NEMO Watershed Based Plan Verde Watershed

N EMO W atershed Based Plan Verde W atershed Ackn o w le d ge m e n ts Arizona NEMO acknowledges the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Service, Arizona Departm ent of Environm ental Quality (ADEQ) Water Quality Division, the Water Resources Research Center, and the University of Arizona Advanced Resource Technology Lab (ART) for their technical support in producing the Watershed Based Plans. Funding provided by the U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act and the Arizona Departm ent of Environm ental Quality’s Water Quality Protection Division. Additional financial support is provided by the University of Arizona, Technology and Research Initiative Fund (TRIF), Water Sustainability Program through the Water Resources Research Center. The NEMO website is www.ArizonaNEMO.org. W ritte n a n d p re p are d by: Chris Black, Hoori Ajam i, D. Phillip Guertin, Lainie R. Levick and Kristine Uhlm an University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona Decem ber 20 0 5 Table o f Co n te n ts Section 1: Introduction Background Purpose and Scope Methods Structure of this Watershed Plan References Section 2: Physical Features Watershed Size Topography Water Resources Lakes and Reservoirs Stream Type Stream Density Annual Stream Flow Water Quality Geology Soils Clim ate Precipitation Tem perature References Data Sources Section 3: Biological Resources Ecoregions Vegetation Habitats (Riparian and Wetland Areas) Major Land Resource Areas (MLRA’s) References Data Sources Section 4: Social / Econom ic Characteristics County Governm ents Council of Governm ents (COGs) Urban Areas Roads Population Census Population Densities in 1990 Census Population Densities in 20 0 0 Population Change Mines Land Cover Land Ownership Special Areas i Preserves Golf Courses Wilderness References Data Sources Section 5: Im portant Resources Lower Verde River NRA Lower Verde River NRA Protection Needs Upper Verde River NRA Upper Verde River NRA Protection Needs Mesquite Wash – Sycam ore Creek NRA Mesquite Wash – Sycam ore Creek NRA Protection Needs Lower Big Chino Wash NRA Lower Big Chino Wash NRA Protection Needs Cam p Creek-Lower Verde River NRA Cam p Creek-Lower Verde River NRA Protection Needs References Section 6: Watershed Assessm ent Water Quality Assessm ent Data Metals Water Quality Assessm ent Data - Metals Location of Mining Activities Potential Contribution of Mines to Sedim ent Yield Metals Results Sedim ent Water Quality Assessm ent Data - Sedim ent Landownership Hum an Use Index Runoff Erosion Sedim ent Results Organics Water Quality Assessm ent Data – Organics Hum an Use Index Land Use Organics Results Nutrients Selenium Section 7: Watershed Managem ent Managem ent Methods Site Managem ent on New Developm ent Monitoring and Enforcem ent Water Quality Im provem ent and Restoration Projects Education ii Strategy for Addressing Existing Im pairm ent Metals Inventory of Existing Abandoned Mines Revegetation Erosion Control Runoff and Sedim ent Capture Rem oval Education Sedim ent Grazing Managem ent Filter Strips Fencing Watering Facilities Rock Riprap Erosion Control Fabric Toe Rock Water Bars Erosion Control on Dirt Roads Channel and Riparian Restoration Education Verde River TMDL Im plem entation Plan Organics Filter Strips Fencing Watering Facilities Septic Education Oak Creek TMDL Im plem entation Plan Peck’s Lake TMDL Im plem entation Plan Stonem an Lake TMDL Im plem entation Plan Strategy for Channel and Riparian Protection and Restoration Education Program s References Data Sources Section 8: Local Watershed Planning Potential Water Quality Im provem ent Projects Technical and Financial Assistance Education and Outreach Im plem entation Schedules & Milestones Evaluation Monitoring References Lis t o f Figu re s iii 1-1: Verde Watershed Location Map. 1-2: Transform ation of Input Data via a GIS, Fuzzy Logic Approach, and Synthesis of Results into a Watershed Classification. 2-1: 2-2: 2-3: 2-4: 2-5: 2-6: 2-7: 2-8: 2-9: 2-10 : 2-13: 2-14: 2-15: 2-16: 2-17: 2-18: 2-19: Verde Watershed. Verde Watershed Subwatershed Nam es and HUCs. Verde Watershed Topography. Verde Watershed Slope Classes. Verde Watershed Major Lakes and Stream s. Verde Stream Types. Verde Stream Density. Verde Watershed USGS Gages. USGS Gage 0 950 450 0 (Oak Creek Near Cornville) Hydrograph. USGS Gage 0 950 850 0 (Verde River below Tangle Creek, Above Horseshoe Dam ) Hydrograph. USGS Gage 0 9510 0 0 0 (Verde River Below Bartlett Dam ) Hydrograph. USGS Gage 0 9510 0 0 0 (Verde River Below Bartlett Dam ) Five Year Annual Moving Average Stream flow (cfs). Verde Watershed 30 3d Stream s and Lakes. Verde Watershed Geology. Verde Watershed Soil Texture. Verde Watershed Soil Erodibility Factor. Verde Watershed Average Annual Precipitation (inches/ year). Verde Watershed Weather Stations. Verde Watershed Annual Average Tem perature ( oF). 3-1: 3-2: 3-3: 3-4: 3-5: 3-6: 3-7: Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Ecoregions – Divisions. Ecoregions – Provinces. Ecoregions – Sections. Brown, Lowe and Pace Vegetation. GAP Vegetation. Riparian and Wetland Areas. Major Land Resources Areas. 4-1: 4-2: 4-3: 4-4: 4-5: 4-6: 4-7: 4-8: 4-9: 4-10 : 4-11: 4-12: Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Counties. Council of Governm ents. Urban Areas (1,0 0 0 persons/ square m ile). Road Types. Population Density 1990 . Population Density 20 0 0 . Population Density Change 1990 -20 0 0 . Mines: Types. Mines: Status. Mines: Prim ary Ore. Land Cover. Land Ownership. 2-11: 2-12: iv 4-13: Verde Watershed Preserves. 4-14: Verde Watershed Golf Courses. 4-15: Verde Watershed Wilderness Areas. 5-1: Natural Resources Areas in the Verde River Watershed. 6-1: Results for the Fuzzy Logic classification for m etals based on the weighted com bination approach. Results for the Fuzzy Logic classification for sedim ent based on the weighted com bination approach. Results for the Fuzzy Logic classification for organics based on the weighted com bination approach. 6-2: 6-3: 7-1: Verde Watershed Land Ownership by Subwatershed. Lis t o f Table s 2-1: 2-2: 2-3: 2-4: 2-5: 2-6: 2-7: 2-8: 2-9: 2-10 : 2-11: 2-12: 2-13: 2-14: Verde Watershed HUCs, Subwatershed Areas. Verde Watershed Elevation Range. Verde Watershed Slope Classes. Verde Watershed Major Lakes and Reservoirs. Verde Watershed Stream Types Length. Verde Watershed Major Stream s. Verde Watershed Stream Density. Verde Watershed USGS Stream Gages. Verde Watershed Geology. Verde Watershed Rock Types (percent by Subwatershed). Verde Watershed Soil Texture. Verde Watershed Soil Erodibility Factor K. Verde Watershed Average Annual Precipitation (inches/ year). Sum m ary of Tem perature Data for Six Tem perature Gages in the Verde Watershed. 2-15: Verde Watershed Average Annual Tem perature ( oF). 3-1: 3-2: 3-3: 3-4: 3-5: 3-6: 3-7: Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Ecoregions – Divisions. Ecoregions – Provinces. Ecoregions – Sections. - Brown, Lowe and Pace Vegetation. - Gap Vegetation. Riparian and Wetland Areas (acres). Major Land Resource Areas. 4-1: 4-2: 4-3: 4-4: 4-5: Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Counties. Council of Governm ents. Road Types. Roads By Subwatershed. Population Density 1990 (persons/ acre). v 4-6: 4-7: 4-8: 4-9: 4-10 : 4-11: 4-12: 4-13: 4-14: Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Verde Watershed Population Density 20 0 0 (persons/ acre). Population Density Change 1990 -20 0 0 (persons/ acre). Mines: Type. Mines: Status. Mines: Ore Type. Land Cover. Land Ownership. Preserves. Wilderness Areas (acres). 6-1: HUC Num erical designation and subwatershed nam e. 6-2: Fuzzy m em bership values for HUC-10 subwatersheds based on ADEQ Water Quality Assessm ent results. 6-3: Fuzzy m em bership values assigned to each 10 -digit HUC subwatershed in the Verde Watershed, based on water quality classification results for m etals. 6-4: Fuzzy m em bership values assigned to each subwatershed based on location of m ines. 6-5: FMVs per erosion category. 6-6: Results for m etals based on the Fuzzy Logic approach. 6-7: Fuzzy m em bership values for sedim ent assigned to each 10 -digit HUC subwatershed in the Verde Watershed based on water quality classification results. 6-8: Fuzzy m em bership values assigned based on land ownership. 6-9: Fuzzy m em bership values assigned to each subwatershed based on the Hum an Use Index. 6-10 : Fuzzy m em bership values and runoff categories. 6-11: Fuzzy m em bership values and erosion categories. 6-12: Results for sedim ent based on the Fuzzy Logic approach. 6-13: Fuzzy m em bership values assigned to each 10 -digit HUC subwatershed in the Verde Watershed based on water quality classification results for organics. 6-14: Fuzzy m em bership values based on the Hum an Use Index. 6-15: Results for organics based on the Fuzzy Logic approach. 7-1: 7-2: 7-3: 7-4: Proposed treatm ents for addressing m etals from abandoned m ines. Proposed treatm ents for addressing erosion and sedim entation. Proposed treatm ents for addressing organics. Percentage Land ownership by Subwatershed in the Verde Watershed. Ap p e n d ice s Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Water Quality Data and Assessm ent Status, Verde Watershed. Suggested References, Verde Watershed. RUSLE Modeling SWAT Modeling vi To ach ieve th e objective of developin g a watersh ed based plan , a fu zzy logic kn owledge-based meth odology was applied to in tegrate th e variou s spatial an d n on -spatial data types. Fu zzy logic is an approach to h an dle vagu en ess or u n certain ty, an d h as been ch aracterized as a meth od by wh ich to qu an tify common sen se. Th is meth odology h as been selected as th e basis by wh ich su bwatersh ed areas an d stream reach es were prioritized for proposed im plem en tation of Best Man agem en t Practices to assu re load redu ction s of con stitu en ts of con cern . Verde Watershed Executive Summary Th e objective of th is stu dy was to develop a watersh ed based plan for th e Verde Watersh ed th at in clu des a ch aracterization an d classification of th e watersh ed featu res. Th is watersh ed based plan iden tifies areas th at are su sceptible to water qu ality problems an d n on poin t pollu tion sou rces th at n eed to be con trolled, an d m an agem en t m easu res th at sh ou ld be im plemen ted to improve water qu ality th rou gh ou t th e watersh ed. Th e first part of th e project focu sed on watersh ed ch aracterization iden tifyin g ph ysical, biological an d social ch aracteristics of th e Verde Watersh ed from pu blicly available in form ation . ArcGIS (En viron m en tal Systems Research In stitu te, In c.) software was u sed to con stru ct a spatial database in clu din g topograph y, lan d cover, soil types an d ch aracteristics, geology, vegetation , h ydrologic featu res, an d popu lation ch aracteristics. Th e water qu ality resu lts reported in Arizon a’s In tegrated 305(b) Assessm ent an d 303(d) Listin g Report (ADEQ, 2003), an d EPA’s (U.S. En viron men tal Protection Agen cy) revision s of Arizon a’s fin al 2004 303d List for water qu ality resu lts were reviewed an d su mmarized for each mon itored stream reach in th e Verde Watersh ed. Based on exceedan ces in each reach an d th e design ated u se classification system , each stream reach was classified as extrem e, h igh , m ediu m or low risk of impairmen t. Each su bwatersh ed was th en ran ked u sin g a scale of 0-1 based on th e stream reach con dition in each 10-digit HUC an d down stream reach con dition . After developin g th e GIS database, watersh ed classification s were performed in order to iden tify importan t resou rces an d ran k 10digit HUC (h ydrologic u n it code) su bwatersh ed areas based on likelih ood of n on poin t sou rce pollu tan t con tribu tion to stream water qu ality degradation . A HUC is a m ean s of su bdividin g watersh eds in to su ccessively sm aller h ydrologic u n its of su rface water drain age featu res. Su bwatersh ed classification ran kin g data were th en created based on calcu lated parameters for each of th e water qu ality con stitu en ts grou ps an d by sim u latin g h ydrologic respon se with in th e GIS Verde Watersh ed Execu tive Su m m ary Ex-1 Th e m an agem en t section of th e docu men t in clu des gen eral watersh ed m an agem en t m eth ods, recommen ded strategies for addressin g existin g impairmen t in th e watersh ed, stream ch an n el an d riparian restoration , an d proposed edu cation programs. en viron men t. For each con stitu en t grou p several parameters were calcu lated in each su bwatersh ed an d a fu zzy membersh ip fu n ction (FMV) was developed in order to assign a ran ked valu e (0-1) to each 10-digit HUC su bwatersh ed. Th e FMV for each of th e parameters in each su bwatersh ed, alon g with th e ran ked water qu ality assessmen t data, were com bin ed an d each su bwatersh ed was ran ked an d categorized as eith er low or h igh risk for n on poin t sou rce pollu tion problem s. As a resu lt of th is stu dy, th e primary sou rces for n on poin t sou rce pollu tan t con cern s in th e Verde Watersh ed in clu de aban don ed min e sites, n ew developmen t an d in creased u rban ization , an d n ew road con stru ction . Th e Lower Big Ch in o Wash Natu ral Resou rce Area is particu larly at risk of n on poin t sou rce pollu tan ts du e to th e large percen tage of private lan d with in th e area an d th e poten tial for private developm en t. Livestock grazin g an d min in g can con tribu te to sedimen t erosion with in th e Fossil Creek – Lower Verde River an d Ch erry Creek – Upper Verde River su bwatersh eds, resu ltin g in a ran kin g of elevated risk. An im al wastes an d th e failu re of residen tial septic system s are fou n d to be th e primary sou rces of n on poin t sou rce organ ic con tam in an ts across th e watersh ed. Th e Revised Un iversal Soil Loss Equ ation (RUSLE) model (USDA, 1997) was u sed to estim ate sedim en t yield du e to lan d u se or lan d u se ch an ge. Th e Soil an d Water Assessmen t Tool (SWAT) h ydrologic model (Arn old et al., 1994) with in th e Au tom ated Geospatial Watersh ed Assessm en t Tool (AGWA) (Bu rn s et al., 2004) was also applied to sim u late sedimen t yield an d ru n off for each 10-digit HUC su bwatersh ed area. Un iqu e waters of th e state, mapped wildern ess areas an d preserves, riparian areas, an d critical h abitat for en dan gered species were u sed to iden tify importan t Natu ral Resou rce Areas (NRA) at th e scale of 10-digit HUC su bwatersh ed in th e Verde Watersh ed. Th ese were th en u sed to recom m en d m an agem en t action s specific to th e con dition s in each NRA. Based on th e watersh ed classification s, a watersh ed-based plan was proposed th at in clu ded poten tial water qu ality improvemen t projects for su bwatersh eds th at were m ost su sceptible to kn own water qu ality con cern s. Th e plan discu sses the pollu tan t type an d sou rce, load redu ction calcu lation s, an d sample m an agem en t m easu res. Best Man agem en t Practices for each su bwatersh ed were proposed based on th e watersh ed assessmen t data an d available ADEQ TMDL reports. Verde Watersh ed Execu tive Su m m ary Ex-2 Referen ces: Arizon a Departmen t of En viron men tal Qu ality, ADEQ. DRAFT 2003, Statu s of Water Qu ality in Arizon a – 2004: Arizon a’s In tegrated 305(b) Assessm en t an d 303(d) Listin g Report, 1110 West Wash in gton Ave., Ph oen ix, Arizon a, 85007 www.adeq.state.az.u s/en viron /water/assessm en t/assess.h tm l. Arn old, J.G., J. R. William s, R. Srin ivasan , K.W. Kin g, an d R. H. Griggs. 1994. SWAT - Soil an d Water Assessmen t Tool. USDA, Agricu ltu ral Research Service, Grasslan d, Soil an d Water Research Laboratory, Temple, Texas. Bu rn s, I.S., S. Scott, L. Levick, M. Hern an dez, D.C. Goodrich , S.N. Miller, D.J. Sem m en s, an d W.G. Kepn er. 2004. Au tomated Geospatial Watersh ed Assessm en t (AGWA) - A GIS-based Hydrologic Modelin g Tool: Docu men tation an d User Man u al Version 1.4, from h ttp://www.tu cson .ars.ag.gov/agwa/ USDA. 1997. Predictin g Soil Erosion by Water: A Gu ide to Con servation Plan n in g with th e Revised Un iversal Soil Loss Equ ation (RUSLE). Un ited States Departmen t of Agricu ltu re, Agricu ltu re Han dbook No. 703. Wash in gton D.C. Verde Watersh ed Execu tive Su m m ary Ex-3 lan d is m an aged by state, tribal an d federal en tities, lan d u se au th orities in clu de cou n ty, state an d federal agen cies, in addition to mu n icipal officials an d private citizen s. Section 1: Introduction Backgrou n d Th e Sou th western Un ited States, in clu din g th e State of Arizon a, is th e fastest growin g region in th e cou n try. Becau se the region is u n dergoin g rapid developmen t, th ere is a n eed to address h ealth an d qu ality of life issu es th at resu lt from con tamin ation of water resou rces from n on poin t sou rces of pollu tion . Non poin t sou rce pollu tion is th e leadin g cau se of water qu ality degradation across th e Un ited States, an d is differen tiated from poin t sou rce pollu tion in th at, for some states su ch as Arizon a, th ere are n o regu latory mech an isms by wh ich to en force clean u p of n on poin t sou rce pollu tion . In partn ersh ip with th e Arizon a Departmen t of En viron men tal Qu ality (ADEQ), Arizon a Cooperative Exten sion at th e Un iversity of Arizon a (U of A) h as in itiated th e Arizon a NEMO program . Arizon a NEMO is an attempt to adopt th e NEMO program to th e con dition s in th e sem iarid, western Un ited States, wh ere water su pply is limited an d man y n atu ral resou rce problems are related to th e lack of water, as well as water qu ality. Workin g with in a watersh ed template, Arizon a NEMO in clu des: compreh en sive an d in tegrated watersh ed plan n in g su pport, iden tification an d pu blication of Best Man agem en t Practices (BMP), edu cation on water con servation , an d riparian water qu ality restoration . Non poin t sou rce pollu tion origin ates from m an y differen t sou rces, u su ally associated with rain fall ru n off movin g over an d th rou gh th e grou n d, carryin g n atu ral an d man made pollu tan ts in to lakes, rivers, stream s, wetlan ds, estu aries, coastal waters an d grou n d water. In collaboration with watersh ed partn ersh ips an d ADEQ, NEMO will h elp improve water qu ality by developin g a realistic watersh edbased plan to ach ieve water qu ality stan dards an d protection goals for th e Verde Watersh ed. Th is plan will iden tify: Nation ally, th e Non poin t Edu cation for Mu n icipal Officials (NEMO) program h as been very su ccessfu l in h elpin g to m itigate n on poin t sou rce pollu tion . Th e goal of NEMO is to edu cate lan d-u se decision m akers to take proactive volu n tary action s th at will m itigate n on poin t sou rce pollu tion an d protect n atu ral resou rces. In th e eastern Un ited States (wh ere th e NEMO con cept origin ated), lan d u se au th ority is con cen trated in mu n icipal (village, town an d city) govern men t. In Arizon a, wh ere n early 80% of th e Verde Watersh ed • Areas th at are su sceptible to water qu ality problems an d pollu tion ; • Sou rces th at n eed to be con trolled; an d Section 1: In trodu ction 1-1 • au th orities th at will be relied u pon , to im plem en t th is plan . Man agemen t measu res th at sh ou ld be implem en ted to protect or improve water qu ality. o Elem en t 5: Inform ation / Education Com ponent - An in formation /edu cation com pon en t th at will be u sed to en h an ce pu blic u n derstan din g of th e project an d en cou rage th eir early an d con tin u ed participation in selectin g, design in g, an d im plemen tin g m an agem en t m easu res. o Elem en t 6: Schedule - A sch edu le for im plem en tin g m an agem en t m easu res iden tified in th is plan th at is reason ably expeditiou s. o Elem en t 7: Measurable Milestones - A sch edu le of in terim, measu rable m ileston es for determin in g wh eth er th e m an agem en t m easu res, Best Man agemen t Practices, or oth er con trol action s are bein g im plem en ted. o Elem en t 8: Evaluation of Progress - A set of criteria th at can be u sed to determ in e wh eth er loadin g redu ction s are bein g ach ieved over tim e an d su bstan tial progress is bein g m ade towards attain in g water qu ality stan dards an d, if n ot, th e criteria for determin in g wh eth er th e plan n eeds to be revised or, if a Total Maximu m Daily Load (TMDL) h as been establish ed, wh eth er th e TMDL n eeds to be revised. o Elem en t 9: Effectiveness Monitoring - A m on itorin g Based on EPA’s 2003 Guidelines for the Award of Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants, a watersh ed-based plan sh ou ld in clu de all n in e of th e elem en ts listed below. o o o o Elem en t 1: Causes and Sources Clearly defin e th e cau ses an d sou rces of im pairm en t (ph ysical, ch em ical, an d biological). Elem en t 2: Expected Load Reductions - An estimate of th e load redu ction s expected for each of th e m an agem en t m easu res or best m an agem en t practices to be im plem en ted (recogn izin g th e n atu ral variability an d th e difficu lty in precisely predictin g th e perform an ce of m an agem en t m easu res over time). Elem en t 3: Managem ent Measures - A description of th e m an agem en t m easu res or best m an agem en t practices an d associated costs th at will n eed to be implemen ted to ach ieve th e load redu ction s estim ated in th is plan an d an iden tification (u sin g a map or a description ) of th e critical areas wh ere th ose m easu res are n eeded. Elem en t 4: Technical and Financial Assistance - An estim ate of th e am ou n ts of tech n ical an d fin an cial assistan ce n eeded, associated costs, an d/or th e sou rces an d Verde Watersh ed Section 1: In trodu ction 1-2 compon en t to evalu ate th e effectiven ess of th e im plem en tation efforts over time, measu red again st th e criteria establish ed in th e Evalu ation of Progress elemen t. In addition to th e classification , th is plan provides m eth ods an d tools to iden tify problem sou rces an d location s for im plem en tation of Best Man agemen t Practices to m itigate n on poin t sou rce pollu tion . Alth ou gh th ese ch apters are written based on cu rren t in formation , th e tools developed can be u sed to u pdate th is plan an d reevalu ate water qu ality con cern s as n ew in form ation becom es available. Th ese n in e elemen ts h elp provide reason able assu ran ce th at th e n on poin t sou rce of pollu tion will be m an aged to improve an d protect water qu ality an d to assu re th at pu blic fu n ds to address im paired waters are u sed effectively. Th e watersh ed ch aracterization in clu des ph ysical, biological, an d social data in a geograph ic in formation system (GIS) database format, as both mapped an d tabu lated data, as collected from available existin g an d pu blish ed data sou rces. No addition al data were collected. Watersh ed-based plan s are h olistic docu men ts th at are design ed to protect an d restore a watersh ed. Th ese plan s provide a carefu l an alysis of th e sou rces of water qu ality problem s, th eir relative con tribu tion s to th e problem s, an d altern atives to solve th ose problems. Fu rth ermore, watersh ed-based plan s will deliver proactive measu res to protect water bodies. In watersh eds wh ere a TMDL h as been developed an d approved or is in th e process of bein g developed, watersh ed-based plan s m u st be design ed to ach ieve th e load redu ction s called for in th e TMDL. Th e ch aracterization also in clu des description s of en viron men tal attribu tes an d iden tification of water qu ality problems by in corporatin g water qu ality data reported in The DRAFT Status of Water Quality in Ariz ona – 2004: Ariz ona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessm ent and 303(d) Listing Report (ADEQ, 2005), ADEQ’s bien n ial report con solidatin g water qu ality reportin g requ iremen ts u n der th e federal Clean Water Act. The ADEQ water qu ality data, TMDL defin ition s, an d fu rth er in formation for each stream reach an d th e su rface water sam plin g sites across th e state can be fou n d at: www.adeq.state.az.u s/en viron /water/ assessm en t/assess.h tm l. Pu rpose an d Scope Th is watersh ed-based plan in clu des a watersh ed classification th at h as been developed for th e Verde Watersh ed. Th e classification su pports th e watersh ed-based plan an d provides edu cation al ou treach material to stakeh olders an d watersh ed partn ersh ips. It provides an in ven tory of n atu ral resou rces an d en viron men tal con dition s th at affect primarily su rface water qu ality. Th e watersh ed classification in clu des th e iden tification of an d m appin g of importan t resou rces, an d ran kin g of 10-digit HUC su bwatersh eds (defin ed Verde Watersh ed Section 1: In trodu ction 1-3 featu res: location al an d descriptive data. Location al (spatial) data are stored u sin g a vector or a raster data stru ctu re. Vector data are object based data models wh ich sh ow spatial featu res as poin ts, lin es, an d/or polygon s. Raster data m odels represen t geograph ical space by dividin g it in to a series of u n its, each of wh ich is limited an d defin ed by an equ al amou n t of earth ’s su rface. Th ese u n its are of differen t sh apes, i.e. trian gu lar or h exagon al, bu t th e m ost com m on ly u sed sh ape is th e squ are, called a cell. Correspon din g descriptive (attribu te) data for each geograph ic featu re are stored in a set of tables. Th e spatial an d descriptive data are lin ked so th at both sets of in formation are always available. later in th is section ) based on th e likelih ood of n on poin t sou rce pollu tan t con tribu tion to stream water qu ality degradation . Followin g th e classification , th is watersh ed plan in clu des a m an agem en t section with gen eral discu ssion s of recom m en ded n on poin t sou rce Best Man agem en t Practices th at will n eed to be implemen ted to ach ieve load redu ction s, as well as to ach ieve oth er watersh ed goals. Th ese watersh ed m an agem en t activities are proposed with th e u n derstan din g th at th e lan du se decision m akers an d stakeh olders with in th e watersh ed can select th e BMPs th ey feel are most appropriate an d revise man agemen t activities as con dition s with in th e watersh ed ch an ge. Figure 1-1: Verde Watershed Location Map Based on th e watersh ed classification , a watersh ed-based plan is proposed th at in clu des poten tial water qu ality improvemen t projects for su bwatersh eds th at were determ in ed to be m ost su sceptible to kn own water qu ality con cern s. Th e plan discu sses th e pollu tan t type an d sou rce, load redu ction calcu lation s, an d sample m an agem en t m easu res. Th e Verde Watersh ed is located in th e n orth -cen tral portion of th e state of Arizon a, bou n ded by th e cities of William s, Flagstaff, Prescott, an d Ph oen ix, as sh own in Figu re 1-1. Meth ods GIS an d h ydrologic modelin g were th e m ajor tools u sed to develop th is watersh ed plan . In a GIS, two types of in formation represen t geograph ic Plan n in g an d assessmen t in lan d an d water resou rce man agemen t requ ires spatial m odelin g tools so as to Verde Watersh ed Section 1: In trodu ction 1-4 in corporate com plex watersh ed-scale attribu tes in to th e assessm en t process. Modelin g tools applied to th e Verde Watersh ed in clu ded AGWA, SWAT, an d RUSLE, as described below. 303(d) Listin g Report (ADEQ, 2005), an d sim u late im pacts du e to m in e sites (erosion an d m etals pollu tion ) an d grazin g (erosion an d pollu tan t n u trien ts). Th e Au tomated Geospatial Watersh ed Assessmen t Tool (AGWA) is a GISbased h ydrologic modelin g tool design ed to evalu ate th e effects of lan d u se ch an ge (Bu rn s et. al., 2004). AGWA provides th e fu n ction ality to con du ct all ph ases of a watersh ed assessm en t. It facilitates th e u se of th e Soil an d Water Assessmen t Tool (SWAT), a h ydrologic model, by preparin g th e in pu ts, ru n n in g th e m odel, an d presen tin g th e resu lts visu ally in th e GIS. AGWA h as been u sed to illu strate th e im pacts of u rban ization an d oth er lan dscape ch an ges, an d to sim u late sedim en t load in th e watersh ed. AGWA was developed u n der a join t project between th e En viron m en tal Protection Agen cy (EPA), Agricu ltu ral Research Service (ARS), an d th e Un iversity of Arizon a. SWAT was developed by th e ARS, an d is able to predict th e im pacts of lan d m an agem en t practices on water, sedimen t an d ch emical yields in com plex watersh eds with varyin g soils, lan d u se an d m an agem en t con dition s (Arn old et al., 1994) . Th e Revised Un iversal Soil Loss Equ ation (RUSLE) was also u sed to estim ate soil loss from differen t lan d u se types (Ren ard et al., 1997). Th e Verde Watersh ed is defin ed an d mapped by th e U.S. Geological Su rvey u sin g th e six-digit Hydrologic Un it Code (HUC). Th e Un ited States is divided an d su b-divided in to su ccessively sm aller h ydrologic u n its of su rface water drain age featu res, wh ich are classified in to fou r levels, each iden tified by a u n iqu e h ydrologic u n it code con sistin g of two to eigh t digits: region s (2 digit), su bregion s (4 digit), accou n tin g u n its (6 digit), an d catalogin g u n its (8 digit) (Seaber et al., 1987). With in th e six-digit HUC, su bwatersh ed areas were delin eated on th e basis of th e eigh t-digit catalogin g HUC. Th e classification s an d GIS m odelin g were con du cted on th e ten -digit HUC su bwatersh ed areas. With in th is report, both HUC u n its an d su bwatersh ed n am es are u sed to clarify location . Th is watersh ed plan u ses th e followin g HUC watersh eds: Verde Watersh ed (H150602) Big Ch in o Wash (H15060201) Upper Verde River (H15060202) Gran ite Creek-Upper Verde River (H1506020201) Hell Can yon (H1506020202) Sycam ore Creek (H1506020203) Grin dston e Wash -Upper Verde River (H1506020204) Oak Creek (H1506020205) Beaver Creek (H1506020206) Ch erry Creek-Upper Verde River (H1506020207) Th e watersh ed classification in corporates GIS-based h ydrologic modelin g resu lts an d oth er data to describe watersh ed con dition s u pstream from an impaired stream reach iden tified with in Arizon a’s In tegrated 305(b) Assessm en t an d Verde Watersh ed Section 1: In trodu ction 1-5 In fu zzy logic, th e ran ge in valu es between differen t data factors are con verted to th e sam e scale (0-1) u sin g fu zzy membersh ip fu n ction s. Fu zzy m em bersh ip fu n ction s can be discrete or con tin u ou s depen din g on th e ch aracteristics of th e in pu t. In th e illu stration above th e degree of talln ess was iteratively added in in tervals of 0.2. An example of a con tin u ou s data set wou ld be to graph th e h eigh ts of all in dividu als an d correlate a con tin u ou s fu zzy member valu e to th at graph . A u ser defin es th eir membersh ip fu n ction s to describe th e relation sh ip between an in dividu al factor an d th e ach ievemen t of th e stated goal. Lower Verde River (H15060203) To ran k th e 10-digit HUC su bwatersh ed areas th at are su sceptible to water qu ality problems an d pollu tion , an d to iden tify sou rces th at n eed to be con trolled, a fu zzy logic kn owledge-based meth odology was applied to in tegrate th e variou s spatial an d n on -spatial data types (Gu ertin et al., 2000; Miller et al., 2002; Reynolds et al., 2001). Th is meth odology h as been selected as th e basis by wh ich su bwatersh ed areas an d stream reach es are prioritized for th e im plemen tation of BMPs to assu re n on poin t sou rce pollu tion is m an aged. Th e developmen t of a fu zzy membersh ip fu n ction can be based on pu blish ed data, expert opin ion s, stakeh older valu es or in stitu tion al policy, an d can be created in a datapoor en viron men t. An oth er ben efit of th is approach is th at it provides for th e u se of differen t meth ods for combin in g in dividu al factors to create th e fin al classification , an d th e goal set. Fu zzy m em bersh ip fu n ction s an d weigh tin g sch em es can also be ch an ged based on watersh ed con cern s an d con dition s. Fu zzy logic is an approach to h an dle vagu en ess or u n certain ty, an d h as been ch aracterized as a meth od by wh ich to qu an tify common sen se. In classical set th eory, an object is eith er a member of th e set or exclu ded from th e set. For example, on e is eith er tall or sh ort, with th e class of tall men bein g th ose over th e h eigh t of 6’0”. Usin g th is m eth od, a m an wh o is 5’ 11” tall wou ld n ot be placed in th e tall class, alth ou gh h e cou ld n ot be con sidered ‘n ot-tall’. Th is is u n satisfactory, for example, if on e h as to describe or qu an tify an object th at may be a partial member of a set. In fu zzy logic, membersh ip in a set is described as a valu e between 0 (n on m em bersh ip in th e set) an d 1 (fu ll m em bersh ip in th e set). For in stan ce, th e in dividu al wh o is 5’ 11” is n ot classified as sh ort or tall, bu t is classified as tall to a degree of 0.8. Likewise, an in dividu al of h eigh t 5’ 10” wou ld be tall to a degree of 0.6. Ou r gen eral approach was to in tegrate watersh ed ch aracteristics, water qu ality measu remen ts, an d modelin g resu lts with in a mu lti-parameter ran kin g system based on th e fu zzy logic kn owledge-based approach , as sh own sch em atically in Figu re 1-2. Th is approach requ ires th at a goal be defin ed accordin g to th e desired ou tcom e, an d th at th e classification be defin ed as a fu n ction of th e goal an d Verde Watersh ed Section 1: In trodu ction 1-6 is th erefore reflective of th e m an agem en t objective. For th e watersh ed classification , th e goal is to iden tify critical su bwatersh eds in wh ich BMPs sh ou ld be im plem en ted to redu ce n on poin t sou rce pollu tion . a. Water qu ality data provided by Arizon a’s In tegrated 305(b) Assessm en t an d 303(d) Listin g Report; b. GIS m appin g an alysis; an d c. Modelin g / sim u lation of erosion vu ln erability / poten tial for stream im pairm en t (in th is case, from soils in m in e site areas an d proximity to aban don ed m in e sites). Th e process was im plem en ted with in a GIS in terface to create th e su bwatersh ed classification s u sin g five prim ary steps: 1. Defin e th e goal of th e watersh ed classification (For th e Verde Watersh ed, dissolved / total metals water qu ality impairmen t to stream s du e to m in e activity); 4. Use fu zzy mem bersh ip fu n ction s to tran sform th e vu ln erability / im pairm en t m etrics in to fu zzy m em bersh ip valu es; an d 2. Assemble GIS data an d oth er observation al data; 3. Defin e watersh ed ch aracteristics th rou gh : 5. Determin e a composite fu zzy score represen tin g th e ran kin g of th e combin ed attribu tes, an d in terpret th e resu lts. Figure 1-2: Transform ation of Input Data via a GIS, Fuz z y Logic Approach, and Synthesis of Results into a Watershed Classification. Verde Watersh ed Section 1: In trodu ction 1-7 Arizon a’s In tegrated 305(b) Assessm en t an d 303(d) Listin g Report (ADEQ, 2005), was u sed to classify each mon itored stream reach based on its relative risk of impairmen t for each of th e ch em ical con stitu en t grou ps. Th e con stitu en t grou ps in clu de m etals, organ ics, n u trien ts, an d tu rbidity/sedimen t. Two levels of risk were defin ed: h igh an d low. For exam ple, if elevated con cen tration s of m etals, such as copper an d mercu ry, are fou n d above stan dards, th e water body wou ld be classified as ‘h igh ’ risk if ADEQ h as cu rren tly assessed it as bein g “impaired” for th at con stitu en t grou p. Con versely, a water body is classified as ‘low’ risk if th ere are n o exceeden ces in a con stitu en t grou p an d th ere are su fficien t data to make a classification . Watersh ed ch aracterization s, in clu din g ph ysical, biological, an d social ch aracteristics, are discu ssed in Section s 2 th rou gh 4. Im portan t en viron men tal resou rces are discu ssed in Section 5, an d su bwatersh ed classification s based on water qu ality attribu tes in clu din g con cen tration s of m etals, sedim en t/tu rbidity, organ ics, an d n u trien ts are fou n d in Section 6. Watersh ed m an agem en t strategies an d BMPs are provided in Section 7, an d th e Watersh ed Plan is presen ted in Section 8. Th e fu ll tabu lation of th e ADEQ water qu ality data an d assessm en t statu s is provided in Appen dix A. Classification s were con du cted at th e 10-digit HUC su bwatersh ed scale, resu ltin g in th e ran kin g of twen ty-two su bwatersh ed areas with in th e 6,600 squ are m ile area of th e Verde Watersh ed. Su m m ary discu ssion s of th e m odelin g software, as well as su ggested tech n ical referen ces of stu dies com pleted across th e Verde Watersh ed are in clu ded in th e rem ain in g appen dices. Stru ctu re of th is Watersh ed Based Plan Referen ces: Arizon a Departmen t of En viron men tal Qu ality, ADEQ. 2005. Th e Statu s of Water Qu ality in Arizon a – 2004: Arizon a’s In tegrated 305(b) Assessm en t an d 303(d) Listin g Report, 1110 West Wash in gton Ave., Ph oen ix, Arizon a, 85007, from h ttp://www.azdeq.gov/en viron /water/assessmen t/2004.h tml. Arn old, J.G., J. R. William s, R. Srin ivasan , K.W. Kin g, an d R. H. Griggs. 1994. SWAT - Soil & Water Assessmen t Tool. USDA, Agricu ltu ral Research Service, Grasslan d, Soil an d Water Research Laboratory, Temple, Texas. Bu rn s, I.S., S. Scott, L. Levick, M. Hern an dez, D.C. Goodrich , S.N. Miller, D.J. Sem m en s, an d W.G. Kepn er. 2004. Au tomated Geospatial Watersh ed Assessm en t (AGWA) - A GIS-Based Hydrologic Modelin g Tool: Docu men tation an d User Man u al Version 1.4, from h ttp://www.tucson .ars.ag.gov/agwa/ Verde Watersh ed Section 1: In trodu ction 1-8 Gu ertin , D.P., Fiedler, R.H., S.N. Miller, an d D.C. Goodrich . 2000. Fu zzy logic for watersh ed assessm en t. Proceedin gs of th e ASCE Con feren ce on Scien ce an d Tech n ology for th e New Millen n iu m: Watersh ed Man agemen t 2000, Fort Collin s, CO, Ju n e 21-24, 2000. Miller, S.N., W.G. Kepn er, M.H. Meh affrey, M. Hern an dez, R.C. Miller, D.C. Goodrich , K.K. Devon ald, D.T. Heggem, an d W.P. Miller. 2002. In tegratin g Lan dscape Assessmen t an d Hydrologic Modelin g for Lan d Cover Ch an ge An alysis, in Jou rn al of th e American Water Resou rces Association , Vol. 38, No. 4, Au gu st. P. 915- 929. Ren ard, K.G., G.R. Foster, G.A. Weesies, D.K. McCool, an d D.C. Yoder. 1997. Predictin g Soil Erosion by Water: A Gu ide to Con servation Plan n in g with th e Revised Un iversal Soil Loss Equ ation (RUSLE), U. S. Departmen t of Agricu ltu re, Agricu ltu re Han dbook No. 703. 404 pp. Reyn olds, K.M. 2001. Fu zzy logic kn owledge bases in in tegrated lan dscape assessmen t: Examples an d possibilities. Gen eral Tech n ical Report PNW-GTR521. USDA Forest Service Pacific North west Research Station . 24 pp. Seaber, P.R., F.P. Kapin os, an d G.L. Kn app. 1987. Hydrologic Un it Maps: U.S. Geological Su rvey Water-Su pply Paper 2294. 63p. Verde Watersh ed Section 1: In trodu ction 1-9 on th e primary su rface water with in th e HUC. Th ese drain age areas can be fu rth er su bdivided as n eeded. Th is report will work with two levels: an eigh t-digit catalogin g HUC, an d a su bdivision of th ese, a 10-digit HUC. Th e su bwatersh ed areas were delin eated on th e basis of th e eigh tdigit HUC, an d th e classification s an d GIS modelin g were con du cted on th e ten -digit HUC su bwatersh ed areas. Section 2: Physical Features Th e Verde Watersh ed in Arizon a is defin ed as th e area drain ed by th e Verde River in to th e Salt River. Th e watersh ed is located in th e n orth western part of th e state, as sh own in Figu re 2-1. Figure 2-1: Verde Watershed. Th e eigh t-digit su bwatersh ed HUCs are listed in Table 2-1 with both th e u n iqu e HUC digital classification an d th e su bwatersh ed basin n am e. Th e su bwatersh ed areas are delin eated in Figu re 2-2. Figure 2-2: Verde Watershed Subwatershed Nam es and HUCs. Watersh ed Size Th e Verde Watersh ed covers approxim ately 6,622 squ are m iles, represen tin g almost 6% of th e state of Arizon a. Th e watersh ed h as a m axim u m approxim ate width of 120 m iles east-west, an d a m axim u m len gth of 160 m iles n orth -sou th . Th e watersh ed was delin eated by th e U.S. Geological Su rvey an d h as been su bdivided in to su bwatersh eds or drain age areas. Each drain age area h as a u n iqu e h ydrologic u n it code n u m ber, or HUC, an d a n ame based Topograph y Topograph y an d lan d slope, as well as soil ch aracteristics, are importan t wh en assessin g th e vu ln erability of Verde Watersh ed Section 2 Ph ysical Featu res 2-1 th e su bwatersh ed to erosion , as will be discu ssed later in th is docu men t. Wash Su bwatersh ed is flatter th an th e watersh ed m ean with on ly 35% of its area over 15% slope, an d 44% less th an 5% slope. Th e Lower Verde River Su bwatersh ed by con trast is steeper th an th e watersh ed mean . Sixty-n in e percen t of its area h as a slope greater th an 15%, wh ile on ly 18% is less th an 5% slope (Table 2-3 an d Figu re 2-4). Table 2-1: Verde Watershed HUCs, Subwatershed Areas. HUC Designation and Subw atershed Name Big Chino Wash H15060201 Upper Verde River H15060202 Low er Verde River H15060203 Verd e Wat ershed Area (square miles) 2,153 2,501 1,968 6,622 Figure 2-3: Verde Watershed Topography. Th e lan d su rface elevation of th e Verde Watersh ed ran ges between 1,323 an d 12,617 feet above sea level. Th e tallest featu re in th e watersh ed is Hu m ph rey’s Peak at 12,617 feet. Th e lowest poin t in th e watersh ed is at th e ou tlet of th e Verde River, at th e very sou th ern tip of th e watersh ed. Mean elevation for th e wh ole Verde Watersh ed is 5,159 feet (Table 2-2). Th e Lower Verde River Su bwatersh ed (HUC 15060203) is lower th an th e rest of th e watersh ed with a mean elevation of 4,200 feet, alm ost 1,000 feet lower th an th e mean for th e en tire watersh ed (Figu re 2-3). Table 2-2: Verde Watershed Elevation Range. Subw atershed Name Big Chino Wash H15060201 Upper Verde River H15060202 Low er Verde River H15060203 Verd e Wat ershed Min (feet) Max (feet) Mean (feet) 4,358 8,862 5,513 3,056 12,617 5,595 1,323 1,323 8,522 12,617 4,219 5,159 Water Resou rces Lakes and Reservoirs Th ere are 102 lakes an d five reservoirs in th e Verde Watersh ed. Horsesh oe Reservoir, wh ich forms beh in d Horsesh oe Dam, h as th e largest open su rface water area of abou t 2,610 acres. Th e n ext largest reservoir, Bartlett Reservoir, is formed by th e Bartlett Dam an d covers 2,376 acres. Approximately 50% of th e Verde Watersh ed h as a slope greater th an 15%, wh ile 32% of th e watersh ed h as a slope less th an 5%. Th e Big Ch in o Verde Watersh ed Section 2 Ph ysical Featu res 2-2 Table 2-4 lists th e m ajor lakes an d reservoirs an d th eir associated areas. Figure 2-4: Verde Watershed Slope Classes. Table 2-3: Verde Watershed Slope Classes. Area Subw atershed (sq. Name miles) 0-5% 5-15% > 15% Big Chino Wash 2,153 43.7% 21.4% 34.9% H15060201 Upper Verde River 2,501 33.3% 20.1% 46.6% H15060202 Low er Verde River 1,968 18.3% 12.4% 69.3% H15060203 Verde 6,622 32.2% 18.3% 49.5% Wat ershed Table 2-4: Verde Watershed Major Lakes and Reservoirs. Surface Area (acre) Elevation (feet above mean sea Dam Name level) (if know n) Lake Name Subw atershed Horseshoe Reservoir Low er Verde River 2,610 1,998 Horseshoe Dam Bartlett Reservoir Low er Verde River 2,376 1,752 Bartlett Dam Rogers Lake Upper Verde River 1,134 7,259 not know n Willow Creek Reservoir Upper Verde River 294 5,140 Willow Creek Dam Watson Lake Upper Verde River 152 5,163 Granite Creek Dam Willow Valley Lake Low er Verde River 141 6,780 Willow Valley Dam Unnamed Reservoir Upper Verde River 133 6,940 not know n Stoneman Lake Upper Verde River 128 6,839 not know n Davenport Lake Upper Verde River 118 6,940 not know n Stream Type • Peren n ial stream m ean s su rface water th at flows con tin u ou sly th rou gh ou t th e year. Th e Verde Watersh ed con tain s a total of 9,037 m iles of stream s. Th ere are th ree differen t stream types: peren n ial, in termitten t an d eph emeral (Table 2-5). • In termitten t stream mean s a stream or reach of a stream th at Verde Watersh ed Section 2 Ph ysical Featu res 2-3 flows con tin u ou sly on ly at certain tim es of th e year, as wh en it receives water from a season al sprin g or from an oth er sou rce, su ch as m eltin g sprin g sn ow. Figure 2-5: Verde Watershed Major Lakes and Stream s. • An eph emeral stream is at all times above th e grou n d water table, h as n o base flow, an d flows on ly in direct respon se to precipitation . Table 2-5: Verde Watershed Stream Types Length. Stream Type Intermittent Perennial Ephemeral Tot al Length Stream Length (miles) 9 578 8,450 9,037 Percent of Total Stream Length < 1% 6% 94% 100.00% Most of th e stream s in desert region s are in term itten t or eph em eral. Som e ch an n els are dry for years at a time, bu t are su bject to flash floodin g du rin g h igh -in ten sity storms (Gordon et al., 1992). Table 2-6 an d Figu re 2-5 sh ow th e m ajor lakes an d stream s in th e Verde Watersh ed. Table 2-6: Verde Watershed Major Stream s. Stream Name Verde River West Clear Creek Big Chino Wash Partridge Creek Oak Creek East Verde River Sycamore Creek Hell Canyon Granite Creek Sycamore Creek Nin ety five percen t of th e streams in th e Verde Watersh ed are eph emeral with a total len gth of 8,450 m iles. On ly 6% (578 m iles) of stream s are peren n ial, an d are mostly restricted to th e m ain stem of th e Verde River. Verde Watersh ed Subw atershed Upper Verde River - Low er Verde River Stream Length (miles) 229 Low er Verde River 65 Big Chino Wash 55 Big Chino Wash Upper Verde River 55 54 Low er Verde River 54 Upper Verde River Upper Verde River Upper Verde River 52 42 38 Low er Verde River 34 Section 2 Ph ysical Featu res 2-4 feet/acre. Th e Lower Verde River su bwatersh ed h as th e h igh est drain age den sity at 12.50 feet/acre. Th e Upper Verde River su bwatersh ed exh ibits th e lowest drain age den sity at 10.44 feet/acre. Figure 2-6: Verde Watershed Stream Types. Table 2-7: Verde Watershed Stream Density. Subw atershed Name Big Chino Wash H15060201 Upper Verde River H15060202 Low er Verde River H15060203 Verde Wat ershed Stream Density Th e den sity of ch an n els in th e lan dscape is a m easu re of th e dissection of th e terrain . Th e stream den sity is defin ed as th e len gth of all ch an n els in th e watersh ed divided by th e watersh ed area. Areas with h igh stream den sity are associated with h igh flood peaks an d h igh sedimen t produ ction , du e to in creased efficien cy in th e rou tin g of water from th e watersh ed. Sin ce th e ability to detect an d m ap stream s is a fu n ction of scale, stream den sities sh ou ld on ly be com pared at equ ivalen t scales (Du n n e an d Leopold, 1978). Area (acres) Stream Length (feet) Drainage Density (feet / acre) 1,378,127 14,667,877 10.64 1,600,421 16,701,989 10.44 1,259,722 15,747,478 12.50 4,238,269 47,117,344 11.12 Figure 2-7: Verde Watershed Stream Density. Figu re 2-7 sh ows stream den sity for th e Verde Watersh ed, an d Table 2-7 gives th e stream den sity for each su bwatersh ed in feet of stream len gth per acre. Th e average stream den sity for th e Verde Watersh ed is 11.12 Verde Watersh ed Section 2 Ph ysical Featu res 2-5 Annual Stream Flow Figure 2-8: Verde Watershed USGS Stream Gages. An n u al stream flows for twen ty th ree gages were calcu lated for th e Verde Watersh ed. Th ese gages were selected based on th eir location , len gth of date record, an d represen tativen ess of watersh ed respon se. Figu re 2-8 sh ows th e location s of th ese gages. Th e gage at Verde River below th e Bartlett Dam h ad th e h igh est measu red an n u al m ean stream flow with 662 cu bic feet per secon d (cfs). Table 2-8: Verde Watershed USGS Stream Gages. ID Daily flow Daily flow Annual Mean data begin data end Stream flow date date (cfs) Site Name A Williamson Valley Wash Near Paulden 3/26/1965 B Granite Creek at Prescott C Granite Creek Near Prescott D 9/30/2003 14.25 11/16/1994 9/30/2003 5.39 7/1/1932 9/30/2003 5.88 Verde River Near Paulden 7/17/1963 9/30/2003 42.45 E Verde River Near Clarkdale 6/18/1915 9/30/2003 176.84 F Oak Creek Near Sedona 10/1/1981 9/30/2003 86.17 G Oak Creek Near Cornville 7/1/1940 9/30/2003 87.49 H Wet Beaver Creek Near Rimrock 10/1/1961 9/30/2003 33.67 I Red Tank Draw Near Rimrock 4/15/1957 9/30/1978 6.44 J Montezuma Well Outlet Near Rimrock 4/1/1977 9/30/1992 2.17 K Rattlesnake Canyon Near Rimrock 6/9/1957 9/30/1980 7.96 L Dry Beaver Creek Near Rimrock 10/1/1960 9/30/2003 43.18 M West Clear Creek Near Camp Verde 12/5/1964 9/30/2003 63.33 N 4/1/1934 9/30/2003 413.75 O Verde River Near Camp Verde Fossil Creek Div. to Childs Pow er Plant, Near Camp Verde 1/1/1952 9/30/2003 42.23 P East Verde River Div. From East Clear Creek Near Pine 10/21/1965 9/30/2003 11.00 Q East Verde River Near Childs 9/1/1961 9/30/2003 64.45 Verde Watersh ed Section 2 Ph ysical Featu res 2-6 Daily flow Daily flow Annual Mean data begin data end Stream flow date date (cfs) ID Site Name R Wet Bottom Creek Near Childs 10/1/1967 9/30/2003 14.06 S Verde River Below Tangle Creek, Above Horseshoe Dam 8/22/1945 9/30/2003 566.00 T Verde River Below Bartlett Dam 1/1/1904 9/30/2003 662.62 U East Fork Sycamore Creek Near Sunflow er 10/1/1961 5/31/1986 0.94 V Sycamore Creek Near Fort McDow ell 10/1/1960 9/30/2003 27.05 W Verde River Near Scottsdale 2/13/1961 9/30/2003 621.02 Figure 2-9: USGS Gage 09504500 (Oak Creek Near Cornville) Hydrograph. 100000 10000 1000 100 10 2001 1999 1995 1992 1989 1987 1984 1981 1978 1976 1973 1970 1967 1965 1962 1959 1956 1954 1951 1948 1943 1 1940 Mean Daily Streamflow (cfs) Mean Daily Streamflow (cfs) for Gage 09504500 Year Figure 2-10: USGS Gage 09508500 (Verde River Below Tangle Creek, Above Horseshoe Dam ) Hydrograph. 1000000 100000 10000 1000 100 10 2002 2000 1997 1994 1991 1989 1986 1983 1980 1978 1975 1972 1970 1967 1964 1961 1959 1956 1953 1951 1948 1 1945 Mean Daily Streamflow (cfs) Mean Daily Streamflow (cfs) for Gage 09508500 Year Verde Watersh ed Section 2 Ph ysical Featu res 2-7 Figure 2-11: USGS Gage 09510000 (Verde River Below Bartlett Dam) Hydrograph. 100000 10000 1000 100 10 1993 1989 1985 1981 1978 1974 1970 1966 1962 1958 1954 1950 1946 1942 1939 1935 1931 1927 1923 1919 1915 1907 1 1904 Mean Daily Streamflow (cfs) Mean Daily Streamflow (cfs) for Gage 09510000 Year Figure 2-12: USGS Gage 09510000 (Verde River Below Bartlett Dam ) Five Year Moving Average Stream Flow (cfs). 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 19 04 19 09 19 18 19 23 19 28 19 33 19 38 19 43 19 48 19 53 19 58 19 63 19 68 19 73 19 78 19 83 19 88 19 93 19 98 Annual Mean Streamflow (cfs) USGS Gage 09510000 Five Year Moving Average Annual Mean Streamflow Year Verde Watersh ed Section 2 Ph ysical Featu res 2-8 • Figure 2-13: Verde Watershed 303d Stream s and Lakes • • Verde River from Bartlett Dam to Cam p Creek (selen iu m , copper); Wh iteh orse Lake (dissolved oxygen ); an d Watson Lake (n u trien ts, low dissolved oxygen , h igh pH). A reach of Oak Creek an d th e Verde River were listed as “Attain in g All Uses,” an d are th erefore n ot con sidered en viron men tally degraded. An explan ation of th e 303d listin g process is fou n d in Section 1, In trodu ction , an d a tabu lation of th e water qu ality attribu tes can be fou n d in Section 6, Watersh ed Assessm en t. An explan ation of th e 303d listin g process is fou n d in Section 1, In trodu ction , an d a tabu lation of th e water qu ality attribu tes can be fou n d in Section 6, Watersh ed Assessm en t. Water Quality Geology In th e Verde Watersh ed, eigh t stream reach es an d fou r lakes are assessed as im paired in 2004 (ADEQ, 2005): • • • • • • • Most of th e Verde River Watersh ed is located with in th e tran sition zon e between th e Basin an d Ran ge Ph ysiograph ic Provin ce to th e sou th an d sou th west an d th e Colorado Plateau to th e n orth an d n orth east. Th e u plan ds gen erally con sist of Precam brian in tru sive, volcan ic, an d m etam orph ic rocks overlain by Paleozoic sedimen tary layers an d capped by Cen ozoic volcan ic rocks. Scattered ou tcrops of Mesozoic rocks are fou n d above th e Paleozoic layers in th e u pper parts of th e Sycamore Creek an d Oak Creek su bwatersh eds Gran de Wash (E. coli bacteria); Gran ite Creek, from h eadwaters to Willow Creek (low dissolved oxygen ); East Verde River, from Ellison Creek to American Gu lch (selen iu m ); Oak Creek at Slide Rock (E. coli bacteria); Pecks Lake (low dissolved oxygen ); Ston eman Lake (n arrative n u trien ts); Verde River, th ree segm en ts between Oak Creek an d Fossil Creek (tu rbidity/su spen ded sedim en ts); Th e Big Ch in o Wash su bwatersh ed an d th e Verde River su bwatersh ed from Clarkdale to Camp Verde, exh ibit broad valleys an d are composed of late Cen ozoic basin fill Verde Watersh ed Section 2 Ph ysical Featu res 2-9 an d allu viu m u n derlain by Paleozoic sedimen tary rocks. Th e fill varies from fin e grain ed to coarse grain ed an d is greater th an 2,500 ft th ick in some parts of Ch in o Valley. Lacu strin e (lake) sedim en ts an d volcan ic rocks are in terbedded with th e basin fill. From th e Verde River h eadwaters to Clarkdale, th e river flows in a n arrow can yon in cised in to Paleozoic rocks th at con tain s little or n o allu viu m . Figure 2-14: Verde Watershed Geology. Th e predom in an t stru ctu ral featu res of th e watersh ed are n orth west- to n orth -tren din g n ormal fau lts th at in clu de th e Big Ch in o fau lt alon g th e n orth east margin of Ch in o Valley an d th e Verde fau lt zon e alon g th e sou th west side of th e Verde River Valley. Th ese Cen ozoic fau lts are th e primary in flu en ce on th e presen t-day topograph y in th e region . Th e Mormon Mou n tain an ticlin e n orth east of Sedon a h as a m axim u m dip of 4 degrees, bu t is n oteworth y becau se it form s a grou n d-water divide (adapted from Woodh ou se et. al., 2002). Figu re 2-14 sh ows th e geology of th e Verde Watersh ed. Table 2-9 lists th e geologic u n its by su bwatersh ed, an d Table 2-10 lists th e percen tage of each rock type. 0 Table 2-9: Verde Watershed Geology Geologic Unit SEDIMENTARY ROCKS (Mississippian to Cambrian) SEDIMENTARY ROCKS (Permian) SEDIMENTARY ROCKS (Permian and Pennsylvanian) SURFICIAL DEPOSITS (Holocene to middle Pleistocene) BASALTIC ROCKS (Holocene to late Pliocene: 0 to 4 Ma.) VOLCANIC ROCKS (Quaternary to late Pliocene) OLDER SURFICIAL DEPOSITS (middle Pleistocene to latest Pliocene) YOUNG ALLUVIUM (Holocene to latest Pleistocene) BASALTIC ROCKS (late to middle Miocene; 8 to 16 Ma.) BASALTIC ROCKS (Pliocene to late Miocene; 4 to 8 Ma.) MOENKOPI FORMATION (middle[?]and early Triassic) SEDIMENTARY ROCKS (middle Miocene to Oligocene; 15 to 38 Ma.) SEDIMENTARY ROCKS (Oligocene to Eocene or locally Paleocene) VOLCANIC AND SEDIMENTARY ROCKS (middle Miocene to Oligocene) SEDIMENTARY ROCKS (Pliocene to middle Miocene) VOLCANIC ROCKS (middle Miocene to Oligocene; 15 to 38 Ma.) VOLCANIC ROCKS (Pliocene to middle Miocene; 4 to 15 Ma.) GRANITOID ROCKS (early Proterozoic; 1400 Ma. or 1650 to 1750 Ma.) METAMORPHIC ROCKS (early Proterozoic; 1650 to 1800 Ma.) METASEDIMENTARY ROCKS (early Proterozoic; 1650 to 1800 Ma.) METAVOLCANIC ROCKS (early Proterozoic; 1650 to 1800 Ma.) QUARTZITE (early Proterozoic; 1700 Ma.) GRANITOID ROCKS (middle or early Proterozoic; 1400 Ma or 1650 to 1750 Ma.) GRANITOID ROCKS (middle Proterozoic; 1400 Ma.) Geologic Code Big Chino Wash H15060201 MC 13.58% 4.67% 6.19% 8.02% P 14.14% 8.35% 6.57% 9.70% PP 3.59% 10.73% 3.31% 6.20% Q 11.43% 0.41% 4.38% 5.17% QTb - 11.38% - 4.30% QTv 0.25% 0.51% - 0.27% Qo 7.16% 2.45% 3.00% 4.15% Qy 0.95% 0.01% 1.09% 0.64% Tb 2.02% 6.04% 26.50% 10.81% Tby 24.72% 30.33% 5.86% 21.23% TrM 0.28% - - 0.09% Tsm 0.68% 0.45% 2.66% 1.18% Tso 4.07% 0.76% 0.02% 1.62% Tsv - 0.09% - 0.03% Tsy 8.96% 18.49% 13.66% 13.95% Tv 1.17% 1.12% 0.16% 0.85% Tvy 0.41% 0.16% 0.97% 0.48% Xg 4.33% 2.90% 9.97% 5.47% Xm 0.00% - 1.08% 0.32% Xms - 0.05% 1.19% 0.37% Xmv 0.25% 0.78% 3.01% 1.27% Xq - 0.15% 1.65% 0.55% Yxg 0.20% - 0.32% 0.16% Yg 1.80% 0.19% 8.43% 3.16% 2,153 2,501 1,968 6,622 Area (square miles) 1 Upper Verde Low er Verde River River Verde H15050202 H15060203 Wat ershed Table 2-10: Verde Watershed Rock Types (percent by Subwatershed). Rock Type Alluvium Igneous Rocks Metamorphic Rocks Sedimentary Rocks Area (square miles) Geologic Code A I M S Big Chino Wash Upper Verde Low er Verde River River H15060201 H15050202 H15060203 19.54% 35.14% 45.32% 2,153 2.87% 53.48% 0.20% 43.44% 2,501 8.47% 55.21% 3.91% 32.41% 1,968 Verde Wat ershed 10% 48% 1% 41% 6,622 kn own to affect erodibility in clu de particle size distribu tion , organ ic m atter con ten t, soil stru ctu re, textu re, moistu re con ten t, vegetation cover, an d precipitation amou n t an d in ten sity. Soils Based on th e soil ch aracteristics for th e Verde Watersh ed two types of m aps were created: a soil textu re m ap (Figu re 2-15) an d a soil erodibility factor m ap (Figu re 2-16). Soil erodibility is gen erated from th e soil textu re ch aracteristics. Erosion cau sed by precipitation an d ru n n in g water an d th e factors affectin g soil loss h ave been su mmarized in th e Un iversal Soil Loss Equ ation (USLE) (Wisch m eier an d Smith , 1978). Th e USLE is a m odel for predictin g lon g-term average soil losses based in part on factors of slope an d erosive en ergy. With in th e equ ation , th e Soil Erodibility Factor (K), is estimated in th e u n its of mass/u n it area, an d is based on soil textu re, with a ran ge of valu es between 0.0 (n o erosion poten tial) to 1.0 (USDA, 1997). Table 2-12 sh ows th ese valu es for each su bwatersh ed. Th ere are 32 differen t soil textu res in th e Verde Watersh ed (Table 2-11). Clay loam is th e m ost prom in en t, coverin g 14% of th e watersh ed. Gravelly loam an d gravelly clay loam are th e n ext most common soil textu res, each coverin g approximately 12% of th e watersh ed. Soil erosion is a n atu rally occu rrin g process, h owever, accelerated erosion occu rs wh en soils are distu rbed by agricu ltu re, m in in g, con stru ction , or wh en n atu ral grou n d cover is removed an d th e soil is left u n protected. Erosion an d sedim en tation in stream s are m ajor en viron men tal problems in th e western Un ited States. Th e Big Ch in o Wash su bwatersh ed exh ibits th e h igh est weigh ted m ean for Soil Erodibility Factor, with K = 0.18. Th e Lower Verde River su bwatersh ed h as th e lowest weigh ted m ean for K at 0.13. Th e weigh ted mean K for th e wh ole Verde Watersh ed is 0.15. Soils differ in th eir su sceptibility to distu rban ce by water du e to differen t in h eren t ph ysical, ch emical an d m in eralogical properties. Properties 2 Table 2-11: Verde Watershed Soil Texture. Soil Texture clay cobbly loam cobbly sandy clay cobbly sandy clay loam very cobbly fine sandy loam very cobbly loam very cobbly sandy clay very cobbly sandy loam clay loam very channery fine sandy loam very channery loam very flaggy sandy loam fine sandy loam gravelly clay loam gravelly fine sandy loam gravelly loam gravelly sandy loam very gravelly clay loam very gravelly loam very gravelly sand very gravelly sandy clay loam very gravelly sandy loam extremely gravelly loamy sand extremely gravelly sandy loam loam sand sandy clay loam sandy loam stratified stony clay loam unweathered bedrock variable t ot al Big Chino Upper Verde Wash River H15060201 H15050202 1.09% 0.31% 0 3.38% 7.48% 2.18% 0.58% 0 1.16% 2.33% 6.57% 1.47% 3.97% 5.41% 0 0 9.34% 4.55% 0.05% 0.31% 2.53% 13.55% 0.78% 2.13% 0 0 26.05% 8.61% 2.21% 0 1.03% 27.60% 0.88% 5.60% 0 0 3.22% 0 0 1.08% 0.55% 0 0 0.16% 0 5.98% 1.22% 0 0.06% 0 0.80% 0 0 0 1.05% 2.60% 0 0 0.09% 2.85% 29.30% 2.20% 0.00% 7.74% 100% 100% 3 Low er Verde River H15060203 0.12% 1.25% 0 0 1.89% 0 1.37% 0 30.64% 0 9.94% 16.04% 1.12% 0 2.32% 4.59% 3.75% 3.92% 0 1.70% 0 0 1.88% 0 2.51% 0 0.72% 11.81% 0.01% 0 4.42% 0 100% Verde Wat ershed 0.51% 1.65% 3.26% 0.19% 1.82% 2.69% 3.74% 0.00% 13.86% 0.13% 8.89% 5.82% 0.33% 11.72% 1.41% 12.12% 3.52% 1.16% 1.05% 0.91% 0.18% 0.06% 2.82% 0.40% 0.76% 0.26% 0.21% 4.83% 0.00% 1.11% 11.67% 2.92% Table 2-12: Verde Watershed Soil Erodibility Factor K. Figure 2-15: Verde Watershed Soil Texture. Subw atershed Name Big Chino Wash H15060201 Upper Verde River H15060202 Low er Verde River H15060203 Verde Wat ershed Min K Max K Weighted Average K 0.00 0.31 0.18 0.00 0.31 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.13 0.15 Clim ate Precipitation For th e 30 years (1961-1990) of precipitation data u sed in th is report, th e average an n u al precipitation for th e Verde Watersh ed is 18.6 in ch es. Th e Upper Verde River an d Lower Verde River su bwatersh eds both receive more th an 20 in ch es of rain in th e average year, wh ile th e Big Ch in o Wash su bwatersh ed typically receives on ly 15 in ch es. Th e valley floor su rrou n din g th e Verde main ch an n el receives less rain th an th e su rrou n din g m ou n tain s. Figu re 2-17 sh ows th e distribu tion of precipitation over th e watersh ed, an d Table 2-13 sh ows th e average an n u al precipitation in in ch es per year. Figure 2-16: Verde Watershed Soil Erodibility Factor. Tem perature Six weath er station s in th e Verde Watersh ed are sh own in Figu re 2-18. Data from th ese location s were u sed for watersh ed modelin g (Table 2-14). Alth ou gh th ere are addition al weath er station s in th e watersh ed, th ese station s were selected for modelin g becau se of con sisten cy an d du ration of th e data. 4 Table 2-13: Verde Watershed Average Annual Precipitation (inches/year) For th e 30 years of temperatu re data, th e average an n u al temperatu re for th e Verde Watersh ed is 55.1° Fah ren h eit. Th e Lower Verde River su bwatersh ed h as th e h igh est an n u al average temperatu re (59.4°). Table 215 sh ows th e an n u al average temperatu res for each su bwatersh ed an d Figu re 2-19 is a m ap of th e tem peratu re ran ges. Subw atershed Name Min Big Chino Wash H15060201 11.00 Upper Verde River H15060202 11.00 Low er Verde River H15060203 9.00 Verde Wat ershed 9.00 Max Weighted Average 35.00 15.17 35.00 20.41 37.00 37.00 20.19 18.64 Table 2-14: Sum m ary of Tem perature Data for Six Tem perature Gages in the Verde Watershed. Annual Mean Max. Temperature (F) Annual Mean Min Temperature (F) Annual Mean Daily Temperature (oF) Ash Fork 6 N 71.5 36.6 54.1 Bartlett Dam 84.8 56.3 70.6 Jerome 70.1 49.1 59.6 Payson 72.6 38.9 55.8 Seligman 71.1 35.9 53.5 Walnut Creek 70.8 34.4 52.6 Gage Table 2-15: Verde Watershed Average Annual Tem perature (F). Subw atershed Big Chino Wash H15060201 Upper Verde River H15060202 Low er Verde River H15060203 Verd e Wat ershed Average Annual Temperature (oF) 52.1 53.9 59.4 55.1 5 Figure 2-19: Verde Watershed Annual Average Tem perature (oF). Figure 2-17: Verde Watershed Average Annual Precipitation (inches/year). Figure 2-18: Verde Watershed Weather Stations. 6 Referen ces: Arizon a Departmen t of En viron men tal Qu ality, ADEQ. 2005. Th e Statu s of Water Qu ality in Arizon a – 2004: Arizon a’s In tegrated 305(b) Assessm en t an d 303(d) Listin g Report, 1110 West Wash in gton Ave., Ph oen ix, Arizon a, 85007. EQR0501. h ttp://www.azdeq.gov/en viron /water/assessmen t/2004.h tml. Du n n e, T. an d L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in En viron m en tal Plan n in g. W.H. Freem an an d Com pan y, New York. Gordon , N.D., T.A. McMah on , an d B.L. Fin layson . 1992. Stream Hydrology; Ch apter 4 - Gettin g to kn ow you r stream. Joh n Wiley & Son s, New York, New York. USDA. 1997. Predictin g Soil Erosion by Water: A Gu ide to Con servation Plan n in g with th e Revised Un iversal Soil Loss Equ ation (RUSLE). Un ited States Departm en t of Agricu ltu re, Agricu ltu re Han dbook No. 703. USDA Wash in gton D.C. Wisch m eier, W.H., and D.D. Sm ith . 1978. Predictin g Rain fall-Erosion Losses. Agricu ltu ral Han dbook No. 537. USDA SEA Wash in gton , D.C. Woodh ou se, Betsy, M.E. Flyn n , J.T.C. Parker, an d J.P. Hoffm an n . 2002. In vestigation of th e Geology an d Hydrology of th e Upper an d Middle Verde River Watersh ed of Cen tral Arizon a: A Project of th e Arizon a Ru ral Watersh ed In itiative: U.S. Geological Su rvey Fact-Sh eet 059-02, 4p. Data Sou rces:* Arizon a State Lan d Departmen t, Arizon a Lan d Resou rce In form ation System (ALRIS), h ttp://www.lan d.state.az.u s/alris/in dex.h tm l Arizon a State Bou n dary map. Ju n e 12, 2003. Geology m ap. Febru ary 7, 2003. Lakes an d Reservoirs m ap. Febru ary 7, 2003. Stream s m ap. October, 10, 2002. U.S. Departmen t of Agricu ltu re, Natu ral Resou rces Con servation Service, h ttp://www.n cgc.n rcs.u sda.gov/produ cts/datasets/clim ate/data/ PRISM Precipitation Map. Febru ary 26, 2003. U.S. Departmen t of Agricu ltu re, Natu ral Resou rces Con servation Service, h ttp://www.n cgc.n rcs.u sda.gov/produ cts/datasets/statsgo/ State Soil Geograph ic Database (STATSGO) Soils m ap. April 17, 2003. 7 U.S. Departmen t of th e In terior, U.S. Geological Su rvey, Nation al Elevation Dataset (NED), h ttp://edc.u sgs.gov/geodata/ 30-Meter Digital Elevation Models (DEMs). April 8, 2003. Un iversity of Arizon a, Arizon a Electron ic Atlas. h ttp://atlas.library.arizon a.edu /atlas/in dex.jsp?th eme= Natu ralResou rces.Tem peratu re map. Febru ary 13, 2003. Western Region al Clim ate Cen ter (WRCC). h ttp://www.wrcc.dri.edu /su m m ary/clim sm az.h tm l, (1971-2000). Temperatu re data. Ju ly 15, 2004. *Note: Dates for each data set refer to when data was downloaded from the website. Metadata (inform ation about how and when the GIS data were created) is available from the website in m ost cases. Metadata includes the original source of the data, when it was created, it’s geographic projection and scale, the nam e(s) of the contact person and/or organiz ation, and general description of the data. 8 Section s u sin g th e Bailey’s classification , as sh own in Figu res 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3. Th e su bwatersh eds are iden tified u sin g th e USGS Hydrologic Un it Codes (HUC). Su bwatersh ed areas were delin eated on th e basis of th e eigh t-digit catalogin g HUC, an d th e classification s an d GIS m odelin g were con du cted on th e ten -digit HUC su bwatersh ed areas. Section 3: Biological Resources Ecoregion s Th e effects of latitu de, con tin en tal position , an d elevation , togeth er with oth er climatic factors, combin e to form th e world’s ecoclim atic zon es, wh ich are referred to as an ecosystem region or ecoregion . Ecoregion maps sh ow climatically determin ed ecological u n its. Th e essen tial featu re of a dry climate is th at an n u al losses of water th rou gh evaporation at th e earth ’s su rface exceed an n u al water gain from precipitation . Dry climates occu py on e-forth or m ore of th e earth ’s lan d su rface. Becau se macroclimates are amon g th e m ost sign ifican t factors affectin g th e distribu tion of life on earth , as th e macroclimate ch an ges, th e oth er com pon en ts of th e ecosystem ch an ge in respon se. Bailey’s Ecoregion classification (Bailey, 1976) provides a gen eral description of th e ecosystem geograph y of th e Un ited States. Figure 3-1: Verde Watershed Ecoregions - Divisions In Bailey’s classification system, th ere are fou r Dom ain grou ps. Th ree of th e grou ps are h u mid, th ermally differen tiated, an d are n amed polar, h u mid temperate an d h u mid tropical. Th e dry domain , wh ich is defin ed on th e basis of m oistu re alon e, is th e fou rth dom ain . Each dom ain is divided in to division s, wh ich are fu rth er su bdivided in to provin ces, on th e basis of m acrofeatu res of th e vegetation . Th is classification places all of th e Verde Watersh ed in to th e Dry Dom ain . Th ere are th ree differen t division s in th e watersh ed. Th e m ost promin en t division is th e Tropical/Su btropical Steppe Division , wh ich covers over 70% of th e watersh ed. Th e watersh ed can be fu rth er divided in to Provin ces an d Note: See Table 3-1 for su bwatersh ed n am es. Com m on ly, two division s of dry climates are recogn ized: th e arid desert an d th e sem i arid steppe. Gen erally, th e steppe is a tran sition al belt su rrou n din g th e desert an d Verde Watershed Section 3 Biological Resou rces 3-1 separatin g it from th e h u mid climates beyon d (Bailey 1995). Th e bou n dary between arid an d semi arid climates is arbitrary bu t is com m on ly defin ed as on e-h alf th e amou n t of precipitation separatin g steppe from h u mid climates (Bailey 1995). Steppes typically are grasslan ds of sh ort grasses an d oth er h erbs an d with locally developed sh ru b an d woodlan d. Soils are com m on ly Mollisols an d Aridisols con tain in g som e h u m u s. Figure 3-2: Verde Watershed Ecoregions – Provinces In desert areas xeroph ytic plan ts provide n egligible grou n d cover. In dry periods, visible vegetation is limited to small, h ard-leaved or spin y sh ru bs, cacti, or h ard grasses. Man y species of small an n u als may be presen t, bu t th ey appear on ly after th e rare bu t h eavy rain s h ave satu rated th e soil (Bailey, 1995). Soils in desert areas are m ostly Aridisols (dry, h igh in calciu m carbon ate, clays an d salts, n ot su itable for agricu ltu re with ou t irrigation ), an d dry En tisols (you n g, diverse, some su itable for agricu ltu re). Th e dom in an t pedogen ic (soil-form in g) process is salin ization wh ich produ ces areas of salt cru st wh ere on ly salt-lovin g plan ts can su rvive. Salin ization occu rs in areas wh ere evapotran spiration exceeds precipitation . Calcification , th e accu m u lation of calciu m carbon ate in soil su rface layers, is con spicu ou s on well drain ed u plan ds (Bailey, 1995). Figure 3-3: Verde Watershed Ecoregions – Sections Verde Watershed Section 3 Biological Resou rces 3-2 Table 3-1: Verde Watershed Ecoregions – Divisions Subw atershed Name & HUC Big Chino Wash H15060201 Upper Verde River H15060202 Low er Verde River H15060203 Area (square miles) Tropical/ Subtropical Desert Division Tropical/ Subtropical Regime Mountains Tropical/ Subtropical Steppe Division 2,153 -0- -0- 100.0% 2,501 -0- 52.9% 47.1% 1,968 4.4% 27.4% 68.2% Table 3-2: Verde Watershed Ecoregions – Provinces Subw atershed Name Big Chino Wash H15060201 Upper Verde River H15060202 Low er Verde River H15060203 Verd e Wat ershed Area (square miles) American SemiDesert and Desert Province Arizona-New Mexico Mountains Semi-Desert-Open Woodland-Coniferous ForestAlpine Meadow Province Colorado Plateau SemiDesert Province 2,153 -0- -0- 100.0% 2,501 -0- 52.9% 47.1% 1,968 6,622 4.4% 1.3% 27.4% 28.1% 68.2% 70.6% Table3-3: Verde Watershed Ecoregions – Sections Subw atershed Name Big Chino Wash H15060201 Upper Verde River H15060202 Low er Verde River H15060203 Verd e Wat ershed Area (square miles) Sonoran Grand Canyon Mojave Desert Lands Section Section Tonto Transition Section White MountainSan Francisco Peaks Section 2,153 2.5% -0- 97.5% -0- 2,501 -0- -0- 47.1% 52.9% 1,968 6,622 -00.8% 4.4% 1.3% 68.2% 69.8% 27.4% 28.1% Verde Watershed Section 3 Biological Resou rces 3-3 Vegetation Figure 3-4: Verde Watershed Brown, Lowe and Pace Vegetation Two differen t vegetation maps were created for th e Verde Watersh ed, on e based on biotic (vegetation ) com m u n ities (Figu re 3-4) an d th e oth er based on vegetative cover (Figu re 3-5). Th e first map is based on th e classification of biotic com m u n ities th at was pu blish ed by Brown , Lowe an d Pace (Brown et al., 1979). Th ese biotic zon es are gen eral categories in dicatin g wh ere vegetation com m u n ities wou ld m ost likely exist. Un der th is classification th ere are n in e differen t biotic com m u n ities in th e Verde Watersh ed. Great Basin Con ifer Woodlan d covers 40% of th e watersh ed. Petran Mon tan e Con ifer Forest an d Plain s & Great Basin Grasslan d each cover more th an 15% of th e watersh ed area. Table 3-4 sh ows th e percen tage of each biotic com m u n ity in each su bwatersh ed. Figure 3-5: Verde Watershed GAP Vegetation Th e secon d vegetation map was created based on th e GAP Vegetation cover wh ich sh ows vegetation com m u n ities or lan d cover (Halvorson et al., 2001). Based on th is m ap, twen ty-on e differen t vegetation cover types are fou n d with in th e watersh ed, in clu din g: u rban lan dscape, su rface water featu res, an d agricu ltu re. Great Basin Con ifer Woodlan d is th e most com m on vegetation type, coverin g 41% of th e watersh ed. Also prevalen t are Rocky Mou n tain Mon tan e Con ifer Forest (19%), Son oran Desertscru b (12%), Plain s Grasslan d (11%) an d Mogollon Ch aparral Scru blan d (10%). Table 3-5 lists th e distribu tion of vegetation cover types by su bwatersh ed. Verde Watershed Section 3 Biological Resou rces 3-4 Table 3-4: Verde Watershed - Brown, Lowe and Pace Biotic Com m unities Biotic Communities Alpine Tundras AZ Upland Sonoran Desertscrub Great Basin Conifer Woodland Great Basin Desertscrub Interior Chaparral Petran Montane Conifer Forest Petran Subalpine Conifer Forest Plains & Great Basin Grassland Semi-desert Grassland Area (square miles) Big Chino Upper Verde Wash River H15060201 H15060202 -0-0-02.01% 56.13% 38.47% 0.01% -01.36% 7.54% 2.04% 34.81% -00.05% 40.46% 8.15% -08.96% 2,153 2,501 Low er Verde River H15060203 -026.51% 24.53% -025.65% 15.46% -0-07.85% 1,968 Verde Wat ershed < 1% 9% 40% < 1% 11% 18% < 1% 16% 6% 6,622 Table 3-5: Verde Watershed - GAP Vegetation Vegetation Cover Agriculture Great Basin Conifer Woodland Great Basin Desertscrub Madrean Evergreen Forest Mogollon Chaparral Scrubland Mogollon Deciduous Sw ampforest Mohave Emergent Marshland Plains Grassland Playa Relict Conifer Forest Rocky Mountain Alpine Tundra Rocky Mountain Montane Conifer Forest Rocky Mountain Montane Grassland Rocky Mountain Subalpine Conifer Forest Scrub Grassland Sonoran Deciduous Sw amp and Riparian Scrub Sonoran Desertscrub Sonoran Interior Marshland Sonoran Riparian and Oasis Forest Urban Water Area (square miles) Big Chino Wash H15060201 0.29% 70.82% 0.00% 0.19% 1.38% -0-024.47% 0.02% -0-02.69% -0-0-0- Upper Verde River H15060202 0.48% 30.16% -00.79% 12.58% 0.19% 0.03% 9.24% 0.02% 0.54% 0.01% 34.94% 0.15% 0.05% 1.08% Low er Verde River H15060203 0.26% 23.24% -00.00% 18.72% 0.46% -01.14% 0.01% 0.30% -018.37% -0-01.14% Verde Wat ershed < 1% 41% < 1% < 1% 11% < 1% < 1% 12% < 1% < 1% < 1% 20% < 1% < 1% < 1% -00.05% -0-00.05% 0.04% 2,153 0.03% 5.84% -00.07% 3.58% 0.21% 2,501 0.10% 34.32% 0.00% 0.21% 1.51% 0.21% 1,968 < 1% 12% < 1% < 1% 2% < 1% 6,622 Verde Watershed Section 3 Biological Resou rces 3-5 Habitats (Riparian an d Wetlan d Areas) Major Lan d Resou rce Areas (MLRA’s) Th ere are fou r differen t MLRA’s in th e Verde Watersh ed. Th e domin an t MLRA is Arizon a an d New Mexico Mou n tain s. Th is area comprises over 49% of th e total watersh ed area (Figu re 3-7 an d Table 3-7). Th e Arizon a Game & Fish Departmen t h as iden tified riparian vegetation associated with peren n ial waters an d h as m apped th e data in respon se to th e requ iremen ts of th e state Riparian Protection Program . Th is m ap was u sed to iden tify riparian areas in th e Verde Watersh ed (Figu re 3-6). Th ere are eleven differen t types of riparian areas with in th e watersh ed (Table 3-6) en com passin g almost fou rteen th ou san d acres. Mixed Broadleaf an d Mesqu ite are th e largest types of riparian areas, each comprisin g over th ree th ou san d acres. Table 3-6 lists th e percen tage of each riparian area type with in each su bwatersh ed. Figure 3-7: Verde Watershed Major Land Resource Areas. Figure 3-6: Verde Watershed Riparian and Wetland Areas Verde Watershed Section 3 Biological Resou rces 3-6 Table 3-6: Verde Watershed Riparian and Wetland Areas (acres) Vegetation Community Cottonw ood Willow Mesquite Tamarisk Strand Flood Scoured Wet Meadow Conifer Oak Mountain Shrub Mixed Broadleaf Agriculture Areas not ground verified Tot al Riparian Acres Big Chino Wash H15060201 -0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0- Upper Verde River H15060202 375 909 9 426 495 12 129 -03,024 47 163 5,587 Low er Verde River H15060203 692 2,323 59 536 410 -02,392 39 1,782 4 84 8,321 Verde Wat ershed 1,066 3,232 67 961 905 12 2,521 39 4,806 51 247 13,908 Table 3-7: Verde Watershed Major Land Resource Areas. Major Land Resource Areas Arizona Interior Chaparral Arizona and New Mexico Mountains Colorado and Green River Plateaus Sonoran Basin and Range Area (square miles) Big Chino Upper Verde Wash River H15060201 H15060202 19.63% 8.38% 35.95% 74.10% 44.42% 7.95% -09.57% 2,153 2,501 Low er Verde River H15060203 39.88% 32.73% -027.39% 1,968 Verde Wat ershed 21% 49% 17% 12% 6,622 Referen ces: Bailey, R.G. 1976. “Ecoregion s of the Un ited States” m ap, Au g. 17, 2001, u n n u mbered pu blication . In termou n tain Region , USDA Forest Service, Ogden , Utah , from h ttp://www.fs.fed.u s/lan d/ecosysm gm t/ecoreg1_h om e.h tm l Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of th e Ecoregion s of th e Un ited States, Au g. 17, 2001. U.S. Forest Service, USDA. h ttp://www.fs.fed.u s/lan d/ecosysm gm t/ecoreg1_h om e.h tm l Bailey, R.G. 1996. Ecosystem Geograph y. Sprin ger-Verlag. New York. 204 p. Verde Watershed Section 3 Biological Resou rces 3-7 Bailey, R.G. 2002. Ecoregion -Based Design for Su stain ability. Sprin ger-Verlag. New York. 222 p. Brown , D.E., C.H. Lowe, an d C.P. Pace. 1979. A digitized classification system for th e biotic comm u n ities of North America, with commu n ity (series) an d association examples for th e Sou th west, J. Arizon a-Nevada Acad. Sci., 14 (Su ppl. 1), 1–16, 1979 Data Sou rces:* Arizon a State Lan d Departmen t, Arizon a Lan d Resou rce In form ation System (ALRIS), h ttp://www.lan d.state.az.u s/alris/alrish om e.h tm l Habitats (Riparian & Wetlan d Areas). Ju n e 12, 2003. In terior Colu mbian Basin Ecosystem Man agemen t Project. h ttp://www.icbem p.gov/spatial/ph ys/ Bailey’s Ecoregion s - Division s m ap. Ju n e 12, 2003. Bailey’s Ecoregion s - Provin ces m ap. Ju n e 12, 2003. Bailey’s Ecoregion s - Section s m ap. Ju n e 12, 2003 Sou th ern Arizon a Data Services Program, Un iversity of Arizon a. Pu blish ed by th e USGS Son oran Desert Field Station , Un iversity of Arizon a. h ttp://sdrsn et.srn r.arizon a.edu /in dex.ph p Arizon a Gap An alysis Project Vegetation Map. April, 11 2003. Brown , Lowe an d Pace Biotic Com m u n ities m ap. Ju n e 12, 2003. Th is dataset was digitized by th e Arizon a Gam e an d Fish Departm en t, Habitat Bran ch from th e Au gu st 1980 David E. Brown & Ch arles H. Lowe 1:1,000,000 scale, 'Biotic Com m u n ities of th e Sou th west'. h ttp://sdfsn et.srn r.arizon a.edu /in dex.ph p U.S. Departmen t of Agricu ltu re, Natural Resou rces Con servation Service. ftp-fc.sc.egov.u sda.gov/NHQ/pu b/lan d/arc_export/u s48m lra.e00.zip Major Lan d Resou rce Area Map. Ju ly 15, 2003. *Note: Dates for each data set refer to when data was downloaded from the website. Metadata (inform ation about how and when the GIS data were created) is available from the website in m ost cases. Metadata includes the original source of the data, when it was created, it’s geographic projection and scale, the nam e(s) of the contact person and/or organiz ation, and general description of the data. Verde Watershed Section 3 Biological Resou rces 3-8 Section 4: Social/Economic Characteristics Cou n cil of Govern m en ts (COGs) Cou n ty Govern men ts Th ree Cou n cils of Govern men ts are presen t in th e Verde Watersh ed (figu re 4-2). Th ese are th e North ern Arizon a Cou n cil of Govern m en ts (NACOG), th e Cen tral Arizon a Association of Govern m en ts (CAAG), an d th e Maricopa Association of Govern m en ts (MAG). NACOG covers over 84% of th e watersh ed in clu din g all of th e Big Ch in o Wash an d Lower Verde River su bwatersh eds. Un derstan din g wh ich govern men tal en tities occu py th e lan d in a given watersh ed h elps a partn ersh ip u n derstan d th e sign ifican ce of each stakeh olders in flu en ce on th e watersh ed. Th e Verde Watersh ed is com prised of fou r Cou n ties: Cocon in o, Gila, Maricopa, an d Yavapai. Yavapai an d Cocon ino cover th e bu lk of th e watersh ed with 50% an d 34% of th e total area respectively. Th e cou n ty bou n dary map (Figu re 41) illu strates wh ich cou n ties are with in th e watersh ed. Figure 4-2: Verde Watershed Council of Governm ents. Figure 4-1: Verde Watershed Counties. Note: See Table 4-1 for su bwatersh ed n am es. Verde Watersh ed Section 4 Social/Econ omic Ch aracteristics 4-1 Table 4-1: Verde Watershed Counties County Coconino Gila Maricopa Yavapai Area (square miles) Big Chino Wash H15060201 42.12% 57.88% 2,153 Upper Verde River H15060202 43.45% 56.55% 2,501 Low er Verde River H15060203 13.10% 22.51% 31.88% 32.51% 1,968 Verde Wat ershed 34% 7% 9% 50% 6,622 Table 4-2: Verde Watershed Council of Governm ents Council of Governments CAAG MAG NACOG Area (square miles) Big Chino Wash H15060201 100.00% 2,153 Upper Verde River H15060202 100.00% 2,501 Urban Areas Low er Verde River H15060203 22.51% 31.88% 45.61% 1,968 Verde Wat ershed 7% 9% 84% 6,622 Figure 4-3: Verde Watershed Urban Areas (1,000 persons/square m ile). A popu lation den sity map was created for th e Verde Watersh ed based on 2000 Cen su s block grou p popu lation data. From th is map, areas with a popu lation den sity greater th an 1,000 person s per squ are mile were design ated as u rban . Th is classification yielded several u rban areas with in th e Upper Verde River an d Lower Verde River su bwatersh eds. Th e largest u rban areas are Sedon a, Prescott an d part of Scottsdale. Th e Big Ch in o Wash su bwatersh ed did n ot con tain an y u rban areas u n der th is classification . Verde Watersh ed Section 4 Social/Econ omic Ch aracteristics 4-2 Roads Table 4-4: Verde Watershed Roads By Subwatershed. Th e total road len gth in th e Verde Watersh ed is 1,186 m iles, represen tin g approximately 7% of all roads in Arizon a (Table 4-4). Th e predomin an t road type based on th e Cen su s classification is n eigh borh oods roads with alm ost 47% of th e total roads (Table 4-3). Th e Upper Verde River su bwatersh ed h as alm ost h alf of th e roads in th e watersh ed (Figu re 4-4). Subw atershed Big Chino Wash H15060201 Upper Verde River H15060202 Low er Verde River H15060203 Verd e Wat ershed Road Length (miles) Percent of Total Length 323 27% 558 47% 305 1186 26% 100.00% Popu lation Figure 4-4: Verde Watershed Road Types. Census Population Densities in 1990 Cen su s block statistics for 1990 were com piled from th e Cen su s 1990 CD (Geo-Lytics, 1998). Th ese data (Table 4-5) were lin ked with cen su s block cen troids, an d u sed to create a den sity map (Figu re 4-5) wh ich sh ows th e n u mber of in dividu als per acre. Table 4-5: Verde Watershed 1990 Population Density (persons / acre). Subw atershed Big Chino Wash H15060201 Upper Verde River H15060202 Low er Verde River H15060203 Verde Wat ershed Table 4-3: Verde Watershed Road Types. Census Classification Code Road Primary Road Secondary Road Connecting Road Neighborhood Road All Road s (t ot al) Road Length (miles) 109 129 307 81 561 1186 Percent of Total Length 9% 11% 26% 7% 47% 100.00% Verde Watersh ed Area (square miles) Min 2,153 0.000 0.533 0.002 2,501 0.000 4.951 0.051 1,968 0.000 3.177 0.022 6,622 0.000 4.951 0.027 Max Mean Section 4 Social/Econ omic Ch aracteristics 4-3 Figure 4-5: Verde Watershed 1990 Population Density. Figure 4-6: Verde Watershed 2000 Population Density. Census Population Densities in 2000 Population Change Th e cen su s block statistics sh apefile an d table were down loaded from th e ESRI website (ESRI Data Produ cts, 2003), an d a den sity m ap was created (Figu re 4-6). Th e 1990 an d 2000 popu lation den sity m aps were differen ced to create a popu lation den sity ch an ge m ap (Figu re 4-7) th at sh ows popu lation in crease or decrease over th e ten year tim e fram e. Table 4-7 lists th e person s per acre ch an ge for each su bwatersh ed. Table 4-6: Verde Watershed Population Density 2000 (persons / acre). Subw atershed Big Chino Wash H15060201 Upper Verde River H15060202 Low er Verde River H15060203 Verde Wat ershed Area (sq. miles) Min Max Mean 2,153 0.000 0.752 0.005 2,501 0.000 5.080 0.074 1,968 0.000 4.881 0.039 6,622 0.000 5.080 0.041 Table 4-7: Verde Watershed Population Density Change 1990-2000 (persons / acre). Subw atershed Big Chino Wash H15060201 Upper Verde River H15060202 Low er Verde River H15060203 Verd e Wat ershed Verde Watersh ed Area (sq. miles) Min Max Mean 2,153 -0.382 0.671 0.003 2,501 -0.440 1.876 0.023 1,968 -0.949 2.334 0.017 6,622 -0.949 2.334 0.014 Section 4 Social/Econ omic Ch aracteristics 4-4 Figure 4-7: Verde Watershed Population Density Change 1990-2000. Figure 4-8: Verde Watershed Mines: Type. Min es Figure 4-9: Verde Watershed Mines: Status. Th ere are 585 min es in th e Verde Watersh ed, represen tin g seven differen t m in e types (Table 4-8 an d Figu re 4-8). Th e bu lk of th e m in es (99%) are su rface min es, alth ou gh most are n o lon ger produ cin g (Figu re 4-9). Copper an d gold are th e most com m on ores min ed in th e Verde Watersh ed (Table 4-10 an d Figu re 410), an d are fou n d in 214 location s. Verde Watersh ed Section 4 Social/Econ omic Ch aracteristics 4-5 Figure 4-10: Verde Watershed Mines: Prim ary Ore. Table 4-8: Verde Watershed Mines: Type. Type Mineral Loc. Placer Processing Plant Prospect Surface / Underground Surface Underground Unknow n Tot al Mines Big Chino Wash 5 1 5 4 99 3 7 124 Upper Verde Low er Verde River River 2 3 3 3 3 1 41 25 13 17 151 41 68 26 45 19 326 135 Verde Watersh ed Verde Wat ershed 10 7 4 71 34 291 97 71 585 Section 4 Social/Econ omic Ch aracteristics 4-6 Table 4-9: Verde Watershed Mines: Status. Status Developed Prospect Explored Prospect Past Producer Producer Raw Prospect Other Unknow n Tot al Mines Big Chino Upper Verde Low er Verde Wash River River H15060201 H15060202 H15060203 2 15 9 8 43 34 5 63 36 5 16 4 1 2 10 1 103 186 42 124 326 135 Verde Wat ershed 26 85 104 25 13 1 331 585 Table 4-10: Verde Watershed Mines: Ore Type Ore Type Copper Gold Sand & Gravel Pumice Silver Stone Lead Iron Mercury Gypsum Manganese Uranium Clay Zinc Calcium Fluorine Molybdenum Sodium Tungsten Feldspar Total Number of Mines 109 105 60 57 57 20 19 17 11 9 8 8 7 6 5 4 4 4 4 3 Ore Type Silicon Mica Quartz Crystal Vanadium Barium Beryllium Coal Diatomite Gemstone Geothermal Graphite Kyanite Group Magnesium Nickel Perlite Phosphate Platinum Group Thorium Tin Zeolites Lan d Cover Total Number of Mines 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 with in th e Verde watersh ed (Figu re 411). Sh ru blan d an d evergreen forest domin ate th e lan d cover in th e Verde Watersh ed, at 51% and 41% of th e watersh ed area respectively (Table 411). Th e lan d cover con dition in th e early 1990’s was determ in ed u sin g th e Nation al Lan d Cover Dataset (NLCD). Th e NLCD classification con tain s 21 differen t lan d cover categories from wh ich 20 classes are represen ted Verde Watersh ed Section 4 Social/Econ omic Ch aracteristics 4-7 Figure 4-11: Verde Watershed Land Cover. Table 4-11: Verde Watershed Land Cover. Land Cover Open Water Low Intensity Residential High Intensity Residential Commercial/Industrial/Transportation Bare Rock/Sand/Clay Quarries/Strip Mines/Gravel Pits Transitional Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest Shrubland Orchards/Vineyards/Other Grasslands/Herbaceous Pasture/Hay Row Crops Small Grains Fallow Urban/Recreational Grasses Upper Low er Verde Verde Big Chino Wash River River Verde H15060201 H15060202 H15060203 Wat ershed 0.010% 0.078% 0.493% < 1% 0.011% 0.478% 0.168% < 1% 0.000% < 1% 0.099% 0.226% 0.149% < 1% 1.068% 0.059% 0.348% < 1% 0.042% 0.149% 0.048% < 1% 0.097% < 1% 0.197% 0.184% 0.724% < 1% 32.406% 50.291% 38.358% 41% 0.076% 2.604% 0.177% 1% 56.506% 40.963% 56.533% 51% 0.000% 0.007% < 1% 9.288% 4.440% 2.479% 5% 0.127% 0.305% 0.138% < 1% 0.152% 0.073% 0.136% < 1% 0.008% 0.005% 0.012% < 1% 0.000% < 1% 0.000% 0.092% 0.063% < 1% Verde Watersh ed Section 4 Social/Econ omic Ch aracteristics 4-8 Upper Low er Verde Verde Big Chino Wash River River Verde H15060201 H15060202 H15060203 Wat ershed 0.007% 0.007% 0.077% < 1% 0.001% 0.040% 0.000% < 1% 2,153 2,501 1,968 6,622 Land Cover Woody Wetlands Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands Area (square miles) Table 4-12: Verde Watershed Land Ownership Land Ow ner Private State Trust BLM Prescott N.F. Military Reservation Parks & Recreation Kaibab N.F. Tonto N.F. Coconino N.F. Salt River Indian Reservation Fort McDow ell Indian Reservation Hualapai Indian Reservation Yavapai Prescott Indian Res. Navajo Army Depot Tuzigoot N.M. Montezuma Castle Montezuma Well Game and Fish County Land Indian Allotments Yavapai Tonto Apache Res. Yavapai Apache Indian Res. Upper Verde Big Chino Low er Wash River Verde River H15060201 H15060202 H15060203 50.39% 14.92% 4.68% 20.94% 5.67% 0.71% 0.05% 15.99% 22.00% 3.39% 0.04% 1.67% 8.24% 15.80% 63.97% 39.57% 23.27% 0.25% 1.97% 4.44% 0.09% 1.62% 0.00% 0.04% 0.02% 0.01% 0.02% 0.08% 0.01% 0.00% 0.15% 0.00% Lan d Own ersh ip Verde Wat ershed 23% 9% < 1% 15% < 1% < 1% 9% 19% 22% < 1% < 1% 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% Ton to Nation al Forests, th e Nation al Forest Service h olds over 56% of th e lan d in th e watersh ed (Figu re 4-12). In th e Verde Watersh ed th ere are 22 differen t lan d own ersh ip en tities (Table 4-12). Private lan d own ers m ake u p th e largest category at 23%. Between th e Cocon in o, Prescott, an d Verde Watersh ed Section 4 Social/Econ omic Ch aracteristics 4-9 Figure 4-12: Verde Watershed Land Ownership. Figure 4-13: Verde Watershed Preserves Special Areas Golf Courses Preserves Based on data from th e ESRI GIS data disks (ESRI Data an d Maps, 2001), th ere are fou r golf cou rses in th e Verde Watersh ed. Th ere are two each in th e Upper Verde River an d Lower Verde River su bwatersh eds (Figu re 414). Based on data from th e Arizon a Lan d Resou rce In formation System (ALRIS, 2003), th ere are alm ost 400,000 acres of preserves with in th e Verde Watersh ed. Most of th e preserve lan ds are in th e Upper Verde River an d Lower Verde River su bwatersh eds (Figu re 4-13 an d Table 4-13). Wilderness Th ere are 16 wildern ess areas with in th e Verde Watersh ed (Table 4-14 an d Figu re 4-15). Th e total area of th ese wildern ess areas is 454,316 acres. Th e largest wildern ess area in th e watersh ed is th e Mazatzal Wildern ess, wh ich covers approximately 232,937 acres. Table 4-13: Verde Watershed Preserves Subw atershed Big Chino Wash Upper Verde River Low er Verde River Verd e Wat ershed Area (square miles) 2,153 2,501 1,968 6,622 Preserve Area (acres) 30,043 261,695 146,016 395,169 Verde Watersh ed Section 4 Social/Econ omic Ch aracteristics 4-10 Figure 4-14: Verde Watershed Golf Courses Table 4-14: Verde Watershed Wilderness Areas (acres) Wilderness Area Apache Creek Cedar Bench Fossil Creek Four Peaks Granite Mtn. Juniper Mesa Kachina Peaks Mazatzal Munds Mtn. Pine Mtn. Red Rock - Secret Mtn. Sycamore Canyon Verde River Wild & Scenic West Clear Creek Wet Beaver Woodchute Tot al Wild erness Areas Big Chino Wash H15060201 5,437 9,450 7,523 22,410 Verde Watersh ed Upper Verde Low er Verde River River H15060202 H15060203 15,973 10,400 3,314 1,737 232,937 18,069 11,318 48,263 57,916 4,981 15,267 6,178 5,553 137,716 294,190 Verde Wat ershed 5,437 15,973 10,400 3,314 9,450 7,523 1,737 232,937 18,069 11,318 48,263 57,916 4,981 15,267 6,178 5,553 454,316 Section 4 Social/Econ omic Ch aracteristics 4-11 Figure 4-15: Verde Watershed Wilderness Areas Referen ces: GeoLytics, In c. 1998. Cen su s 1990. Cen su s CD + Maps. Release 3.0. Data Sou rces:* Arizon a State Lan d Departmen t, Arizon a Lan d Resou rce In form ation System (ALRIS), h ttp://www.lan d.state.az.u s/alris/in dex.h tm l Cou n ty Govern m en ts. Ju n e 6, 2003. Cou n cil of Govern m en ts. Ju n e 6, 2003 Lan d own ersh ip. Febru ary 7, 2002. Min es. Febru ary 7, 2002. Preserve Areas. Ju ly 31, 2003. Wildern ess Areas. Ju n e 9, 2003. ESRI Data Produ cts, h ttp://arcdata.esri.com /data/tiger2000/tiger_down load.cfm Cen su s 2000. October 17, 2003. ESRI Data an d Maps. 2001. 7 CD set: CD 3, n o.85913. Golf Cou rses. 2003 Verde Watersh ed Section 4 Social/Econ omic Ch aracteristics 4-12 Sou th ern Arizon a Data Services Program, Un iversity of Arizon a. Pu blish ed by th e U.S. Geological Su rvey, Son oran Desert Field Station , Un iversity of Arizon a. h ttp://sdrsn et.srn r.arizon a.edu /in dex.ph p Roads. Febru ary 17, 2003. U.S. Cen sus Bu reau . h ttp://www.cen su s.gov/geo/www/cob/u a2000.h tm l Urban Areas 2000. Ju ly 22, 2003. U.S. Departmen t of th e In terior, U.S. Geological Su rvey, h ttp://lan dcover.u sgs.gov/n atllan dcover.asp Lan du se. Ju ly 21, 2003. *Note: Dates for each data set refer to when data was downloaded from the website. Metadata (inform ation about how and when the GIS data were created) is available from the website in m ost cases. Metadata includes the original source of the data, when it was created, it’s geographic projection and scale, the nam e(s) of the contact person and/or organiz ation, and a gen eral description of the data. Verde Watersh ed Section 4 Social/Econ omic Ch aracteristics 4-13 Lower Verde River NRA Section 5: Important Resources Th e Lower Verde River NRA (LVRNRA) in clu des five 10-digit HUC watersh eds: West Clear Creek, East Verde River, Fossil Creek-Lower Verde River, Tan gle Creek-Lower Verde River, an d Lower Verde River-Horsesh oe. Th e NRA is on e of th e m ost sign ifican t n atu ral resou rce areas in Arizon a, con tain in g a design ated Wild an d Scen ic River, five wildern ess areas, exten sive riparian forests, im portan t recreation areas, an d critical wildlife h abitat. Man y of th e importan t resou rce valu es in th e LVR-NRA are water depen den t. Th e Verde Watersh ed h as exten sive an d im portan t n atu ral resou rces with n ation al, region al an d local sign ifican ce. Th e Verde Watersh ed con tain s critical riparian h abitat for several rare an d en dan gered species, in clu din g th e Mexican Spotted Owl (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 20 0 4). It also con tain s importan t recreation al resou rces su ch as exten sive wildern ess areas with h ikin g, bird watch in g an d fish in g opportu n ities. Based on ou r an alysis of th e combin ation of n atu ral resou rce valu es, five Natu ral Resou rces Areas (NRAs) h ave been iden tified for protection . Factors th at were considered in delin eatin g th ese Natu ral Resou rce Areas in clu de: legal statu s (Un iqu e Waters, critical h abitat for threatened and endangered species, an d wildern ess), th e presen ce of peren n ial waters an d riparian areas, recreation al resou rces, an d local valu es. Th e segmen t of th e Verde River classified as a Wild & Scen ic River ru n s for 40 m iles from T13N, R5E, Section s 26 an d 27, to th e con flu en ce of th e Verde River with Red Creek. Most of th is len gth falls with in th e Mazatzal Wildern ess Area. Th is section of th e Verde was design ated a Wild an d Scen ic River u n der th e Wild an d Scen ic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542) in 1981 after an En viron men tal Impact Statemen t fou n d th at it con tain ed ou tstan din gly rem arkable scen ic, fish an d wildlife, an d h istoric an d cu ltu ral valu es. It is Arizon a’s on ly Wild & Scen ic River an d covers 12,500 acres. Th is area h as som e of Arizon a’s m ost importan t riparian forests. Th ese riparian vegetation commu n ities serve as a h aven to m an y types of birds. Eigh t n ative fish species are fou n d h ere in clu din g th e th reaten ed an d en dan gered Razorback Su cker. Th is section of th e Verde also provides excellen t boatin g opportu n ities. The five identified Natural Resource Areas (Figure 5-1) are: Lower Verde River Upper Verde River Mesqu ite Wash -Sycam ore Creek Lower Big Ch in o Wash Cam p Creek-Lower Verde River Th e NRA's h ave been categorized with in th e 10-digit HUC watersh ed area wh ere th ey are located, an d th e sign ifican ce of each area is discu ssed below. All bu t th e eastern tip of th e 252,500 acre Mazatzal Wildern ess falls in side Verde Watershed Section 5 Important Resources 5-1 th e LVR-NRA. Th is wildern ess area is part of both th e Ton to an d Cocon in o Nation al Forests. Th e eastern side of Mazatzal is main ly bru sh an d pin e covered mou n tain s with vertical walled can yon s. Th e west side is comprised of steep bru sh covered footh ills an d th e Verde River Valley. Verde Watershed Section 5 Important Resources 5-2 Figure 5-1: Natural Resource Areas in the Verde River Watershed. Verde Watershed Section 5 Important Resources 5-3 Th e West Clear Creek Wildern ess is located 52 miles sou th of Flagstaff an d 12 m iles east of Cam p Verde an d is qu ite rem ote. It is 15,000 acres in size an d falls with in th e Cocon in o Nation al Forest. Th is area provides excellen t swimmin g opportu n ities in th e man y pools alon g West Clear Creek. Fish in g an d h ikin g opportu n ities are also abu n dan t. Lower Verde River NRA Protection Needs Based on Arizon a’s 303(d) List of Impaired Waters (ADEQ, 2005), m u ch of th e LVR-NRA is at h igh risk for m etals an d sedim en t. Livestock grazin g, an importan t lan d u se in th e LVR-NRA, can resu lt in im pacts to riparian areas wh ere livestock graze. In creasin g developm en t in th e cities of Camp Verde an d Payson can also resu lt in water qu ality impacts. Th e Cedar Ben ch Wildern ess is located alon g th e Verde Rim on th e dividin g lin e of th e Verde an d Agu a Fria Watersh eds. It covers 16,000 acres an d is with in th e Prescott Nation al Forest. Th e Verde Wild an d Scen ic River forms part of th e eastern bou n dary of th is wildern ess. Th e primary vegetation types are ch aparral, pin yon pin e an d Utah Ju n iper. Th is area offers man y h ikin g option s. Most of th e resou rce valu es in th e Lower Verde River NRA depen d on th e protection an d restoration of th e Lower Verde River riparian forest. Th e riparian forest provides critical h abitat for several protected wildlife species, as well as recreation opportu n ities, as discu ssed above. It is importan t to n ote th at five Forest Service wildern esses con tain a portion of th e Lower Verde River an d th at th e riparian forest an d river are importan t compon en ts of th e wildern ess experien ce. Th e Fossil Creek Wildern ess is with in th e Prescott Nation al Forest an d covers 10,400 acres. Th is wildern ess area offers sign ifican t h ikin g an d fish in g opportu n ities. Water qu ality mon itorin g sh ou ld be expan ded, especially wh ere peren n ial water occu rs, an d appropriate Best Man agem en t Practices sh ou ld be implemen ted to main tain water qu ality. Special atten tion sh ou ld be given to protectin g th e riparian areas an d critical h abitat. Th e Pin e Mou n tain Wildern ess rests on th e western border of th e watersh ed, with h alf of its 20,000 acres in th e LVRNRA. It is man aged by th e Ton to an d Prescott Nation al Forests. Th e portion in th e Verde Watersh ed con sists of steep ch aparral covered slopes leadin g down to th e Verde River. Based on th e watersh ed classification resu lts, th is area sh ou ld be mon itored especially for sedimen t, metals, selen iu m an d organ ics con stitu en ts (See section 6). To address th e protection n eeds of th e LVR-NRA, n on poin t sou rce pollu tan t m an agem en t measu res sh ou ld be taken to con trol all th e con stitu en ts. In addition to wildern ess areas, th e LVR-NRA con tain s mu ch importan t riparian vegetation an d critical h abitat for th e th reaten ed an d en dan gered Razorback Su cker, Son oran Ch u b, an d Mexican Spotted Owl. Verde Watershed Section 5 Important Resources 5-4 offers ample h ikin g, wildlife watch in g an d h orseback ridin g. Upper Verde River NRA Th e Upper Verde River NRA (UVRNRA) is m ade u p of seven 10-digit HUC watersh eds: Beaver Creek, Ch erry Creek-Upper Verde River, Grin dston e Wash -Upper Verde River, Hell Can yon , Oak Creek, Gran ite Creek-Upper Verde River, an d Sycamore Creek. Th e UVR con tain s Oak Creek, a Un iqu e Water. It also h as five wildern ess areas and critical h abitat for th ree th reaten ed an d en dan gered species: Gila Ch u b, Razorback Su cker, an d th e Mexican Spotted Owl. Woodch u te Wildern ess covers 5,500 acres of th e Cocon in o Nation al Forest an d offers h ikin g opportu n ities th rou gh red rock formation s. Wet Beaver Creek Wildern ess is located 43 m iles sou th of Flagstaff an d covers 6,200 acres of th e Cocon in o Nation al Forest. Th is wildern ess affords h ikin g, fish in g, campin g an d wildlife viewin g opportu n ities. Upper Verde River NRA Protection Needs Sycam ore Can yon Wildern ess covers 56,000 acres an d is part of th e Prescott Nation al Forest. Th is can yon en viron men t cu ts th rou gh th e Mogollon Rim wh ere win d an d water h ave exposed seven geological association s. Th is area h as m an y h ikin g an d cam pin g opportu n ities. Most of th e resou rce valu es in th e UVRNRA depen d on th e protection an d restoration of th e riparian forest. Th e riparian forest provides critical h abitat for several protected wildlife species, as well as recreation opportu n ities, as discu ssed above. Five Forest Service wildern ess areas con tain a portion of th e Upper Verde River an d it is importan t to n ote th at th e riparian forests an d rivers are im portan t com pon en ts of th e wildern ess experien ce. Non poin t sou rce pollu tan t m an agem en t m easu res sh ou ld be taken to protect an d restore th e ch an n el an d riparian system s. Th e Red Rock - Secret Mou n tain Wildern ess is located 12 miles sou th of Flagstaff an d covers 44,000 acres of th e Cocon in o Nation al Forest. Red rock pin n acles, win dows, arch es, an d slot can yon s are plen tifu l, as is rock art an d aban don ed dwellin gs. Hikin g opportu n ities abou n d in th is area. Red Rock - Secret Mou n tain Wildern ess is adjacen t to Oak Creek an d Slide Rock State Park, wh ere m an y people com e to swim an d en joy th e n atu ral slides of rock. Based on cu rren t water qu ality assessm en t resu lts (ADEQ, 2005), th e Verde River from Oak Creek to Beaver Creek an d th e Verde River from Beaver Creek to HUC 15060202-001 are classified as “n ot attain in g” for sedim en t. Wh iteh orse Lake, Peck’s Lake, Watson Lake, an d Gran ite Creek from h eadwaters to Willow Creek are classified as “n ot attain in g” for dissolved oxygen . Oak Creek at Slide Mu n ds Mou n tain Wildern ess is located 30 m iles sou th of Flagstaff an d covers 18,150 acres of th e Cocon in o Nation al Forest. It stretch es from th e Mu n ds an d Lee Mou n tain s to th e bottom of Jacks, Woods, an d Rattlesn ake Can yon s. Mu n ds Mou n tain Wildern ess Verde Watershed Section 5 Important Resources 5-5 Rock State Park is classified as “not attain in g” for E. coli. Ston eman Lake was im paired du e to pH exceedan ces (Appen dix, A). Mesquite Wash - Sycam ore Creek NRA Protection Needs Most of th e resou rce valu es in th e MWSC-NRA depen d on th e protection an d restoration of th e Mesqu ite Wash Sycamore Creek riparian forest. Th e riparian forest provides critical h abitat for several protected wildlife species, as well as recreation opportu n ities. To address th e protection n eeds of th e UVR-NRA, n on poin t sou rce pollu tan t m an agem en t m easu res sh ou ld be taken to con trol m etals, sedim en t, organ ics an d selen iu m (See Section 6). Hu m an u se of Slide Rock State Park sh ou ld con tin u e to be mon itored for E. coli con tam in ation to Oak Creek. Based on watersh ed classification resu lts, th is area is classified as h igh risk for sedim en t an d selen iu m (See section 6). To address th e protection n eeds of th e MWSC-NRA, n on poin t sou rce pollu tan t m an agem en t m easu res sh ou ld be taken to con trol sedimen t an d selen iu m . Livestock grazin g is an importan t lan d u se in th e UVR-NRA an d special atten tion sh ou ld be given to protectin g an d restorin g th e riparian areas wh ere livestock graze. Man y commu n ities in th e NRA, in clu din g Prescott, Cam p Verde, an d Sedon a are experien cin g in creasin g developmen t. Poten tial impacts to water qu ality sh ou ld be m on itored an d mitigation action s sh ou ld be taken , as discu ssed in Section 7, Watersh ed Man agemen t. Lower Big Ch in o Wash NRA Th e Lower Big Ch in o Wash NRA (LBCW-NRA) con sists of two 10-digit HUC watersh ed: Lower Big Ch in o Wash an d William son Valley Wash . Th e LBCW-NRA h as a reach of critical h abitat for th e en dan gered Gila Ch u b an d th ree Wildern ess areas with in its bou n daries. Mesqu ite Wash – Sycam ore Creek NRA Th e Mesqu ite Wash – Sycam ore Creek NRA (MWSC-NRA) con sists of on ly on e 10-digit HUC watersh ed, Mesqu iteWash – Sycam ore Creek. Th e MWSCNRA h as sign ifican t riparian vegetation commu n ities, critical h abitat for th e en dan gered Mexican Spotted Owl, an d portion s of two wildern ess areas with in its bou n daries. Apach e Creek Wildern ess covers 5,600 acres of th e Prescott Nation al Forest. Rollin g h ills of ju n iper an d pin yon in terspersed with gran ite ou tcrops ch aracterize th is small an d remote wildern ess. It provides excellen t h abitat for mou n tain lion an d man y species of birds. Fou r Peaks Wildern ess covers 61,000 acres of th e Ton to Nation al Forest, of wh ich on ly a small portion of th e n orth west corn er is located with in th e MWSC-NRA. Th e far sou th eastern portion of th e Mazatzal Wildern ess is in clu ded in th e MWSC-NRA. Gran ite Mou n tain Wildern ess, located n ear Prescott, covers 10,000 acres of th e Prescott Nation Forest. Stacks of large gran ite bou lders ch aracterize th e wildern ess. Hikin g an d rock clim bin g opportu n ities are plen tifu l. Verde Watershed Section 5 Important Resources 5-6 con cern regardin g th e riparian an d stream en viron men ts. Th is area h as a rapidly growin g popu lation du e to developm en t pressu res from Ph oen ix to th e sou th . Ju n iper Mesa Wildern ess covers 7,500 acres of th e Prescott Nation al Forest. Th e wildern ess is ch aracterized by th e flat topped mesa from wh ich it draws its n am e. Wildlife is abu n dan t, in clu din g black bear, elk, m u le deer, bobcat an d squ irrel. Th e portion of th e Verde River ru n n in g th rou gh th is HUC h as m iles of peren n ial stream an d is an im portan t local resou rce for recreation an d aesth etics. Lower Big Chino Wash NRA Protection Needs Based on th e watersh ed classification resu lts, th is area is classified as h igh risk for organ ics (see section 6). To address th e protection n eeds of th e LBCW-NRA, n on poin t sou rce pollu tan t m an agem en t m easu res sh ou ld be taken to con trol organ ics. Cam p Creek-Lower Verde River NRA Protection Needs Water qu ality an d qu an tity are con cern s with in th e CCLVR-NRA. Based on cu rren t water qu ality assessm en t resu lts (ADEQ, 2005), th e Verde River from Bartlett Dam to Cam p Creek is listed as “im paired” for copper, an d seleniu m . Gran de Wash from th e h eadwaters to Ash brook Wash is listed as “impaired” for E. coli. Livestock grazin g is an importan t lan d u se in th e LBCW-NRA an d special atten tion sh ou ld be given to protectin g an d restorin g th e riparian areas wh ere livestock graze. Th is NRA is classified as h igh risk for m etals, sedim en t, organ ics an d selen iu m . To address th e protection n eeds of th e NRA, n on poin t sou rce pollu tan t m an agem en t m easu res sh ou ld be taken to con trol m etals, sedim en t, organ ics an d selen iu m. Cam p Creek - Lower Verde River NRA Th e Camp Creek - Lower Verde River NRA (CCLVR-NRA) con sists of on e 10digit HUC watersh ed, Cam p Creek Lower Verde. Th e CCLVR-NRA was design ated as an NRA du e to local Referen ces: Arizon a Departmen t of En viron men tal Qu ality, ADEQ. 2005. Th e Statu s of Water Qu ality in Arizon a – 2004: Arizon a’s In tegrated 305(b) Assessm en t an d 303(d) Listin g Report. 1110 West Wash in gton Ave., Ph oen ix, Arizon a, 85007. h ttp://www.azdeq.gov/en viron /water/assessmen t/2004.h tml. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Ju ly 14, 2004. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Arizon a Ecological Services Field Office, Th reaten ed an d En dan gered Species. h ttp://arizon aes.fws.gov/th reaten .h tm (Feb. 7, 2005). Verde Watershed Section 5 Important Resources 5-7 Section 6: Watershed Classification Meth ods In th is section , each 10-digit su bwatersh ed in th e Verde Watersh ed is classified or ran ked based on su sceptibility to water qu ality problems an d pollu tion sou rces th at n eed to be con trolled th rou gh implemen tation of n on poin t sou rce Best Man agem en t Practices (BMPs). Th is classification also prioritizes su bwatersh eds for available water qu ality improvemen t gran ts, based on kn own water qu ality con cern s. Th e gen eral approach u sed to classify su bwatersh eds was to in tegrate watersh ed ch aracteristics, water qu ality m easu rem en ts, an d resu lts from modelin g with in a mu lti-parameter ran kin g system based on th e fu zzy logic kn owledge-based approach (described below), as sh own sch em atically in Figu re 6-1. Figure 6-1: Transform ation of Input Data via a GIS, Fuz z y Logic Approach, and Synthesis of Results into a Watershed Classification. • Th e process was im plem en ted with in a GIS in terface to create th e su bwatersh ed classification s u sin g five prim ary steps: Verde Watersh ed Defin e th e goal of th e watersh ed classification : to prioritize wh ich 10-digit subwatersh eds are m ost su sceptible to kn own water qu ality con cern s, an d th erefore, wh ere BMPs sh ou ld be Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-1 adju sted, m akin g th e tool m ore valu able becau se u n derlyin g bias in in terpretin g th e data can be u n covered an d evalu ated. im plemen ted to redu ce n on poin t sou rce pollu tion ; • • Assemble GIS data an d oth er observation al data; Fu zzy logic is an approach to h an dle vagu en ess or u n certain ty, an d h as been ch aracterized as a meth od by wh ich to qu an tify com m on sen se. In classical set th eory, an object is eith er a member of th e set or exclu ded from th e set. For example, on e is eith er tall or sh ort, with th e class of tall men bein g th ose over th e h eigh t of 6’0”. Usin g th is meth od, a man wh o is 5’ 11” tall wou ld n ot be con sidered in th e tall class, alth ou gh h e cou ld n ot be con sidered ‘n ot-tall’. Th is is n ot satisfactory, for exam ple, if on e h as to describe or qu an tify an object th at may be a partial m em ber of a set. In fuzzy logic, membersh ip in a set is described as a valu e between 0 (n on -membersh ip in th e set) an d 1 (fu ll membersh ip in th e set). For instan ce, th e in dividu al wh o is 5’ 11” is n ot classified as sh ort or tall, bu t is classified as tall to a degree of 0.8. Likewise, an in dividu al of h eigh t 5’ 10” would be tall to a degree of 0.6. Defin e watersh ed ch aracteristics th rou gh : 9 Water qu ality assessmen t data provided by Arizon a’s In tegrated 305(b) Assessm en t an d 303(d) Listin g Report (ADEQ, 2005); 9 GIS m appin g an alysis; an d 9 Modelin g / sim u lation of erosion vu ln erability an d poten tial for stream im pairm en t (in th is case, from soils in m in e site areas an d proximity to aban don ed m in e sites). • Use fu zzy membersh ip fu n ction s to tran sform th e poten tial vu ln erability / im pairm en t m etrics in to fu zzy m em bersh ip valu es with scales from 0 to 1; an d • Determin e a composite fu zzy score represen tin g th e ran kin g of th e combin ed attribu tes, an d in terpret th e resu lts. In fu zzy logic, th e ran ge in valu e between differen t data factors are con verted to th e sam e scale (0-1) u sin g fu zzy membersh ip fu n ction s. Fu zzy m em bersh ip fu n ction s can be discrete or con tin u ou s depen din g on th e ch aracteristics of th e in pu t. In th e case above, th e degree of talln ess was iteratively added in in tervals of 0.2. An exam ple of a con tin u ou s data set wou ld be graph in g h eigh ts of all in dividu als an d correlatin g a con tin u ou s fu zzy member valu e to th at graph . A u ser defin es th eir m em bersh ip fu n ction s to describe th e relation sh ip between an Fuz z y Logic Th e “fu zzy logic” m eth od is u sed to in tegrate differen t types of data (Gu ertin et al., 2000; Reyn olds, 2001). Usin g fu zzy logic, a watersh ed tool was developed th at can be u pdated as n ew water qu ality in formation becomes available. In th is tool, th e “weigh t” or priority given a specific factor u sed in th e classification can be ch an ged or Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-2 in dividu al factor an d th e ach ievemen t of th e stated goal. Th e developmen t of a fu zzy m em bersh ip fu n ction can be based on pu blish ed data, expert opin ion s, stakeh older valu es or in stitu tion al policy, an d can be created in a datapoor en viron men t. A ben efit of th is approach is th at it provides for th e u se of differen t m eth ods for com bin in g in dividu al factors to create th e fin al classification an d th e goal set. Fu zzy m em bersh ip fu n ction s an d weigh tin g sch em es can also be ch an ged based on watersh ed con cern s an d con dition s. • Th e developmen t of th e fu zzy logic approach for each con stitu en t is described below. Table 6-1: HUC Num erical Designation and Subwatershed Nam e. HUC 1506020101 1506020102 1506020103 1506020104 1506020105 1506020106 1506020107 1506020108 Subwatershed Classifications Th e classification was con du cted at th e 10-digit HUC su bwatersh ed scale. Table 6-1 lists th e HUC n u merical iden tification s an d su bwatersh ed n am es. 1506020201 1506020202 1506020203 Classification s were con du cted for in dividu al or grou ps of water qu ality parameters, an d poten tial for impairmen t for a water qu ality parameter based on th e bioph ysical ch aracteristics of th e watersh ed. 1506020204 1506020205 1506020206 1506020207 1506020301 1506020302 1506020303 Con stitu en t grou ps evalu ated for th e Verde Watersh ed are: • • • dissolved oxygen are con cern s an d are related to organ ic material bein g in trodu ced in to th e aqu atic system ); an d Selen iu m . 1506020304 Metals (m ercu ry, copper, zin c, lead, arsen ic), with mercu ry u sed as an in dex sin ce it is th e m ost com m on param eter sam pled in th e watersh ed; Sedimen t (tu rbidity is u sed as an in dex sin ce it was th e previou s stan dard an d represen ts m ost of th e samplin g data); Organ ics (Esch erich ia coli, n u trien ts, h igh pH factors an d 1506020305 1506020306 1506020307 Subw atershed Name Aubrey Valley Upper Big Chino Wash Ash Fork Draw -Jumbo Tank Upper Partridge Creek Low er Partridge Creek Middle Big Chino Wash Williamson Valley Wash Low er Big Chino Wash Granite Creek-Upper Verde River Hell Canyon Sycamore Creek Grindstone Wash-Upper Verde River Oak Creek Beaver Creek Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River West Clear Creek East Verde River Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River Tangle Creek-Low er Verde River Low er Verde River-Horseshoe and Bartlett Reservoir Mesquite Wash-Sycamore Creek Camp Creek-Low er Verde River Water Quality Assessm ent Data Data collected an d u sed for Arizon a’s 2004 In tegrated 305(b) Assessm en t an d Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-3 “impaired” by ADEQ for on e of th e con stitu en t grou ps. 303(d) Listin g Report (ADEQ, 2005) was u sed to defin e th e cu rren t level of impairmen t based on water qu ality sam plin g resu lts from several en tities an d volu n teer grou ps in Arizon a. In assign in g fu zzy m em bersh ip valu es th e location of a su bwatersh ed relative to an im paired water was con sidered. Appen dix A Table 1, is a su mmary of th e water qu ality mon itorin g an d classification data collected on th e Verde Watersh ed. ADEQ’s assessmen t criteria an d assessm en t defin ition s are fou n d in Arizon a’s In tegrated 305(b) Assessm en t an d 303(d) Listin g Report (ADEQ, 2005). Su rface waters assessed as “im paired” are in clu ded in Arizon a’s 303(d) List of Im paired Waters an d are sch edu led for completion of a Total Maximu m Daily Load (TMDL) qu an titative an d an alysis plan . A TMDL is th e maximu m amou n t (load) of a water qu ality parameter wh ich can be carried by a su rface water body, on a daily basis, with ou t cau sin g an exceedan ce of su rface water qu ality stan dards (ADEQ, 2004). High risk - If a su rface water with in th e su bwatersh ed is assessed as “in con clu sive” becau se of limited data, bu t th e available samplin g in dicates water qu ality exceedan ces occu rred. • Moderate risk - If eith er: ° A su rface water with in th e su bwatersh ed was assessed as “in con clu sive” or “attain in g”, bu t th ere are still a low n u mber of sam ples exceedin g stan dards for a con stitu en t grou p; or ° Th ere were n o water qu ality measu remen ts available for a con stitu en t grou p at an y site with in th e su bwatersh ed. • Low risk - If n o exceedan ces exist in a con stitu en t grou p an d th ere were su fficien t data to make an assessm en t. For more in formation on th e Verde Watersh ed Water Qu ality Classification see th e ADEQ Website: h ttp://www.adeq.state.az.u s/en viron /water/classification /assess.h tm l Th e water qu ality data were u sed to classify each mon itored stream reach based on its relative risk of impairmen t for th e con stitu en t grou ps described above. Each 10-digit HUC watersh ed is assign ed a fu zzy membersh ip valu e (FMV) based on th e water qu ality param eters an d classification resu lts. Table 6-2 con tain s th e FMVs u sed for differen t watersh ed con dition s based on th ese resu lts. It sh ou ld be n oted th at n ot every 10-digit HUC watersh ed con tain ed a water qu ality measu remen t site. To classify each 10-digit su bwatersh ed, based on its relative risk of impairmen t for th e con stitu en t grou ps described above, fou r levels of risk were defin ed: Extrem e, High , Moderate an d Low. • • Extreme risk - If a su rface water with in th e su bwatersh ed is cu rren tly assessed as bein g Th e FMVs are based on two con sideration s: 1) relative risk of Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-4 im pairm en t (described above), an d 2) assessed water qu ality statu s of down stream su rface waters if th e su bwatersh ed h as eith er “h igh ” or “m oderate” con dition . Table 1 in Appen dix A provides m ore clarification on th e ADEQ Water Qu ality Assessm en t resu lts, an d defin es th e basis for classification as extrem e, h igh , m oderate, an d low risk. Th e statu s of down stream su rface waters provides a way to evalu ate th e poten tial th at th e su bwatersh ed is con tribu tin g to down stream water qu ality problems. Th is is particu larly importan t wh ere water qu ality data is limited an d few su rface water qu ality samples may h ave been collected with in th e su bwatersh ed. Metals Metals are on e of th e most sign ifican t water qu ality problems in th e Verde Watersh ed becau se of th e poten tial toxicity to aqu atic life. Th e Verde River from Bartlett Dam to Camp Creek in th e Camp Creek – Lower Verde River su bwatersh ed is impaired for copper, an d several reach es exceed water qu ality stan dards for oth er metals. However, som e stream reach es h ave n ot been sam pled for m etals. Reach es classified as eith er extrem e or low risk were given preceden ce over h igh or m oderate classified reach es in determin in g down stream water qu ality con dition becau se of th eir ambigu ity. For example, if a down stream water body was classified as extrem e risk, it was u sed to defin e th e down stream water qu ality con dition . However, if a reach alon g th e path way was classified as low risk, th en th e low risk reach was u sed to defin e th e down stream water qu ality con dition . Th e primary sou rces for metals in th e Verde Watersh ed are probably ru n off an d erosion from active an d aban don ed min es. Developed u rban areas sh ou ld also be con sidered as a n on poin t sou rce for metals pollu tan ts. However, th e cu rren t popu lation den sity of th e Verde Watersh ed is moderate an d is th erefore n ot seen as a m ajor sou rce of m etals. Alth ou gh “developmen t” was n ot u sed at th is time as a classification factor, th is may n eed to be con sidered as popu lation con tin u es to grow. Table 6-2: Fuz z y Mem bership Values for HUC-10 Subwatersheds Based on ADEQ Water Quality Assessm ent Results Reach Condition Dow nstream Condition Extreme N/A 1.0 High Extreme 1.0 High 0.8 High High Moderate /Low 0.7 Moderate Extreme 0.7 Moderate High 0.6 Moderate Moderate 0.5 Moderate Low 0.3 Low N/A 0.0 FMV Th e factors u sed for th e metals classification were: • ADEQ water qu ality assessmen t resu lts; • Presen ce of m in es with in a watersh ed; • Presen ce of min es with in th e riparian zon e; an d • Poten tial con tribu tion of m in es to sedim en t yield. Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-5 Water Quality Assessm ent Data - Metals Table 6-2 con tain s th e fu zzy membersh ip valu es u sed for differen t watersh ed con dition s based on th e water qu ality assessmen t resu lts. Table 6-3 con tain s th e fu zzy m em bersh ip valu es assign ed to each 10-digit HUC su bwatersh ed for metals, based on th e criteria defin ed in Table 6-2. Arizon a’s In tegrated 305(b) Assessm en t an d 303(d) Listin g Report (ADEQ, 2005) was u sed to defin e th e cu rren t level of impairmen t based on water qu ality measu remen ts. In assign in g fu zzy membersh ip valu es, th e location of a watersh ed relative to an impaired water was con sidered. Table 6-3: Fuz z y Mem bership Values Assigned to each 10-digit HUC Subwatershed in the Verde Watershed, Based on Water Quality Classification Results for Metals. Subw atershed Name FMV Aubrey Valley 0.6 Upper Big Chino Wash Ash Fork Draw Jumbo Tank 0.6 0.6 Upper Partridge Creek 0.6 Low er Partridge Creek Middle Big Chino Wash Williamson Valley Wash 0.6 0.6 Low er Big Chino Wash 0.6 Granite Creek-Upper Verde River 0.8 Hell Canyon 0.6 Sycamore Creek 0.8 Grindstone WashUpper Verde River 0.8 Oak Creek 0.6 Beaver Creek 0.8 0.6 Justification Classified as moderate risk (no data), drains into Grindstone Wash - Upper Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk (no data), drains into Grindstone Wash - Upper Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk (no data), drains into Grindstone Wash - Upper Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk (no data), drains into Grindstone Wash - Upper Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk (no data), drains into Grindstone Wash - Upper Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk (no data), drains into Grindstone Wash - Upper Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk (no data), drains into Grindstone Wash - Upper Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk (no data), drains into Grindstone Wash - Upper Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as a high risk (Mercury in Granite Creek is inconclusive w ith a high rate of exceedance), drains into Grindstone Wash - Upper Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk (no data), drains into Grindstone Wash - Upper Verde River that is classified as a high risk Classified as high risk (Lead in Scholz Lake is inconclusive w ith a high rate of exceedance), drains into Grindstone Wash - Upper Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as high risk (Mercury in Verde River (Sycamore Creek to Oak Creek) is inconclusive w ith a high rate of exceedance), drains into Cherry Creek - Upper Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk (exceedances), drains into Cherry Creek - Upper Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as high risk (exceedances), drains into Cherry Creek Upper Verde River that is classified as high risk Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-6 Subw atershed Name FMV Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River 1.0 West Clear Creek 0.7 Justification Classified as high risk (Mercury in Verde River (Sycamore Creek to Oak Creek) is inconclusive w ith a high rate of exceedance), drains into Camp Creek - Low er Verde River that is classified as extreme risk Classified as moderate risk (no data), drains into Camp Creek Low er Verde River that is classified as extreme risk Classified as high risk (exceedances), drains into Camp Creek Low er Verde River that is classified as extreme risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Camp Creek - Low er Verde River that is classified as extreme risk Classified as moderate risk (lack of data), drains into Camp Creek - Low er Verde River that is classified as extreme risk East Verde River 1.0 Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River 0.7 Tangle Creek-Low er Verde River 0.7 Low er Verde RiverHorseshoe and Bartlett Classified as moderate risk (exceedances), drains into Camp Reservoir 0.7 Creek - Low er Verde River that is classified as extreme risk Mesquite WashClassified as moderate risk (no data), drains into Camp Creek Sycamore Creek Low er Verde River that is classified as extreme risk 0.7 Camp Creek-Low er Classified as extreme (Verde River (Bartlett Dam to Camp Creek) Verde River Not Attaining for Copper), drains out of the Verde Watershed 1.0 Note: Th is table is cross-referen ced to Table 1 of Appendix A where th e 10-digit HUC n am es are tabu lated with th e su bwatersh ed nam e. Location of Mining Activities Nu m ber of m in es/watersh ed: Section 2, Ph ysical Ch aracteristics an d Section 4, Social Ch aracteristics of th e Verde Watersh ed con tain a more th orou gh discu ssion of th e geologic con dition s an d location of min e sites an d m in e type across th e watersh ed. Th e su bwatersh eds were classified u sin g th e fu zzy logic meth odology by in corporatin g th e spatial data from Section s 2 an d 4 with th e tabu lated ADEQ water qu ality assessmen t data. FMV = FMV = FMV = 0 if (# of m in es < = 2) (# of m in es – 2) / 8 1 if (# of m in es > = 10) Nu mber of min es/riparian : FMV = FMV = FMV = Th e n u mber of min es in a su bwatersh ed an d n u m ber of m in es with in th e riparian zon e (< = 250 m from a stream) of a su bwatersh ed were u sed to assess th e relative im pact of m in in g on th e con cen tration of dissolved an d total m etals in th e su bwatersh ed. Th e fu zzy membersh ip fu n ction s for both con dition s are: 0 if (# of m in es < 1) (# of m in es) / 5 1 if (# of m in es > = 5) Table 6-4 con tain s th e fu zzy membersh ip valu es assign ed to each 10-digit HUC su bwatersh eds in th e Verde Watersh ed based on th e n u mber of an d location of m in es. Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-7 Table 6-4: Fuz z y Mem bership Values Assigned to Each Subwatershed Based on the Num ber and Location of Mines. Subw atershed Aubrey Valley Upper Big Chino Wash Ash Fork Draw Jumbo Tank Upper Partridge Creek Low er Partridge Creek Middle Big Chino Wash Williamson Valley Wash Low er Big Chino Wash Granite CreekUpper Verde River Hell Canyon Sycamore Creek Grindstone WashUpper Verde River Oak Creek Beaver Creek Cherry CreekUpper Verde River West Clear Creek East Verde River Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River Tangle CreekLow er Verde River Low er Verde RiverHorseshoe and Bartlett Reservoir Mesquite WashSycamore Creek Camp Creek-Low er Verde River FMV # mines /w atershed 0.000 FMV # mines /riparian 0.000 0.000 0.200 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.400 1.000 0.600 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.400 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.800 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.625 0.400 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Table 6-5: FMVs per Erosion Category. Subw atershed Aubrey Valley Upper Big Chino Wash Ash Fork Draw -Jumbo Tank Upper Partridge Creek Low er Partridge Creek Middle Big Chino Wash Williamson Valley Wash Low er Big Chino Wash Granite Creek-Upper Verde River Hell Canyon Sycamore Creek Grindstone Wash-Upper Verde River Oak Creek Beaver Creek Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River West Clear Creek East Verde River Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River Tangle Creek-Low er Verde River Low er Verde RiverHorseshoe and Bartlett Reservoir Mesquite WashSycamore Creek Camp Creek – Low er Verde River Category 2 4 FMV 0.2 0.6 5 3 4 2 2 2 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 5 4 5 0.8 0.6 0.8 4 3 3 0.6 0.4 0.4 6 4 2 1.0 0.6 0.2 4 0.6 2 0.2 2 0.2 2 0.2 3 0.4 Potential Contribution of Mines to Sedim ent Yield Based on RUSLE modelin g (Ren ard et al., 1997; see Appen dix C) th e poten tial for erosion from m in es to con tribu te to th e sedimen t yield for a watersh ed was evalu ated. Th e m odelin g resu lts were reclassified in to 6 categories. Th e first category represen ted zero poten tial for con tribu tion (i.e. n o m in es) an d was given a fu zzy membersh ip valu e of 0.0. Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-8 Weigh ts were developed in cooperation with ADEQ an d were ran ked to emph asis th e proximity of min es to th e riparian area, th e su sceptibility to erosion , an d th e ADEQ water qu ality resu lts. Th e overall n u mber of min es with in th e su bwatersh ed (bu t removed from th e riparian area) was n ot con sidered as pertin en t to th e classification , so th e weigh t assign ed was 0.1, as opposed to 0.3 for th e oth er categories. Each of th e assign ed weigh ts were mu ltiplied with th e FMV, an d th en added to resu lt in th e weigh ted ran kin g. Th e fu zzy membersh ip valu es were in creased by 0.2 for each h igh er erosion category. Table 6-5 con tain s th e resu lts. Metals Results Th e fu zzy membersh ip valu es were u sed to create a com bin ed fu zzy score for each su bwatersh ed an d were in corporated in to th e weigh ted com bin ation meth od. Th e resu lts are fou n d in Table 6-6, an d th e weigh ts are listed at th e bottom of th e table. Table 6-6: Results for Metals Based on the Fuz z y Logic Approach. Subw atershed WQA1 Aubrey Valley 0.600 Upper Big Chino Wash 0.600 Ash Fork Draw -Jumbo Tank 0.600 Upper Partridge Creek 0.600 Low er Partridge Creek 0.600 Middle Big Chino Wash 0.600 Williamson Valley Wash 0.600 Low er Big Chino Wash 0.600 Granite Creek-Upper Verde River 0.800 Hell Canyon 0.600 Sycamore Creek 0.800 Grindstone Wash-Upper Verde River 0.800 Oak Creek 0.600 Beaver Creek 0.800 Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River 1.000 West Clear Creek 0.700 East Verde River 1.000 Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River 0.700 Tangle Creek-Low er Verde River 0.700 Low er Verde River-Horseshoe and Bartlett Reservoir 0.700 Mesquite Wash-Sycamore Creek 0.700 Camp Creek-Low er Verde River 1.000 Weight s 1 Water Qu ality Assessment results 0.300 # Mines / HUC 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.625 # Mines / Riparian 0.000 0.200 1.000 1.000 0.400 0.600 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.400 1.000 1.000 0.800 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.400 Erosion Category 0.400 0.200 0.600 0.800 0.400 0.600 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.800 0.600 0.800 0.600 0.400 0.400 1.000 0.600 0.200 0.600 FMV Weighted 0.300 0.300 0.760 0.820 0.520 0.640 0.640 0.640 0.700 0.820 0.640 0.880 0.760 0.700 0.820 0.910 0.880 0.670 0.573 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.670 0.670 0.760 0.100 0.300 0.300 Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-9 Su bwatersh ed areas ran kin g greater th an a calcu lated 0.5 valu e were ran ked ‘High ’ an d lower th an 0.5 were ran ked ‘Low” for impairmen t du e to metals. Figu re 6-2 sh ows th e resu lts of th e weigh ted combin ation meth od classified in to h igh an d low priority for m etals. Water Quality Assessm ent Data Sedim ent Arizon a’s In tegrated 305(b) Assessm en t an d 303(d) Listin g Report (ADEQ, 2005) were u sed to defin e th e cu rren t water qu ality based on water mon itorin g resu lts. In assign in g fu zzy m em bersh ip valu es, th e location of a su bwatersh ed relative to an impaired water was con sidered. As discu ssed u n der th e metals classification section , Table 6-2 con tain s th e fu zzy membersh ip valu es u sed for differen t su bwatersh ed con dition s based on th e water qu ality assessm en t resu lts. Table 6-7 con tain s th e fu zzy m em bersh ip valu es assign ed to each 10-digit HUC su bwatersh ed based on tu rbidity data. Sedim en t Erosion an d sedimen tation are major en viron m en tal con cern s in arid an d sem iarid en viron m en ts. Sedim en t is th e ch ief sou rce of impairmen t in th e sou th western Un ited States, n ot on ly to ou r few aqu atic system s, bu t also to ou r riparian system s wh ich are at risk from ch an n el degradation . Th e factors u sed for th e sedim en t classification are: • • • • ADEQ water qu ality assessmen t resu lts (n ote th at tu rbidity data is u sed wh ere sedimen t resu lts are n ot available); Estimated cu rren t ru n off an d sedim en t yield; Hu man u se with in a su bwatersh ed an d riparian area; Lan d own ersh ip. Sin ce th e available water qu ality data is lim ited, m ore weigh t was placed on su bwatersh ed ch aracteristics an d m odelin g resu lts in doin g th e classification . Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-10 Figure 6-2: Results for the Fuz z y Logic Classification for Metals Based on the Weighted Com bination Approach. Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-11 Table 6-7: Fuz z y Mem bership Values for Sedim ent Assigned to each 10-Digit HUC Subwatershed in the Verde Watershed Based on Water Quality Assessm ent Results. Subw atershed Name Aubrey Valley Upper Big Chino Wash Ash Fork Draw -Jumbo Tank Upper Partridge Creek Low er Partridge Creek Middle Big Chino Wash Williamson Valley Wash Low er Big Chino Wash Granite Creek-Upper Verde River Hell Canyon Sycamore Creek Grindstone Wash-Upper Verde River Oak Creek Beaver Creek Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River West Clear Creek East Verde River FMV Justification Classified as moderate risk (no data), drains into Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River w hich is classified as an extreme 0.7 risk Classified as moderate risk (no data), drains into Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River w hich is classified as an extreme 0.7 risk Classified as moderate risk (no data), drains into Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River w hich is classified as an extreme 0.7 risk Classified as moderate risk (no data), drains into Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River w hich is classified as an extreme 0.7 risk Classified as moderate risk (no data), drains into Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River w hich is classified as an extreme 0.7 risk Classified as moderate risk (no data), drains into Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River w hich is classified as an extreme 0.7 risk 0.0 Classified as a low risk Classified as moderate risk (no data), drains into Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River w hich is classified as an extreme 0.7 risk Classified as moderate risk (no data), drains into Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River w hich is classified as an extreme 0.7 risk Classified as moderate risk (no data), drains into Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River w hich is classified as an extreme 0.7 risk Classified as high risk (Turbidity in Whitehorse Lake is inconclusive w ith a high rate of exceedance), drains into Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River w hich is classified as an 1.0 extreme risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Cherry Creek-Upper 0.7 Verde River w hich is classified as extreme risk Classified as high risk (inconclusive w ith high rate of exceedances), drains into Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River 1.0 w hich is classified as an extreme risk Classified as high risk (inconclusive with a high rate of exceedance), drains into Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River 1.0 w hich is classified as an extreme risk Classified as extreme risk (Verde River 15060202-015 Not 1.0 Attaining) 0.0 Classified as a low risk Classified as high risk (Turbidity in East Verde River 15060203-022B is inconclusive w ith a high rate of exceedance), drains Tangle Creek-Low er Verde River that is 0.8 classified as a high risk Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-12 Subw atershed Name Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River Tangle Creek-Low er Verde River Low er Verde RiverHorseshoe and Bartlett Reservoir Mesquite Wash-Sycamore Creek Camp Creek-Low er Verde River FMV Justification Classified as extreme risk (Verde River 15060203-025 Not 1.0 Attaining) Classified as high risk, drains Low er Verde River-Horseshoe 0.8 and Bartlett Reservoir that is classified as a high risk 0.7 0.5 0.5 Classified as high risk, drains Camp Creek-Low er Verde River that is classified as a moderate risk Classified as moderate risk (no data), drains Camp CreekLow er Verde River that is classified as a moderate risk Classified as moderate risk (lack of samples), drains out of the w atershed State an d Private own ersh ip over th e watersh ed area: Land ownership - Sedim ent On e of th e prin cipal lan d u ses in th e Verde Watersh ed is livestock grazin g. Livestock grazin g occu rs primarily on lan d own ed by th e federal govern men t (Bu reau of Lan d Man agem en t (BLM), an d U.S. Forest Service (USFS)), wh ich com prises approxim ately 64% of th e total watersh ed area. Th e remain in g lan ds wh ere grazin g occu rs are Arizon a State Tru st Lan ds (approximately 9%), an d privately own ed lan d (approximately 23%). Section 4, Social Ch aracteristics con tain s a brief discu ssion of lan d own ersh ip, with more detail provided in Section 7, Watersh ed Man agemen t, wh ere in dividu al m an agem en t practices an d target stakeh olders are discu ssed. FMV = 0 if (%State + private < = 10) FMV = (%State + private – 10) / 15 FMV = 1 if (%State + private > = 25) Table 6-8 con tain s th e fu zzy membersh ip valu es assign ed to each 10-digit HUC su bwatersh ed in th e Verde Watersh ed based on lan d own ersh ip. Table 6-8: Fuz z y Mem bership Values Assigned Based on Land Ownership. % State + Subw atershed Private Aubrey Valley 99.87% Upper Big Chino Wash 99.80% Ash Fork Draw -Jumbo Tank 21.50% Upper Partridge Creek 64.90% Low er Partridge Creek 97.62% Middle Big Chino Wash 87.18% Williamson Valley Wash 47.42% Low er Big Chino Wash 62.50% Granite Creek-Upper Verde River 79.79% Hell Canyon 9.72% Sycamore Creek 9.46% Given th at Federal lan ds m u st h ave m an agem en t plan s th at in clu de best m an agem en t practices, th e followin g classification will h igh ligh t State an d private lan ds th at may n ot h ave a water m an agem en t con trol plan in place. Th e fu zzy membersh ip fu n ction for th e percen tage of lan d in state or private own ersh ip with in a 10-digit HUC su bwatersh ed is below. Verde Watersh ed FMV 1.00 1.00 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-13 % State + Private Subw atershed Grindstone WashUpper Verde River 1.02% Oak Creek 14.61% Beaver Creek 4.85% Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River 33.18% West Clear Creek 2.10% East Verde River 4.68% Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River 3.62% Tangle Creek-Low er Verde River 0.24% Low er Verde RiverHorseshoe and Bartlett Reservoir 0.16% Mesquite WashSycamore Creek 2.15% Camp Creek-Low er Verde River 41.95% Hu man Use In dex (HUI)/watersh ed: FMV FMV = 0 if (HUI < = 5%) FMV = (HUI – 5) / 15 FMV = 1 if (HUI > = 20%) 0.00 0.31 0.00 Hu man Use In dex/riparian : 1.00 0.00 0.00 FMV = 0 if (HUI < = 1%) FMV = (HUI - 1) / 4 FMV = 1 if (HUI > = 5%) 0.00 0.00 Table 6-9 con tain s th e fu zzy membersh ip valu es assign ed to each 10-digit HUC su bwatersh ed in th e Verde Watersh ed based on th e Hu man Use In dex. 0.00 Runoff 1.00 Based on SWAT m odelin g (see Appen dix D) th e poten tial ru n off for a su bwatersh ed area was evalu ated. Th e m odelin g resu lts were reclassified in to 5 categories, with th e first category given a fu zzy membersh ip valu e of 0.2. Th e fu zzy membersh ip valu es were in creased by 0.2 for each h igh er erosion category, as sh own in Table 6-10. 0.00 Hum an Use Index - Sedim ent Th e Hu man Use In dex was u sed to assess th e relative impact of u rban developm en t on sedim en t load in stream s. Th e Hu m an Use In dex is defin ed as th e percen tage of a su bwatersh ed th at is ch aracterized as developed for h u man u se. In th e Verde Watersh ed, h u man u se con sists of developed areas as defin ed by th e Nation al Lan d Cover Data set as residen tial lan d u se, min in g an d roads (USGS, 2003). Hu man u se was assessed at both th e su bwatersh ed an d riparian scale (< = 250 m eters from a stream ). Th e fu zzy membersh ip fu n ction s for both con dition s are: Erosion Sedimen t yield is a measu re of th e rate of erosion , an d depen ds on a combin ation of soil properties, topograph y, clim ate an d lan d cover. SWAT was u sed to evalu ate th e poten tial sedimen t yield for each su bwatersh ed (see Appen dix D). Th e m odelin g resu lts were reclassified in to 5 categories, with th e first category given a fu zzy membersh ip valu e of 0.2. Th e fu zzy membersh ip valu es were in creased by 0.2 for each h igh er erosion category, as sh own in Table 6-11. Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-14 priority for sedim en t. Th e weigh ts u sed in th e classification are also fou n d in Table 6-12. Table 6-9: Fuz z y Mem bership Values Assigned to Each Subwatershed Based on the Hum an Use Index. Subw atershed Aubrey Valley Upper Big Chino Wash Ash Fork Draw -Jumbo Tank Upper Partridge Creek Low er Partridge Creek Middle Big Chino Wash Williamson Valley Wash Low er Big Chino Wash Granite Creek-Upper Verde River Hell Canyon Sycamore Creek Grindstone WashUpper Verde River Oak Creek Beaver Creek Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River West Clear Creek East Verde River Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River Tangle Creek-Low er Verde River Low er Verde RiverHorseshoe and Bartlett Reservoir Mesquite WashSycamore Creek Camp Creek-Low er Verde River FMV HU Index Watershed 0.00 0.00 FMV HU Index Riparian 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 Table 6-10: Fuz z y Mem bership Values and Runoff Categories. Subw atershed Aubrey Valley Upper Big Chino Wash Ash Fork Draw -Jumbo Tank Upper Partridge Creek Low er Partridge Creek Middle Big Chino Wash Williamson Valley Wash Low er Big Chino Wash Granite Creek-Upper Verde River Hell Canyon Sycamore Creek Grindstone WashUpper Verde River Oak Creek Beaver Creek Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River West Clear Creek East Verde River Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River Tangle Creek-Low er Verde River Low er Verde RiverHorseshoe and Bartlett Reservoir Mesquite WashSycamore Creek Camp Creek-Low er Verde River Sedim ent Results Runoff Category 1 2 FMV 0.2 0.4 1 2 1 0.2 0.4 0.2 1 0.2 2 2 0.4 0.4 3 1 5 0.6 0.2 1.0 1 5 5 0.2 1.0 1.0 1 4 3 0.2 0.8 0.6 4 0.8 4 0.8 4 0.8 4 0.8 4 0.8 Th e weigh ted combin ation approach was u sed to create com bin ed fu zzy scores to ran k sedim en t resu lts, as sh own on Table 6-12. Figu re 6-3 sh ows th e resu lts of th e weigh ted combin ation m eth od classified in to h igh an d low Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-15 Table 6-11: Fuz z y Mem bership Values and Erosion Categories. Erosion Category Subw atershed Aubrey Valley 1 Upper Big Chino Wash 1 Ash Fork Draw -Jumbo Tank 1 Upper Partridge Creek 1 Low er Partridge Creek 1 Middle Big Chino Wash 1 Williamson Valley Wash 1 Low er Big Chino Wash 1 Granite Creek-Upper Verde River 1 Hell Canyon 1 Sycamore Creek 2 Grindstone Wash-Upper Verde River 2 Oak Creek 4 Beaver Creek 3 Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River 3 West Clear Creek 3 East Verde River 3 Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River 5 Tangle Creek-Low er Verde River 4 Low er Verde RiverHorseshoe and Bartlett Reservoir 4 Mesquite Wash-Sycamore Creek 5 Camp Creek-Low er Verde River 4 FMV 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-16 Table 6-12: Results for Sedim ent Based on the Fuz z y Logic Approach. HU Index / HU Index / HUC Riparian Runoff Erosion FMV Weighted 0.2 0.2 0.16 0.00 0.4 0.2 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.2 0.2 0.31 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.4 0.2 0.22 0.7 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.2 0.2 0.16 0.7 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.2 0.2 0.16 0.0 1.00 0.00 0.18 0.4 0.2 0.22 0.7 1.00 0.00 0.31 0.4 0.2 0.28 0.7 1.00 0.00 0.58 0.6 0.2 0.39 Hell Canyon 0.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.2 0.2 0.16 Sycamore Creek Grindstone WashUpper Verde River 1.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.4 0.47 0.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.2 0.4 0.23 Oak Creek 1.0 1.00 0.00 0.33 1.0 0.8 0.91 Beaver Creek Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River 1.0 0.00 0.00 0.05 1.0 0.6 0.54 1.0 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.2 0.6 0.49 West Clear Creek 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.8 0.6 0.42 East Verde River Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River Tangle Creek-Low er Verde River Low er Verde RiverHorseshoe and Bartlett Reservoir Mesquite WashSycamore Creek Camp Creek-Low er Verde River 0.8 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.6 0.6 0.41 1.0 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.8 1.0 0.67 0.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.8 0.8 0.52 0.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.8 0.8 0.52 0.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.8 1.0 0.57 0.5 1.00 0.00 0.32 0.8 0.8 0.57 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 WQA1 Ow ner Aubrey Valley 0.7 1.00 0.00 0.00 Upper Big Chino Wash Ash Fork Draw -Jumbo Tank 0.7 1.00 0.00 0.7 1.00 Upper Partridge Creek 0.7 Low er Partridge Creek Middle Big Chino Wash Williamson Valley Wash Low er Big Chino Wash Granite Creek-Upper Verde River Subw atershed Name Weight s 0.05 0.05 1 WQA = Water Qu ality Assessmen t resu lts Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-17 Figure 6-3: Results for the Fuz z y Logic Classification for Sedim ent Based on the Weighted Com bination Approach. Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-18 membersh ip valu es assign ed to each 10-digit HUC su bwatersh ed for organ ics classification . Organ ics Several water qu ality parameters th at h ave been iden tified as con cern s in th e Verde Watersh ed are related to th e in trodu ction of organ ic material to a water body. Seven reach es an d lakes h ave been classified as n ot attain in g for dissolved oxygen or E. coli: Gran ite Creek from h eadwaters to Willow Creek, Watson Lake, Wh iteh orse Lake, Oak Creek at Slide Rock State Park, Ston eman Lake, Peck’s Lake, an d Gran de Wash . Hum an Use Index - Organics Th e Hu man Use In dex was u sed to assess th e relative impact of u rban developmen t on th e presen ce of organ ics in stream water. Th e Hu m an Use In dex is defin ed as th e percen tage of a su bwatersh ed th at is distu rbed by developm en t an d h u m an u se. In th e Verde Watersh ed, h u man u se con sists of developed areas as defin ed by Nation al Lan d Cover Data as residen tial lan d u se, m in in g an d roads. Th e factors th at were u sed for organ ic m aterial classification are: • ADEQ water qu ality assessmen t resu lts for organ ic param eters, in clu din g dissolved oxygen , n itrates an d TDS; • Hu man u se in dex with in both th e overall su bwatersh ed an d with in th e riparian area; an d • Lan d u se, in clu din g grazin g an d agricu ltu re. Hu man activity can in trodu ce organ ic material to a water body by disposal of organ ic com pou n ds an d sewage. Most of th e residen tial developm en t ou tside of cities in th e Verde River Watersh ed u tilizes on site septic sewage system s. Cu rren tly, th e con stru ction of n ew septic system s requ ires a perm it from ADEQ in th e State of Arizon a (som e exemption s apply), an d an in spection of th e septic system is requ ired wh en a property is sold if it was origin ally approved for u se on or after Jan . 1, 2001 by ADEQ or a delegated cou n ty agen cy (h ttp://www.azdeq.gov/en viron /water/ perm its/wastewater.h tm l). Water Quality Assessm ent Data Organics Arizon a’s In tegrated 305(b) Assessm en t an d 303(d) Listin g Report (ADEQ, 2005) was u sed to defin e th e cu rren t water qu ality con dition s based on water qu ality m easu rem en ts. In assign in g fu zzy m embersh ip valu es, th e location of th e 10-digit HUC su bwatersh ed relative to an impaired water or reach was con sidered. Table 6-2 con tain s th e fu zzy m embersh ip valu es u sed for differen t su bwatersh ed con dition s based on th e water qu ality assessmen t resu lts. Table 6-13 con tain s th e fu zzy Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-19 Table 6-13: Fuz z y Mem bership Values Assigned to each 10-digit HUC Subwatershed in the Verde Watershed Based on Water Quality Assessm ent Results for Organics. Subw atershed Name FMV Aubrey Valley 0.7 Upper Big Chino Wash Ash Fork Draw -Jumbo Tank 0.7 0.7 Upper Partridge Creek 0.7 Low er Partridge Creek Middle Big Chino Wash Williamson Valley Wash 0.7 Low er Big Chino Wash Granite Creek-Upper Verde River 0.7 Hell Canyon Sycamore Creek Grindstone WashUpper Verde River Oak Creek Beaver Creek Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River West Clear Creek East Verde River Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River Tangle Creek-Low er Verde River Low er Verde RiverHorseshoe and Bartlett Reservoir Mesquite WashSycamore Creek Camp Creek-Low er Verde River 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.7 1.0 0.7 Justification Classified as moderate risk, drains into Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River that is classified as an extreme risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River that is classified as an extreme risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River that is classified as an extreme risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River that is classified as an extreme risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River that is classified as an extreme risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River that is classified as an extreme risk Classified as high risk, drains into Granite Creek-Upper Verde River that is classified as an extreme risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River that is classified as an extreme risk Classified as extreme risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River that is classified as an extreme risk Classified as extreme risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River that is classified as an extreme risk Classified as extreme risk Classified as extreme risk Classified as extreme risk Classified as low risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Camp Creek - Low er Verde River that is classified as an extreme risk Classified as high risk, drains into Camp Creek - Low er Verde River that is classified as an extreme risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Camp Creek - Low er Verde River that is classified as an extreme risk 0.7 Classified as moderate risk, drains into Camp Creek - Low er Verde River that is classified as an extreme risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Camp Creek - Low er Verde River that is classified as an extreme risk 1.0 Classified as extreme risk 0.7 However, th ere are n o requ iremen ts for regu lar in spection s of older septic systems an d as a resu lt, ru ral areas may h ave a sign ifican t impact on th e in trodu ction of organ ic material to th e en viron m en t. Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-20 Hu m an u se h as been assessed at both th e su bwatersh ed an d riparian area scale (< = 250 m eters from a stream ). Th e fu zzy m embersh ip fu n ction s for both con dition s are as follows: Table 6-14: Fuz z y Mem bership Values for Organics Based on the Hum an Use Index. Subw atershed Hu man Use In dex (HUI)/ HUC watersh ed: FMV = 0 if (HUI < = 1%) FMV = (HUI – 1) / 3 FMV = 1 if (HUI > = 4%) Hu man Use In dex/Riparian : FMV = 0 if (HUI < = 0%) FMV = (HUI - 0) / 4 FMV = 1 if (HUI > = 4%) Table 6-14 con tain s th e fu zzy m em bersh ip valu es assign ed to each 10- digit HUC su bwatersh ed in th e Verde Watersh ed for organ ics based on th e Hu man Use In dex. Land Use - Organics Th e prin cipal lan d u se in th e Verde Watersh ed is livestock grazin g. Livestock grazin g occu rs primarily on federal govern men t lan d (BLM an d USFS), Arizon a State Tru st Lan d an d privately own ed lan d. Each 10-digit HUC watersh ed was assign ed a fu zzy membersh ip valu e based on its primary lan d u se relative to livestock grazin g. Th e Tan gle CreekLower Verde River watersh ed was assign ed a valu e of 0.0 becau se th e Mazatzal Wildern ess Area covers mu ch of it, wh ich su ggests th at th e lan d is m an aged an d n on poin t sou rce pollu tion is con trolled. FMV HU Index Watershed FMV HU Index Riparian 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.15 0.05 0.25 Aubrey Valley Upper Big Chino Wash Ash Fork Draw Jumbo Tank Upper Partridge Creek Low er Partridge Creek Middle Big Chino Wash Williamson Valley Wash Low er Big Chino Wash Granite CreekUpper Verde River 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.19 0.03 0.43 0.15 0.56 0.87 0.83 Hell Canyon 0.00 0.12 Sycamore Creek Grindstone WashUpper Verde River 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.12 Oak Creek 0.21 0.58 Beaver Creek Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River 0.00 0.30 1.00 1.00 West Clear Creek 0.00 0.26 East Verde River Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River Tangle Creek-Low er Verde River Low er Verde RiverHorseshoe and Bartlett Reservoir Mesquite WashSycamore Creek Camp Creek-Low er Verde River 0.12 0.29 0.27 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.07 0.33 0.57 Grin dston e Wash -Upper Verde River an d Ch erry-Creek-Upper Verde River were also assign ed a valu e of 0.0 Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-21 becau se Arizon a Preserve In itiative Preserves cover most of th eir area, wh ich su ggests th at th e lan d is m an aged an d n on poin t sou rce pollu tion is con trolled. All oth er watersh eds were in itially assign ed a valu e of 1.0 as lan d was assum ed to be primarily u sed for livestock grazin g. pH Accordin g to Arizon a’s In tegrated 305(b) Assessm en t and 303(d) Listin g Report (ADEQ, 2005), seven lakes h ave exceedan ces for pH (cau stic) levels. Cau stic pH m easu rem en ts can be an in dication of lake eu troph ication . Typical u n pollu ted flowin g water will h ave pH valu es ran gin g from 6.5 to 8.5 (u n itless); h owever, wh ere ph otosyn th esis by aqu atic organ ism s takes u p dissolved carbon dioxide du rin g dayligh t h ou rs, a diu rn al pH flu ctu ation may occu r an d th e m axim u m pH valu e m ay som etim es reach as h igh as 9.0. Stu dies h ave fou n d th at in poorly bu ffered lake water, pH flu ctu ation s occu r with m axim u m pH valu es exceedin g 12 (Hem, 1970). Th e flu ctu ation in pH h as been fou n d to be m ore pron ou n ced in warm , arid lakes. Nutrients Accordin g to Arizon a’s In tegrated 305(b) Assessm en t and 303(d) Listin g Report (ADEQ, 2005), th ree stream reach es h ave exceedan ces for n itrogen an d ph osph oru s, bu t th e rates of exceedan ce for th ese reach es are low. Two lakes, Watson an d Sch olz Lakes, h ave h igh rates of exceedan ce for n itrogen . Th e sou rce of n u trien ts for Watson Lake, located on th e ou tskirts of Prescott, is likely ru n off from residen tial areas wh ere lan dscapes are fertilized. Th e n itrogen exceedan ces at Sch olz Lake, located in th e n orth ern portion of th e watersh ed wh ere cattle grazin g is prevalen t, are likely related to an im al waste. Organics Results Th e weigh ted combin ation approach was u sed to create th e com bin ed fu zzy score, an d th e resu lts are fou n d in Table 6-15. Figu re 6-4 sh ows th e resu lts of th e weigh ted combin ation m eth od classified in to h igh an d low priority for organ ics. Th e weigh ts u sed in th e classification are fou n d in Table 6-15. Gran ite Basin Lake an d Wh iteh orse Lake h ave exceedan ces for ammon ia. Th is problem is m ost likely cau sed by decom position of organ ic m aterial u n der an aerobic con dition s, an d is n ot likely to be th e resu lt of a direct flu sh of am m on ia in to th e system . Am m on ia is h igh ly volatile an d typically does n ot persist in a water body. Cou pled with th e observation of reported low levels of dissolved oxygen an d h igh pH fou n d at th ese lakes, th e likely explan ation is du e to organ ic material decomposition . Selen iu m Two stream reach es, Verde River (Bartlett Dam – Cam p Creek) and East Verde River (Ellison Creek – American Gu lch ), were classified as “n ot attain in g” for selen iu m. Th e Verde River from West Clear Creek to Fossil Creek also sh owed h igh exceedan ces for selen iu m an d assessed as Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-22 “in con clu sive” in th e ADEQ Water Qu ality report. Water Quality Assessm ent DataSelenium High valu es for selen iu m are associated with h igh valu es for metals in both reach es, an d are likely to be n atu rally occu rrin g in th e h igh ly min eralized soils of th e region . In addition , h igh valu es m ay be associated with min in g evaporation or tailin g pon ds, wh ere evaporation wou ld in crease th e relative con cen tration of selen iu m , as well as oth er con stitu en ts. On e common sou rce of elevated selen iu m in th e western Un ited States is drain age water from selen iferou s irrigated soils (Hem , 1970). Th e ADEQ Water Qu ality Assessmen t resu lts were u sed to defin e th e cu rren t water qu ality based on water m on itorin g resu lts. In assign in g fu zzy membersh ip valu es, th e location of a su bwatersh ed relative to an impaired water was con sidered. Table 6-16 con tain s th e fu zzy membersh ip valu es for selen iu m for each su bwatersh ed based on th e water qu ality assessm en t resu lts. Table 6-15: Results for Organics Based on the Fuz z y Logic Approach. Subw atershed WQA1 Ow ner HUI / HUC HUI / Riparian Weighted Aubrey Valley 0.7 1.0 0.00 0.08 0.43 Upper Big Chino Wash 0.7 1.0 0.00 0.15 0.46 Ash Fork Draw -Jumbo Tank 0.7 1.0 0.05 0.25 0.49 Upper Partridge Creek 0.7 1.0 0.00 0.17 0.46 Low er Partridge Creek 0.7 1.0 0.00 0.06 0.43 Middle Big Chino Wash 0.7 1.0 0.00 0.19 0.47 Williamson Valley Wash 1.0 1.0 0.03 0.43 0.64 Low er Big Chino Wash 0.7 1.0 0.15 0.56 0.61 Granite Creek-Upper Verde River 1.0 1.0 0.87 0.83 0.92 Hell Canyon 0.7 1.0 0.00 0.12 0.45 Sycamore Creek 1.0 1.0 0.00 0.19 0.56 Grindstone Wash-Upper Verde River 0.7 0.0 0.00 0.12 0.25 Oak Creek 1.0 1.0 0.21 0.58 0.72 Beaver Creek 1.0 1.0 0.00 0.30 0.60 Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River 1.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.80 West Clear Creek 0.0 1.0 0.00 0.26 0.28 East Verde River 0.7 1.0 0.12 0.29 0.52 Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River 1.0 1.0 0.27 0.64 0.74 Tangle Creek-Low er Verde River Low er Verde River-Horseshoe and Bartlett Reservoir 0.7 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.7 1.0 0.00 0.10 0.44 Mesquite Wash-Sycamore Creek 0.7 1.0 0.00 0.07 0.43 Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-23 WQA1 Ow ner HUI / HUC HUI / Riparian Weighted Camp Creek-Low er Verde River 1.0 1.0 0.33 0.57 0.74 Weight s 1 WQA = Water Qu ality Data resu lts 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 Subw atershed Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-24 Figure 6-4: Results for the Fuz z y Logic Classification for Organics Based on the Weighted Com bination Approach. Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-25 Table 6-16: Fuz z y Mem bership Values Assigned to each 10-digit HUC Subwatershed in the Verde Watershed Based on Water Quality Classification Results for Selenium . Subw atershed Name FMV Aubrey Valley 0.6 Upper Big Chino Wash Ash Fork Draw -Jumbo Tank 0.6 0.6 Upper Partridge Creek 0.6 Low er Partridge Creek Middle Big Chino Wash Williamson Valley Wash 0.6 Low er Big Chino Wash Granite Creek-Upper Verde River 0.6 0.6 Hell Canyon 0.6 Sycamore Creek Grindstone WashUpper Verde River 0.6 0.6 Oak Creek 0.6 Beaver Creek Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River 0.6 West Clear Creek East Verde River Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River Tangle Creek-Low er Verde River Low er Verde RiverHorseshoe and Bartlett Reservoir Mesquite WashSycamore Creek Camp Creek-Low er Verde River 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.7 Justification Classified as moderate risk, drains into Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Fossil Creek -Upper Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River that is classified as high risk Classified as extreme risk Classified as high risk, drains into Camp Creek - Low er Verde River that is classified as an extreme risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Camp Creek - Low er Verde River that is classified as extreme risk 0.7 Classified as moderate risk, drains into Camp Creek - Low er Verde River that is classified as an extreme risk Classified as moderate risk, drains into Camp Creek - Low er Verde River that is classified as an extreme risk 1.0 Classified as extreme risk 0.7 Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-26 Agricultural Lands Table 6-17: Percentage of Agricultural Lands in each Subwatershed. Th e percen tage of th e agricu ltu ral lan ds in each 10-digit HUC su bwatersh ed was calcu lated as sh own in Table 6-17. Subw atershed Name Aubrey Valley Upper Big Chino Wash Ash Fork Draw Jumbo Tank Upper Partridge Creek Low er Partridge Creek Middle Big Chino Wash Williamson Valley Wash Low er Big Chino Wash Granite CreekUpper Verde River Hell Canyon Sycamore Creek Grindstone WashUpper Verde River Oak Creek Beaver Creek Cherry CreekUpper Verde River West Clear Creek East Verde River Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River Tangle CreekLow er Verde River Low er Verde RiverHorseshoe and Bartlett Reservoir Mesquite WashSycamore Creek Camp Creek-Low er Verde River Sin ce th e percen tage of agricu ltu ral lan d in each su bwatersh ed is small, th is resu lt sh ows th at th ere is n o correlation between th e percen tage of agricu ltu ral lan d an d selen iu m im pairm en t in th e watersh ed. Th erefore an oth er in dex based on prevalen ce of m etalliferou s min es with in th e su bwatersh ed was u sed to represen t th e relation sh ip. Num ber of Mines per Watershed Elevated con cen tration s of selen iu m in th e waters of th e Verde Watersh ed are likely du e to n atu rally occu rrin g selen iu m in th e metal-rich soils an d rocks. To classify subwatersh eds likely to exh ibit exceedan ce in Selen iu m, th e n u m ber of m in es in each 10-digit HUC su bwatersh ed was calcu lated an d a fu zzy m em bersh ip valu e assign ed as sh own in Table 6-18. Table 6-18: Fuz z y Mem bership Values Based on Num ber of Mines in each 10digit HUC Subwatershed. Number of Mines in Each Subw atershed 0-10 11-25 26-50 > 50 FMV 0.00 0.33 0.66 1.00 Verde Watersh ed Percentage of Agricultural Land 0.002% 0.004% 0.016% 0.001% 0.003% 0.050% 0.612% 1.108% 1.095% 0.001% 0.002% 0.004% 0.267% 0.053% 1.853% 0.227% 0.080% 0.953% 0.000% 0.117% 0.000% 0.534% Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-27 Table 6-19 sh ows th e fu zzy membersh ip valu es for each 10-digit HUC su bwatersh ed based on th e n u m ber of m in es. Table 6-19: Fuz z y Mem bership Values for each 10-digit HUC Subwatershed Based on the Num ber of Mines. Subw atershed Name Aubrey Valley Upper Big Chino Wash Ash Fork Draw Jumbo Tank Upper Partridge Creek Low er Partridge Creek Middle Big Chino Wash Williamson Valley Wash Low er Big Chino Wash Granite CreekUpper Verde River Hell Canyon Sycamore Creek Grindstone Wash-Upper Verde River Oak Creek Beaver Creek Cherry CreekUpper Verde River West Clear Creek East Verde River Fossil CreekLow er Verde River Tangle CreekLow er Verde River Low er Verde River-Horseshoe and Bartlett Reservoir Mesquite WashSycamore Creek Camp CreekLow er Verde River Selenium Results Th e fu zzy membersh ip valu es were u sed to create a com bin ed fu zzy score for each su bwatersh ed an d were in corporated in to th e weigh ted com bin ation m eth od (Figu re 6-5). Th ese resu lts are fou n d in Table 6-20, an d th e weigh ts are listed at th e bottom of th e table. Verde Watersh ed Number of mines 0 FMV for mines/HUC 0.000 1 0.000 21 0.330 35 0.660 15 0.330 11 0.330 11 0.330 10 0.000 61 14 17 1.000 0.330 0.330 50 11 11 0.660 0.330 0.330 117 6 25 1.000 0.000 0.330 12 0.330 7 0.000 10 0.000 30 0.660 15 0.330 Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-28 Table 6-20: Weighted Com bination Method Results for Selenium Based on the Fuz z y Logic Approach. Subw atershed Name Aubrey Valley Upper Big Chino Wash Ash Fork Draw -Jumbo Tank Upper Partridge Creek Low er Partridge Creek Middle Big Chino Wash Williamson Valley Wash Low er Big Chino Wash Granite Creek-Upper Verde River Hell Canyon Sycamore Creek Grindstone Wash-Upper Verde River Oak Creek Beaver Creek Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River West Clear Creek East Verde River Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River Tangle Creek-Low er Verde River Low er Verde River-Horseshoe and Bartlett Reservoir Mesquite Wash-Sycamore Creek Camp Creek-Low er Verde River WQA1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 FMV for mines/HUC 0.000 0.000 0.330 0.660 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.000 1.000 0.330 0.330 FMV Weighted 0.300 0.300 0.465 0.630 0.465 0.465 0.465 0.300 0.800 0.465 0.465 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.660 0.330 0.330 1.000 0.000 0.330 0.330 0.000 0.630 0.465 0.465 0.800 0.300 0.665 0.665 0.350 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.000 0.660 0.330 0.350 0.680 0.665 Weight s 0.5 1 WQA = Water Qu ality Assessmen t resu lts 0.5 Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-29 Figure 6-5: Results for the Fuz z y Logic Classification for Selenium Based on the Weighted Com bination Approach. Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-30 Referen ces: Arizon a Departmen t of En viron men tal Qu ality, ADEQ. 2005. Th e Statu s of Water Qu ality in Arizon a – 2004: Arizon a’s In tegrated 305(b) Assessm en t an d 303(d) Listin g Report, 1110 West Wash in gton Ave., Ph oen ix, Arizon a, 85007, from h ttp://www.azdeq.gov/en viron /water/assessmen t/2004.h tml. Gu ertin , D.P., R.H. Fiedler, S.N. Miller, an d D.C. Goodrich . 2000. Fu zzy Logic for Watersh ed Assessm en t. Proceedin gs of th e ASCE Con feren ce on Scien ce an d Tech n ology for th e New Millen n iu m: Watersh ed Man agemen t 2000, Fort Collin s, CO, Ju n e 21-24, 2000. Hem , J.D. 1970. Study an d In terpretation of th e Ch emical Ch aracteristics of Natu ral Water, 2 n d Edition . U.S. Geological Su rvey Water-Su pply Paper 1473. Reyn olds, K.M. 2001. Fu zzy Logic Kn owledge Bases in In tegrated Lan dscape Assessmen t: Examples an d Possibilities. Gen eral Tech n ical Report PNW-GTR521. USDA Forest Service, Pacific North west Research Station . 24 pp. Ren ard, K.G., G.R. Foster, G.A. Weesies, D.K. McCool, an d D.C. Yoder. 1997. Predictin g Soil Erosion by Water: A Gu ide to Con servation Plan n in g with th e Revised Un iversal Soil Loss Equ ation (RUSLE), U. S. Departmen t of Agricu ltu re, Agricu ltu re Han dbook No. 703. 404 pp. Data Sou rces:* Arizon a State Lan d Departmen t, Arizon a Lan d Resou rce In formation System (ALRIS), h ttp://www.lan d.state.az.u s/alris/in dex.h tml Lan down ersh ip. Febru ary 7, 2002. Min es. Febru ary 7, 2002. USGS (U.S. Departm en t of th e In terior, U.S. Geological Su rvey), 2003. h ttp://lan dcover.u sgs.gov/n atllan dcover.asp Lan d u se. Ju ly 21, 2003. *Note: Dates for each data set refer to when data was downloaded from the website. Metadata (inform ation about how and when the GIS data were created) is available from the website in m ost cases. Metadata in cludes the original source of the data, when it was created, it’s geographic projection and scale, the nam e(s) of the contact person and/or organiz ation, and general description of the data. Verde Watersh ed Section 6: Watersh ed Classification 6-31 Section 7: Watershed Management • Th is section discu sses th e recom m ended watersh ed m an agem en t activities to address n on poin t sou rce pollu tion con cern s in th e Verde Watersh ed. Th ese recom m en dation s are su bject to revision by lan d u se decision m akers an d stakeh olders, an d m ay be revised based on n ew data as it becom es available. It is u n derstood th at th e application of an y man agemen t activities will requ ire site-specific design an d may requ ire licen sed en gin eerin g design . Th ese recommen dation s are on ly gen eral in n atu re an d are presen ted h erein so as to allow lan d u se decision m akers an d watersh ed stakeh olders to con ceptu alize h ow best to address watersh ed m an agem en t. • • Each of th ese meth ods is defin ed fu rth er below, an d is addressed with in each of th e th ree classification s: m etals, organ ics, an d n u trien t n on poin t sou rce pollu tan t water qu ality con cern s. Site Managem ent on New Developm ent: Con trol th e qu an tity an d qu ality of water ru n -off from n ew developm en t sites. Th e primary sou rces for fu tu re developmen t in th e Verde Watersh ed in clu de th e min in g in du stry, n ew h ou sin g developm en ts an d in creased u rban ization , an d n ew road con stru ction . Th e Lower Big Ch in o Wash , Upper Verde River, an d Cam p Creek-Lower Verde River Natu ral Resou rce Areas are particu larly at risk to fu tu re h ou sin g developmen t du e to th e large percen tage of private lan d with in th e area. Th ree reach es an d th ree lakes in th e Verde Watersh ed are in ADEQ’s TMDL list (ADEQ, 2004). A TMDL plan is a stu dy for an impaired water body th at defin es th e maximu m amou n t of a specified water qu ality parameter or pollu tan t th at can be carried by a waterbody with ou t cau sin g an exceedan ce of water qu ality stan dards. Alth ou gh it is recogn ized th at ADEQ requ ires Aqu ifer Protection Perm ittin g an d th e issu an ce of Storm water Man agemen t Plan s for active min e sites, n ew min e developmen t in th e watersh eds sh ou ld con tin u e to be mon itored. It is importan t to prom ote th e application of n on poin t sou rce m an agem en t m easu res on all n ew developmen t sites th rou gh cooperation with local govern m en t, developers an d private lan d own ers. Man agemen t Meth ods Th e section in clu des gen eral watersh ed m an agem en t m eth ods, recom m en ded strategies for addressin g existin g im pairm en t in th e watersh ed, stream ch an n el an d riparian restoration , an d proposed edu cation program s. Th e gen eral watersh ed man agemen t m eth ods in clu de: • Mon itorin g an d en forcemen t activities; Water qu ality improvemen t an d restoration projects; an d Edu cation . Site m an agem en t on n ew developm en t; Verde Watersh ed Section 7 Watersh ed Man agem en t 7-1 particu late m etals, sedim en t an d organ ics. Th e h igh priority 10-digit HUC su bwatersh eds were iden tified for each con stitu en t grou p in th e previou s section on Watersh ed Classification (Section 6). Monitoring and Enforcem ent Activities: • Con tin u e an d expan d water qu ality m on itorin g program s in th e watersh ed to measu re th e effectiven ess of m an agem en t practices on protectin g an d restorin g th e waters of th e Verde Watersh ed. • Prom ote septic tan k in spection s an d certification of septic systems by local govern m en t en tities. • Prom ote con stru ction site in spection an d en forcem en t action for n ew developm en t. Th e goal of th is section is to describe a strategy for dealin g with th e sou rces of im pairm en t for each con stitu en t grou p. Th e m an agem en t m easu res discu ssed h erein are brief an d mean t to provide in itial gu idan ce to th e lan d u se decision makers an d watersh ed stakeh olders. Detailed description s of th e followin g m an agem en t m easu res, in addition to a m an u al of n on poin t sou rce best m an agem en t practices (BMPs), can be fou n d at th e NEMO website www.srn r.arizon a.edu /n em o. Water Quality Im provem ent and Restoration Projects: • Prom ote efforts to protect an d restore th e n atu ral fu n ction s an d ch aracteristics of im paired water bodies. Poten tial projects are discu ssed below. • In tegrate adaptive man agemen t m eth ods an d activities across th e watersh ed to address existin g an d fu tu re problem s. Metals Th e primary n on poin t sou rce of an th ropogen ic metals in th e Verde Watersh ed is aban don ed m in es, alth ou gh it is recogn ized th at n atu rally occu rrin g m etals origin atin g from local h igh ly min eralized soils may con tribu te to elevated backgrou n d con cen tration s in stream s an d lakes. In du strial an d u rban sou rces of metals are also importan t du e to th e amou n t of developmen t in th e watersh ed. Th e Verde Watersh ed h as a lon g h istory of m in in g, with m an y aban don ed an d several active min es fou n d across th e watersh ed. In m ost cases th e origin al own er or respon sible party for an aban don ed min e is u n kn own an d th e respon sibility for th e orph an ed min e falls to th e cu rren t lan down er. Education: • Develop program s to in crease th e awaren ess an d participation of citizen s, developers an d local decision makers in th e watersh ed m an agem en t efforts. Edu cation program s are discu ssed below. Strategy for Addressin g Existin g Impairmen t Th e major sou rces of water qu ality impairmen t an d en viron men tal damage in th e Verde waters are elevated con cen tration s of dissolved an d Verde Watersh ed Section 7 Watersh ed Man agem en t 7-2 • Aban don ed / orph an ed m in es are fou n d on all classes of lan d own ersh ip in th e Verde Watersh ed, in clu din g federal, state an d private lan ds, with a majority of th e m in es located on lan d admin istered by th e Private sector, Federal govern men t, an d th e State of Arizon a. Su rface ru n off an d erosion from m in e waste / tailin gs is th e prin cipal sou rce of n on poin t sou rce con tam in ation . Su bsu rface drain age from m in e waste / tailin gs can also be a con cern . Th e recom m en ded action s in clu de: • • • • • In ven tory of existin g aban don ed m in es; Revegetation of distu rbed min ed lan ds; Erosion con trol; Ru n off an d sedimen t captu re; Tailin gs an d m in e waste removal; an d Edu cation . Load redu ction poten tial, main ten an ce, cost an d estimated life of revegetation an d erosion con trol treatmen ts for addressin g metals from aban don ed m in es is fou n d in Table 7-1. Table 7-1. Proposed Treatm ents for Addressing Metals from Abandoned Mines. Action Revegetation Erosion Control Fabric Plant Mulch Rock Mulch Toe Drains Detention Basin Load Reduction Potential Medium Estimated Time Load Reduction < 2 years Expected Maintenance Low High Low High High High Immediate Immediate Immediate Immediate Immediate Low Low Medium Medium High Expected Estimated Life Cost of Treatment Low -Medium Long Low -Medium Short Low Short Low -High Long Medium Medium High Medium-Long ShortMedium Silt Fence Medium Immediate Medium Low Straw Roll/bale Medium Immediate High Low Short Removal High Immediate Low High Long NOTE: Th e actu al cost, load redu ction , or life expectan cy of an y treatm en t is dependen t on site specific con dition s. Th e term s u sed in th is table express relative differences between treatm en ts to assist u sers in evalu ating poten tial altern atives. On ly after a site-specific evalu ation can th ese factors be qu an tified m ore rigorously. limited lan d distu rban ce, wh ile oth ers are remote an d discon n ected from n atu ral drain age featu res an d represen t a low risk pollu tan t sou rce. Inventory of Existing Abandoned Mines: All existin g aban don ed m in es are n ot equ al sou rces for elevated con cen tration s of m etals. On e of th e difficu lties in developin g th is assessmen t is th e lack of th orou gh an d cen tralized data on aban don ed min e sites. Som e of th e m apped aban don ed m in e sites are prospector claim s with At sites wh ere water an d oxygen are in con tact with waste rock con tain in g su lfates, su lfu ric acid is form ed. As th e water becom es m ore acidic, m etals are leach ed from th e soils an d rock, Verde Watersh ed Section 7 Watersh ed Man agem en t 7-3 en gin eered cappin g. If acid m in e drain age is a sign ifican t con cern , in terceptin g an d man agin g th e acidic water m ay n ecessitate exten sive site drain age con trol system s an d water treatm en t, a sign ifican t in crease in cost an d requ irin g on -goin g site operation an d m ain ten an ce. gen eratin g toxic con cen tration s of h eavy m etals in th e water. Acid rock drain age, also kn own as acid m in e drain age, can be a sign ifican t water qu ality con cern . Man agem en t of th is importan t sou rce of watersh ed im pairm en t begin s with compilin g available in formation from th e respon sible agen cies. Th is in formation can be u sed to con du ct an on site in ven tory to clarify th e degree of risk th e site exh ibits towards disch argin g elevated con cen tration s of m etals to a water body. Risk factors to be assessed in clude: area an d volu me of waste/tailin gs; metal species presen t an d toxicity; site drain age featu res an d metal tran sport ch aracteristics (air dispersion , sedim en t tran sport, acid min e drain age, etc.); distan ce to a water body; an d eviden ce of active site erosion . Aban don ed min e sites can th en be ran ked an d prioritized for site m an agem en t an d restoration . Reclaimed Min e Site (Dept. of th e In terior, Office of Surface Minin g, h ttp://www.osmre.gov/awardwy.h tm) Erosion Control: Revegetation: If revegetation of th e m in e site is impractical, site drain age an d erosion con trol treatmen ts are altern atives. Erosion con trol action s can also be applied in combin ation with revegetation to con trol erosion as th e vegetation cover is establish ed. Erosion con trol fabric an d plan t mu lch are two sh ort-term treatmen ts th at are u su ally applied in combin ation with revegetation . Revegetation of th e m in e site is th e on ly lon g-term , low m ain ten an ce restoration altern ative in th e absen ce of fu n din g to in stall en gin eered site con tain m en t an d cappin g. In sem iarid en viron men ts, revegetation of a distu rbed site is relatively difficu lt even u n der optim al con dition s. Th e amou n t of effort requ ired to revegetate an aban don ed min e site depen ds on th e ch em ical composition of th e min e waste/tailin gs, wh ich m ay be too toxic to su stain growth . Rock mu lch (i.e. rock riprap) is a lon gterm treatmen t, bu t can be costly an d impractical on an isolated site. Rock mu lch can be an in expen sive acid bu fferin g treatm en t if carbon ate rocks (limeston e) are locally available. As th e acidic min e drain age comes in con tact with th e rock mu lch , th e water Th e addition of soil amen dmen ts, bu fferin g agen ts, or cappin g with top soil to su stain vegetation often approach es th e costs associated with Verde Watersh ed Section 7 Watersh ed Man agem en t 7-4 looses it’s acidity an d dissolved metals precipitate ou t of th e water colu m n . A disadvan tage of erosion con trol treatm en ts is th at th ey do n ot assist in dewaterin g a site an d may h ave little im pact on su bsu rface acidic leach in g. Table 7-2. Proposed Treatm ents for Addressing Erosion and Sedim entation. Estimated Time to Load Reduction < 2 years < 2 years Immediate Expected Estimated Life Cost of Treatment Low Long Low Long Low Medium Low Watering Facility Medium Immediate Low Medium Medium MediumHigh Long Rock Riprap High Immediate Medium Erosion Control Low Fabric High Immediate Low Medium Short Toe Rock High Immediate Low Medium Long Water Bars Medium Immediate Medium Medium Medium Road Surface High Immediate Medium High Long Note: Th e actu al cost, load redu ction, or life expectancy of an y treatm en t is depen dan t on site specific con dition s. Low costs cou ld ran ge from n ominal to $10,000, medium costs cou ld ran ge between $5,000 an d $50,000, an d h igh costs cou ld be an yth in g greater th an $25,000. Th e terms u sed in th is table express relative differen ces between treatmen ts to assist u sers in evalu atin g poten tial altern atives. On ly after a site-specific evalu ation can th ese factors be quan tified more rigorou sly. Action Grazing Mgt. Filter Strips Fencing Load Reduction Potential Medium High Low Expected Maintenance Low Low Low evaporation in reten tion pon ds. Stru ctu ral failu re can lead to down stream tran sport of pollu tan ts. Th e reten tion / deten tion of site ru n off can also escalate su bsu rface drain age problem s by pon din g water. Runoff and Sedim ent Capture: Th e captu re an d con tain men t of site ru n off an d sedimen t, an d preven tion of th e waste rock an d tailin gs from con tact with a water body are oth er m an agem en t approach es. Sh ort-term treatm en ts in clu de in stallin g straw roll/bale or silt fen ce barriers at th e toe of th e sou rce area to captu re sedimen t. Lon g-term treatm en ts in clu de tren ch in g th e toe of th e sou rce area to captu re th e ru n off an d sedimen t. If th e sou rce area is large, th e con stru ction of a deten tion basin m ay be warran ted. Disadvan tages of ru n off an d sedim en t captu re an d con tain men t treatmen ts are th at th ey may con cen trate th e con tam in ated material, especially if dissolved metals are con cen trated by Rock Rip-Rap Sedim en t Con trol (Dept. of th e In terior, Office of Surface Minin g, h ttp://www.osmre.gov/ocph oto.h tm) Verde Watersh ed Section 7 Watersh ed Man agem en t 7-5 Th e target au dien ces for edu cation program s are private lan d own ers, watersh ed grou ps, local officials an d lan d man agemen t agen cies (U.S. Forest Service, Bu reau of Lan d Man agem en t, Tribal en tities). Load redu ction poten tial, main ten an ce, cost an d estimated life of ru n off an d sedimen t con trol treatmen ts su ch as toe drain s, basin s, an d silt fen ces are fou n d in Table 7-2. Rem oval: Figu re 7-1 sh ows lan d own ersh ip across th e 10-digit HUCs, an d Table 7-3 provides a listin g of percen tage of lan d own ersh ip as distribu ted across th e su bwatersh ed areas. Th is table provides a basis from wh ich to iden tify stakeh olders pertin en t to each su bwatersh ed area, an d is repeated h ere in more detail after a brief discu ssion of lan d own ersh ip in Section 4, Social an d Econ om ic Ch aracteristics of th e watersh ed. Th e min e waste/tailin g material can be excavated an d removed. Th is treatmen t is very expen sive an d in feasible for som e sites du e to lack of accessibility. Su bwatersh ed areas prioritized for edu cation al ou treach to address m etals in clu de Upper Partridge Creek, Ash Fork Draw-Ju mbo Tan k, Hell Can yon , Grin dston e Wash -Upper Verde River, Gran ite Creek-Upper Verde River, Oak Creek, Ch erry Creek- Upper Verde River, West Clear Creek, East Verde River, an d Cam p Creek-Lower Verde River. Rock Stru ctu re for Ru n off Con trol (Dept. of th e In terior, Office of Surface Minin g, h ttp://www.osmre.gov/ocph oto.h tm) Education: Sedim en t Lan d u se decision m akers an d stakeh olders n eed to be edu cated on th e problem s associated with aban don ed min es an d th e available treatm en ts to m itigate th e problem s. In addition , aban don ed min e sites are h ealth an d safety con cern s an d th e pu blic sh ou ld be warn ed abou t en terin g open sh afts th at may collapse, or traversin g u n stable slopes. Du e to th e fin an cial liability associated with site restoration , legal an d regu latory con strain ts m u st also be addressed. Erosion an d sedimen tation are major en viron men t problems in th e western Un ited States, in clu din g th e Verde Watersh ed. In sem iarid region s, th e prim ary sou rce of sedim en t is from ch an n el scou r. Excessive ch an n el scou r an d down -cu ttin g can lead to deterioration of riparian system s’ exten t an d con dition . In creases in ch an n el scou r are cau sed by in creased su rface ru n off produ ced by ch an gin g watersh ed con dition s. Restoration of Verde Watersh ed Section 7 Watersh ed Man agem en t 7-6 im paired ch an n el riparian systems can also m itigate erosion dam age. th ese option s. Proper grazin g lan d man agemen t provides for a h ealth y riparian plan t commu n ity th at stabilizes stream ban ks, creates h abitat an d slows flood velocities. Th e primary lan d u ses in th e Verde Watersh ed th at can con tribu te to erosion are livestock grazin g an d m in in g. Developm en t, wh ich also con tribu tes to erosion , is in creasin g in som e portion s of th e watersh ed. Imperviou s lan d su rfaces accelerate su rface ru n off, in crease flow velocity, an d exacerbates ch an n el scou r. Dirt roads can be an im portan t sou rce of sedim en t as well. Th e recom m en ded sedim en t m an agem en t action s (see Table 7-2) are: • • • • • • • • • • Filter Strips: Creatin g a filter strip alon g a waterbody will retard th e movemen t of sedimen t in to th e waterbody, an d may remove pollu tan ts from ru n off before th e material en ters th e body of water. Filter strips will redu ce sedimen tation of stream s, lakes an d oth er bodies of water, an d protect ch an n el an d riparian systems from livestock grazin g an d trampin g. Fen cin g th e filter strip is u su ally requ ired wh en livestock are presen t. Filter strips an d fen cin g can be u sed to protect oth er sen sitive ecological resou rces. Grazin g Man agemen t Filter Strips Fen cin g Waterin g Facilities Rock Riprap Erosion Con trol Fabrics Toe Rock Water Bars Erosion Con trol on Dirt Roads Edu cation Graz ing Managem ent: Livestock grazin g is cu rren tly th e primary lan d u se in th e Verde Watersh ed. Implemen tin g grazin g m an agem en t practices to im prove or main tain th e h ealth an d vigor of plan t commu n ities will lead to redu ction s in su rface ru n off an d erosion . Su stain able livestock grazin g can be ach ieved in all plan t commu n ities by ch an gin g th e du ration , frequ en cy an d in ten sity of grazin g. Filter Strip n ear Waterbody U.S. E.P.A. (h ttp://www.epa.gov/owow/n ps/exbmps.h tm l) Fencing: Restrictin g access to riparian corridors by fen cin g will allow for th e reestablish m en t of riparian vegetation . Straw bale fen cin g slows ru n off an d traps sedimen t from sh eet flow or ch an n elized flow in areas of soil distu rban ce. Man agemen t may in clu de exclu sion of th e lan d from grazin g, season al rotation , rest or som e com bin ation of Verde Watersh ed Section 7 Watersh ed Man agem en t 7-7 Figure 7-1: Verde Watershed Land Ownership by Subwatershed Verde Watersh ed Section 7 Watersh ed Man agem en t 7-8 Table 7-3: Percentage Land Ownership by Subwatershed in the Verde Watershed. Subw atershed Aubrey Valley Upper Big Chino Wash Private 46.10 U.S. U.S, Fish State Bureau U.S. Nat’l & Indian Trust of Land Forest Military Park Wildlife Allotment Indian Lands Mgmt Service Reserv. Service Service (1) Reserv. 27.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.75 66.52 33.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.02 1.60 0.00 78.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.15 21.90 0.00 34.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.75 19.89 0.00 2.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 55.35 31.92 0.00 12.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.87 9.58 0.00 52.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.27 13.23 0.00 37.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Granite Creek-Upper Verde River Hell Canyon Sycamore Creek 55.48 9.73 6.39 23.92 0.00 3.12 0.36 0.00 0.00 19.38 90.27 81.89 0.26 0.00 8.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 Grindstone WashUpper Verde River Oak Creek Beaver Creek 0.95 7.73 4.82 0.07 6.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.98 85.35 94.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.31 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River West Clear Creek East Verde River 27.36 2.12 4.66 4.21 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.77 97.88 95.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.64 0.00 0.01 Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River 3.53 0.04 0.00 96.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.01 Tangle Creek-Low er Verde River 0.24 0.00 0.00 99.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Low er Verde RiverHorseshoe and Bartlett Reservoir 0.16 0.00 0.00 99.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mesquite WashSycamore Creek 0.84 0.00 0.00 97.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.32 Camp Creek-Low er Verde River Percent age of Verde 20.98 23.42 5.09 9.17 0.00 0.02 45.60 64.02 0.00 0.63 12.92 0.55 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 15.41 2.19 Ash Fork Draw Jumbo Tank Upper Partridge Creek Low er Partridge Creek Middle Big Chino Wash Williamson Valley Wash Low er Big Chino Wash (1) Non-Federally designated In dian Tribal land allotm en ts. Verde Watersh ed Section 7 Watersh ed Man agem en t 7-9 Watering Facilities: Altern ative waterin g facilities, su ch as a tan k, trou gh , or oth er watertigh t con tain er at a location removed from th e waterbody, can provide an imal access to water, protect an d en h an ce vegetative cover, provide erosion con trol th rou gh better m an agem en t of grazin g stock an d wildlife, an d protect stream s, pon ds an d water su pplies from biological con tamin ation . Providin g altern ative water sou rces is u su ally requ ired wh en creatin g filter strips. Rock Riprap an d Ju te Mattin g Erosion Con trol alon g a stream. (Ph oto: Lainie Levick) Toe Rock: Placemen t of rock an d riprap alon g th e toe of soil slopes redu ces erosion an d in creases slop stability. Water Bars: A water bar is a sh allow tren ch with m ou n din g lon g th e down -slope edge th at in tercepts an d redirects ru n off water in areas of soil distu rban ce (tailin gs piles, dirt roads). Altern ative Livestock Waterin g Facility (EC Bar Ran ch h ttp://www.ecbarran ch .com) Rock Riprap: Erosion Control on Dirt Roads: Large diam eter rock riprap redu ces erosion wh en in stalled alon g stream ch an n els an d in areas su bject to h ead cu ttin g. Regradin g m ay be n ecessary before placin g th e rocks, bou lders or coarse ston es, an d best man agemen t practices sh ou ld be applied to redu ce erosion du rin g regradin g. In collaboration with respon sible parties, implemen t ru n off an d erosion con trol treatmen ts on dirt roads an d oth er distu rbed areas. Dirt roads can con tribu te sign ifican t qu an tities of ru n off an d sedimen t if n ot properly con stru cted an d m an aged. Water bars an d su rfacin g are poten tial treatm en ts. Wh en a road is adjacen t to a stream , it may be n ecessary to u se en gin eered road stabilization treatm en ts. Erosion Control Fabric: Geotextile filter fabrics redu ce th e poten tial for soil erosion as well as volu n teer (weed) vegetation , an d are often in stalled ben eath rock riprap. Th e stabilization of roads an d em ban km en ts redu ces sedim en t in pu t from erosion an d protects th e related in frastru ctu re. Tradition al stabilization Verde Watersh ed Section 7 Watersh ed Man agem en t 7-10 relied on expen sive rock (riprap) treatm en ts. Oth er option s to stabilize ban ks in clu de th e u se of erosion con trol fabric, toe rock an d revegetation . Based on th e sedim en t an d erosion classification com pleted in Section 6, su bwatersh ed areas prioritized for edu cation al ou treach to address erosion con trol in clu de Oak Creek, Beaver Creek, Ch erry Creek-Upper Verde River, Gran ite Creek-Upper Verde River, West Clear Creek, East Verde River, Fossil Creek-Lower Verde River, Tan gle Creek-Lower Verde River, Lower Verde River-Horsesh oe an d Bartlett Reservoir, Mesqu ite Wash Sycam ore Creek, an d Cam p CreekLower Verde River. Verde River TMDL Im plem entation Plan for Sedim ent: Ban k Stabilization an d Erosion Con trol alon g a h igh way (Ph oto: Lainie Levick) A tu rbidity/su spen ded sedim en t TMDL was developed for two reach es alon g th e u pper portion of th e Verde River: a) from Oak Creek to Beaver Creek, an d b) from West Clear Creek to Fossil Creek. Excessive su spen ded sedimen t an d sedimen tation n egatively impact th e aqu atic ecosystem an d is a detraction from recreation u ses. Channel and Riparian Restoration: Restoration or recon stru ction of a stream reach is u sed wh en th e stream reach h as approach ed or crossed a th resh old of stability from wh ich n atu ral recovery may take too lon g or be u n ach ievable. Th is practice sign ifican tly redu ces sedimen t in pu t to a system an d will promote th e riparian recovery process. Ch an n el an d riparian restoration will be discu ssed in more detail below. In th e TMDL an alysis, a targeted loadin g capacity is first calcu lated, wh ich is th e maximu m pollu tan t load th at th e system can h an dle an d still meet th e su rface water qu ality stan dards. Th en th is load is allocated amon g all sou rces, in clu din g an allocation set aside as a margin of safety to h an dle n atu ral variation . Sou rces in clu de waste load allocation s for poin t sou rces an d load allocation s for n on poin t sou rces. Natu ral con dition s are in clu ded in th e n on poin t sou rce load allocation . A TMDL Implemen tation Plan iden tifies strategies to redu ce pollu tan t loadin gs an d even tu ally meet th e stan dard. Education: Th e developm en t of edu cation program s will h elp address th e im pact of livestock grazin g an d prom ote th e im plem en tation of erosion con trol treatmen ts. Edu cation programs sh ou ld address stormwater m an agem en t from lan d developm en t an d target citizen grou ps, developers an d watersh ed partn ersh ips. Verde Watersh ed Section 7 Watersh ed Man agem en t 7-11 • • Th e TMDL an alysis sh owed th at su rface water impairmen t in th e Verde River was correlated to large storm even ts. Th e Verde River TMDL Im plem en tation Plan (ADEQ, 2002) defin ed strategies an d Best Man agem en t Practices th at sh ou ld be im plem en ted to redu ce sedim en t loadin g du rin g storm even ts. Th ese strategies in clu de improvin g vegetative grou n d cover, m ain tain in g an d closin g u n im proved forest roads, an d im provin g grazin g practices th rou gh ou t th e watersh ed. Septic System Repair Edu cation Filter Strips: Creatin g a filter strip alon g a water body will redu ce an d may remove pollu tan ts from ru n off before th e material en ters a body of water. Filter strips h ave been fou n d to be very effective in removin g an imal waste du e to livestock grazin g, allowin g th e organ ics to bio-atten u ate (i.e. be u sed by th e plan ts) an d degrade. Fen cin g th e filter strip is u su ally requ ired wh en dealin g with livestock. Organ ics At several location s with in th e Verde Watersh ed, water qu ality problems associated with th e in trodu ction of an im al waste were observed. Th e two primary sou rces of an imal waste in th e watersh ed are livestock grazin g in riparian areas an d failin g septic system s. Livestock grazin g is com m on across th e en tire watersh ed. Filter Strip n ear Waterbody U.S. E.P.A. (h ttp://www.epa.gov/owow/n ps/exbmps.h tm l) Th e Oak Creek, Peck’s Lake, an d Ston em an Lake TMDL plan s are also su mmarized with in th is section . A TMDL is a stu dy for an impaired water body th at defin es th e maximu m amou n t of a specified water qu ality parameter or pollu tan t th at can be carried by a waterbody with ou t cau sin g an exceedan ce of water qu ality stan dards. Fencing: Restrictin g access to riparian corridors by fen cin g will allow for th e reestablish m en t of riparian vegetation . Straw bale or silt fen cin g slows ru n off an d traps organ ics from sh eet flow or ch an n elized flow in areas of soil distu rban ce. Th e recommen ded action s (see Table 74) for m an agem en t of organ ics are: • • • Watering Facilities: Altern ative waterin g facilities, su ch as a tan k, trou gh , or oth er watertigh t con tain er at a location removed from th e waterbody, can provide an imal Filter Strips Fen cin g Waterin g Facilities Verde Watersh ed Section 7 Watersh ed Man agem en t 7-12 access to water an d protect streams, pon ds an d water su pplies from biological con tamin ation by grazin g cattle. Providin g altern ative water sou rces is u su ally requ ired wh en creatin g filter strips. Table 7-4. Proposed Treatm ents for Addressing Organics. Load Reduction Potential High Low Estimated Time to Load Reduction < 2 years Immediate Expected Estimated Life Action Maintenance Expected Cost of Treatment Filter Strips Low Low Long Fencing Low Low Medium Medium Watering Facility Medium Immediate Low Low -Medium Septic System Repair High Medium High High Medium Note: Th e actu al cost, load redu ction, or life expectancy of an y treatm en t is depen dan t on site specific con dition s. Low costs cou ld ran ge from n ominal to $10,000, medium costs cou ld ran ge between $5,000 an d $20,000, an d h igh costs cou ld be an yth in g greater th an $15,000. Th e terms u sed in th is table express relative differen ces between treatmen ts to assist u sers in evalu atin g poten tial altern atives. On ly after a site-specific evalu ation can th ese factors be quan tified more rigorou sly. h elp sellin g an d bu yin g property own ers u n derstan d th e ph ysical an d operation al con dition of th e septic system servin g th e h om e or bu sin ess. Th e ADEQ website h ttp://www.azdeq.gov/en viron /water/ perm its/wastewater.h tm l con tain s m ore in formation on permittin g septic system s. Septic System Repair: On e of th e difficu lties in assessin g th e im pact of failin g septic systems to stream s is th e lack of th orou gh an d cen tralized data on septic system s. Alth ou gh it can be assu med th at residen tial developmen t in areas n ot served by san itary sewers will rely on private, on -site septic system s, th e statu s of th e system s are u su ally u n kn own u n til failu re is obviou s to th e h ome own er. Alth ou gh n ot requ ired by ADEQ, older septic system s sh ou ld be in spected wh en pu rch asin g a h ome with an existin g system . Cu rren tly, th e con stru ction of n ew septic system s requ ires a perm it from ADEQ in th e State of Arizon a (some exem ption s apply). In addition , ADEQ requ ires th at th e septic system be in spected wh en a property is sold if it was origin ally approved for u se on or after Jan . 1, 2001 by ADEQ or a delegated cou n ty agen cy. Th is is to At a min imu m, con du ct an in ven tory of location s wh ere private septic system s occu r to clarify th e degree of risk a stream reach may exh ibit du e to failu re of th ese system s. Risk factors can be assessed with GIS m appin g tools, su ch as: proximity to a waterbody, soil type, depth to th e water table, an d den sity of Verde Watersh ed Section 7 Watersh ed Man agem en t 7-13 developm en t. Septic system sites can th en be ran ked an d prioritized for fu rth er evalu ation . for n on poin t sou rces. Natu ral con dition s are in clu ded in th e n on poin t sou rce load allocation . A TMDL Implemen tation Plan iden tifies strategies to redu ce pollu tan t loadin gs an d even tu ally meet th e stan dard. Education: Develop edu cation al programs th at explain th e sou rces of organ ics, address th e im pacts of livestock grazin g, an d promote th e implemen tation of filter strips, fen cin g an d altern ative waterin g facilities. In addition , th e programs sh ou ld promote residen tial septic system m ain ten an ce, septic tan k in spection s an d certification of septic systems by local mu n icipalities or govern m en t en tities. Oak Creek TMDL Im plem entation Plan: A bacteria TMDL was developed in 1999 for Oak Creek based on E. coli con tam in ation at Slide Rock State Park. E. coli is recogn ized as a h u man h ealth risk, an d th e 1999 TMDL an alysis sh owed th at th e elevated E. coli was frequ en tly correlated to h olidays with h eavy recreation al u se, stormwater flows an d warm weath er. Alth ou gh Oak Creek is prized as a recreation destin ation , becau se of th e poten tial h u m an h ealth risk, th e State Parks Departmen t closes Slide Rock wh en th ey fin d elevated E. coli; h owever, oth er segmen ts of th e stream remain open for recreation al u se. A Ph ase II TMDL is cu rren tly bein g developed to fu rth er determin e th e exten t of con tamin ation an d oth er in formation th at m ay h elp redu ce h ealth risks. Based on th e resu lts of th e organ ics classification an d ran kin g in Section 6, su bwatersh ed areas th at are prioritized for edu cation al ou treach to address organ ics in clu de Lower Big Ch in o Wash , Williamson Valley Wash , Gran ite Creek-Upper Verde River, Oak Creek, Ch erry Creek-Upper Verde River, Fossil Creek-Lower Verde River, Beaver Creek an d Cam p Creek-Lower Verde River. A variety of poten tial sou rces were iden tified based on a DNA stu dy of th e E. coli fou n d in th e sedim en t: h u m an s (possibly from failin g septic system s or in adequ ate toilet facilities) an d dom estic an d wild an im als (sku n ks, raccoon s, dogs, h orses, cows, llam as, etc.). TMDL Im plem entation Plans for Organics Th e TMDL Plan s for Oak Creek, Peck’s Lake an d Ston em an Lake are discu ssed below. In th e TMDL an alysis, a targeted loadin g capacity is first calcu lated, wh ich is th e maximu m pollu tan t load th at th e system can h an dle an d still meet su rface water qu ality stan dards. Th is load is th en allocated amon g all sou rces, in clu din g an allocation set aside as a margin of safety to h an dle n atu ral variation . Sou rces in clu de waste load allocation s for poin t sou rces an d load allocation s Th e 1999 TMDL Implemen tation plan iden tified strategies, in clu din g BMPs, th at wou ld redu ce pollu tan t loadin g, su ch as iden tifyin g an d replacin g failin g septic systems, redu cin g th e amou n t of waste left at recreation al sites alon g th e river, redu cin g ru n off Verde Watersh ed Section 7 Watersh ed Man agem en t 7-14 Similar to Peck’s Lake, th e TMDL an alysis iden tified th at excessive n u trien ts in th e water were related to in tern al cyclin g of n u trien ts, exacerbated by th e lake n ot h avin g an ou tlet an d margin al in flow. Du rin g drou gh ts th e lake frequ en tly goes com pletely dry. from farm s, pickin g u p pet wastes, an d providin g more an d clean er toilet facilities. As th e Ph ase II TMDL is completed, th e Implemen tation Plan will also be revised, an d may iden tify addition al strategies for redu cin g E. coli. Peck’s Lake TMDL Im plem entation Plan: Th e TMDL Implemen tation Plan was developed as part of th e TMDL, an d it iden tified several strategies to improve lake m an agem en t so th at water qu ality stan dards cou ld be m et. Th ese strategies in clu ded rem ovin g vegetation , in creasin g water in flow to th e lake, an d u pgradin g u n dersized or failin g septic system s at th e lake. Peck’s Lake is actu ally an old oxbow in th e Verde River n ear Clarkdale, Arizon a. A n u trien t TMDL was approved by EPA in 2000 du e to excessive pH an d low dissolved oxygen in th e lake, wh ich are stressors to aqu atic ecosystems, an d if associated with severe algae bloom s or aqu atic weeds, can resu lt in fish kills. Selen iu m Th e TMDL an alysis iden tified th at excessive n u trien ts in th e water were related to in tern al cyclin g (n u trien ts n ot flu sh in g ou t of th e system) an d n u trien t loadin gs primarily from n ative vegetation in th e immediate watersh ed. Selen iu m occu rs n atu rally in th e en viron men t; h owever, it can en ter grou n dwater or su rface water from h azardou s waste-sites or irrigated farmlan d. Th e recommen ded action for th e man agemen t of selen iu m is to avoid flood irrigation of croplan ds, an d in stall a mech an ized irrigation system. Th e Peck’s Lake TMDL Implemen tation Plan iden tified several strategies, in clu din g BMPs to main tain very low n u trien t loadin gs from stormwater ru n off from n earby residen tial an d com m ercial areas (ADEQ, 2002). Mech an ized irrigation system s inclu de cen ter pivot, lin ear m ove, gated pipe, wh eellin e or drip irrigation . Based on a 1998 stu dy (Hoffm an an d Willett, 1998) costs ran ge from a low of $340 per acre for th e PVC gated pipe to a h igh of $1,095 per acre for th e lin ear move. Th e cen ter pivot cost per acre is $550, an d wh eellin e is $805 per acre. Stonem an Lake TMDL Im plem entation Plan: Ston eman Lake is a 120 acre n atu ral lake located in th e Cocon in o Nation al Forest. A n u trien t TMDL was approved by EPA in 2000 du e to excessive pH an d low dissolved oxygen , wh ich are stressors to aqu atic ecosystem s, an d if associated with severe algae bloom s or aqu atic weeds, can resu lt in fish kills. Education: Develop edu cation al programs th at explain th e sou rces of selen iu m , an d illu strate th e variou s altern ative irrigation system s. Verde Watersh ed Section 7 Watersh ed Man agem en t 7-15 Verde, Lower Verde, Mesqu ite Wash Sycam ore Creek, an d Cam p CreekLower Verde River Natu ral Resou rce Areas. Th is will requ ire fen cin g an d, in man y cases, providin g altern ative water sou rces for livestock an d wildlife. Riparian areas h ave been an im portan t sou rce of forage for m ost livestock growers, bu t to protect th ese delicate ecosystem s, low im pact riparian grazin g system s sh ou ld be developed an d applied wh ere feasible. Based on th e resu lts of th e selen iu m classification an d ran kin g in Section 6, su bwatersh ed areas th at are prioritized for edu cation al ou treach to address selen iu m in clu de Upper Partridge Creek, Grin dston e Wash -Upper Verde River, Gran ite Creek-Upper Verde River, Ch erry Creek-Upper Verde River, Fossil Creek-Lower Verde River, East Verde River, Mesqu ite Wash -Sycamore Creek, an d Cam p Creek-Lower Verde River. In impaired stream reach es restoration treatm en ts m aybe n ecessary. Treatmen ts may in volve en gin eered ch an n el re-align men t, grade con trol an d ban k stabilization stru ctu res an d a variety of revegetation an d oth er bioen gin eerin g practices. Strategy for Ch an n el an d Riparian Protection an d Restoration Riparian areas are on e of th e most critical resou rces in th e Verde Watersh ed. Health y riparian areas stabilize stream ban ks, decrease ch an n el erosion an d sedimen tation , rem ove pollu tan ts from su rface ru n off, create wildlife h abitat, slow flood velocities, promote aqu ifer rech arge an d provide recreation al opportu n ities. As grou n d water resou rces are tapped for water su pply, man y riparian areas across th e watersh ed are in dan ger of bein g dewatered as th e water table drops below th e base of th e stream ch an n el. A large portion of th e riparian systems in th e watersh ed are man aged by federal agen cies, prin cipally th e U.S. Forest Service. In cooperation with respon sible m an agem en t agen cies, riparian protection an d restoration efforts sh ou ld be im plem en ted across th e watersh ed. Addition al in formation will n eed to be collected on th e existin g impairm en t of stream reach es an d riparian areas to better u n derstan d wh ich stream segmen ts sh ou ld be prioritized for restoration projects. Data n eeds in clu de: Th e creation of filter strips sh ou ld be con sidered su rrou n din g all importan t water bodies an d riparian systems with in th e five n atu ral resou rce areas, in clu din g: th e exten sive riparian forests an d peren n ial streams of th e Upper Verde Watersh ed • Stu dyin g th e existin g stream corridor stru ctu re, fu n ction an d distu rban ces. • Determin in g th e n atu ral stream con dition s before distu rban ce. Th is en tails iden tifyin g a “referen ce site” th at illu strates th e poten tial pristin e stream con dition s. • Iden tifyin g th e cau ses for th e impairmen t an d restoration altern atives. Section 7 Watersh ed Man agem en t 7-16 • u n derstan din g of th e importan ce of main tain in g n atu ral riparian system s an d restoration of degraded streams. Iden tifyin g stream reach es th at h ave a h igh poten tial to su ccessfu lly respon d to restoration treatmen ts. Education Program s: Th is watersh ed classification is on e m eth od u sed to iden tify stream impairmen t an d restoration altern atives, bu t oth er data n eeds may also in clu de iden tifyin g im portan t issu es, exam in in g h istoric con dition s, evalu atin g presen t con dition s an d processes, an d determ in in g th e effects of h u m an activities. It can m ean describin g th e parts an d processes of th e wh ole watersh ed an d an alyzin g th eir fu n ction s in gen eral or relative to some stan dard (su ch as a water qu ality stan dard or h istoric con dition ). It also can m ean focu sin g on particu lar con cern s abou t h u m an activities, con dition s or processes in th e watersh ed. Th e edu cation effort will be partly con du cted by th e Arizon a Non poin t Edu cation of Mu n icipal Officials (NEMO) program . Arizon a NEMO works th rou gh th e Un iversity of Arizon a Cooperative Exten sion Service, in partn ersh ip with th e Arizon a Departmen t of En viron men tal Qu ality (ADEQ) Water Qu ality Division , an d th e Water Resou rces Research Cen ter. Th e goal of Arizon a NEMO is to edu cate lan d u se decision -m akers to take volu n tary action s th at will mitigate n on poin t sou rce pollu tion an d protect ou r n atu ral resou rces. Education needs: Edu cation programs n eed to be developed for lan d u se decision m akers an d stakeh olders th at will address th e variou s sou rces of water qu ality degradation an d presen t m an agem en t option s. Th e key sou rces of con cern for edu cation al programs are: Stream an d riparian restoration projects are costly an d sh ou ld be viewed as a lon g-term en deavor. Stream an d riparian restoration projects can n ot be con du cted in isolation from oth er watersh ed activities. If th e root cau se of ch an n el an d riparian impairmen t is du e to u pstream watersh ed con dition s, on site restoration efforts are likely to fail u n less th e overall watersh ed con dition s are also improved. Th is requ ires an in tegrated approach th at crosses th e en tire watersh ed. • Abandoned Mines (con trol of ru n off an d sedimen t) • Graz ing Managem ent (erosion con trol treatmen ts an d riparian area protection ) Citizen grou ps also h ave a role in th e restoration efforts. Volu n teers can be u sed in th e tree plan tin g an d seedin g treatmen ts, an d can also be u sed for grade con trol an d ban k stabilization con stru ction . Edu cation program s, su ch as ‘Adopt A Stream’, sh ou ld be developed to en cou rage pu blic • Stream side Protection (filter strips an d altern ative waterin g facilities) • Riparian Managem ent Verde Watersh ed Section 7 Watersh ed Man agem en t 7-17 • Septic System s (residen tial septic system m ain ten an ce, licen sin g an d in spection program s) Target Audiences: Th e targeted au dien ces will in clu de developers, private lan d own ers an d m an agers, livestock growers, h om e own ers an d citizen grou ps. Several program s, in clu din g th ose addressin g septic system s, storm water m an agem en t an d water con servation , will target th e Ch ase Creek su bwatersh ed. Developmen t of an ‘Adopt a Stream’ Program will be con sidered. • Storm water Managem ent (con trol of storm water ru n off from u rban ized an d developin g areas) • Water Conservation (for private residen ts an d to preven t dewaterin g of n atu ral stream flow an d riparian areas) Referen ces ADEQ, Arizon a Departm en t of En viron men tal Qu ality, 2002. Arizon a’s In tegrated 305(b) Water Qu ality Assessm ent an d 303(d) Listin g Report, Verde Watersh ed Assessm ent. h ttp://www.azdeq.gov/en viron /water/assessm en t/down load/305-02/18v.pdf ADEQ, Arizon a Departm en t of En viron men tal Qu ality, 2004. Arizon a’s In tegrated 305(b) Water Qu ality Assessm ent an d 303(d) Listin g Report, Verde Watersh ed Assessm en t. h ttp://www.azdeq.gov/en viron /water/assessm en t/down load/303-04/vd.pdf Hoffm an , T.R. an d G.S. Willett. 1998. Th e Econ omics Of Altern ative Irrigation Systems In Th e Kittitas Valley Of Wash in gton State. Cooperative Exten sion , Wash in gton State Un iversity, pu b. EB1875. h ttp://cru 84.cah e.wsu .edu /cgibin /pu bs/EB1875.h tml Data Sou rces*: Arizon a State Lan d Departmen t, Arizon a Lan d Resou rce In formation System (ALRIS), h ttp://www.lan d.state.az.u s/alris/in dex.h tml Lan d own ersh ip. Febru ary 7, 2002. *Note: Dates for each data set refer to when data was downloaded from the website. Metadata (inform ation about how and when the GIS data were created) is available from the website in m ost cases. Metadata in cludes the original source of the data, when it was created, it’s geographic projection and scale, the nam e(s) of the contact person and/or organiz ation, and general description of the data. Verde Watersh ed Section 7 Watersh ed Man agem en t 7-18 • Section 8: Local Watershed Planning Th e first compon en t of th e watersh edbased plan n in g process is to su m m arize all readily available n atu ral resou rce in formation an d oth er data for a given watersh ed. As seen in Section s 2 th ou gh 5 of th is docu men t, th ese data are at a broad-based, large watersh ed scale an d in clu de in formation on water qu ality, lan d u se an d cover, n atu ral resou rces an d wildlife h abitat. EPA’s 2003 Guidelines for the Award of Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants (EPA, 2003) su ggests th at a watersh edbased plan sh ou ld in clu de all n in e elem en ts listed in Section 1 of th is docu m en t to be con sidered for fu n din g. Th e n in e plan n in g elemen ts h elp provide reason able assu ran ce th at th e n on poin t sou rce of pollu tion will be man aged to improve an d protect water qu ality, an d to assu re th at pu blic fu n ds to address im paired waters are u sed effectively. It is an ticipated th at stakeh older-grou ps will develop th eir own plan n in g docu m en ts. Th e stakeh older-grou p watersh ed-based plan s may cover a su bwatersh ed area with in th e NEMO Watersh ed-based Plan , or in clu de th e en tire 6-digit HUC watersh ed area. Poten tial Water Qu ality Improvemen t Projects In addition , stakeh older-grou p local watersh ed-based plan s sh ou ld in corporate local kn owledge an d con cern s glean ed from stakeh older in volvemen t an d cou ld in clu de: • A description of th e stakeh older / partn ersh ip process; • A well-stated, overarch in g goal aim ed at protectin g, preservin g, an d restorin g h abitat an d water qu ality, an d en cou ragemen t of lan d stewardsh ip; • A plan to coordin ate n atu ral resou rce protection an d plan n in g efforts; • A detailed an d prioritized discu ssion of best m an agem en t practices, strategies an d projects to be implemen ted by th e partn ersh ip. GIS, h ydrologic m odelin g an d fu zzy logic were u sed to ran k an d prioritize th e 10-digit HUC su bwatersh eds for kn own water qu ality con cern s (Section 6, Watersh ed Classification ). Th ese ran kin gs are u sed to iden tify wh ere water qu ality improvemen t projects sh ou ld be im plem en ted to redu ce n on poin t sou rce pollu tion in th e Verde Watersh ed. Th is m eth odology ran ked twen ty-two su bwatersh eds for fou r key n on poin t sou rce water qu ality con cern s: 1. Metals origin atin g from aban don ed min e sites; 2. Stream sedimen tation du e to lan d u se activities; 3. Organ ic an d n u trien t pollu tion du e to lan d u se activities; an d 4. Selen iu m du e to agricu ltu ral practices. A detailed an d prioritized description of n atu ral resou rce m an agem en t objectives; an d Verde Watersh ed Section 8 Watersh ed Plan 8-1 category is h igh ligh ted with a bold cell ou tlin e. Th e ran kin gs ran ge from a low risk of 0.0 to h igh er risk valu es approach in g 1.0. See Section 6 for a fu ll discu ssion on th e derivation of th ese valu es. Table 8-1 lists all twen ty-two su bwatersh eds an d th eir fin al weigh ted fu zzy membersh ip valu e for each of th ese fou r con stitu en ts. Valu es h igh ligh ted with a sh aded box in dicate h igh risk for water qu ality degradation . Th e h igh est ran kin g valu e in each Table 8-1. Su m m ary of Weigh ted Fu zzy Membersh ip Valu es for each Su bwatersh ed FMV Weighted Subw atershed Aubrey Valley Upper Big Chino Wash Ash Fork Draw -Jumbo Tank Upper Partridge Creek Low er Partridge Creek Middle Big Chino Wash Williamson Valley Wash Low er Big Chino Wash Metals 0.300 0.300 0.760 0.820 0.520 0.640 0.640 0.640 Sediment Organics 0.16 0.43 0.22 0.46 0.31 0.49 0.22 0.46 0.16 0.43 0.16 0.47 0.22 0.64 0.28 0.61 Selenium 0.300 0.300 0.465 0.630 0.465 0.465 0.465 0.300 Granite Creek-Upper Verde River 0.700 0.39 0.92 0.800 Hell Canyon Sycamore Creek Grindstone Wash-Upper Verde River 0.820 0.640 0.880 0.16 0.47 0.23 0.45 0.56 0.25 0.465 0.465 0.630 Oak Creek 0.760 0.91 0.72 0.465 Beaver Creek 0.700 0.54 0.60 0.465 Cherry Creek-Upper Verde River 0.820 0.49 0.80 0.800 West Clear Creek 0.910 0.42 0.28 0.300 East Verde River Fossil Creek-Low er Verde River Tangle Creek-Low er Verde River Low er Verde River-Horseshoe and Bartlett Reservoir Mesquite Wash-Sycamore Creek Camp Creek-Low er Verde River 0.880 0.670 0.573 0.41 0.67 0.52 0.52 0.74 0.21 0.665 0.665 0.350 0.670 0.670 0.760 0.52 0.57 0.57 0.44 0.43 0.74 0.350 0.680 0.665 1. West Clear Creek Su bwatersh ed, for metals pollu tion ; Based on th ese fu zzy membersh ip valu es, th e su bwatersh ed th at ran ked th e h igh est for each of th e n on poin t sou rces was selected for an exam ple water qu ality improvemen t project. Th e fou r example su bwatersh ed projects th at will be discu ssed h ere are: 2. Oak Creek Su bwatersh ed, for sedimen t pollu tion ; 3. Gran ite Creek – Upper Verde River Su bwatersh ed, for Verde Watersh ed Section 8 Watersh ed Plan 8-2 Th e West Clear Creek Su bwatersh ed of th e Verde River ran ked as th e most critical area in th e Verde Watersh ed impacted by metals related to an aban don ed m in e site (i.e. h igh est fu zzy membersh ip valu e for metals), an d a project to con trol th e movemen t of m etal-laden sedim en t is recom m en ded. Th e major lan d own er with in th is su bwatersh ed is th e U.S. Forest Service, alth ou gh a little over 2% of th e lan d is h eld by private own ers (Table 73) n ear Cam p Verde. Projects implemen ted on private, federal or state lan ds m u st obtain th e perm ission of th e own er an d mu st comply with all local, state an d federal perm its. pollu tan ts du e to organ ics an d n u trien ts derived from lan d u se; an d, 4. Both Gran ite Creek – Upper Verde River an d Ch erry Creek – Upper Verde River Su bwatersh eds, for selen iu m du e to agricu ltu ral practices. Exam ple projects with best m an agem en t practices to redu ce m etals, sedim en t, organ ic, n u trien t an d selen iu m pollu tion are discu ssed below. Man agem en t m easu res an d th eir associated costs m u st be design ed an d calcu lated based on site-specific con dition s; h owever, sample costs are in clu ded in Section 7. Load Redu ction s: Calcu late an d docu m en t sedim ent delivery an d pollu tan t redu ction s for sedim en t-born e m etals u sin g Mich igan DEQ (1999) meth odology (fou n d in th e NEMO BMP Man u al u n der “Lin ks”). Alth ou gh th is man u al addresses sedim en t redu ction with respect to n u trien ts, th e meth ods can be applied wh en addressin g m etals. Particu late metals th at gen erate dissolved metals in th e water colu mn an d dissolved m etals h ave a ten den cy to beh ave like n u trien ts in th e water colu m n . Meth ods for calcu latin g an d docu m en tin g pollu tan t redu ction s for sedim en t, sedim en t-born e ph osph oru s an d n itrogen , feedlot ru n off, an d com m ercial fertilizer, pesticides an d man u re u tilization can be fou n d on th e NEMO web site in th e Best Man agem en t Practices (BMP) Man u al, u n der Lin ks (www.Arizon aNEMO.org). It is expected th at th e local stakeh older partn ersh ip watersh ed-based plan will iden tify projects an d location s im portan t to th eir comm u n ity, an d may differ from th e example project location s proposed h ere. Man agem en t Measu res: Variou s option s are available to restore a min e site, ran gin g from erosion con trol fabrics an d revegetation to th e removal an d relocation of th e tailin gs m aterial. Section 7 an d Table 7-1 presen t th ese man agemen t measu res alon g with associated load redu ction poten tial, main ten an ce, an d an ticipated costs. It sh ou ld be recogn ized th at on ly after a site-specific evalu ation can th e best treatmen t option be iden tified an d th at th e in stallation of en gin eered 1. West Clear Creek Subwatershed Exam ple Project Pollu tan t Type an d Sou rce: Metal-laden sedimen t origin atin g from an aban don ed tailin gs or spoil pile at an assu med aban don ed min e site with in th e riparian area. Verde Watersh ed Section 8 Watersh ed Plan 8-3 erosion con trol system s an d/or th e relocation of th e tailin gs will n ecessitate project design by a licen sed en gin eer. in formation on cu rren t storm water regu lation s is n ecessary. Th e En viron men tal Protection Agen cy (EPA) h as estimated th at abou t 30 percen t of kn own pollu tion to ou r n ation 's waters is attribu table to storm water ru n off. In 1987, Con gress directed EPA to develop a regu latory program to address th e storm water problem. EPA issu ed regu lation s in 1990 au th orizin g th e creation of a Nation al Pollu tan t Disch arge Elimin ation System (NPDES) perm ittin g system for storm water disch arges. In Arizon a, th is program is called AZPDES, wh ich stan ds for Arizon a Pollu tan t Disch arge Elimin ation System. Becau se stormwater ru n off can tran sport pollu tan ts to eith er a mu n icipal storm sewer system or to a water of th e Un ited States, permits are requ ired for th ose disch arges. 2. Oak Creek Subwatershed Exam ple Project Pollu tan t Type an d Sou rce: Sedimen t pollu tion presu med to be du e to in creased u rban ization an d associated lan d u se activities. Th e Oak Creek su bwatersh ed of th e Upper Verde River ran ked as th e m ost critical area impacted by lan d u se activities. It h ad th e h igh est fu zzy membersh ip valu e for sedimen t (Table 8-1), an d im plem en tation of best m an agem en t practices related to storm water m an agem en t is recom m ended. In rapidly growin g u rban areas, su ch as Sedon a, n ew con stru ction an d in creasin g popu lation growth resu lt in in creased soil distu rban ce an d storm water sedim en t loadin g. Stormwater Ph ase II Regu lation s establish ed by EPA in 1999 requ ired some smaller mu n icipalities to obtain a permit for th eir mu n icipal stormwater disch arges (Ph ase I Regu lation s addressed large m etropolitan cities, su ch as Ph oen ix). Sedon a is a regu lated mu n icipality as design ated by ADEQ Ph ase II Stormwater Regu lation s (see 40 CFR 122.32(a)(2)). With in th e Verde Watersh ed, Sedon a, in addition to Yavapai, Cocon in o, an d Maricopa Cou n ties an d th e m u n icipalities of Prescott, Prescott Valley, Camp Verde an d Cotton wood, were requ ired to su bmit th eir Notice of In ten t an d Storm water Man agem en t Program to ADEQ by Decem ber 2003. Th e lan d own ers with in th is su bwatersh ed (Table 7-3) in clu de th e U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, th e Nation al Park Service, an d State Tru st Lan d, bu t th e rapidly growin g mu n icipality of Sedon a an d n earby private lan ds h ave been exh ibitin g watersh ed stress du e to in creased u rban ization . Load Redu ction s: Th e goal of th is example is to redu ce sedimen t pollu tion to th e Oak Creek su bwatersh ed. Becau se in creased sedim en t load in Oak Creek is assu m ed to be th e resu lt of in creased u rban storm water con cern s, some backgrou n d Storm water disch arges gen erated du rin g con stru ction activities can also Verde Watersh ed Section 8 Watersh ed Plan 8-4 In ten t (NOI) an d a Stormwater Man agem en t Plan (SWMP). More in formation abou t Arizon a Stormwater regu lation s an d permittin g can be fou n d at: h ttp://azdeq.gov/en viron /water/perm its/ storm water.h tm l cau se an array of ph ysical, ch emical an d biological water qu ality impacts. Water qu ality im pairm en t occu rs, in part, becau se a n u mber of pollu tan ts are preferen tially absorbed on to min eral or organ ic particles fou n d in fin e sedimen t. Th e in tercon n ected process of erosion (detach men t of th e soil particles) an d sedimen t tran sport du rin g storm even ts resu lts in water qu ality degradation . Stormwater ru n off from con stru ction sites can in clu de pollu tan ts oth er th an sedim en t th at m ay becom e m obilized wh en lan d su rfaces are distu rbed. Th ese in clu de ph osph orou s, n itrogen , pesticides, petroleu m derivatives, con stru ction ch emicals an d solid wastes. Man agem en t Measu res: Mu n icipal Ordin an ces addressin g storm water reten tion /deten tion , con stru ction site m an agem en t, h ou sin g den sity, drain age bu ffers, im perm eable su rfaces, an d gradin g are th e most effective m an agem en t m easu res to address sedim en t pollu tion du e to storm water ru n off. New ordin an ce proposals can be in itiated by citizen grou ps with in th e ju risdiction of th e mu n icipality, su ch as th e stakeh oldergrou p local watersh ed partn ersh ip. ADEQ storm water regu lation s address both sm all an d large con stru ction sites. Large con stru ction activity refers to th e distu rban ce of 5 or more acres. It also refers to th e distu rban ce of less th an 5 acres of total lan d area th at is a part of a larger com m on plan of developm en t or sale if th e larger common plan will u ltimately distu rb five acres or more (see 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x)). In Sedon a, th e Assistan t Director of Pu blic Works/Assistant City En gin eer oversees th e En gin eerin g Division . Th is division 's scope of respon sibility in clu des review of con stru ction site an d developm en t proposals as th ey impact pu blic in frastru ctu re, gradin g plan s, m an agem en t of City con stru ction projects, in spection s related to aban don men t of private sewer system s an d con n ection to th e City wastewater collection system, an d overseein g th e design of roads, storm drain age facilities, an d wastewater facilities. Sm all con stru ction activity refers to th e distu rban ce of 1 or m ore, bu t less th an 5 acres of lan d. It also refers to th e distu rban ce of less th an 1 acre of total lan d area th at is part of a larger com m on plan of developm en t or sale if th e larger common plan will u ltimately distu rb 1 or m ore, bu t less th an 5 acres. (see 40 CFR 122.26(b)(15). Gen erally, properly im plemen ted an d en forced con stru ction site ordin an ces effectively redu ce sedimen t pollu tion . In man y areas, h owever, th e effectiven ess of ordin an ces in redu cin g pollu tan ts is limited du e to in adequ ate en forcem en t or in com plete com plian ce with local ordin an ces by con stru ction site operators. Reportin g of obviou s To obtain au th orization for disch arges of storm water associated with con stru ction activity, th e operator mu st comply with all th e requ iremen ts of th e gen eral permit an d su bmit a Notice of Verde Watersh ed Section 8 Watersh ed Plan 8-5 allocation s an d TMDL implemen tation plan developm en t” (EPA, 2001). For exam ple, im plem en tation of DNA fin gerprin tin g tech n ology will iden tify th e actu al sou rces of bacterial an d clarify h ow best to target an implemen tation plan an d project. con stru ction site violation s of local ordin an ces, for example, failu re to m an age site waste (m essy h ou sekeepin g) an d trackin g of mu d on to th e roadways can be perform ed by local citizen s. In addition to ordin an ces as a best m an agem en t practice to address storm water sedim en t, th e ADEQ Ph ase II Stormwater Regu lation s requ ire an ou treach edu cation compon en t to th e Storm water Man agem en t Plan s. Stakeh older-grou p local watersh ed partn ersh ips can play an importan t role in edu catin g th e pu blic abou t in dividu al property own er respon sibilities in protectin g stream water qu ality. Th e resu lts of a stu dy fu n ded from Section 319 Non poin t Sou rce Gran t fu n ds for Oak Creek Can yon with in th e Verde Watersh ed fou n d th at most of th e fecal pollu tion came from n atu ral an imal popu lation s in th e can yon with sporadic an d season al im pacts from h u m an , dog, cattle, h ou se an d llam a sou rces (NAU, 2000). Th e Oak Creek Task Force (a locally led watersh ed grou p) su ggested implemen tin g locally approved grazin g m odification s to decrease th e in flow of sedimen t carryin g fecal material, as well as pu blic edu cation an d in creased toilet facilities with in th e can yon to redu ce n on poin t sou rce bacterial pollu tan ts. 3. Granite Creek-Upper Verde River Subwatershed Exam ple Project Pollu tan t Type an d Sou rce: Organ ic pollu tan ts, specifically E. coli, assu m ed to origin ate from cattle waterin g in th e stream ch an n el. Th e Gran ite Creek su bwatersh ed of th e Upper Verde River ran ked as th e m ost critical area impacted by lan d u se activities. It h ad th e h igh est fu zzy membersh ip valu es for organ ics, wh ich are h igh ly correlated to lan d u se activities (Table 8-1). Prior to in itiatin g a project to redu ce E. coli bacteria pollu tion , it may ben efit th e watersh ed partn ersh ip to determin e th e sou rce of th e bacterial con tamin ation . Th e field of bacteria sou rce trackin g con tin u es to evolve rapidly an d th ere are n u merou s meth ods available, each of wh ich h as its lim itation s an d ben efits. In th e Gran ite Creek su bwatersh ed, path ogen s are assu m ed to m ost likely origin ate from grazin g practices becau se livestock grazin g is th e prim ary lan d u se. Th erefore, load redu ction sh ou ld con cen trate on grazin g man agemen t. Despite th e rapid an d in ten sive research in to existin g m eth ods, EPA recom m en ds th at bacteria sou rce trackin g "sh ou ld be u sed by federal an d state agen cies to address sou rces of fecal pollu tion in water… [becau se it] represen ts th e best tools available to determin e path ogen TMDL load For th is example project it will be assu med th at grazin g with in th e riparian area h as exacerbated erosion (sedimen t pollu tion ) an d in trodu ced Verde Watersh ed Section 8 Watersh ed Plan 8-6 fecal matter in to th e stream (organ ic pollu tion in th e form of E. coli). Th e lan d own ers with in th is su bwatersh ed (Table 7-3) are primarily private an d State Tru st Lan ds, alth ou gh th e U.S. Forest Service, Bu reau of Lan d Man agemen t, American In dian Tribal en tities, an d th e U.S. Military h old property in th e watersh ed. Projects implemen ted on private, federal or state lan ds m u st obtain th e perm ission of th e 1own er an d m u st com ply with all local, state an d federal permits. man agemen t measu res. Tables 7-2 an d 7-4 presen t load redu ction poten tial, requ ired main ten an ce an d an ticipated costs associated with variou s m an agem en t option s. It sh ou ld be recogn ized th at on ly after a site-specific evalu ation can th e best treatmen t option be iden tified an d th at th e in stallation of en gin eered erosion con trol system s or th e in stallation of an altern ative water sou rce may n ecessitate project design by a licen sed en gin eer. Load Redu ction s: Th e goal of th is example project is to redu ce bacterial (organ ic) pollu tion to th e Gran ite Creek su bwatersh ed. Organ ic pollu tion load redu ction s can be calcu lated an d docu men ted u sin g th e Mich igan DEQ (1999) meth odology, available at th e NEMO website, u n der BMP Man u al, Lin ks (www.Arizon aNEMO.org). 4. Granite Creek – Upper Verde River and Cherry Creek – Upper Verde River Subwatershed Exam ple Project Pollu tan t Type an d Sou rce: Selen iu m pollu tion du e to irrigation practices. Th e Gran ite Creek an d Ch erry Creek su bwatersh eds of th e Upper Verde River ran ked as th e most critical areas impacted by agricu ltu ral lan d u se practices th at exacerbate th e con cen tration of n atu rally occu rrin g selen iu m (i.e. h igh est fu zzy membersh ip valu es for Selen iu m, Table 8-1). Man agem en t Measu res: Im plem en tin g grazin g m an agem en t practices to improve or main tain riparian h ealth will h elp redu ce excess su rface ru n off an d accelerated erosion , an d redu ce th e amou n t of bacterial pollu tion to th e stream. Su stain able livestock grazin g can be ach ieved in all plan t commu n ities by ch an gin g th e du ration , frequ en cy an d in ten sity of grazin g. For th is example project it will be assu med th at irrigation tail water h as in trodu ced elevated con cen tration s of selen iu m in to th e stream. Th e lan d own ers with in th e Gran ite Creek su bwatersh ed (Table 7-3) are primarily private an d State Tru st Lan ds, alth ou gh th e U.S. Forest Service, Bu reau of Lan d Man agemen t, American In dian Tribal en tities, an d th e U.S. Military h old property in th e watersh ed. With in th e Ch erry Creek su bwatersh ed, primary lan d own ers in clu de th e U.S. Forest Service, private own ers, State Tru st In addition , livestock m an agem en t m ay in clu de exclu sion of th e lan d from grazin g an d/or restrictin g access to riparian corridors by fen cin g, wh ich will also redu ce th e in trodu ction of fecal matter to th e stream. Altern ative waterin g facilities at a location removed from th e waterbody may be n ecessary. Section 7 discu sses th ese Verde Watersh ed Section 8 Watersh ed Plan 8-7 lan ds, American In dian Tribal en tities, an d th e Nation al Park Service. Projects implemen ted on private, federal, tribal, or state lan ds m u st obtain th e permission of th e own er an d mu st comply with all local, state an d federal perm its. Cu rren tly, Arizon a is n ot con siderin g su ch extrem e m easu res, bu t selen iu m rem ain s an im portan t n on poin t sou rce con tamin an t an d a kn own risk to wildlife. Th e u se of treatmen t tech n ologies to redu ce selen iu m con cen tration s in clu de ion exch an ge, reverse osm osis, solar pon ds, ch em ical redu ction with iron , microalgalbacterial treatmen t, biological precipitation , an d con stru cted wetlan ds. En gin eered water treatmen t systems, h owever, may be beyon d th e scope of a proposed best m an agem en t practices project, an d tech n ologies are still in th e research stage. Load Redu ction s: Natu rally occu rrin g selen iu m is con cen trated in water by evaporation , an d also wh en irrigation water leach es selen iu m from th e soil. To calcu late th e load redu ction resu ltin g from im plem en tation of a best m an agem en t practice, an estimate of th e redu ction in volu me of irrigation tail water th at retu rn s to th e stream is requ ired. Section 7 briefly discu sses load redu ction poten tial, main ten an ce, an d an ticipated costs associated with th e in stallation of mech an ized irrigation system s. Th ese types of system s allow for improved water con servation an d im proved m an agem en t of lim ited water resou rces. It sh ou ld be recogn ized th at on ly after a site-specific evalu ation can th e best treatmen t option be iden tified an d th at th e in stallation of m ech an ized irrigation systems in volve capital expen se an d may n ecessitate project design by a licen sed en gin eer. Su pport for calcu latin g load redu ction s can be obtain ed from th e local Agricu ltu ral Research Service or Cou n ty Cooperative Exten sion office (h ttp://cals.arizon a.edu /exten sion / ). Man agem en t Measu res: Im plem en tin g agricu ltu ral irrigation practices to redu ce tail water pollu tion will n ecessitate dramatic ch an ges from th e typical practice of flood irrigation . Th is may in volve th e in stallation of m ech an ized irrigation system s or on site treatm en t. Tech n ical an d Fin an cial Assistan ce As an exam ple of a situ ation wh ere drain age water m u st be m an aged, som e watersh eds in Californ ia h ave agricu ltu ral drain age water con tain in g levels of selen iu m th at approach th e n u m eric criterion defin in g h azardou s waste (above 1,000 parts per billion ). Th is situ ation is bein g con sidered for permit regu lation to man age drain age at th e farm level (San Joaqu in Valley Drain age Im plem en tation Program , 1999). Stakeh older-grou p local watersh edbased plan s sh ou ld iden tify specific projects importan t to th eir partn ersh ip, an d du rin g th e plan n in g process sh ou ld estim ate th e am ou n ts of tech n ical an d fin an cial assistan ce n eeded, associated costs, an d/or th e sou rces an d au th orities th at will be relied u pon to implemen t th e plan . Tech n ical su pport sou rces in clu de NEMO, Un iversity of Arizon a Cooperative Exten sion , Verde Watersh ed Section 8 Watersh ed Plan 8-8 h ttp://www.azdeq.gov/en viron /water/wa tersh ed/fin .h tm l govern m en t agen cies, en gin eerin g con tractors, volu n teers, an d oth er en viron men tal profession als. Fu n din g sou rces m ay in clu de: • Clean Water Act Section 319(h ) fu n ds; • State revolvin g fu n ds th ou gh th e Arizon a Departmen t of En viron men tal Qu ality; • Cen tral Hazardou s Materials Fu n d; • USDA En viron men tal Qu ality In cen tives Program an d Con servation Secu rity Program ; • Arizon a Water Protection Fu n d th rou gh th e Arizon a Departmen t of Water Resou rces; • Water In frastru ctu re Fin an ce Au th ority; • Arizon a Heritage Fu n d th ou gh Arizon a State Parks an d Arizon a Gam e an d Fish ; an d • Private don ation s or n on -profit organ ization don ation s. Th e Arizon a legislatu re allocates fu n din g to th e Arizon a Water Protection Fu n d. In addition , th e fu n d is su pplemen ted by in com e gen erated by water-ban kin g agreem en ts with th e Cen tral Arizon a Project. In formation can be fou n d at h ttp://www.awpf.state.az.u s/ Most gran ts requ ire match in g fu n ds in dollars or in -kin d services. In -kin d services may in clu de volu n teer labor, access to equ ipm en t an d facilities, an d a redu ction on fee sch edu les / rates for su bcon tracted tasks. Gran t m atch in g an d cost sh are strategies allow for creative m an agem en t of lim ited fin an cial resou rces to fu n d a project. Edu cation an d Ou treach An in formation /edu cation compon en t is an importan t aspect of th e Stakeh older-grou p local watersh edbased plan th at will be u sed to en h an ce pu blic u n derstan din g of th e project an d en cou rage early an d con tin u ed participation in selectin g, design in g an d implemen tin g m an agem en t m easu res. In addition to th e exten sive listin g of fu n din g an d gran t sou rces on th e NEMO web site (www.Arizon aNEMO.org), search able gran t fu n din g databases can be fou n d at th e EPA gran t opportu n ity web site www.gran ts.gov or www.epa.gov/owow/fu n din g.h tm l. Th e Verde Watersh ed h as a n u mber of Stakeh older-grou p local watersh ed partn ersh ips, in clu din g th e Yavapai Cou n ty Water Advisory Com m ittee (WAC), a coalition of com mu n ities an d watersh ed grou ps th at are dedicated to developin g a man agemen t plan for th e su stain able u se of th e region al water su pply. Alth ou gh th e prim ary focu s of th e WAC is water su pply, most of th e watersh ed grou ps in th e region are represen ted, an d th e WAC acts as a In Arizon a, Clean Water Act Section 319(h ) fu n ds are man aged by ADEQ an d th e fu n din g cycle an d gran t application data can be fou n d at: Verde Watersh ed Section 8 Watersh ed Plan 8-9 foru m for discu ssion of watersh ed-wide con cern s, in clu din g water qu ality. Th e Stewards of Pu blic Lan ds [www.verdecon n ection s.com ] is a stakeh older grou p prom otin g wild-cat du m p clean -u p. Becau se of th eir riparian area an d wash clean u p activities, th e Stewards were recogn ized by Govern or Napolitan o’s as a Ru ral Developmen t Su ccess Story in Au gu st of 2005 Th e Verde Watersh ed Association [www.vwa.org] h as become an establish ed stakeh older grou p th at meets on a regu lar basis to plan water qu ality im provem en t projects an d strategize fu n din g opportu n ities. Edu cation ou treach is a regu lar part of th eir mon th ly meetin gs with th eir agen da u su ally in clu din g reports on th e statu s of gran t-fu n ded projects. Th e Verde Watersh ed Association h as in itiated th e establish men t of a Verde River basin Partn ersh ip with th e Yavapai Cou n ty WAC an d oth er watersh ed grou ps across th e area followin g on Con gression al legislation kn own as th e “North ern Arizon a Lan d Exch an ge an d Verde River Basin Partn ersh ip Act of 2005”. Title II of th e law au th orizes th e appropriation of wh atever am ou n ts are n ecessary over th e n ext fou r years for th e U.S. Departm en t of Agricu ltu re an d th e Departm en t of th e In terior to con du ct (in partn ersh ip with state an d local en tities) water resou rces stu dies of th e Verde River Basin in Arizon a. Oth er su ccessfu l ou treach an d pu blic edu cation activities in th e watersh ed in clu de spon sorin g a Partn ersh ip booth at th e Cou n ty Fair. Workin g with oth er Cooperative Exten sion programs, su ch as Project WET (Water Edu cation for Teach ers, K-12 classroom edu cation ), th e Partn ersh ip booth provided displays, posters an d fact sh eets on importan t water topics in addition to in dividu al water qu ality improvemen t projects. Th e NEMO program offers each watersh ed partn ersh ip th e opportu n ity to post in form ation , fact sh eets an d statu s reports on th e NEMO web site, an d to an n ou n ce importan t even ts on th e NEMO calen dar (www.Arizon aNEMO.org). In addition , a partn ersh ip can obtain gu idan ce an d tech n ical su pport in design in g an ou treach program th rou gh th e Un iversity of Arizon a Cooperative Exten sion . Im plem en tation Sch edu les & Mileston es Necessary to th e watersh ed plan n in g process is a sch edu le for project selection , design , fu n din g, implemen tation , reportin g, operation an d main ten an ce, an d project closu re. In th e Verde Watersh ed, 10-digit HUC su bwatersh ed areas h ave been prioritized in th is plan for poten tial water qu ality im provem en t projects, bu t oth er location s across th e watersh ed may h old greater in terest by th e stakeh olders for project im plem en tation . Private lan d own ers, or partn ersh ips of stakeh olders, m ay propose discreet projects to respon d to im m ediate water qu ality con cern s, su ch as stream ban k erosion exacerbated by a recen t floodin g even t. After project selection , implemen tation may be depen den t on th e availability of fu n ds, an d becau se of th is m ost Verde Watersh ed Section 8 Watersh ed Plan 8-10 watersh ed partn ersh ips fin d th emselves plan n in g arou n d gran t cycles. Table 82 depicts th e plan n in g process, an d su ggests th at th e stakeh older grou p may wan t to revisit th e listin g an d ran kin g of proposed projects on a regu lar basis, givin g th e grou p th e opportu n ity to address ch an gin g con dition s. As sh own in th e table, a ‘sh ort’ on eyear project actu ally may take as man y as th ree years from con ception , to im plem en tation , an d u ltim ate project closu re. With th e n u m ber of gran ts cu rren tly available in Arizon a for water qu ality improvemen t projects, th e watersh ed partn ersh ip may fin d th emselves in a con tin u al cycle of gran t writin g an d project reportin g, overlappin g an d managin g several aspects of several projects sim u ltan eou sly. Table 8-2: Exam ple Watershed Project Planning Schedule. Watershed Project Planning Steps Stakeholder-Group 319 Plan Development Identify and rank priority projects Grant Cycle Year 1: Select Project(s) Project(s) Design, Mobilization, and Implementation Project(s) Reporting and Outreach Project(s) Operation and Maintenance, Closure Grant Cycle Year 2: Select Project(s) Project(s) Design, Mobilization, and Implementation Project(s) Reporting and Outreach Project(s) Operation and Maintenance, Closure Revisit Plan, Identify and re-rank priority projects Grant Cycle Year 3: Select Project(s) Project(s) Design, Mobilization, and Implementation Project(s) Reporting and Outreach Project(s) Operation and Maintenance, Closure Most fu n din g agen cies operate on a reimbu rsemen t basis an d will requ ire reportin g of project progress an d reimbu rsemen t on a percen t com pletion basis. In addition , th e in dividu al project sch edu le sh ou ld be tied to importan t measu rable m ileston es wh ich sh ou ld in clu de both project implemen tation mileston es an d pollu tan t load redu ction m ileston es. Im plem en tation m ileston es m ay in clu de in terim tasks, su ch as sh own in 1 X X X X 2 X X X X X Year 3 4 5 X X X X X X X X X X X X Table 8-3, an d can be tied to gran t fu n din g-sou rce reportin g requ irem en ts. Based on fu n din g availability, th e activities ou tlin ed in Table 8-3 cou ld be broken down in to th ree separate projects based on location (Stream Ch an n el, Stream Ban k or Flood Plain ), or organ ized in to activity-based projects (Wildcat Du mp Clean u p, En gin eered Cu lverts, etc). Verde Watersh ed Section 8 Watersh ed Plan 8-11 Table 8-3: Exam ple Project Schedule Management Measures and Implementation Schedule Streambank Stabilization and Estimated Load Reduction Implementation Area 1 Milestone Stream Channel Milestone Date Task 1: 04/01/05 Contract signed Quarterly reports Thru 09/31/06 Final report Contract Administration 04/01/05 Select & Advertise Task 2: Clean-up date Thru Wildcat Dump 07/05/05 Schedule Clean-up Containers and removal Task 3: Engineering Design Task 4: Permits Task 5: Monitoring Task 6: Revegetation Task 7: Mobilization Water Quality Milestone Target Load Reduction: 100% Hazardous Materials 75% Sediment Load Area 2 Area 3 Stream Bank Flood Plain Remove hazardous materials from stream channel Remove tires and vehicle bodies from streambank 100% hazardous material removal 100% hazardous material removal 04/01/05 Conceptual design, select final Thru 08/15/05 design based on 75% load reduction Gabions, culverts, calculate estimated load reduction Re-contour, regrade, berms, w ater bars, gully plugs: calculate estimated load reduction. In addition to local and State permits, the presence of listed or Endangered Species w ill require special permitting and reporting. Photo points, baseline and quarterly, Calculate Sediment load reduction 04/01/05 Confirm permit requirements and Thru 09/01/05 apply for necessary permits US Army Corps of Engineers may require permits to conduct projects w ithin the stream channel Local government ordinances as w ell as the US Army Corps and State Historical Preservation permits may be needed. 07/05/05 Establish photo points and w ater thru 10/31/06 quality sample locations Turbidity sampling, baseline and quarterly, compare to anticipated 75% Sediment load reduction Photo points, baseline and quarterly, Calculate Sediment load reduction Willow s, native grasses, cotton w ood, mulch 08/15/05 Survey and select appropriate thru 09/15/05 vegetation Install gabions, resized Regrade, plant culverts / professional vegetation w ith protective w ire screens and volunteer labor around trees / install gully plugs and w ater bars, volunteer labor 09/01/05 Purchase, delivery and installation of thru 10/31/05 engineered structures and revegetation material Verde Watersh ed Section 8 Watersh ed Plan 8-12 Implementation Area 1 Milestone Stream Channel Milestone Date Task 8: 04/01/05 Publication of new s articles, thru 10/31/06 posters, monthly reports during stakeholder-group local w atershed meetings Outreach Task 9: Operation and Maintenance Maintenance and routine repair of engineered structures 09/01/05 Documentation of routine operation thru 10/31/06 and maintenance in project quarterly reports during contract period, continued internal record keeping after contract / project closure Evalu ation Th e evalu ation section of a watersh ed plan will provide a set of criteria th at can be u sed to determin e wh eth er progress towards in dividu al project goals is bein g ach ieved an d/or th e effectiven ess of im plem en tation is meetin g expectation s. Th ese criteria will h elp defin e th e cou rse of action as m ileston es an d m on itorin g activities are bein g reviewed. Water Quality Milestone Target Load Reduction: 100% Hazardous Materials 75% Sediment Load Area 2 Area 3 Stream Bank Flood Plain Maintenance / irrigation of new plantings until established, removal of w eeds and invasive species measu remen t meth odology does n ot ch an ge du rin g th e life of th e project. To evalu ate th e example project ou tlin ed in Table 8-3, th e followin g key evalu ation attribu tes mu st be met: Th e estim ate of th e load redu ction s expected for each of th e man agemen t m easu res or best m an agem en t practices to be im plemen ted is an excellen t criterion again st wh ich progress can be m easu red. Prior to project im plem en tation , baselin es sh ou ld be establish ed to track water qu ality im provem en ts, an d stan dard m easu rem en t protocols sh ou ld be establish ed so as to assu re Verde Watersh ed • Sch edu le an d tim elin ess: Gran t application s, in voices an d qu arterly reports mu st be su bm itted to th e fu n din g sou rce wh en du e or risk can cellation of con tracts. If perm its are n ot obtain ed prior to project mobilization , th e project crew may be su bject to pen alties or fin es. • Com plian ce with stan dards: En gin eered design s m u st m eet th e stan dards of th e En gin eerin g Board of Licen sin g; water qu ality an alytical work mu st be in complian ce with State of Arizon a Section 8 Watersh ed Plan 8-13 Laboratory Certification . Excellen t evalu ation criteria wou ld in clu de en gin eer-stamped ‘as-bu ilt’ con stru ction diagrams an d docu men tation of laboratory certification , for example. Meth ods for estimatin g load redu ction m u st be con sisten t with establish ed meth odology, an d th e mean s by wh ich load redu ction s are calcu lated th rou gh ou t th e life of th e plan mu st be main tain ed. • • Con sisten cy of measu remen t: Th e plan sh ou ld iden tify wh at is bein g m easu red, th e u n its of measu remen t, an d th e stan dard protocol for obtain in g m easu remen ts. For example, tu rbidity can be measu red in ‘Neph lom etric Un its’ or m ore qu alitatively with a Sich e disk. Water volu me can be measu red as Acre/feet, gallon s, or cu bic feet. Failu re to train project staff to perform field activities con sisten tly an d to u se com parable u n its of m easu re can resu lt in project failu re. Docu men tation an d reportin g: Field n ote books, spread sh eets, an d data reportin g meth odology m u st rem ain con sisten t th rou gh ou t th e project. Ph oto poin t location s mu st be perm an en tly m arked so as to assu re ch an ges iden tified over th e life of th e project are comparable. If th e frequ en cy of data collection ch an ges or th e meth odology of reportin g ch an ges in th e midst of th e project, th e project an d overall plan looses credibility. Th e project is a n ear su ccess if th e reports are on time, th e en gin eered stru ctu res do n ot fail, data are reported accu rately, an d an in depen den t person reviewin g you r project a year after project closu re u n derstan ds wh at was accomplish ed. Th e project is a fu ll su ccess if water qu ality improvemen t an d load redu ction s h ave been made. Th e criteria for determin in g wh eth er th e overall watersh ed plan n eeds to be revised are an appropriate fu n ction of th e evalu ation section as well. For example, su ccessfu l im plemen tation of a cu lvert redesign may redu ce th e u rgen cy of a stream ban k stabilization project down stream from th e cu lvert, allowin g for reprioritization of projects. It is n ecessary to evalu ate th e progress of th e overall watersh ed plan to determin e effectiven ess, project su itability, or th e n eed to revise goals, BMPs or m an agem en t m easu res. Th e criteria u sed to determin e wh eth er th ere h as been su ccess, failu re or progress will also determin e if objectives, strategies or plan activities n eed to be revised, as well as th e watersh ed-based plan itself. Mon itorin g Mon itorin g of watersh ed man agem en t activities is in trin sically lin ked to th e evalu ation performed with in th e watersh ed becau se both track effectiven ess. Wh ile mon itorin g evalu ates th e effectiven ess of im plem en tation m easu res over tim e, th e criteria u sed to ju dge su ccess/failu re/progress is part of th e Evalu ation process. Verde Watersh ed Section 8 Watersh ed Plan 8-14 Mon itorin g of th ese attribu tes is importan t especially after stream ch an n el h ydrom odification . Watersh ed mon itorin g will in clu de th e water qu ality data reported in Arizon a’s In tegrated 305(b) Water Qu ality Assessm ent an d 303(d) Listin g Report, Verde Watersh ed Assessmen t (ADEQ, 2005), bu t th e overall stakeh older grou p watersh ed plan will iden tify addition al data collection activities th at are tied to stakeh older con cern s an d goals. For th e Verde Watersh ed, th e East Verde River (Ellison Creek – American Gu lch ), Gran de Wash (h eadwaters – Ash brook Wash ), Gran ite Creek (h eadwaters – Willow Creek) Oak Creek (at Slide Rock State Park), Verde River (Bartlett Dam – Cam p Creek) an d Watson Lake are iden tified as vu ln erable to water qu ality impairmen t du e to m etals, organ ics an d n u trien ts, an d selen iu m . Mon itorin g of stream reach es for th ese con stitu en ts requ ire stan dard water sam ple collection meth odology an d sample an alysis by a certified laboratory. If rou tin e m on itorin g of th ese reach es is to be con du cted, sam ple collection an d an alysis m u st be con sisten t with data collection by th e ADEQ to su pport th e (305) b Assessm en t Report. Followin g th e example of th e project ou tlin ed in Table 8-3, oth er water qu ality an d watersh ed h ealth con stitu en ts to be mon itored in clu de: • • Tu rbidity. Measu rin g stream tu rbidity before, du rin g an d after project implemen tation will allow for qu an tification of load redu ction . Stream flow an d volu m e, presen ce or absen ce of flow in a wash followin g precipitation . • Presen ce / absen ce of waste material. Th is can be mon itored with ph oto-poin ts. • Riparian h ealth , based on diversity of vegetation an d wildlife. Mon itorin g can in clu de ph oto-poin ts, wildlife su rveys an d plan t mappin g. Th e mon itorin g section will determin e if th e partn ersh ip’s watersh ed strategies/man agemen t plan is su ccessfu l, an d/or th e n eed to revise im plem en tation strategies, m ileston es or sch edu le. It is n ecessary to evalu ate th e progress of th e plan to determ in e effectiven ess, u n su itability, or n eed to revise goals or BMPs. Water qu ality mon itorin g for ch emical con stitu en ts th at m ay expose th e sampler to h azardou s con dition s will requ ire appropriate h ealth an d safety train in g an d th e developmen t of a Qu ality Assu ran ce Project Plan (QAPP). Mon itorin g for metals derived from aban don ed min e sites, pollu tan ts du e to organ ics, n u trien ts derived from lan d u se, an d selen iu m will requ ire specialized sample collection an d preservation tech n iqu es, in addition to laboratory an alysis. Mon itorin g for sedimen t load redu ction m ay be implemen ted in th e field with ou t exten sive protocol developm en t. Resou rces to design a project mon itorin g program can be fou n d at th e EPA water qu ality an d assessmen t web site: www.epa.gov/owow/mon itorin g/ as well as th rou gh th e Master Watersh ed Verde Watersh ed Section 8 Watersh ed Plan 8-15 Steward Program available th rou gh th e local cou n ty office of Un iversity of Arizon a Cooperative Exten sion . In addition , ADEQ will provide assistan ce in reviewin g a QAPP an d mon itorin g program . Of th e 22 su bwatersh eds in clu ded in th is assessmen t, th e fou r watersh eds with th e h igh est risk of water qu ality degradation are: 1. West Clear Creek Su bwatersh ed, for metals pollu tion ; Con clu sion s Th is watersh ed-based plan ran ked or classified all twen ty-two 10-digit HUC su bwatersh eds with in th e Verde Watersh ed for vu ln erability to water qu ality degradation from n on poin t sou rce pollu tan ts (Section 6 an d Table 8-1). Th is ran kin g was based on Arizon a’s In tegrated 305(b) Water Qu ality Assessm en t an d 303(d) Listin g Report, for th e Verde Watersh ed (ADEQ, 2005). In addition to th e su bwatersh ed classification s, th is plan con tain s in formation on th e n atu ral resou rces an d socio-econ om ic ch aracteristics of th e watersh ed (Section s 2 th rou gh 5). Based on th e resu lts of th e Classification in Section 6, exam ple best m an agem en t practices an d water qu ality improvemen t projects to redu ce n on poin t sou rce pollu tan ts are also provided (Section 7). Th e su bwatersh ed ran kin gs were determin ed for th e fou r major con stitu en t grou ps (m etals, sedim en t, organ ics an d selen iu m ) u sin g fu zzy logic (see Section 6 for m ore in formation on th is meth odology an d th e classification procedu re). Th e fin al resu lts are su m m arized in th is section an d are sh own in Table 8-1. In addition , tech n ical an d fin an cial assistan ce to im plem en t th e stakeh older-grou p local watersh edbased plan s are ou tlin ed in th is section . 2. Oak Creek Su bwatersh ed, for sedimen t pollu tion ; 3. Gran ite Creek – Upper Verde River Su bwatersh ed, for pollu tan ts du e to organ ics an d n u trien ts derived from lan d u se; an d, 4. Gran ite Creek – Upper Verde River, an d Ch erry Creek – Upper Verde River Su bwatersh eds, for selen iu m du e to agricu ltu ral practices. Th is NEMO Watersh ed-Based Plan is con sisten t with EPA gu idelin es for CWA Section 319 Non poin t Sou rce Gran t fu n din g. Th e n in e plan n in g elem en ts requ ired to be eligible for 319 gran t fu n din g are discu ssed, in clu din g edu cation an d ou treach , project sch edu lin g an d im plem en tation , project evalu ation , an d mon itorin g. Some basic elemen ts are common to alm ost all form s of plan n in g: data gath erin g, data an alysis, project iden tification , im plem en tation an d m on itorin g. It is expected th at local stakeh older grou ps an d comm u n ities will iden tify specific projects importan t to th eir partn ersh ip, an d will rely on th e NEMO Plan in developin g th eir own plan s. Verde Watersh ed Section 8 Watersh ed Plan 8-16 Referen ces: EPA (U.S. En viron m en tal Protection Agen cy). Jan u ary 2001. Protocol for Developin g Path ogen TMDLs, First Edition . Un ited States En viron men tal Protection Agen cy, Office of Water, Wash in gton DC. EPA 841-R-00-002. ADEQ, Arizon a Departm en t of En viron men tal Qu ality. 2005. Arizon a’s In tegrated 305(b) Water Qu ality Assessm ent an d 303(d) Listin g Report, Verde Watersh ed Assessm ent. h ttp://www.azdeq.gov/en viron /water/assessm en t/down load/30304/vd.pdf EPA (U.S. En viron men tal Protection Agen cy). 2003. Clean Water Act Section 319, Non poin t Sou rce Program an d Gran ts Gu idelin es for States an d Territories. h ttp://www.epa.gov/owow/n ps/Section 319/319gu ide03.h tm l Mich igan Departmen t of En viron men tal Qu ality (Mich igan DEQ). 1999. Pollu tan ts Con trolled Calcu lation an d Docu men tation for Section 319 Watersh eds Train in g Man u al. Su rface Water Qu ality Division , Non poin t Sou rce Un it. h ttp://www.deq.state.m i.u s/docum en ts/deq-swq-n ps-POLCNTRL.pdf North ern Arizon a Un iversity (NAU). Novem ber 8, 2000. Th e Oak Creek Can yon Escherichia coli Gen otypin g Project. Su bm itted to Arizon a Departm en t of En viron men tal Qu ality, Non poin t Sou rce Un it, Ph oen ix, Arizon a. San Joaqu in Valley Drain age Implemen tation Program. Febru ary 1999. Drain age Water Treatmen t Fin al Report. Drain age Water Treatmen t Tech n ical Com m ittee. Sacram en to, Californ ia. h ttp://wwwdpla.water.ca.gov/agricu ltu re/drain age Verde Watersh ed Section 8 Watersh ed Plan 8-17 Table 1: Water Qu ality Data an d Assessmen t Statu s, Verde Watersh ed. Results Available Water Quality Data and Assessment Status 1,2,3 Reach Sites Aubrey Valley Subw atershed HUC 1506020101 No Data Collected Classification: • Moderate risk for all con stitu en t grou ps due to lack of monitoring data. Upper Big Chino Wash Subw atershed HUC 1506020102 No Data Collected Classification: • Moderate risk for all con stitu en t grou ps due to lack of monitoring data. Ash Fork Draw – Jumbo Tank Subw atershed HUC 1506020103 No Data Collected Classification: • Moderate risk for all con stitu en t grou ps due to lack of monitoring data. Upper Partridge Creek Subw atershed HUC 1506020104 No Data Collected Classification: • Moderate risk for all con stitu en t grou ps due to lack of monitoring data. Low er Partridge Creek Subw atershed HUC 1506020105 No Data Collected Classification: • Moderate risk for all con stitu en t grou ps due to lack of monitoring data. Middle Big Chino Wash Subw atershed HUC 1506020106 No Data Collected Classification: • Moderate risk for all con stitu en t grou ps due to lack of monitoring data. Williamson Valley Wash Subw atershed HUC 1506020107 Classification: • Moderate risk for m etals; • Low risk for sedim en t; • High risk for organ ics; and • Moderate risk for selen iu m . Granite Basin Lake Sampling E. coli; pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; fluoride; 15060202-0580 arsenic; barium; beryllium; antimony; selenium (2); boron; cadmium (t) (d 2); chromium (t) (d 2); copper (t) (d 2); lead (t) (d 2); manganese (t); Three Sites: mercury (t) (d 2); selenium (t); silver (t) (d 2); zinc (t) (d 2); nickel (t) (d 2); VRGBL-A nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; and phosphorus. Verde Watersh ed Appen dix A: Table 1 A-1 Reach Sites Results Available Water Quality Data and Assessment Status 1,2,3 VRGBL-B VRGBL-BR Status Parameters exceeding standards: pH (2/6) assessed “Inconclusive”; and ammonia (1/6) assessed as “Inconclusive”. Subwatershed risk classification: • Moderate risk for metals because of limited data; • Low risk for sediment; • High risk for organics due to pH and ammonia exceedances; and • Moderate risk for selenium because of limited data. Low er Big Chino Wash Subw atershed HUC 1506020108 Classification: • Moderate risk for • Moderate risk for • Moderate risk for • Moderate risk for Apache Creek, from Sampling headwaters to Walnut Status Creek 15060201-019 m etals; sedim en t; organ ics; and selen iu m . No current monitoring data. Parameters exceeding standards: none. Added to the planning list in 2002 due to missing core parameters. Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. Granite Creek – Upper Verde River Subw atershed HUC 1506020201 Classification: • High risk for m etals; • Moderate risk for sedim en t; • Extrem e risk for organ ics; an d • Moderate risk for selen iu m . Granite Creek, from Sampling E. coli; temperature (1); pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; headwaters to suspended sediment concentration (2); fluoride; arsenic; barium; beryllium; Willow Creek antimony; boron; cadmium (d); chromium (d); copper (d); lead (d); 15060202-059A manganese (t); mercury (t); silver (d); zinc (d); nickel (d); nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; and phosphorus. Two Sites: Status Parameters exceeding standards: Mercury (1/2) assessed as “Inconclusive”; VRGRA021.70 E. coli (2/4) assessed as “Inconclusive”; and dissolved oxygen (4/6) assessed VRGRA021.46 as “Impaired”. Watson Lake 15060202-1590 Five Sites: VRWAT-A VRWAT-BR Sampling Subwatershed risk classification: • High risk for metals due to mercury exceedance; • Moderate risk for sediment because of limited data; • Extreme risk for organics due to dissolved oxygen impairment; Low risk for other constituents; and • Moderate risk for selenium because of limited data. E. coli (1); pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; fluoride; arsenic (2); barium (2); beryllium (2); antimony; boron; cadmium (t 1) (d 2); chromium (t 2) (d 2); copper (t 2) (d 2); lead (t 2) (d 2); manganese (t 2); mercury (t); selenium (t); silver (t 2) (d 2); zinc (t 2) (d 2); nickel (t 2) (d 2); nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; phosphorus; sulfate; chlorine; and hardness. Verde Watersh ed Appen dix A: Table 1 A-2 Reach Sites Results Available Water Quality Data and Assessment Status 1,2,3 VRWAT-BR VRWAT-DAM VRWAT-SO Status Sullivan Lake 15060202-3370 Sampling Status Verde River, from Granite Creek to Hell Canyon. 15060202-052 Sampling Status One Site: VRVER095.73 Parameters exceeding standards: dissolved oxygen (1/5) assessed as “Impaired”; pH (2/5) assessed as “Impaired”; and nitrogen (t) (2/5) assessed as “Inconclusive”. Subwatershed risk classification: • Moderate risk for metals because of limited data; • Moderate risk for sediment because of limited data; • Extreme risk for organics due to dissolved oxygen and pH impairment; and high nitrogen exceedances; and • Low risk for selenium. No current monitoring data. Parameters exceeding standards: none. Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. pH (1); dissolved oxygen (1); total dissolved solids (1); cadmium (t 1) (d 1); mercury (t 1) (d 1); selenium (t 1) (d1); copper (t 1) (d 1); nitrogen as ammonia (1); n-kjeldahl (1); and nitrite/nitrate (1). Parameters exceeding standards: none. Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. Note: This reach flows through two subwatershed HUCs: 1506020201 1506020204 Hell Canyon Subw atershed HUC 1506020202 No Data Collected Classification: • Moderate risk for all con stitu en t grou ps due to lack of monitoring data. Sycamore Creek Subw atershed HUC 1506020203 Classification: • • • • Whitehorse Lake 15060202-1630 Three Sites: VRWHH-A High risk for m etals; High risk for sedim en t; Extrem e risk for organ ics; an d Moderate risk for selen iu m . Sampling E. coli (2); pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; fluoride; arsenic; barium; beryllium; antimony; boron; cadmium (t) (d 1); chromium (t) (d 1); copper (t) (d 1); lead (t) (d 1); manganese (t); mercury (t); selenium (t); silver (t) (d 1); zinc (t) (d 1); nickel (t) (d 1); nitrogen as ammonia; nkjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; and phosphorus. Verde Watersh ed Appen dix A: Table 1 A-3 Reach Sites Results Available Water Quality Data and Assessment Status 1,2,3 VRWHH-B VRWHH-BR Status Perkins Tank 15060202-1080 Two Sites: VRPER-A VRPER-MID Scholz Lake 15060202-1350 Sampling Status Sampling One Site: VRSCH-A Status Sycamore Creek, from Sampling Cedar Creek to the Verde River 15060202-026 Status One Site: VRSYW001.4 J D Dam Lake 15060202-0700 Three Sites: VRJDD-A Sampling Parameters exceeding standards: nickel (t) (1/11) assessed as “Attaining”; turbidity (9/9) assessed as “Inconclusive”; dissolved oxygen (4/14) assessed as “Impaired”; ammonia (2/13) assessed as “Inconclusive”; and pH (2/16 high, 1/16 low) assessed as “Attaining”. Subwatershed risk classification: • Moderate risk for metals because of limited data and nickel exceedance; • High risk for sediment because turbidity exceedances; • Extreme risk for organics due to dissolved oxygen impairment; and • Moderate risk for selenium because of limited data. pH (2); dissolved oxygen (2); total dissolved solids (2); fluoride (1); arsenic (1); barium (1); beryllium (1); antimony (1); selenium (1); boron (1); chromium (t 2); manganese (t 2); selenium (t 2); zinc (t 1); nitrogen as ammonia (2); n-kjeldahl (2); phosphorus (2); sulfate (1); and chlorine (1). Parameters exceeding standards: turbidity (1/1) assessed as “Inconclusive”; and dissolved oxygen (2/2) assessed as “Inconclusive”. Subwatershed risk classification: • Moderate risk for metals because of limited data; • High risk for sediment due to turbidity exceedance; • High risk for organics due to dissolved oxygen exceedances; Moderate risk for other constituents; and • Moderate risk for selenium because of limited data. E. coli (1); pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; fluoride; arsenic; barium; beryllium; antimony; boron; cadmium (t) (d 1); chromium (t) (d 1); copper (t) (d 1); lead (t) (d 1); manganese (t); mercury (t) (d 1); selenium (t) (d 1); silver (t) (d 1); zinc (t) (d 1); nickel (t) (d 1); nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; and phosphorus. Parameters exceeding standards: lead (d) (1/1) assessed as “Inconclusive”; turbidity (1/3) assessed as “Inconclusive”; dissolved oxygen (1/3) assessed as “Inconclusive”; and nitrogen (2/4) assessed as “Inconclusive”. Subwatershed risk classification: • High risk for metals due to lead exceedance; • High risk for sediment due to turbidity exceedance; • High risk for organics due to dissolved oxygen and nitrogen exceedances; Low risk for other constituents and • Moderate risk for selenium because of limited data. pH (1); dissolved oxygen (1); total dissolved solids (1); turbidity (1); cadmium (d 1); copper (d 1); mercury (d 1); selenium (d 1); nitrogen as ammonia (1); n-kjeldahl (1); nitrite/nitrate (1); and phosphorus (1). Parameters exceeding standards: none. Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. E. coli (1); pH (1); dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids (1); fluoride; boron; arsenic; barium; beryllium; cadmium (t) (d 2); chromium (t) (d); copper (t) (d 2); lead (t) (d); manganese (t); mercury (t) (d); selenium (t); silver (t) (d); zinc (t) (d); nickel (t) (d); nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; phosphorus; sulfate (1); and chlorine (1). Verde Watersh ed Appen dix A: Table 1 A-4 Reach Sites Results Available Water Quality Data and Assessment Status 1,2,3 VRJDD-BR VRJDD-M Status Parameters exceeding standards: pH (1/5) assessed as “Inconclusive”. Subwatershed risk classification: • Moderate risk for metals because of limited data; • Moderate risk for sediment because of limited data; • High risk for organics due to pH exceedances; Low risk for other constituents and • Low risk for selenium. Grindstone Wash-Upper Verde River Subw atershed HUC 1506020204 Classification: • High risk for m etals; • Moderate risk for sedim en t; • Moderate risk for organ ics; an d • Moderate risk for selen iu m . Verde River, from Sampling pH (1); dissolved oxygen (1); total dissolved solids (1); cadmium (t 1) (d 1); Granite Creek to Hell mercury (t 1) (d 1); selenium (t 1) (d1); copper (t 1) (d 1); nitrogen as Canyon. ammonia (1); n-kjeldahl (1); and nitrite/nitrate (1). 15060202-052 Status Parameters exceeding standards: none. One Site: VRVER095.73 Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. Note: This reach flows through two subwatershed HUCs: 1506020201 1506020204 Verde River, from Hell Sampling Canyon to unnamed reach 15060202-065. 15060202-038 One Site: VRVER095.54 Verde River, from unnamed reach 15060202-065 to Railroad Draw. 15060202-037 Status Sampling temperature; pH; dissolved oxygen (2); total dissolved solids (1); turbidity (2); fluoride (2),arsenic; barium; beryllium; antimony; thallium; boron (2); cadmium (t 2) (d 2); chromium (t 2) (d 2); copper (t 2) (d 2); lead (t 2) (d 2); manganese (t 2); mercury (t 2) (d 2); selenium (t 2) (d 2); silver (t 2) (d 2); zinc (t 2) (d 2); nickel (t 2) (d 2); nitrogen as ammonia (2); n-kjeldahl (2); nitrite/nitrate (2); and phosphorus (2). Parameters exceeding standards: none. Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. E. coli; pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; fluoride; arsenic; barium; beryllium; antimony; thallium; boron; cadmium (t) (d); chromium (t) (d); copper (t) (d); lead (t) (d); manganese (t); mercury (t) (d); selenium (t) (d); silver (t) (d); zinc (t) (d); nickel (t) (d); nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; and phosphorus. Verde Watersh ed Appen dix A: Table 1 A-5 Reach Sites Results Available Water Quality Data and Assessment Status 1,2,3 Status Two Sites: VRVER095.74 VRVER095.65 Verde River, from Sycamore Creek to Oak Creek. 15060202-025 Eleven Sites: VRVER091.61 VRVER087.70 VRVER086.92 VRVER086.81 VRVER086.62 VRVER085.61 VRVER085.60 VRVER085.49 VRVER084.38 VRVER84.38 VRVER084.42 Sampling Status Parameters exceeding standards: mercury (t) (1/17) assessed as “Attaining”; arsenic (1/17) assessed as “Attaining”; turbidity (3/17) assessed as “Attaining”; dissolved oxygen (1/16) assessed as “Attaining”; and E. coli (1/15) assessed as “Attaining”. Subwatershed risk classification: • Moderate risk for metals due to arsenic and mercury exceedances; • Moderate risk for sediment because turbidity exceedances; • Moderate risk for organics due to dissolved oxygen and E. coli exceedances; Low for other constituents; and • Low risk for selenium. E. coli; pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; suspended sediment concentration; fluoride; arsenic; barium; beryllium; antimony; thallium; boron; cadmium (t) (d); chromium (t) (d); copper (t) (d); lead (t) (d); manganese (t); mercury (t) (d); selenium (t) (d); silver (t) (d); zinc (t) (d); nickel (t) (d); uranium; nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; phosphorus; and sulfate. Parameters exceeding standards: mercury (1/1) assessed as “Inconclusive”; and lead (2/63) assessed as “Attaining”; turbidity (1/25) assessed as “Attaining”; and E coli (1/25) assessed as “Inconclusive”. Subwatershed risk classification: • High risk for metals due to mercury exceedance; • Moderate risk for sediment because turbidity exceedance; • Moderate risk for organics due to E. coli exceedance; Low risk for other constituents; and • Low risk for selenium. Note: This reach flows through two subwatershed HUCs: 1506020204 1506020207 Oak Creek Subw atershed HUC 1506020205 Classification: • Moderate risk for m etals; • High risk for sedim en t; • Extrem e risk for organ ics; an d • Moderate risk for selen iu m . Oak Creek, at Slide Rock Sampling E. coli; pH; dissolved oxygen (1); total dissolved solids (1); turbidity (1); nitrogen as ammonia (1); n-kjeldahl (1); nitrite/nitrate (1); phosphorus (1); State Park only 15060202-018B sulfate (1); and total suspended solids (1). Verde Watersh ed Appen dix A: Table 1 A-6 Reach Sites Results Available Water Quality Data and Assessment Status 1,2,3 Status Seven Sites: VROAK020.03 VROAK020.00A VROAK020.00B VROAK020.00C VROAK020.00D VROAK020.00E VROAK019.97 Oak Creek, headwaters Sampling To West Fork Oak Creek. 15060202-019 Three Sites: VROAK025.3 VROAK025.2 VROAK023.21 Status Oak Creek, Below Slide Rock State Park to Dry Creek 15060202-018C Sampling Eight Sites: VROAK018.3 VROAK018.1 VROAK016.57 VROAK014.54 VROAK013.11 VROAK011.4 VROAK010.29 VROAK009.33 Oak Creek, from Dry Creek to Spring Creek 15060202-017 Two Sites: VROAK006.4 VROAK005.91 Status Sampling Status Parameters exceeding standards: E. coli (269/3408) assessed as “Impaired”. Subwatershed risk classification: • Moderate risk for metals because of limited data; • Moderate risk for sediment because of limited data; • Extreme risk for organics due to E. coli exceedances; Moderate risk for other constituents because of limited data; and • Moderate risk for selenium because of limited data. E. coli; pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; cadmium (d 1); copper (d 1); mercury (d 1); selenium (d 1); nitrogen as ammonia; nkjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; phosphorus; sulfate; hardness; and total suspended solids (2). Parameters exceeding standards: turbidity (2/8) assessed as “Inconclusive”. Subwatershed risk classification: • Moderate risk for metals because of limited data; • High risk for sediment because of turbidity exceedances; • Low risk for organics and other constituents; and • Moderate risk for selenium because of limited data. E. coli; pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; suspended sediment concentration (2); fluoride; arsenic; barium; beryllium; antimony; thallium; boron; cadmium (t) (d); chromium (t) (d); copper (t) (d); lead (t) (d); manganese (t); mercury (t) (d); selenium (t) (d); silver (t) (d); zinc (t) (d); nickel (t) (d); nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; phosphorus; sulfate (2); and total suspended solids (2). Parameters exceeding standards: beryllium (1/29) assessed as “Attaining”; manganese (t) (1/29) assessed as “Attaining”; turbidity (2/37) assessed as “Attaining”; nitrogen (1/37) assessed as “Attaining”; and phosphorus (1/37) assessed as “Attaining”. Subwatershed risk classification: • Moderate risk for metals due to beryllium and manganese exceedances; • Moderate risk for sediment because of turbidity exceedances; • Moderate risk for organics due to nitrogen and phosphorus exceedances; Low risk for other constituents and • Low risk for selenium. pH; dissolved oxygen (1); total dissolved solids (1); turbidity; fluoride (1); arsenic (2); barium (2); beryllium (2); antimony (2); selenium (2); thallium (2); boron (1); cadmium (t 1) (d 1); copper (t 1) (d 1); lead (t 1) (d 1); manganese (t 1); mercury (t 1); selenium (t 2); silver (t 1) (d 1); zinc (t 1) (d 1); nickel (t 1) (d 1); nitrogen as ammonia (2); n-kjeldahl (2); nitrite/nitrate (2); phosphorus (2); sulfate (1); and total suspended solids (1). Parameters exceeding standards: none. Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. Verde Watersh ed Appen dix A: Table 1 A-7 Reach Sites Results Available Water Quality Data and Assessment Status 1,2,3 Oak Creek, from Spring Sampling Creek to the Verde River. 15060202-016 Status Two Sites: VROAK004.9 VROAK000.1 Oak Creek, West Sampling Fork, from headwaters to Oak Creek. 15060202-020 One Site: Status VRWOK000.64 Spring Creek, from Coffee Creek to Oak Creek. 15060202-022 Sampling Status One Site: VRSPN001.36 Pumphouse Wash, from Sampling headwaters to Oak Creek 15060202-442 Status Four Sites: VRPMW008.4 VRPMW007.5 VRPMW002.7 Munds Creek, from Sampling headwaters to Oak Creek. 15060202-415 Status Five Sites: VRMUN004.3 VRMUN004.1 VRMUN003.5 VRMUN003.4 VRMUN000.1 pH (1); dissolved oxygen (1); total dissolved solids (1); turbidity (1); nitrogen as ammonia (1); n-kjeldahl (1); nitrite/nitrate (1); phosphorus (1); sulfate (1); and total suspended solids (1). Parameters exceeding standards: none. Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. temperature; pH (2); dissolved oxygen (1); total dissolved solids (1); turbidity (2); cadmium (d 1); copper (d 1); mercury (d 1); selenium (d 1); nitrogen as ammonia (1); n-kjeldahl (1); nitrite/nitrate (1); phosphorus (1); and sulfate (1). Parameters exceeding standards: none. Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. PH (1); turbidity (1); cadmium (d 1); copper (d 1); mercury (d 1); selenium (d 1); nitrogen as ammonia (1); n-kjeldahl (1); nitrite/nitrate (1); and phosphorus (1). Parameters exceeding standards: none. Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. E. coli; pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids (1); turbidity; cadmium (d 1); copper (d 1); nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; phosphorus; sulfate; and total suspended solids. Parameters exceeding standards: turbidity (2/10) assessed as “Attaining”; and phosphorus (1/10) assessed as “Attaining”. Subwatershed risk classification: • Moderate risk for metals because of limited data; • Moderate risk for sediment because of turbidity exceedances; • Moderate risk for organics due to phosphorus exceedances; Low risk for other constituents; and • Moderate risk for selenium because of limited data. E. coli; temperature (1); pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; phosphorus; and sulfate. Parameters exceeding standards: turbidity (2/14) assessed as “Attaining”. Subwatershed risk classification: • Moderate risk for metals because of limited data; • Moderate risk for sediment because of turbidity exceedances; • Low risk for organics and other constituents; and • Moderate risk for selenium because of limited data. Verde Watersh ed Appen dix A: Table 1 A-8 Reach Sites Results Available Water Quality Data and Assessment Status 1,2,3 Beaver Creek Subw atershed HUC 1506020206 Classification: • • • • Stoneman Lake 15060202-1490 High risk for m etals; High risk for sedim en t; Extrem e risk for organ ics; an d Moderate risk for selen iu m . Sampling pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; fluoride; arsenic; barium; beryllium; antimony (1); boron; cadmium (t); chromium (t); copper (t); lead (t); manganese (t); mercury (t); selenium (t); silver (t); zinc (t); Eight Sites: nickel (t); nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; phosphorus; VRSTN-A hardness (2); and total suspended solids (2). VRSTN-B Status Parameters exceeding standards: arsenic (2/8) assessed as “Inconclusive”; VRSTN-MIDBW dissolved oxygen (1/12) assessed as “Attaining”; and pH (6/10) assessed as VRSTN-1 Impaired”. VRSTN-1E VRSTN-1EE Subwatershed risk classification: VRSTN-1S • High risk for metals because arsenic exceedances; VRSTN-MID • Low risk for sediment; • Extreme risk for organics due to pH impairment; Low risk for other constituents; and • Low risk for selenium. Wet Beaver Creek, from Sampling pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; fluoride (1); Long Canyon to Rarick cadmium (d); chromium (d); copper (t) (d); lead (t) (d); selenium (d); zinc Canyon. (d); nitrite/nitrate; phosphorus; and hardness (1). 15060202-004 Status Parameters exceeding standards: dissolved oxygen (2/7) assessed as “Inconclusive” (the low dissolved oxygen levels were found to be naturally Four Sites: occurring and were not considered a problem). VRWBV006.79 VRWBV005.06 Subwatershed risk classification: VRBEV004.95 • Moderate risk for metals because of limited data; VRWBV003.18 • Low risk for sediment; • High risk for organics due to oxygen exceedances ; Low risk for other constituents; and • Low risk for selenium. Wet Beaver Creek, from Sampling PH (1); dissolved oxygen (1); total dissolved solids (1); fluoride (1); barium Rarick Canyon to Dry (1); beryllium (1); antimony (1); uranium (1); nitrite/nitrate (1); and Beaver Creek. phosphorus (1). 15060202-003 Status Parameters exceeding standards: none. One Site: VRWBV003.16 Beaver Creek, from Dry Beaver to Verde River. 15060202-002 Seven Sites: VRBEV003.27 Sampling Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. E. coli (1); pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; fluoride; arsenic; barium; beryllium; antimony; thallium; boron; cadmium (t) (d 1); chromium (t) (d 1); copper (t 1) (d); lead (t 1) (d); manganese (t) mercury (t 1) (d); selenium (t) (d); silver (t) (d); zinc (t) (d 1); nickel (t) (d); nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; phosphorus; sulfate; and total suspended solids. Verde Watersh ed Appen dix A: Table 1 A-9 Reach Sites Results Available Water Quality Data and Assessment Status 1,2,3 VRBEV003.18 VRBEV002.62 VRBEV002.44 VRBEV002.02 VRBEV001.28 VRBEV000.62 Status Parameters exceeding standards: turbidity standard (5/26) assessed as “Inconclusive”. Subwatershed risk classification: • Moderate risk for metals because of limited data; • High risk for sediment because of turbidity exceedances; • Moderate risk for organics because of limited data; Low risk for other constituents; and • Low risk for selenium. Cherry Creek – Upper Verde River Subw atershed HUC 1506020207 Classification: • • • • High risk for m etals; Extrem e risk for sedim en t; Extrem e risk for organ ics; an d Moderate risk for selen iu m . Peck’s Lake Sampling pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; fluoride; arsenic; 15060202-1060 barium; beryllium; antimony; thallium (1); boron; cadmium (t) (d 2); chromium (t) (d 2); copper (t) (d 2); lead (t) (d 2); manganese (t); mercury (t) Three Sites: (d 2); selenium (t); silver (t) (d 2); zinc (t) (d 2); nickel (t) (d 1); nitrogen as VRPEC-A ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; and phosphorus. VRPEC-AA Status Parameters exceeding standards: dissolved oxygen (2/7) assessed as VRPEC-F “Impaired”. Verde River, from Oak Creek to Beaver Creek. 15060202-015 Three Sites: VRVER078.8 VRVER078.76 VRVER075.14 Sampling Status Subwatershed risk classification: • Moderate risk for metals because of limited data; • Low risk for sediment; • Extreme risk for organics due to dissolved oxygen impairment; Low risk for other constituents; and • Low risk for selenium. pH; dissolved oxygen (2); total dissolved solids (1); turbidity; fluoride (2),arsenic; barium; beryllium; antimony; thallium; boron (2); cadmium (t 2) (d 2); chromium (t 2) (d 2); copper (t 2) (d 2); lead (t 2) (d 2); manganese (t 2); mercury (t) (d 1); selenium (t 1); silver (t 2) (d 2); zinc (t 2) (d 2); nickel (t 2) (d 2); nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; phosphorus; sulfate (1); hardness (1); and total suspended solids (1). Parameters exceeding standards: none Subwatershed risk classification: • Moderate risk for metals because of limited data; • Extreme risk for sediment because impaired by turbidity. EPA approved sediment TMDL in 2002; • Moderate risk for organics because of limited data; and • Moderate risk for selenium because of limited data. Verde Watersh ed Appen dix A: Table 1 A-10 Reach Sites Results Available Water Quality Data and Assessment Status 1,2,3 Verde River, from Beaver Creek to HUC Boundary 15060202-001 Sampling Status No current monitoring data. Parameters exceeding standards: none Bitter Creek from, Jerome WWTP to 2.5 miles below. 15060202-066B Sampling Status Subwatershed risk classification: • Moderate risk for metals because of limited data; • Extreme risk for sediment because impaired by turbidity. EPA approved sediment TMDL in 2002; • Moderate risk for organics because of limited data; and • Moderate risk for selenium because of limited data. No current monitoring data. Parameters exceeding standards: none. Bitter Creek, from unnamed tributary of headwaters to Bitter Creek. 15060202-868 Sampling Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. No current monitoring data. Status Parameters exceeding standards: none. Verde River, from Sycamore Creek to Oak Creek. 15060202-025 Sampling Eleven Sites: VRVER091.61 VRVER087.70 VRVER086.92 VRVER086.81 VRVER086.62 VRVER085.61 VRVER085.60 VRVER085.49 VRVER084.38 VRVER84.38 VRVER084.42 Status Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. E. coli; pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; suspended sediment concentration; fluoride; arsenic; barium; beryllium; antimony; thallium; boron; cadmium (t) (d); chromium (t) (d); copper (t) (d); lead (t) (d); manganese (t); mercury (t) (d); selenium (t) (d); silver (t) (d); zinc (t) (d); nickel (t) (d); uranium; nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; phosphorus; and sulfate. Parameters exceeding standards: mercury (1/1) assessed as “Inconclusive”; and lead (2/63) assessed as “Attaining”; turbidity (1/25) assessed as “Attaining”; and E coli (1/25) assessed as “Inconclusive”. Subwatershed risk classification: • High risk for metals due to mercury exceedance; • Moderate risk for sediment because turbidity exceedance; • Moderate risk for organics due to E. coli exceedance; and • Low risk for selenium. Note: This reach flows through two subwatershed HUCs: 1506020204 1506020207 Verde Watersh ed Appen dix A: Table 1 A-11 Reach Sites Results Available Water Quality Data and Assessment Status 1,2,3 West Clear Creek Subw atershed HUC 1506020301 Classification: • Moderate risk for m etals; • Low risk for sedim en t; • Low risk for organ ics; and • Moderate risk for selen iu m . West Clear Creek, from Sampling E. coli; pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; total Meadow Canyon to the suspended solids; fluoride; arsenic; barium; beryllium; antimony; thallium; Verde River. boron; cadmium (t 2) (d); chromium (t 2) (d 2); copper (t 2) (d); lead (t 2) (d 15060203-026B 2); manganese (t); mercury (t 2) (d); selenium (t 1) (d); silver (t 2) (d 2); zinc (t 2) (d 2); nickel (t 2) (d 2); nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; Three Sites: phosphorus; and total suspended solids (2). VRWCL006.09 Status Parameters exceeding standards: none. VRWCL005.79 VRWCL002.91 Subwatershed risk classification: • Moderate risk for metals because of limited data; • Low risk for sediment; • Low risk for organics and other constituents; and • Moderate risk for selenium because of limited data. East Verde River Subw atershed HUC 1506020302 Classification: • High risk for m etals; • High risk for sedim en t; • Moderate risk for organ ics; and • Extrem e risk for selen iu m. East Verde River, from Sampling E. coli; pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; fluoride; Ellison Creek to arsenic; barium; beryllium; antimony; thallium; boron; cadmium (t); American Gulch. chromium (t); copper (t); lead (t); manganese (t); mercury (t); selenium (t); 15060203-022B silver (t); zinc (t); nickel (t); nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; phosphorus; and total suspended solids. One Site: Status Parameters exceeding standards: lead (1/18) assessed as “Attaining”; VREVR012.28 mercury (1/18) assessed as “Attaining”; turbidity (3/16) assessed as “Attaining”; nitrogen (1/18) assessed as “Attaining”; and selenium (2/2) assessed as “Impaired”. East Verde River, from Sampling headwaters to Ellison Cree 15060203-022A One Site: VREVR015.97 Subwatershed risk classification: • Moderate risk for metals due to lead and mercury exceedances; • Moderate risk for sediment due to turbidity exceedances; • Moderate risk for organics due to nitrogen exceedance; Low risk for other constituents and • Extreme risk for selenium due to impairment. E. coli; pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids (2); turbidity; fluoride; arsenic; barium; beryllium; antimony; thallium; boron; cadmium (t) (d); chromium (t) (d - lab reporting limit too high); copper (t) (d); lead (t) (d); manganese (t); mercury (t) (d); selenium (t) (d); silver (t) (d); zinc (t) (d); nickel (t) (d); nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; and phosphorus. Verde Watersh ed Appen dix A: Table 1 A-12 Reach Sites Results Available Water Quality Data and Assessment Status 1,2,3 Status Ellison Creek, from Sampling headwaters to East Verde Status River. 15060203-459 Green Valley Lake AZL 15060203-0015 Parameters exceeding standards: turbidity (2/2) assessed as “Inconclusive”. Subwatershed risk classification: • Moderate risk for metals because of limited data; • High risk for sediment due to turbidity exceedances; • Low risk for organics and other constituents; and • Low risk for selenium. No current monitoring data. Parameters exceeding standards: none. Sampling Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. No current monitoring data. Status Parameters exceeding standards: none. Pine Creek, from headwateSampling to unnamed tributary. Status 15060203-049A Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. No current monitoring data. Parameters exceeding standards: none. Pine Creek, from unnamed tributary to East Verde River. 15060203-049B Sampling Status Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. No current monitoring data. Parameters exceeding standards: none. Webber Creek, from headwaters to East Verde River. 15060203-058 Sampling Status Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. No current monitoring data. Parameters exceeding standards: none. East Verde River, from American Gulch to Verde River. 15060203-022C Sampling One Site: VREVR001.42 Status Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. E. coli; pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; suspended sediment concentration; fluoride; arsenic; barium; beryllium; antimony; thallium; boron; cadmium (t) (d); chromium (t) (d); copper (t) (d); lead (t) (d); manganese (t); mercury (t) (d); selenium (t); silver (t) (d); zinc (t) (d); nickel (t) (d); nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; and phosphorus. Parameters exceeding standards: boron (4/20) assessed as “Inconclusive”. Subwatershed risk classification: • High risk for metals due to boron exceedances; • Low risk for sediment; • Low risk for organics and other constituents; and • Low risk for selenium. Verde Watersh ed Appen dix A: Table 1 A-13 Reach Sites Results Available Water Quality Data and Assessment Status 1,2,3 Fossil Creek – Low er Verde River Subw atershed HUC 1506020303 Classification: • Moderate risk for m etals; • Extrem e risk for sedim en t; • High risk for organ ics; and • High risk for selen iu m. Verde River, from West Sampling E. coli; pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; fluoride; Clear Creek to arsenic; barium; beryllium; antimony; thallium; boron; cadmium (t) (d); Fossil Creek. chromium (t) (d); copper (t) (d); lead (t) (d); manganese (t); mercury (t) (d); 15060203-025 selenium (t) (d); silver (t) (d); zinc (t) (d); nickel (t) (d); nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; phosphorus; and total suspended solids Two Sites: (2). VRVER064.80 Status Parameters exceeding standards: turbidity (6/17) assessed as “Impaired”; E. VRVER064.68 coli (1/16) assessed as “Attaining”; and selenium (1/1) assessed as “Inconclusive”. Fossil Creek, from headwaters to Verde River. 15060203-024 One Site: VRFOS005.67 Stehr Lake 15060203-1480 Status Subwatershed risk classification: • Low risk for metals; • Extreme risk for sediment because impaired by turbidity. EPA approved sediment TMDL in 2002;Moderate risk for organics due to E. coli exceedance; Low risk for other constitutes; and • High risk for selenium due to exceedances. E. coli (2); pH; dissolved oxygen (2); total dissolved solids (2); turbidity (2); fluoride (2); arsenic (2); barium (2); beryllium (2); antimony (2); selenium (2); thallium (2); boron (2); cadmium (t 2) (d 2); chromium (t 2) (d 2); copper (t 2) (d 1); lead (t 2) (d 2); manganese (t 2); mercury (t 2); selenium (t 2); silver (t 2) (d 2); zinc (t 2) (d 2); nickel (t 2) (d 2); nitrogen as ammonia (2); n-kjeldahl (2); nitrite/nitrate (2); and phosphorus (2). Parameters exceeding standards: none. Sampling Status Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. No current monitoring data. Parameters exceeding standards: none. Sampling Verde River, from HUC Sampling border 15060203 to West Clear Creek. 15060203-027 Two Sites: Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. E. coli; pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; suspended sediment concentration; fluoride; arsenic; barium; beryllium; antimony; thallium; boron; cadmium (t 1) (d 1); chromium (t) (d 1); copper (t) (d 1); lead (t) (d 1); manganese (t); mercury (t) (d); selenium (t) (d); silver (t) (d 1); zinc (t 1) (d 1); nickel (t 1) (d 1); uranium; nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; and phosphorus. Verde Watersh ed Appen dix A: Table 1 A-14 Reach Sites Results Available Water Quality Data and Assessment Status 1,2,3 VRVER066.74 VRVER066.64 Status Parameters exceeding standards: E. coli (1/5) assessed as “Inconclusive”. Subwatershed risk classification: • Moderate risk for metals because of limited data; • Low risk for sediment; • High risk for organics due to E. coli exceedances; Low risk for other constituents; and • Low risk for selenium. Tangle Creek – Low er Verde River Subw atershed HUC 1506020304 Classification: • Moderate risk for m etals; • High risk for sedim en t; • Moderate risk for organ ics; and • Moderate risk for selen iu m . Roundtree Canyon Creek, Sampling pH (1); turbidity (1); cadmium (d 1); copper (d 1); mercury (d 1); selenium from headwaters to (d 1); nitrogen as ammonia (1); n-kjeldahl (1); nitrite/nitrate (1); and Tangle Creek. phosphorus (1). 15060203-853 Status Parameters exceeding standards: none. One Site: VRROU001.79 Sycamore Creek, from headwaters to Verde River. 15060203-055 Sampling Status One Site: VRSYH000.16 Wet Bottom Creek, from Sampling headwaters to Status Verde River. 15060203-020 Verde River, from Tangle Creek to Istar Flat. 15060203-018 Sampling Three Sites: VRVER036.68 VRVER036.48 VRVER032.74 Status Note: This reach flows through two subwatershed HUCs: 1506020304 1506020305 Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. pH (1); turbidity (1); cadmium (d 1); copper (d 1); mercury (d 1); selenium (d 1); nitrogen as ammonia (1); n-kjeldahl (1); nitrite/nitrate (1); and phosphorus (1). Parameters exceeding standards: none. Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. No current monitoring data Parameters exceeding standards: none. Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. E. coli; pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; fluoride; arsenic; barium; beryllium; antimony; thallium; boron; cadmium (t) (d); chromium (t) (d); copper (t) (d); lead (t) (d); manganese (t); mercury (t) (d); selenium (t) (d); silver (t) (d); zinc (t) (d); nickel (t) (d); nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; phosphorus; and total suspended solids. Parameters exceeding standards: copper (d) (1/58) assessed as “Attaining”; turbidity (5/24) assessed as “Inconclusive”; and E. coli (1/24) assessed as “Inconclusive”. Subwatershed risk classification: • Moderate risk for metals due to copper exceedance; • High risk for sediment due to turbidity exceedances; • Moderate risk for organics due to E. coli exceedance; Low risk for other constituents and • Low risk for selenium. Verde Watersh ed Appen dix A: Table 1 A-15 Reach Sites Results Available Water Quality Data and Assessment Status 1,2,3 Low er Verde River – Horseshoe and Bartlett Reservoir Subw atershed HUC 1506020305 Classification: • Moderate risk for m etals; • High risk for sedim en t; • Moderate risk for organ ics; and • Moderate risk for selen iu m . Horseshoe Reservoir Sampling pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; arsenic (1); 15060203-0620 chromium (d 1); manganese (t); zinc (t); nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; phosphorus; sulfate; and chlorine. Four Sites: Status Parameters exceeding standards: turbidity (4/18) assessed as “Inconclusive”; VRHSR-A and pH (1/16) assessed as “Attaining”. VRHSR-B VRHSR-C Subwatershed risk classification: VRHSR-East Spill Tower • Moderate risk for metals due to lack of samples; • High risk for sediment due to turbidity exceedances; • Moderate risk for organics due to pH exceedances; Low risk for other constituents; and • Moderate risk for selenium because of lack of data. Bartlett Lake Sampling E. coli (1); pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; fluoride; 15060203-0110 arsenic; barium; beryllium; antimony; boron; cadmium (t) (d 2); chromium (t) (d 2); copper (t) (d 2); lead (t) (d 2); manganese (t); mercury (t) (d); Ten Sites: selenium (t) (d 2); silver (t) (d 2); zinc (t) (d 2); nickel (t) (d 2); nitrogen as VRBAR-A (deepest) ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; phosphorus; sulfate; and chlorine. VRBAR-B (mid lake) Status Parameters exceeding standards: pH (1/60) assessed as “Attaining”. VRBAR-C VRBAR-NTU1 through Subwatershed risk classification: NTU5 • Moderate risk for metals due to lack of data; VRBAR-MAR1 • Low risk for sediment; VRBAR-SW • Moderate risk for organics due to pH exceedance; Low risk for other VRBAR-DAM SITE constituents; and VRBAR-MID LAKE • Low risk for selenium. VRBAR- BARTLETT FLATS VRBAR-A Verde River, from Sampling E. coli; pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; fluoride; Tangle Creek to arsenic; barium; beryllium; antimony; thallium; boron; cadmium (t) (d); Istar Flat. chromium (t) (d); copper (t) (d); lead (t) (d); manganese (t); mercury (t) (d); 15060203-018 selenium (t) (d); silver (t) (d); zinc (t) (d); nickel (t) (d); nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; phosphorus; and total suspended solids. Three Sites: Status Parameters exceeding standards: copper (d) (1/58) assessed as “Attaining”; VRVER036.68 turbidity (5/24) assessed as “Inconclusive”; and E. coli (1/24) assessed as VRVER036.48 “Inconclusive”. VRVER032.74 Subwatershed risk classification: Note: This reach flows • Moderate risk for metals due to copper exceedances; through two subwatershed • High risk for sediment due to turbidity exceedances; HUCs: • Moderate risk for organics due to E. coli exceedance; Low risk for 1506020304 other constituents; and 1506020305 • Low risk for selenium. Verde Watersh ed Appen dix A: Table 1 A-16 Results Available Water Quality Data and Assessment Status 1,2,3 Reach Sites Verde River, from Sampling Horseshoe Dam to Alder Creek. 15060203-008 Four Sites: VRVER030.17 VRVER028.85 VRVER028.70 VRVER027.54 Status E. coli (1); temperature; pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids (2); turbidity (1); fluoride (1); arsenic; barium (2); beryllium (2); antimony (1); selenium (1); thallium (1); boron (1); cadmium (t) (d 1); chromium (t) (d 1); copper (t) (d 1); lead (t) (d 1); manganese (t); mercury (t 1) (d 1); selenium (t 1); silver (t) (d 1); zinc (t) (d 1); nickel (t 1) (d 1); nitrogen as ammonia; nkjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate (1); phosphorus; sulfate; hardness (2); and total suspended solids (2). Parameters exceeding standards: none. Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. Mesquite Wash Subw atershed HUC 1506020306 No Data Collected Classification: • Moderate risk for all con stitu en t grou ps due to lack of monitoring data. Camp Creek – Low er Verde River Subw atershed HUC 1506020307 Classification: • • • • Extrem e risk for m etals; Moderate risk for sedim en t; Extrem e risk for organ ics; an d Extrem e risk for selen iu m. Verde River Sampling E. coli; pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; turbidity; fluoride; (Bartlett Dam – arsenic; barium; beryllium; antimony; thallium; boron; cadmium (t) (d); Camp Creek) chromium (t) (d); copper (t) (d); lead (t) (d); manganese (t); mercury (t) (d); 15060203-004 selenium (t) (d); silver (t) (d); zinc (t) (d); nickel (t) (d); nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; and phosphorus. Three Sites: Status Parameters exceeding standards: copper (4/80) assessed as “Impaired”; and VRVER018.51 selenium (4/23) assessed as “Impaired”. VRVER018.13 VRVER017.55 Subwatershed risk classification: • Extreme risk for metals due to copper impairment; • Low risk for sediment; • Low risk for organics; and • Extreme risk for selenium due to impairment. Grande Wash Sampling E. coli (2); pH; dissolved oxygen (2); total dissolved solids; suspended (headwaters – sediment concentration (2); fluoride (2),arsenic; barium; beryllium; Ashbrook Wash) antimony (2); selenium (2); thallium (1); boron (2); cadmium (t 1) (d); 15060203-991 chromium (t 1) (d); copper (t 1) (d); lead (t 1) (d); manganese (t); mercury (t 1); selenium (t 1); silver (t 1) (d); zinc (t 1) (d); nickel (t 1) (d); nitrogen as One Site: ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; and phosphorus. VRGRW000.30 Status Parameters exceeding standards: E. coli exceedances (2/2) assessed as “Impaired”. Subwatershed risk classification: • Moderate risk for metals because of lack of data; • Moderate risk for sediment because of lack of data; • Extreme risk for organics due to E. coli impairment; Moderate risk for other constituents; and • Moderate risk for selenium because of lack of data. Verde Watersh ed Appen dix A: Table 1 A-17 Reach Sites Results Available Water Quality Data and Assessment Status 1,2,3 Camp Creek Sampling (headwaters – Verde River 15060203-031 Status One Site: VRCMP009.30 Colony Wash (headwaters – Fort McDowell Indian Reservation) 15060203-998 One Site: VRCLW001.43 Fountain Lake 15060203-0003 Sampling Status Sampling One Site: VRFHL Status Verde River (Sycamore Creek – Salt River) 15060203-001 Sampling Status Two Sites: VRVER003.18 VRVER000.18 Verde River Sampling (Camp Creek – Sycamore Creek) 15060203-003 One Site: VRVER011.34 Status pH (1); dissolved oxygen (1); total dissolved solids (1); turbidity (1); cadmium (d 1); copper (d 1); lead (t 1); mercury (d 1); selenium (d 1); nitrogen as ammonia (1); n-kjeldahl (1); and phosphorus (1). Parameters exceeding standards: none. Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. pH (1); dissolved oxygen (1); total dissolved solids (1); fluoride (1); arsenic (1); barium (1); beryllium (1); antimony (1); boron (1); cadmium (d 1); chromium (d 1); copper (d 1); lead (d 1); manganese (t 1); mercury (d 1); selenium (d 1); silver (d 1); zinc (d 1); nickel (d 1); nitrogen as ammonia (1); n-kjeldahl (1); nitrite/nitrate (1); and phosphorus (1). Parameters exceeding standards: none. Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. pH; total dissolved solids (1); fluoride (1),arsenic (1); barium (1); beryllium (1); antimony (1); selenium (1); boron (1); cadmium (d 1); chromium (d 1); copper (d 1); lead (d 1); manganese (t 1); mercury (d 1); silver (d 1); zinc (d 1); nickel (d 1); nitrogen as ammonia (2); n-kjeldahl (1); nitrite/nitrate (1); and phosphorus (1). Parameters exceeding standards: none. Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. temperature (2); pH (2); dissolved oxygen (2); total dissolved solids (2); turbidity (1); nitrogen as ammonia (2); n-kjeldahl (2); phosphorus (2); sulfate (2); and total suspended solids (2). Parameters exceeding standards: none. Subwatershed risk classifications: • Moderate risk for all constituent groups because of missing data. E. coli; pH; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved solids; suspended sediment concentration; fluoride; arsenic; barium; beryllium; antimony; thallium (1); boron; cadmium (t 1) (d); chromium (t 1) (d); copper (t 1) (d); lead (t 1) (d); manganese (t); mercury (t 1) (d); selenium (t 1) (d); silver (t 1) (d); zinc (t1) (d); nickel (t 1) (d); nitrogen as ammonia; n-kjeldahl; nitrite/nitrate; and phosphorus. Parameters exceeding standards: none. Subwatershed risk classification: • Moderate risk for metals because of lack of data; • Low risk for sediment; • Low risk for organics; and • Moderate risk for selenium because of lack of data. 1 All water qu ality con stitu en ts h ad a min im um of th ree samples u n less oth erwise indicated by n u m bers in paren thesis. For exam ple, arsen ic (2) in dicates two samples h ave been taken for arsen ic on th is reach . Verde Watersh ed Appen dix A: Table 1 A-18 2 Th e n u m ber of samples th at exceed a stan dard are described by a ratio. For example, th e statemen t “Exceedan ces reported for E. coli (1/2),” indicates th at on e from two sam ples h as exceeded standards for E. coli. 3 Th e acron ym s u sed for th e water quality param eters are defined below: (t) = (t) metal or metalloid (before filtration ) (d) = dissolved fraction of th e m etal or m etalloid (after filtration ) cadm ium (d): Filtered water sample analyzed for dissolved cadmiu m. cadmium (t): Un filtered water sample an d sedimen t/particu lates su spended in th e water sample an alyzed for (t) cadm ium con ten t. ch romium (d): Filtered water sample an alyzed for dissolved ch rom ium. ch rom ium (t): Un filtered water sample and sedim ent/particu lates su spen ded in th e water sample an alyzed for (t) ch romiu m con ten t. copper (d): Filtered water sample analyzed for dissolved copper. copper (t): Un filtered water sample and sedim en t/particulates suspended in th e water sample analyzed for (t) copper con ten t. dissolved oxygen : dissolved Oxygen E. coli: Esch erich ia coli bacteria lead (d): Filtered water sam ple an alyzed for dissolved lead. lead (t): Un filtered water sample and sedim en t/particu lates su spended in th e water sample an alyzed for (t) lead con ten t. m anganese (d): Filtered water sam ple an alyzed for dissolved m an ganese. m anganese (t): Un filtered water sample and sedim ent/particu lates su spen ded in th e water sample an alyzed for (t) m anganese con ten t. m ercu ry (d): Filtered water sample an alyzed for dissolved mercu ry. mercu ry (t): Un filtered water sample an d sedimen t/particu lates su spended in th e water sample an alyzed for (t) m ercu ry con ten t. n ickel (d): Filtered water sam ple analyzed for dissolved n ickel. n ickel (t): Un filtered water sample and sedim en t/particulates suspended in th e water sample analyzed for (t) n ickel con ten t. n itrate/n itrite: Water sam ple analyzed for Nitrite/Nitrate con ten t. n -kjeldah l: Water sam ple an alyzed by th e Kjeldahl n itrogen analytical m eth od which determ in es th e n itrogen con ten t of organ ic an d in organ ic su bstan ces by a process of sample acid digestion , distillation, an d titration. pH: Water sam ple an alyzed for levels of acidity or alkalin ity. selen iu m (d): Filtered water sample analyzed for dissolved selen iu m . selen iu m (t): Un filtered water sample an d sedimen t/particu lates su spended in th e water sample an alyzed for (t) selen iu m con ten t. silver (d): Filtered water sam ple an alyzed for dissolved silver. silver (t): Un filtered water sample and sedim en t/particu lates su spen ded in th e water sample an alyzed for (t) silver con ten t. su spended sedim en t con cen tration : Su spended Sedimen t Con centration temperatu re: Sample temperatu re total dissolved solids: total dissolved solids total solids: (t) Solids total su spended solids: (t) Su spen ded Solids tu rbidity: Measu remen t of su spen ded matter in water sample. zin c (d): Filtered water sam ple an alyzed for dissolved zin c. zin c (t): Un filtered water sample and sedim en t/particu lates su spended in th e water sample an alyzed for (t) zin c con ten t. Verde Watersh ed Appen dix A: Table 1 A-19 Appendix B: Suggested References Verde Watershed ADWR, Arizon a Departmen t of Water Resou rces. 2000. Verde River Watersh ed Stu dy. Arizon a Water Protection Fu n d, 500 North 3rd St., Ph oen ix, AZ 85004. Aldridge, B.N., Hales, T. A., 1984. Floods of November 1978 to March 1979 in Arizon a an d west-cen tral New Mexico. U. S. Geological Su rvey WaterSu pply Paper. Alu m , A., Abbaszadegan , M. 2003. Ch aracterization of somatic coliph ages of microviridae family an d th eir u se as in dicators of microbial qu ality of en viron men tal waters. Abstracts of th e Gen eral Meetin g of th e American Society for Microbiology. 103: Q-486. An derson , A.A., Hen drickson , D.A. 1994. Geograph ic variation in morph ology of spikedace, Meda fu lgida, in Arizon a an d New Mexico. Sou th western Natu ralist. 39(2): 148-155. Arizon a State Un iv., Tem pe, AZ. 1987. Poten tial Effects of Partial Water With drawals from th e Verde River on Riparian Vegetation (Section 1). Stru ctu re of Riparian Habitats at Selected Sites alon g th e Verde an d East Verde Rivers of Cen tral Arizon a (Section 2). Fin al Report Bu reau of Reclamation , Ph oen ix, AZ. Arizon a Projects Office. 119p. Averitt, E., Stein er, F., Yabes, R.A., Patten , D. 1994. An assessmen t of th e Verde River Corridor Project in Arizon a. Lan dscape an d Urban Plan n in g. 28(2-3): 161-178. Baker, L.A., Qu resh i, T.M., Wym an , M.M. 1998. Sources an d mobility of arsen ic in th e Salt River Watersh ed, Arizon a. Water Resou rces Research . 34(6): 1543-1552. Baker, M.B., Folliot, P.F. 1998. Multiple resource evaluations on the Beaver Creek Watershed; an annotated bibliography (1956-1996). Rocky Mou n tain Research Station , Fort Collin s, CO. Baker,V.R. 1984. Recen t paleoflood h ydrology stu dies in arid an d semi-arid en viron m en ts. AGU 1984 fall m eetin g. EOS Tran saction s, Am erican Geoph ysical Un ion . 65(45) 893 p. Baker,V.R., Ely, L.L., O’Con n or, J.E., Partridge, J.B. 1987. Paleoflood h ydrology an d design application s. Regional flood frequency analysis; Proceedings of the Verde Watersh ed Appendix B: Suggested Referen ces B-1 International Sym posium on Flood Frequency and Risk Analyses. (V.P. Sin gh ) 339-353. Baldys, Stan ley III. 1990. Tren d an alysis of selected water-qu ality con stitu en ts in th e Verde River basin , cen tral Arizon a. Water-Resou rces In vestigation s U.S. Geological Su rvey. Baldys, S. 1991. Tren d an alysis of selected water-qu ality con stitu en ts in th e Verde River basin , cen tral Arizon a. U.S. Geological Su rvey. 55 p. Bayn h am, O.R., Capesiu s, J.P., Ph illips, J.V. 1997. Precipitation an d stream flow con dition s in Arizon a, October 1, 1995 to Ju n e 30, 1997. Fact Sh eet - U.S. Geological Su rvey. 1997. Beau ch am p, V. B., Strom berg, J.C. 2003. Cotton wood-willow stan d stru ctu re on regu lated an d u n regu lated reach es of th e Verde River, Arizon a. Ecological Society of America An n u al Meetin g Abstracts. 88: 25-26. Beyer, P.J., 1997. In tegration an d fragm en tation in a flu vial geom orph ic system , Verde River, Arizon a. Doctoral Arizon a State Un iversity. Tem pe, AZ, Un ited States. 356 p. Bills, D.J., Flyn n , M.E. Hoffm an n , J.P., Parker, J.T.C., 2002. Upper an d middle Verde watersh ed, Mogollon High lan ds, an d Cocon in o Plateau ru ral watersh ed stu dies; a USGS-ADWR collaboration . Sym posium 2002, Water transfers; past, present, and future; proceedings of the Fifteenth annual sym posium ; extended abstracts. Proceedin gs of th e Arizon a Hydrological Society An n u al Sym posiu m . 15. Bou wer, H., 1985. Ren ovatin g wastewater with grou n dwater rech arge in th e Ph oen ix area. Issues in groundwater m anagem ent. (eds. E. T. Sm erdon , W.R. Jordan ) Water Resou rces Sym posiu m . 12: 331-346. Brou der, M.J. 2001. Effects of floodin g on recru itmen t of rou n dtail ch u b, Gila robu sta, in a Sou th western River. Sou th western Natu ralist. 46(3): 302-310 Brown , T.C., Fogel, M. M., 1987. Use of streamflow in creases from vegetation m an agem en t in th e Verde River Basin , Water Resou rces Bu lletin 23(6): 1149-1160. Bu ren , M.R., 1992. Defin ition an d paleogeograph ic sign ifican ce of Cen ozoic stratigraph ic u n its, Ch in o-Lon esome Valley, Yavapai Cou n ty, Arizon a. Master's North ern Arizon a Un iversity. Flagstaff, AZ.. Verde Watersh ed Appendix B: Suggested Referen ces B-2 Cox, R., Martin , M.W., Com stock, J.C., Dickerson , L.S., Ekstrom , I.L., Sam m on s, J.H., 2002. Sedimen tology, stratigraph y, an d geoch ron ology of th e Proterozoic Mazatzal Grou p, cen tral Arizon a. Geological Society of Am erica Bu lletin . 114: 1535-1549. Generaliz ed hydrogeology and ground-water budget for the C Aquifer, Little Colorado River basin and parts of the Verde and Salt River basins, Ariz ona and New Mexico. (eds. R. J. Hart, Joh n J. Ward, D. J. Bills, M. E. Flyn n . Water-Resou rces In vestigation s - U. S. Geological Su rvey. Den lin ger, R.P., O’Con n ell, D.R.H., Hou se, P.K., 2002. Robu st determin ation of stage an d disch arge; an example from an extreme flood on th e Verde River, Arizon a. Ancient floods, m odern haz ards; principles and applications of paleoflood hydrology. (eds. P.K. Hou se, R. H. Webb, V. R. Baker, D. R. Levish .). Water Scien ce an d Application 5:127-146. Deslau riers, E.C., 1977. Geoph ysics an d h ydrology of th e lower Verde River valley, Maricopa Cou n ty, Arizon a. Master's Arizon a State Un iversity. Tempe, AZ 61 p. Ely, L.L., Baker, V.R., 1985. Recon stru ctin g paleoflood h ydrology with slackwater deposits; Verde River, Arizon a. Ph ysical Geograph y. 6(2), 103-126. Flora, S.P. Sprin ger, A.E., 2002. Hydrogeological ch aracterization of sprin gs in th e Verde River watersh ed, cen tral Arizon a. Geological Society of Am erica, 2002 annual m eeting. Abstracts with Program s - Geological Society of Am erica. 34(6):25. Fogel, M.M., 1985. Iden tification of u ses of in creased stream flow associated with vegetative modification in th e Verde River basin . : Sch ool of Ren ewable Natu ral Resou rces, Un iversity of Arizon a. Tu cson , Ariz., 118 p FRASER design , Lovelan d, CO. 1991. Historic Am erican En gin eerin g Record: Horsesh oe Dam. Tech n ical Report. Nation al Park Service, San Fran cisco, CA. Historic Am erican En gin eerin g Record. Bu reau of Reclam ation , Ph oen ix, AZ. Arizon a Projects 134p. FRASER design , Lovelan d, CO 1992. Th ree Dam s in Cen tral Arizon a: A Stu dy in Tech n ological Diversity. Research Report. Bu reau of Reclamation , Ph oen ix, AZ. 53 p. Geological Su rvey, Tu cson , AZ. Water Resou rces Div. 2000. Hydrogeology, Water Qu ality an d Stormwater-Sedimen t Ch emistry of th e Gran de Wash Area, Fort McDowell In dian Reservation , Maricopa Cou n ty, Arizon a. Water Resou rces In vestigation s. 66p. Verde Watersh ed Appendix B: Suggested Referen ces B-3 Geological Su rvey, Tu cson , AZ. Water Resou rces Div. 2001. Qu ality of Water an d Estimates of Water In flow, North ern Bou n dary Area, Fort McDowell In dian Reservation , Maricopa Cou n ty, Arizon a. Water Resou rces In vestigation (Fin al). 64p. Gillen tin e, J.M., Karlstrom, K.E., Parn ell, R.A. Jr., Pu ls, D., 1991. Con strain ts on tem peratu res of Proterozoic m etam orph ism in low-grade rocks of cen tral Arizon a. Proteroz oic geology and ore deposits of Ariz ona. (ed. K.E. Karlstrom) Arizon a Geological Society Digest. 19:165-180. Green , D.M., Fen n er, P., 2002. Livestock h erbivory im pacts on woody species in a cen tral Arizon a riparian area. Ecological Society of America An n u al Meetin g Abstracts. 87: 358 Gru bb, T.G. 1995. Food h abits of Bald Eagles breedin g in th e Arizon a desert. Wilson -Bu lletin . 107(2): 258-274 Hart, R.J., Ward, J.J., Bills, D.J., Flyn n , M.E., 2002. Gen eralized h ydrogeology an d grou n d-water bu dget for th e C Aqu ifer, Little Colorado River basin an d parts of th e Verde an d Salt River basin s, Arizon a an d New Mexico. Water Resou rces In vestigation s U. S. Geological Su rvey. Hoffm an n , J.P., O'Day, C.M., 2001. Qu ality of water an d estimates of water in flow, n orth ern bou n dary area, Fort McDowell In dian Reservation , Maricopa Cou n ty, Arizon a. U.S. Dept. of th e In terior, U.S. Geological Su rvey, Den ver, CO. 47 p. Hou se, P.K., 1996. Reports on applied paleoflood h ydrological in vestigation s in western an d cen tral Arizon a. Doctoral Un iversity of Arizon a. Tu cson , AZ, 356 p. Hou se, P.K., Pearth ree, P.A., Klawon , J.E., 1998. A m u ltiscaled evalu ation of th e paleoflood h ydrology an d flood h ydroclimatology of th e Verde River basin , Arizon a. Geological Society of America, Rocky Mou n tain Section , 50th an n u al meetin g. Abstracts with Program s - Geological Society of Am erica. 30(6):11 Hou se, P.K., Hirsch boeck, K.K., 1993. Hydroclim atological an d paleoh ydrological con text of extrem e win ter floodin g in Arizon a, 1993. Storm -induced geologic haz ards; case histories from the 1992-1993 winter in Southern California and Ariz ona. (eds. R.A. Larson , J.E. Slosson Reviews in En gin eerin g Geology. 11: 1-24. Hou se, P.K., Pearth ree, P.A., Klawon , J.E., 2002. Historical flood an d paleoflood ch ron ology of th e lower Verde River, Arizon a; stratigraph ic eviden ce an d related u n certain ties. Ancient floods, m odern haz ards; principles and Verde Watersh ed Appendix B: Suggested Referen ces B-4 applications of paleoflood hydrology. (eds. P.K. Hou se, R. H. Webb, V. R. Baker, D. R. Levish .). Water Scien ce an d Application 5:267-293. Hu ckleberry, G.A., 1997. Paleoflood im pacts to preh istoric agricu ltu ralists in th e Son oran Desert. Geological Society of Am erica, 1997 an n u al m eetin g. Abstracts with Program s - Geological Society of Am erica. 29(6): 242 Klawon , J.E., 1998. Historic flood an d paleoflood an alysis, Hell Can yon an d Sycam ore Can yon , cen tral Arizon a. Geological Society of Am erica, Rocky Mou n tain Section , 50th an n u al meetin g. Abstracts with Program s Geological Society of Am erica. 30(6):12. Lan gen h eim , V.E., Du val, J.S., Wirt, L., DeWitt, E., 2000. Prelimin ary report on geoph ysics of Verde River h eadwaters region , Arizon a. Open -File Report U. S. Geological Su rvey. Leslie, L. L., Velez, C.E., Bon ar,S., 2003. Diet an d con su mption rates of in trodu ced fish es in th e Verde River, Arizon a. American Fish eries Society An n u al Meetin g. 133: 338-339 Levin gs, G.W., Man n , L.J., 1978. Maps sh owin g grou n d-water condition s in th e u pper Verde River area, Yavapai an d Cocon in o cou n ties, Arizon a; 1978. Open -File Report - U. S. Geological Su rvey. Lopes, V.L., Ffolliott, P.F., Baker, M.B. Jr., 2001. Im pacts of vegetative practices on su spen ded sedim en t from watersh eds of Arizon a. Jou rn al of Water Resou rces Plan n in g an d Man agem en t. 127(1): 41-47. Lowry, W.D., Grivetti, R.M., 1981. Specific Arizon a sou rces of the late Eocen e Poway Con glomerate of th e San Diego area an d th e great competen ce of th e an cestral Salt-Gila river system . The Geological Society of Am erica, Cordilleran Section, 77th annual m eeting, international m eeting. Abstracts with Program s - Geological Society of Am erica. 13(2), 68 p. Malu sa, J., Overby, S.T., Parn ell, R.A., 2003. Poten tial for travertin e formation ; Fossil Creek, Arizon a. Applied Geoch em istry. 18(7):1081-1093 Martin sen , R.S., 1975. Geology of a part of th e East Verde River can yon , n ear Payson , Arizon a. Master's North ern Arizon a Un iversity. Flagstaff, AZ, Un ited States. 117 p. Ngu yen , My Lin h , Baker, L.A., Westerh off, P. 2002. DOC an d DBP precu rsors in western US watersh eds an d reservoirs: Am erican Water Works Association Jou rn al. 94(5): 98-112 Verde Watersh ed Appendix B: Suggested Referen ces B-5 O’Con n or, J.E., Ely, L. Partridge, J.B., 1984. Flood paleoh ydrology an d paleoh ydrau lics, Salt an d Verde rivers, cen tral Arizon a. AGU 1984 fall m eetin g. Eos, Tran saction s, Am erican Geoph ysical Un ion . 65(45) 893 p. Odem ,W.I., Moody, T.O., 1999. Ch an n el geometry relation sh ips in th e Sou th west. Wildlife hydrology. (eds. D.S. Olsen , J.P. Potyon dy), American Water Resou rces Association Tech n ical Pu blication Series TPS. 99(3):409-416. Owen , J.S.J., 1984. Hydrology of a stream -aqu ifer system in th e Cam p Verde area, Yavapai Cou n ty, Arizon a. Arizon a Departm en t of Water Resou rces Bu lletin . 3 Owen , J.S.J., Bell,C.K., 1983. Appraisal of water resou rces in th e u pper Verde River area, Yavapai an d Cocon in o cou n ties, Arizon a. Arizon a Departmen t of Water Resou rces Bu lletin . 2 Parker, J.T.C., Flyn n , M.E. 2001.Hydrogeology an d isotope h ydrology of th e Mogollon High lan ds of cen tral Arizon a; prelimin ary fin din gs. 14th annual sym posium of the Ariz ona Hydrological Society. Proceedin gs of th e Arizon a Hydrological Society An n u al Symposiu m. 14: 57-58. Parks, S. J., Baker, L.A., 1997. Sou rces an d tran sport of organ ic carbon in an Arizon a river-reservoir system . Water Research Oxford. 31(7 ),1751-1759 Patten , D.T., Strom berg, J.C., 2000. Ecological con sequ en ces of grou n dwater with drawal an d aqu ifer protection in th e arid-west. Geological Society of America, 2000 an n u al meetin g. Geological Society of Am erica. 32(7):140. Peirce, H.W., 1987. An an cestral Colorado Plateau edge; Fossil Creek Can yon , Arizon a. Cordilleran section of the Geological Society of Am erica. Cen ten n ial field gu ide. (ed. M.L. Hill) (6):41-42. Piety, L.A., An derson , L.W., 1990. Recu rren t late Qu atern ary fau ltin g on th e Horsesh oe Fau lt, Verde River valley, cen tral Arizon a. Geological Society of Am erica, Cordilleran Section, 86th annual m eeting. (eds. M.L. Zoback, S.M. Rowlan d), Abstracts with Program s - Geological Society of Am erica. 22(3): 76 p. Robin son , A.T. Hin es, P.P. Soren sen , J.A. Bryan , S.D., 1998. Parasites an d fish h ealth in a desert stream, an d man agemen t implication s for two en dan gered fish es North American Jou rn al of Fish eries Man agem en t. 18(3): 599-608 Rocky Mou n tain Research Station , Fort Collin s, CO 1998. Mu ltiple Resou rce Evalu ation s on th e Beaver Creek Watersh ed: An An n otated Bibliograph y (1956-1996). Forest Service gen eral tech n ical Report. 82 p. Verde Watersh ed Appendix B: Suggested Referen ces B-6 Ross, P. P. 1976. Map sh owin g grou n d-water con dition s in th e lower Verde River area, Maricopa, Yavapai, an d Gila cou n ties, Arizon a. Water Resou rces In vestigation s - U. S. Geological Su rvey. Salt River Project, Ph oen ix, AZ 1990. Ph otograph s Written Historical an d Descriptive Data: Bartlett Dam, Verde River, Ph oen ix Vicin ity, Maricopa Cou n ty, Arizon a. Nation al Park Service, San Fran cisco, CA. Historic Am erican Bu ildin g Su rvey. Bu reau of Reclam ation , Ph oen ix, AZ. 170p. Sch wab, K. J., 1995. Maps sh owin g grou n dwater con dition s, Sprin g 1992, Big Ch in o su b-basin of th e Verde River Basin , Cocon in o an d Yavapai cou n ties, Arizon a--1992. State of Arizon a, Dept. of Water Resou rces Sch wab, K. J., 1995. Maps sh owin g grou n dwater con dition s in th e Big Ch in o su bbasin of th e Verde River Basin , Cocon in o an d Yavapai cou n ties, Arizon a— 1992. State of Arizon a, Dept. of Water Resou rces. Sh an n on , D.M, 1983. Zeolites an d associated min erals from Horsesh oe Dam, Arizon a. Th e Min eralogical Record. 14(2), 115-117. Sm all, G.G. 1982. Grou n dwater qu ality im pacts of cascadin g water in th e Salt River Project area. Proceedings of the deep percolation sym posium . (ed. P.C. Briggs), Arizon a Departmen t of Water Resou rces Report. 4: 41-47. Sm ith , C.F., Sh erm an , K.M., Pope, G.L., Rigas, P.D., 1993. Su m m ary of floods of 1993; Jan u ary an d Febru ary 1993, in Arizon a. Sum m ary of floods in the United States, January 1992 through Septem ber 1993. (eds. C. A. Perry., L.J. Com bs). U. S. Geological Su rvey Water-Su pply Paper. 185-193 Spon h oltz, P.J. 1997. Effects of grazin g on a riparian system: Where h ave all th e fish gon e? Bu lletin of th e Ecological Society of Am erica. 78(4 SUPPL.): 190. Strom berg, J.C., 1993. In stream flow models for mixed decidu ou s riparian vegetation with in a semiarid region . Regu lated Rivers. 8(3): 225-235 Tellman , Barbara, an d R. Yarde, M.G Wallace. 1997. Arizon a’s Ch an gin g Rivers: How People Have Affected th e Rivers. Water Resou rces Research Cen ter, College of Agricu ltu re, Th e Un iversity of Arizon a, Tu cson , Arizon a. March , 1997. 198 pp. Th orn bu rg, T, 1993. Verde River corridor project. Gen eral-tech n ical-report-RM. USA 226: 397-401 USDA Forest Service, 1999. History of watersh ed research in th e Cen tral Arizon a High lan ds. Gen eral Tech n ical Report Rocky Mou n tain Research Station . Verde Watersh ed Appendix B: Suggested Referen ces B-7 Velez, C.E., Leslie, L.L., Bon ar, S.A. 2003. Impact of predation by n on n ative fish es on n ative fish es in th e Verde River, Arizon a.. American Fish eries Society An n u al Meetin g. 2003; 133: 339. Ward. S.A., 1993. Master’s. North ern Arizon a Un iversity, Flagstaff, AZ. Volcan ic stratigraph y of a portion of th e Su llivan Bu ttes Latite, Ch in o Valley, Arizon a. Wern er, W. E., 2003 Con servation of n ative species th rou gh h abitat con servation plan s, safe h arbor agreemen ts, an d similar mech an isms in Arizon a. American Fish eries Society An n u al Meetin g. 133: 337-338 Wessels, R.L., Karlstrom, K.E., 1991.Evalu ation of th e tecton ic sign ifican ce of th e Proterozoic Slate Creek sh ear zon e in th e Ton to Basin area. Proteroz oic geology and ore deposits of Ariz ona. (ed. K.E Karlstrom) Arizon a Geological Society Digest. 19: 193-209 Wh ittlesey, S.M., Ciolek-Torrello, R, Altsch u l, J.H., Van ish in g river : lan dscapes an d lives of th e lower Verde Valley : th e lower Verde arch aeological project, overview, syn th esis, an d con clu sion s. Tu cson , AZ SRI Press, 1997 Wirt, L., 1993. Isotopic con ten t an d water ch emistry of grou n d water th at su pplies sprin gs in th e Verde h eadwaters, Yavapai Cou n ty, Arizon a. Em erging critical issues in water resources of Ariz ona and the Southwest. Proceedin gs of th e Arizon a Hydrological Society An n u al Symposiu m. 6: 271-274. Wirt,L., Hjalm arson , H.W., 1999. Sou rces of sprin gs su pplyin g base flow to th e Verde River h eadwaters, Yavapai Cou n ty, Arizon a. Open -File Report - U. S. Geological Su rvey. Wirt, L., Lan gen h eim , V.E., DeWitt, E., 2002.Geologic framework of aqu ifer u n its an d grou n d-water flow path s n ear th e ou tlet of two sou th western allu vial basin s; u pper Verde River, Arizon a. Abstracts with Program s - Geological Society of Am erica. 34:6, 394. Woodh ou se, B., Flyn n , M.E., Parker, J.T.C., Hoffm an n , J. 2002. Investigation of geology and hydrology of the upper and m iddle Verde River watershed of central Ariz ona; a project of the Ariz ona Rural Watershed Initiative. U. S. Geological Su rvey Fact Sh eet. Woodh ou se, B.G., Parker, J.T.C., Bills, D.J., Flyn n , M.E. 2000. USGS in vestigation s of ru ral Arizon a watersh eds; Cocon in o Plateau , u pper an d middle Verde River, an d Fossil Creek-East Verde River Ton to Creek. Environm ental technologies for the 21st century; proceedings of AHS 2000 annual sym posium ; extended abstracts. Proceedin gs of th e Arizon a Hydrological Society An n u al Sym posiu m . 13: 97-98. Verde Watersh ed Appendix B: Suggested Referen ces B-8 Wru cke, C.T., Con way, C.M. 1993. Early Proterozoic u n con formity an d con trastin g region al su ites in cen tral Arizon a. Geological Society of Am erica, 1993 an n u al m eetin g. Abstracts with Program s - Geological Society of Am erica. 25(6), 48 p. Yard, H.K., Brown , B.T., 2003. Sin gin g beh avior of Sou th western Willow Flycatch ers in Arizon a. Stu dies in Avian Biology. (26): 125-130 Verde Watersh ed Appendix B: Suggested Referen ces B-9 • Master watersh ed bou n dary grid (created from USGS DEM). Appendix C: Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) Modeling • Nation al Lan d Cover Dataset (NLCD) lan d cover grid. Th e Revised Un iversal Soil Loss Equ ation (RUSLE) was u sed to model erosion poten tial. RUSLE compu tes average an n u al erosion from field slopes as (Ren ard, 1997): • Lan d m ask grid for open waters, su ch as ocean s or bays, derived from th e NLCD lan d cover data. No ocean s or bays are presen t in th is watersh ed, so n o cells were m asked. A = R*K*L*S*C*P Wh ere: A = com pu ted average an n u al soil loss in ton s/acre/year. R = rain fall-ru n off erosivity factor K = soil erodibility factor L = slope len gth factor S = slope steepn ess factor C = cover-m an agem en t factor P = Con servation Practice Th e first compon en t AML of th e program sets u p th e ‘m aster’ soil an d lan dform spatial datasets for th e stu dy area. Th is in clu des extractin g th e STATSGO soil m ap an d attribu tes as well as th e R, C, an d P factors, from datasets th at com e with th e program . Th e R-factor is rain fall-ru n off erosivity, or th e poten tial of rain fall-ru n off to cau se erosion . Th e C-factor con siders th e type of cover or lan d man agem en t on th e lan d su rface. Th e P-factor looks at con servation practices, su ch as con servation tillage. Th e m odelin g was con du cted in th e ArcIn fo Grid en viron men t u sin g Van Rem ortel’s (2004) Soil & Lan dform Metrics program . Th is is a series of Arc Macro Lan gu age (AML) programs an d C+ + execu tables th at are ru n sequ en tially to prepare th e data an d ru n th e RUSLE model. A 30-meter cell size was u sed to correspon d to th e requ iremen ts of th e program. Addition ally, a stream n etwork is delin eated from th e DEM u sin g a u ser specified th resh old for con tribu tin g area. A th resh old of 500 30x30 m eter cells was specified as th e con tribu tin g area for stream delin eation . Th is n u m ber was ch osen based on con su ltation with th e program au th or. Th e AML also created th e K factor grid. Th e K factor con siders h ow su sceptible a soil type is to erosion . All of th e requ ired in pu t spatial data layers were con verted to th e projection requ ired by th e program (USGS Albers NAD83) an d placed in th e appropriate directories. Th e in pu t data layers in clu de: • USGS Digital Elevation Model (DEM). Th e DEM was modified by m u ltiplyin g it by 100 an d con vertin g it to an in teger grid as prescribed by th e program. Th e secon d com pon en t AML sets u p addition al directory stru ctu res for an y defin ed su bwatersh eds. In th is u se of th e model th e en tire Upper Gila watersh ed was don e as a sin gle u n it. Verde Watersh ed Appen dix C: RUSLE Model C-1 flow path . Th e L an d S factors take in to accou n t h ill slope len gth an d h ill slope steepn ess. Th e th ird compon en t AML iteratively com pu tes a set of soil param eters derived from th e Nation al Resou rce Con servation Service’s State Soil Geograph ic (STATSGO) Dataset. Th e fifth compon en t AML ru n s RUSLE an d ou tpu ts R, K, LS, C, P factor grids an d an A valu e grid th at con tain s th e modeled estimate of erosion in ton s/acre/year for each cell. Th e fou rth compon en t AML calcu lates th e LS factor accordin g to th e RUSLE criteria u sin g DEM-based elevation an d Referen ces: Ren ard, K.G., G.R. Foster, G.A. Weesies, D.K. McCool, an d D.C. Yoder. 1997. Predictin g Soil Erosion by Water: A Gu ide to Con servation Plan n in g with th e Revised Un iversal Soil Loss Equ ation (RUSLE). Un ited States Departmen t of Agricu ltu re, Agricu ltu re Han dbook No. 703. USDA, Wash in gton D.C. Van Rem ortel, R. 2004. Soil & Lan dform Metrics: Program s an d U.S. Geodatasets Version 1.1. En viron m en tal Protection Agen cy. Las Vegas, NV. Data Sou rces*: U.S. Departmen t of Agricu ltu re, Natural Resou rces Con servation Service. Major Lan d Resou rce Area Map, Nation al Lan d Cover Dataset (NLCD). Ju ly 15, 2003. ftp-fc.sc.egov.u sda.gov/NHQ/pu b/lan d/arc_export/u s48m lra.e00.zip State Soils Geograph ic (STATSGO) Dataset. April 17, 2003. h ttp://www.n cgc.n rcs.u sda.gov/bran ch /ssb/produ cts/statsgo/ U.S. Geological Su rvey. Nation al Elevation Dataset 30-Meter Digital Elevation Models (DEMs). April 8, 2003. h ttp://gisdata.u sgs.n et/NED/defau lt.asp *Note: Dates for each data set refer to when data was downloaded from the website. Metadata (inform ation about how and when the GIS data were created) is available from the website in m ost cases. Metadata in cludes the original source of the data, when it was created, its geographic projection and scale, the nam e(s) of the contact person and/or organiz ation, and general description of the data. Verde Watersh ed Appen dix C: RUSLE Model C-2 term yield m odel, u sin g daily average in pu t valu es, an d is n ot design ed to sim u late detailed, sin gle-even t flood rou tin g. Major compon en ts of th e model in clu de: h ydrology, weath er gen erator, sedimen tation , soil temperatu re, crop growth , n u trien ts, pesticides, grou n dwater an d lateral flow, an d agricu ltu ral m an agem en t. Th e Cu rve Nu mber meth od is u sed to com pu te rain fall excess, an d flow is rou ted th rou gh th e ch an n els u sin g a variable storage coefficien t meth od developed by Williams (1969). Addition al in formation an d th e latest model u pdates for SWAT can be fou n d at h ttp://www.brc.tam u s.edu /swat/. Appendix D: Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment Tool – AGWA Th e Au tomated Geospatial Watersh ed Assessm en t (AGWA) tool is a m u ltipu rpose h ydrologic an alysis system for u se by watersh ed, water resou rce, lan d u se, an d biological resou rce man agers an d scien tists in perform in g watersh ed- an d basin scale stu dies (Bu rn s et al., 2004). It was developed by th e U.S.D.A. Agricu ltu ral Research Service’s Sou th west Watersh ed Research Cen ter. AGWA is an exten sion for th e En viron men tal Systems Research In stitu te’s (ESRI) ArcView version s 3.x, a widely u sed an d relatively in expen sive geograph ic in formation system (GIS) software package. Data u sed in AGWA in clu de Digital Elevation Models (DEMs), lan d cover grids, soil data an d precipitation data. AGWA provides th e fu n ction ality to con du ct all ph ases of a watersh ed assessm en t for two widely u sed watersh ed h ydrologic models: the Soil an d Water Assessmen t Tool (SWAT); an d th e KINematic Ru n off an d EROSion model, KINEROS2. For th is stu dy data were obtain ed from th e followin g sou rces: Th e watersh ed assessmen t for th e Upper Gila Watersh ed was perform ed with th e Soil an d Water Assessmen t Tool. SWAT (Arn old et al., 1994) was developed by th e USDA Agricu ltu ral Research Service (ARS) to predict th e effect of altern ative lan d m an agem en t decision s on water, sedim en t an d ch emical yields with reason able accu racy for u n gaged ru ral watersh eds. It is a distribu ted, lu mped-parameter model th at will evalu ate large, com plex watersh eds with varyin g soils, lan d u se an d m an agem en t con dition s over lon g periods of time (> 1 year). SWAT is a con tin u ou s-time model, i.e. a lon gVerde Watershed • DEM: Un ited States Geological Su rvey Nation al Elevation Dataset, 30-Meter Digital Elevation Models (DEMs). April 8, 2003. h ttp://gisdata.u sgs.n et/NED/defau lt.asp • Soils: USDA Natu ral Resou rce Con servation Service, STATSGO Soils. April 17, 2003. h ttp://www.n cgc.n rcs.u sda.gov/b ran ch /ssb/produ cts/statsgo/ • Lan d cover: Un ited States Geological Su rvey. Ju ly 21, 2003. h ttp://lan dcover.u sgs.gov/n atllan dcover.asp Appen dix D: Au tomated Geospatial Watersh ed Assessmen t – AGWA D-1 • discretization , th ey can be u sed to fu rth er su bdivide th e watersh ed. Precipitation Data: Cooperative Su m mary of th e Day TD3200: In clu des daily weath er data from th e Western Un ited States an d th e Pacific Islan ds. Version 1.0. Au gu st 2002. Nation al Ocean ic an d Atmosph eric Admin istration /Nation al Climatic Data Cen ter, Ash eville, North Carolin a. Th e application of AGWA is depen den t on th e presen ce of both lan d cover an d soil GIS coverages. Th e watersh ed is in tersected with th ese data, an d parameters n ecessary for th e h ydrologic model ru n s are determin ed th rou gh a series of looku p tables. Th e h ydrologic parameters are added to th e watersh ed polygon an d stream ch an n el tables. Th e AGWA Tools m en u is design ed to reflect th e order of tasks n ecessary to con du ct a watersh ed assessm en t, wh ich is broken ou t in to five major steps, as sh own in Figu re 1 an d listed below: For SWAT, th e u ser mu st provide daily rain fall valu es for rain fall gages with in an d n ear th e watersh ed. If m u ltiple gages are presen t, AGWA will bu ild a Th iessen polygon map an d create an area-weigh ted rain fall file. Precipitation files for m odel in pu t are written from u n iform (sin gle gage) rain fall or distribu ted (mu ltiple gage) rain fall data. 1. Watersh ed delin eation an d discretization ; 2. Lan d cover an d soils parameterization ; 3. Writin g th e precipitation file for model in pu t; 4. Writin g th e in pu t parameter file an d ru n n in g th e ch osen m odel; an d 5. Viewin g th e resu lts. In th is m odelin g process, th e precipitation file was created for a 10year period (1990-2000) based on data from th e Nation al Climatic Data Cen ter. In each stu dy watersh ed m u ltiple gages were selected based on th e adequ acy of th e data for th is time period. Th e precipitation data file for m odel in pu t was created from distribu ted rain fall data. Wh en followin g th ese steps, th e u ser first creates a watershed ou tlin e, wh ich is a grid based on th e accu mu lated flow to th e design ated ou tlet (pou r poin t) of th e stu dy area. Th e u ser th en specifies th e con tribu tin g area for th e establish m en t of stream ch an n els an d su bwatersh eds (model elemen ts) as requ ired by th e m odel of ch oice. After all n ecessary in pu t data h ave been prepared, th e watersh ed h as been su bdivided in to m odel elem en ts, h ydrologic parameters h ave been determin ed for each elemen t, an d rain fall files h ave been prepared, th e u ser can ru n th e h ydrologic model of ch oice. SWAT was u sed in th is application . From th is poin t, th e tasks are specific to th e model th at will be u sed, wh ich in th is case is SWAT. If in tern al ru n off gages for model validation or pon ds/reservoirs are presen t in th e Verde Watershed Appen dix D: Au tomated Geospatial Watersh ed Assessmen t – AGWA D-2 Figu re D-1: Flow ch art sh owin g th e gen eral framework for u sin g KINEROS2 an d SWAT in AGWA. After th e model h as ru n to completion , AGWA will au tomatically im port th e m odel resu lts an d add th em to th e polygon an d stream m ap tables for display. A separate modu le with in AGWA con trols th e visu alization of m odel resu lts. Th e u ser can toggle between viewin g th e total depth or accu mu lated volu me of ru n off, erosion , an d in filtration ou tpu t for both u plan d an d ch an n el elem en ts. Th is en ables problem areas to be iden tified visu ally so th at lim ited resou rces can be focu sed for m axim u m effectiven ess. Model resu lts can also be overlaid with oth er digital data layers to fu rth er prioritize m an agem en t activities. Verde Watershed Appen dix D: Au tomated Geospatial Watersh ed Assessmen t – AGWA D-3 Ou tpu t variables available in AGWA/SWAT are: • • • • • • • • It is im portan t to n ote th at AGWA is design ed to evalu ate relative ch an ge an d can on ly provide qu alitative estimates of ru n off an d erosion . It can n ot provide reliable qu an titative estimates of ru n off an d erosion with ou t carefu l calibration . It is also su bject to th e assu mption s an d limitation s of its com pon en t models, an d sh ou ld always be applied with th ese in m in d. Ch an n el Disch arge (m 3/day); Evapotran spiration (ET) (mm); Percolation (m m ); Su rface Ru n off (mm); Tran sm ission loss (m m ); Water yield (mm); Sedim en t yield (t/h a); an d Precipitation (m m ). Referen ces: Arn old, J.G., J. R. William s, R. Srin ivasan , K.W. Kin g, an d R. H. Griggs. 1994. SWAT-Soil & Water Assessmen t Tool. USDA, Agricu ltu ral Research Service, Grasslan d, Soil an d Water Research Laboratory, Temple, Texas. Bu rn s, I.S., S. Scott, L. Levick, M. Hern an dez, D.C. Goodrich , S.N. Miller, D.J. Sem m en s, an d W.G. Kepn er. 2004. Au tomated Geospatial Watersh ed Assessm en t (AGWA) - A GIS-Based Hydrologic Modelin g Tool: Docu men tation an d User Man u al Version 1.4. h ttp://www.tu cson .ars.ag.gov/agwa/ William s, J.R. 1969. Flood rou tin g with variable travel time or variable storage coefficien ts. Tran s. ASAE 12(1):100-103. Verde Watershed Appen dix D: Au tomated Geospatial Watersh ed Assessmen t – AGWA D-4