2.5-mile stream length, in hours

San Felipe Alameda Albuquerque Isleta Bernardo San Acacia

 2

 6.5

 7.75

8.25

11.63

13.50

Stream-gaging station

0

25

50

75

100

Median traveltime, in hours

Rising-limb leading edge

Plateau leading edge

48% Percent increase in median traveltime between rising limb and plateau

6.5 Difference in median traveltime between rising limb and plateau (in hours)

48%

59%

47%

38%

22%

22%
Rio Grande Traveltime Characteristics 21

Table 4. Streamflow velocities in feet per second at Rio Grande stations of San Felipe, Alameda, Albuquerque, Isleta, Bernardo, 

and San Acacia calculated by the traveltime of a pulse’s plateau leading edge and the distance between stations.

[ft3/s; cubic feet per second; NA, not available; Std. dev., standard deviation]

Streamflow velocities at stream-gaging stations (downstream order)

Pulse Pulse flow at Cochiti (ft3

/s) San Felipe 1 Alameda Albuquerque Isleta Bernardo San Acacia

1 495 2.9 NA 2.2 NA NA 1.8

2 528 2.8 3.2 1.3 NA 1.8 2.3

3 588 3.0 2.0 5.1 NA 1.4 1.2

4 816 3.1 2.3 2.7 2.9 1.8 2.4

5 1,060 4.2 3.0 2.2 1.9 2.0 NA

6 1,440 3.7 NA 2.6 1.5 1.3 1.0

7 3,350 4.1 3.5 1.4 4.1 2.3 1.8

8 1,250 3.6 3.2 1.6 2.9 1.8 2.1

9 1,850 4.1 2.7 2.9 2.6 1.8 2.1

10 2,280 3.9 3.4 2.4 2.6 2.0 2.1

11 2,740 4.7 3.1 2.1 3.6 2.2 2.5

12 4,010 4.7 3.2 2.0 NA NA 2.7

Mean 1,701 3.7 3.0 2.4 2.8 1.8 2.0

Median 1,345 3.7 3.1 2.2 2.8 1.8 2.1

Std. dev. 1,169 0.65 0.47 0.98 0.85 0.32 0.53

1 Velocity calculated from traveltime between Cochiti and San Felipe stations.

 Figure 20. Streamflow pulse traveltime distributions (plateau leading edge) for Rio Grande stream-gaging stations of San Felipe, 

Alameda, Albuquerque, Isleta, Bernardo, and San Acacia.

San Felipe Alameda Albuquerque Isleta Bernardo San Acacia

65% 58% 39% 34% 56% 83%

10

100

5

6

7

8

9

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Traveltime, in hours

Percent decrease from maximum to minimum traveltime

1.5 times the interquartile

range or less

75th percentile

50th (median)

25th percentile

1.5 times the interquartile

range or less

Outlier

Outlier

Stream-gaging station
22 Traveltime of the Rio Grande in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico, Water Years 2003–05

 Figure 21. Streamflow and wetted-channel width for stream-gaging stations in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, water years 2003 

 to 2005.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Wetted-channel width, in feet

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

Streamflow, in cubic feet per second

Cochiti

San Felipe

Alameda

Albuquerque

San Acacia

Bernardo

Isleta

8,000
Rio Grande Traveltime Characteristics 23

 Figure 23. Traveltime for Rio Grande streamflow pulses (plateau leading edge) at the San Felipe, Alameda, Albuquerque, Isleta,

 Bernardo, and San Acacia stream-gaging stations.

 Figure 22. Cross-sectional measurement of the Rio Grande near Bernalillo (modified from Veenhuis, 2002).

Distance from left bank, in feet

Depth of water, in feet

0 100 200 300

-3

-2

-1

0

Channel bed

Water surface of the Rio Grande

East West

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Streamflow at Cochiti Dam stream-gaging station, in cubic feet per second

10

100

4

5

6

7

8

9

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Traveltime, in hours

San Felipe

Alameda

Albuquerque

Isleta

Bernardo

San Acacia

More consistent decreases in traveltime

with increasing streamflow

Larger variability in traveltime

at smaller streamflows

 500 1,500 2,500 3,500 4,500 5,500
24 Traveltime of the Rio Grande in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico, Water Years 2003–05

predictor of traveltime in the Rio Grande. Local regression 

(nonlinear) was used for development of the traveltime 

curves and provides a more flexible model that can more 

accurately account for the shifting variability in the relation 

during different streamflows. A local regression relation for 

each station’s traveltime of the plateau leading edge and the 

Cochiti pulse streamflow produced a range of R2 values of 

0.87–0.99 for a window span of 0.5 and a range of 0.62–0.81 

for a window span of 1.0. The greater explanation of the 

data variability by local regression, particularly for a smaller 

window, indicates nonlinear components to the traveltime/

streamflow relations.

Dispersion

Dispersion acts to slow and elongate a streamflow pulse 

through differences in vertical and transverse velocities 

caused by the water interacting with the channel substrate, 

which increases the time a pulse takes to pass a station (time 

of passage). A streamflow or solute pulse should continue to 

elongate and spread because of dispersion with increasing 

distance downstream. If there were no effect of dispersion 

on the streamflow pulse, the pulse volume remained steady, 

and the streamflow velocity did not change, then the time 

of passage would be the same at each station. The effect of 

dispersion for pulse event 1 is evident in the elongation and 

spreading of the pulse as it moved downstream (fig. 24). The 

pulse shape also indicates a changing pulse volume with 

downstream travel that was present with all pulses, and the 

pulse becomes skewed with downstream movement.

Pulse events 1 to 5 were recorded during late fall and 

winter months when streamflow in the Rio Grande is typically 

less affected by natural and anthropogenic influences because 

tributary inflows, irrigation diversions, and evapotranspiration 

are reduced. Fall and winter pulses generally increased 

in volume between Cochiti and San Felipe and between 

Bernardo and San Acacia (table 5). Spring pulses (pulse 

events 6 and 7) also increased in volume between Cochiti and 

San Felipe. Pulses increased in volume between San Felipe 

and Albuquerque at the smaller flows, but increases were 

not apparent at flows greater than 800 ft3

/s. Pulse volume 

decreased from Cochiti to Bernardo or San Acacia for the 

spring pulses because of irrigation diversions. 

 Figure 24. Streamflow trends (local regression) at the Rio Grande stream-gaging stations of Cochiti, San Felipe, Albuquerque, and San 

Acacia during pulse event 1.

50 100 150 200 250

Time, in hours

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

Streamflow, in cubic feet per second

Cochiti

San Felipe

Albuquerque

San Acacia

0
Rio Grande Traveltime Characteristics 25

Table 5. Percent change in pulse volume from Cochiti stream-gaging station to downstream stations of San Felipe, Albuquerque, 

Bernardo, and San Acacia.

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; acre-ft, acre-foot; percent, percent change in pulse volume from available upstream station; NA, not available]

Pulse volume change

Pulse 

event Pulse flow at Cochiti (ft3

/s) Pulse volume at Cochiti, acre-ft San Felipe, 

percent

Albuquerque, 

percent

Bernardo, 

percent

San Acacia, 

percent

Fall and winter pulse events

1 495 980 23.3 48.3 NA 1

209.7

2 528 4,080 -0.1 NA 2

20.2 29.8

3 588 4,500 7.3 16.0 26.4 36.2

4 816 15,670 4.1 -6.0 -8.2 -1.2

5 1,060 21,050 1.7 -1.1 -8.2 NA

Spring pulse events

6 1,440 6,130 9.5 -13.9 -18.7 -27.2

7 3,350 27,430 3.9 2.7 -25.2 NA

1 Percent change of pulse volume from Albuquerque to San Acacia station.

2 Percent change of pulse volume from San Felipe to Bernardo station.

To examine the dispersive effect of the Rio Grande 

channel, the pulses were split into three groups—pulse events 

1, 2, 3, and 4 (495 to 816 ft3/s); pulse events 5, 8, and 9 (1,060 

to 2,280 ft3/s); and pulse events 7, 10, and 11 (2,740 to 3,350 

ft3/s)—and mean traveltimes were computed and converted 

to cubic feet per second from Cochiti to each downstream 

station (fig. 25). All three groups indicated decreases in 

average streamflow velocity of greater than 30 percent from 

San Felipe to San Acacia. The reduced slope and positive 

slope of the average velocity lines between Albuquerque and 

Isleta and between Bernardo and San Acacia indicate that the 

velocities increased between these stations and that the effect 

of dispersion was reduced. 

A pulse’s time of passage also can indicate the effect 

of dispersion and the variability of the effect that is due to 

streamflow level. The difference in time of passage (elongation 

of the pulse compared to the pulse at Cochiti station) is 

presented for all pulses except pulse event 6 (fig. 26). Pulse 

event 6 contained a large dispersion effect between Isleta and 

San Acacia that was not present with the other pulses and was 

considered an outlier. To reduce the effect of the changing 

pulse volume, the time of passage for each pulse was divided 

by the recovery ratio (pulse volume at Cochiti compared to 

the pulse volume at a downstream station) to normalize the 

data. Additionally, data for the Albuquerque station are not 

presented because of changes to the river channel that produce 

conflicting data from Alameda to Isleta. The transformed data 

provide a more representative presentation of the effect of 

dispersion and its downstream trend. The effect of dispersion 

was evident in the downstream direction, but there was not a 

consistent increase or decrease in dispersion with increasing 

or decreasing streamflow, and this lack of a dispersion trend 

with a change in streamflow was likely masked by changes in 

gradient and channel width (fig. 26). 

Short-Term Storage

The possibility of a short-term storage component in 

the Rio Grande channel system could increase traveltime of 

a pulse and retain solutes in the system for longer durations 

compared to transport only affected by advection and 

dispersion. All pulses indicated a negative skewness that 

lessened with downstream flow (table 6). The initial negative 

skewness appears to be a function of a larger variation in 

pulse plateau streamflow near the rising limb of the pulse. 

All pulses indicated more variation in the plateau streamflow 

following the rising limb, which skews the distribution to this 

part of pulse. The slightly larger values of the plateau near the 

pulse rising limb are visible in the pulse event 1 trendline for 

the Cochiti station, which indicates a small decrease in the 

plateau flow near the midpoint of the plateau (fig. 24). The 

change to less negative or positive skewness with downstream 

flow indicates a greater lengthening of the descending limbs 

compared to the rising limbs of the pulses. This change in 

skewness is likely indicative of short-term storage because 

part of the pulse is being delayed, which extends the 

descending limb to a greater extent than the rising limb. 
26 Traveltime of the Rio Grande in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico, Water Years 2003–05

 Figure 26. Time of passage for pulse events from Cochiti Dam normalized for changes in pulse volume for Rio Grande streamgaging stations of San Felipe, Alameda, Albuquerque, Isleta, Bernardo, and San Acacia.

 Figure 25. Mean streamflow velocity from Cochiti Dam to the downstream stream-gaging stations of San Felipe, Alameda, 

Albuquerque, Isleta, Bernardo, and San Acacia.

0 25 50 75 100 125

Miles downstream from Cochiti Dam

1

2

3

4

5

Mean streamflow velocity from Cochiti Dam station

to each downstream station, in feet per second

Group 1: pulse events 1–4 (495 to 816 cubic feet per second)

Group 2: pulse events 5, 8, and 9 (1,060 to 2,280 cubic feet per second)

Group 3: pulse events 7, 10, and 11 (2,740 to 3,350 cubic feet per second)

ABQ Station name and location downstream (ABQ is Albuquerque)

San Felipe Alameda ABQ Isleta Bernardo San Acacia

Miles downstream from Cochiti Dam

0

5

10

15

20

Change in time of pulse passage, normalized to pulse volume recovery, in hours

Pulse event 1: 495 cubic feet per second (ft3/s)

Pulse event 2: 528 ft3/s

Pulse event 3: 588 ft3/s

Pulse event 4: 816 ft3/s

Pulse event 5: 1,060 ft3/s

Pulse event 7: 3,350 ft3/s

ABQ Station name and location downstream (ABQ is Albuquerque)

0 25 50 75 100 125

San Felipe Alameda ABQ Isleta Bernardo San Acacia
References 27

Summary

The quality of water in the Rio Grande is becoming 

increasingly important as more surface water is being 

proposed for diversion from the river for potable and 

nonpotable uses. Historically, water from the Rio Grande 

in the Middle Rio Grande Basin was typically diverted for 

agriculture, but with proposed diversions for municipal supply, 

a spill into the Rio Grande could have a substantial effect on 

use of the resource and health of the populace. In the event 

of contamination of water supplies, water-resource managers 

must decide when, and for how long, to suspend diversions; 

knowledge of traveltime characteristics of the Rio Grande will 

allow water-resource managers to make informed decisions 

concerning diversions from the Rio Grande. 

A flow-pulse analysis was performed to determine 

traveltimes of a wide range of streamflows and produce 

traveltime curves to estimate the possible traveltime of a 

conservative solute in the Rio Grande for any two points 

between Cochiti Dam and Albuquerque. Additionally, 

traveltimes were used to evaluate streamflow velocities, 

dispersion, and storage characteristics in the entire Middle Rio 

Grande Basin. This study was based on available streamflow 

data from the USGS surface-water data collection program, 

and the flow-pulse analysis was applied to 12 pulses from 

the 2003–05 water years. Pulse streamflows ranged from 

495 to 5,190 ft3

/s. Three points of each pulse were tracked 

as the pulse passed a station—rising-limb leading edge, 

plateau leading edge, and plateau trailing edge. Traveltime 

curves were developed through local-regression analysis of 

streamflow velocities determined from the traveltime of the 

leading and trailing edges of the pulse plateaus. Traveltime 

of the rising-limb leading edge, centroids of the rising limb 

and plateau, and the trailing edge of the plateau also were 

determined to examine the alteration of the pulse shape 

resulting from dispersion and storage characteristics. 

Most pulses indicated longer traveltimes for each 

successive point in the pulse. The shortest traveltimes for 

each pulse occurred with the leading edge of the rising 

limb. Decreasing traveltimes were not always consistent 

with increasing streamflow, particularly for flows less than 

1,750 ft3

/s, and the relation of traveltime and original pulse 

streamflow at Cochiti indicate a nonlinear component. Average 

streamflow velocities decreased by greater than 30 percent 

from San Felipe to San Acacia. The effect of dispersion was 

evident in the downstream direction, but there was not a 

consistent increase or decrease in dispersion with increasing 

or decreasing streamflow, and this lack of a dispersion 

trend with a change in streamflow was likely masked by 

changes in gradient and channel width. With downstream 

flow, distributions of the pulses became more skewed to the 

descending limbs. This greater lengthening of the descending 

limbs was likely a result of short-term storage that delayed a 

part of the pulses separate from the effect of dispersion. 

References

Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, 

2007, About the San Juan-Chama Drinking Water Project, 

accessed May 27, 2007, http://www.sjcdrinkingwater.org/.

Anderholm, S.K., Radell, M.J., and Richey, S.F., 1995, Waterquality assessment of the Rio Grande Valley study unit, 

Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas—analysis of selected 

nutrient, suspended-sediment, and pesticide data: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

94–4061, 203 p.

Table 6. Skewness of the pulse distributions.

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; skewness value indicates deviation of distribution from symmetry derived from Fisher’s G; NA, not available]

Pulse event Pulse flow (ft3/s) Cochiti San Felipe Alameda Albuquerque Isleta Bernardo San Acacia

1 495 -6.88 -1.87 NA -0.11 NA 1.48 0.10

2 528 -4.05 -4.03 NA NA NA -1.06 -1.17

3 588 -6.73 -3.50 -2.01 -1.57 NA -1.35 -0.82

4 816 -12.24 -3.89 -1.28 -2.57 -2.50 -2.71 -2.13

5 1,060 -16.07 -5.98 -2.20 -3.25 NA -3.15 NA

6 1,440 -2.49 -2.03 NA -1.33 -1.10 -0.66 -0.32

7 3,350 -7.44 -3.22 -1.78 -1.98 -2.11 -0.90 NA
28 Traveltime of the Rio Grande in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico, Water Years 2003–05

Appel, D.H., 1983, Traveltimes of flood waves on the New 

River between Hinton and Hawks Nest, West Virginia: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2225, 14 p.

Bartolino, J.R., and Cole, J.C., 2002, Ground-water resources 

of the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1222, 132 p.

Bureau of Reclamation, 2005, Operations fact sheet: Cochiti 

Lake, Upper Colorado Region, Albuquerque Area Office, 

accessed June 16, 2005, http://www.usbr.gov/uc/albuq/

water/SanJuanChama/Reservoirs/fs/sjc_cochiti.html

Byrd, D., Allen, H.R., and Montaño, M., 2005, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Water resources data, New Mexico, 

water year 2004: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data 

Report NM–04–1, 431 p.

Culbertson, J.K., and Dawdy, D.R., 1964, A study of fluvial 

characteristics and hydraulic variables, Middle Rio Grande, 

New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 

1498–F, 74 p.

Ellis, S.R., Levings, G.W., Carter, L.F., Richey, S.F., and 

Radell, M.J., 1993, Rio Grande Valley, Colorado, New 

Mexico, and Texas: Water Resources Bulletin, v. 29, no. 4, 

p. 617–645.

Hawley, J.W., and Haase, C.S., 1992, Hydrogeologic 

framework of the northern Albuquerque Basin: Socorro, 

New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources 

Open-File Report 387, variously paged.

Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 1991, Statistical methods in 

water resources—hydrologic analysis and interpretation: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources 

Investigations, book 4, chap. A3, 510 p.

Huber, W.C., 1993, Chapter 14—contaminant transport 

in surface water, in Maidment, D.R., ed., Handbook of 

hydrology: New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc, p. 14.1–14.50.

Insightful Corporation, 2002, SPLUS help, S-PLUS® 6.1 for 

Windows, professional edition, release 1, statistical software 

package.

Kelley, V.C., 1977, Geology of Albuquerque Basin, New 

Mexico: New Mexico Bureau of Mines & Mineral 

Resources, memoir 33, 60 p. 

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

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

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

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 84–4353, 58 

p.

Kilpatrick, F.A., and Wilson, J.F., Jr., 1989, Measurement 

of time of travel in streams by dye tracing: Techniques 

of Water-Resources Investigations of the United States 

Geological Survey Chapter A9, Book 3—Applications of 

hydraulics, 27 p. 

Lagasse, P.F., 1980, An assessment of the response of the 

Rio Grande to dam construction—Cochiti to Isleta reach: 

a technical report prepared for the U.S. Army Engineer 

District, Albuquerque Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico, 133 p.

Lagasse, P.F., 1994, Variable response of the Rio Grande to 

dam construction, in Schumm, S.A., and Winkley, B.R. 

(eds.), The variability of large alluvial rivers: American 

Society of Civil Engineers Press, New York, p. 395–422.

Langman, J.B., and Anderholm, S.K., 2004, Effects of 

reservoir installation, San Juan-Chama Project Water, and 

reservoir operations on streamflow and water quality in 

the Rio Chama and Rio Grande, northern and central New 

Mexico, 1938–2000: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2004–5188, 47 p. 

Langman, J.B., and Nolan, E.O., 2005, Streamflow and waterquality trends of the Rio Chama and Rio Grande, northern 

and central New Mexico, water years 1985 to 2002: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–

5118, 36 p. 

Linsley, R.K., Kohler, M.A., and Paulhus, J.L.H., 1958, 

Hydrology for engineers (2d ed.): New York, McGraw-Hill 

College, 482 p. 

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

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

Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4200, 81 p.

Mussetter Engineering, Inc., 2002, Geomorphic and 

sedimentologic investigations of the middle Rio Grande 

between Cochiti Dam and Elephant Butte Reservoir: New 

Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, June 2002, variously 

paged, available at http://www.ose.state.nm.us/water-info/

mrg-geomorphology-study/geomorphology.html

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1997, New Mexico 

annual precipitation, average annual precipitation, 1961–

1990: New Mexico, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, map.

Nordin, C.F., 1964, Aspects of flow resistance and sediment 

transport, Rio Grande near Bernalillo, New Mexico: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1498-H, 41 p.
References 29

Plummer, L.N., Bexfield, L.M., Anderholm, S.K., 

Sanford, W.E., and Busenberg, E., 2004, Geochemical 

characterization of ground-water flow in the Santa Fe Group 

aquifer system, Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 03-4131, 395 p.

Richard, G.A., 2001, Quantification and prediction of lateral 

channel adjustments downstream from Cochiti Dam, Rio 

Grande, NM: Fort Collins, Colorado State University, Ph.D. 

dissertation, 229 p.

S.S. Papadopulos and Associates, Inc., 2004, Middle 

Rio Grande water supply study: Prepared for the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers and New Mexico Interstate 

Stream Commission, contract no. DACW47-99-C-0012, 

available at http://www.ose.state.nm.us/water-info/mrgwss/

P3-FinalReport/REPORT-TEXT.pdf

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2005, URGWOM—upper 

Rio Grande water operations model: accessed January 25, 

2005, http://www.spa.usace.army.mil/urgwom/docintro.asp, 

variously paged.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004, Annual report—Middle 

Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program: 

accessed September 19, 2006, http://www.fws.gov/

mrgesacp/pdf/Annual_Report_2004.pdf, 18 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2005, Streamflow measurements 

for New Mexico, individual stations, National Water 

Information System (NWISWeb): accessed June 8, 2005, 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nm/nwis/current/?type=flow

U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, USGS 08329900 North 

Floodway Channel near Alameda, NM—stream/river 

site description, National Water Information System 

(NWISWeb): accessed September 19, 2006, http://

waterdata.usgs.gov/nm/nwis/current/?type=flow

Veenhuis, J.E., 2002, Summary of flow loss between selected 

cross sections on the Rio Grande in and near Albuquerque, 

New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 02-4131, 30 p.

Waltemeyer, S.D., 1989, Statistical summaries of streamflow 

data in New Mexico through 1985: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 88-4228, 204 p.

Waltemeyer S.D., 1994, Traveltime and reaeration 

characteristics for a reach of the Rio Grande, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico, October 1991: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 94-4071, 19 p.

Western Regional Climate Center, 2002, Historical climate 

information—climate of New Mexico: National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, Division of Atmospheric 

Sciences, accessed October 4, 2002, http://www.wrcc.dri.

edu/narratives/NEWMEXICO.html, variously paged. 
30 Traveltime of the Rio Grande in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico, Water Years 2003–05

Supplemental Information

Table SI–1. Traveltime of rising-limb leading edge of pulse event from Cochiti Dam stream-gaging station.

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; NA, not available]

Stream-gaging stations (downstream order)

Pulse event (table 3) Plateau flow at Cochiti 

Dam (ft3

/s)

Cochiti 

(hours)

San Felipe 

(hours)

Alameda 

(hours)

Albuquerque 

(hours)

Isleta 

(hours)

Bernardo 

(hours)

San Acacia 

(hours)

1 495 0.00 6.00 NA 20.00 NA NA 72.25

2 528 0.00 6.00 9.25 16.00 NA 65.00 71.25

3 588 0.00 5.75 16.25 20.75 NA 72.00 80.00

4 816 0.00 5.25 15.00 18.75 24.75 50.50 61.00

5 1,060 0.00 4.25 13.00 17.00 24.50 54.50 NA

6 1,440 0.00 4.50 NA 18.25 25.50 57.75 67.25

7 3,350 0.00 3.75 10.25 12.75 19.25 41.00 54.25

8 1,850 0.00 4.00 10.50 16.75 22.75 49.50 59.25

9 2,280 0.00 3.75 10.25 15.25 21.50 52.25 62.25

10 2,740 0.00 3.50 12.75 14.75 20.00 49.50 61.25

11 3,300 0.00 3.50 11.25 14.00 19.00 45.50 54.00

12 5,190 0.00 3.50 10.50 13.75 17.00 NA 44.75

Table SI–2. Traveltime of rising-limb centroid of pulse event from Cochiti Dam stream-gaging station.

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; NA, not available]

Stream-gaging stations (downstream order)

Pulse event (table 3) Plateau flow at Cochiti 

Dam (ft3

/s)

Cochiti 

(hours)

San Felipe 

(hours)

Alameda 

(hours)

Albuquerque 

(hours)

Isleta 

(hours)

Bernardo 

(hours)

San Acacia 

(hours)

1 495 0.00 7.00 NA 24.75 NA NA 78.00

2 528 0.00 7.25 14.25 22.00 NA 71.25 79.25

3 588 0.00 6.75 20.75 24.25 NA 76.25 89.75

4 816 0.00 6.50 19.00 23.00 28.75 58.25 68.25

5 1,060 0.00 5.00 15.25 19.75 27.75 58.00 NA

6 1,440 0.00 5.50 NA 21.25 30.50 70.50 86.50

7 3,350 0.00 4.75 13.25 18.50 23.75 47.50 60.25

8 1,850 0.00 5.25 14.00 20.75 26.75 57.00 67.00

9 2,280 0.00 4.75 14.50 19.00 25.25 57.00 67.50

10 2,740 0.00 4.75 14.75 18.00 23.75 53.50 64.75

11 3,300 0.00 4.25 14.00 18.00 22.75 49.50 58.25

12 5,190 0.00 4.25 13.25 17.75 NA NA 51.25
Supplemental Information 31

Table SI–3. Traveltime of plateau leading edge of pulse event from Cochiti Dam stream-gaging station.

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; NA, not available]

Stream-gaging stations (downstream order)

Pulse event (table 3) Plateau flow at Cochiti 

Dam (ft3/s)

Cochiti 

(hours)

San Felipe 

(hours)

Alameda 

(hours)

Albuquerque 

(hours)

Isleta 

(hours)

Bernardo 

(hours)

San Acacia 

(hours)

1 495 0.00 8.00 NA 29.50 NA NA 83.50

2 528 0.00 8.25 19.25 27.75 NA 77.50 87.00

3 588 0.00 7.75 25.25 27.50 NA 80.50 99.25

4 816 0.00 7.50 22.75 27.00 32.75 66.00 75.25

5 1,060 0.00 5.50 17.25 22.50 31.00 61.50 NA

6 1,440 0.00 6.25 NA 24.25 35.50 83.25 105.50

7 3,350 0.00 5.75 16.00 24.00 28.00 54.00 66.00

8 1,850 0.00 6.50 17.50 24.75 30.50 64.25 74.75

9 2,280 0.00 5.75 18.75 22.75 29.00 61.75 72.50

10 2,740 0.00 6.00 16.50 21.25 27.50 57.50 68.00

11 3,300 0.00 5.00 16.50 22.00 26.50 53.50 62.50

12 5,190 0.00 5.00 16.00 21.75 NA NA 57.75

Table SI–4. Traveltime of plateau centroid of pulse event from Cochiti Dam stream-gaging station.

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; NA, not available]

Stream-gaging stations (downstream order)

Pulse event (table 3) Plateau flow at Cochiti 

Dam (ft3

/s)

Cochiti 

(hours)

San Felipe 

(hours)

Alameda 

(hours)

Albuquerque 

(hours)

Isleta 

(hours)

Bernardo 

(hours)

San Acacia 

(hours)

1 495 0.00 8.25 NA 32.00 NA NA 92.75

2 528 0.00 8.25 NA NA NA 79.25 89.25

3 588 0.00 8.75 24.75 31.00 NA 82.25 101.75

4 816 0.00 6.50 NA 25.00 NA 64.00 74.50

5 1,060 0.00 7.25 NA 22.75 NA 64.00 NA

6 1,440 0.00 6.75 NA 23.50 33.00 88.50 103.50

7 3,350 0.00 6.50 16.50 23.50 28.25 53.50 NA

8 1,850 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

9 2,280 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10 2,740 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

11 3,300 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

12 5,190 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA
32 Traveltime of the Rio Grande in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico, Water Years 2003–05

Table SI–5. Traveltime of trailing edge of pulse event from Cochiti Dam stream-gaging station.

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; NA, not available]

Stream-gaging stations (downstream order)

Pulse event (table 3) Plateau flow at Cochiti 

Dam (ft3/s)

Cochiti 

(hours)

San Felipe 

(hours)

Alameda 

(hours)

Albuquerque 

(hours)

Isleta 

(hours)

Bernardo 

(hours)

San Acacia 

(hours)

1 495 0.00 8.75 NA 36.50 NA NA 107.00

2 528 0.00 7.75 NA NA NA 82.50 92.00

3 588 0.00 8.25 24.75 36.00 NA 85.75 105.00

4 816 0.00 7.25 19.25 26.25 37.50 61.25 71.50

5 1,060 0.00 8.00 28.00 31.75 NA 70.50 NA

6 1,440 0.00 6.25 NA 22.00 31.25 100.00 111.25

7 3,350 0.00 6.50 17.00 24.50 29.25 51.75 NA

8 1,850 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

9 2,280 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

10 2,740 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

11 3,300 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

12 5,190 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Publishing support provided by the

Lafayette Publishing Service Center

for the New Mexico Water Science Center
Langman, Jeff B.—Traveltime of the Rio Grande, New Mexico, Water Years 2003–05—Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5292