Verde Headwaters

The Bergamini Group

(928) 2374400

Re@WelcometoPrescott.com

Realty Executives Northern Arizona 503 E. Gurley St. Prescott, Arizona 86301

Gorgeous Views

VERDE HEADWATERS RD Paulden, Arizona 86334

MLS # 994017 Here at the Headwaters, the upper Verde River begins to flow perennially from a network of seven springs and seeps at the west end of the property. The property encompasses the canyon, river and a part of Stillman Lake below, with flat lands on both sides of the magnificent towering canyon walls, providing abundant buildable acreage and pastures along the river below. This property is suitable to a restorative retreat, resort, ranch or secluded residences, the 43 acre Headwaters Property is but 20 minutes from Prescott. Power is nearby and the access easy. The Upper Verde headwaters is a region that has played an important role as the site of the first territorial capital and the subsequent development of northern Arizona, including the City of Prescott and the Grand Canyon tourism industry. Arizonaʹs only federally designated Wild and Scenic River, the Verde meanders southeastward 195 miles through private, federal, state and tribal land before reaching its confluence with the Salt River near Phoenix. Its importance to the development and history of the state cannot be overlooked. Of Arizonaʹs six major perennial rivers, the Verde River is the longest surviving living river remaining in the state and is one of the most ecologically important areas in the Southwest. Most of the first 22 miles of the Verdeʹs base provide evidence of the Sinagua culture dating from A.D. 1000. Earlier cultures may have lived in the valley as much as 10,000 years ago. On the property, some of the largest and oldest petroglyphs in America testify to that. This is a rare opportunity to acquire one of the most desirable properties in the United States.

www.tourfactory.com/1534303 BradBergamini.com

The Bergamini Group Realty Executives Northern Arizona

(928) 237‑4400

Re@WelcometoPrescott.com http://WelcomeToPrescott.com

Going With the Flow A summary of five years of Water Sentinels flow data collection on the Upper Verde River

Steve Pawlowski Water Sentinels Program Coordinator Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club May 2013

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. ii Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1 The Big Picture: The Verde River Watershed ........................................................................................... 3 The Verde River ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Map of the Verde River headwaters area ................................................................................................. 6 Tributaries of the upper Verde River ......................................................................................................... 7 Climate of the upper Verde River watershed ............................................................................................ 8 The upper Verde River watershed is getting hotter ............................................................................ 9 The upper Verde River watershed is getting drier ............................................................................... 9 Winter snowpacks are predicted to be below average in the future ................................................ 10 Drought and the upper Verde River ................................................................................................... 11 The surface water hydrology of the upper Verde River .......................................................................... 12 The flood history of the upper Verde River ............................................................................................. 15 A river in retreat ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Water Sentinels “Above Verde Springs” Discharge Measurement Site .................................................. 18 Verde Springs: The source of base flow for the upper Verde River ......................................................... 22 Base Flow at the SRP Campbell Ranch Low‐Flow Gage .......................................................................... 24 USGS Stream Gage near Paulden ........................................................................................................... 26 Water Sentinels’ “Bear Siding” Discharge Measurement Site ................................................................ 32 The Water Sentinels’ “Perkinsville” Discharge Measurement Site ......................................................... 34 Base Flow Loss between USGS Paulden gage and Perkinsville .......................................................... 36 Why flow matters: The ecological implications of reduced base flow of the upper Verde River ......... 40 What does the future hold for the upper Verde River? ....................................................................... 43 A Summary of Key Findings and Conclusions ...................................................................................... 45 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 46 Appendix A. SRP Campbell Ranch Low‐flow gage Data ...................................................................... 52 Appendix B. Water Sentinels Discharge Measurements For All Sites .................................................. 56 Appendix C. Water Sentinels Flow Monitoring Protocol .................................................................... 59

List of Figures, Tables, and Charts List of Figures Figure 1. Upper Verde River .......................................................................................................................... i Figure 2. The dry streambed of Railroad Draw, an ephemeral tributary of the Verde River. ...................... 2 Figure 3. Map of the Verde River Watershed. .............................................................................................. 4 Figure 4. Major geographical features of the Verde River headwaters area. ............................................. 6 Figure 5. Base flow in the Verde River from the mouth of Granite Creek to the gaging station near Camp Verde (0950600). ........................................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 6. Winter storm flood flow overtopping Sullivan Dam (January 21, 2010). .................................... 16 Figure 7. Construction of Sullivan Lake and Dam near Chino Valley (Call Number: dam132pq). .............. 18 Figure 8. Stillman Lake. .............................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 9. The upper Verde River near Verde Springs. ................................................................................. 22 Figure 10. Campbell Ranch Low‐Flow Gage. .............................................................................................. 24 Figure 11. USGS stream gage near Paulden. ............................................................................................. 26 Figure 12. Average monthly stream flow at the Verde River near Paulden for the period of record from 27 Figure 13. Verde River at Bear Siding in winter. ......................................................................................... 32 Figure 14. Southwestern willow flycatcher. ............................................................................................... 40 Figure 15. Spikedace. ................................................................................................................................. 41

List of Tables Table 1. Peak stream flow at USGS Paulden gage (1990–2011) ................................................................ 17 Table 2. Monthly means at Paulden Gage. ................................................................................................ 29 Table 3. Calculated average seven‐day low‐flow values at the USGS Paulden gage from 1993–2012 ..... 30

List of Charts Chart 1. Flow rate data: Above Verde Springs site..................................................................................... 20 Chart 2. Monthly mean flow – SRP Campbell Ranch Gage. ....................................................................... 25 Chart 3. USGS Paulden Gage monthly mean flow data. ............................................................................ 28 Chart 4. Calculated seven‐day average low‐flow values at the USGS Paulden gage from 1993–2012. .... 30 Chart 5. Flow rate data: Bear Siding site.................................................................................................... 33 Chart 6. Flow rate data: Perkinsville site. ................................................................................................... 34 Chart 7. Perkinsville daily average flow and daily flow from 02/17/07 through 11/17/2012. .................. 36 Chart 8. Base flow decrease: Paulden to Perkinsville. ................................................................................ 37

Figure 1. Upper Verde River Photo credit: Gary Beverly

“The mere existence of rivers makes the world a more attractive and a more interesting place; without them we should be spiritually as well as materially deprived….Knowledge about rivers isn’t the private preserve of professional scientists, however. Anybody who keeps their eyes open, and makes deductions from what they see, can learn a considerable amount. Much of the information…can be checked by anybody, merely by observation and without using expensive equipment; still more can be gained simply from thinking about rivers and paying conscious attention to self‐evident but seldom‐contemplated facts….Becoming aware of one’s own knowledge is one of the bonuses of paying attention to the natural world; observing rivers and streams, with their never‐ending movement and change, is particularly rewarding.” E.C. Pielou Freshwater

Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust for supporting the Arizona Water Sentinels program over the last two years and the generous support of individual donors. Our work and this report would not have been possible without their generous financial support. We also thank the dedicated volunteers of the Arizona Water Sentinels program who do the “hands‐on” conservation work to maintain and protect Arizona’s rivers and streams. For the last six years, volunteers have made monthly flow measurements on the upper Verde River to obtain data contained in this report. Other volunteers collected water samples, monitored water quality, and performed stream clean‐up and restoration activities on the Verde River. It is not possible to thank by name the hundreds who have volunteered over the years. Suffice it to say that we couldn’t have done it without them. A special thank‐you goes to Tom Slaback of the Yavapai Group of the Sierra Club who has led monthly trips to the upper Verde River to make discharge measurements since our flow monitoring program started in December 2006. We would like to acknowledge the many contributions of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists and other academic researchers who have conducted scientific investigations of the upper Verde River watershed. Their research has informed our work and this report. A special acknowledgement goes to Laurie Wirt, who worked as a hydrologist for the USGS until her untimely death in 2006. Ms. Wirt made important contributions that have led to a better understanding of the hydrogeology of the upper Verde River watershed. The scientific investigations of Ms. Wirt and her colleagues at USGS are frequently cited in this report. We would like to thank Steven Westwood and Jennifer Hummer at the Salt River Project (SRP) who provided data from the SRP Campbell Ranch low‐flow stream gage for use in this report. The data from this stream gage were invaluable in understanding the amount of base flow discharged from Verde Springs, the source springs of the upper Verde River. Thank you to Gary Beverly and Ed Wolfe for providing technical review of the report and making many helpful comments that improved this report, and to Gary for the use of his outstanding Verde River photographs. We also thank Sierra Club interns, Saritha Ramakrishna and Andrea Lipan, for assisting with research, data analysis, graph preparation, and writing this report. Several colleagues at the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club contributed to this report. Thanks go to Tiffany Sprague, Chapter Coordinator, for data entry and data management and for editing and formatting this report. Sandy Bahr, Grand Canyon Chapter Director, reviewed and edited the report and has provided consistent support for the Water Sentinels program since its inception in 2006.

Introduction This report is a call to action to preserve the base flow of the upper Verde River, one of the last remaining and most important perennial rivers in Arizona. The Verde River has flowed for millions of years, but recent flow data indicate that some reaches of the upper 25 miles of the river may become intermittent within the next 10–20 years if drought conditions and current flow trends continue unchanged. The upper Verde River has been retreating downstream from its former headwaters for at least the last 40 years. As the river retreats downstream and its base flow decreases, the upper Verde River is literally “going with the flow.” The Arizona Water Sentinels have been making monthly discharge measurements at three sites on the upper Verde River since December 2006 in order to gain a better understanding about what is happening to the base flow of the river [See Appendix B]. Our flow monitoring protocols are found in Appendix C. Also, Salt River Project (SRP) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) operate stream gaging stations that continuously monitor the flow of the upper Verde River. Our monthly discharge measurements and USGS and SRP stream gage records show that base flow has decreased over the last six years. Base flow has, in general, been less than the historic average base flow as determined over a 49‐year period of record at the USGS Paulden stream gage. The reasons for recent decreases in base flow are not entirely understood. It is likely that the observed decreases are caused by a combination of continuing drought and groundwater pumping in the watershed. We do know that the base flow of the river has, in fact, decreased over the last five years, however. The data indicate that some perennial reaches of the river, particularly the reach downstream of the USGS Paulden stream gage and upstream of the Perkinsville Bridge, are losing base flow and may become intermittent within the next 10–20 years if current trends continue. These reaches of the upper Verde River may be the first to share the fate of many other Arizona streams and rivers that no longer flow perennially but only for short periods of time during the spring runoff season or after large storm events. The upper Verde River has been extensively studied by hydrologists and other scientists. So, why is the Sierra Club doing another report? We write this report because we want to share what the Arizona Water Sentinels have learned over the last six years and to sound an alarm to focus public attention on the decrease in base flow which poses an existential threat to the river. There has never been a time in the history of the Verde River when credible data and “good science” have been so important. Difficult management decisions regarding the use of limited surface and groundwater resources will need to be made in the future. Unbiased information and data are necessary to help elected officials, water resource managers, and citizens make informed decisions about how finite water resources will be managed, how groundwater will be used in Yavapai County, and whether the preservation of the base flow of the upper Verde River will factor into decision‐making. The stakes are high. The quality of life and the futures of Prescott, Prescott Valley, Chino Valley, Clarkdale, Cottonwood, and Camp Verde are at stake. The continued existence of the upper Verde River and its remarkably diverse animal and plant communities are at stake, too. The decisions we make or fail to make will, in large part, determine whether the upper Verde River “goes with the flow.”

Figure 2. The dry streambed of Railroad Draw, an ephemeral tributary of the Verde River. Is this the future of the upper Verde River? Photo credit: Gary Beverly

The Big Picture: The Verde River Watershed The Verde River watershed is located in central Arizona [See Figure 3 below]. The Verde River is a tributary of the Salt River which, in turn, is a tributary of the Gila River. The Gila River flows intermittently across southwestern Arizona and joins the Colorado River near Yuma. The Verde River watershed is a sub‐watershed nested within the greater Colorado River Basin. The entire watershed covers an area of approximately 6,188 square miles, representing 5.8 percent of the total land area of the State of Arizona.1 The upper Verde watershed is largely within Yavapai County and encompasses an area of approximately 2,500 square miles.2 The upper watershed contains several alluvial valleys, including the Big Chino Valley, Little Chino Valley, and Williamson Valley. These valleys are surrounded by hills and mountain ranges that are between 6,000 and 9,000 feet in elevation. The surrounding mountains include the Bradshaw Mountains and Black Hills to the south, the Juniper Mountains and Santa Maria Mountains to the west, and Big Black Mesa and the Colorado Plateau to the north.3 These mountains and the Colorado Plateau are the primary hydrogeological boundaries controlling the movement of surface‐ and groundwater at the watershed scale.4 Major tributary streams to the upper Verde River include Big Chino Wash, Granite Creek, and Hell Canyon.5 Big Chino Wash is the principal drainage in the northwestern region of the upper Verde watershed; it is an ephemeral stream that drains in a southeasterly direction through the Big Chino Valley and terminates at Sullivan Dam near Paulden. Pine Creek, Walnut Creek, Williamson Valley Wash, and Little Chino Wash are tributaries to Big Chino Wash. The upper Verde River, as defined in this report, begins at Sullivan Dam near Paulden (river mile 0.0) and extends to the Perkinsville Bridge, the only road crossing over the upper Verde River, located approximately 24 river miles downstream of Sullivan Dam.6 The upper Verde watershed consists primarily of two groundwater basins.7 These are the 1,850 square‐ mile Big Chino Subbasin of the Verde River Groundwater Basin (hereafter the “Big Chino Subbasin”) and the 310 square‐mile Little Chino Subbasin of the Prescott Active Management Area (hereafter the “Little Chino Subbasin”).8 Major physical features of the Big Chino Subbasin include the Big Chino Valley, 1

Arizona Department of Water Resources. Arizona Water Atlas; Central Highlands Planning Area Hydrology ‐ Surface Water (Salt River and Verde River Watersheds), retrieved from http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/CentralHighlands/PlanningAreaOverview/ SurfaceWaterSaltVerdeWatersheds.html. 2 Wirt, Laurie. 2005. The Verde River Headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona in Wirt, Laurie, DeWitt, Ed, and Langenheim, V.E., eds. Geologic Framework of Aquifer Units and Groundwater Flowpaths, Verde River Headwaters, North Central Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2004‐1411 at p. A11. 3 Blasch, K.W., Hoffmann, J.P., Graser, L.F., Bryson, J.R., and Flint, A.L. 2006. Hydrogeology of the upper and middle Verde River Watersheds, central Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5198 at p. 5. 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 Wirt (2005), Table A1. Distance from Sullivan Lake dam to major springs, tributaries, and other geographic locations along the upper Verde River, Arizona, at p. A4. 7 Blasch et al. (2006) at p. 5. 8 Id.

Williamson Valley, Big Black Mesa, and Verde Springs. Major physical features of the Little Chino Subbasin include Granite Creek, Little Chino Creek, and Del Rio Springs.9 An adjoining carbonate aquifer located north of the upper Verde River between Big Black Mesa and Perkinsville also contributes groundwater to maintain base flow of the upper Verde River.

Figure 3. Map of the Verde River Watershed. Credit: Tiffany Sprague

The Verde River The Verde River is one of the longest free‐flowing perennial rivers in Arizona. It is a rare treasure in our desert state – a river that flows continuously through the desert for the entire year. “Verde” is the Spanish word for the color green. The Verde River is particularly well‐named because the river and its riparian corridor are green arteries of life flowing through the heart of central Arizona’s arid and semiarid landscapes. 9

Id.

The Verde River tells a story of many connections. Its watershed is nested within the larger Colorado River Basin and, through its tributary connection to the Colorado River, the river is ultimately linked to the oceans through the global hydrologic cycle. Groundwater and surface water in the Verde River watershed are inextricably connected to each other. The river contains Arizona’s longest stretch of continuous riparian habitat, providing critically important migration corridors for wildlife and birds. The river connects Wild and Scenic Rivers, wilderness areas, national monuments, wildlife management areas, and state parks. It supports an amazing web of life with incredible biodiversity. The river, its riparian habitats, and the living creatures that depend on its life‐giving water (including human beings) are deeply connected to each other. The Verde River is millions of years old, but geologists tell us it formed in relatively recent geologic time. Approximately 5–10 million years ago, the upper Verde watershed was a closed basin with shallow lakes and playas. Entrenchment and down‐cutting of the modern Verde River began around 2.5 million years ago when surface water eroded through the basalt flows at the lowest point of what is now the Big Chino Valley. The Verde River has cut down hundreds of feet over the past two million years, leaving behind terrace deposits as a record of the former river valley floors. The long‐term trend of downcutting by the Verde River has continued to the present day. The ancient river terraces now can be found 200 feet above the stream bed of the modern river channel.10 The Verde River flows approximately 190 river miles from its headwaters near Paulden, Arizona, to its confluence with the Salt River, east of the Phoenix metropolitan area.11 The towns of Clarkdale, Cottonwood, and Camp Verde are the primary population centers located along the river. The river is largely free‐flowing and undammed for approximately 140 miles from its headwaters until it reaches Horseshoe Reservoir, the first of two major storage reservoirs on the river operated by the SRP. The other storage reservoir is Bartlett Lake located downstream of Horseshoe Reservoir. Water is stored in these reservoirs before it flows into the Salt River and is diverted for use by downstream cities, agriculture, and industry in the Phoenix metropolitan area. The Verde and Salt rivers are important sources of renewable water supply. The City of Phoenix states that 50 percent of their water supply comes from the Salt River Project, of which approximately 40 percent is from the Verde River watershed.12

Pearthree, Phillip A. 1996. Historical Geomorphology of the Verde River, Arizona Geological Survey, Open File Report 96‐13 at pp. 1‐2. 11 Ed Wolfe (personal communication, 2013). 12 Verde River Basin Partnership website, retrieved April 18, 2013, from http://vrbp.org/#arizona.

Map of the Verde River headwaters area

Figure 4. Major geographical features of the Verde River headwaters area. Source: Wirt and Hjalmarson (2000)13

Wirt, Laurie and Hjalmarson, H.W. (2000). Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona, USGS Open File Report 99‐0378 (on‐line version), retrieved from http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/pub/open‐file‐reports/ofr‐99‐0378 at p. 5.

Tributaries of the upper Verde River The major streams in the upper Verde River watershed that are tributary to the river or that recharge the groundwater system sustaining the base flow of the river above the USGS Paulden gage include Big Chino Wash, Little Chino Wash, Williamson Valley Wash, Granite Creek, Walnut Creek, Pine Creek, and Partridge Creek.14 These tributary streams are mostly intermittent or ephemeral. An intermittent stream is one that flows seasonally for several months out of the year. An ephemeral tributary is normally dry and contains flow only in direct response to precipitation. Some of these tributary streams have short, perennial reaches at higher elevations within their individual sub‐watersheds that flow continuously through the entire year. Seasonal surface runoff in occasional wet years sometimes connects these tributaries with the perennially flowing upper Verde River at Verde Springs.15 Tributaries to the upper Verde River between the USGS Paulden gage and Perkinsville include numerous unnamed ephemeral streams. Named canyons with ephemeral tributaries to the upper Verde River include Muldoon Canyon, Bull Basin, Gold Basin, King Wash, Duff Canyon, Hell Canyon, MC Canyon, Government Canyon, and Wildcat Draw. There are no stream gages for these tributaries so the frequency and the amount of water contributed to the river from each are unknown.16 Blasch and others report that, similar to flows of the main stem of the upper Verde River, the average monthly stream flow of tributaries is greatest in the winter and spring and least in early summer and fall.17 The USGS also has found that there typically is a secondary peak in average monthly stream flow caused by surface runoff from summer monsoon storms in August or September.18 The data from USGS stream gages on tributaries to the upper Verde River show that surface runoff from tributary streams in the Little Chino Valley, Williamson Valley, and the upper reaches of Big Chino Wash only infrequently reach the main stem of the upper Verde River above Verde Springs. Surface runoff that makes it to upper Verde River to flow past the USGS Paulden stream gage is mostly from the lower reaches of Big Chino Wash and only rarely from the lower reaches of Granite Creek. Occasionally, after large, intense storm events with large flood flows, surface runoff from Big Chino Wash and Granite Creek will travel the full distance of the watershed and reach the upper Verde River.19

Blasch et al. (2006) at p. 19. Wirt and Hjalmarson (2000) at p. 20. 16 Gary Beverly (personal communication, 2013). 17 Blasch et al. (2006) at p. 21. 18 Id. 19 Id. 15

Climate of the upper Verde River watershed The climate of the upper Verde River watershed is arid to semiarid and characterized by wide ranges in precipitation and temperature. Precipitation varies greatly from place to place and from one year to another.20 Climate conditions are correlated with altitude; higher elevations in the watershed are described as having moderate summers and severe winters and lower elevations as having hot summers, mild winters, and low to moderate precipitation. The upper Verde watershed is subject to extended dry periods or droughts.21 Average annual precipitation, rainfall and snowfall, varies geographically and is strongly correlated with elevation. In general, the amount of precipitation increases with altitude. Wirt reports that mountain regions in the watershed received more than 20 inches of precipitation annually with some precipitation falling as snow.22 In contrast, the lower valleys of the watershed near the towns of Chino Valley (4,600 feet) and Paulden (4,400 feet) generally receive about 10 to 12 inches of precipitation annually.23 Precipitation in the upper Verde watershed has a bimodal distribution, meaning it occurs primarily during two seasons of the year. One season is the summer “monsoon,” which typically begins in July and extends through September. During the summer months, moisture‐laden air from the Gulf of Mexico and the Sea of Cortez moves into central Arizona over the varied topography of the upper Verde watershed and summer thunderstorms often occur. Summer thunderstorms are usually of short duration (less than 1 hour) and greater intensity (greater than 1 inch of precipitation per hour) and are usually highly localized (affecting about 100 square miles).24 Storm water runoff from these summer thunderstorms causes occasional flooding. The second season when precipitation typically occurs is December through March. During the winter, westerly winds bring low pressure systems and frontal storms from the Pacific Ocean into Arizona. Winter storms typically are longer in duration (12 to 48 hours), less intense (less than 0.25 inch of precipitation per hour), and more widespread in area (500 square miles) than are summer “monsoon” storms.25 Temperatures in the watershed vary seasonally and because of differences in altitude. High temperatures are common in the summer at low elevations in the watershed. Temperatures range from more than 95 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer to below freezing at night in the coldest winter months at higher elevations in the watershed. Large shifts can occur between day and night temperatures.26

Wirt (2005) at p. A12. Blasch et al. (2006) at p. 9. 22 Wirt (2005) at p. A13 23 Id. 24 Blasch et al. (2006) at p. 13. 25 Id. 26 Wirt (2005) at p. A13. 21

The upper Verde River watershed is getting hotter

Temperature records for the Verde River watershed date back to the end of the 19th century. USGS analysis of these temperature data shows that the upper Verde River watershed has been getting warmer over the last 100 years.27 Mean annual temperatures have increased by about 1–3°F over the last century. Furthermore, annual mean temperatures within the watershed have increased since 1990.28 The USGS found that annual mean temperatures from 1990–2004 were above the long‐term mean temperature for 14 of the 15 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) climate stations in the Verde River watershed.29 A warming watershed is confirmed by recent data obtained from the Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS), which shows that the Southwest has experienced abnormally high temperatures in recent years. The warmest January to June period on record was in 2012.30 Climate scientists predict that temperatures will continue to rise in the American Southwest because of climate change. Average temperatures are projected to increase by 3–10°F by the end of the 21st century.31 The climate models project an increase of 2–3°F in the Southwest by 2020 and 3–5°F by 2050. The prospect of rising temperatures raises concern over the likelihood of more frequent, longer, and more severe drought in the future. Given the lack of progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions globally, it is likely that we will see a warmer Arizona under the higher emissions scenarios in the climate models. Warmer temperatures mean higher evaporation rates from water and land surfaces, greater rates of evapotranspiration by plants, and increased water demand. Water lost to the atmosphere through evaporation and evapotranspiration means less water will be available for groundwater recharge of the regional aquifers sustaining the upper Verde River and ultimately, less groundwater discharged to the river, thus increasing the risk that the river will “go with the flow” in the future.

The upper Verde River watershed is getting drier

Blasch and others analyzed precipitation data from 18 NOAA precipitation gages in the Verde River watershed and found decades‐long cycles during which rainfall was greater or less than the long‐term average. These relatively wetter and dryer cycles extended for periods of as much as 30 to 40 years. Rainfall in the upper Verde watershed was greater than average from the early 1900s to 1940, less than average from 1940 through 1977, greater than average from about 1977 through about 1994, and generally drier than average from 1994 to 2004. The cyclical rainfall pattern suggests that the current period of less‐than‐average rainfall that began in the mid‐1990s could be part of a long‐term cycle that could last another decade or more.32 Climate scientists predict that the American Southwest will get drier. Scientists with the U.S. Global Climate Change Program predict that spring runoff in the Southwest could decrease as much as 10–40

Blasch et.al. (2006) at p. 13. Id. 29 Id. 30 The University of Arizona. Home Page | Climate Assessment for the Southwest. Retrieved August 20, 2012, from http://www.climas.arizona.edu. 31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Climate Change. Future Climate Change webpage: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html#Temperature (Retrieved September 25, 2012). 32 Blasch et al. (2006) at p. 14. 28

percent by the end of the 21st century.33 Projections of less precipitation and higher temperatures mean it is likely that the upper Verde watershed will experience extended drought conditions, possibly for decades to come. Extended drought conditions means less surface water runoff. Less precipitation will affect rates of groundwater recharge that, over the long‐term, could affect the amount of groundwater discharged at the springs that sustain the base flow of the upper Verde River.

Winter snowpacks are predicted to be below average in the future

The amount of the winter snowpack in the higher elevations of the watershed has both a direct and an indirect effect on the flow of the Verde River. Melting snow infiltrates into the ground and recharges regional aquifers that are sources of groundwater sustaining the upper Verde River. The amount of water recharged affects the amount of groundwater in storage in the aquifers and, over the long‐term, affects the amount of groundwater discharged from springs to the river. Early spring runoff from melting snow has a more direct effect, contributing surface water runoff to the river by overland flow via intermittent and ephemeral tributaries. Long‐term records of snowfall in the Verde River watershed indicate that, similar to rainfall cycles, there was a period of greater‐than‐average snowfall from 1916 to 1955 and a period of less‐than‐average snowfall from 1955 to 2003.34 Like rainfall, snowfall is correlated to altitude with greater amounts of snow at higher elevations in the watershed.35 For example, average snowfall at Tuzigoot National Monument (at 3,470 feet) near Clarkdale was only two inches per year from 1982 through 2003. The average snowfall at Jerome (at 5,135 feet) above the Town of Clarkdale was nine inches per year for the same period.36 Snowfall can approach 25 percent of the total annual precipitation at higher altitudes in the watershed, while, in the low altitude alluvial basins, it is less than 5 percent of total annual precipitation.37 On average, snowfall in the upper Verde watershed is greatest during December, and January and February are the second and third snowiest months, respectively.38 Blasch and others estimated total snowfall for the upper and middle Verde River watersheds using data from 15 snow gages over a 22‐year period of record (1981 through 2003). They estimated that snowfall accounted for about 695,000 acre‐feet (af) of precipitation per year or about 16 percent of the annual total precipitation from 1981 to 2002.39 Melting snow is an important source of groundwater recharge for the regional aquifers in the watershed and an important source of water during the spring runoff period. Blasch and others estimate from water balance calculations that about 1–2 percent of total annual precipitation is recharged to the regional aquifers of the Big Chino and Little Chino subbasins.40 Warmer temperatures and less snowfall mean declines in winter snowpack, less groundwater recharge, earlier surface water runoff in the spring, and, ultimately, less base flow in the river during early summer, the driest time of the year. 33

United States Global Change Research Program. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, 2009 Report, Projected Change in Spring Precipitation, 2080‐2099, retrieved April 18, 2013, from http://nca2009.globalchange.gov/southwest. 34 Blasch et al. (2006) at p. 14. 35 Id. 36 Id. 37 Id. 38 Id. 39 Id. 40 Ibid at p.1

Drought and the upper Verde River The Southwest region has been suffering from drought conditions since the late 1990s. Recent climate data describe some of the driest years scientists have seen in Arizona in centuries. Higher temperatures, less precipitation, warmer winters, and decreasing winter snowpack are combining to contribute to drought conditions that may rival, if not surpass, the dry conditions present during the 1950s and the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s.41 The current drought conditions in the Southwest are part of the larger phenomenon of global climate change. Climate modeling results published in the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 project that the American Southwest will grow appreciably drier in the 21st century.42 Dr. Jonathan Overpeck, Director of the University of Arizona Institute of the Environment, provides a grim assessment of future drought conditions in the Southwest: “The Southwest is going to dry out on average. We’re going to have more drought, more frequent drought, and longer drought…and when it rains, it’s going to rain more intensely on average, meaning more floods.”43 Climate change, he said, will produce winners and losers, and “in the Southwest, we’re going to be losers. There’s no doubt.44 This grim assessment is echoed by Dr. Richard Seager, a scientist with the Lamont‐Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, who describes a “new normal” for climate in the American Southwest. According to Dr. Seager, the “new normal” is that the Southwest will likely be as dry as the region has been in centuries: “[P]eople will have to recalibrate their expectations to the new idea of what ‘normal’ stands for…the droughts of the future will be…unlike anything people in the region have known since the late medieval times.”45 Short‐term predictions from the National Weather Service and the Climate Prediction Center indicate that the Southwest will see temperatures that are above historical averages for most seasons until the end of 2013. These short‐term and long‐term predictions, along with the precipitation trends discussed previously, point to a hotter and drier Arizona in the future. How will this affect the base flow of the upper Verde River? It is likely that both peak flows and the base flow will be affected. A hotter, drier climate will lead to an intensification of the hydrologic cycle, more extreme weather, and more intense monsoon storm events. More intense storms will result in larger flood events and higher peak flows during the summer monsoon season. Warmer winters, decreased snowpack, and extended drought conditions will decrease surface runoff and groundwater recharge rates, ultimately decreasing discharges of groundwater from the source springs of the upper Verde River that sustain the river’s base flow.

Romm, J. (n.d.). USGS on Dust‐Bowlification: Drier conditions projected to accelerate dust storms in the U.S. Southwest | ThinkProgress. Retrieved August 20, 2012, from http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/04/07/207853/usgs‐dust‐bowl‐storms‐southwest. 42 DeBuys, William. 2011. A Great Aridness – Climate Change and the Future of the American Southwest, Oxford University Press, New York, NY., p. 25. 43 Ibid at p. 28. 44 Ibid at p. 10. 45 Ibid at p. 23.

The surface water hydrology of the upper Verde River The upper Verde River is a perennial river, meaning it flows continuously throughout the year. Its flow varies considerably during the year. Flows peak in the winter and spring months of January through April and reach a minimum in the summer months of May through July. Historically, monthly median flows of the upper Verde River were highest in March and lowest in July.46 Flow is affected by many factors, including seasonal changes in climate (i.e., changes in the amount of precipitation and drought), surface runoff, rates of groundwater pumping, surface water diversions, streambed infiltration, and rates of evapotranspiration.47 The perennial flow of all rivers has two basic components: 1) surface runoff and 2) base flow.48 Surface runoff is derived from precipitation and melting snow in the watershed and typically occurs in direct response to seasonal melting of the winter snowpack or local storm events.49 Surface runoff usually is of relatively short duration.50 Surface runoff is highly variable in time and space for different parts of the upper Verde watershed. The base flow of the upper Verde River is sustained by the continuous discharge of groundwater from springs and seeps to the river. Without its base flow, the upper Verde River would be an intermittent stream or a dry wash that flows only in direct response to storm events or melting snow.51 Changes in the base flow of the upper Verde River are functions of the amount of recharge to the regional aquifers supplying groundwater to the river, the amount of groundwater in aquifer storage, groundwater pumping, changes in local water table elevations, and other changes in aquifer characteristics such as changes in the direction of groundwater flow paths.52 In general, base flow increases in a downstream direction as a result of additional inputs of groundwater to the upper Verde River. Decreases in base flow are caused by evaporation from water surfaces, transpiration by plants, streambed infiltration, and surface water diversions.53 The upper Verde River begins to flow perennially at Verde Springs, a network of springs and seeps located a short distance below the confluence of Granite Creek and the main stem of the upper Verde River. The base flow of the river is created and sustained by the discharge of groundwater from Verde Springs, supplemented by intermittent storm water discharges. There are small gains in base flow from other springs and seeps located farther downstream near Muldoon Canyon (approximately 2 cfs) and Duff Spring (approximately 2.5 cfs).54 The following line graph from Blasch and others illustrates the increase in base flow of the Verde River from the mouth of Granite Creek (at mile 0 on the graph) to the USGS stream gage on the Verde River 46

National Wild and Scenic River Systems website, Verde River at http://www.rivers.gov/rivers/rivers/verde.php. Id. 48 Blasch et al. (2006) at p. 24. 49 Wirt (2005) at p. A17. 50 Id. 51 Ed Wolfe, A Cautionary Tale of Two Streamgages with Appendix, Revised January 20, 2011, Retrieved March 28, 2013 from Verde Watershed Association website at http://www.vwa.org/newsletters/the‐verde‐river‐a‐ cautionary‐tale‐of‐two‐streamgages‐full‐version.pdf. 52 Blasch et al. (2006) at p. 24. 53 Blasch et al. (2006) at p. 29. 54 Wirt (2005) at p. A24. 47

near Camp Verde at approximately river mile 90.55 In general, base flow of the Verde River increases as the river flows downstream, increasing from essentially no flow (less than one cubic foot per second [cfs]) at the mouth of Granite Creek, to about 25 cfs at the USGS Paulden gage, to about 79 cfs at the Verde River near Clarkdale gaging station, to approximately 200 cfs at the USGS gage near Camp Verde.56 The base flow of the river decreases along a 16‐mile “losing” reach between the USGS Paulden gage and Perkinsville.

55 56

Blasch et al. (2006) at p. 26. Ibid at p. 29.

Figure 5. Base flow in the Verde River from the mouth of Granite Creek to the gaging station near Camp Verde (0950600). Source: Blasch et al. (2006) 57

Ibid at p. 26.

The upper Verde River contains both gaining and losing reaches within its first 25 miles. The graph above shows that base flow increases from essentially zero flow at the confluence of Granite Creek to approximately 25 cfs in its first 8 miles (i.e., a “gaining” reach). The river loses base flow between the USGS Paulden gage at river mile 8 and Perkinsville at approximately river mile 24 (i.e., “a losing” reach). Below Perkinsville, the river gains flow again from springs and tributaries that contribute water to the river. By the time the river reaches the USGS stream gage near Clarkdale, base flow has increased to about 79 cfs.58 The flow continues to increase as tributary streams such as Sycamore Creek, Oak Creek, Beaver Creek, and West Clear Creek contribute water to the river. By the time the river reaches the USGS stream gaging station near Camp Verde, base flow has increased to about 205 cfs.59 Blasch and others determined that the average annual base flow of the upper Verde River as measured at the USGS Paulden gage for 1964‐2003 is 24.4 cfs or 17,700 af/yr.60 The average annual base flow is less than the average winter base flow for the same period of 25.1 cfs or 18,200 af/yr.61 They estimated that the base flow of the river decreased at a rate of about 0.5 cfs per year at the USGS Paulden gage between 1993 and 2003.62 The base flow of the upper Verde River exhibits a long‐term cyclical pattern. According to Blasch and others, the base flow of the river has generally been less than the long‐term average during the 1960s and 1970s, greater than the long‐term average from the 1980s through the mid‐1990s, and less than the long‐term average from the mid‐1990s through 2003.63 Water Sentinels calculations of monthly mean data for the USGS Paulden gage are consistent with the USGS finding of below average flow from the mid‐ 1990s to 2003. Our monthly mean calculations show that base flow at the USGS Paulden gage between 2007 and 2011 generally has been less than the long‐term average of 25 cfs.

The flood history of the upper Verde River The flow of the upper Verde River is highly variable. The river flows at about 25 cfs at the USGS Paulden gage when there are no contributions of surface runoff from storm events or melting snow during the spring runoff season. The river occasionally experiences very high flows much greater than 25 cfs. For example, the highest peak stream flow recorded at the USGS Paulden gage occurred on February 20, 1993, when peak stream flow was measured at 23,200 cfs! High flows caused by storm water runoff typically occur during the winter, early spring, or during the summer monsoon season. The largest historical floods on the Verde River have occurred in the winter and typically were caused by winter storms that produced heavy rain or snow, which generated large amounts of runoff in the watershed.64 58

Id. Note: The average annual base flow of 79 cfs is based on Blasch and others analysis of USGS Clarkdale stream gage records for the period of record from 1966 to 2003. 59 Id. Note: The average annual base flow of 205 cfs is an estimate of average winter base flow by Blasch et.al. (2006) at p. 29. 60 Id. 61 Id. 62 Ibid at p. 31. 63 Id. 64 Haney, J.A., D.S. Turner, A.E. Springer, J.C. Stromberg, L.E. Stevens, P.A. Pearthree, and V. Supplee. 2008. Ecological Implications of Verde River Flows. A report by the Verde River Basin Partnership, Arizona Water Institute, and The Nature Conservancy at p. 24.

Figure 6. Winter storm flood flow overtopping Sullivan Dam (January 21, 2010). Photo credit: Gary Beverly

The table below shows the annual peak stream flows of the upper Verde River at the USGS Paulden gage from 1990 through 2011. Annual peak flows are highly variable, ranging from only 83 cfs in 2000 (a very dry year!) to the record high flood of 23,200 cfs on February 20, 1993.65

USGS National Water Information System Web Interface, Peak Streamflow for Arizona, USGS 09503700 Verde River near Paulden, retrieved on April 9, 2013, from http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/az/nwis/peak?site_no=09503700.

Table 1. Peak stream flow at USGS Paulden gage (1990–2011)

Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Date 07/15/90 03/02/91 02/14/92 02/20/93 09/02/94 02/15/95 07/15/96 08/30/97 08/31/98 09/24/99 08/25/00 10/28/00 09/10/02 08/15/03 09/20/04 01/12/05 07/31/06 08/14/07 01/28/08 08/22/09 01/22/10 10/07/10

Gage Height (ft) Streamflow (cfs) 1.99 123 9.07 6320 5.79 1590 14.25 23200 2.48 192 7.33 3960 4.53 1030 2.61 208 3.75 592 4.67 1070 1.93 83 3.97 633 5.31 1610 5.31 909 13.08 12350 12.08 12300 2.64 124 4.72 770 6.33 1880 7.08 2600 10.8 8910 2.77 111

A river in retreat The upper Verde River has been retreating downstream for the last 40 years. Prior to the 1970s, the historical headwaters of the upper Verde River began at Del Rio Springs at the north end of the Little Chino Valley.66 The cienega fed by Del Rio Springs provided base flow to the upper Verde River via four miles of lower Little Chino Creek to Sullivan Lake.67 Surface water flowed for another two miles below Sullivan Dam through the basalt canyon of the upper Verde River to the mouth of Granite Creek. Historical photographs of the construction of Sullivan Dam (now considered mile zero of the Verde River) show surface water flowing in Little Chino Creek and lower Big Chino Wash upstream of Sullivan Dam, pictured under construction in the photo below. Today, there is no perennial water flowing down lower Little Chino Creek or in lower Big Chino Wash upstream of Sullivan Dam. Both tributary streams are intermittent or ephemeral, flowing only in response to spring runoff or in direct response to large storm events. The perennial flow of the upper Verde River that used to originate near Del Rio Springs is now about 5.7 miles downstream at Verde Springs.68 The perennial flow to Sullivan Lake via Little Chino Creek disappeared in the early 1970s. 69 Since then, the lower reach of Little Chino Creek has been ephemeral. Today, the first mile of the upper 66

Wirt and Hjalmarson (2000) at p. 15. Id. 68 Gary Beverly (personal communication, 2012). 69 Wirt (2005) at p. A11. 67

Verde River below Sullivan Dam is intermittent, flowing only in response to spring and storm water runoff. Put simply, we have lost about six miles of perennially‐flowing upper Verde River since the 1970s.

Figure 7. Construction of Sullivan Lake and Dam near Chino Valley (Call Number: dam132pq). Photo courtesy of Sharlot Hall Museum, Library and Archive, Prescott, Arizona

Water Sentinels “Above Verde Springs” Discharge Measurement Site The upper Verde River begins at Sullivan Dam (river mile 0), near the community of Paulden, Arizona. About a mile below Sullivan Dam, the river cuts down through the narrow basalt canyon to expose the underlying Devonian Martin limestone formation. A spring in the Devonian Martin formation discharges groundwater to the river channel to create a mile‐long pond called Stillman Lake.70 Stillman Lake is a shallow, run‐of‐the‐river impoundment that is fully contained within the main channel of the upper Verde River. Groundwater discharged from Stillman Lake Spring to the main channel is impounded by a sand and gravel bar that spans the river channel at the confluence of Granite Creek (at approximately river mile 2.0). This sand and gravel bar forms a natural dam that causes the groundwater discharged from the spring to back up into the main river channel. Surface water flow over the sand and gravel bar occurs only during flood events. The Water Sentinels have measured some flow in a small channel immediately below the sand and gravel bar. The upper Verde River is generally dry at the mouth of Granite Creek.71 The disappearance of perennial flow here is attributed to subflow through the sandy alluvium near the confluence.72 Perennial flow of the river begins a few hundred yards downstream of the Granite Creek confluence at a network of seeps and springs called Verde Springs.73 70

Wirt (2005) at p. A23. Id. 72 Wirt and Hjalmarson (2000) at p. 18. 73 Id. 71

Figure 8. Stillman Lake. Photo credit: Gary Beverly

The Water Sentinels established a discharge measurement site immediately below the sand and gravel bar impounding Stillman Lake near the mouth of Granite Creek at river mile 2.0. We call this site “Above Verde Springs” (AVS) because it is located upstream of the network of seeps and springs known as Verde Springs that begin downstream at about river mile 2.1. There is a small measurable discharge of water in a small channel located immediately below the sand and gravel bar backing up Stillman Lake at our AVS site. In general, the reach of the upper Verde River at the mouth of Granite Creek is ephemeral. The lack of surface flow in the main channel at the confluence of Granite Creek is attributed primarily to water moving as subflow through the sandy alluvium in the reach where our AVS site is located.74 The graph below shows discharge measurements made by the Water Sentinels at our AVS site between December 2, 2006 and February 18, 2012 [See Appendix B for Water Sentinels discharge measurements at the AVS site]. All of the discharge measurements made by the Water Sentinels at the AVS site are less than one cfs and most measurements since 2010 have been less than 0.2 cfs. Zero flow was observed at this site during four sampling events. The trend line through our data indicates a steady decreasing trend since 2006 with discharge measurements approaching zero in Fall of 2009 and 2010. The graphed data points are presented here to document that the upper Verde River is essentially dry at the AVS site upstream of Verde Springs.

Wirt (2005) at p. A23.

Flow (± 0.05 cfs)

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 12/2006

12/2007

12/2008

12/2009

12/2010

12/2011

Date of Measurement

Chart 1. Flow rate data: Above Verde Springs site. Wirt and Hjalmarson also found that there was little or no measurable current in the upper Verde River at the downstream end of Stillman Lake.75 They determined through isotope studies that infiltration was occurring under the sand and gravel bar creating Stillman Lake. They also found that the water level of Stillman Lake appeared to vary little, indicating that a state of equilibrium existed between the amount of groundwater discharge from Stillman Lake Spring at the upper end of Stillman Lake and the amount of discharge from the lower end of Stillman Lake. During high flow events, storm water runoff from the upper Verde watershed flows down the basalt canyon above Stillman Lake. The inflow of surface water runoff sometimes overtops the sand and gravel bar creating a continuous connection to the perennially flowing upper Verde River farther downstream. Stillman Lake has a surface connection to the downstream Verde River only during these large runoff events. Wirt and Hjalmarson’s finding that infiltration occurs under and through the sand and gravel bar impounding Stillman Lake is supported by Water Sentinels observations and discharge measurements at our AVS site over the last six years; it is likely that the flow we have measured at the AVS site is seepage from Stillman Lake or some fraction of the subflow 76 moving through the sandy alluvium at the site. It also is possible that Water Sentinels may have measured some fraction of the subflow from lower Granite Creek at our AVS site. Lower Granite Spring is located about 1.6 miles above the confluence of Granite Creek with the upper Verde River. The spring contributes about one cfs to the base flow of lower Granite Creek. In winter, surface water flows in the channel of lower Granite Creek and typically reaches to within a few hundred yards of the confluence with the upper Verde River before the surface water sinks into the abundant sandy alluvium. In summer, lower Granite Creek ends about one mile above its confluence with the upper Verde River. Evapotranspiration by the cottonwood‐willow gallery forest in the riparian area along lower Granite Creek consumes water that normally flows farther downstream during the winter. The amount of subflow from lower Granite Creek to the upper Verde River is unknown. The USGS has conducted subflow analyses near the mouth of Granite Creek but found it difficult to quantify the amount of subflow moving through the shallow alluvium.77 75

Wirt and Hjalmarson (2000) at p. 18. Blasch et al. (2006) define “subflow” as “ground water flowing adjacent to streams and rivers in the stream channel alluvium that is not measured by stream‐flow gaging stations” at p. 32. 77 Id. 76

The AVS site data cannot be used to quantify the flow of the upper Verde River at the confluence of Granite Creek because of many uncertainties associated with our AVS dataset, including the following:  There are high measurement errors associated with the AVS dataset, in the range of 15–20 percent, because of the very low flows (<1 cfs) measured at the site.  The AVS site does not meet ideal selection criteria for a discharge measurement site. Ideally, a discharge measurement site is established at a location with a stable channel morphology that is not aggrading or degrading. The AVS site is characterized by unstable channel morphology that is aggrading with a sand and gravel bar spanning the entire river channel at the AVS site.  The Water Sentinels moved the AVS site several times over the last six years because of beaver activities within the reach. Ponding behind beaver dams slows the velocity of the water, resulting in inaccurate discharge measurements.  The measured discharge at the AVS site cannot be attributed to a specific source. It is possible that the Water Sentinels are measuring seepage infiltrating through or under the sand and gravel bar that backs up Stillman Lake. It also is possible that the Water Sentinels have measured an unknown fraction of the subflow moving through the shallow alluvium from lower Granite Creek or a combination of these two flow components at the AVS site.

Verde Springs: The source of base flow for the upper Verde River The perennially‐flowing Verde River begins at Verde Springs, a network of springs and seeps that begins approximately one‐quarter of a mile below the Water Sentinels AVS site. According to Wirt, the basin‐fill aquifers of the Big Chino and Little Chino subbasins and an adjoining carbonate aquifer discharge about 25 cfs of groundwater at Verde Springs to create the base flow of upper Verde River at approximately river mile 2.1.78 Most of these groundwater discharges occur within the first few miles of the upper Verde River.

Figure 9. The upper Verde River near Verde Springs. Photo credit: Gary Beverly

Wirt and Hjalmarson hypothesized that groundwater moved from major recharge areas in the Big Chino Valley toward and along the Big Chino Fault, a northwest to southeast trending fault that crosses the upper Verde River channel about 1500 feet downstream of the confluence of Granite Creek.79 Groundwater moves through fractures and solution features in the Martin Limestone formation and ultimately is discharged to the upper Verde River between river miles 2.3 and 4.0.80 The location of the Big Chino Fault corresponds with increases in the discharge of groundwater from Verde Springs. 78

Wirt (2005) at p. A1. Wirt and Hjalmarson (2000) at p. 12. 80 Ibid at p. 13. 79

Discharges of groundwater from Verde Springs are the primary source of the base flow of the upper Verde River, accounting for at least 80 percent of total base flow as measured at the downstream USGS Paulden gage (at mile 10).81 The flow of the upper Verde River increases from less than one cfs at the Water Sentinels AVS site at river mile 2.0 to about 4.6 cfs near river mile 2.3.82 Base flow increases to about 19 cfs at the SRP Campbell Ranch low‐flow gage at river mile 3.2. 83 Base flow is about 25 cfs at the USGS Paulden gage at river mile 10.84 Most of the gain in base flow of the upper Verde River occurs within the first two miles after groundwater is first discharged to the main river channel at Verde Springs between river mile 2.1 and river mile 4.0. According to Wirt, base flow does not increase substantially between the SRP Campbell Ranch low‐flow stream gage and the USGS Paulden gage at river mile 10.85 Wirt describes the base flow of the upper Verde River downstream of Verde Springs as “steady” changing little in response to precipitation from year to year and within a year.86 This relatively steady, constant flow is consistent with the definition of base flow (i.e., base flow is defined as that component of flow sustained by the relatively constant discharge of groundwater). Wirt found that the historic average base flow of the river at the USGS Paulden gage was nearly constant over a 34‐year period of record from July 1963 to 1997 ranging between 22 and 26 cfs.87 The range of base flows observed by Wirt is similar to the range of monthly mean flows at the USGS Paulden gage calculated by the Water Sentinels for 2007 through 2011 [See Appendix A]. For example, in 2007, the calculated monthly means at the USGS Paulden gage ranged between 20–33 cfs with monthly means ranging between 20–24 cfs in 11 out of 12 months. In 2008, the range of monthly means was 20– 61 cfs with 10 out of 12 months ranging between 20–27 cfs. In 2009, the range of monthly means was 21–25 cfs. In 2010, a relatively wet year, there was a broader range of flows, reflecting elevated flows associated with greater amounts of precipitation and surface runoff from winter storms, spring runoff, and summer monsoon storms. The range of monthly means for January–March 2010 was 49–126 cfs. These temporary high flows indicate a wet winter with large amounts of surface water runoff in the late winter and early spring of 2010. It is interesting to note that the range of base flows returned to between 19–26 cfs for most of the rest of 2010. In 2011, the range of monthly means at the USGS Paulden gage was 18–24 cfs. The Water Sentinels calculations of monthly means for 2007 to 2011show that the low end of the range of monthly mean flows observed by the Sentinels (i.e., 18 to 21 cfs) is less than the low end of the range observed by Wirt for the 1963 to 1997 time period (i.e., 22 cfs).

Id. Ibid at p.18. 83 Wirt (2005) at p. A23. 84 Wirt and Hjalmarson (2000) at p. 18. 85 Id. 86 Wirt (2005) at p. A21. 87 Id. 82

Base Flow at the SRP Campbell Ranch LowFlow Gage In April 2005, SRP installed the Campbell Ranch low‐flow stream gage (hereafter referred to as the “Campbell Ranch gage”) at river mile 3.2 on the upper Verde River. The Campbell Ranch gage is an important source of data because it is the closest stream gage located downstream of Verde Springs, the primary source of base flow of the upper Verde River.

Figure 10. Campbell Ranch Low‐Flow Gage. Photo credit: Gary Beverly

The flow of the upper Verde River at the Campbell Ranch gage is measured and logged every 15 minutes, and the data are telemetered to SRP, where the data are archived in SRP databases. The Water Sentinels program obtained daily mean flow data from the SRP archives for the period from the date of the installation of the stream gage in April 2005 through December 2011. Where sufficient data were available, we calculated monthly mean flows for each month in this period [See Appendix A]. Calculated monthly mean values ranged from a low of about 16 cfs for August 2011 to a maximum of almost 33 cfs in December 2008. The majority of calculated monthly means at the Campbell Ranch gage range between 17 and 20 cfs. The graph below, which presents our monthly mean calculations from the Campbell Ranch gage dataset, clearly shows a decreasing trend in monthly mean flows between April 2005 and December 2011. Calculated monthly mean values are generally higher for 2005 (approximately 20–22 cfs) and lower in 2011 (16–18 cfs). The monthly mean flow of the upper Verde River from April 2005 to December 2011 ranged between 17 and 20 cfs for most of the 5½‐year period of record. The trend line through the data indicates a decreasing linear trend with a total decrease in monthly mean flow of about 3 cfs between

April 2005 and December 2011. While there are a few scattered outliers indicating temporary high flow events over the last 5½ years, there has been a steady decrease in the base flow of the river since installation of the Campbell Ranch gage in April 2005. The data from the Campbell Ranch gage indicate that groundwater discharges at Verde Springs are gradually decreasing. The river appears to be gradually “going with the flow”. 35

Mean Monthly Flow (cfs)

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 01/2005

01/2006

01/2007

01/2008

01/2009

01/2010

01/2011

01/2012

Date of Measurement

Chart 2. Monthly mean flow – SRP Campbell Ranch Gage.

There appears to be a seasonal pattern to the monthly mean flows of the river calculated for the Campbell Ranch gage. Generally, flows are higher in late summer and during the winter because of runoff from summer monsoon and winter storms. Monthly mean values greater than 20 cfs generally occur during the summer monsoon season (usually in August) or during the winter in December or January (See Appendix A). In contrast, the lowest monthly mean flows at the Campbell Ranch gage typically occurred during June or July – before the start of the summer monsoon season – or in October – before the winter storm season began. Below the Campbell Ranch gage, the upper Verde River is a narrow, free‐flowing stream about 10–20 feet wide and less than 3 feet deep; with deeper and wider pools in a few locations.88 The base flow of the river does not increase significantly between the Campbell Ranch gage and the USGS Paulden gage.89 Wirt reports that there is a small discharge of at least 2 cfs of groundwater from seeps on both banks of the Verde River near the mouth of Muldoon Canyon at river mile 8, and an estimated 2.5 cfs of groundwater is discharged from Duff Spring, located below the USGS Paulden gage near river mile 14.90 88

Wirt (2005) at p. A 24. Wirt and Hjalmarson (2000) at p. 18. 90 Wirt (2005) at p. A 24. 89

USGS Stream Gage near Paulden The USGS Paulden gage (09503700) is located approximately 10 river miles below Sullivan Dam and a little more than six miles below the Campbell Ranch gage.

Figure 11. USGS stream gage near Paulden. Photo credit: Gary Beverly

According to Blasch and others, the average annual base flow at the USGS Paulden gage for the period of record from 1964 to 2003 was 24.4 cfs, or 17,700 af of water, per year.91 They also determined that average winter base flow was 25.1 cfs, or 18,200 af per year, slightly higher than the annual average base flow.92 Wirt and Hjalmarson determined from USGS Paulden gage records that average base flow in the upper Verde River was 24.9 cfs based on a 34‐year period of record from 1963 to 1997.93 The USGS Paulden gage now has a 49‐year period of record, and the USGS has calculated a mean daily discharge of 26 cfs and a median daily discharge of 24 cfs over this longer period of record. 91

Blasch et al. (2006) at p. 29. Id. 93 Wirt and Hjalmarson (2000) at p. 19. 92

Blasch and others have determined the statistical probability of exceedances of different stream flows for the USGS Paulden gage.94 Exceedance probabilities are statistical estimates of the percentage of time that a specified stream flow is equaled or exceeded over a specific period of record. They estimated that a stream flow of 22 cfs was equaled or exceeded 90 percent of the time at the USGS Paulden gage from 1964 to 2003. Stream flow of the upper Verde River equaled or exceeded 29 cfs and was less than 22 cfs only ten percent of the time from 1964 to 2003. In general, the range of stream flows is 22–29 cfs, and the median base flow is 25 cfs at the USGS Paulden gage.95 Stream flows less than 22 cfs were relatively infrequent, occurring less than 10 percent of the time between 1964 and 2003. According to Blasch et al., 96 the average monthly stream flow for the USGS Paulden gage is usually greatest in February and March because of winter precipitation and snowmelt and is at its lowest in May, June, and July. Monthly average stream flows for September and October are sometimes higher because of runoff from summer monsoon storms.97 The graph below illustrates this seasonal pattern of average monthly stream flows at the USGS Paulden gage. The first spike in the graph is associated with the early spring runoff period, and the secondary peak in September is associated with higher flows during the summer monsoon season.

Figure 12. Average monthly stream flow at the Verde River near Paulden for the period of record from July 17, 1963, to March 31, 2004. Source: Blasch et al. (2006)98

Blasch et al. (2006) at p. 18. Id [See Table 3 in Blasch et al. (2006). Average annual streamflow and selected annual exceedance level streamflows at gaging stations on the main stem of the Verde River in the upper and middle Verde River watersheds for respective periods of record]. 96 Ibid at p. 19. 97 Id. 98 Reproduced from Blasch et al. (2006) at p. 19. 95

Wirt describes base flow conditions at the USGS Paulden gage as follows: Base flow in the upper Verde River is steady, changing little in response to precipitation or lack thereof, from year to year, and within a year. Base flow for the Verde River near Paulden has been nearly constant over its historical period of record (July 1963 to present). 99 The Water Sentinels obtained monthly statistics from the USGS National Water Information System Web Interface to determine monthly average flows at the USGS Paulden gage between 2007 and 2011.100 We calculated monthly means from USGS daily mean data published for the USGS Paulden gage. The following graph and table show the results of these calculations. The relative flatness of the plotted monthly means from January 2007 to September 2011 confirm Wirt’s observation that base flow at the USGS Paulden gage is “steady” and “nearly constant.” The majority of monthly mean values calculated by the Water Sentinels for 2007 through 2011 range between 20–25 cfs. As the “flatness” of the graph shows, there does not appear to be either an increasing or decreasing trend in monthly average flows over the last five years at the stream gaging station. 140

Mean Monthly Flow (cfs)

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 01/2007

01/2008

01/2009

01/2010

01/2011

01/2012

Date of Measurement

Chart 3. USGS Paulden Gage monthly mean flow data.

The table below shows the monthly mean flows calculated by the Water Sentinels for each month from January 2007 to September 2011 and plotted on the graph.

Wirt (2005) at p. A21. Retrieved from National Water Information System web interface at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/nwisman/?site_no=09503700&agency_cd=USGS. 100

Table 2. Monthly means at Paulden Gage.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Jan 23.7 61.2 23.6 126.8 24.2

Feb 24 26.7 25.4 36.5 23.6

March 23.3 23.9 24.5 49.5 23.9

April 21.9 23.1 22.5 24 21.7

May 22 21.9 21.4 21.5 22.7

June 20.9 20.1 21.5 19.7 21.2

July 22.5 20.6 21.4 19.3 19.8

Aug 33.5 21.9 29.9 34.9 18.8

Sept 21.1 27.4 23.1 20.2 19.5

Oct 21.5 21.8 22.4 26.4

Nov 22.1 23.9 22.7 24.0

Dec 23 45.9 23.6 24.6

Table 2 shows that the upper Verde River typically has higher monthly mean flows during the months of January, February, March, and during the summer monsoon season in the months of August and September. June and July are typically the driest months of the year with the lowest average monthly flows. Monthly mean flows in August and September of 2011 were atypically low for a summer monsoon season, with monthly mean values less than 20 cfs (18.8 and 19.5 cfs, respectively). Over the last five years, the monthly mean flow of the upper Verde has been less than the long‐term average flow of about 25 cfs, based on the 49‐year period of record at the USGS Paulden gage. Water Sentinels calculations from 2007 to 2011 show that monthly mean flows ranged between 20 cfs and 25 cfs [Compare to the range of base flows of 22 to 29 cfs determined by Blasch and others. 101]. The Water Sentinels calculated a significant number of monthly means below 22 cfs (n=21) over the last five years. It is interesting to compare the number of monthly mean values less than 22 cfs to the exceedance probabilities determined by Blasch and others – i.e., stream flows at the USGS Paulden gage were less than 22 cfs about ten percent of time from 1964–2003102 compared to approximately 37 percent of the time from 2007–2012.103 Finally, in June and July of 2010 and in July, August, and September of 2011, the monthly mean flow values at the USGS Paulden gage reached historic lows of less than 20 cfs. The decrease in the monthly mean flow at the USGS Paulden gage over the last five years may be part of a cyclical pattern observed by Blasch and others who determined that average flow at the USGS Paulden gage was less than the long‐term average of 25 cfs from 1963 to the late 1970s, greater than the long‐ term average from the 1980s to the early 1990s, and less than the historic average from the mid‐1990s through 2003.104 Water Sentinels analyses of monthly mean data for the USGS Paulden gage indicate that the base flow of the upper Verde River has continued to be less than the long‐term historic average of 25 cfs between 2006 and 2011 with monthly mean flow values ranging between 20 and 25 cfs. The finding by Blasch and others that base flow of the river has decreased at the USGS Paulden gage since the mid‐1990s is supported by an analysis of seven‐day average low‐flow data obtained for the USGS Paulden gage for winter and summer from 1993 to 2012 by Ed Wolfe, a retired USGS geologist.105 Seven‐day average low flows are frequently used by hydrologists to represent seasonal base flow conditions. To represent base flow during the winter season (i.e., December, January, and February), Wolfe used the average of the seven consecutive days of lowest flow at the USGS Paulden gage during those three winter months in each year. To represent summer base flow, he used the average for the seven consecutive days of lowest flow during the summer months (May through September). 101

Blasch et al. (2006) at p. 18. Id. 103 Based on Sentinels calculations. 104 Blasch et al. (2006) at p. 31. 105 Ed Wolfe, retired USGS geologist (personal communication). 102

These seven‐day average low‐flow values in the table below show that, in general, the seven‐day average low flow of the river has decreased in winter and summer from 1993 to 2012. The following table presents the calculated seven‐day average low‐flow values at the USGS Paulden stream gage from 1993 to 2012. Table 3. Calculated average seven‐day low‐flow values at the USGS Paulden gage from 1993–2012

Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Winter (cfs) 26 27 26 27 26 25 25 23 26 24 21 21 25 24 23 23 23 23 24 22

Summer (cfs) 25 26 25 24 23 23 22 20 21 20 19 19 24 20 19 20 20 18 18 18

30 25

Flow (cfs)

20 15

Winter Summer

10 5 0 1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003 Year

2005

2007

2009

2011

Chart 4. Calculated seven‐day average low‐flow values at the USGS Paulden gage from 1993–2012.

Estimated seven‐day average low flows in winter at the USGS Paulden gage range from a high of 27 cfs in 1994 and 1996 to a low of 21 cfs in 2003 and 2004. Calculated seven‐day average low flows in winter have been less than historic average of approximately 25 cfs for the USGS Paulden gage every year since water year 2002. Calculated seven‐day average low flows in summer at the USGS Paulden gage between 1993 and 2012 range from a low of 18 cfs for the 2010–2012 water years to a high of 26 cfs in 1994. Seven‐day average low flows in summer have been less than the long‐term average of about 25 cfs for 17 consecutive water years (since 1996). With the exception of a relatively wet year in 2005 (24 cfs), the summer base flows at the USGS Paulden stream gage have ranged between 18–20 cfs for more than a decade. In summary, it appears that monthly average flow has decreased over the last five years. The range of monthly average flow values calculated by the Water Sentinels for the last five years are grouped around the lower end of the spectrum of flows predicted by the 10 percent exceedance probability estimated by Blasch and others.106 Recent decreases in monthly average flow at the USGS Paulden gage are cause for concern. Recent decreases in flow could be part of the long‐term cyclical pattern observed by Blasch and others.107 On the other hand, below‐average flows at the USGS Paulden gage in recent years may be an indication of a “new normal” –‐ a signal of the impact of continuing drought in the upper Verde watershed. Low summer base flow values in recent years are of particular concern. The seven‐day average low‐flow data tell a worrisome story of continuing decreases in base flow during the summer months at the USGS Paulden gage. In 2012, the upper Verde River was flowing at about 75 percent of the summer base flow that the river had in the mid‐1990s. In other words, the river appears to have lost approximately a quarter of its average summer base flow over the last 20 years.

106 107

Blasch et al. (2006) at p. 18. Blasch et al. (2006) at p. 31.

Water Sentinels’ “Bear Siding” Discharge Measurement Site The Water Sentinels monitored the flow of the upper Verde River at Bear Siding at river mile 19.4 between February 2007 and October 2009. The reach of the upper Verde River downstream of the USGS Paulden gage to Bear Siding is about 9.4 miles long. The river is free‐flowing and wild and there are no road crossings, no surface water diversions, and little evidence of human impact within the reach.

Figure 13. Verde River at Bear Siding in winter. Photo credit: Tom Slaback

The Water Sentinels monitored flow at Bear Siding because it is one of the few locations on the upper Verde River that is reasonably accessible by motor vehicle between the Campbell Ranch gage and Perkinsville, which was important for our water quality monitoring at the time. We discontinued flow measurements at Bear Siding in October 2009 because we decided that continued collection of flow data at that site was not justified because of the amount of time required to access and measure flow, the availability of continuous monitoring data from the upstream USGS Paulden gage, and the proximity of another Water Sentinels flow monitoring site at Perkinsville.

Our monthly discharge measurements at Bear Siding indicate that the flow of the river is generally less than the mean monthly flow at the USGS Paulden gage. Discharge measurements made at Bear Siding ranged from a minimum of 8.3 cfs to a maximum of 45.87 cfs. 50 45 40

Flow (cfs)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 12/2006

6/2007

12/2007

6/2008

12/2008

6/2009

12/2009

Date of Measurement

Chart 5. Flow rate data: Bear Siding site.108

Our flow measurements at Bear Siding were relatively constant, with most discharge measurements ranging between 10–20 cfs. This range of discharge measurements is approximately 5–15 cfs less than the historic long term average flow of 25 cfs at the USGS Paulden gage located only 8 miles upstream. These consistently lower discharge measurements made by the Water Sentinels at Bear Siding indicate that the reach of the upper Verde River between the USGS Paulden gage and Bear Siding is a “losing” reach. Wirt also observed a decrease in base flow in this reach of the upper Verde River, observing in June 2000 that there was a more than 30 percent decrease in flow between Duff Spring and Perkinsville.109 Wirt and Hjalmarson also noted temporary flow losses in the reach of the upper Verde River downstream of river mile 15. They attributed these flow losses to evapotranspiration by riparian vegetation (~2 cfs) and streambed infiltration through fractures and karst features in the limestone geology of the streambed within the losing reach.110 There are few contributions of water to the upper Verde River from tributaries or springs between the USGS Paulden gage and Bear Siding. There is a small discharge of about 1–3 cfs of groundwater from Duff Spring, a small tributary spring at approximately river mile 13, about four river miles downstream of the USGS Paulden gage.111 108

Three atypically low and questionable Bear Siding data points from 2007 have been graphed in Chart 5. See notes at the bottom of Appendix B on pp. 58‐59 for a more detailed explanation of data quality concerns about these questionable data points. 109 Wirt (2005) at p. A25. 110 Wirt and Hjalmarson (2000) at p. 19. 111 Id.

The Water Sentinels’ “Perkinsville” Discharge Measurement Site The Perkinsville site is the most downstream of the three Water Sentinels flow measurement sites on the upper Verde River. The site is located about 100 yards upstream of the Perkinsville Bridge at river mile 24. 70 60

Flow (cfs)

50 40 30 20 10 0 12/2006

12/2007

12/2008

12/2009

12/2010

12/2011

Date of Measurement

Chart 6. Flow rate data: Perkinsville site.

The chart above shows Water Sentinels discharge measurements obtained at our Perkinsville site [See Appendix B. Water Sentinels Discharge Measurements For All Sites for actual discharge measurements]. The plotted data points reveal the same decreasing trend in flow observed in the data from the upstream Campbell Ranch gage site. The trend line shows that the flow of the upper Verde River at Perkinsville has decreased steadily over the past five years in all seasons of each year. In 2007, Water Sentinels data show that the flow of the Verde River at Perkinsville ranged between 16– 21 cfs. In 2011 and 2012, the flow at Perkinsville was between 9–15 cfs, a decrease of about 25 percent. In general, base flow decreases in the 14‐mile stretch between the USGS Paulden gage at river mile 9.8 and Perkinsville at river mile 24 identify this reach of the upper Verde River as a “losing” reach. This “losing” reach may be due to a combination of several factors, including evaporation from water surfaces, streambed infiltration, and evapotranspiration by riparian vegetation. The Water Sentinels estimate a growing‐season evapotranspiraton rate of approximately 0.1 cfs/mile, or about 1.3 cfs of flow loss over the reach between the USGS Paulden gage and Perkinsville.112 The chart shows a rate of decrease in discharge measurements of approximately 1 cfs per year over the last five years at Perkinsville. For example, when the Water Sentinels began measuring discharge at the Perkinsville site in February 2007, the measured discharge was 20.8 cfs. By February 2012, the measured discharge was 14.7 cfs (a difference of ‐6.1 cfs). The decrease in summer base flow at Perkinsville is even 112

Based on an ET value of 70–76 af/yr/mile from Blasch et al. (2006), p. 36, Table 10.0. See also discussion of evapotranspiration values on p. 38.

more pronounced. In July 2007, the measured discharge at Perkinsville was about 16 cfs. The Sentinels made a record low discharge measurement of only 9.1 cfs at Perkinsville on June 30, 2012 (a difference of almost ‐7 cfs from July 2007). The record low flow in June 2012 is less than 50 percent of the historic average flow of the upper Verde River at the USGS Paulden gage. These data tell us that the flow of the upper Verde River decreases substantially as it flows downstream of the USGS Paulden gage. The flow is now reaching historically low summer‐time levels at our Perkinsville site. If the flow of the river decreases another 10 cfs at the USGS Paulden gage, then it is likely that some reaches of the upper Verde River upstream of the Perkinsville Bridge will lose perennial base flow and become intermittent. The upper Verde River only has approximately 10 cfs to lose before it starts going dry in the summer. Assuming that the slope of the decreasing trend line remains the same as it has been over the last five years (a gradual decrease in base flow of about 1 cfs per year), some reaches of the upper Verde River upstream of Perkinsville could start drying up by Summer 2023. Of course, there is no certainty that base flow will continue to decrease at the same rate or in the same linear way over the next 10 years. There is always a possibility of non‐linear change occurring in the amount of base flow that either increases or decreases the base flow of the river at Perkinsville. Given the recent five‐year trend and the predictions of climate scientists for a hotter and drier Arizona for the short term and the remainder of the 21st century, as well as increasing demand for groundwater, it is likely that the flow of the river will continue to decrease. If our assumptions prove to be correct, it is only a matter of time before reaches of the upper Verde River between the USGS Paulden gage and Perkinsville reach critical low flows and the river is reduced to a dry streambed for at least part of the year.

Base Flow Loss between USGS Paulden gage and Perkinsville 30

Flow (cfs)

Paulden Gage Perkinsville

0 02/17/07

11/17/07

08/17/08

05/17/09

02/17/10

11/17/10

08/17/11

05/17/12

Date

Chart 7. Perkinsville daily average flow and daily flow from 02/17/07 through 11/17/2012.

16.00

Amount of Decrease (cfs)

14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 09/02/06

01/15/08

05/29/09

10/11/10

02/23/12

07/07/13

Date

Chart 8. Base flow decrease: Paulden to Perkinsville.113

113

Flow loss calculated by subtraction of Perkinsville flow measurements from the USGS Paulden gage daily mean flow between February 17, 2007, and December 14, 2012. Seven data points have been omitted from the chart because base flow conditions did not exist due to local precipitation events.

The graphs on the previous two pages show the base flow losses between the USGS Paulden gage and Perkinsville and the amount of the decrease in base flow over time. Base flow decreases shown in the graphs were calculated using the simple formula below: (Base Flow Decrease) = (FP) – (FPk), where: (FP) = Daily mean flow recorded at USGS Paulden (FPk) = Instantaneous flow measured by Water Sentinels above Perkinsville Bridge The base flow losses between the USGS Paulden gage and Perkinsville Bridge have steadily increased over the last six years from a loss of about 3 cfs in Winter 2007 to a loss of 12.9 cfs in October 2012. For example, on June 30, 2012, when the USGS Paulden gage recorded a daily mean flow of 17.7 cfs, the measured discharge at the Perkinsville site was a record low of 9.1 cfs. The base flow decrease graph depicts the calculated decreases in cubic feet per second between the USGS Paulden gage and the Perkinsville site (n=61). As Chart 8 clearly shows, losses of base flow have steadily increased between 2007 and 2012, at a rate of approximately 1.2 cfs per year. Detailed field inspections have found no other sources or diversions in this reach to explain these losses. To explain why the flow loss at Perkinsville is increasing over time, consider that the surface flow difference consists of the following factors:  Evapotranspiration (ET) losses. ET loss is seasonally variable – greater during the summer growing season. Blasch and others, using the difference between winter and growing season base flow, estimated that ET in the perennial section of the upper Verde River above the USGS Paulden gage was about 70 af/yr/mile, or an annual loss of about 560 af/yr, and between the Paulden and Clarkdale gages 76 af/yr/mile. 114Applying the range 70–76 af/yr/mile to the reach between the Paulden and Perkinsville, we estimate a growing‐season ET value of approximately 0.1 cfs/mile, or about 1.3 cfs of flow loss over the reach, which is insufficient to explain the observed loss in base flow from Paulden to Perkinsville. It is unlikely that the water demand of riparian vegetation between the Paulden and Clarkdale gages has changed significantly during the six‐year period of interest; therefore, ET losses do not explain the increasing flow losses we have observed.  Groundwater discharge from Duff Spring. Wirt estimated the discharge of groundwater from Duff Spring to be 2.5 cfs.115 The discharge of groundwater likely exhibits minor seasonal variations, and it is reasonable to assume that the discharge increases during wet periods and decreases during dry precipitation cycles.  Bank storage. A likely source for discharge to the river is the river bank and adjacent floodplains, which may become saturated during high‐water, high‐flow events. Bank storage would be expected to contribute more water following major flood events and smaller contributions as a dry cycle continues. During a flood event when there are elevated flows, flood water inundates and may saturate the stream banks and adjacent floodplains, where some water may be stored for gradual release back to the upper Verde River during dry seasons. During dry years following these flood events, the water held in bank storage is slowly released back to the river to help maintain base flow. Over time, contributions of water from bank storage to the river gradually 114 115

Blasch et al. (2006), p. 36, Table 10. Wirt (2005A) at p. A24.

decline. With extended drought conditions, the amount of water in bank storage gradually decreases until there is insufficient water in bank storage to discharge to the river  Infiltration into the streambed. If the groundwater level near the river declines below the streambed altitude, more of the river’s length may be exposed to infiltration to the groundwater table, thus increasing flow losses. There is no information on groundwater levels to support or refute this hypothesis. Together, these dynamic processes may explain the flow losses between the USGS Paulden gage and the Perkinsville Bridge. Additional research and data collection are required to better understand the flow losses that are occurring in this reach of the upper Verde River. The Water Sentinels flow data for Perkinsville Bridge define the lower limit of flow discharges from Verde Springs to maintain a perennial upper Verde River between the USGS Paulden gage and Perkinsville. At this time, if discharges from Verde Springs had been diminished by an additional 9 cfs during the summer of 2012, the river would have been dry at Perkinsville Bridge. The question is not whether reaches of the upper Verde River between the USGS Paulden gage and Perkinsville will dry up, but when. Our data indicate that the “dry up” of some reaches of the upper Verde River is likely to happen in early summer, after the spring runoff period and before the summer monsoon season typically starts, when base flow of the river typically is lowest. We predict that a “dry up” may occur as early as the next 10–15 years if current flow trends continue unchanged. Reaches of the upper Verde River between the USGS Paulden gage and Perkinsville may become intermittent, meaning they will flow seasonally during the early spring, in the winter, and after large storm events, but they will dry back to pools or dry streambed during the summer months. Due to the importance of these results, the Water Sentinels plan to expand our study of flows between the USGS Paulden gage and Perkinsville by resuming monthly flow measurements at Bear Siding and by conducting a seepage run between USGS Paulden gage and Perkinsville Bridge. These additional data will increase our understanding of where the flow losses are occurring within these “at risk” reaches of the upper Verde River. The Water Sentinels will continue to monitor the flows at Perkinsville Bridge. We do not yet know how low the flow will go.

Why flow matters: The ecological implications of reduced base flow of the upper Verde River The Verde River watershed is one of the most biologically rich and diverse areas in Arizona, supporting 270 bird species and 176 reptile and mammal species.116 The river supports a large fraction of Arizona’s vertebrate species, including 78 percent of breeding bird species, 89 percent of bat and mammal carnivore species, 83 percent of native ungulate species, and 76 percent of reptile and amphibian genera (including 94 percent of lizard and 68 percent of snake genera) in Arizona.117 Ecologists estimate that 80 percent of vertebrate species in the watershed depend on the Verde River or its riparian habitat for some or all of their life cycle.118 The flora and fauna of the Verde River include plants and animals listed under the Endangered Species Act or recognized as special status species by the State of Arizona. Endangered or threatened species include the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), the candidate Western yellow‐ billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), the threatened spikedace (Meda fulgida), the endangered razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), and the endangered Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius).

Figure 14. Southwestern willow flycatcher. Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 116

Verde River Basin Partnership, “The Verde River Guiding Principles” Fact Sheet. Upper Verde Wild & Scenic River, A Citizen’s Proposal. August 2001, Executive Summary, p. 4. 118 Id. 117

Other species classified as sensitive by the U.S. Forest Service live along the Verde River. These species include the common black hawk (Buteogallus anthracinus), the American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), Abert’s towhee (Pipilo aberti), western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), pale Townsend’s big‐ eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens), the pocket free‐tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus), lowland leopard frog (Rana yavapaiensis), Arizona toad (Bufomicroscaphus microscaphus), and the narrow‐headed garter snake (Thamnophis rufipunctatus). The Arizona Game and Fish Department has identified several Wildlife Species of Concern including the candidate least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), the river otter (Lontra canadensis sonora), the belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), and the fringed myotis bat (Myotis thysanodes).119 The Verde River also provides important nesting and breeding habitat for bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The Verde River provides some of the best aquatic habitat for native fish in Arizona. Native fish species currently present in the Verde River include the Sonora sucker (Catostomus insignis), desert sucker (Catostomus clarkia), roundtail chub (Gila robusta), longfin dace (Agosia chrysogaster), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), and, as mentioned above, spikedace, razorback sucker, and an experimental population of Colorado pikeminnow. The upper Verde River has been designated as critical habitat for the razorback sucker, loach minnow, and spikedace. The roundtail chub is a candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act.120

Figure 15. Spikedace. Photo credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Approximately 10 percent of Arizona’s remaining Fremont Cottonwood/Gooding Willow habitat, the rarest forest type in North America, is found along the Verde River.121

119

Id. Id. 121 Verde River Basin Partnership, “The Verde River Guiding Principles” Fact Sheet. 120

There is clear scientific evidence that plants and animals living in the river and along its banks depend on adequate river flows and would be adversely affected by a decrease in base flows.122 Reduced base flow of the upper Verde River will alter aquatic habitats and could reduce or eliminate populations of animals and plants that depend on open water conditions for part of their life cycles.123 According to Haney and others, if base flow decreases and the flow regime of the upper Verde River changes from perennial to intermittent, there will be greater seasonal and year‐to‐year variability in groundwater levels, and the depth to the water table near the river could increase. These changes would, in turn, affect the composition and diversity of the riparian forest along the upper Verde River. There would be a decline in cottonwood and willow abundance, a decrease in the structural diversity of the riparian forest, and an increase in non‐native plant species.124 Changes in plant communities would ripple through the rest of the ecosystem, affecting animal communities that live in and along the river. Changes in the structural diversity of the riparian forest and declines in certain plant species would likely cause shifts in the bird community with reductions or the loss of some bird species. Haney and others point out the need for more research to quantify the water needs for the Verde River ecosystem and to determine quantitative thresholds where species will be adversely affected by reduced base flows.125

122

Haney, J.A., D.S. Turner, A.E. Springer, J.C. Stromberg, L.E. Stevens, P.A. Pearthree, and V. Supplee. 2008. Ecological Implications of Verde River Flows. A report by the Verde River Basin Partnership, Arizona Water Institute, and The Nature Conservancy, Executive Summary, p. vii. 123 Id. 124 Id. 125 Id.

What does the future hold for the upper Verde River? In 2006, American Rivers listed the Verde River as one of America’s ten most endangered rivers.126 American Rivers included the Verde River on its “top ten list” because of threats from increasing demands for water associated with rapid growth and development in Prescott, Prescott Valley, Chino Valley, and in the unincorporated parts of Yavapai County near the headwaters of the Verde River. The basic facts that led to listing the Verde River as a “top ten” endangered river haven’t changed significantly in the past six years. The threat of groundwater depletion in the Big Chino Subbasin, the regional aquifer that is the primary source of the groundwater sustaining the upper Verde River, is as great today as it was in 2006. In fact, the risk of stream depletion of the upper Verde River may be greater today because of the growing population and ever‐increasing demand for groundwater. Municipalities have plans to extract thousands of acre‐feet of groundwater from the Big Chino Subbasin annually to meet this projected water demand and to support more growth and development. For example, the Big Chino Water Ranch and pipeline project remains a major component of the water resource management plans for the City of Prescott and the Town of Prescott Valley. As of 2012, municipalities in the Prescott Active Management Area have legal authority to pump and export up to 18,616 af or approximately 6 billion gallons127 of pumped groundwater annually from the Big Chino Subbasin if the Big Chino Water Ranch and pipeline are constructed and fully implemented. There also are plans to construct new residential and commercial developments in the Big Chino Valley.128 One proposed development, Yavapai Ranch, could result in the construction of as many as 12,500 new homes with 95 acres of commercial property on 51,000 acres in the Big Chino Subbasin. At full build out, it is estimated that the residential part of Yavapai Ranch alone will consume more than 912 million gallons of groundwater each year, or an estimated 2,800 af of pumped groundwater annually.129 Finally, there have been discussions about a proposal to build a pumped storage hydroelectric power generating facility in the Big Chino Valley. The proposed Longview Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project (“the Longview Project”) would require the one‐time extraction of up to 17,500 af of groundwater at project start‐up (approximately 5.7 billion gallons of groundwater) and up to 1,200 af of pumped 126

American Rivers. 2006. America’s Most Endangered Rivers of 2006. Available online at http://act.americanrivers.org/MER/PDFs/MER_2006.pdf. 127 There are 325,851 gallons of water in an acre‐foot. 128 Joanna Dodder Nellans, “Commission Narrowly Favors Yavapai Ranch Development Plan,” Prescott Courier, October 3, 2012. 129 This estimate assumes 12,500 homes at full build out of Yavapai Ranch, assuming 2 persons per home, a gallons per capita per day (gpcd) assumption of 100 gallons, multiplied by 365 days in a year. Using these factors and conservative assumptions, the result is an estimated 912,500,000 gallons of pumped groundwater annually for the residential part of the proposed Yavapai Ranch project. When divided by 325,851 gallons per acre‐foot, the estimated annual groundwater use is approximately 2,800 acre‐feet per year.

groundwater annually (about 391 million gallons of groundwater each year) to make up for evaporative losses from proposed storage reservoirs that would be constructed for the Longview Project.130 The pace of growth and development in Yavapai County has slowed in recent years with the Great Recession of 2008. However, local economies are slowly recovering. People will continue to move to Yavapai County because it is an attractive place to live. New residents will need water, and water providers will turn to the only available source, groundwater, to meet new demand. The Big Chino Water Ranch, Yavapai Ranch, and the Longview Project alone will result in the pumping of billions of gallons of groundwater annually over their project lifetimes if implemented as planned. Unmitigated groundwater withdrawals from the Big Chino Subbasin eventually will turn the first 25 miles of the upper Verde River into a dry wash, flowing only after precipitation events or seasonal runoff. Continuing rapid growth and development, a decade of drought that shows no signs of abatement, and emerging impacts of climate change in the American Southwest will combine to create a water crisis in the upper Verde River watershed. The American Southwest has been described as “ground zero” for climate change in the United States.131 If predictions of the climate scientists prove to be accurate, the challenge of preserving the base flow of the upper Verde River will become even more daunting in the future.

130

Joanna Dodder Nellans, “Proposed hydroelectric plant near Seligman would use Big Chino groundwater” Prescott Courier, January 18, 2012. This is an article on the Longview Energy Exchange Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project, Arizona's first closed‐loop hydroelectric power facility, which would utilize Big Chino groundwater. The project would pump as much as 17,500 acre‐feet of groundwater from the Big Chino aquifer 1,400 feet uphill into large reservoirs. When peak electric power is needed, the pumped groundwater would be released to flow down through turbines to generate hydroelectric power to meet peak demand. Retrieved from Arizona Geology blog of the Arizona State Geologist at http://arizonageology.blogspot.com/2012/01/pumped‐ storage‐power‐project‐proposed.html on October 4, 2012. 131 Vergano, Dan. 2007. Climate change threatens new dust bowl in Southwest, USA Today, updated April 6, 2007. See http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2007‐04‐05‐dust‐bowl‐study_N.htm. Retrieved on September 25, 2012.

A Summary of Key Findings and Conclusions  The available data from SRP indicate a decrease in the base flow of the upper Verde River as measured at the SRP Campbell Ranch low‐flow stream gage over the last five years. The monthly average flow of the upper Verde River as measured at the SRP Campbell Ranch low‐ flow gage ranged from 15–17 cfs in 2012.  The historic average flow at the USGS Paulden gage, based on a 49‐year period of record, is about 25 cfs. The monthly average flow at the USGS Paulden gage over the last five years has been less than the long‐term average, ranging between 20–25 cfs.  The flow of the upper Verde River measured at the Water Sentinels flow monitoring site at Perkinsville has decreased over the last five years. Recent Water Sentinels discharge measurements indicate that summer base flow of the river at Perkinsville has been as low as 9 cfs. Water Sentinels data indicate a decreasing trend in summer base flow at Perkinsville of about 1 cfs per year.  Some reaches of the upper Verde River between the USGS Paulden gage and Perkinsville may become intermittent if base flow decreases another 10 cfs at the USGS Paulden gage. If current rates of decrease in base flow continue, the upper Verde River could lose another 10 cfs at Perkinsville within the next 10 years.  There is a strong hydrologic connection between groundwater levels in the Big Chino Subbasin and the discharge of groundwater from Verde Springs to the upper Verde River. Multiple lines of evidence show that the Big Chino Subbasin supplies 80–86 percent of the total base flow of the upper Verde River. There is evidence that groundwater pumping from the Big Chino Subbasin directly affects the discharge of groundwater to the upper Verde River at Verde Springs.  Climate models predict that the American Southwest will get hotter and drier over the remainder of the 21st century. Hotter temperatures, less precipitation, and greater rates of evapotranspiration mean corresponding decreases in rates of groundwater recharge and surface runoff. Predicted climate change will result in more frequent, longer, and more intense drought conditions that likely will reduce the base flow of the upper Verde River.  The demand for groundwater from the Big Chino Subbasin is projected to increase to 25,000 af/yr by 2050. This potential unmet water demand converts to approximately 24 cfs, which is about equal to the long‐term historic average base flow at the USGS Paulden gage. If groundwater is pumped to satisfy the projected total unmet water demand in 2050, it will reduce and eventually consume the entire base flow of the upper 24 miles of the Verde River.

Recommendations It would be easy to be pessimistic about the long‐term future of the upper Verde River, given the current evidence of decreasing base flow, projected demands on finite groundwater resources of the upper Verde watershed, and the predicted impacts of climate change in the Southwest. At some intuitive level, we know that continuing, unmitigated extraction of billions of gallons of groundwater each year from the Big Chino and Little Chino Subbasins is unsustainable. Although there is a vast amount of groundwater in storage in the regional aquifers, we know that groundwater resources are finite. Unmitigated groundwater pumping from the Big Chino Subbasin will inevitably lower water tables. As the water table lowers, discharges of groundwater from Verde Springs and base flow of the upper Verde River will gradually decrease. Already, the base flow of the upper Verde River is estimated to have declined by a third from predevelopment levels. At some point in the future, the cumulative effects of groundwater pumping will cause the water table to fall below the elevation of the subbasin discharge outlet at Verde Springs, and the discharge of groundwater at Verde Springs will cease. When that happens, the uppermost 24 miles of the Verde River will dry up. There is a growing body of evidence from the USGS, SRP, and the Water Sentinels documenting that the base flow of the upper Verde River is decreasing now. If the current rate of decrease in base flow continues, a window of opportunity to preserve the base flow of some reaches of the upper Verde River may start to close as early as 2025. The loss of as little as another 10 cfs of base flow will mean that the river will start drying back to pools in reaches between the USGS Paulden gage and Perkinsville. When that happens, it will be “game over” for a perennially flowing upper Verde River. It is likely that the reach of the river from the USGS Paulden gage to Perkinsville will be the first to transition from a perennial to an intermittent stream if we do not take steps now to preserve the discharge of groundwater that currently sustains the base flow of the river. We must act to mitigate groundwater pumping to avoid stream depletion of the upper Verde River. Any course of action that mitigates groundwater withdrawals from the Big Chino Subbasin now will extend the life of the river in the future. Implement the precautionary principle to prevent harm to the upper Verde River. “Precaution” literally means using caution in advance. All definitions of the precautionary principle have two elements in common. First, decision‐makers need to anticipate harm before it occurs. Under the precautionary principle, it is the responsibility of decision‐makers or the proponents of a project (e.g., a project that involves large‐scale groundwater mining of the Big Chino Subbasin) to show that the proposed project will not or is very unlikely to cause significant harm. Second, if the level of harm from a proposed project may be high, decision‐makers should take steps to prevent or minimize potential harm even when scientific uncertainty makes it difficult to predict the likelihood of harm occurring or the level of harm should it occur. Implementing the precautionary principle in water resource management means changing the way we think about the groundwater resources of the Big Chino Subbasin and acknowledging that resources are finite and cannot be exploited ad infinitum. We should make preservation of the base flow of the upper Verde River a management priority when making land use and water resource management decisions.

We can preserve or extend the life of the upper Verde River by not implementing projects that rely on large‐scale groundwater mining, that accelerate groundwater capture, or that ultimately hasten stream depletion of the upper Verde River. We can stop, downsize, or mitigate projects requiring the withdrawal of large amounts of groundwater from the Big Chino Subbasin. At the very least, we can carefully consider the location, scale, projected water demand, and reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of proposed projects and plan to mitigate any adverse impacts. We should ask the following questions: How may groundwater withdrawals for this project affect the base flow of the upper Verde River? Can adverse impacts to the river be mitigated? If so, how? If there are feasible, practical ways to mitigate stream depletion, project proponents should be required to implement mitigation measures to minimize large‐scale groundwater mining and to preserve the upper Verde River. If there are no practical mitigation measures, the proposed project should not proceed. Recognize the need for regional planning for a sustainable water future. At the present time, there is no effective regional water management for the upper Verde watershed. ADWR has no responsibility to prepare an implementable water management plan to achieve safe yield in the Prescott AMA. Yavapai County does not have a water resource plan. The Tri‐City communities each have individual water resource plans to develop available water resources to support goals of meeting the increasing water demands of their growing populations and fostering economic growth in their communities. For each planning entity, there are no incentives or effective requirements to use water more efficiently. Water management is fragmented and reduced to little more than a competition for limited available water supplies. Water management is reduced to a race to acquire and develop available water supplies before some other community gets there first. In this case, the available water supply for rural Yavapai County and the Tri‐City communities is the groundwater in the regional aquifers underlying the upper Verde watershed. Current management of this common groundwater resource is reduced to this: Whoever has the deepest well and the biggest pumps and whoever develops the groundwater resource first wins. The losers are the communities that come in second (or later) in the race and private property owners in the watershed who do not have the financial resources to compete with large municipal water providers. Of course, the biggest loser of all is the upper Verde River, which under Arizona water laws is relegated to spectator status in the race for remaining groundwater, but bears all of the environmental costs associated with unsustainable and unmanaged exploitation of the regional aquifers sustaining the river’s base flow. To preserve the upper Verde River, it is necessary to implement shared management of water resources. One way to achieve regional management would be to form a Water Resource Management District to manage the upper and middle Verde River watersheds for a sustainable water future. The proposed Water Resource Management District should be structured to include a diverse group of community representatives that is democratically elected and that operates in an open and transparent manner. The Water Resource Management District should be advised by scientists who can provide objective, credible, and apolitical scientific data and information to inform management decisions by the elected members of the district.

Strengthen water management authority and the planning role of the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) to effectively manage groundwater development in the upper Verde River watershed. Strengthening the ADWR framework regarding active management areas could go a long way towards preserving and extending groundwater resources in the upper Verde watershed. Expanding Active Management Areas to cover entire watersheds would provide important planning tools for state water managers. Current AMAs cover only 13 percent of the state and there are critical groundwater management problems in areas outside of the current AMAs. The time has come for active management of groundwater statewide and more integrated regional water management on the watershed scale. Moreover, this should include some further recognition of the groundwater‐surface water connection. There is a critical need to adequately fund water resource management in Arizona. The Arizona Legislature created ADWR by enacting the Groundwater Management Act of 1980 to administer and manage groundwater use in the state. At a time of increasing water scarcity, increasing water stress, and increasing risk of regional water conflicts, funding for ADWR has been cut. In addition to being underfunded, ADWR is understaffed, and agency resource constraints severely limit the agency’s ability to accomplish its core mission and management responsibilities. For example, ADWR is years behind schedule on development of AMA management plans. Additional funding and staff are needed to meet critical water resource planning and management needs and to find solutions to water scarcity problems facing communities across the state. Furthermore, the agency needs to include management and preservation of flowing rivers in its core mission. Use less water. The groundwater that municipalities pump from the Little Chino and Big Chino subbasins and use in homes and businesses was destined to flow in the Verde River. We are connected to the river through our water use. Decreasing consumptive uses of water will reduce water demand and the stress we place on the regional aquifers sustaining the upper Verde River. Water conservation is the least expensive, most practical, and the most easily implemented step that we can take to help preserve the river. There are many things that can be done to reduce current and projected water demand and to improve water efficiency. Municipal governments of the Tri‐City communities (Prescott, Prescott Valley, and Chino Valley) have taken some positive steps to implement water conservation measures that have achieved moderate success, but much more needs to be done. For example, the City of Prescott has implemented a comprehensive water conservation program, reducing its system‐wide average water use from 193 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) in 2003 to 167 gpcd in 2008. Other Tri‐City communities have made less progress with their water conservation programs. The reduction in water consumption by the City of Prescott represents significant progress, but the Tri‐City municipalities can and should go even further by setting even more ambitious water conservation goals. For example, the cities could implement programs such as the 90 by 20 water conservation program, which sets a goal of reaching 90 gallons per person per day by 2020.132 This is enough water for the daily needs of most people. However, even if the 90 by 2020 goal was achieved, it would not be enough to achieve safe yield in the Prescott AMA. It is estimated that the City of Prescott would need to reduce water consumption to less than 40 gpcd to achieve safe yield in the Prescott AMA. There is still a long way to go. To make a significant difference, these communities must aggressively implement water conservation measures to further reduce water demand and to minimize future groundwater withdrawals from the Big Chino Subbasin. For example, municipal and county plumbing codes could require low‐flow toilets 132

See 90 by 20: A Call to Action for the Colorado River at http://www.90by20.org.

and water‐saving fixtures in all new residential and commercial construction. They can establish retrofit programs and provide financial incentives and rebates for installation of low‐water‐use fixtures in existing homes and businesses. Retrofit programs are particularly important for buildings constructed before adoption of the 1994 revisions to the Plumbing Code. There are an estimated 17,000 pre‐1994 structures in the Tri‐City municipalities. Implementation of an aggressive retrofitting strategy that targets pre‐1994 code structures could significantly decrease water use. The City of Prescott Water Smart program identifies landscape maintenance and outdoor irrigation as the major water use in the city. The City of Prescott estimates that at least 50 percent of water consumed by city households is used outdoors. By adopting ordinances that provide incentives to replace lawns, turf areas, and high‐water‐using landscape plants with low‐water using native plants and appropriate landscaping designs, it is possible to create attractive residential and commercial landscapes that require little or no irrigation. The Tri‐City municipalities could adopt ordinances that require xeriscaping for all new residential, commercial, and landscaping of public spaces. They can adopt water smart ordinances to provide financial incentives to encourage water efficiency, rainwater harvesting, and gray water reuse in their communities. Local municipalities and water providers can send even stronger price signals to encourage water conservation and efficiency. In a time of increasing water scarcity, water is still dirt cheap. In fact, the water itself is essentially free. Consumers’ water bills reflect the cost of water treatment and distribution infrastructure, not the value of the water itself. The Tri‐City communities have already made some progress on establishing tiered rate structures for their communities. These municipalities should consider revision of their block rate structures, in which the unit price of water increases with each of several preset consumption blocks. An affordable “base tier” unit price must be included in the rate structure so that everyone, even the most disadvantaged, can afford a base level of water consumption. However, water should be priced to reflect its true value, to discourage waste, and to encourage greater efficiency. Increasing tiered water rates sends a very strong water conservation message to a water supplier’s customer base – the more water you use, the more you pay. This type of tiered rate structure, when accompanied by an effective customer education and information program, can produce desired levels of water conservation that can make a difference. Finally, we need to conduct additional research on the comparative effectiveness of water conservation programs to identify best conservation practices that are the most efficient, practical, and that result in the greatest water savings. Pursue water recycling to augment or “stretch” the existing water supply. Municipalities can augment the current water supply and reduce reliance on pumped groundwater from the Big Chino and Little Chino subbasins by aggressively implementing water reclamation projects in their communities. Water reclamation and the direct reuse of reclaimed water are attractive options for conserving and extending limited water supplies. Water reclamation for non‐potable reuse has been used successfully in Arizona to meet non‐potable water demands in many water‐scarce areas. In fact, reclaimed water (aka “recycled water,” “effluent,” or “treated wastewater”) represents one of the few growing sources of water supply available to growing communities because the supply of recycled water increases as communities grow and produce more wastewater. Adequately treated reclaimed water can be substituted for pumped groundwater that is currently used for non‐potable uses, thereby conserving groundwater for potable use and extending the water supply. For example, reclaimed water has been used safely for toilet flushing at Grand Canyon and for turf

irrigation of parks, schoolyards, and college campuses (e.g., Northern Arizona University), and for golf course irrigation. The Tri‐City communities should explore potential water reclamation opportunities and make targeted investments within their communities to recycle water, including exploring the use of reclaimed water for artificial recharge to mitigate groundwater withdrawals. New golf courses in the watershed should be prohibited and irrigation systems for existing golf courses that have not already done so should be required to convert to irrigating with reclaimed water. Establish a minimum in‐stream flow for the upper Verde River. Enough is now known about the average monthly flow of the upper Verde River at the USGS Paulden gage to establish a minimum in‐ stream flow to preserve environmental flows of the upper Verde River. For example, it is well‐ established from a 49‐year period of record at the USGS Paulden gage that the average monthly flow of the upper Verde River is about 25 cfs. Recent USGS and Water Sentinels data indicate that average monthly flow at the USGS Paulden gage has ranged between 20–25 cfs over the last five years. We need to draw a “line in the river” by establishing 20 cfs as a minimum in‐stream flow right to protect the base flow of the river. This in‐stream flow right should be established “from time immemorial” under Arizona’s water law. ADWR should have the authority to regulate groundwater pumping that causes stream depletion or that would decrease the base flow of the upper Verde River below the minimum in‐ stream flow of 20 cfs.133 Consider a variety of other measures – think outside the box. Communities could seek ways to encourage residents to utilize rainwater harvesting to water landscaping and gardens. Considering that much of the water is used for landscaping, this could significantly reduce the need for additional groundwater pumping. Evaluation of tools such as recharge of groundwater with treated effluent can also be considered. This tool comes with concerns about water quality and the emerging contaminants that are not measured or removed in the treatment process. The area could also look seriously at how many people the area can sustain over the long‐term and consider methods of limiting development. Collect more data and continue research in the upper Verde watershed to gain a better understanding of regional groundwater resources that sustain the river. We need credible data and good science to support effective water management and decision‐making in the upper Verde watershed. ADWR and USGS need adequate funding and staff to continue critically important data collection and modeling efforts. Better data collection will result in a better scientific understanding of the cumulative effects of groundwater pumping and will provide critically important information to populate input variables that can used in groundwater models, such as the USGS Northern Arizona Regional Groundwater Flow Model. Better scientific information will lead to a better understanding of the regional groundwater system and, if applied, will lead to more informed water management decisions by water policy makers. Develop a long term vision. To preserve the upper Verde River, we need to take a long‐term perspective that looks beyond the immediate interests of the current generation to value the interests and welfare of future generations. The leaders of the Iroquois Nation describe this vision in the Great Law of the Iroquois, urging the current generation to live sustainably and to work responsibly for the benefit of the seventh generation to come (about 140 years in the future). Chief Oren Lyons, Faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation, expresses this concept this way: “We are looking ahead, as is one of the first

133

Glennon, Robert. 2002. Water Follies, Groundwater Pumping and the Fate of America’s Fresh Waters, Island Press, Washington, p. 218.

mandates given us as chiefs, to make sure and to make every decision that we make relates to the welfare and well‐being of the seventh generation to come.”134 In making land use and water development decisions, we should, at the very least, look beyond narrow self‐interest to protecting water resources and the quality of life for future generations. What will our children and grandchildren have? Will there be an adequate water supply and a flowing upper Verde River for them? Will the seventh generation have a living, flowing river 140 years from now, or will the Verde River be only a distant memory? The Water Sentinels are hopeful that the upper Verde River will not “go with the flow” and that it instead will flow for many generations to come. Although the challenges we face are enormous and complex, we can solve our water problems if we work together and act responsibly. We can preserve the upper Verde River but only if we start taking action now to save it. Long live the Verde River.

134

Oren Lyons, Faithkeeper, Onondaga Nation, “Looking Toward the Seventh Generation.” Presentation, American Indian Studies Program, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, April 17, 2008, at http://nnidatabase.org/db/video/oren‐lyons‐looking‐toward‐seventh‐generation.

Appendix A. SRP Campbell Ranch Low‐ flow gage Data

Month 04/2005 05/2005 06/2005 07/2005 08/2005 09/2005 10/2005 11/2005 12/2005 01/2006 02/2006 03/2006 04/2006 05/2006 06/2006 07/2006 08/2006 09/2006 10/2006 11/2006 12/2006 01/2007 02/2007 03/2007 04/2007 05/2007 06/2007 07/2007 08/2007 09/2007 10/2007 11/2007 12/2007 01/2008 02/2008 03/2008 04/2008 05/2008 06/2008 07/2008

Monthly Average (cfs) 21.1633 20.7932 20.9144 20.4644 22.0208 20.2700 19.9770 20.3676 19.9700 19.5104 19.1910 20.1200 20.4630 20.0580 18.9470 19.3010 19.3390 19.4270 19.2478 19.3550 19.0095 18.4710 17.9544 20.9950 28.7540 18.6270 17.9775 18.1600 18.1965 25.6296 20.8328 19.4168 18.6310 18.1445 17.8932 17.5696

Notes High flows, loss of data High flows, loss of data High flows, loss of data High flows, loss of data High flows, loss of data Float tap came off of encoder shaft

Month 08/2008 09/2008 10/2008 11/2008 12/2008 01/2009 02/2009 03/2009 04/2009 05/2009 06/2009 07/2009 08/2009 09/2009 10/2009 11/2009 12/2009 01/2010 02/2010 03/2010 04/2010 05/2010 06/2010 07/2010 08/2010 09/2010 10/2010 11/2010 12/2010 01/2011 02/2011 03/2011 04/2011 05/2011 06/2011 07/2011 08/2011 09/2011 10/2011 11/2011 12/2011

Monthly Average (cfs) 18.3686 20.3467 17.6344 17.9231 32.7342 27.0945 20.0517 18.5645 18.3289 17.5229 17.0276 17.5984 24.1481 17.2783 16.5824 16.6510 17.0484 17.2310 17.9357 17.5340 16.8281 16.4047 24.4513 16.4652 19.0895 17.1149 17.5682 17.8068 18.1930 18.3789 17.5357 17.1451 16.6985 16.2988 16.0743 16.2820 16.3588 17.8407 17.8180

Notes High flows, loss of data High flows, loss of data High flows, loss of data High flows, loss of data High flows, loss of data High flows, loss of data Missing data due to power outage

Notes on Appendix A: Sometimes it was not possible to calculate a monthly average because of high flows of the upper Verde River greater than 100 cfs or because the stream gage was out of service. Monthly average values in the table highlighted in yellow represent averages calculated from an incomplete dataset. When this occurred, the reason for missing or incomplete data is listed in the notes column. Blank fields indicate that there were no data for that month; we included these blank fields for information purposes. The reader is cautioned that the Water Sentinels calculations of monthly average values without data reflecting higher flows greater than 100 cfs in a month are biased. Data highlighted in yellow are qualified because the monthly average value is less than it otherwise would be if accurate higher flow data were included in the calculation of the monthly average.

Appendix B. Water Sentinels Discharge Measurements For All Sites

Date 12/2/2006* 2/17/2007* 3/10/2007* 4/28/2007* 7/19/2007 8/25/2007 9/18/2007 10/20/2007 11/23/2007 12/15/2007 1/25/2008 2/9/2008 3/20/2008 4/26/2008 5/25/2008 6/14/2008 7/22/2008 8/16/2008 9/16/2008 10/24/2008 11/14/2008 12/15/2008 12/20/2008 1/19/2009 2/28/2009 3/18/2009 4/19/2009 5/30/2009 6/30/2009 7/25/2009 8/15/2009 9/19/2009 10/30/2009 11/21/2009 12/15/2009 1/24/2010 2/27/2010 3/27/2010 4/28/2010 5/22/2010

Flow (cfs) Above Verde Springs Bear Siding 0.67 N/A 0.83 17.29 0.44 8.30 ** 0.58 14.31 0.68 23.85 0.47 22.77 0.50 14.31 0.44 8.77 ** 0.44 10.20 ** 0.25 16.25 0.47 16.20 0.45 19.56 0.48 21.05 0.58 12.34 0.57 16.81 0.49 10.95 0.74 N/A 0.48 13.79 0.46 N/A 0.18 16.41 0.31 17.11 0.00 16.98 0.14 17.89 0.58 20.81 0.93 45.87 0.84 15.51 0.71 15.88 0.60 13.90 0.53 12.63 0.57 15.00 0.31 14.30 0.10 15.81 0.00 14.91 0.09 15.54 0.16 16.71 60.01 N/A 0.30 N/A 0.38 N/A 0.12 N/A 0.10 N/A

Perkinsville N/A 20.81 20.19 16.83 16.91 17.49 17.05 17.60 18.79 19.49 16.91 23.10 24.85 14.01 16.14 12.34 14.93 12.93 13.99 15.03 18.24 18.53 17.99 21.73 60.48 17.42 13.61 15.44 11.82 15.99 13.38 14.28 17.33 18.00 18.56 N/A 63.76 N/A 14.08 11.12

Date 6/16/2010 7/10/2010 8/21/2010 9/18/2010 10/30/2010 11/20/2010 12/15/2010 1/18/2011 2/26/2011 3/25/2011 4/26/2011 5/26/2011 6/18/2011 7/22/2011 9/29/2011 10/22/2011 11/21/2011 12/10/2011 1/22/2012 2/18/2012 3/28/2012

Flow (cfs) Above Verde Springs Bear Siding 0.01 N/A 0.02 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.04 N/A 0.10 N/A 0.15 N/A 0.13 N/A 0.21 N/A 0.13 N/A 0.02 N/A 0.05 N/A 0.02 N/A 0.02 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.03 N/A 0.05 N/A 0.07 N/A 0.11 N/A 0.10 N/A 0.15 N/A

Perkinsville 9.36 9.07 11.29 10.41 13.75 14.78 15.07 N/A 21.76 21.95 13.03 12.02 9.68 8.09 11.04 11.73 13.39 13.35 14.43 14.67 12.16

Notes on Appendix B: Data marked with an asterisk (*) represent discharge measurements obtained before the Water Sentinels Flow Monitoring Protocols dated July 2007. Data marked with a double asterisk (**) indicate questionable data points. Double asterisked discharge measurements are atypically low and inconsistent with stream gage records for the same day at the upstream USGS Paulden gage and flow measurements made by the Water Sentinels at the downstream Perkinsville site. For comparison, on March 10, 2007, the discharge measurement reported by the Water Sentinels at Bear Siding was 8.3 cfs. The daily mean flow at the USGS Paulden gage on that day was 23 cfs, and the downstream Perkinsville measurement was 20.19 cfs. On October 20, 2007, the discharge measurement made by the Sentinels at Bear Siding was 8.77 cfs. On the same day, the daily mean flow at the USGS Paulden gage was 22 cfs, and the downstream Perkinsville discharge measurement was 17.6 cfs. Finally, on November 23, 2007, the Water Sentinels reported a discharge measurement of 10.2 cfs at Bear Siding while, on the same day, the daily mean flow at the Paulden gage was 22 cfs and the discharge measurement at the downstream Perkinsville site was 18.79 cfs. These inconsistencies call into question the accuracy of the discharge measurements made at Bear Siding on these three dates. A review of calculations indicated those were accurate. A review of the field data sheets for the questionable discharge measurements shows that water velocities measured on March 10, 2007, October 20, 2007, and November 23, 2007, were all extremely low at the Bear Siding site. Individual discharge measurements along the measured transect were either within or very close to the limits of accuracy of the Marsh‐McBirney flow meter used to make the discharge measurements (± 0.5 ft/sec).

Appendix C. Water Sentinels Flow Monitoring Protocol

FLOW MONITORING PROTOCOL

Prepared by Sierra Club – Grand Canyon Chapter 202 East McDowell Road, Suite 277 Phoenix, Arizona 85004

July 2007

C-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SITE SELECTION ................................................................................................................... 3 MATERIALS ............................................................................................................................ 3 List of materials .................................................................................................................. 3 MEASURING WIDTH ............................................................................................................ 3 MEASURING DEPTH ............................................................................................................. 4 MEASURING VELOCITY ...................................................................................................... 5 Measuring velocity when the flow is not perpendicular to the transect ............................. 6 RECORDING DATA ............................................................................................................... 7 CALCULATING DISCHARGE .............................................................................................. 9 SAFETY ................................................................................................................................... 9 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 10

List of Figures

Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4.

How to set the sensor at the proper depth (Marsh-McBirney 1990). ....................... 5 Fluctuations in velocity over time (Rantz 1982). ..................................................... 6 How to calculate velocity when flow is not perpendicular to the transect. .............. 7 Example of front and back side of datasheet completed in field. ............................. 8

C-2

SITE SELECTION Transects should be located in a straight, uniform section of the river or stream away from objects that may alter or hinder the stream flow (e.g. bridges, sandbars, or large boulders). The flow should be relatively uniform, free of eddies or excessive turbulence. Mark each site using a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. Locations should be marked as latitude/longitude in the NAD27 CONUS datum using degrees, minutes, and seconds. Ensure that each transect is placed in the same location during subsequent monitoring sessions.

MATERIALS The Grand Canyon Chapter uses a Marsh-McBirney Flo-mate Model 2000 meter. This meter includes an electromagnetic sensor that should be mounted onto a top-setting wading rod. Prior to use, the sensor should be cleaned with soap and water to remove any oils or dirt. The meter must be calibrated less than 24 hours prior to field measurements. Refer to the manual for instructions on how to calibrate the meter. List of materials  Marsh-McBirney Flo-mate 2000  Wading rod  Tape measure  Compass  GPS unit  Datasheets and field notebook  Directions to the monitoring sites  Waders  Life preservers  First aid kit

MEASURING WIDTH A tape measure should be used to mark the transect and to measure the width. Stretch the measuring tape from one bank to the other, ensuring that all areas with water are included, even if they are too shallow to measure flow. Record the total width of the river or stream on the datasheet. Divide the channel into subsections so that each subsection has no more than 10% of the total discharge. Ideally, there should be 20-30 subsections, but this will vary based on the bottom of the channel. If the bottom is relatively uniform, measurements can be taken at C-3

larger intervals (preferably no more than 5.0 ft apart in a wide channel). If the depth varies greatly due to rocks or changes in the channel, measurements should be taken at smaller intervals (no less than 0.5 ft apart). Depth and velocities should be measured at the centerline of each subsection. Record the centerline tape measure reading on the datasheet. For example, if the tape reading at the left bank of the river is 0 and measurements are taken every 1 foot, the first velocity reading should be taken at 0.5 ft (0.5 should be recorded under â&#x20AC;&#x153;tape readingâ&#x20AC;? on the datasheet; the width should be recorded as 1). The next measurement should be taken at 1.5 ft, and so forth. Although it is not always possible, try to divide the channel into equal subsections to make it easier to find the centerline and calculate width. Be sure to record the tape readings and the depth, if any, at each edge of the water. This will simplify calculation of the width and area of the outer sections, especially if those section widths are not equal to the central sections.

MEASURING DEPTHÂ Velocity measurements should be taken at 60% depth (from the top). The wading rod can be pre-set to this value so that only minor adjustments need to be made in the field. Refer to the manual for instructions if the rod needs to be reset. Depth should be measured using the scale on the top-setting wading rod and should be recorded to the nearest 0.05 ft. Each single mark represents 0.10 ft; each double mark represents 0.50 ft; and each triple mark represents 1.0 ft. Place the rod at the selected point along the transect. If a large boulder occurs at that point, place the rod on top of the boulder. Read the depth on the wading rod and record it on the datasheet. Once the total depth is measured, move the sliding rod to the appropriate mark on the top-set. For example, if the total depth is 2.7 ft, the 2 on the sliding rod should be matched with the 7 on the top-set. Refer to Figure 1.

C-4

Figure 1. How to set the sensor at the proper depth (Marsh-McBirney 1990).

MEASURING VELOCITYÂ Depth must be greater than 0.2 ft in order to measure flow. If the depth is less than 0.2 ft, record a dash in the velocity column on the datasheet and continue to the next point. If depth is at least 0.2 ft, place the wading rod so that the sensor is facing directly into the flow. Stand downstream and to the side of the meter to minimize disturbance of the flow. Ensure that the wading rod is held vertically. Streamflow velocity naturally fluctuates (see figure 2). To accommodate for this fluctuation, the meter should be allowed to stabilize for at least 40 seconds before the measurement is recorded. To do this, set the time period on the meter to 20 seconds (refer to manual) and allow the meter to average the velocity twice (two 20-second C-5

periods). Record the velocity exactly as it appears on the meter after the second period, unless one of the following two conditions applies:  If the velocity reading is negative after the first period, turn the rod so that the sensor is facing directly into the flow. Typically, this will be at an angle other than perpendicular to the transect, so follow the instructions in the next section. Be sure to record the new reading as a negative number. Negative velocities will later be subtracted from the overall flow in the calculations.  If the velocity reading after the second period is significantly different from the reading after the first period, continue measuring for 20-second periods until the reading stabilizes. If the readings do not stabilize after 4 minutes and field time is limited, record the best average on the datasheet. Although the Marsh-McBirney meter has a zero stability reading of ±0.05 ft/s, measurements of +0.05 should be recorded as 0.05, and measurements of -0.05 should be recorded as -0.05 to ensure consistency among field volunteers. These will be corrected to 0 in the spreadsheet calculations.

Figure 2. Fluctuations in velocity over time (Rantz 1982). Measuring velocity when the flow is not perpendicular to the transect Along some portions of the transect, the water may flow at an angle other than perpendicular to the transect. This could be the result of plants, boulders, or other materials altering the direction, as well as natural eddies in the channel. In this case, the sensor should be pointed directly into the flow, and the angle should be measured (± 5 degrees) with a compass. If the direction of the flow is not readily apparent, use small bits of floating matter to determine the angle. The angle should be measured off of the C-6

perpendicular (angle “a” in Figure 3). The corrected velocity is then measured by multiplying the velocity directly into the flow by the cosine of the angle. The spreadsheet automatically calculates this correction when the angle and velocity measurements are entered.

b VY = Vcos(a) = Vsin(b)

a b VY

Transect

VX Figure 3. How to calculate velocity when flow is not perpendicular to the transect.

RECORDING DATA Be sure to fill out the datasheet completely. The following sections must be filled out in the field:  Date  Start and End Time  Site Name  Field Crew  Latitude/Longitude (if different than established transect) C-7

    

Tape Reading of each bank and subsection centerline Depth at each bank and subsection centerline Velocity at each reading (and angle of flow, if applicable) Total Width Comments (if applicable)

If any of the depth or velocity readings are missing for a tape reading, or if a tape reading was skipped, measurements must be taken again at those locations prior to leaving the site. Otherwise, the other data points cannot be used to calculate total discharge at that site. The columns that do not need to be completed in the field are shaded on the datasheet. Any abnormal conditions, occurrences, or weather conditions should be recorded in the comments section. Copies of completed datasheets need to be sent to the Grand Canyon Chapter’s Phoenix office.

Figure 4. Example of front and back side of datasheet completed in field. C-8

CALCULATING DISCHARGEÂ Once all of the width, depth, and velocity measurements are recorded at a site, the total discharge through that area can be calculated. This can be done in the field, although it is often easier to wait until you return from the field. Calculations should be doublechecked with a calculator or computer program after leaving the field. A spreadsheet has been developed to automatically calculate width, corrected velocity, discharge, and other components. Discharge (Q) through each subsection is calculated by multiplying the width (W), depth (D), and velocity (V) at each point (Q = W x D x V). Negative calculations should be recorded as negative numbers. Total discharge for that site is then calculated by summing all of the subsection calculations. Discharge is given in cubic feet per second (cfs).

SAFETYÂ Do not attempt to measure flows during inclement weather, including heavy rain or lightning, or during periods of high discharge or flooding. Always wear a personal floatation device when entering the water. Waders are also recommended in heavily used areas and during colder weather. When entering the water, go slowly and use a tall stick to test the depth ahead. If the water is too deep, do not measure flows at that point. Test the depth of the water at sections just up or downstream of the established site. If the stream is traversable at one of those points, measure at that location. Be sure to record this in the comments section of the datasheet and record the new latitude/longitude.

C-9

REFERENCES Crouch, C. U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrologic Technician. Personal communication. 11 July 2007. Darby, J. Marsh-McBirney, Senior Support Engineer. E-mail to Tiffany Sprague. 24 April 2007. Dye, S. Sierra Club, Senior Regional Representative, Columbia, MO. E-mail to Tiffany Sprague. 2 March 2007. Marsh-McBirney, Inc. 1990. Flo-mate model 2000 portable flowmeter instruction manual. Available online at www.marsh-mcbirney.com. Nolan, K. M., C. Frey, and J. Jacobson. Surface-water field methods training class. U.S. Geological Survey. Available online at http://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/sws/SWTraining/FlashFandR/Index.html. Rantz, S.E. 1982. Measurement of discharge by conventional current-meter method. Chapter 5 in Measurement and computation of streamflow: volume 2. Computation of discharge, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2175. Available online at http://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/sws/SWTraining/FlashFandR/WSP2175/RantzChpt5.htm #Accuracy. Robinson, T. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Program Supervisor. E-mail to Tiffany Sprague. 12 July 2007.

C-10

Chapter 2

Historical and Pictorial Perspective of the Upper Verde River Alvin L. Medina, Daniel G. Neary

Introduction The UVR corridor is a diverse riverine ecosystem in central Arizona (see Chapter 1). Since European settlement, it has witnessed many events such as droughts, floods, construction of Sullivan Dam, groundwater withdrawals, cattle grazing, mining, nonnative fish introductions, native fish extinctions, and urbanization that are not fully understood. Geologically, the UVR displays a wide array of formations of spectacular color and variety; the landscapes vary from open valleys to narrow and deep canyons. Several publications have described the Verde River (Wirt and Hjalmarson 2000; Blasch and others 2006), yet few provide pictorial descriptions of historical and existing conditions. Oral accounts offer different glimpses of purported historic conditions (Byrkit 1978). For the most part, descriptions of the Verde River are largely limited to the Middle Verde River and the Lower Verde River. The UVR is distinct from the former sections due to the smaller character of the landscapes, yet it is unique in many attributes. In this chapter, repeat photography is used to display the vivid texture of the river vegetation, channel, and valley landscapes and to contrast the historic with current conditions. These contrasts are interpreted within the context of plant ecology and hydrogeomorphology to provide a comprehensive understanding of the changes that have occurred in the past century. In some cases, additional photographs provide a larger perspective of the area and its habitats. A principal objective is to provide a broad understanding of historic influences that is necessary to comprehend the physical and biological processes that govern present-day conditions on the UVR. Climate and land uses undoubtedly have affected the flow and sediment regimes, which, in turn, have influenced such factors as riparian vegetation and aquatic life. Paleo-reconstruction studies of historic environmental conditions are utilized to put forward alternative descriptions of the Verde River for the period of record (1890 to present). These paleoecological data are useful for discriminating between natural and cultural influences on observed environmental changes (Swetnam and others 1999). The most significant period regarding vegetation and hydrologic changes may be the last 400 to 500 years (the time of European influence in the area. The introduction of livestock circa 1890 is an important event that is often cited as crucially influential on present-day conditions. However, many past descriptions of the UVR that have been extrapolated from general sources do not recognize climatic conditions during this period. These changes in climate may have misunderstood and long-lasting consequences on the future evolution of riparian and aquatic habitats.

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Credits Several people and organizations contributed photographs to this effort. Mr. James Cowlin (Cowlin 2008) is a freelance photographer who captured many views of the UVR in 1979. Some photographs are courtesy of and used with permission from Sharlot Hall Museum, Prescott, Arizona. Many photographs are courtesy of Mr. Thomas Perkins, a descendant of the original settlers on the UVR. Mr. Perkins shared photographs that are now archived at Sharlot Hall Museum. Dr. and Mrs. George and Sharon Yard of the Y-D Ranch in Perkinsville provided photographs of their private lands and the Horseshoe Allotment. Mr. and Mrs. David and JoAnn Gipe of the Verde River Ranch provided historical photos of ranching activities. Some photographs of the 1920s were taken by Mr. Matt Cully while working for Southwestern Forest and Range Experiment Station on the Santa Rita Experimental Range in southern Arizona. A special thanks is extended to Mr. James Steed who assisted in the collection and archival of repeat photographs. Photographs are also provided from the authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s private collections.

Methods Layout A spatial sequence is used to reference locations of historic photos, starting at the headwaters on the west of the UVR and proceeding easterly downstream. Photographs were selected that depict significant changes in the vegetation and channel conditions for the period of record. Repeat photographs were utilized to provide a temporal aspect and spatial contrast through the riverine corridor, as well as extended areas above the headwaters. Relative changes that are observed in the photographs are described and discussed in order to provide differing perspectives of riparian conditions using background studies of the hydrology and vegetation of the UVR. The Verde River and its watershed have been studied extensively since the early Twentieth Century. More than 2000 science and popular articles have been written on diverse aspects of the river, including many on historical, ecological, and socioeconomic issues. It was impractical to review all of the collective works, so only those with original context relevant to the objectives of this Report were selected. Considerable works on watershed management of all of the principal vegetation types of the Southwest, compiled by Dr. Malchus B. Baker, Jr. are available online (http://ag.arizona.edu/OALS/watershed/). In addition, selected scientific works on the UVR are available at the RMRS, Flagstaff, Arizona web site: http://www.rmrs. nau.edu/lab/4302/4302VerdeRiverBibliography.htm.

Terminology The following definitions are provided to assist the reader. The UVR study area is defined as the section of river starting at the Prescott National Forest boundary to the east near Tapco, Arizona, to the headwaters at Sullivan Dam to the west (fig. 1.1). This designation is consistent with the Arizona Department of Water Resources watershed area, which drains to the Clarkdale USDI Geological Survey gauge (#0904000). The Middle Verde River study area is defined as the section of river starting at the Prescott National Forest boundary to the west near Tapco, 20

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

inclusive of the Verde Valley, to the eastern boundary of the Prescott National Forest. This Report deals only with the UVR, but references to or examples from the Middle Verde River (Camp Verde area) are utilized. The Lower Verde River extends from the Middle Verde River section south to the river’s confluence with the Salt River. The Verde River was historically referred to as “El Rio de Los Reyes” by Antonio de Espejo in 1583, “Sacramento River” and “El Rio Azul” in Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Spanish maps, and “San Francisco River” and “Granite Creek” by Nineteenth Century Anglo-American pioneers (Byrkit 2001). In this chapter, the term “historical” refers to time of recorded history since Antonio de Espejo’s travel in the Southwest. The word “paleo” refers to time before recorded history. The Pecos Classification refers to a period sequence used to describe paleo and historic settlements of Southwestern Native Americans (Morrow and Price 1997). The classification is as follows: Paleo-Indian (unknown dates to 8500 before present [B.P.]) Basketmaker I (6700 B.P. to A.D. 1) (Archaic) Basketmaker II (A.D. 1 to 500) Basketmaker III (A.D. 500 to 700) Pueblo I (A.D. 700 to 900) Pueblo II (A.D. 900 to 1100) Pueblo III (A.D. 1100 to 1300) Pueblo IV (A.D. 1300 to 1600) Pueblo V (A.D. 1600 to 2000) Common geomorphic and hydrologic terms used in this Report can be found in the Glossary (Appendix 1). “Floodplain” refers to “the area along the river that has been subject to erosion and deposition by the Verde River in the past few thousand years” (Pearthree 1996). This geomorphic feature and the river itself are the foci of this report, but the surrounding landscape is considered in this and other chapters.

Study Area The Verde River is centrally located within Arizona, flowing about 350 km (220 mi) southward to its confluence with the Salt River (fig. 1.1). The watershed area, elevations, and other features are discussed in Chapter 1. Landownership is mostly public lands, with private ownerships centered about the river and transportation corridors (fig. 1.5). Major vegetation types of the Verde Valley range from mixed conifer on peaks of the Mogollon Rim to Sonoran Desert Scrub at the confluence with the Salt River. (see Chapter 1). Original riparian woody vegetation was largely coincident with valley form, with large cottonwoods scattered in the wide open valleys, and Arizona ash on terrace slopes of canyon bound reaches. Since 1993, an expansion of many obligate species has occurred owing to such factors as floods, land use changes, and general climate changes. Invasive plants such as saltcedar have been a developing component since about the 1950s (see Chapter 6). Several scientists have recently provided characterizations of the geohydrology of the UVR (Wirt and Hjalmarson 2000; Blasch and others 2006), owing to public demand for estimates of the water resources and locations. Perennial flow in the UVR watershed is limited from the confluence of Granite Creek easterly. The Del USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Rio Springs in the Chino Valley supplied perennial flow above the Granite Creek confluence prior to the construction of Sullivan Dam in 1938. Principal intermittent and ephemeral streams above Sullivan Dam are Big Chino Wash, Little Chino Wash, Williamson Valley Wash, Walnut Creek, Granite Creek, Pine Creek, and Partridge Creek (Blasch and others 2006). Other major tributaries that contribute significant flow and bedload from the Rim to the north include Hells Canyon, Grindstone Wash, MC Canyon, Bear Canyon, Government Canyon, Railroad Wash, and Sycamore Creek. The southern tributaries from the south are Muldoon Canyon, Bull Basin, Wildcat Draw, Munds Draw, Orchard Draw, and SOB Canyon.

Paleo-Historic Description Many authors have provided insight into paleoecological conditions of local and regional riverine and upland environments of the UVR (Gladwin and Gladwin 1930; Fish 1967, 1974; Hevly 1974; Fish and Fish 1977; Hevly and others 1979; Smith and Stockton 1981; Ely and Baker 1985; Hevly 1985; Anderson 1993; Pearthree 1993, 1996; Ely and others 1993; Ely 1997; House and Hirschboeck 1997; Allen and others 1998; Swetnam and Betancourt 1998; Blasch and others 2006). This analysis mainly addresses scholarly works that pertain to the river within the context of human influences and land uses, vegetation changes, and hydrology and geomorphology, but it also includes relevant works of upland influences. There are many descriptions of the Verde River with often conflicting accounts of historic and current conditions. The purpose of this analysis is to establish an understanding of paleohistoric conditions using reconstruction studies from the Verde River and the region. The paleohistoric events, especially climate (Ni and others 2002), and human influences, of the late Nineteenth Century have had strong influences on the current and potential ecological states of the habitats of the UVR.

Geologic History The Verde River and the Mogollon Rim are believed to have established during the Oligocene epoch of the Paleogene period, 27.4 to 37.2 million years ago (Ma) (Pierce and others 1979). During the following Miocene epoch (7.4 to 27.4 Ma), the Verde River was interrupted by tectonic and volcanic events in the Hackberry Mountainâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Thirteen-Mile Rock volcanic center a few miles southeast of Fort Verde (Elston and others 1974; McKee and Elston 1980; Menges and Pearthree 1989; Nealy and Sheridan 1989; Elston and Young 1991). This resulted in a closed basin, during which Miocene volcaniclastic, clastic, and evaporite sedimentation occurred to form the Verde Formation (Nations and others 1981). Between the Miocene and Pliocene, extensive sedimentation occurred within the Verde Basin until the breaching of the volcanic-tectonic dam during the Quaternary period (<3.6 Ma), which eroded much of the Verde Formation (Nations and others 1981). The depth of the Verde Formation is unknown but is estimated near 960 m (3,150 ft) or roughly a top elevation near 2,000 m (6,560 ft) (Nations and others 1981). The UVR is largely situated within the Chino Basin and the Verde Basin (fig.Â 2.1). One can surmise that the extensive sedimentation that occurred during the Miocene epoch within the Verde Basin likely reached elevations upstream to include the Chino Basin. Sullivan Dam lies within the Chino Basin at an elevation of about 1,325 m (4,350 ft). Some sediments reside as terraces or mesas (see

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Figure 2.1—The Cenozoic basins of the Transition Zone between the Colorado Plateau province and the Basin and Range province. The basins are identified by color and letters: brown (GW) = Grand Wash Basin, dark blue (H) = Hualapai Basin, green (C) = Chino Basin, red (V) = Verde Basin, orange (P) = Payson Basin, light blue (T) = Tonto Basin, and yellow (SC) = San Carlos Basin (adapted from Nations and others 1981).

Chapters 3 and 4). Hence, the paleogeology of the UVR suggests that the basin sediments are different from those of the Middle or Lower reaches of the Verde River, as well as from other streams and rivers of Arizona. The paleogeology and local physiography have influenced the current character of the Verde River (Twenter and Metzger 1963; House and Pearthree 1993). The depositional history is important for understanding the current and changing conditions of the watershed and riparian corridor. Hydrologic processes, such as flooding and channel incision, have been occurring over several million years and are witnessed by the 90 to 150 m (300 to 500 ft) of incised tributaries and the Verde River canyon below Perkinsville. Pleistocene floodplain terraces are evident at various locations about 45 m (150 ft) above the present-day valley floor. Open valley forms account for about 75% of the landscape types, with the remaining 25% classified as confined reaches with high canyon walls and limited floodplain.

Climate, Floods, and Drought The climate in central Arizona is undoubtedly influenced by the varied mountainous topography and the formidable Mogollon Rim. Precipitation in the region is bimodal, with intense monsoonal storms in the summer that are linked to tropical Pacific events and cooler winter storms linked to northern Pacific Ocean events (Philander 1990; see Chapters 1 and 3). The climate varied substantially during the Twentieth Century (Hereford and others 2002), but more so during the paleo period (Swetnam and Betancourt 1998). Grissino-Mayer (1996) reconstructed more than 2,100 years of precipitation in the Southwest from tree-ring records (fig. 2.2). His climate reconstruction is well corroborated with other studies (Swetnam and Betancourt 1990, 1998) that link the three- to five-year Southern Oscillation to the regional climate (Philander 1990). Essentially, greater rainfall occurs during El Niño years, with somewhat lesser rainfall in summer, and La Niña years produce an opposite consequence. These

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Figure 2.2—This graph is a reconstruction of precipitation for northwestern New Mexico. The units are of standard deviation, with red color indicating drought periods. This graph was developed by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s Paleoclimatology Center (http://www. ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ drought/drght_grissno. html; adapted from Grissino-Mayer 1996).

fluctuations are linked to floods (Webb and Betancourt 1992; Ely 1997), drought cycles (Grissino-Mayer 1996), fire frequencies (Swetnam and Betancourt 1990; Grissino-Mayer and Swetnam 2000; Gray and others 2003), and periods of high reproduction of woody plants (Swetnam and Betancourt 1998). Ely and Baker (1985) performed the first paleoflood reconstruction study on the Verde River and provided an in-depth inventory of paleoflood frequencies and magnitudes. By 1997, Ely and other scientists (Smith and Stockton 1981; Ely and others 1993; O’Connor and others 1994; House and others 1995; Ely 1997) produced a 5,000-year paleoflood chronology linking the occurrence of similar floods in other regional river systems of the Southwest in a pattern similar to the Verde River. Ely (1997) noted three types of storms that generated large floods: North Pacific winter frontal storms, late summer and fall storms, and convective summer thunderstorms. The largest historic floods have been from winter storms (Smith and Stockton 1981; Ely 1997). High- magnitude floods coincided with periods of cool, wet climate such as those witnessed in the last 200 years (fig. 2.3). Ely (1997) further noted the occurrence of 15 large-magnitude floods on the Verde River within the past 200 years. This is a frequency much greater than that reported in the historic record, and it ranks third highest of 19 Southwestern rivers. Evidence from tree-ring records (Webb 1985; Ely 1992; Grissino-Mayer 1996) corroborate that the historical period between 1905 and 1941 (early 1900s) and in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century experienced a high frequency of high-magnitude floods (Ely and others 1993; Ely 1997). Ely (1997) and Baldys (1990) noted that the largest historic flood peakflow of 4,248 m3 s-1 (150,017 ft3 s-1) at the Tangle Creek Gauge (#09508500) on the Verde River that occurred February 24, 1891 (fig. 2.4). This flood was slightly larger than the January 8, 1993, flood peakflow of 4,106 m3 s-1 (145,002 ft3 s-1) at the same site. This would explain the scoured and eroded conditions seen in photographs from the early 1900s on the Verde and other regional rivers (e.g., Little Colorado, Salt, Bill Williams, and Agua Fria). Examination of reconstructed paleoflood studies (Smith and Stockton 1981; Ely and Baker 1985; Ely and others 1993; Ely 1997; Klawon 1998; House and others 2001) and paleoclimate studies (Grissino-Mayer 1996) reveals high agreement (Figures 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4). There is also high agreement between historical floods 24

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Figure 2.3—Actual and reconstructed stream flow of the Verde River below Tangle Creek (adapted from Smith and Stockton 1981).

PEAK FLOWS (CFS)

150,000

1891; 150000 1993; 145000

130,000 110,000

1995; 108000 1905; 96000 1920; 95000

90,000 70,000

1916; 68900

1938; 100000 1978; 91400 1951; 81600

1927; 70000

1980; 94800

2004; 66500

50,000 30,000 10,000 1890

1910

1930

1950

1970

1990

2010

YEAR Figure 2.4—Peak flow events greater than 10,000 ft3 s-1 (283 m3) at Verde River-Tangle Creek Gauge #09508500. Winter storms are depicted in red, spring in yellow, summer in green, and fall in orange. Data points between 1891 and 1932 are estimates (USDI Geological Survey 2005). USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

(Smith and Stockton 1981) and the regional climate (Blasch and others 2006) for the Twentieth Century. In addition, the paleoflood history of the Verde River is coincident with the other western streams of Arizona, (e.g., Bill Willams Basin; Enzel and others 1993; House and Baker 2001). This provides greater assurance that early photographs depicting highly eroded and barren conditions were likely due to floods and drought episodes. Aside from winter floods, summer monsoon storms are an important source of moisture in the Southwest (Poore and others 2005), and they promote a unique climatic regime where summer floods are annual occurrences. Tropical-derived thunderstorms of the monsoon, as well as decaying tropical storms and hurricanes, may be intense enough to cause widespread flooding and erosion in desert rivers (House and Hirschboeck 1997). As with many Southwest rivers and streams, flow varies considerably from season to season, year to year, decade to decade, and century to century. Robert Webb and colleagues also published studies of paleofloods on other Southwest rivers (Webb 1985; Webb and others 1988, 1991; Webb and Betancourt 1992). The paleo studies by Webb and his colleagues provided the best explanation to date about likely evolutionary conditions of Southwestern rivers and associated vegetation in the late Holocene (Webb and others 2007). More important, Webb and others (2007) provided a rationale for understanding long-term relationships among climate, hydrology, and riparian vegetation. Their extensive treatise renewed debate about the role of riparian gallery forests in Southwestern rivers. Examination of paleodroughts (figs. 2.2 and 2.3) revealed that droughts within the Twentieth Century were relatively mild compared to droughts within the two millennia of paleoprecipitation described by Grissino-Mayer (1996). The 1950s drought, noted as the most severe within the region in modern time, was mild compared to droughts dating back to 2148 years B.P. In contrast, the duration of paleodroughts was several decades compared to one decade now, and their magnitude in terms of reduced precipitation and streamflow was two to three times that experienced in 1950 (figs. 2.2 and 2.3). The significance of the 1950s drought on the Verde River cannot be quantified in terms of biological changes, but the resulting intermittent flows in the headwater sections of the Verde River in 1954 certainly would have influenced riparian conditions (Wagner 1954). The period from the early 1960s to early 1990s is noted with significant departure from normal in winter flows and the recent wetter period from 1993 to present (see fig. 3.5). Smith and Stockton (1981) remarked that several periods of extended low flow have occurred during the past 400 years and appeared to have a recurrence interval of 22 years (fig. 2.3). The current floodplain and terrace vegetation community of the UVR is comprised of many mesic species (e.g., juniper, oaks, acacias, and other upland plants) indicative of prolonged dry periods and comparatively mild floods witnessed during this century as the plants are age-correct for the time period (see Chapter 6). Concomitant with drought and flood studies are investigations that address the period of arroyo cutting in the Southwest. The arroyo development periods are important because many past and present-day environmental assessments have used channel erosion as a determinant of historic land degradation by humans in the Verde River watershed. Many assessments attributed overgrazing by cattle and other human activities to arroyo cutting (Antevs 1952; Cooke and Reeves 1976; Graf 1983; Bull 1997). However, recent examination of Quaternary geologic records by Waters and Haynes (2001) linked arroyo formation to the Holocene epoch of the late Quaternary (<11,700 years B.P.) and to changing post-glacial climate, vegetation, groundwater conditions, and human land use. Specifically, the authors 26

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

identified arroyo-forming episodes around 8,000 and 4,000 years B.P. Waters and Haynes (2001) further noted that arroyo formation appears to be linked to repeated wet-dry cycles, similar to other studies linked to the Southern Oscillation (El NiñoLa Niña). The authors described the processes as dropping of water tables and reduced vegetation cover during dry periods (fig. 2.2), making sites susceptible to erosion. Subsequent wet periods induced flooding and initiated arroyo formation. Mann and Meltzer (2007) noted that incision occurred early in the Medieval Warm Period (1000 to 1300 A.D.) and aggradation ensued during the Little Ice Age (1350 to 1900 A.D.), followed by another incision cycle during this past century. Hereford (1993) also suggested that arroyo formation was related to periods of large floods. In the early Twentieth Century, Dellenbaugh (1912) cautioned that grazing wasn’t the only probable cause of arroyo formation, but his interpretation was not widely accepted. Today, the physical evidence identifying climate change as the principal factor inducing channel erosion is revealed in the works of several scientists (Webb and others 1991; Hereford 2002; Reheis and others 2005; Mann and Meltzer 2007; Chapin 2008) and are consistent with paleoclimate interpretations of pollen and packrat middens of the region (Reheis and others 2005). These processes have likely been operative on the Verde River Watershed and would explain historic sediment pulses from tributaries into the main channel, as well as recent erosion of terraces. In short, these sediment-channel dynamics are linked to the paleohydrology of the watershed, as previously discussed. Further examination of climate-sediment relationships could explain some residual effects on flora and fauna changes that have occurred on the UVR.

Vegetation The biota of the Colorado Plateau during the middle (50,000 to 27,500 years B.P.) and late (27,500 to 14,000 years B.P.) Wisconsin time periods were very different from present day. Anderson (1993) attributes the differences to major climate changes associated with the last major glacial period. Areas once dominated by mixed conifers (late Wisconsin period 21,000 to 10,400 B.P.) are largely occupied today by ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), a newcomer (<10,000 years B.P.). As the cold climate of the last glaciations ended, there was a shift toward warmer and wetter conditions (3550 to 2480 years B.P.), resulting in major shifts in vegetation upslope. Mixed conifer species and all lower-elevation woodlands and scrublands similarly retreated upslope to present-day elevations. Oral accounts of UVR vegetation available from Nineteenth Century pioneers and settlers are insightful but not completely reliable. Brykit (1978, 2001) cites Spanish accounts that the Verde River was more “marsh-cienega”-like than typical stream conditions. Trees were scant and grass-like vegetation prevailed. Such references are most likely of the Middle Verde Valley where the landscape was most suitable for wetland conditions. Perkinsville, Bear Siding, Duff Springs, Bull Basin, Verde River Ranch, and a few other open valley areas upstream are sites that could have retained substantial wetlands. The presence of wetland vegetation and soil conditions at Duff Springs, Verde River Ranch, Al’s Spring, and the Prescott National Forest “wetland” (fig. 2.5) have been verified by on-the-ground examinations. Early accounts of Espejo’s visit in 1583 to the mines at present-day Jerome noted the presence of “great groves of walnut trees” along the banks of the Verde River and most likely the confluence of either Sycamore Creek or Oak Creek (Farish 1915). Whipple and others (1856) quoted Antoine Leroux’s description of USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

(A)

(B)

Figure 2.5—The 1979 photo (A) shows a stable wetland sedge meadow, while the 2001 photo (B) shows an invasion of woody species, e.g., tamarisk, and deeply incised channel. Woody vegetation on the floodplain is dated to 1993 flood. (Photo A by Prescott National Forest staff; Photo B by Alvin L. Medina.)

the Verde Valley accordingly: “The river banks were covered with ruins of stone houses and regular fortifications; which, he [Leroux] says, appeared to have been the work of civilized men, but had not been occupied for centuries. They were built upon the most fertile tracts of the valley, where there were signs of acequias and of cultivation.” Accounts of cottonwoods and willows occur in archeological studies (Fewkes 1896, 1898, 1912; Mindeleff 1896) and in Hinton’s (1878) travelogue. These accounts are limited to the Middle Verde and the tree stands are described as “scattered” and “confined to the immediate vicinity of the river” (Mindeleff 1896). This is surprising, considering the Verde Valley is several miles wide, and one would expect evidence of old groves around old channels. No mention of cottonwoods and other groves of riparian trees were found in historical records beyond Perkinsville. Walnut groves are likely, since they are facultative species that can occupy mesic habitats away from the river’s edge. Photographic evidence from the turn of the century in the Perkinsville valley shows an absence of cottonwoods and other obligate riparian woody plants (figs. 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8). These photos show the presence of a few and scattered large cottonwoods perched on the first terrace. Most cottonwoods evident today established along irrigation ditches on the south side of the river (fig. 2.8). The floodplain was devoid of obligate woody plants, except for a few facultative species (e.g., mesquite). These same photos illustrate the eroded channel conditions and terraces likely caused by the 1891 paleoflood noted by Ely (1992, 1997) and Ely and others (1993). It is implausible that livestock ate, or otherwise affected mature stands of cottonwoods and willows between the period 1890 to 1925, since no evidence of stands of trees was found in any historical photos for of the Perkinsville area or other locations. The small grove of cottonwoods in Perkinsville appear to be remnant survivors of floods, with an approximate age greater than 40 to 50 years based on their girth and height (fig. 2.7). Hence, the presence of extensive riparian gallery habitats or stands of cottonwoods, willows or other obligate trees is highly questionable over the last century for the UVR. This situation has been suggested for several Southwestern

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Figure 2.6—Photo (A) taken in 1928 on the Perkins 76 Ranch in Perkinsville, depicts the riparian conditions of the time, with an absence of mature cottonwoods and other obligate trees and shrubs. Large cottonwoods are found on the second terrace. It also shows the channel substrates and geomorphology, those being favorable native warm water fish habitat. The terrace (right bank) is stable as evidenced from its low bank angle and shows no evidence of recent erosion. Photo (B) taken in 1993 shows the continued absence of woody plants. Spikedace were abundant in the immediate reach. Photo (C) taken after a flood in 2004 shows encroachment of woody plants and other invasive plants, as well as major changes in fish habitat. Spikedace have not been sampled since 1997, despite removal of livestock grazing. (Photo A courtesy of the Sharlot Hall Museum, Prescott, Arizona; Photos B and C by Alvin L. Medina.)

rivers (Webb and others 2007), and in recent quantitative descriptions of riparian vegetation by Medina (see Chapter 6). This is not to say that cottonwoods (Populus), willows (Salix), and other obligate riparian woody species were absent from the basins. Pollen studies by Nations and others (1981) noted the presence of various genera from Miocene to Pleistocene. The most likely explanation for the general absence of gallery vegetation in the UVR prior to recorded history is severe paleoflooding and drought as evidenced by the paleoflood records and climate over the past 2,500 to 5,000 years (Smith and Stockton 1981; Ely and Baker 1985; Webb 1985; O’Connor and others 1986; Ely 1992, 1997; Ely and others 1993; O’Connor and others 1994; House and others 1995; Grissino-Mayer 1996). In summary, major climatic changes are attributed to the last major glacial period (Anderson 1993). The paleoclimate before 8,000 B.P. was relatively cold and moderately wet with mixed conifer species dominant on present-day ponderosa pine areas. Climatic shifts also produced high variability in drought and flood frequencies and in magnitude. The period of early European occupation and settlement (1600s to 1900 A.D.) of the Southwest was marked with droughts and floods of high magnitudes. Essentially, conditions were harsh and chaotic. The largest recorded flood on the Verde River occurred in 1891 A.D., though many more paleofloods are apt to be discerned using modern technology (e.g., Lidar and HEC-RAS). Regionally, many rivers were subject to the same extremes, thereby setting the stage for a new climatically and hydrologically quasi-stable era where the growth of woody plants was favored across many rivers of the Southwest. Riparian vegetation as evidenced today was largely absent in the late 1800s and early 1900s on the UVR and attributable to large floods. USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Figure 2.7—Photo looking south across the Perkinsville valley depicting the condition of the UVR circa 1920s. The river runs amidst a valley devoid woody plants and irrigated bottomland (ditches in foreground) where horses are seen grazing. Streamside vegetation was largely herbaceous and lacking woody plants. The floodplain morphology is a gentle “C” type channel with ample freeboard for flood waters to spread. A small grove of cottonwoods resided atop an older terrace. (Photo A courtesy of the Sharlot Hall Museum, Prescott, Arizona.)

Figure 2.8—This photo was taken from the Perkinsville Road looking east and shows the homestead on the south side of the river. A stand of young cottonwoods, likely less than 10 years old, can be seen growing along the irrigation ditch. These same cottonwoods are seen in figs. 2.36 to 2.42. (Photo A courtesy of the Sharlot Hall Museum, Prescott, Arizona.) 30

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Human Influences Paleo-Indians—The UVR watershed and riparian corridor have been influenced by man for centuries. Archeological studies (Pilles 1981; Elias 1997) suggest the Colorado plateau and the Verde River Valley were likely occupied by paleo-Indians since around 14,000 B.P. Archeological studies of the Perkinsville sites confirm the UVR was occupied by paleo-Indians from Pueblo I thru Pueblo IV periods (Fish 1967, Fish and Fish 1977). The influence of hunter-gather nomadic groups was likely small. On the other hand, paleo-Indians of the Pueblo periods inhabited the river valleys (e.g., Verde Valley and Perkinsville Valley), building abodes, harvesting fish and game, and farming using extensive irrigation canals (Kayser and Whiffen 1966; Minckley and Alger 1968). Gladwin and Gladwin (1930) suggested that various paleo-Indians from the south and east (Salado), north (Tusayan and Hopi), and west (Havasupai, Yavapai, and Hualapai) also visited and inhabited the UVR valleys, as evidenced by lithic materials. The valleys of the Lower Verde River experienced agriculture as early as 750 A.D. and probably remained until 1450 A.D. (Van West and Altschul 1997). Pierson (1957) concluded that the Hohokam settled the southern reaches of Verde Valley prior to 1100 A.D., but then the valley was resettled during the drought of 1276 to 1299 A.D. (fig. 2.2) by the Sinaguans, who built the elaborate structures known as Tuzigoot and Montezuma Castle (Wormington 1977). These settlers farmed the Middle Verde Valley using extensive irrigation canals. Likewise, the Perkinsville Valley was also farmed, and several irrigation canals have been discovered (Kayser and Whiffen 1966; Fish 1974). The Sinaguans abandoned the Verde Valley in the early 1400s for unknown reasons (Pierson 1957). As Fewkes (1896, 1898) suggested, it is reasonable to expect that the valleys of the UVR were occupied and farmed by paleo-Indians. In 1896, Fewkes noted pueblo ruins in Sycamore Canyon, Perkinsville (Baker’s Ranch House), Hell Canyon, Granite Creek confluence, and Del Rio Springs. Kayser and Whiffen (1966) confirmed farming and extensive irrigation canals in Perkinsville. Extensive pueblo ruins can be observed at Bear Siding, Duff Springs, Prospect Point area, Bull Basin, Verde River Ranch area, 638 Road areas, the Prescott National Forest wetland area, and the Arizona Game and Fish Department property. All of these areas have open valleys with moderate to extensive floodplain terraces that could have easily accommodated farming. In addition, Fewkes (1896, 1912) noted several defensive structures (i.e., forts) and many cave dwellings (fig. 2.9) throughout the UVR. Mearns (1890) noted locations of several habitations as far west as Sycamore Canyon and many throughout the Middle Verde River area, but he did

Figure 2.9—Cliff dwelling located about 61 m (200 ft) above the UVR overlooking the Duff Springs area to the east. (Photo by Alvin L. Medina.)

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

not visit the upper reaches. Hence, considerable evidence exists that the UVR was largely occupied by paleo-Indians. It is also reasonable to expect their agricultural activities would have affected riparian conditions, including the exploitation of fish and wildlife for domestic uses. Europeans—The Spanish explorer Antonio de Espejo was the first European to visit the Camp Verde area of the Valley during an expedition in May 1583 (Hammond and Rey 1966; Mecham 1930). Espejo’s visit was brief—he was in search of mineral wealth at the location where the mines were established near Jerome. In 1598 A.D., Don Juan de Oñate sent his lieutenant, Marcos Farfán de los Godos, to further investigate the ore mines at Jerome (Pierson 1957). Munson (1981) reported that “Oñate crossed the Verde River in 1604 en route to the Colorado.” For about another 220 years, the Verde Valley remained unnoticed, except for the paleo-Indians of the area, until the arrival of French trappers to the Arizona Territory. Historical accounts of European trappers in the Verde River are scant. Cleland (1963) noted that various trappers visited the Verde Valley, including Ewing Young, James Pattie, Pegleg Smith, George Yount, Milton Sublette, Kit Carson, Bill Williams, and Antoine Leroux. In 1826, Ewing Young was reported to have led a trapping expedition up the tributaries of the Salt River. Pattie encountered Young at the Salt River after coming down the Gila River and losing most of his party to Indian skirmishes. He joined Young on the Salt River while a separate party ascended the Verde River to its source (Pattie 1831; Cleland 1963; Hafen 1982, 1983). Three years later in 1829, Ewing Young and 40 men, including Kit Carson, ventured on another trapping expedition down the Salt River to the confluence with the Verde River, then up the Verde to the headwaters and onto the Colorado (Cleland 1963; Byrkit 1978). In 1854, Leroux is said to have discovered the paleo-Indian ruins of the Verde Valley in passing through the area but he made no mention of trapping (Fewkes 1898). Considering the many miles of streams and rivers in Arizona that were supposedly traversed in search of beaver pelts, relatively small quantities of beaver pelts were reported in historical accounts (Hafen 1982, 1983; Despain 1997). Hamilton (1881) noted that beaver were found throughout the Sub-Mogollon region, including the Verde River and its tributaries. Coues (1867) reported that beaver were abundant in the Verde River, as well as in the many other waterways of Arizona. However, others (DeBuys 1985; Hoffmeister 1986) reported that streams were over-trapped from the headwaters to their confluences. Such exploitations led to trapping moratoriums in 1838 by Mexican authorities (DeBuys 1985) who detested trappers in Southwestern territories (Hafen 1983). Apparently, the Southwestern river otter (Lontra canadensis sonora) may have been similarly over-exploited (Huey 1956). The UVR, not unlike many other streams of the Southwest, was likely exploited for beaver from the mid-1820s through to settlement in mid-1860s (Pierson 1957). Leroux was part of other trapping expeditions in Arizona throughout the period from the mid-1820s through mid-1850s, when he visited Montezuma Castle. Likewise, Pauline Weaver, a noted mountain man, trapper, rancher, guide, prospector, and pioneer, was part of several expeditions in the Southwest (Pierson 1957). Weaver first visited the Verde Valley in 1829/1830 A.D. (Munson 1981), although others placed him in the Verde Valley in 1832 (Pierson 1957). He finally settled in the UVR valley, where he scouted at Fort Whipple in 1864. He was later assigned to Fort Lincoln where he died in 1867 (Despain 1997). Bill Williams was another trapper who lived in the area and was noted for his expeditions across the Southwest with other trappers (Favour 1962). Trapping by “foreigners” in Mexican Territory was eventually banned and limited 32

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

to Mexican citizens. Thereafter, illegal trapping and defrauding was common by trappers who commonly had their pelts confiscated (Weber 1971). It’s highly likely that beaver were trapped thereafter as part of settlement activities during the late 1800s (Pierson 1957) and early to mid-1900s, as trapping was a common secondary source of income. In short, trapping in the UVR appears to have been limited as reported, probably to the general absence of beaver. This is consistent with the general absence of woody vegetation noted in previous sections. Sand and Gravel Mining—Undoubtedly, the period from the 1880s to the present marked a period on the Verde River where a variety of human influences consistent with settlement activities occurred. Extraction of river products, e.g., sand and gravel, for construction of towns and businesses was in place since the mining industry in Jerome began expansion in the late 1800s. Extensive gravel mining of Verde River reaches near Tapco, Cottonwood, and the Camp Verde area was reported as early as 1910 (Simons, Li, and Associates, Incorporated 1985). Similarly, sand and gravel mining occurred on private lands in Perkinsville from the 1960s to 1970s. Remnant piles of rock and boulders traceable to sand and gravel extraction still remain on the Y-D Ranch. By 1989, sand and gravel mining was curtailed under order from the Environmental Protection Agency for violations of the Clean Water Act (Arizona Floodplain Management Association 1989). These actions resulted in limiting sand and gravel extraction activities on the Verde River. Diversions—The settlement period of the late 1800s to early 1900s also initiated new water diversions throughout the Verde Valley and Perkinsville (Turney 1901, 1929; Alam 1997; NRCD Verde 2000). These diversions were, and continue to be, used for agriculture (Owen-Joyce and Bell 1983). As noted before, these same areas were extensively farmed by paleo-Indians. Arizona Department of Water Resources (1994) estimated that about 90% of summer flow in the Middle Verde River between Clarkdale and Camp Verde was diverted at one time for agricultural use. Some of these diversions are still in place today. One of the most notable diversions was the Peck’s Lake diversion in 1920, which created a barrier and tunnel to provide water from the Verde River to the estuary/marsh. The barrier of Peck’s Lake diversion dam has functioned much like a fish barrier, limiting upstream movement of fish to the UVR study area for decades. Alam (1997) reported 11 other diversions in the Verde Valley. These diversions have been implicated as threats to native fish habitats and populations (Girmendonk and Young 1997; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2005, 2007a, 2009). However, no scientific evidence exists yet linking significant decreases in native fish or habitats to diversions or determing whether diversions affect stream flow or hydrologic conditions (Moyle and Israel 2005; Industrial Economics Incorporated 2006). Roy (1989) documented entrainment of fish in two irrigation ditches of the Verde Valley, noting that exotic species, i.e., red shiners (Cyprinella lutrensis), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), were the most abundant fish found in the diversions. However, Ziebell and Roy (1989) noted that some fish, like the roundtail chub (Gila robusta), rarely used irrigation diversions on the Verde River. Reliable estimates of entrainment losses are lacking, despite observations of entrainment. Studies of trout suggest entrainment rates are relatively small (0.4 to 3.3%) at the basin level and constitute a relatively small loss compared to the total annual mortality (Carlson and Rahel 2007). Nonetheless, some entrainment losses are apt to occur wherever irrigation diversions exist, but their extent is debatable. Impoundments—The UVR ecosystem has been impacted by indirect and direct effects of impoundments. Two large reservoirs—Bartlett and Horseshoe— constructed in 1939 and 1949 (USDI Bureau of Reclamation 2009a, 2009b), USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

respectively, have regulated flows and impeded aquatic wildlife (e.g., fish movements) from the Lower Verde River corridor to the UVR. In addition, these impoundments became regionally important for sport fishing, recreation, flood control, and water storage for agriculture and production of electricity for the Phoenix metropolitan areas (Arizona Department of Water Resources 2009). The impoundments have excluded fish movements across the Salt River and Gila River Basins. On the UVR, King (2007b) reported that as early as 1884, a dam was built on Miller Creek to store water for the city of Prescott. Granite Dam was completed in 1899 on Granite Creek (King 2007b). Several other impoundments (e.g., Goldwater Lake, Lynx Lake, Watson Lake, and Willow Lake) were also constructed in headwater tributaries of the Prescott area. Other impoundments with 616,800 m3 (500 ac-ft) capacity (e.g., Hell’s Canyon Tank) are located on tributaries north of the Verde River. Arizona Department of Water Resources (2007) listed several registered impoundments, including six impoundments of greater than 20 ha (50 ac) in surface area. Another 27 impoundments have storage volumes of 18,500 m3 (greater than 15 ac-ft). About 32 reservoirs have storage capacities rated between 2 and 20 ha (5 and 50 ac) of surface area, and another 2,328 stock ponds with up to 18,500 m3 (15 ac-ft) capacity are scattered across the UVR landscape. It’s reasonable to assume that these impoundments have altered flow and bedload contributions to the Verde River over their years of service. Sullivan Dam, constructed in 1939, has probably most directly affected the hydrology and overall ecology of the UVR. Originally intended as another regional recreational lake with inflows from the Del Rio Springs, it quickly filled up with alluvium within three to four years of construction and currently remains a largely seasonal water impoundment. Sullivan Dam cut off access to headwater flows, and blocked natural bedload movement to the UVR perennial flow riverine system. The effects of 70 years of bedload-sediment deprivation can be viewed in deeply incised channels and eroded terraces throughout the UVR corridor. The cumulative effects of the Sullivan Dam and other impoundments on the hydrology and native fishery have yet to be assessed, but there is considerable evidence that impoundment disturbances have altered the UVR ecosystem considerably. Other efforts to harness the tranquil baseflows near the headwaters are yet evident at the Verde River Ranch, where a dam was constructed across the river sometime in the 1960s, only to be washed away or demolished. Several authors have referred to the Verde River as “the last free-flowing river” in Arizona (Beyer 2006; Marder 2009). However, this limited definition applies only to the segment between the confluence of Granite Creek and Horseshoe Dam, an approximately 160-km (100-mi) segment of the river. The designation of “the last free-flowing river” applies only if the many smaller diversions noted above are discounted. Today, perennial flow starts at springs near the Granite Creek confluence, rather than from the historical Del Rio Springs a short distance upstream. In short, the Verde River is not free flowing but rather limited to only segments, owing to its variety of channel diversions and impoundments. Ranching and Grazing—The first permanent settlers to the Verde Valley arrived in January 1865 (Pierson 1957; Munson 1981). This event marked the beginning of cattle ranching in the Verde Valley. Livestock were produced to meet local needs of Army personnel at Fort Lincoln (name changed in 1868 to Camp Verde and later in 1879 to Fort Verde) and the settlers. The valley floodplain and terraces were suited for agricultural production of foods and forage for settlers and Army personnel at Fort Whipple in Chino valley (Pierson 1957) despite very marshy conditions. Outbreaks of malaria were attributed to wet conditions, typical of wetland environments (Munson 1981). 34

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Livestock grazing of the UVR area began after the establishment of Fort Whipple in 1864. Ludington (2002) provides a historical account of this period: “In 1864, President Abraham Lincoln sent an official party with military escort to establish the capital of the new Arizona Territory. Their first camp was at Del Rio Springs north of present site of the town of Chino Valley. A few months later the party moved to the forested area of present-day Prescott, where logs were readily available to build a fort, houses, and businesses. While at the original site, army doctor James Baker traded his horse and saddle to a squatter for his land claims along the Verde River. Baker and his partner James Campbell were soon running one of the largest cattle/horse operations in Arizona. They called it the Verde Ranch. The severe drought years of the 1890s, however, brought financial setbacks that forced the partners to sell.”

Early attempts to establish cattle ranches in the Williamson Valley were made by Stevens in 1864 (40 head) and H.C. Hooker in 1868, but these efforts were unsuccessful owing to Indian conflicts (McClintock 1916). Sheep were introduced into the watershed in 1876 by John Clark on Bill Williams Mountain (McClintock 1916). Bronson (1978) provided cattle numbers for various ranches in the upper Chino Basin during the 1870s, further suggesting that large herds were being sent to Arizona. However, most of the livestock were used to meet local needs. The presence of Fort Whipple would have increased the chances of establishment, despite frequent raids by Native American tribes, but little evidence exists to infer that the range was heavily stocked at that time (Bronson 1978). Brown (2007a) reported from oral accounts that James Baker’s 76 Ranch in Perkinsville was stocked with 10,000 head of cattle circa 1882, making the operation the largest cattle and horse operation in northern Arizona. This number of cattle was widely distributed in the watershed and not solely in Perkinsville, as range capacity was limited (see discussion below). However, troubled years lay ahead with prolonged droughts that saw many cattle perish, especially in 1891/1892, for lack of forage and water. Poor financial markets for livestock (1895), as well as personal problems left the 76 Ranch with relatively little stock, thereby forcing Baker to sell in 1898. In 1900, Marion Perkins purchased the Verde Ranch from Baker and Campbell and arrived on the UVR at Perkinsville November 1, 1900, with his cattle herd (Ludington 2002). The expanse of the cattle operation was reported to extend from Granite Mountain to the west, to Ash Fork and Williams to the north, to Dugas to the east, and to Mayer to the south (Ludington 2002). This approximated about 91 km2 (35 mi2) of open rangeland, inclusive of summer and winter range. The number of livestock of this operation is unreported for this period, although numbers were probably relatively low owing to the scarcity of precipitation as well as the relative poor distribution of water throughout the area at the time. Talbot (1919) noted that range examiners performed a range survey of the present-day Limestone and Del Rio Allotments on the UVR encompassing 34,978 ha (86,433 ac). These rangelands were part of the southern portion of what was then the Tusayan National Forest, which was established July 1, 1910. Encompassing just over 569,635 ha (1,407,600 ac), it was later transferred to the Prescott National Forest October 22, 1934 (Davis 1983). Approximately 16.4% (5,765 ha or 14,245 ac) were classified as forage acres, with an estimated carrying capacity for these lands based on year-long use of 3.2 ha cow-1 (8 ac cow-1). Total annual carrying capacity for all Forest lands combined was estimated at about 12.6 ha (31.1 acres cow-1). Non-forage acres were mixed pinyon-juniper woodland range with browse and annual forage. Cattle and sheep were grazed year-long on the UVR portion of the Prescott National Forest with an average stocking rate of 380 cattle and 1,730 sheep. These numbers were noted as being under the protective limits for the local District. Limiting factors to management included water, fencing, and range pests USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

(e.g., prairie dogs). Most range improvements were constructed during the 1930s. Contrary to popular belief for the times, Talbot’s (1919) assessment indicated that range conditions were relatively fair, despite the drought conditions and poor animal distribution. The examiners noted that trend conditions were declining, but estimates for stocking capacity suggested that range conditions were not “highly degraded or devastated,” as is often advocated in some literature. Declining range conditions during this time (1900 to 1920) were exacerbated by severe droughts and floods, poor livestock management practices, and lack of range improvements. Cattle stocking was fueled by demands for meat products to meet the nation’s World War I (1914 to 1918) needs, mining industry requirements throughout the West, and new human population center expansions. Today, stocking of the same range that was examined by Talbot (1919) approximates a small fraction of the estimates of 1919. Miller (1921) attributed the conversion of 4,050 to 6,070 ha (10,000 to 15,000 ac) of tobosa grassland to Utah juniper (Juniperus utahensis) to sheep grazing. Miller (1921) further noted that the average age of 20% of Utah juniper stands was fewer than 35 years; the remaining 80% was 13 years or less. He also noted the same phenomena for one-seed juniper (J. monosperma), citing seed size and lessened herbivory. Despite the lack of stocking data, the period of the late 1880s through the early 1940s was marked with severe droughts (Webb 1985; Ely 1992; Grissino-Mayer 1996) and very intense floods (Ely and others 1993; Ely 1997) that contributed to overuse of rangelands. These climatic events were coincident with the influx of cattle and sheep and establishment of the ranching industry in the region. Early range scientists recorded the general overgrazing that was obvious in the region (Griffiths 1901, 1904, 1910). These assessments brought about major changes in land management and the start of range research in the West. Also coincident with range overgrazing during the same period was the exploitation of neighboring forests and woodlands for development (King 2007a). Forest products were in demand for the mining industry, railroads, and settlements within the watershed. These activities undoubtedly worsened the deterioration of the rangelands, as noted by range examiners (Talbot 1919). Indirectly, trends in range conditions could be partially explained by economic factors. During poor markets, livestock operators were more likely to retain annual crops, thereby placing additional stress on overstocked rangelands. Local livestock production during the period of 1890 to 1910 was initially determined by the ability to successfully stock the range and maintain numbers in the face of adversities (e.g., Native American skirmishes, livestock thefts and depredations, and droughts). Some stock was produced for local needs, such as military fort and mining camp meat supplies, but stock that was produced for regional and national markets became susceptible to national economic recessions. The link between stocking strategies, climatic conditions, and national markets remains today. Another factor that likely affected range trends between the turn of the century and circa 1950 was the national policy of Congress and land management agencies to encourage settlement and development of States with public land (Nielsen 1972). This policy made it more difficult for land managers to administer grazing lands in accordance with carrying capacity principles. Grazing Litigation—Litigation over livestock grazing in riparian habitats and federally listed fish and wildlife species in Region 3 has played a major role in the management of the riparian habitats and listed fish species in the UVR. The results of litigation have great potential to affect ecosystems and their components long term. Although well intended and supposedly based on best science available, litigation may not always yield the best of intended results. Despite 36

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

numerous appeals and lawsuits, native fish, such as the spikedace on the UVR, continue to disappear. Livestock have grazed portions of the UVR since about the 1860s. Large numbers were introduced when cattle were imported from Texas to the Perkinsville area in 1895. Large-scale reductions in cattle numbers using the river occurred in the early 1900s (see previous discussion on ranching and grazing), and was accompanied by long-term monitoring of the uplands. Yearlong grazing use of the river continued until the 1980s. At that time the Prescott National Forest changed grazing use to seasonal or rotational, releasing yearlong grazing pressure on riparian plant communities in the river corridor. With the wholesale reduction in cattle numbers in the early 1900s, cattle numbers have declined considerably to the present (Rinne and Medina 2000). In 1993, the Horseshoe Allotment (Y-D Ranch) voluntarily removed cattle from the river after a cooperative effort with Prescott National Forest to improve riparian conditions from the historic 1993 winter flood. Prescott National Forest surveys suggested that riparian conditions would likely improve within five years and the area could be restocked. Grazing on the Horseshoe Allotment had also been under contention by Forest Guardians for years prior to the voluntary temporary removal. Although National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses has since been completed for grazing on the allotment, grazing on the river was not considered at that time, and is not precluded pending approval of the NEPA analysis. In continuing efforts (1993 to 2010) to get research performed on grazing- fish relationships, Y-D Ranch and Verde River Ranch invited RMRS and Prescott National Forest to engaged in a collaborative group (UVR Adaptive Management Partnership [UVRAMP]), which became the conduit for communication and development of research plans. The hope was to provide management science-based guidelines for grazing the UVR. However, appeals to grazing riparian areas were impending and discouraged plan implementation. In 1997, Forest Guardians (Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Service 1997) and the Center for Biological Diversity (Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Service 1997) filed complaints against the U.S. Forest Service, Region 3, seeking an injunction and cessation of grazing on multiple allotments in Region 3, including four of the seven grazing allotments, Antelope Hills, Perkinsville, China Dam, and Sand Flat, in the UVR. Three grazing allotments, Horseshoe, West BearDel Rio, and Muldoon were not included in the litigation because the permittees had previously agreed with the Prescott National Forest to remove livestock from the river. Forest Guardians and the Center alleged failure by the U.S. Forest Service to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by failing to have completed ESA Sec. 7 consultation for livestock grazing effects on watersheds and riparian habitat affecting four listed species, loachminnow, spikedace, spotted owl, and southwestern willow flycatcher. These lawsuits placed livestock grazing of riparian areas in Region 3 at risk. Subsequently, the Arizona Cattle Growers Association (ACGA) and the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association (NMCGA) joined the lawsuit as interveners (CV-97-2562 PHX-SMM, CV-97-0666-TUC-IMR). On April 16, 1998, Region 3 entered into a stipulated agreement with Forest Guardians and the Center (Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Service, Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Service, ACGA, and NMCGA interveners 1998). The agreement required the U.S. Forest Service to exclude livestock from at least 99 percent of occupied, suitable but unoccupied, and potential habitat of the species identified in the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, â&#x20AC;&#x153;so long as the U.S. Forest Service complies with the terms of this stipulation for the duration of the ongoing grazing consultation.â&#x20AC;? The ongoing grazing consultation was completed USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

on February 2, 1999. The consultation period essentially avoided a region-wide injunction over livestock grazing and gave the U.S. Forest Service time to come into compliance with the requirements of the ESA Section 7. At the time of the stipulated agreement, the West Bear-Del Rio allotment was the only allotment of the seven that had completed a NEPA assessment and Sec. 7 ESA consultation. Since then the remaining six allotments have completed NEPA assessments and ESA Sec. 7 consultation. However, none of the assessments included grazing of the river, thus effectively limiting livestock grazing, but not precluding if supported by future NEPA analyses. The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service proposed designation of critical habitat for the spikedace several times (Federal Register 2000, 2010). The first proposal was on March 8, 1994 (Federal Register 1994) which was set aside by court order for failure by USDI Fish and Wildlife Service to analyze the effects of critical habitat designation under NEPA (Catron County Board of Commissioners, New Mexico v. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, CIV No. 93-730 HB DNM 1994). On September 20, 1999 the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity filed suit against the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service for failure to propose a rule (Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Clark, CIV 98-0769) and the court ordered USDI Fish and Wildlife Service to finalize designation of critical habitat. The proposed rule was promulgated December 10, 1999, and a final rule was submitted April 25, 2000 (Federal Register 2000). It was subsequently challenged in court (NMCGA and Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico Counties for Stable Economic Growth v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, CIV 02-0199 JB/LCS–D.N.M.) because the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service used a method for economic analysis deemed invalid by the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court. The proposed rule was rescinded on August 31, 2004. The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service re-proposed rules December 20, 2005 (Federal Register 2005), again in 2006 (Federal Register 2006), and a Final rule in 2007 (Federal Register 2007). The 2007 final rule was challenged on the basis that USDI Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat without adequate delineation or justification (Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico Counties for Stable Economic Growth, and others v. Salazar and others–D.N.M.). The proposal was voluntary remanded on May 4, 2009. Each proposal from 2000 to 2007 met and failed legal challenges, mostly on economic and science based issues. For example, the 2007 proposal excluded segments of the Verde River below the UVR study area “due to potential economic impacts,” still noting grazing as a threat but recognized nonnative fish as a threat for the first time (Federal Register 2007). The 2010 proposed rule (Federal Register 2010) takes into consideration new information on distribution, e.g., Mangas Creek in southern New Mexico, and addressed flaws in previous proposals. However, livestock grazing is still cited as a major threat (Federal Register 2010, p-66489) because of adverse effects that may occur from watershed alteration and “subsequent changes in the natural flow regime, sediment production, and stream channel morphology.” This Report presents alternative views of watershed responses to other factors other than grazing, and that have similar consequences as those noted in the 2010 proposal. Despite various litigation efforts on the UVR to protect listed fish, native fish populations continue to decline. Spikedace have not been found for over 10 years (see Chapter 9). Other minnows that were once common, such as speckled dace and longfin dace, also have become infrequent in fish surveys (see Chapter 9). Depressed populations of the latter are attributed to direct effects of nonnative fish (Desert Fishes Team 2004, 2006). The future of native fishes in the UVR and the Southwest has been well expounded by many fishery experts (Rinne and Minckley 1991; Rinne 1991a, 1999a, 2001a; Olden and Poff 2005; Rinne and others 2005a), 38

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

all of which note that native fish populations are down trending despite various legal and resource protection measures, and pleas for exclusion of livestock grazing of riparian areas (Desert Fishes Team 2004). On the UVR, the threat of litigation looms even across research efforts to understand fish-grazing-riparian relationships. To date, there have been no studies that addressed direct effects of livestock grazing on native fishes despite the continued urgency to resolve the controversies. However, many have recognized that nonnative fish in the UVR are the principal cause of depressed native fish populations (see Chapter 9; Desert Fishes Team 2004, 2006). In addition, litigation may force managers to employ conservative protection measures, such as livestock exclusion, that could cause unforeseen changes to the aquatic and riparian habitats over time and ultimately further limit opportunities to manage the UVR habitats for listed species. Railroads—In 1912, the Santa Fe Railroad brought a spur line through the Perkins family ranch, creating Perkinsville Station and a siding for loading cattle (fig. 2.7). The United Verde and Pacific Railway originated in 1894 when United Verde Copper Company owner, Senator William A. Clark, constructed a narrowgauge railroad from Jerome to Jerome Junction, which became Chino Valley in 1920 when the railroad ended service (McClintock 1916). The spur line was later decommissioned and became a roadway from Jerome to Perkinsville and Chino Valley. Much wood product was reportedly harvested from the vicinity of the spur to meet mining and community needs. Mining and Power Development—The first mining camps in the Verde Valley were established in 1876 and were greatly facilitated by the introduction of railroads into the territory in 1882. Railroads were used to import coal to the region from New Mexico, providing coke to the mines and exporting ore (Munson 1981). The United Verde Copper Company was founded in 1883 (Munson 1981) and so began the industrialization of the area. A smelter was built in Jerome to process ore, thus marking another landmark of what was to be a significant change to the local environment of the Valley. Another narrow gauge railroad between Ash Fork and Prescott, known as “United Verde and Pacific Railroad” was constructed in 1894. By 1900 Jerome had become the fifth largest city in Arizona (Munson 1981). The mining boom during the early 1900s created additional needs for electricity to power equipment and the new settlements. Originally, an oil fired plant provided power to the mines; but by June 18, 1909, electricity that was generated at the Fossil Creek Power Plant was being used to power mining operations at the United Verde Mine in Clarkdale (Munson 1981). By 1917, the need for an additional smelter warranted construction of another steam powered plant, built on a terrace of the Verde River upstream from Clarkdale, to provide power to other mining customers (Munson 1981). The power plants supplied electricity to the surrounding towns of Prescott, Mayer, Poland Junction, and Crown King, and they met 70% of the Phoenix power needs (Munderloh 2007). Brown (2007b) reported that smoke from the smelters in Clarkdale clouded the Camp Verde Valley, resulting in a decline of range plants. As early as the 1920s and 1930s, Verde Valley farmers organized to protest, document, and seek compensation from the effects of smelter emissions on crops (Verde Valley Protective Association, no date). The sulfur dioxide rained on the valley for several years until the smelters shut down in the 1950s (Byrkit 2001). Smelter slag deposited on an 18-ha (45-ac) site amounted to 18.1 million Mg (20 million tons) from the years 1912 to 1950. The slag still resides adjacent to the Verde River, although efforts are underway to reclaim precious metals from the slag material (Searchlight Minerals Corp. 2008). The off-site atmospheric deposition of heavy metals and metallic oxides on watershed rangelands is another unknown variable that complicates our understanding of present-day environmental conditions USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

for plants and animals. Byrkit (2001) noted that by 1910, Woodchute Mountain had been denuded by woodcutting and the effects of acidic sulfurous smelter smoke.

Fish Species History Native Species Decline—The Verde River historically was home to many native fish species. Minckley and Alger (1968) identified paleo remains of five species of fishes on an archeological site in Perkinsville: Pantosteus clarki (Gila sucker), Castostomus insignis (Sonora sucker), Gila robusta robusta (roundtail chub), Xyrauchen texanus (humpback sucker), and Ptychocheilus lucius (squawfish). Some of these fish are present still, although in low numbers, while others were extirpated and some were repatriated (see table 2.1). Spikedace have not been confirmed on the Verde since 1997 (Rinne 1999a; see also Chapter 9). A single spikedace was reported in a 1999 fish survey but was unconfirmed and questionable. As of 2009/2010, no fish surveys have found spikedace, yet the species status is reported as extant (Robinson and Crowder 2009; Chmiel 2010a, 2010b, 2010c). The native fish fauna (table 2.1) of the entire Verde River markedly changed with the introduction of 22 species of sport and forage fishes (Rinne 2005; Pringle 2009; see also Chapter 9). Stocking of Arizona’s waterways began as early as 1880/1881 with the passage of an Act by the Arizona Legislature “for stocking the rivers and lakes of the Territory with carp and other varieties suited to the climate” (Hamilton 1881). The earliest recorded stocking of nonnative fish in the Verde River system occurred in 1938 (Pringle 2009). Upon the completion of Sullivan Dam at the headwaters, 10,000 blue gill (Lepomis macrochirus) were stocked in 1938 (Arizona Game and Fish Department 1938). An additional 2,500 bass (Micropterus dolomieui and Micropterus salmoides), 4,000 blue gill, and 15,500 channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) were stocked above Clarkdale and Peck’s Lake. Rinne and others (1998) reported that more than a dozen nonnative species and more than 15 million individuals were stocked in virtually every tributary, stock tank, reservoir, and water body capable of sustaining fish on both public and non-public lands. From 1920 to 1995, nearly 560,000 nonnative fish comprising 14 species were planted in stock tanks within the Verde watershed (Pringle 2009). Sponholtz and others (1997) speculated that stock tanks might also contribute to introductions of nonnative fish during high rainfall events that cause overflow into the Verde River. Rinne (2005) further noted that by 1950, five records of nonnative fishes were noted for Oak Creek and Wet Beaver Creek (tributaries of the Middle Verde). By 1964, records doubled with 6 of 11 records from the main stem Verde and the number increased four-fold from 1965 to 1979. Since the 1970s, more intensive surveys revealed that the UVR was exceptional in retaining proportional abundance of native fishes compared with the Middle and Lower Verde River. The UVR harbored about a 4:1 ratio native to nonnative, while the lower reaches ranged from about 1:3 to 1:9 ratios (Rinne 2005; see also Chapter 9). Stocking of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) is a continued practice today in the middle Verde Valley in response to angler pressure (Pringle 1996). The Peck’s Lake diversion barrier is an apparently effective obstruction to the upstream movement of trout, as trout were not found in the upper reaches. Interest in the status of native fishes of the UVR did not peak until the early 1990s concomitant with regional implications of effects of livestock grazing and regional trends in native fish populations (Rinne 1999b, 2000, 2005). Land managers sought information about management of riparian areas and native fishes, while others (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1999) sought protection status citing grazing, introduced fishes, and water diversions. Long-term studies were 40

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Table 2.1—List of native and introduced aquatic fauna on the Verde River over the last 75 years. Species identified with “*” are reintroduced and experimental. Spikedace were last evidenced in 1997 by Rinne (1999a). Speckled dace have become uncommon in recent years (Rinne and Miller 2006). Roundtail chub were proposed for review in 2009 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009). (Adapted from Rinne 2005.) Status

Common name

Scientific name

Extirpated

Gila trout

Oncorhynchus gilae

Extirpated

Razorback sucker

Xyrauchen texanus*

Extirpated Extirpated Extirpated Extirpated

Colorado Pikeminnow Flannelmouth sucker Loach minnow Gila chub

Ptychocheilus lucius* Catostomus latipinnis Rhinichtyhs cobitis Gila intermedia

Unknown Spikedace Meda fulgida Present

Desert sucker

Catostomus clarki

Present

Roundtail chub

Gila robusta

Present Present Present

Sonora sucker

Speckled dace Longfin dace

Catostomus insignis Rhinichthys osculus

Agosia chrysogaster

Introduced

Rainbow trout

Oncorhynchus mykiss

Introduced

Brook trout

Salvelinus fontinalis

Introduced Introduced Introduced Introduced Introduced Introduced Introduced

Brown trout Goldfish

Common carp

Threadfin shad

Fathead minnow Red shiner

Golden shiner

Introduced Tilapia Introduced

Northern pike

Introduced

Striped bass

Introduced Introduced Introduced Introduced Introduced Introduced Introduced Introduced Introduced

Smallmouth bass White crappie Black crappie

Green sunfish

Bluegill sunfish Mosquitofish

Channel catfish

Flathead catfish Yellow bullhead

Salmo trutta

Carassius auratus Cyprinus carpio

Dorosoma petenense

Pimephales promelas Cyprinella lutrensis

Notemigonus crysoleucas

Oreochromis mossambicus Esox lucius

Micropterus dolomieni Morone saxatilis

Pomoxis annularis

Pomaxis nigromaculatus

Chaenobryttus cyanellus Lepomis macrachirus Gambusia affinis

Ictalurus punctatus Pilodictus olivaris Ameiurus natalis

Other introduced fauna

Otter

Lontra canadensis

Other introduced fauna Other introduced fauna

Crayfish Asiatic clam

Procambarus clarkii Corbicula fluminea

Other introduced fauna

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Bull frog

Rana catesbeiana

initiated by Rinne (2001a) and the Arizona Game and Fish Department (2000, 2002). Since 1994, fish surveys have been conducted on an annual basis jointly by the Prescott National Forest and RMRS, as well as Arizona Game and Fish Department. Specific surveys to locate spikedace were jointly performed in 2005 by USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and U.S. Forest Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2005), with no positive results of the presence of spikedace. Similar studies were performed in New Mexico, where spikedace were noted to decline over 18 years in the absence of livestock grazing on the Gila National Forest and Wilderness Area (Paroz and others 2006, Paroz and Probst 2007). These contradictive studies have not abated the controversy over grazing and native fishes. The cumulative effects of nonnative fishes on native fish and ecosystem processes of the UVR are highly significant. Rinne (1999b, 2005; see also Chapter 9) documented the gradual disappearance of spikedace and present rarity (see Chapter 9) of native fishes on the UVR. A principal hypothesis that has been promoted universally in the Southwest is that livestock grazing is a major causative factor in the demise of native fishes and all fishes in general. However, Rinne (2005) and Rinne and Miller (2006) found no evidence to justify the hypothesis for the Verde River. Others have similarly tried to link grazing effects to native fish sustainability in Arizona and have obtained conflicting results (Robinson and others 2004). Rinne (1999b) examined the grazing-fish controversy and found little evidence in support of the hypothesis, noting that over 80% of the literature was not peer reviewed and the rest of the studies were fraught with design issues. The overwhelming evidence of 15 years of study on the UVR strongly suggests that other factors, such as predation by nonnative fish and other aquatic invasive species (e.g., bullfrogs and crayfish) and hydrogeomorphic changes in habitat conditions are operative in the decline (see Chapter 9). In addition, Rinne and Miller (2006) suggested that factors related to changes in hydrology and geomorphology in the UVR could be principal factors that caused habitat changes favoring nonnative fishes, thereby placing additional survival stress on native fish populations. Propst and others (2008) later identified similar factors for the Gila River watershed. Schade and Bonar (2004, 2005) noted that nonnative fishes have profound effects on native fish populations in the Southwest and note largemouth bass as the principal predator on the Verde River (Bonar and others 2004). Efforts to mechanically reduce populations of nonnative fishes have shown positive results (Rinne 2001b; see Chapter 9). However several other factors have to be addressed before any success can be declared (Rinne 2003a, 2003b; see also Chapter 9). Repatriation of Native Fishâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Various efforts to repatriate native fishes in Arizona have yielded poor results (Desert Fishes Team 2004) and have largely been a learning process, especially with razorback sucker and pikeminnow. Hendrickson (1993) reported that approximately 12 million fingerling razorback suckers (Xyrauchen texanus) were stocked into the Verde River between 1981 and 1991 with little or no success. Losses were assumed to be due to predation by nonnative fishes. Since 1991, 22,869 razorback suckers have been released into the Verde River by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (Hyatt 2004). In 1992, 11,231 Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychcheilus lucius) stocking-fry and fingerlings were stocked (table 2.2) in the UVR and Lower Verde River (Hendrickson 1993; Hyatt 2004). Hendrickson (1993) noted that after several years of failure to detect recruitment, stocking sites were relocated to sections of the UVR, including Perkinsville. These attempts were made to reduce predation on stocked fishes. Subsequent surveys failed to locate the stocked fish, which had likely moved or were transported downstream, where predation may have again become a factor 42

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Table 2.2—Razorback sucker (XYTE: Xyrauchen texanus) and pikeminnow (PTLU: Ptychocheilus lucius) stocking from 1991 to 2003 by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service on the Verde River. (Adapted from Hyatt 2004.) Year

Species

Location

1991

XYTE

Upper Verde River

1993

XYTE

Upper & Lower Verde River

1992 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

PTLU, XYTE Upper Verde River

Number stocked Mean total length mm 128

356

222

330-406

Lower Verde River

2204

324-386

PTLU, XYTE Lower Verde River

5961

254-362

XYTE

PTLU, XYTE Lower Verde River PTLU, XYTE Lower Verde River PTLU, XYTE Lower Verde River PTLU, XYTE Lower Verde River XYTE XYTE

Lower Verde River Lower Verde River

PTLU, XYTE Lower Verde River PTLU, XYTE Lower Verde River

1120

5837 3818 4036 2364 2131 1574 2248 2427

76-356

305-432 287-477 305-330 381-406 305-580 300-440 300-350 330-400

(Jahrke and Clark 1999). Eventually, larger fish (12+ in) were stocked to overcome predation factors, but mostly in the Lower Verde River (table 2.2; Hyatt 2004). Hyatt (2004) noted key observations about restocking razorbacks and pikeminnow: • Since 1991, larger fish produced better results with recaptures, but introduction has been limited to 87 Colorado pikeminnow and 283 razorback suckers in the UVR. • Recaptures were found near their original stocking areas on the Salt River, suggesting a high site fidelity relative to site introduction, but only one PIT-tagged razorback has been recaptured on the middle Verde River near Childs. • Adult survival is at the low end and of short duration, with no recruitment. • Continued failures to repatriate native fishes in the Verde River prevail owing to inadequate identification of causal factors such as predation (Marsh and Brooks 1989; Mueller 2003). Rinne (Chapter 9) pioneered efforts to physically remove nonnative fish in the UVR. Physical removal may be the only reasonable choice to repatriate native fishes, as chemical treatments are currently controversial owing to their cumulative effects on aquatic organisms (Hubbs 1963; Minckley and Mihalick 1981; Magnum and Madrigal 1999; Dinger and Marks 2007; Hamilton and others 2009; Vinson and others 2010), human health risks (Tanner and others 2011), and general lack of success (Dawson and Kolar 2003). Successful reintroduction of native fishes is dependent on many factors that could have contributed to their current status. Mueller (2003) acknowledged that more than three decades of stocking endangered fishes in the Verde River has shown that unless limiting factors are accurately identified and adequately addressed, recruitment failure will continue to occur. Efforts are underway to repatriate native minnows, e.g., spikedace and loach minnow, on a segment of the UVR (USDI Bureau of Reclamation 2010). Dawson and Kolar (2003) assessed the utility of using chemical control in Arizona streams and concluded “chemical reclamations have not always been successful as indicated by reviews of hundreds of fish control projects with reported successes ranking from 43% to 82%.” Dawson and Kolar (2003) further noted that the USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

present arsenal of pisicides is not likely to be effective for controlling nonnative fishes in the southwestern United States, and that reclamation of habitats is required. This may be another controversial point since aquatic and riparian habitats have changed considerably in the last century in the UVR. Exotic Aquatic Species—In addition to nonnative fish, other exotic aquatic fauna were also introduced by the State of Arizona (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2006), including crayfish (1940s) (Orconectes virilis, Procambarus clarkii), bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), otter (Lutra canadensis lataxina) (1981 to 1983), and Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea). The first three have turned out to be significant predators of native fish. Crayfish and bullfrogs were likely introduced as bait, sport, and food (Arizona Invasive Species Advisory Council 2008). Asiatic clams are filter feeders and generally abundant, but their role in the aquatic ecology of native fishes is unknown. Because of their relative abundance, they can affect stream nutrient dynamics through their effects on organic matter processing in streambed sediments (Hakenkamp and Palmer 1999) and consumption of phytoplankton (Phelps 1994). The clams are also known as bio-indicators of organic pollutants because they siphon large volumes of water on a daily basis, thereby concentrating dissolved or suspended contaminant that may be present in low concentrations in the water column (Doherty 1990). Crayfish are omnivores (Dean 1969), and recent studies demonstrated that they are opportunistic, eating both plants and animals, including young snakes (Fernandez and Rosen 1996), lily pads, iris, insects, snails, tadpoles, frogs, baby turtles, fish eggs small fish, and other crayfish. They also are able to successfully compete with native fishes for food and cover (Carpenter 2005; Arizona Game and Fish Department 2006; USDI Geological Survey 2006). It is unknown when or how bullfrogs were introduced into the Verde River but it was most likely during the turn of the century as a food item or as bait. Nonetheless, bullfrogs are abundant in the Verde River and have been attributed as a principal predator of sensitive species in Arizona (Rorabaugh 2008), leopard frogs (Sredl and others 1997; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007b), garter snakes, endangered fish eggs and larvae (Mueller and others 2006; Witte and others 2008), and endangered fishes such as Yaqui chub and Yaqui topminnow (Schwalbe and Rosen 1988). In a study of southeastern Arizona herpetofauna, Schwalbe and Rosen (1988) commented that bullfrogs “eat anything they can get into their mouth.” The Arizona river otter (Lutra canadensis sonora) type locality was from Montezuma Well (Rhoads 1898) and these otters are recognized as a distinct subspecies (Wilson and Reeder 2005; ITIS 2009). The Arizona otter were extirpated and replaced with a surrogate species—the North American river otter (L. canadensis) from Louisiana. The Arizona Game and Fish Department introduced the Louisiana otter into the UVR during 1981 to 1983 (Arizona Game and Fish Department 1995). An assessment in the past decade indicated that the otter are doing well (Raesly 2001). However, their food habits may stress the food web dynamics of the UVR, as they relate to native fish populations. Tesky (1993) reported collectively that their fish diets include “suckers (Catostomus spp.), redhorses (Moxostoma spp.), carp (Cyprinus spp.), chubs (Semotilus spp.), daces (Phinichthys spp.), shiners (Notropis spp.), squawfish (Ptychocheilus spp.), bullheads and catfish (Ictalurus spp.), sunfish (Lepomis spp.), darters (Etheostoma spp.), and perch (Perca spp.).” Crayfish are also a mainstay food item when in abundance (Toweill and Tabor 1982). In general, otter are known to prefer slow-moving nongame fish, but they will eat other mammals, amphibians, insects, birds, and plants (Melquist and Dronkert 1987; Tesky 1993). As such, they pose a potential threat to other sensitive wildlife, aside from native fish, of the UVR ( Toweill 1974; Melquist and 44

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Hornocker 1983). However, otters are opportunistic and, by shifting their diets relative to abundance and availability, they could prey upon undesirable nonnative aquatic species such as crayfish, bullfrogs, and nonnative fish (Melquist and Hornocker 1983).

Pictorial Guide The following section provides a visual montage of the UVR as well as some insights to changes in the river over the past 100 years. Figure 2.10 shows the photo locations as well as other features like main springs and tributaries.

Headwaters Perennial flow of the Verde River originated from the Del Rio Springs at one time and flowed north along Del Rio Creek (Krieger 1965). The springs are located about 1.6 km (1 mi) south of Sullivan Dam, near the town of Paulden, Arizona. Flow from the springs has varied for the period of record from about 3.42

Figure 2.10â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Location of known springs and photo points (numbers correspond to figure numbers; e.g., 6 = fig. 2.6 and 11 = fig. 2.11) along the UVR from Del Rio Springs and Granite Wash to Sullivan Lake to the Clarkdale gauge below Sycamore Creek (from Wirt and others 2005). USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Figure 2.11—Aerial photo taken May 21, 1969, looking north from Del Rio Springs toward Sullivan Dam and the UVR (Sharlot Hall Museum call no. pb167f3i11).

x 106 m3 (2,773 ac-ft) in 1939/1940 to 1.74 x 106 m3 (1,410 ac-ft) in 1999 (Wirt and Hjalmarson 2000). Blasch and others (2006) reported that flow declined from the approximate 3.45 x 106 m3 (2,800 ac-ft) in the early 1940s to near 1.23 x 106 m3 (1,000 ac-ft) in 2003. The Del Rio Springs flow is artesian, seemingly a product of the greater artesian basin extending upstream for several miles (Remick 1983). Henson (1965) referred to this meadow-like drainage as “Cienega Creek.” Remnant wetland species still remain in localized areas. Figure 2.11 is an aerial photo from 1969 that shows the general appearance of the landscape looking north of Del Rio Springs. The cienega habitat surrounding the springs is evident in the lower right corner of the photo. A dark line formed by cottonwood trees on the right side of the photo running to the top third of the photo marks the location of Del Rio Creek. Sullivan Dam is visible as a white and dark patch in the uppermost area, and the Verde River is the dark line running to the east. A few young cottonwoods dot the area and are still present but in poor condition (fig. 2.12). Evidence of old cottonwoods is lacking for the area. A primary source of seasonal overland flow to Sullivan Dam and the Verde River is from the Williamson Valley and the Big Chino Wash tributaries. These tributaries are located a few miles upstream to the west. The area is known for the large Big Chino aquifer that provides spring-fed sources to the Verde River (Wirt and Hjalmarson 2000; Blasch and others 2006). The valley is extensively farmed (fig. 2.13) with irrigation water originating subsurface from artesian water sources or pumped and distributed on the surface from shallow wells. Many locations retain a variety of sedges, rushes, and spikerushes.

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

(A) Figure 2.12â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Ground view of Del Rio Springs showing riparian vegetation and the current condition of the cottonwoods seen in the aerial photo of fig. 2.10. The photos, taken on September 9, 2008, illustrate (A) the lack of woody plants around the wetland site of the springs, and (B) the condition of the cottonwoods. (Photos by Alvin L. Medina.)

(B)

Figure 2.13â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Aerial views of the Williamson Valley to the west of Sullivan Dam showing the agricultural area (Upper photo courtesy of the USDI Geological Survey; bottom photo by Michael Collier.)

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Sullivan Dam—The City of Prescott acquired the land for the development of Sullivan Lake from the Santa Fe Railroad in 1935. Shortly thereafter, construction of the dam ensued and was completed in 1939 (figs. 2.14, 2.15, and 2.16). By 1942, the lake had become significantly filled in with fine-textured alluvial sediments, and its capacity to store water was minimal. Sullivan Lake still served as a recreational area and was apparently stocked with fish as late as 1950s (Wagner 1954). Sullivan Lake was described by Wagner (1954) as “a shallow muddy water body that, from a fisheries point of view, could best be described as nondescript bullhead hole.” With a maximum depth of 2.4 m (8 ft), the lake lacked any productivity for fish and was recommended to be managed for waterfowl (Wagner 1954). Woody vegetation was lacking about Del Rio Creek despite perennial flow as evidenced in fig. 2.15. The dam is presently private owned. Flood flows in 1993 completely overtopped the Sullivan Dam and nearly filled the gorge downstream (fig. 2.17). The concrete seal around the wall and boulders from the wall was eroded by flood overwash from this event and several subsequent flood flows (fig. 2.18). Trees have sprouted within the exposed boulders of the wall, further compromising the structure. Future floods could breach Sullivan Dam and restore the natural stream gradient in the now intermittent portion of the UVR. This process would initiate downstream movement of sediments that have been trapped above the dam since 1939.

Figure 2.14—A 1936 photo showing the early construction phase of excavating basalt rock for the base of Sullivan Dam. Perennial flow from Del Rio Springs was routed through a sluice box visible on the right side of the rock cut. (Photo courtesy of the Sharlot Hall Museum, Prescott, Arizona.)

Figure 2.15—Photo from 1937 showing the building of the Sullivan Dam wall. Note the scarcity of woody plants and the additional seasonal flow—probably runoff from Big Chino Wash and baseflow from Del Rio Springs. (Photo courtesy of the Sharlot Hall Museum, Prescott, Arizona.)

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Figure 2.16—A 1939 photo of Sullivan Dam taken shortly after the completion of the dam wall. (Photo courtesy of the Sharlot Hall Museum, Prescott, Arizona.)

Figure 2.17—Flood runoff from the February 1993 storms going over Sullivan Dam. The reddish, sediment-laden water is characteristic of the soils from the Big Chino Wash high in the watershed. (Photo by Alvin L. Medina.)

Figure 2.18—This 2011 photo illustrates the current condition of the Sullivan Dam wall and minimal water storage in the remnants of Sullivan Lake. (Photo by Alvin L. Medina.)

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Granite Creek—A major tributary that affects the headwaters of the UVR is Granite Creek. The creek originates in the Bradshaw Mountains southwest of Prescott and flows north toward its confluence with the UVR east of Sullivan Lake. It is intermittent over much of its reach, and the braided channel system is the major source of bedload for the UVR headwaters during infrequent storm events (Wirt and Hjalmarson 2000; fig. 2.19). Sand and gravel mining occurs in several locations in the Granite Creek channel about 5 km (3 mi) downstream from the location shown in fig. 2.19 and within 3 km (2 mi) of Granite Creek’s confluence with the UVR.

(A)

(B)

Figure 2.19—(A) aerial view of Granite Creek drainage in July 1997, looking north (downstream) towards the Verde River and (B) ground view of the confluence of Granite Creek (upper drainage) with the Verde River (flows right to left). The pool-like water feature in the lower right is referred to as Stillman Lake. The “lake” is formed by the sediment deposits at the confluence and the inflow from groundwater upstream. (Photos by Alvin L. Medina.)

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Prescott National Forest Wetland—The boundary of the Prescott National Forest on the west is noted for the presence of a large historical wetland (fig. 2.5). The wetland was first confirmed in 1994 by the presence of hydric soil indicators (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006), and obligate wetland vegetation (i.e., sedges and rushes). The wetland was first photographed by Prescott National Forest staff in February 1979 (fig. 2.5A). The photo is notable because of the absence of woody plants along the channel. A photo from February 2001 (fig. 2.5B) shows the development of woody vegetation along the UVR due to stream incision that occurred during the 1993 flood. A June 1981 aerial photo (fig. 2.20) also shows the paucity of woody vegetation in contrast with the 2008 photo (fig. 2.21), which shows marked differences in woody plants and channel position. In May 1979, Mr. James Cowlin provided ground views of the wetland (fig. 2.22A). The large tree on the upper left is a velvet ash with an understory of hackberry. Other important channel features in the 1979 photo are depth to water from the first terrace (right bank, 30 to 60 cm or 1 to 2 ft), channel width of about 3 m (9.8 ft), sand and gravel substrates, a gradient of <.01%, and pool-riffle sequences. A repeat photograph of same location in May of 2008 shows development of much different habitat conditions, with extensive growth of woody plants and cattails (fig. 2.22B). These vegetation changes have encouraged beaver to build dams on the floodplain (fig. 2.23) that have induced hydrologic and vegetation changes and created much different wetland habitats.

Figure 2.20—1981 aerial photo of the Prescott National Forest wetland showing locations of aquatic sites as dark blotches. The view is northerly with flow from bottom left to upper right. (Photo courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey, Photo #503-30 6-6-1981.)

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Figure 2.21â&#x20AC;&#x201D;2008 aerial photo of the Prescott National Forest wetland contrasting woody vegetation and channel position changes since 1981 (Google, October 2008).

(A)

(B)

Figure 2.22â&#x20AC;&#x201D;A May 1979 photo (A) showing the upstream view of the UVR wetland. (Photo by James Cowlin.) A May 2008 repeat photo (B) near the location of the 1979 photo showing occupation of mixed stands of the first terrace by cattails, cottonwoods, and willows. (Photo by Alvin L. Medina.)

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Figure 2.23—Lodge in a pool formed by beaver dam construction along the UVR near the Prescott National Forest wetland. (Photo by Daniel G. Neary.)

Channel Incisions—Concomitant with these changes are evidences of erosion of paleo and historical terraces as well as the modern floodplain (figs. 2.24 and 2.25). Eroded sediments wash downstream, spiraling through the aquatic system, causing a gray-green color of the water and impairing water quality for turbidity. This process is common throughout the length of the UVR. Terraces located above the wetland provide dramatic documentation of channel downcutting. The terrace in fig. 2.24 is about 5 m (16.4 ft) in height from the terrace level to the channel bottom. It is one of the paleoterraces documented by Cook and others (2010a, 2010b, 2010c) that date from A.D. 440 to 1650 and are composed of fairly uniform fine sediments (fine sands and silts). These terraces are major point sources of fine sediment for the UVR. Sediments are dropped into the river periodically during baseflows by bank sloughing (see fig. 2.24 center and fig. 2.25 lower left). During high flow events, large pieces of the terrace are frequently eroded. Most first terraces along the UVR are much lower in height (figs. 2.22 and 2.26). These terraces still contribute to the load of fine sediment in the UVR by bank collapse, but they do not match the magnitude of inputs from the large paleoterraces. Likewise, many small tributaries also contribute large amounts of bedload and fine sediments as they continue to headcut upstream as part of the adjustment to incision of the river (fig. 2.26). Field documentation dates nearly all of the terrace erosions to 1993. The 1993 floods initiated the erosion of several paleoterraces throughout the length of the UVR. These terraces are a principal source of continued fine-grained sediment inputs and stream turbidity. The 1993 flood also caused the main channel to drop, thereby setting in motion the degradation of tributaries. An assessment conducted by Prescott National Forest and RMRS staff of post-flood conditions in spring and summer of 1993 identified countless tributaries in a “hanging” condition. Since 1993, these tributaries continue to adjust to the grade of the main stem by sloughing fine sediments. Grade adjustments up the UVR channel system are not yet complete on many tributaries and draws (fig. 2.25). Channel incisions of tributaries are another principal source of fine sediments to the UVR, and are commonly attributed erroneously to other land uses, e.g., grazing.

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

(A)

Figure 2.24—Photos A and B show typical paleoterraces located slightly upstream of the Prescott National Forest wetland. Rapid terrace erosion was initiated in 1993 and is now a major source of fine sediment. B is located downstream of the paleoterrace in A, showing active erosion of the terrace and the presence of tamarisk, Gooding willow, and assorted herbaceous weeds. (Photo by Alvin L. Medina.)

(B)

Figure 2.25—This tributary, located near Al’s Spring, depicts the typical case of headcutting for many tributaries. (Photo by Alvin L. Medina.)

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Figure 2.26â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Example of smaller first terraces resulting from channel incision on the UVR. (Photo by Alvin L. Medina.)

Verde Ranch A number of photos and other records exist from the Verde River Ranch below the USDI Geological Survey Paulden stream gauge. The UVR has been important for the cattle raising operation at the ranch because it supplies water and supports forage growth during dry periods. Cattle grazing was certainly heavier in the 1950s (fig. 2.27), but vegetation was very sparse on steeper slopes that would not be grazed at all. The dark trees are juniper and lighter colored woody plants are upland shrubs. Other light colored shrubs on the floodplain, aligned linearly, are most likely seepwillow. Figure 2.28 shows the Ranch headquarters at the present time with a clearly defined riparian zone. The area shown in this figure contains some of the rarer E-type channels (Rosgen 1996). Figure 2.29 is an example of one of the few remaining historic wetland habitats in excellent condition. Where woody plants have encroached on streambanks, erosion around their trunks has created stream nick points and has generally destabilized the site. The streambanks shown in fig. 2.30 are occupied primarily by bulrushes, sedges, and rushes. These plant species are superior for stabilizing streambanks and dealing with the brutal impacts of episodic flood events. Woody species in close proximity to channels are often damaged or ripped out by episodic flood flows of the magnitudes experienced on the UVR. Figure 2.31 illustrates post-flood recovery by herbaceous plants adjacent to the stream channel. Herbaceous species have recovered well. The tree visible in the left side (fig. 2.31A) is the sprouting stump on the left side of fig. 2.31B. Note that no woody species recruits are visible in the 2003 photo. A similar trend is visible at another location on the Verde River Ranch (fig. 2.32). Recovery by herbaceous vegetation at an additional site was fairly swift two years after the 1993 flood (fig. 2.33A), and the site was still dominated by herbaceous vegetation on the 10th anniversary of the flood (fig. 2.33B).

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Figure 2.27—Cattle drive in 1946 on the Verde River Ranch and an illustration of the riparian vegetation and geomorphological conditions at the time. (Photo courtesy of the Sharlot Hall Museum, Prescott, Arizona.)

(A)

(B) Figure 2.28—Photo A is an aerial view of the Verde River Ranch headquarters below the U.S. Geological Survey’s Paulden gauge in March 1997. The wetlands, intact for many decades, provide a valuable reference of wetland habitats of time past. These wetlands have recently been at risk of channel erosion from encroachment of woody plants. Photo B, taken in July 2011, shows some changes in woody vegetation after selective removal of several cottonwoods from the active floodplain. Removal of cottonwoods restored the freeboard needed by flood waters to flow without inducing erosion of the wetland. (Photos by Alvin L. Medina.)

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Figure 2.29—Wetland site with an E-type channel on the UVR located on the Verde River Ranch headquarters, downstream of the Paulden gauge. These sedge meadows were prevalent throughout the UVR corridor prior to woody plant encroachment. (Photo by Alvin L. Medina.)

(A)

(B)

Figure 2.30—This wetland site on the Verde River Ranch referred to as “Little Slice of Heaven” because of its excellent wetland habitat condition. Several species of sedges, rushes, and spikerushes inhabit the streambanks and floodplain. (Photo by Alvin L. Medina.)

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

(A)

Figure 2.31â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Comparison of UVR vegetation next to the channel a decade before (A: 1979) and after (B: 2003) the 1993 floods, Verde River Ranch. (Photo A by James Cowlin and photo B by Alvin L. Medina.)

(B)

(A)

(B)

Figure 2.32â&#x20AC;&#x201D;UVR vegetation recovery and channel narrowing and deepening at a second site a decade before (A: 1979) and after (B: 2003) the 1993 floods, Verde River Ranch. (Photos by James Cowlin and Alvin L. Medina.)

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

(A)

(B)

Figure 2.33â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Herbaceous recovery (A) 2 years and (B) 10 years after the 1993 flood on the UVR. (Photos by Alvin L. Medina.)

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Bear Siding Bear Siding has one of the long-term fish sampling locations discussed in Chapter 9. The photo from 1979 (fig. 2.34) shows a fairly sparse riparian vegetation community even before the 1993 flood. The flood of that year scoured the riparian zone even more. By 1998, in the absence of any large floods and shortly after grazing removal in 1997, a more substantial riparian flora had re-established itself (fig. 2.35).

Figure 2.34â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Photo of a fish study site at Bear Siding in May 1979. Note the vegetation, water color, channel substrates, and streambank conditions. The aquatic habitat is characterized as a typical C-3 type channel with interspersed riffles throughout the reach. (Photo by James Cowlin.)

Figure 2.35â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Repeat photography of fig. 2.34 taken in February 1998. The exact location is inaccessible due to trees and deep water that obscure the view. Note the vegetative growth of nonnative plants, cattails, and tamarisk (right bank) on the active floodplain. The water is notably turbid, a gray-green color, and much different from the 1979 photo. The aquatic habitat consists of turbid, deep pools flanked by woody vegetation. The channel type is a C-6 with submerged riffles forming a glide-pool habitat. (Photo by Alvin L. Medina.)

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Perkinsville Perkinsville is one of the open valley bottoms in the UVR with bedrock constrained canyon sections above and below it. This area was a site of an early settlement with the establishment of the Perkins Ranch in 1900 and the construction of the Santa Fe Railways’s Clarkdale to Drake spur line. This railway line is still operated by the Verde River Railroad. Note in the 1925 photo (fig. 2.36) the pinyon and juniper trees in the area are not very tall or vigorous. The riparian area is mostly free of vegetation except for the band of cottonwoods on the inside of the bend in the UVR at mid-photo. These most likely survived the paleofloods of 1891 and early 1900s and some may have been planted by the Perkins family or allowed to establish along newly constructed irrigation ditches (fig. 2.36) at the beginning of the Twentieth Century. Twenty-two years later, fig. 2.37 shows evidence of better plant growth due to wetter conditions in the latter part of the Century. By 1995, woody vegetation had expanded considerably on slopes adjacent to the UVR as well as along the channel (fig. 2.38). Another photo from 1925 shows the generally dry conditions and the sparseness of vegetation (fig. 2.39). Episodic floods kept the riverbanks scoured of vegetation (fig. 2.40). The trees that were present then were located back on second and third terraces, indicating the powerful effects of floods on woody vegetation (fig. 2.41). A repeat photograph of fig. 2.41 from 2003 shows that 78 years has resulted in a much expanded woody vegetation complex along the UVR channel, a narrower channel system, and greatly enhanced pinyon pine and juniper vegetation on the uplands (fig. 2.42). Most of the sediments in the channel are coarse gravels, cobbles, and boulders. There is no evidence of large amounts of fine sediments, which would be indicative of wide-scale and intensive erosion in the uplands. At the downstream edge of the Perkinsville valley area is the “Black Bridge” on the Verde River Railroad (fig. 2.43) where the UVR goes into another canyonbound reach. The channel appears to be in the same position in 2003 (fig. 2.43B) as it was in 1910 due to the influence of the solid rock wall which causes flow to divert toward the bridge. The point bar on the left seems to have the same coarse sediment composition although there is much more evidence of woody species recruitment on the bar and channel edges. The 2003 photograph indicates a greater clearance beneath the bridge than the photograph taken just after construction of the railroad in 1910. This could be evidence of channel downcutting in the interim or movement of large amounts of channel sediments. The photo from 1910 shows that there was virtually no riparian gallery forest or other woody species before the railroad arrived (fig. 2.43A). The lack of trees could be due to a variety of causes, including scouring floods; drought; long-term use by Native Americans; or early European settler use of wood for buildings, fences, and firewood. Grazing was probably not the cause or there would be larger trees evident on the landscape. Grazing animals introduced into an area usually affect only seedlings or saplings.

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Figure 2.36—A 1925 photo illustrating UVR riverine and upland conditions in the Perkinsville area. (Photo by Matt Tully.)

Figure 2.37—A 1947 photograph that depicts major changes in vegetation density and composition at Perkinsville since 1925. (Photo by R. King, U.S. Forest Service, Prescott National Forest, Photo #446116.) Figure 2.38— This is a 2008 repeat photo of fig. 2.37. Cottonwoods established along old channels, but the floodplain is generally devoid of woody species, which are washed away by recurring floods. (Photo by Alvin L. Medina.)

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Figure 2.39—A 1925 photo of the Perkinsville area illustrating the drought conditions of the time. Of special significance is the absence of obligate riparian trees and shrubs. Two clusters of very large cottonwoods are evident survivors of paleofloods. Other woody vegetation are facultaive upland species, e.g., mesquite. (Photo courtesy of the Sharlot Hall Museum, Prescott, Arizona.)

Figure 2.40—A 1925 photo showing the magnitude of seasonal floods on the UVR at Perkinsville. (Photo courtesy of the Sharlot Hall Museum, Prescott, Arizona.)

Figure 2.41—A 1925 photograph of the Perkinsville area looking northwest along the Santa Fe Railroad (Verde River Railroad) toward the Station (light colored buildings in the upper right quadrant). (Photo courtesy of the Sharlot Hall Museum, Prescott, Arizona.)

Figure 2.42—A 2003 repeat photograph of the 1925 photograph (fig 2.41) of the Perkinsville area looking northwest along the Santa Fe Railroad (Verde River Railroad) toward the Station (light colored buildings in the upper right quadrant). Cottonwoods have established along old channels. This river segment of private land still remains a refuge for native minnows. (Photo by Alvin L. Medina.)

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

(A)

(B)

Figure 2.43—The “Black Bridge” on the Verde River Railroad downstream of Perkinsville. The photographs are from (A) 1910 and (B) 2003. (Photo A courtesy of the Sharlot Hall Museum, Prescott, Arizona; photo B by Alvin. L. Medina.)

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Horseshoe Allotment The Horseshoe Allotment is the grazing allotment that includes the Black Bridge and the south side of the downstream reach of the UVR for several kilometers. Figure 2.44A shows the condition of the UVR below the “Black Bridge” in 1925. The railroad runs along the right bank towards its terminus at Clarkdale. The repeat photo from 2003 highlights the stands of cottonwoods and willows, which have developed since the 1993 flood (fig. 2.44B). It also shows more extensive juniper growth along the UVR riparian margins and on adjacent slopes. Figures 2.45 and 2.46 show a section of UVR channel in the Horseshoe Allotment demonstrating the scoured condition of the river bed after the 1993 flood. The subsequent photograph in 1999 shows the dense vegetation that developed in the years after the significant 1993 flood. That part of the UVR is now difficult to negotiate because of the woody and herbaceous plant growth. An additional series of photographs (figs. 2.47 to 2.49) documents vegetation changes in the UVR channel in the Horseshoe Allotment from 1994 to 1998. The distinctive mid-channel rock was

(A)

(B)

Figure 2.44—The 1925 photograph on the left (A) was taken shortly after the completion of the Verde River Railroad, then called the Santa Fe Railroad. (B) is repeat photography from March 2005. (Photo A by Matt Cully; photo B by Alvin L. Medina).

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

used as a reference point. The photo-series also shows how the UVR channel has narrowed and deepened. One of the consequences of woody vegetation encroachment on the UVR channel is the formation of woody debris dams. Figure 2.50 shows young sycamore trees that were uprooted by a minor flood in 2005. These stems can be easily piled up by subsequent flood flows, creating a debris jam in the river. This process creates a risk of a debris dam backing up streamflow and then breaching during a flood event, creating a much elevated peakflow. Debris dam breach flows have a much greater impact on channel morphology and downstream structures like irrigation diversions, bridges, and residences (Cenderelli 2000; Ice and others 2004).

Figure 2.45â&#x20AC;&#x201D;UVR channel in the Horseshoe Allotment after the 1993 flood. (Photo by Sharon and George Yard.)

Figure 2.46â&#x20AC;&#x201D;UVR channel conditions near the area shown in fig. 2.44 in the Horseshoe Allotment in 1999, six years after the 1993 flood. (Photo by Sharon and George Yard.)

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Figure 2.47—The “Otter Rock” in the UVR channel in the Horseshoe Allotment in 1994, one year after the large 1993 flood. (Photo by Sharon and George Yard.)

Figure 2.48—The “Otter Rock” in the UVR channel in the Horseshoe Allotment in 1996, three years after the large 1993 flood. (Photo by Sharon and George Yard.)

Figure 2.49—The “Otter Rock” in the UVR channel in the Horseshoe Allotment in 1998, five years after the large 1993 flood. (Photo by Alvin L. Medina).

(A)

(B)

Figure 2.50—Photo A taken in July 2000 upstream of the otter rock site shows an established grove of cottonwoods and coyote willows, which were planted by the Y-D Ranch in 1994. Photo B, taken in July 2005 after a major flood, shows uprooted trees throughout the reach. Willows were also up-rooted and washed away into debris piles. (Photos by Alvin L. Medina.) USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Antelope Hills Allotment and Sycamore Canyon A set of photographs from the Antelope Hills Allotment further down the UVR demonstrates the changes that occur in river sediments and geomorphology with flood events. Figure 2.51A shows a straight reach of the UVR in 1979 that was characterized by shallow water and gravel and cobble bedload materials. It was a very long riffle reach. During the 1993 flood, this reach was scoured out and deepened. Now it is a deepened pool dominated by fine-textured sediments (fig. 2.51B). In addition, the riparian vegetation has changed completely in the 27 years separating the photos. These photographs indicate the high degree of dynamics of the river in changing both aquatic habitats and riparian vegetation. A section of the UVR just above the confluence with Sycamore Creek also demonstrates the dynamic nature of the UVR. The reach in fig. 2.51A in 1979 was dominated by gravel and cobble bars. The river meandered through these deposits in a series of glides, runs, and riffles. During the 1993 flood, this reach was scoured out into a big, deep (2 to 3 m or 6 to 10 ft) pool, but it still contained a substantial amount of gravel-sized particles. By 1996, this section was completely filled in with sand-sized and finer sediments (fig. 2.51B). Figures 2.52 and 2.53 show the type of gravel bars and channel substrates that are left in the channel after flood events. In the absence of floods, these coarse sediments become embedded in finetextured sediments and lose their habitat value to native fishes. (A)

(B)

Figure 2.51â&#x20AC;&#x201D;(A) 1979 photo of the UVR in the Antelope Hills Allotment, and (B) the same site in 2009. (Photo A by James Cowlin; photo B by Alvin L. Medina.)

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

(A)

(B)

Figure 2.52â&#x20AC;&#x201D;UVR below Sycamore Canyon at the Clarkdale gauging station in (A) 1979 and (B) 2005. The exact photo location in B is obscured by woody vegetation requiring an oblique aerial view of the canyon. The channel conditions are much different from the pool-riffle habitats shown in A. These have been replaced by deep glides, with submerged riffles and the channel winds about the maze of trees. (Photo A by James Cowlin; photo B by Alvin L. Medina).

(A)

(B)

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Figure 2.53â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Photos of coarse cobble substrates (A) near Sycamore Canyon. These stream habitat conditions are favored by native fishes. Photo B is a reference condition for the reach in 1979, which is much different from the present. (Photos by James Cowlin).

Discussion Vegetation Changes Vegetation in the riparian zone of the UVR has gone through considerable change since the earliest photos from 1910. The riparian habitats are dynamic and will continue to change with future disturbances. Photographs highlight the cycle of scour and revegetation going on in the UVRâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s riparian zones. It is evident that climate-related events are the main drivers of vegetation dynamics, but human activities have also contributed to the changes that have been observed in the river over the past century. Cumulative and sequential effects of Sullivan Dam since 1939 on the channel dynamics that subsequently changed channel conditions, which led to changes in vegetation communities. Patterns of grazing, largely unknown, over 100+ years and recent changes to zero grazing have affected the sustainability, composition, and succession of plant communities. Major changes in recreation, e.g., from open access throughout the corridor to limited access, have further affected how the river functions and changes. Lack of information about how to manage riparian vegetation has largely resulted in a conservative approach to historical uses. In short, the vegetation of the Verde River is much different in composition, structure, and diversity than it was 100, 50 and 25 years ago, as evidenced on other Southwestern streams (Webb and others 2007). Chapters 6 and 7 of this volume present assessments of the current status of UVR riparian vegetation and will facilitate future research efforts. Of significance is how vegetation has changed over time and spatially in response to disturbance from hydrologic factors, such as Sullivan Dam. These hydrologic changes undoubtedly had direct and indirect effects on aquatic habitats and fish. The exact processes remain to be defined.

UVR Hydrologic Changes The wet and dry cycles of the Southwest have strong influences on the geomorphology, hydrology, and ecology of the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rivers (Grissino-Mayer 1996). Past climates have been dominated by these oscillations and future climates certainly will be affected as well (Ely 1997). There is evidence that the Holocene epoch prior to European settlement was marked by a larger quantity and intensity of flood events than has been observed in the UVR in recent years. These events significantly affected the geomorphology and vegetation conditions of the UVR. As noted above, the effects of Sullivan Dam have cumulatively affected many other physical and biological components of the UVR ecosystem.

Ecological Changes and the UVR Numerous hypotheses have been proposed about the relationships among UVR hydrological and ecological processes, current watershed condition, land management practices, and aquatic fauna (Haney and others 2008). Understanding these processes in their paleo, historic, and modern time frames is important for determining their impact on the UVR biological system. An intellectual evolution is required to avoid assigning cause-and-effect relations to only currently visible land management activities. Some processes that have been going on for thousands of years are still affecting the UVR (flooding, drought, arroyo cutting, vegetation changes, landscape-level erosion, etc.) and others are not. Human activities such 70

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

as exotic species introductions, groundwater pumping, irrigation diversions, livestock management, and mining can produce effects as profound as, greater than, or much less than natural processes. The following chapters deal with the topics of hydrology, channel morphology, watershed condition, woody vegetation, herbaceous vegetation, water quality, and fish fauna. Some of the questions that should be considered when reading through this report are: • Is the current watershed condition of the UVR the result of Twentieth Century land management or long-term geologic processes? • Is arroyo and gully cutting a modern problem or one that goes back well into the Pleistocene epoch? • What is the role of paleofloods in channel geomorphic evolution and erosion processes? • Are gallery woody forests in the riparian zone the natural vegetation form or just an artifact between destructive floods? • Is there evidence of landscape-scale erosion that affects the productivity and sustainability of the native UVR ecosystems? • What roles do invasive plants and aquatic fauna play in the ecology of the UVR? • How have changes in the hydrologic equilibrium affected channel stability, vegetation, and aquatic habitats?

Management Implications This chapter provided historical and geophysical perspectives on the UVR. The current vegetation conditions on the river are the result of pre-European streamflows, past and present climate, a century of cattle grazing, and current land management activities. Paleofloods and droughts had far greater impacts on the riparian vegetation and channel geomorphology, as noted in other rivers of the Southwest (Webb and others 2007). Without the context of pre-Twentieth Century impacts on the river, it is too easy to attribute the currently visible conditions of the UVR to modern activities. All of the natural processes and management activities need to be considered holistically before making conclusions about current and future land uses and management activities. From the historical analysis presented here, it is apparent that the UVR has been impacted to a larger extent and intensity by hydrologic and erosion events that pre-dated modern land management. The interactions of the UVR and its surrounding landscape are far more complex than they appear at first glance. Simple cause-and-effect assumptions by land managers and technical staff should be avoided. Likewise, extrapolation of research or management results from other ecosystems or regions should be done with caution and knowledge of the risks of unintended consequences. However, Best Management Practices should always be employed to ensure the sustainability of both the river and upland ecosystems.

Summary and Conclusions Repeat photography was used to display the vivid texture of the UVR’s vegetation, channel, and valley landscapes and to contrast the historical and current

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

conditions. These contrasts are interpreted within the context of plant ecology and hydrogeomorphology to provide a comprehensive understanding of the changes that have occurred in the past century. In some cases, additional photographs provide greater breadth for understanding the larger perspective of the area and its habitats. A principal objective is to provide a broad understanding of historical influences that is necessary to comprehend the various physical and biological processes that govern present-day conditions on the UVR. Climate and land uses undoubtedly have affected the streamflow and sediment regimes, which, in turn, influence such factors as riparian vegetation and aquatic wildlife. Paleo-reconstruction studies of historical environmental conditions are utilized to put forward alternative descriptions of the Verde River for the period of record (1890 to present). Paleoecological data are useful for discriminating environmental changes between natural and cultural influences (Swetnam and others 1999). The introduction of livestock circa 1890 is an important event that is often cited as crucially influential on presentday conditions. However, many descriptions have been extrapolated from general sources that did not recognize climatic conditions during this period that may have long-lasting consequences on the evolution of riparian and aquatic habitats in the UVR. Vegetation descriptions are consistent with Webb and others (2007) with respect to historical changes and current dominance by woody vegetation.

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-291. 2012.

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona By Laurie Wirt1 and H.W. Hjalmarson2 Open-File Report 99-0378 2000

Online version http:/greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/pub/open-file-reports/ofr-99-0378

This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1 2

U.S. Geological Survey, Denver consultant, Camp Verde, Arizona 1

Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................... Introduction .................................................................................................................... Approach ........................................................................................................................ A brief geologic history of the upper Verde headwaters area ........................................ Historical Changes in water levels ................................................................................. Surface-water drainage and ground-water conditions in the upper Verde headwaters area..................................................................................... Base-flow measurements in the upper Verde River ........................................................ Surface-water drainage and geologic controls on ground-water movement ................. Ground-water recharge, discharge, and storage.............................................................. Water-budget relations for Big Chino Valley and the upper Verde River ...................... Water-budget components .............................................................................................. Inflow..................................................................................................... Outflow .................................................................................................. Storage change....................................................................................... Period of response to changes in recharge............................................. Statistical trends in recharge .............................................................................. Changes in outflow from Big Chino Valley to the Verde River .......................... Changes in outflow from Little Chino Valley to the Verde River ....................... Summary of water-budget analysis ..................................................................... Isotopic evidence for the source of springs in the upper Verde River ........................... Sources of base flow as evidenced by stable isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen... Sullivan Lake and Stillman Lake .......................................................... Verde River miles 2.3 to 10 .................................................................. Stable-isotope characteristics of major aquifers and their recharge areas ........... Little Chino Valley ................................................................................ Wells near Sullivan Lake ....................................................................... Big Chino Valley ................................................................................... Ashfork and Big Black Mesa ............................................................... Williamson Valley and Walnut Creek .................................................... Bill Williams Mountain ........................................................................ Carbon isotopes as an indicator of major aquifers and ther recharge areas.......... Discussion of stable-isotope evidence ................................................................. Summary ........................................................................................................................ Acknowledgements......................................................................................................... References Cited.............................................................................................................

4 4 7 7 13 15 18 20 21 24 25 25 25 25 26 26 27 29 29 31 33 34 35 35 35 35 35 36 36 37 37 41 44 48 48

Figures 1. Major geographical features of the upper Verde headwaters area .............................. 2. Geology of A) the Verde River headwaters and B) the Verde River downstream from Sullivan Lake including important springs ............................ 3. Conceptual water-budget model of the hydrology of lower Big Chino Valley and upper Verde River in longitudinal section showing flow components, flow paths, rock units, springs,

5 8

selected wells, potentiometric surfaces, and selected carbon-13 isotope data ......................................................................................................... 4. Graph showing discharge measurements at Del Rio Springs (from 1939 to 1999) and annual precipitation. ............................................................. 5. Base-flow discharge versus distance along the upper Verde River from Granite Creek (river mile 2.0) to Perkinsville (river mile 26) .................... 6. Compilation of water-level contours for the Verde River headwaters area ............... 7. Hydrologic relations for evaluation of precipitation and streamflow trends ............. 8. Hydrologic relations of water-budget analysis .......................................................... 9. Graph of mean daily discharge for the Paulden gage (09503700) for calendar years 1963-65 showing lowest recorded base flow of 15 ft3/s for 11 consecutive days in May 1964......................................................................................................... 10. Oxygen-18 versus deuterium plots for samples A) impounded water in Sullivan Lake and Stillman Lake above the mouth of Granite Creek; and B) base flow from lower Granite Creek, Big Chino Springs, and the upper Verde River......... 11. Map showing ground-water sampling locations in the Verde River headwaters region ................................................................................................................... 12. Oxygen-18 versus deuterium plots for samples A) near Sullivan Lake and from Little Chino Valley, B) from Big Chino Valley, Ash Fork and Big Black Mesa, and C) inmajor tributaries to Big Chino Valley and Sycamore Creek (analogous to Bill Williams Mountain runoff). ................................................... 13. Plots of carbon-13 versus A) oxygen-18, and B) saturation indices for calcite in base flow and ground water .................................................................................

14 16 19 22 30 32

34 38 40

45 46

Tables 1. Annual discharge at Del Rio Springs in acre-feet (1939 to present) .......................... 2. Base-flow measurements for the upper Verde River (1977-97).................................. 3. Annual base-flow, water-level, ground-water pumping, and precipitation data (1952-1997) used for water-budget analysis........................................................ 4. Stable-isotope and hydrologic data for base flow in the Verde River and Granite Creek........................................................................................................ 5. Stable-isotope and well data for ground water in the Verde River headwaters region ....................................................................................................................

12 17 28 39 42

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona By Laurie Wirt1 and H.W. Hjalmarson2

ABSTRACT Multiple lines of evidence were used to identify source aquifers, quantify their respective contributions, and trace the ground-water flow paths that supply base flow to the uppermost reach of the Verde River in Yavapai County, Arizona. Ground-water discharge via springs provides base flow for a 24-mile long reach from the mouth of Granite Creek (river mile 2.0) to Perkinsville (river mile 26). The flowing reach is important to downstream water users, maintains critical habitat for the recovery of native fish species, and has been designated a Wild and Scenic River. Sources of base flow are deduced from (a) geologic information, (b) ground-water levels, (c) precipitation and streamflow records, (d) downstream changes in base-flow measurements, (e) hydrologic analysis of water-budget components, and (f) stableisotope geochemistry of ground water, surface water, and springs. Combined, this information clearly indicates that interconnected aquifers in Big Chino Valley are the primary source of Big Chino Springs, presently supplying at least 80 percent of the upper Verde River’s base flow.

INTRODUCTION Steady, year-round flow in the upper Verde River is supplied by a network of river-channel springs. Virtually all the base-flow discharge upstream from Perkinsville (river mile 26) occurs between the mouth of Granite Creek (river mile 2.0) and river mile 4.0 (see Fig. 1) through small, discrete springs in the stream banks and also from diffuse discharge through sand and gravel in the main channel and from Granite Creek. From 1963 to present, the average base flow was 24.9 cubic feet per second (ft3/s) with mean daily 1 2

U.S. Geological Survey, Denver Camp Verde, Arizona

values ranging from 15 to 33 ft3/s at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging station near Paulden (09503700) near river mile 10. The sources of ground water supplying these springs are complex, as are the paths followed by ground water from major recharge areas to the river. This perennial reach provides a steady source of water for downstream water users and sustains important riparian habitat for abundant wildlife, including several native fish species. Recently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1999) has proposed the designation of the Verde River below Sullivan Dam as critical habitat for two threatened species, the spikedace minnow (Meda fulgida) and the extirpated loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis). Native populations of spikedace minnow have been identified within this reach and elsewhere in the Verde River in the past two decades, although the loach minnow has been extirpated from the Verde watershed. Wildlife biologists consider the lower Granite Creek area in particular as an important expansion area for the recovery of spikedace. In addition, in 1984, Congress declared most of the Verde River downstream from the headwaters area— from Camp Verde to Sycamore Creek—a Wild and Scenic River. The upper Verde River watershed is largely within Yavapai County-presently the fastest growing non-metropolitan county in Arizona, with a growth rate of 3.4 percent, which is four times the national average (Woods & Poole Economics, Incorporated; 1999). Population has risen from 37,000 in 1970 to 140,000 in 1996 and is expected to increase to 313,000 by the year 2020 (Woods & Poole Economics, Incorporated; 1999). Much of this growth is near or within the Little Chino Valley in which the city of Prescott obtains most of its water. Since 1940, ground-water levels in Little Chino Valley have declined more than 75 ft in the north end of the basin—only a few miles from the source springs of the Verde River (Arizona Department of Water Resources; 1999 and 1998; Corkhill and Mason, 1995; Remick, 1983). Although the Little Chino and 4

(26)

Stream drainage

River mile

Willi a m s

C ln Wa u t

ree k

BIG CHINO BASIN

Seligman

Big Ch i

Par

34˚ 30'

BRADSHAW MOUNTAINS

WILLIAMSON VALLEY

Prescott

Chino Valley

Ca ell

line

n yo

Perkinsville (26)

Bill Williams Mtn

AGUA FRIA BASIN

LITTLE CHINO BASIN

10 kilometers

10 miles

R 2E

R 3E

Clarkdale

Verd e R 09503700 (10) ive r 09504000 (35)

noc

Drake

Paulden

Ve r

Little Chino Creek

Sullivan Lake (0.0)

Wash

k ree eC

g t rid

Ashfork

112˚ 30'

Figure 1. Major geographical features of the Verde River headwaters area.

Spring

09503700

M MO AIN

River

Town

Ground-water basin boundary

TA IA AR T UN

Gaging station and number

Mountain range

Township/range boundary

EXPLANATION

ARIZONA

Au bre yV alley

l le

35˚ 30'

N SA

on Va

Upper Verde headwaters area

a n i te C re ek

113˚

IPE NTA INS

JUN OU RM as

W in

g Bi Ch

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona

R 4E

Big Chino Valleys provide all surface-water drainage to the upper Verde River above Hell Canyon, there has been some dispute whether the major source of ground water supplying base flow is wholly derived from these two basins. Historical water-level data (Wallace and Laney, 1976; Schwab, 1995) indicate the ground-water flow direction in Big Chino Valley is toward the Verde River. However, Knauth and Greenbie (1997) have recently suggested that the major source of base flow could be from an aquifer underlying Big Black Mesa to the north, on the basis of stable-isotope data. Moreover, ground-water discharge from Little Chino Valley to the Verde River has substantially declined. Perennial flow apparently was once but is no longer continuous from Del Rio Springs via what is now Sullivan Lake (the topographical confluence of Big and Little Chino Valleys) to the mouth of Granite Creek (Krieger, 1965, p 118). Del Rio Springs is fed by the Little Chino artesian aquifer, which has been depleted substantially since the 1940’s. Surface discharge from Del Rio Springs has also been diverted for municipal and agricultural uses. There is no longer continuous perennial flow from Del Rio Springs to Sullivan Lake or in the first mile of the Verde River downstream from Sullivan Lake. Perennial flow presently begins where the Verde River crosses the intersection of several faults about one mile downstream from Sullivan Lake, at the upstream end of what is locally known as Stillman Lake. Granite Creek also has a permanent flow of water downstream from where the creek crosses a fault about 0.8 miles south of the Verde River (Krieger, 1965, p 118). Whether flow may be declining from these smaller springs is unknown. Demand for water resources in the upper Verde River Valley is increasing because of rapid population growth near the city of Prescott. The Little Chino Valley falls entirely within the Prescott Active Management Area (PAMA), as defined by the Arizona Groundwater Management Act of 1980. The PAMA is a water-management area that is required to reach safe yield by the year 2025. Safe yield is defined by State statute as a balance between the amount of ground water withdrawn and the annual amount of natural and artificial recharge. Recent findings by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) show the PAMA has exceeded safe yield since about 1990. From 1994 through 1998, water levels declined in over 73 percent of wells monitored annually within the PAMA (ADWR 1999; 1998). The Director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources determined on January 12, 1999, that the PAMA was no longer in safe yield. The Little Chino artesian aquifer —the major source of water 6

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378

supply in the PAMA—was determined out of safe yield, and ground-water depletion is projected to continue beyond 2025 in what is considered one of Arizona’s three most severely depleted areas (State of Arizona Office of the Auditor General, 1999). Because available water in Little Chino Valley will not meet increasing demands, the PAMA is considering importation of Big Chino ground water. To date, Big Chino Valley has not experienced large ground-water declines, although pumping for irrigated agriculture has at times had an effect on water levels in some parts of the sub-basin (Wallace and Laney, 1976; Schwab, 1995). Over the past several decades, residential development in this rural area has increased slightly, whereas ground-water use for agriculture has decreased (although recently stabilized), resulting in a small net decrease in water use (Anning and Duet, 1994). The few Big Chino Valley wells having more than 10 years of historical waterlevel measurements do not exhibit any substantial long-term changes (Wallace and Laney, 1976; Schwab, 1995; ADWR and USGS water-level databases), although fluctuations of a few feet have been observed between summer and non-irrigated winter months. There is concern that over-use of Big and Little Chino Valley ground water has reduced base flow in the past, may reduce base flow in the future, and could eventually dry up base flow in the upper Verde River (series of articles in the Prescott Daily Courier, 1999; and in the Verde Bugle, 1999). Reductions in base flow will negatively impact downstream water users in the Verde watershed and diminish wildlife habitat. At present, base flow in the Verde River has actually increased slightly in recent decades in response to decreasing irrigation in Big Chino Valley. Improved understanding of ground-water sources, travel paths, and the relative contributions of each source are needed so that the limited water resources in Big and Little Chino Valleys can be managed effectively. The purpose of this report is to briefly analyze and summarize multi-disciplinary evidence that identifies and describes the two principal ground-water sources that provide base flow in a 24-mi reach of the Verde River between the mouth of Granite Creek (river mile 2.0) and Perkinsville (river mile 26). Nearly all of the data used has been available in published reports and in water data files of the USGS and ADWR. These data indicate the relative contribution of each source, characteristics of the source aquifers (such as rock-type and relative ground-water age), the direction of ground-water travel paths, and the locations of major recharge areas. Data were derived from the following sources:

a) the geology and fault locations in the Big and Little Chino Valleys and along the upper Verde River from Krieger (1965 and 1967ac); Ostenaa et al. (1993); and Menges and Pearthree (1983) b) ground-water levels in the Verde River headwaters region using USGS and ADWR data that are published in Wallace and Laney (1976); Corkhill and Mason (1995); and Schwab (1995). Water-level data are digitally available upon request from the USGS and ADWR computer databases c) Records of streamflow at the USGS gage on the Verde River near Paulden (09503700) and at gages in nearby basins, which are published in the USGS annual Water-Resource Data reports for Arizona. Stream discharge data are digitally available upon request from the USGS ADAPS computer database d) estimates of ground-water pumping for irrigation in Big Chino Valley in Anning and Duet (1994) and Ewing et al. (1994) e) regional precipitation records in Sellers and Hill (1974) and from the National Weather Service, and f) stable-isotope analyses from 1991 to present, collected by the USGS (under the direction of the lead author) and by Arizona State University (Knauth and Greenbie, 1997).

APPROACH This report primarily relies on three independent approaches: (1) evaluation of the existing geologic and hydrologic information, (2) a water-budget analysis of existing hydrologic data, and (3) the interpretation of stable-isotope data. This information is used to identify ground-water sources of Verde River base flow, to determine ground-water flow paths, and to estimate the amount of ground water entering the Verde River from each source under present (199199) conditions. Understanding of the geology and geologic history of the area helps to identify the major obstructions and conduits for ground-water flow. The hydrologic analysis is largely based on a simplified water-budget model of the major flow components in the Big Chino Valley. The hydrologic analysis defines distinct relations between annual

water use for irrigation, winter ground-water levels, and base flow in the Verde River. The isotope interpretation considers physical features of the area such as the geology, the lithology of permeable and impervious units, the location of major faults, ground-water levels, and base-flow measurements to determine flow paths and estimate the relative contribution of Verde River base flow from the two aquifer sources. In general, ratios of stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen in ground water can be considered â&#x20AC;&#x153;conservativeâ&#x20AC;? in that they do not change with residence time or distance traveled once water (runoff) infiltrates beneath the land surface. However, isotope interpretations are often lacking in certainty without detailed knowledge of all possible source areas and their ground-water flow paths. Therefore, it is necessary to also consider geologic and hydrologic factors when developing an interpretation of ground water and surface-water interactions based on isotope data. Together, the use of multiple lines of independent evidence significantly improves the confidence level of the final hydrologic interpretation.

A BRIEF GEOLOGIC HISTORY OF THE UPPER VERDE HEADWATERS The geology of the Verde headwaters and its major source aquifers is complex, hence, an understanding of the conceptual geologic framework is essential to identifying the barriers to flow and the conduits that provide for the movement of ground water. For reference, we include a generalized geologic map of the major lithologies for the Upper Verde Watershed, shown in Fig. 2A, which was abridged from a 1:1,000,000 scale GIS digital compilation by Richard and Kneale (1998). The detailed geology of a small but critical part of the watershed (Fig. 2B), as mapped by Krieger (1965) at a 1:48,000 scale, depicts the geology surrounding Sullivan Lake, lower Granite Creek, Del Rio Springs and other important springs; as well as the outlet regions of Big and Little Chino Valleys. Basement rocks in this area are predominantly Paleozoic limestone. In Big Chino Valley, the Martin Limestone and Redwall Limestone are underlain by Precambrian granite (Krieger, 1965; Ostenaa et al., 1993). Basement rocks in Little Chino Valley (Mason and Corkhill, 1995) and Williamson Valley (Ostenaa et al., 1993) consist of Precambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks. These rocks are exposed in the Granite Dells and along the margins of the basins. Limestone and granitic basement rocks are also exposed in the walls of the Verde River canyon. Both Big and Little Chino Valleys are structurally

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona

controlled and are filled with unconsolidated alluvium and volcanic rocks. Big Chino Valley is part of a physiographic and tectonic transition zone between the Colorado Plateau province to the northeast and the Valley and Range province to the south. The basin consists of a half graben formed by Cenozoic displacement on normal faults, principally the Big Chino Fault. A down-dropped block of Paleozoic limestone underlies Big Chino basin fill and is tilted northeast, as shown by deep well logs (Ostenaa et al., 1993). The valley is surrounded by structurally higher blocks of Proterozoic rocks that are capped by a mostly carbonate sequence of Paleozoic rocks. Big Chino is typical of several basins within the Transition Zone that are filled with late Cenozoic sedimentary and volcanic deposits. The Big Chino Fault is an important structural

feature relevant to the hydrology of the Big Chino Valley (Fig. 2A). The Big Chino Fault is a large regional feature that has been delineated for at least 26 miles northwest of Paulden (Krieger, 1965, 1967ac). On a regional scale, northwest-southeast-trending fractures throughout the Colorado Plateau area in northern Arizona tend to be more open to fluid flow (Thorstenson and Beard, 1998; L. S. Beard, oral commun., 1999). Outside of the major half graben of Big Chino Valley, 4.5 million year old basalt flows postdate most faulting. However, within the center of the half graben, the youngest faulting post-dates the basalt flows and is probably less than 100,000 years old. Downward displacement has preserved a thick wedge of sediments near the center of the basin along the hanging wall, where displacement of the Big Chino Fault is the largest (Ostenaa et al., 1993).

Geology Quaternary alluvium and surficial deposits Quaternary basalt and volcanic rocks Tertiary sedimentary rocks and consolidated sediment Tertiary basalt and volcanic rocks Paleozoic and Mesozoic limestone and sedimentary rocks Proterozoic metamorphic and metasedimentary rocks Proterozoic granitoid rocks Inset area of figure 2b

Generalized Structure Limestone Canyon Monocline Big Chino Fault

Figure 2a. Geology of the Verde River headwaters, abridged from S.J. Reynolds and S.M. Richard (AGS GIS map report, 1993)

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378

river mile 2.0 Big Chino Springs

river mile 0.0

Stillman Lake Spring river mile 2.3

Lower Granite Spring

EXPLANATION Spring

Del Rio Spring

0 0

1 mile 1 kilometer

Figure 2b. Geology of the area surrounding Sullivan Lake (Krieger, 1965) and locations of important springs. Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona

EXPLANATION

Contact, showing dip Dashed where approximately located; dotted where concealed

D Fault, showing dip Dashed where approximately located; queried where doubtful dotted where concealed. U, upthrown side; D downthrown side

55 Inclined

Vertical

Strike and dip of beds

after Krieger, M.H. 1965. Geology of the Prescott and Paulden quadrangles, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 467

Figure 2b. (continued) This alluvium was deposited by alluvial fans along Big Black Mesa. Throughout much of the history of Big Chino Valley, drainage from the basin was blocked, creating a large playa as evidenced by thick clay layers in the center of basin (Ostenaa et al., 1993, Ewing et al., 1994). The less-permeable clays are thought to impede ground-water movement from the upper end to the lower end of Big Chino Valley. Three deep boreholes drilled in the center of the basin penetrated between 500 to 1800 ft of silt and clay (Ostenaa et al., 1993, p. 17), indicating that the lake sediments were deposited continually over a long period. Valley subsidence was probably responsible for depositing the clays. On the down drop (southwest) side of the Big Chino Fault, clays interfinger with alluvial fan gravel near the center of the basin (Ostenaa et al., 1993, map cross-section G-G'). Preferential ground-water movement is likely through coarser-grained alluvium along the edges of clay unit, both along the fault and across the broad outlet of 10

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378

Williamson Valley Wash. Alluvial fan sediments along the Big Chino Fault are composed of coarser-grained material including large blocks of limestone. Poor sorting and solution cavities in the limestone alluvium are thought to create a highly permeable aquifer along the fault (Ed DeWitt, oral commun., 1999). The decrease in the altitude of Big Black Mesa southeastward toward the Verde River appears to mimic displacement on the Big Chino Fault. Krieger has mapped the Big Chino Fault at its southeastern end as splaying outward in a complex zone of short, discontinuous faults having varied displacements. In the area near Paulden, the net offset along the entire zone of faults is negligible and the alluvial basin is considerably shallower (Ostenaa et al., 1993; map crosssection H-H'). Volcanic activity began less than 30 million years ago (Reynolds et al., 1986) when a major northward-dipping layer of latite extruded into the Big

Chino Valley and the area that is now the upper Verde River from dikes in the Little Chino-Lonesome Valley area (Krieger, 1965). In addition, lava extruded south and east along topographic depressions from Big Black Mesa and the Juniper Mountains, respectively (Ostenaa et al., 1993). The volcanic rock penetrated in water wells is reported as basalt, or “malpais,” which is a Spanish term for lava and cinders, meaning “bad land.” Some volcanic units are basalt, but the older units are now termed “latite” (Edward DeWitt, oral commun., 1999), which is referred to in older publications as andesite (Krieger, 1965). Beginning about 5 million years ago, basalt erupted along the Colorado Plateau rim area and flowed into the Hell Canyon-Verde River lowland from the north (Krieger, 1965, pp. 67-85; Ostenaa et al., 1993). The basalt flowed around topographic obstacles and filled depressed areas. In Big Chino Valley, the limestone margins and valley alluvium were covered with layers of clastic volcanic rock and sediments. A large lobe of basalt extruded southward into the confluence of Big and Little Chino Valleys near present-day Sullivan Lake, which probably blocked the pre-existing drainage near the outlet of the basins. This event is preserved in the rock record east of Paulden, where basalt layers slope several hundred feet downhill towards the present-day channel of the Verde River (Krieger, 1965; Ostenaa et al., 1993). Ostenaa et al. (1993) surmised that the basalt layers east of Paulden “apparently buried a highly irregular landscape of Tertiary gravel deposits, Paleozoic limestone hills several hundred feet high, and exposed Proterozoic rocks.” In some areas of Little Chino Valley, the volcanic units contain lava tubes and comprise the major water-bearing units. As exposed in the canyon below Sullivan Lake, the basalt lies beneath the valley surface and, in this location, is non-porous and apparently serves as an obstacle to ground-water flow. As the alluvium becomes shallower and pinches out against the basalt towards the eastern end of Big Chino Valley (Ostenaa et al., 1993), ground water moving downgradient has no outlet except fractures and solution cavities in the underlying limestone. At the edge of the mesa northeast of Paulden, the base of the lower basalt contact is higher than the valley, and ground water can move beneath the basalt through limestone (Fig. 2B). Solution features and irregular subsurface terrain provide the likely hydrologic connection between Big Chino Valley and the upper Verde River. In fact, several solution features and springs have been identified in close proximity to the largest base-flow gains in the first 26 miles of the Verde River. Several small ponds and springs have recently

been identified at the base of the limestone cliffs on both sides of the river near river mile 2.3. One springfed pond had about 2-ft of artesian head, located just below a small side canyon and fault. This spring, which is part of a network of spring-like areas along the north bank of the Verde River between river miles 2.3 and 4.0, is visible in a 1949 aerial photograph (National Archives Air Survey Center, Bladensburg, Maryland, photo ID 188VT55RTM532311AD16APR49-7P54). Alluvial deposits and riparian vegetation presently cover these springs; but at the time the photograph was taken a recent flood (possibly associated with the record January 1949 precipitation at Prescott) had scoured the left bank. Knauth and Greenbie (1997) identified an artesian pond at river mile 2.5 in a larger side canyon, and reported that the side canyon appears to have been formed by dissolution of the Martin Limestone and the collapse of overlying non-carbonate material. The surface altitude of the pond is 3.5 ft higher than the water level of the Verde River, as measured by Hjalmarson using a steel tape on April 16, 1999. Coinciding with the locations of the solution features and springs, base flow increases rapidly from less than 5 to more than 17 ft3/s from river mile 2.3 to 2.7 (Boner and others, 1991; Table 1). Ground-water discharge from Del Rio Springs and Lower Granite Spring may be interconnected. Lower Granite Spring, 0.8 mile upstream from the mouth of Granite Creek, coincides withmapped fault locations (Fig. 2B). Large cottonwood trees and riparian vegetation mark the onset of flow about 1 mile upstream from the mouth of Granite Creek. The first occurrence of ground-water discharge, referred to here as the lower Granite Spring, coincides with a fault zone mapped by Krieger (1965) in which the Tapeats Sandstone is fault bounded between Mazatzal Quartzite and Martin Limestone. In recent geologic times, the Verde River eroded through the basalt obstruction between the confluence of Big and Little Chino Valleys (Sullivan Lake) and the confluence with Granite Creek for a distance of at least 2 miles to form a narrow basalt canyon. The location of the present-day head cut is now the man-made cement dam at Sullivan Lake. Sullivan Lake is just upstream from where Big Chino alluvium pinches out against the southward sloping basalt obstruction. To summarize what is known about geologic controls on the hydrology of the upper Verde River headwaters area, we conceptualize that ground-water movement from major recharge areas in Big Chino Valley is ultimately toward and along the Big Chino

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378

NA NA 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 3.8 3.8 10 13 19 26

34 51’ 33" 34 51’ 42" 34 51’ 48" 34 51’ 54" NA 34 52’ 01" 34 52’ 03" 34 52’ 03" 34 53’ 40" 34 52’ 40" 34 54’ 29’ 34 53’ 52"

Verde River Distance Latitude (river miles) 112 25’ 58" 112 25’ 53" 112 25’ 50" 112 25" 39" NA 112 25’ 18" 112 24’ 05" 112 24’ 05" 112 20’ 32" 112 17’ 20" 112 15’ 29" 112 12’ 04"

Longitude

Notes: ADWR measurements were made in cooperation with ASU (Knauth and Greenbie 1997). USGS measurements in 1977 are published in Owen-Joyce and Bell (1983). USGS measurements in 1991 are published in Ewing and others (1994).

Granite Creek, 0.3 mi abv confluence with Verde R. " " " " " " Verde R., 500 ft blw Granite Creek Verde R., 0.25 mi blw Granite Creek Verde R., 0.5 mi blw Granite Creek Verde R., 0.7 mi blw Granite Creek Verde R., at Stewart Ranch " " " " Verde R., gage nr Paulden (09503700) Verde R., nr Duff Spring Verde R. nr U.S. Mines Verde R., nr bridge at Perkinsville

Station Name

USGS ADWR USGS ADWR ADWR USGS USGS ADWR USGS USGS USGS USGS

20.3 23.7 17.1 27

18.9

17.3 19.3

<.5

14.6 20.3

0.49

0.55

22.3 25

4.62

0.13*

19.1 23

4.44 20.5

Collecting Date of Discharge Measurement Agency 5/2/77 7/2/91 5/22/96 7/4/97 (cubic feet per second)

Table 1 Base-Flow Measurements for the Upper Verde River (1977-97) [All meaurements made with AA-type flow meter except as noted: bold is estimated, italics is mean daily flow at gage, and * indicates Parshall flume]

Fault. At the end of the fault zone near Paulden, flow is through fractures or solution features in the Martin Limestone, which underlie the basalt unit. The southward-dipping basalt unit apparently blocks underflow in the vicinity of Sullivan Lake, which would account for the lack of springs in the first river mile. The Martin Limestone discharges to Big Chino Springs in the Verde channel between river miles 2.3 and 4.0, as conceptualized in Fig. 3. On the basis of water-level contours and geology, the source of Lower Granite Spring is probably the Little Chino alluvial aquifer, however, the possibility that it receives some contribution from the Big Chino unconfined aquifer cannot be ruled out. HISTORICAL CHANGES IN WATER LEVELS Human activities and thus water-level changes in rural Big Chino Valley have been relatively small, and almost entirely related to agriculture, although future residential use is expected to increase. In contrast, the Little Chino artesian aquifer has been extensively developed for public water supply, industry, and agriculture. In this section we present the available data showing water-level changes in the two basins. Changes in water levels in Big Chino Valley were evaluated by comparing data from Wallace and Laney (1976) with Schwab (1995). Water levels in lower Big Chino Valley downstream from Walnut Creek were similar in 1992 (Schwab, 1995) to what they were in 1975-76 (Wallace and Laney, 1976), although large declines have been observed near irrigated farmland in the upper Big Chino Valley (up gradient from the clay unit). Water levels in Williamson Valley were a few feet lower in a few wells in 1992 (Schwab, 1995) than when water levels were measured in those wells in 1975 and 1976 (Wallace and Laney, 1976). Short-term or daily changes in water level appear to be related to the depth and degree of confinement, as illustrated by the following observation. From June 1974 to December 1975, the USGS monitored water levels in two existing wells in Big Chino Valley (Ewing and others, 1994; Appendix E). The first well (at T18N, R3W, 26acc) recorded a steady but gradual decline during the 18 months from approximately 15.7 feet to 16.7 feet below land surface. This well, with a depth of 400 feet, is assumed to represent conditions in the shallow alluvial aquifer. The second well (T18N, R3W, 31bcb) displayed a wildly fluctuating record for the same period. Depth to water ranged from 139.4 feet at the beginning of

the period and 138.8 feet at the end of the period, however, daily fluctuations were recorded in excess of 0.6 feet. The depth of the second well is unknown. It also is not known whether this well or a nearby well were in operation during this period. Barometric pressure changes recorded at the Prescott Municipal Airport appeared to influence water levels in the second well. According to Ewing and others (1993), this indicates that the second well is probably completed in a deep aquifer under confined conditions. The occurrence, interconnection, and depth of confined aquifer units in lower Big Chino Valley is not well understood. In the northern part of Little Chino Valley (T. 17 N., R. 2 W.), water from artesian wells flows at the land surface. Remick (1983) reported 7 flowing wells during the winter of 1981-82. Many of these wells have since been capped. Schwalen (1967) described the artesian area as extending from Del Rio Springs southward for a distance of 6.5 miles and has a known width of about 4 miles. The town of Chino Valley is located near the center of the artesian area. A perched aquifer in alluvium composed of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and conglomerate overlies the artesian area, probably because the confining layer of the artesian zone also forms the perching layer for the perched aquifer (Remick, 1983). Depth to water ranges from less than 10 to more than 150 ft below land surface (Remick, 1983). Outside the artesian area, water levels may be more than 250 ft below land surface in the southern part of the basin (for example in T. 15 N., R. 1., 2 W). At the north end of Little Chino Valley, perennial Del Rio Springs was known as a reliable source of water to the earliest explorers and settlers. Camp Whipple was temporarily established at Del Rio Springs on December 23, 1863 to provide the governor's party a secure place to stay and to use as a base for further exploration in order to establish a territorial capital (Henson, 1965). In written accounts by these explorers (Henson, 1965), Del Rio Springs (referred to as Cienega Creek) is described as the headwater tributary of the Verde River. The springs were developed in the early part of the century for water supply and irrigation. In 1901 (Krieger, 1965; p. 115), the City of Prescott built a 21-mile pipeline that pumped 500,000 gallons per day (560 acre-feet per year; Baker et al., 1973) from Del Rio Springs to Prescott from 1904 to 1927 (Matlock et al., 1973). Although the supply of water was adequate for Prescottâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs, the cost of pumping was considered excessive and the pipeline was eventually disassembled (Krieger, 1965). Other lessexpensive water-supply options favored at that time

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona

Sullivan Lake

CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THE HYDROLOGY OF LOWER BIG CHINO VALLEY

Verde Gorge

Alluvium ?

-11‰

-5‰

Verde River

Wells BC-11 BC-12

Springs

Limestone

-5‰

Precipitation (P)

Sullivan Lake

Ground Water Pumpage (GWP)

Potentiometric Surface Big Chino aquifer

Verde River

Springs

Basalt

Storage (S)

Inflow from Little Chino Valley

Base Flow Discharge (Q Verde )

Figure 3. Conceptual model of hydrology of lower Big Chino Valley and the upper Verde River in longitudinal section showing flow components, flow paths, rock units, springs, selected wells, potentiometric surfaces, and carbon-13 isotope data (eg. -5 is per mil of carbon-13). 14

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378

included the construction of several upstream dams and an infiltration gallery that was installed in the alluvial channel of Granite Creek near Prescott. Well drilling to tap the artesian aquifer near the town of Chino Valley first began around 1925, with many wells drilled in the 1930’s and 1940’s. The Santa Fe Railroad operated the Puro siding at Del Rio Springs to supply water tanks for trains. In the winter of 192526, the railroad drilled 2 wells, replacing a sump pump system (Matlock et al., 1973; p. 44). Deep wells in the artesian aquifer near the town of Chino Valley are the primary source of supply for the Chino Valley Irrigation District, which is supplemented by water from man-made Watson Lake (Krieger, 1965). An investigation by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1945 and 1946 was unsuccessful in finding an adequate water supply near Prescott, and so in 1947 the city drilled two wells approximately 5 miles south of Del Rio Springs (Krieger, 1965). Several municipal wells in this area remain in use today. To give the reader an idea of the amount of water presently withdrawn from Little Chino Valley, annual pumping in 1993 was 12,811 acre-feet, as estimated by Corkhill and Mason (1995; p 72). Water levels in the Little Chino artesian aquifer have declined by as much as 75 ft in recent decades (ADWR, 1998, 1999; Corkhill and Mason, 1995; Remick, 1983). In 1999, water-level declines of 1 to 11 ft per year were observed in 20 wells that tap the alluvial and volcanic aquifers in the Chino Valley area (Frank Corkhill, written commun., March 27, 2000). In the northern part of the basin where the decline has been greatest, the discharge at Del Rio Springs has decreased substantially over the past several decades. Examination of the available discharge data for the springs (Table 2 and Fig. 4) indicates that base flow is quite variable from year to year. According to Corkhill and Mason (1995), the annual variation is related to variations in annual precipitation, natural recharge, ground-water pumping, and incidental recharge. For example, increases in discharge during the 1980’s are attributed to local reductions in pumping from the artesian aquifer (Corkhill and Mason, 1995; p 81). The mean annual discharge at Del Rio Springs from 1997 to 1999 was 1,460+60 acre-feet (+ standard deviation), or about 50 percent of the mean annual discharge of 2,830+450 acre-feet that was measured from 1940 to 1945. Pumping of nearby water-supply wells for the Santa Fe Railroad may have caused discharge from Del Rio Springs to decrease during the 1940’s, however, pumping records are incomplete for much of this time period. Schwalen (1967) notes that the effects of pumping were particularly noticeable in the War years of 1942 and 1943, in which the outflow from the spring was

apparently decreased by 600 to 800 acre-feet. In 1943, the only year in which accurate pumping records are available, pumping was 855 acre-feet (Schwalen 1967). Thus, annual discharge of Del Rio Springs from 1940 to 1946 may have typically exceeded 3,000 acre-feet, and could have been higher before the advent of well drilling in the Little Chino artesian aquifer. Since 1930 more than 100 wells have been drilled into the artesian aquifer, not all of them successful, but some flowing at rates as high as 1,500 gallons per minute (Matlock et al., 1973). In addition to surface discharge from Del Rio Springs, natural discharge from the artesian aquifer flows northward towards Sullivan Lake, presumably as underflow through the alluvium underlying Little Chino Creek (Matlock et al. 1973; Corkhill and Mason, 1995). Schwalen (1976) estimated a total predevelopment natural discharge from the Little Chino artesian aquifer system towards the Verde River headwaters region of about 5,000 acre-feet. Matlock et al. (1973; p. 9) estimated a slightly lower predevelopment value of 4,000 acre-feet, but neither Matlock et al. or Schwalen considered possible changes in ground-water flow resulting from the construction of Watson and Willow reservoirs circa 1915. Whether the impoundment of runoff may have affected the amount of ground-water underflow is unknown. Prior to 1940, little quantitative data are available to indicate whether natural discharge may have been higher, however a minimum predevelopment value of at least 4,000 to 5,000 acre-feet is probably valid “since there has been no major climatic change in the area” (Matlock et al., 1973; p.9).

SURFACE-WATER DRAINAGE AND GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS IN THE UPPER VERDE HEADWATERS AREA Prior to the early 1970’s, the first perennial flow in the Verde River system began at Del Rio Springs (Krieger, 1965; p 118). A large cienega fed by Del Rio Springs provided permanent base flow from lower Little Chino Creek to Sullivan Lake (Corkhill and Mason, 1995; p 27). Spillage over the cement dam at Sullivan Lake (constructed from 1935 to 1939; Sharlott Hall Museum archives) is thought to have supplied continuous flow through the basalt canyon of the Verde River between the dam and the mouth of Granite Creek (A.L. Medina, oral commun., 1999). Since the early 1970’s the lower reach of Little Chino Creek has been ephemeral, along with Sullivan Lake and the first mile of the Verde River below Sullivan Lake, owing to declining and diverted

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona

Discharge at Del Rio Springs (See data in Table 2) 30 25

3000 cd = 0.01

20 2500 15

2000

.7 3

1500

1000

0 1940

1960

1980

2000

YEAR Mean annual discharge Multiple year average of discharge where: a) horizontal error bar indicates timeframe b) vertical error bar indicates standard deviation where there are 3 or more data points Mean annual rainfall at Prescott station (1940 to 1998) Regression line showing coefficent of determination (cd) for precipitation data Linear regression line showing coefficient of determination (cd) for mean annual discharge Spline fit smoothing for discharge data

Figure 4. Mean annual discharge at Del Rio Springs in acre feet (1939 to present). A straight line and spline-fit curve represent interpolation of averaged data values. Small circles indicate mean annual precipitation at the Prescott municipal airport.

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378

Precipitation in inches

Annual Discharge in acre-feet

3500

Table 2. Annual Discharge at Del Rio Springs in Acre-Feet (1939 to present) [parentheses ( ) indicate mean value for multiple years; + standard deviation provided where data allows]

Water Year(s)

Annual Discharge

Data Source

Comments

1940-45 1965-72 1984-1989 1997-99

(2,828 + 455) (2,300) (2,400) (1,450 + 61)

1 2 3 4

6-year average 8-year average 6-year average 3-year average

1939 1940 1941 1942 1943

-2,773 2,895 2,256 2,396

1 1 1 1 1

monthly records began August 1939 using a 36-inch rectangular weir

1944 1945 1946

3,217 3,429 --

1 1 1

1996

1997 1998 1999

1,520 1,420 1,410

4 4 4

discharge reduced by 855 acre-feet of pumpage from nearby Santa Fe wells incomplete record; weir installation permanently damaged by flood on Aug. 4 monthly records began at new gage in August 1996; new gage is slightly downstream from old gage.

Data sources: 1 = University of Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station, in Schwalen (1967) 2 = University of Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station, in Matlock et al. (1973) 3 = Arizona Department of Water Resources, Basic Data Section, in Corkhill and Mason (1995) 4 = U. S. Geological Survey, in Annual Water-Resources Data reports (1997-1999)

flow from Del Rio Springs (Schwalen, 1967; Matlock et al., 1973, Corkhill and Mason, 1995). Most of Sullivan Lake was silted in within a few years following its construction (A.L. Medina, oral commun., 1999), however, a large shallow pond is sometimes present on a seasonal basis (Harley Shaw, oral commun.,2000), usually following infrequent runoff from Big Chino Wash, Williamson Valley Wash, or Little Chino Creek. The bottom of the lake now lies several feet below the top of the cement spillway, and is often dry during the agricultural pumping season (March through October). Schwab (1995) reported water levels in nearby wells of 95 to 113 ft below the top of the land surface, hence seasonal water in the lake is either impounded or fed by

perched ground water, or is some mixture of these conditions. Unlike the ground-water flow paths that typically develop in a homogeneous alluvial aquifer, ground water in both Big and Little Chino Valleys follows substantially different flow paths than the surface drainage, as will be further illustrated in the following sections. We begin by examining the differences between the surface-water and ground-water drainage patterns. This will provide the background necessary for a discussion of ground-water recharge and discharge, aquifer storage, and historical trends in the major source aquifers. Ultimately, this information will be used to develop a conceptual groundwater model for the Big Chino confined and uncon-

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona

fined aquifers, which includes our major premise that Big Chino Valley is the primary source of Verde River base flow. Base-flow measurements in the upper Verde River. As defined by state statute, the origin of the Verde River begins at Sullivan Lake (river mile 0.0), near Paulden, Arizona. Little Chino Creek, Williamson Valley Wash, and Big Chino Wash converge at the confluence of Big and Little Chino Valleys to form a narrow basalt canyon. In the first mile below the Sullivan Lake dam, there have been no reports of spring flow or ground-water seepage, although puddles may persist following storm runoff. A small pool is often present at the base of the dam, which may be the result of a small amount of ground-water seepage around the dam or runoff remaining from flow over the spillway. The first mile of the canyon is ephemeral, but the second mile contains a large mile-long spring-fed pond, known locally as Stillman Lake, that is impounded by alluvial debris above the mouth of Granite Creek. Uppermost perennial flow in the upper Verde River presently begins at the spring near river mile 1.0 at the upstream end of Stillman Lake. The uppermost perennial flow in lower Granite Creek begins Lower Granite Springs (0.8 mile south of the confluence). Lower Granite Springs is within the Little Chino watershed, and the Stillman Lake spring straddles the boundary of the Big Chino-Little Chino drainage divide. Both reaches are intermittent, as both the Verde River and Granite Creek are generally dry at the mouth of Granite Creek. The disappearance of perennial flow is attributed to underflow through the abundant sandy alluvium near the confluence. The canyon is wider near the confluence, but quickly narrows and measurable perennial flow resumes in the Verde River about 0.1 mile (500 ft) downstream from the confluence with Granite Creek. During wetter years, perennial flow has been observed to begin further upstream, at the confluence. At the downstream end of Stillman Lake there is little if any measurable current. Although there is slow-moving current in a few narrow stretches of lower Granite Creek, large sections of the reach are wide and marshy, and discharge can be difficult to measure. As observed during low-flow conditions on several occasions from 1991 to present, flow in the Verde River channel disappears entirely at the confluence with Granite Creek and probably travels beneath the surface through channel alluvium to emerge in the Verde streambed several hundred feet downstream. Base flow in lower Granite Creek has been measured at 0.55 ft3/s in 1977 (Owen-Joyce and Bell, 1983), 18

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378

estimated at <0.5 ft3/s in 1991 (Boner and others, 1991; Ewing et al. 1994), and measured by Parshall flume at 0.13 ft3/s in 1996 (Knauth and Greenbie, 1997). The data were probably collected at different locations, and there are too few data to support a trend. On the basis of decreases in discharge at Del Rio Springs, loss of surface flow from Little Chino Creek, and declining water levels in the Little Chino artesian aquifer (Schwalen 1967, p. 47; ADWR, 1998; ADWR and USGS water-level databases), we hypothesize that base flow from Little Chino Valley to the upper Verde Riverâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;as well as surface flowâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; may have declined over the past century. Base flow downstream from the confluence with Granite Creek begins as a trickle (river mile 2.1) and gradually increases to about 4.6 ft3/s near about mile 2.3, as measured by ADWR in May 1996. Krieger (1965) mapped a northwest-southeast-trending fracture crossing the Verde channel near this location, about 1500 ft downstream from the confluence of Granite Creek. The fault location coincides with the onset of the rapid increase in discharge from Big Chino Springs. Base flow near the old Stewart Ranch (river mile 4.0) was measured at 20.3 ft3/s in 1977, 19.3 ft3/s in 1991, and 22.3 ft3/s in 1996 (Fig. 5 and Table 1). Base flow does not increase substantially between Stewart Ranch and the USGS gaging station near Paulden, Arizona (09503700) (river mile 10). Thus, discharge measurements and field observations suggest at least three separate spring systems. The Verde River reach downstream from Granite Creek (river mile 2.1 to 2.3) and above the first inflow from Big Chino Springs is probably a mixture of underflow from the lower Granite Creek and from the Stillman Lake spring systems, which may or may not be interconnected. On the basis of the available discharge data, Big Chino Springs provides at least 80 percent or more of the total base flow measured at the Paulden gage. The possibility of an unknown component of Big Chino or Little Chino ground water moving beneath or around the Paulden gage is largely addressed by geologic constraints. Precambrian crystalline rocks underlie the Devonian and Mississipian units in the Verde River canyon at a fairly shallow depth, normally less than 300 ft beneath the surface. In selected places along the river these crystalline rocks are exposed because of uplift along Laramide monoclines or exposure along Tertiary normal faults. Quartz diorite (Krieger, 1965, plate 2), assigned to the Government Canyon Granodiorite (DeWitt, unpub. data, 1999), is exposed between river miles 10 and 15 downstream from the Paulden gage

Discharge (cubic feet per second)

PERKINSVILLE

HELL CANYON

PAULDEN GAGE

BIG CHINO SPRINGS

STILLMAN LAKE GRANITE CREEK

30 25

EXPLANATION

Year of base flow measurement 1977 1991 1996 1997

15 10 5 0 0

Distance (miles)

Figure 5. Base-flow discharge versus distance along the upper Verde River from Granite Creek (river mile 2.0) to Perkinsville (river mile 26). Location of major hydrological and geographical features are labeled along the top x-axis.

(09503700). Based on interpretation of aeromagnetic data, the uplifted granodiorite extends north and south from the river for several miles (DeWitt, oral commun.,1999). Widely spaced epidote-filled fractures are common in the otherwise undeformed granodiorite. Except for these fractures and the weathered part of the granodiorite immediately below the basal Cambrian strata, the granodiorite is presumed to be impermeable. In general, uplifted Precambrian basement serves as a barrier to ground water moving downward or eastward along the canyon, and probably facilitates ground-water discharge at Big Chino Springs. Thus, the possibility of underflow from the Big and Little Chino watersheds around or beneath the Paulden gage is considered unlikely. Discharge from Big Chino Springs between river mile 2.3 and 4.0 is the major source of perennial flow in the Verde River, accounting for at least 80 percent or more of total base flow. The remaining fraction of ground-water discharge is attributed to Lower Granite Spring and spring discharge beneath Stillman Lake on the basis of lowflow discharge measurements upstream from mile 2.3 (Table 2).

Base flow in the Verde River gradually increases from a dry streambed at the confluence with Granite Creek (river mile 2.0) to a 35-year mean (1963 to 1997) of 24.9 ft3/s at the USGS gaging station near Paulden, Arizona (09503700), located at river mile 10 (Fig.1), on the basis of observations and historical discharge measurements (USGS and ADWR databases, presented in Table 1 and Fig. 5). Virtually all ground-water contributions to base flow, or river-channel springs, occur between miles 2.1 and 4.0. Additional gains, if any, between the Paulden gage and Perkinsville (river mile 26) are not considered significant. In 1977 stream flow appeared to decrease slightly between the Paulden gage and Perkinsville; in 1991 there was a small net gain (Fig. 5). These fluctuations in the 1991 measurements are attributed to several possible factors. A daily range in discharge of about 2 ft3/s, as measured continuously at the Paulden gage, is caused by evapotranspiration during summer base-flow conditions. A small gain of about 1 to 3 ft3/s or less is attributed to Duff Spring, a small spring in a south-side tributary near river mile

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona

13. In the reach downstream from river mile 15, temporary stream-flow losses may occur to fractures and karst features in the exposed Redwall Limestone. In addition, there is a ranching diversion several thousand feet upstream from the road bridge at Perkinsville that seasonally diverts a small but unknown amount of stream flow, but probably on the order of a few ft3/s. Surface drainage and geologic controls on groundwater movement. Virtually all surface runoff upstream from the Paulden gage (09503700) is derived from Big Chino Wash in Big Chino Valley and from Granite Creek in Little Chino Valley. Waterlevel contours in the major Big and Little Chino aquifers have been compiled in Fig. 6 from Schwab (1995) for Williamson Valley and Big Chino Valley and from Corkhill and Mason (1995) in Little Chino Valley. The ground-water flow direction is downgradient or perpendicular to the contour lines. Groundwater flow directions should be considered approximate and may not accurately reflect conditions where multiple aquifer levels are present. In many instances, the down-valley flow path does not closely follow the surface drainage, as might be expected in a more homogeneous aquifer, because of variations in the alluvial material, basalt layers, solution features, and faulting along the valley margins. The headwaters of Big Chino Wash are the small springs and streams draining the Bradshaw, Santa Maria, and Juniper Mountains to the southwest, and Big Black Mesa to the northwest. Williamson Valley Wash and Walnut Creek are the two largest tributaries to Big Chino Wash. Williamson Valley is a sub-basin that lies between Big and Little Chino Valleys. It receives drainage from the Bradshaw and Santa Maria Mountains, whereas Walnut Creek receives drainage from the Santa Maria and Juniper Mountains. Although perennial springs in the headwaters of these tributaries provide year-round recharge to Williamson Valley Wash, Walnut Creek, and ultimately to aquifers in Big Chino Valley, surface-water runoff to the Verde River from Big Chino Wash is ephemeral. Only seasonal runoff in occasional wet years connects these tributaries with the upper Verde River downstream from Sullivan Lake. Ground-water movement in Big Chino Valley is obstructed, first by the vertically and horizontally extensive clay unit in the center of the basin and secondly by the non-porous basalt flow near Sullivan Lake (Fig. 6). If the Big Chino Valley were a closed basin, a lake would be formed and water-level contours would be concentric around the lake. This was probably the case during much of the basinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s geologic 20

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378

past. At present, however, the potentiometric surface in the unconfined aquifer slopes toward the southeast outlet and the terminus of the Big Chino Fault (Fig. 6), which has no likely outlet other than the Martin Limestone and the Verde River (Fig. 2). Ground water flows around the clay unit through coarsegrained alluvial-fan sediments, either along Big Chino Fault or near the mouth of Walnut Creek and across the outlet of Williamson Valley Wash. Schwab (1995) indicates ground-water flow in central Big Chino Valley up gradient from the clay unit is from the west to east (Fig. 6). Ground-water flow in Williamson Valley is toward lower Big Chino Valley to the northeast. In lower Big Chino Valley, Schwab (1995) reported seven water-level measurements less than 4,260 ft that form a narrow saddle in the potentiometric surface trending northeast from the mouth of Williamson Valley Wash towards the Big Chino Fault. This narrow divide in the potentiometric surface is immediately downgradient from the thick clay layer in the center of the basin and west of Paulden. Ground water probably exits Big Chino Valley through fractures or solution openings in the Martin Limestone northeast of Paulden. Ground water would then flow beneath the basalt overlying the limestone toward the Verde River. Eastward movement of ground water toward Hell Canyon is probably obstructed by shallow Precambrian granite beneath the NW trending Laramide monoclines (the largest being the Limestone Canyon Monocline), which intersect the Verde gorge near Duff Spring (river mile 13). Thus, ground-water movement does not precisely follow surface-water drainage patterns but must detour around poorly permeable obstacles that may be hidden in the subsurface, such as the clay unit, basalt layers, and shallow exposures of Precambrian graniteâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;whereas large faults and solution features provide favorable conduits through bedrock. Disparate water levels in the southeast end of Big Chino Valley indicate the presence of an unconfined aquifer overlying a deeper confined or semiconfined aquifer (Schwab, 1995; Wallace and Laney, 1976). Discontinuous layers of basalt or latite interbedded with alluvium form an aquifer unit with shallow water levels, but nearby wells that penetrate extensive volcanic layers may have water levels as much as 100 ft deeper. Artesian conditions have been observed in the Big Chino confined aquifer and in Williamson Valley. Hjalmarson observed in the 1960s that at least one Williamson Valley well flowed at the land surface. Lithology is difficult to correlate from one well log to the next, owing to the irregular

patterns of the basalt flows and the varying degree of sorting and consolidation of the interbedded alluvium. The irregular deposition pattern of the volcanic material and alluvial fill is important because it explains why one well log may indicate volcanic layers, while a neighboring well log indicates none, and why water levels in adjacent wells can differ as much as 100 ft. Additional work is needed to better define extent of the unconfined aquifer in lower Big Chino Valley, its source of recharge, the precise location of its outlet, and also whether the confined and unconfined aquifers are interconnected, particularly in the vicinity of Sullivan Lake. As in Big Chino Valley, ground-water movement in Little Chino Valley also deviates substantially from surface drainage patterns. Granite Creek is the surface-water outlet for most of Little Chino Valley. The headwaters of Granite Creek are south and west of the city of Prescott in the Bradshaw Mountains. With the exception of several intermittent reaches in the upper basin near Prescott and downstream from Lower Granite Spring, Granite Creek is ephemeral. Little Chino Valley is separated by the Granite Dells into a shallow headwaters area near Prescott, and a deeper sub-basin centered on the town of Chino Valley to the north. The upper Agua Fria ground-water sub-basin (as defined by Corkhill and Mason, 1995) lies on the eastern side of the Little Chino basin. The northern Little Chino sub-basin is filled with unconsolidated and consolidated sediments and volcanic rocks that are on the order of several hundred feet in thickness. The buried volcanic rocks in Little Chino Valley (probably latites) are thought to be more porous (Krieger, 1965; p 122) and contain lava tubes, as evidenced by drillerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s logs. Corkhill and Mason (1995) describe a lower volcanic unit and an upper alluvial unit. In their ground-water model, they depict the two aquifers as being interconnected at several locations in the watershed. In addition, the aquifers extend across the relatively flat topographic divide separating the Agua Fria and Granite Creek watersheds. About 3 miles upstream from its mouth, Granite Creek changes from a low-gradient ephemeral wash draining a wide valley to a narrow incised bedrock canyon. The primary ground-water outlet for the Little Chino Valley does not follow the surface drainage through the bedrock canyon, but follows the more permeable alluvium to a second outlet to the northwest. Matlock et al. (1973) and Corkhill and Mason (1995) show the general direction of ground-water flow in the Little Chino alluvial aquifer is to the north beneath Little Chino Creek (Fig. 6). Because of the large gradient toward Sullivan Lake, ground water may presently flow or may once have flowed from the upper Little Chino

alluvial aquifer into the Big Chino unconfined aquifer. The primary source of water in the Little Chino alluvial aquifer down gradient from Del Rio Springs is the underlying artesian aquifer. Older latite and younger basalt units near the outlet could provide either conduits or obstacles, respectively, to ground-water movement. Volcanic rocks and late Pleistocene sediments northeast of Del Rio Springs obscure the surface expression of possible faults or fractures in bedrock that may connect ground water in northern Little Chino Valley or near Sullivan Lake with the lower Granite Creek and Stillman Lake spring systems (Fig. 2B). Thus, the precise path or paths of ground water leaving Little Chino Valley is unknown. To summarize this section, ground water in both Big and Little Chino Valleys follows substantially different flow paths than the surface drainage. Faults, solution features, lava tubes, and deposits of coarser grained alluvium provide conduits to flow. Clay units, changes in lithology, and, in some instances, basalt units may serve as obstructions to ground-water movement. On a regional scale, however, the ground-water and surface-water drainage in both basins is ultimately toward the upper Verde River. Ground-water recharge, discharge, and storage. The concepts of ground-water recharge, discharge, and storage in Big and Little Chino Valleys are analogous to the characteristics of a bathtub. The water flowing into the tub is the recharge, water overflowing or exiting through the drainage outlet is the discharge, and the water contained inside the bathtub is the storage. An important characteristic of this analogous bathtub is the outlet or drain is on the side of the tub rather than the typical drain on the bottom. Thus, some of the stored water remains in the tub and does not drain under the influence of gravity alone. Ground-water recharge (also referred to as inflow) begins with infiltration of runoff along the alluvial slopes of mountains at the edges of the basins and beneath stream channels that drain the valleys. Unlike a bathtub, the water table is not flat, but has a sloping surface that is higher near recharge areas along the margins and is lowest near the outlet. The tub is filled with non-homogeneous sediments and layers of basalt. Cracks in the bottom or fault-bounded sides of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;bathtubâ&#x20AC;? may be present, but the Precambrian basement is several orders of magnitude less permeable than typical alluvium. Ground water would have to penetrate dense mountain ranges to exit the basin fill. Thus, leakage leaving the basin through the sides of the tub is thought to be minimal, except through the relatively shallow (less than 200 or 300 ft in depth) limestone units near the outlet (Ed deWitt, oral

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona

Water-level index well

4700

Wal

W illia m

nut C

4600

k ree

4 30 40

4450 44 0

450

4600

Li es

4500 4550

4 4 50

cl in

Drake

el l H

Paulden

to Ch ne Ca in o Fa nyo n ul M t o

Ashfork

n Ca

Figure 6. Compilation of water-level contours in the Verde River headwaters area (after Schwab 1995 and Corkhill and Mason 1995).

10 kilometers

10 miles

Non-porous Clay unit basalt

Conceptualized ground-Water flow direction

Ground-Water flow direction from water levels

Water-level contour, interval is variable

Alluvial Basin boundary

Ground-water basin boundary

50 45

4700

EXPLANATION

W as h

C hi no

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378 45

lle y W a

22 0

Gr a t e ni Cr e ek

Big 4

4600

i v e r

Perkinsville

commun.,2000). Recharge can also occur in the upland areas through bedrock fractures and solution cavities. The combined surface-water and ground-water drainage of Big Chino and Little Chino Valleys (which includes the Williamson Valley sub-basin) is measured at the USGS Paulden gage (09503700). After separating the contribution from surface-water runoff for the period from 1963-96, ground-water discharge, or outflow (Table 3), averaged about 18,000 acre-ft per year (acre-ft/yr). The geometry of the basins and the degree of porosity of the basin fill and surrounding bedrock determine the capacity of ground-water storage. The Verde River upstream from the Paulden gage (09503700) drains an area of 2,507 mi2. Included in this area are the Big and Little Chino Valleys. Also included is a 357-mi2 closed basin in Aubrey Valley at the northern end of the drainage area. Surface drainage from this closed basin does not reach the Verde River, leaving an effective area drained by the Verde River of 2,150 mi2. The drainage area of Big Chino Valley encompasses approximately 1,848 mi2 including Big Chino Valley, Williamson Valley, and the areas between and to the north of the towns of Seligman and Ash Fork (Schwab, 1995). The area of Little Chino Valley drained by Granite and Little Chino Creeks is about 302 mi2 (Corkhill and Mason, 1995). Most of the ground-water recharge is from high-altitude precipitation in the mountains that surround the alluvial basins. About 15 percent of Big Chino Valley (about 280 mi2) exceeds an altitude of 6,000 ft, predominantly in the Bradshaw, Santa Maria, and Juniper Mountains. The altitude of almost all of Big Black Mesa is below 6,000 ft. The potential amount of recharge to Big and Little Chino Valleys and Williamson Valley is large because the basins are large and deep and are therefore capable of storing large volumes of ground water. For example, the estimated thickness of Big Chino Valley fill exceeds 1,200 ft throughout an area of about 200 mi2, and is 300 ft thick or greater in an area of about 430 mi2. Hjalmarson (unpub. data, 1967) estimated the amount of ground water in storage to a depth of 1,000 ft in the valley fill in the Little Chino, Big Chino and Williamson Valley Valleys as 6 million, 11 million, and 3 million acre-ft, respectively. These estimates closely agree with estimates of 9.2 million, 12.8 million, and 3.83 million acre-ft, respectively, by the Bureau of Reclamation (1974). ADWR (1999) recently estimated the volume of ground water in storage in Little Chino Valley at 2.26 million acre-

ft. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that at least 10 to 20 million acre-ft of water may be stored in the three basins. In addition, large amounts of water may be stored in the rocks of the surrounding mountains. The limestone and sandstone that underlie parts of the mountain ranges are known to transmit large quantities of water where fractures or solution cavities exist. Owen-Joyce and Bell (1983, p. 20) report that well yields in the Middle Verde Valley are generally improved by the presence of solution cavities along fractures in the Redwall Limestone and Martin Limestone. These limestone units are exposed along the margins of Big Chino Valley and in the canyon walls of the upper Verde River (Fig. 2). Because of basin contours and the presence of geologic constraints near the surface-water outlets of Big and Little Chino Valleys, only relatively shallow ground water in the basins is capable of draining to the Verde River (recall the analogous bathtub with the side drain). Large volumes of ground water are located below the natural outlet. In a study of southwestern alluvial basins, Robertson (1991) found that the chemistry of these deep waters evolves under closed conditions without mixing from additional recharge after the initial filling of the basins. Thus, streams of the area may not have influenced much of the deeper ground water (perhaps below 500 ft). Obviously, withdrawal of this deep water by pumping will lower water levels in the basins. As with the bathtub analogy, there will be no outflow to the upper Verde River when ground-water levels fall below the natural outlet. The altitude of the ground-water outlet, as indicated by the elevation of Big Chino Springs, lies between about 4,240 and 4,220 ft. Infiltration along the margins of Big Chino Valley is highest where there are coarse-grained alluvial fans and sediments underlying stream channels. The same is true for the mountain front areas in Williamson Valley and upper Little Chino Valley. Sediment derived from the Proterozoic rocks surrounding the Williamson Valley tends to be much sandier than sediment derived from Paleozoic limestone or Tertiary volcanics exposed on Big Black Mesa (Ostenaa et al., 1993). The coarsest alluvial materials are deposited close to the basin margins. The major recharge areas for Big Chino Valley are the northeastern drainages of the Bradshaw, Santa Maria, and Juniper Mountains. The altitude of these three mountain ranges is generally between 5,000 and 7,000 ft, and average annual rainfall exceeds 20 inches at the higher altitudes (Sellers and Hill, 1974). Several major tributaries, including Williamson Valley Wash, Walnut Creek, Pine Creek, and Turkey Canyon have perennial flow or springs in their upper reaches. The Bradshaw Mountains also

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona

serve as the major source of precipitation and recharge to Little Chino Valley. Little Chino Valley near the town of Chino Valley (altitude of 4750 ft) has a relatively dry climate, receiving less than 12 inches of precipitation in an average year (Sellers and Hill, 1974). In the headwaters of the basin, Granite Creek has several intermittent perennial reaches near Prescott at the base of the Bradshaw Mountains, having an average annual precipitation of 18 inches derived predominantly from summer thunderstorms (Sellers and Hill, 1974, as measured at Prescott). Watson Lake and Willow Lake Reservoirs intercept some of the streamflow in Granite Creek that could potentially provide recharge to the northern end of Little Chino Valley and base flow to the Verde River. Precipitation and recharge on Big Black Mesa are probably insufficient to fully account for more than a small fraction of the large volume of ground water in Big Chino Valley or base flow in the upper Verde River. The scarcity of well data probably attests to large depths to water and unpredictable yields in a region capped by volcanic deposits (Krieger, 1965; Fig. 2). Big Black Mesa is an asymmetric uplift or monocline (Krieger, 1965). The mesa is generally 1,000 to 2,000 ft lower than the three mountain ranges and has a mean annual precipitation of about 13 inches near Drake (Sellers and Hill 1974). The highest parts of the mesa, containing surface outcrops of Martin and Redwall limestone, have surface drainages to the southwest toward Big Chino Valley. This high part comprises about 30 percent of the uplift. Here, surface exposures of Martin and Redwall limestone do not support substantial runoff because they are permeable, and the karst topography retains most of the precipitation that falls. In contrast with the three other mountain ranges, there are very few springs on Big Black Mesa; a notable exception being the short perennial reach of Partridge Creek, the largest tributary draining toward Big Chino Valley. Some recharge from the highest parts of Big Black Mesa probably occurs along its base in the vicinity of the Big Chino Fault. Lower parts of the mesa, containing surface outcrops of the Supai Formation and Tertiary basalt, drain predominantly east and southeast toward Hell Canyon, which joins the Verde River near river mile 18. According to Ed deWitt of the USGS, surface runoff in this area is generally lost to permeable sandstone units in the Supai Formation and to fracture and rubble zones in the basalt. The underlying Redwall and Martin limestones are exposed by Hell Canyon, so surface runoff in the incised canyon would also be lost to these units. Because the regional dip of these units is gently to the southeast, ground water present in the for24

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378

mation most likely to drains southeast toward the Verde River (river miles 10 to 13) in the vicinity of exposures of Martin Limestone or Tapeats Sandstone (Ed deWitt, oral commun., 2000). Duff Spring is on the south bank of the Verde River near river mile 13. Hell Canyon, however, appears to contribute an insignificant amount of base flow to the Verde River above Perkinsville, as evidenced by low-flow discharge measurements in 1977 and 1991 (Owen-Joyce and Bell, 1983, Boner and others, 1991; Table 1). Although scant, the water-level data north of the Verde River also suggest a gradient toward the east, or possibly the southeast (Fig. 6; Owen-Joyce and Bell, 1983). Ground water moving due south or southwest from the lower parts of Big Black Mesa or from Bill Williams Mountain to reach the Verde River in the vicinity of Big Chino Springs, as suggested by Knauth and Greenbie (1997), is possible, but considered unlikely.

WATER-BUDGET RELATIONS FOR BIG CHINO VALLEY AND THE UPPER VERDE RIVER A conceptual model and idealized water budget of the hydrology of the lower Big Chino Valley and upper Verde River for the flow components shown is in Fig. 3. The conceptual model is a synthesis of our understanding of the hydrologic system, as developed throughout this report. In simplest terms, water from precipitation recharges the Big Chino Valley aquifer network, which then discharges to springs in the upper Verde River. Under present conditions, some ground water is withdrawn by pumping for irrigation relatively high in the Big Chino Valley. This technique takes advantage of measured behavior averaged over time to examine relations between inflow, outflow, and ground-water storage in Big Chino Valley. Recent declines in annual withdrawals for irrigation in Big Chino Valley provide the opportunity to assess related hydrologic flow components. Because some of the budget components were progressively changing while other budget components did not exhibit a trend, the behavior of related hydrologic components such as ground-water pumping and outflow to the Verde River could be examined. In this modified water-budget approach, some water-budget components are defined as functions of related parameters. Principally, the trends in annual amounts of ground-water pumping, precipitation, and groundwater levels in a joint USGS/ADWR index well in Big Chino Valley (located near the outflow of the basin, and base flow of the Verde River at the Paulden

gage (09503700) are compared (Table 3). Water levels in USGS/ADWR index wells typically are collected prior to the beginning of the summer irrigation season. The annualized water budget for the Big Chino aquifer is defined by the following standard equation: I – O = ΔS, where: I = Annual inflow including (a) Big Chino mountain-front recharge, (b) Big Chino recharge along stream channels, and (c) Ground-water underflow from Little Chino Valley, Big Black Mesa, Williamson Valley, Walnut Creek, and other areas; O = (a) Annual outflow is the discharge at the Paulden gage, where evapotranspiration of ground water is neglected, and (b) Ground-water withdrawal (and consumed) mostly for irrigation of crops ΔS = Annual storage change in the aquifer. Available data for measured hydrologic components of the water budget were used, recognizing that these data have certain limitations. The budget cannot be quantified in its entirety because some components, such as accurate estimates of recharge, cannot be directly measured. Certain data were used as proxies for other components of the budget. Two simplifying assumptions in the model and budget were made. Only Big Chino Valley was included in the budget because it is the largest drainage above Sullivan Lake and because it presently appears to be the major source of base flow in the upper Verde River. Little Chino Valley was deliberately excluded because of added complexities that are beyond the scope of this report, resulting from large changes in recent water use and pumping. Water-budget components. Water-budget components and indicators of unmeasured water-budget components used for the analysis are from published data (Table 3). Inflow from recharge and ground water from tributary underflow moves through the Big Chino Valley to the Verde River under the influence of gravity. Outflow from the basin occurs primarily by withdrawals for crop irrigation and by

discharge to springs in the Verde River channel. Storage of water in the basin changes when inflow amounts are different than outflow amounts. Inflow. Inflow to the aquifers in Big Chino Valley is from mountain-front recharge, recharge along stream channels and ground-water underflow from surrounding areas such as Williamson Valley, Walnut Creek, and possibly Little Chino Valley. A function (fP) of the precipitation (P) is used as an index of water that recharges the aquifer from direct percolation and along mountain fronts and from the surrounding areas except for Little Chino Valley. This is a reasonable assumption because ground-water withdrawals in Big Chino Chino Valley are relatively small. Conversely, precipitation cannot be used as an indicator of inflow from Little Chino Valley because of the substantial water-level declines from ground-water withdrawals. Generally speaking, only a small portion of precipitation that does not runoff as surface flow or is lost to ET recharges the aquifer. Outflow. Ground water exits the Big Chino Valley aquifer(s) via pumping, mostly for irrigation in the upper valley (Wallace and Laney, 1976), and via discharge to springs in the Verde River channel. The measurable ground-water outflow components are the pumping (GWP) and the Verde River (Qverde). Also, any evapotranspiration (ET) from the aquifer is relatively small and is assumed to not undergo any significant change over the study period. The potentiometric surface typically is deeper than 20 ft below the land surface and beyond the reach of evaporation and transpiration by plants, except beneath the perennial reach of the Verde River in the gorge. The ET component is considered negligible and thus is not shown in the conceptual model in Fig. 3. Storage change. The difference between inflow to and outflow from the Big Chino Valley is the change of storage (ΔS) in the basin. For this study, storage change is considered to be a function of the water level (f ΔS) at an observation well measured annually by USGS and ADWR. This well was selected on the basis of its having more than 40 years of water-level data, sufficient depth to penetrate the lower aquifer, and its central location in the southeast end of Big Chino Valley. The index well is completed in alluvium on the Wineglass Ranch about 3 miles west of Paulden (Fig.6) at latitude 34o53'40", longitude 112 o 31'20", (B-17-02) 06 bbb, with a land surface altitude of 4,390 ft and a well depth of 342 ft. Increasing ground-water storage is assumed

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona

because the water level in the index well (Table 3) is increasing. The water level has increased about 0.1 ft/ yr as ground-water withdrawals for crop irrigation have decreased. A rough estimate of the amount of ground-water that is accumulating in storage can be made by assuming that this change in storage is spread equally over the area of lower Big Chino Valley southeast of the clay plug area. Using a specific yield of 10 percent, a 0.1 ft/yr increase of water level over about 40 square miles of the Big Chino Valley would account for about 250 ac-ft/year. This is probably a maximum estimate, in that it is unlikely that storage is increasing equally in all areas of the lower basin. A more confident estimate of Î&#x201D;S could be made by using water levels at additional wells and estimating the specific yield at each well. However, we are aware of few if any wells in lower Big Chino Valley with suitable historical water-level records and well-completion characteristics. Moreover, a representative estimate of specific yield at individual wells would require aquifer testing or analysis of lithologic character, both which are beyond the scope of this effort. Period of response to changes in recharge. Another important characteristic of the water budget is that 1year periods were used because annual data were readily available. Ideally, the time step of a water budget would be based on the system response to changes in budget components, such as recharge from snowmelt and carryover storage in major aquifers. Based on a cursory examination, base-flow discharge (QVerde) appears to change in response to seasonal and annual recharge on the order of months or years. Because of the system's response to recharge, which varies over space and time periods that may exceed one year, the general relations among the annualized budget parameters are not quantitative. Thus, judicial use of these relations are recommended. For additional insight on the selection of budget periods see Hjalmarson and Robertson (1991) and Bills and Hjalmarson (1990). Statistical trends in recharge. Base flow in the Verde River has increased over the past four decades (Table 3). A possible explanation is that recharge has increased, but the precipitation data do not support this explanation. There was no trend (Îą=0.05) for annual precipitation over the full period of record in the upper Verde headwaters area at National Weather Service precipitation gages at Prescott or at Walnut Creek (Fig. 7A) using linear, quadratic and KendallTau trend analysis. There is also no trend for annual precipitation during the period 1957-97 that is com26

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378

mon to both datasets. A visual examination of the graphs (Fig. 7A) of annual precipitation shows considerable variability but a generally flat relation (no trend) for both gages. Use of precipitation as an alternative proxy for recharge excludes ET effects, although others have used it in a water budget successfully (see Karl and Riebsame, 1989). To test whether precipitation could serve as a proxy for recharge in the Big Chino Valley water budget, we considered stream flow discharge data from other nearby watersheds. The annual tenth percentile of daily discharge at two nearby USGS stream-flow gages were examined as an alternative proxy for recharge. The tenth percentile of a set of measurements arranged in order of magnitude is that value that has at most 10 percent of the measurements below it and at most 90 percent above it (Ott, 1988; p. 44). Using this approach, the tenth percentile of daily discharge is considered to reflect the base-flow conditions of a perennial stream. For a discussion of this tenth percentile approach also see Lins and Slack (1998). The two gages used were the Oak Creek near Cornville gage (09504500) and the Verde River below Tangle Creek gage (09508500). The Oak Creek near Cornville gage has a drainage area of 355 mi2 that is east of the upper Verde River Valley. The Verde River below Tangle Creek gage is downstream on the Verde River and has a drainage area of 5,858 mi2. The annual tenth percentile of daily discharge for the USGS stream-flow gage on the Verde River near Paulden (09503700) was compared with that of the Cornville and Tangle Creek stations as shown in Fig. 7B. As a visual examination of the graphs or a statistical analysis of trend (Minitab, 1995) might suggest, there is no trend for either the Oak Creek or Tangle Creek gages, although there is an increasing trend at the Paulden gage (09503700). Second, trends in mean annual discharge were examined for two drainage basins roughly comparable in size to the drainage area represented by the Paulden gage. The two gages selected were the Oak Creek near Cornville used in the previous example (again, with a drainage area of 355 mi2) and the Santa Maria River near Bagdad (09424900), which drains a 1,129 mi2 basin. The Santa Maria River was selected because it is one of the few gage records with a similar catchment size, howver the flow near the gage is intermittent rather than perennial. Most streams to the west are ephemeral. Like the Verde River, these streams are located along the transition zone between the Colorado Plateau and the Mogollon Rim. Once again, neither a visual examination of the graphs or a

statistical analysis of trend (Minitab, 1995) indicates a trend (Fig. 7C), in contrast to the hydrograph for the Paulden gage (Fig 7C). The graphs in Fig. 7 show considerable variation in the annual amounts of precipitation and stream-flow runoff, which is typical of the climate of Central Arizona. Other stream-flow gages in central Arizona (southeast of the upper Verde River Valley) exhibit an increasing trend over a longer period than was used for this analysis (Lins and Slack, 1998) but no such trend is apparent for the upper Verde River area. For example, the annual tenth percentile of daily discharge at Verde River below Tangle Creek has an increasing trend for the period of record (1946-1997) that was influenced by drought years before this study period. Although not statistically significant, there is a slight decreasing trend suggested by the precipitation at Prescott and Walnut Creek (Fig. 7A) and average annual discharge at the Oak Creek near Cornville gage (Fig. 7B). Other factors that might mask small trends in annual precipitation—such as base flow and mean annual stream flow—include variations over time and space in stream flow, ET, and/or precipitation. Pitfalls in non-parametric trend analysis—such as the effect of multi-year sequences of wetter or drier than normal periods (Wahl, 1998)—are not apparent for the study period. In regard to ET effects, average annual temperature at Prescott (National Weather Service) was used as proxy data and found temperature may be increasing slightly (Tau was significant (α= 0.05%) but linear and quadratic regression was not). An increasing temperature suggests increasing potential ET. If ET in the upper Verde River basin were increasing then a decrease in base flow of the Verde River might be expected. Thus, the real increase in base flow might have been greater in this possible scenario. Again, a more detailed, comprehensive process-based hydrologic model of the upper Verde Valley might better account for the variable nature of stream flow, ET and precipitation over time and space than this simplified analysis. On the basis of this cursory examination of the available historical data, however, no evidence supporting the notion that climate, and therefore recharge, has changed over the period of concern was found. Therefore, anthropogenic effects were explored as a more plausible explanation for the observed increase in upper Verde River base flow. Changes in Outflow from Big Chino Valley to the Verde River. The increase in Verde River base flow (QVerde) appears related to a historical decrease in pumping for crop irrigation in Big Chino Valley.

Annual pumping was estimated by multiplying the irrigated acreage by an annual consumptive use of 5 acre feet (Anning and Duet, 1994). Annual pumping for irrigation (GWP) from the Big Chino aquifer has decreased by an average of 350 acre-ft/yr during the past three decades (Fig. 8A). The decrease in GWP in the northern part of the aquifer has resulted in rising water levels in the southern part of the aquifer (Fig. 8C). An increase in base flow of 110 acre-ft/yr in the Verde River (Fig. 8D) has accompanied the rise in water levels in the Big Chino aquifer. This hydrologic connection is predictable because the Verde River is down gradient along the potentiometric surface (Wallace and Laney, 1976), and is further supported by the following observation. While collecting hydrologic data in the Little and Big Chino Valleys during the 1960s and early 1970s for the USGS, Hjalmarson witnessed the apparent effects of ground-water pumping in lower Big Chino Valley on the base flow of the Verde River. At that time there was a land sales operation in the east part of Big Chino Valley that eventually became known as "Holiday Lake Estates." The lakes were about three miles northwest of Paulden and about two miles south of the tail end of Big Chino Fault. During the late spring of 1964 at least three recreation lakes in the development were filled with water pumped from wells in Big Chino aquifer. The volume and pattern of ground water pumped is unknown but given the estimated size of the lakes, the total volume probably exceeded 100 acre-ft during a several week time period. According to the landowner (Beuford Yarbro, oral commun., August 30, 1999), the capacity of a 2ft diameter well at Wineglass Lake, the largest of the lakes, was 6,500 gallons per minute. Reportedly there were a total of eleven different lakes, each with their own well, which were or could have been filled. During this period of heavy pumping the base flow of the Verde River (20 ft3 /s) decreased by 5 ft3/s (Fig. 9). For 11 days (May 13-23, 1964) the mean daily discharge in the Verde River at the Paulden gage (09503700) was 15 ft3/s—the lowest daily discharge ever recorded since the gage began operation in mid 1963. When the lakes were filled and pumping decreased, base flow in the Verde River quickly recovered to between 22 and 23 ft3/s, despite the dry summer conditions. The relation between Verde River base flow and water level in the index well is shown in Fig. 8E. The log for the index well shows gravel, clay and sand, and cemented conglomerate to a depth of 342 ft. The index well is about two miles southwest of Wineglass Lake, three miles west of Paulden, and near Williamson Valley Wash. The lowest water lev-

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378

Precipitation at Prescott [inches]

17.80 16.65 16.91 17.82 6.88

22.93 24.48 16.78 18.91 17.10

15.77 18.81 13.20 35.94 14.75

22.35 11.84 23.41 21.11 21.41

24.88 17.21 16.08

Year

1952 1953 1954 1955 1956

1957 1958 1959 1960 1961

1962 1963 1964 1965 1966

1967 1968 1969 1970 1971

1972 1973 1974

22.402 24.767 24.110

23.518 23.937 24.381 23.688 23.077

* 20.774 21.148 22.526 23.962

* * * * *

Verde River Base Flow [ft3/s]

4254.70 4259.80 4260.30

4259.05 4259.00 4259.05 4252.80 4258.30

4255.77 4251.22 4256.11 4257.10 4258.69

4257.91 4257.92 4258.68 4258.90 4252.96

4260.32 4259.51 4258.73 4257.45 4257.75

Index well Water Level [feet ASL]

8 8 11

9 9 9 9 9

* * * * *

Ground-water Pumpage [1000 acre-ft]

Year

1995 1996 1997

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979

16.15 10.76 15.96

20.17 24.17 20.25 19.83 18.25

20.02 22.66 21.54 14.10 12.21

21.90 18.23 27.03 23.19 23.10

12.20 18.93 14.08 27.16 13.55

27.559 26.051 *

25.630 23.885 24.825 28.227 28.252

27.800 27.323 27.403 27.290 25.636

25.568 26.644 25.121 26.049 25.273

* * *

4259.40 4259.10 4259.40 4263.10 *

4261.20 4261.00 4261.20 4261.10 4259.90

* 4261.20 4259.50 4260.00 4261.80

4259.90 4258.20 4257.70 * *

1.8 * *

4 * * * *

3 5 3 3 4

5 6 0.5 0.5 1

12 10 9 6 5

Index well Ground-water Water Level Pumpage [feet ASL] [1000 acre-ft]

25.490 22.661 22.874 22.655 25.148

Precipitation Verde River at Prescott Base Flow [inches] [ft3/s]

Precipitation data for the National Weather Service station at Prescott were obtained from the Western Regional Climatic Center of the Desert Research Institute at Reno, NV. Base flow is the dry-weather discharge of the USGS streamflow-gaging station near Paulden (0919503700). Discharge data are available in annual water-data reports of the USGS and from http://www.daztcn.wr.usgs.gov/index.html. Annual water levels are for a joint USGS/ADWR index well in Big Chino Basin located at latitude 34’ 53’ 40", longitude 112’ 31’ 20", and land surface elevation 4390 ft above sea level (ASL). Data for ground water pumpage is from the upper Big Chino Basin [Anning and Duet, 1994]. For days with snowmelt or storm runoff, the base flow (QVerde) was estimated by linear interpolation between adjacent days of base flow (see Lindsley et al. 1949, chapter 15). * indicates data were not available.

Table 3. Annual Base-Flow, Water-Level, Ground-Water Pumping, and Precipitation Data (1952-1997) used for Water-Budget Analysis.

els in the index well (Fig. 8C) and lowest mean annual discharge values at the Paulden gage (Fig. 8D) were apparently affected by intermittent pumping of the recreation lakes at Holiday Lakes Estates during the mid-1960s and early 1970s. On the basis of the trend line shown in Fig. 8E, a 1-foot drop in water level at the index well produces a decrease of 1.3 ft3/s in the Verde River. The Holiday Lakes Estates pumping occurred within a few miles of outlet of the basin where the effects on base flow in the Verde River would be expected to be the greatest. Pumping of similar wells in other parts of Big Chino Valley that are further to the northwest might not affect the base flow in the Verde River as quickly. Coincidentally or not, if one were to visually project the slope in Fig. 8E beyond the range of measured water levels to a value of zero discharge, the yaxis intercept falls between the range in altitude of Big Chino Springs. The altitude of Big Chino Springs lies between about 4,220 and 4,240 ft and the measured water levels in the index well range between 4,251 and 4,262 (See Fig. 8E and Table 3). This translates to a difference in altitude of between about 10 and 40 ft. Extrapolating beyond the range of the measured water-level data to this extent is somewhat speculative, thus no attempt was made to quantify the amount of ground-water withdrawal required to dry up the springs. Common sense dictates, however, that given the demonstrated hydraulic connection, discharge to springs in the Verde River channel would decrease if ground-water levels decrease near the outlet. Changes in Outflow from Little Chino Valley to the Verde River. Up to this point inflows from Little Chino Valley have not been considered in the modified water-budget approach. Decreasing groundwater inflow from Little Chino Valley, however, could possibly explain some of the difference between the observed annual decrease in pumping of 350 acre-ft (Fig. 8A) and the increase in base flow of 110 acre-ft in the Verde River. Only about 31 percent (110/350 x 100) of the change in pumping is reflected by the increase of base flow. The remaining 69 percent of the annual pumping decrease may be from several possible factors, the most likely being (1) increasing ground-water storage in the Big Chino aquifer and (2) decreasing inflow from the Little Chino aquifer. As discussed earlier, ground-water storage is apparently increasing in some areas of lower Big Chino Valley. Storage could in fact account for most or all of the entire discrepancy. Thus, attributing the entire apparent shortfall (240 acre-ft/year) to decreasing outflow from the Little Chino Valley is unrealistic. Nonetheless, there is a likelihood that outflow

from Little Chino Valleyâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;although it contributes less than 20 percent of total base flow in the uppermost reach of the Verde Riverâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;has been decreasing due to ground water withdrawal from that basin. Decreasing discharge from the Little Chino artesian aquifer, as implicated by dropping water levels (Fig. 8F) and decreasing flow at Del Rio Springs (Fig. 4 and Table 2), may have been masked by the increase in ground-water discharge to the Verde River associated with the decreased pumping for irrigation from the Big Chino Valley in recent decades. The Little Chino index well (latitude 34o45'43," longitude 112 o 26'22," (B-16-02) 14cda) with a well depth of 600 ft (Fig. 8F) is representative of aquifer conditions in the artesian area near the town of Chino Valley. At least 20 wells that tap the alluvial and volcanic aquifers in Chino Valley (Township 16N Range 2W) have experienced water-level declines of 1 to 11 ft per year (Frank Corkhill, written commun., March 27, 2000). Additional effort is needed to more precisely determine changes in storage in the Big Chino aquifer and possible changes (if any) in outflow from Little Chino Valley. Summary of Water-Budget Analysis. The above hydrological observations and analyses strongly support that the Big Chino Valley is the major source of base flow in the Verde River. This conceptual model agrees with physical, hydrological, and geological characteristics of the Big Chino Valley as previously determined by Krieger (1965), Wallace and Laney (1976), Freethey and Anderson (1986), Ewing et al. (1994) and Ostenaa et al. (1993) as well as with the new stable-isotope data presented next in this report. Hydrological observations and analyses indicate that (1) ground-water pumping directly affects the water levels near the outlet of the Big Chino Valley, (2) base flow of the Verde River is directly proportional to the water levels near the basin outlet and (3) base flow in the Verde River is inversely proportional to ground water pumping in Big Chino Valley. On the basis of past pumping in Big Chino Valley, a 1-ft decline in the index well correlates with a 1.3 ft3/s decrease in the base flow of the Verde River. However, the precise effects caused by hypothetical ground-water withdrawals are difficult to predict. For example, lowering of water levels will result in increased (induced) recharge, removal of groundwater from storage and less water leaving the aquifer to the Verde River. The amount of additional recharge that might be induced is not known. Conversely, a decrease in pumping may result in increased storage. More quantitative ground-water modeling that considers the aquifer properties and geologic framework

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona

Precipitation in inches

A. Mean Annual Precipitaion

40 Weather Stations Prescott (P) Walnut Creek (WC)

30 20 10

P WC

Trend (a = 0.05) Linear Quadratic Tau none none none none none none

0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Mean Annual Discharge

Discharge in percent of mean

B. Annual 10th percentile of daily discharge

150 140 130 120 110 100 90 09503700 09504500 80 09508500 70 60 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 C. Mean Annual Discharge

Gaging Stations 09503700 Verde River near Paulden 09504500 Oak Creek near Cornville 09508500 Verde River at Tangle Creek

Trend (a = 0.05) Linear Quadratic Tau significant significant significant none none none none none none

Gaging Stations 09503700 Verde River near Paulden 09504500 Oak Creek near Cornville

400 350 300 09424900 Santa Maria 250 River near Alamo 200 Trend (a = 0.05) 150 Linear Quadratic Tau 100 09503700 significant significant significant 50 none none 0942900 none none none 0904500 none 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year Figure 7. Precipitation and base-flow trends for available data in the Verde Watershed and nearby streams. 30

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378

throughout both the Big and Little Chino alluvial basins is needed to more accurately predict the response to potential pumping scenarios resulting from an increasing demand for water supplies.

ISOTOPIC EVIDENCE FOR SOURCE OF SPRINGS IN THE UPPER VERDE RIVER Additional evidence for the sources of base flow in the upper Verde River headwaters region is provided by isotope analyses of ground-water and spring samples. Stable-isotope analyses of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon are reliable indicators of the origin and geochemical evolution of natural waters (for more information refer to chapter 17 of Drever, 1988; Clark and Fritz, 1997; and Coplen, 1996). Stable-isotope data are used as a naturally occurring means to distinguish among different sources of water in rivers and other water bodies fed by aquifers. Stable oxygen (18O/16O values or δ18O) and hydrogen (2H/1H values or δ2H) isotope data can yield information about the source areas of recharge to aquifer systems, whereas carbon isotope ratios (13C/12C values, or δ13C) reflect the type of rock and soil substrate ground water has been in contact with. Stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen in water do not fractionate with time or distance once runoff has infiltrated beneath the land surface, assuming that they do not react with their aquifer materials or come into contact with thermal areas. Isotope interpretations, however, are often lacking in certainty because of the number of physical variables involved. For example, it is not possible to differentiate among multiple aquifer sources if those sources have the same stable-isotope signature. Isotope data can be misleading without some knowledge of the hydrogeology. Therefore, it is prudent to integrate geologic and hydrologic factors with stable-isotope data when developing an interpretation of ground-water and surface-water interactions. The vapor pressure of water containing the lighter isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen (1H and 16O) is greater than that of water containing the heavier isotopes, deuterium and oxygen-18 (2H and 18O). Because of this, isotopically lighter water evaporates more readily; thus, rain and snow become progressively depleted in 2H and 18O as water evaporated from near the equator travels toward the poles, from the coast inland, and from lower to higher altitudes. In northern Arizona, Van Metre et al. (1997, p. 29-30) have observed significant variations in the 2H and 18O

of precipitation and subsequent runoff (1) seasonally between winter storms and summer monsoons, (2) locally due to differences in altitude, and (3) as a consequence of the high rate of evapotranspiration that may occur prior to recharge. The 2H and 18O in a spring sample are a flow-weighted composite of prevailing conditions in the ground-water recharge area. As long as recharge and discharge conditions remain essentially static, the stable-isotope signature can be expected to remain constant through time, from point of recharge to point of discharge. Isotope interpretations in this report are based on new and published data from the USGS (USGS QWDATA database; Ewing et al., 1994) and from researchers Knauth and Greenbie (1997) at Arizona State University (ASU). The objective of both USGS and ASU research efforts was to identify the aquifers that supply springs in the upper Verde River. In July 1991, the USGS collected 28 samples, including 16 samples from base flow in the Verde River between Sullivan Lake and Clarkdale and 12 ground-water samples in Big and Little Chino Valleys (Tables 4 and 5) in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and ADWR. Water samples were analyzed for stable isotopes of hydrogen, oxygen, selected dissolved constituents, and field parameters including pH, specific conductivity, and alkalinity. Selected samples were analyzed for carbon isotopes. The USGS National Water Inventory System (NWIS) database also contains 10 additional oxygen and hydrogen isotope samples that were collected by the USGS in 1988. These historical data provide additional stable-isotope coverage near Ash Fork, Big Black Mesa, southern Little Chino Valley, and along the upper and lateral margins of Big Chino Valley. To address important gaps in the data, two additional spring samples were collected on May 1, 1999. Knauth and Greenbie (1997) conducted a stable-isotope investigation in the upper Verde headwaters in cooperation with ADWR from 1996 to 1997. The ASU study collected more than 25 ground-water samples from wells and springs in Big Chino, Little Chino, and Williamson Valley and Walnut Creek drainages, and one sample northeast of the Verde River. Base-flow samples were collected quarterly between Sullivan Lake and the Stewart Ranch from May 1996 to July 1997. Samples were analyzed for stable isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen (Tables 4 and 5). The ASU study focused on the area upstream from the Stewart Ranch (river mile 4.0), whereas the 1991 USGS study sampled surface water from Sullivan Lake (river mile 0.0) to the USGS streamflowgaging station near Clarkdale (river mile 36). The effect of recent precipitation on the base

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona

B. Annual precipitation (P) at Prescott Precipitation (inches)

Ground-water pumping (1000 acre-feet/year)

A. Annual pumping for irrigation (GWP) in Big Chino Valley

cd = 0.61

8 4 0 1960

1970

1980

1990

20 10

2000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 D. Mean annual base flow of the Verde River (Q Verde) Discharge (ft3/s)

Water Level (feet)

C. Winter water levels (WLBC) in Big Chino Valley 4264 4260 4256 4252

cd = 0.00

cd = 0.42

28 24 20 cd = 0.60

4248 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

F. Annual water levels (WLLC) in Little Chino Valley

E. Relation of Q Verde and WLBC

Water Level (feet)

Water level (feet)

4270 4260

cd = 0.65

4250 4240

approximate range in altitude of Big Chino Springs

}

4230

4580 4560

cd = 0.83

4540 4520 4500

4220 0

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Figure 8. Hydrologic relations of water-budget analysis. The linear relations are from statistical regression analysis (Minitab 1995), and coefficients of determination (cd) are labeled.

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378

flow data is thought to be minimal. The USGS study collected samples in early July of 1991, following the driest time of year (May-June), whereas the ASU study collected samples in the months of May, September, and December 1996 and March and July of 1997. Inspection of mean daily discharge values at the Paulden gage (09503700) indicates that there was little if any runoff when the ASU samples were collected. Mean daily discharge ranged from 23 to 27 ft3/s during these five months (U.S. Geological Survey, 1995 and 1996 water years). This 5 ft3/s difference in the mean daily discharge is related to seasonal variations in evapotranspiration, and not to surfacewater runoff. At various times, stable-isotope samples were collected at the same or similar locations as previous studies. Table 5 includes all discrete USGS and ASU ground-water samples collected, irrespective of time of year or runoff conditions. Notwithstanding differences in sampling times, personnel, objectives, sampling methods, laboratories, and analytical techniques, the reproducibility of stable oxygen and hydrogen isotope data is within +0.2 per mil for δ18O and +2.5 per mil for δ2H. For example, Del Rio Springs was sampled once by the USGS and three times by ASU with a δ18O + standard deviation value of - 9.9+0.1 per mil and δ2H of - 68+1 per mil (Table 5). This is the mean of the component variances technique. These limits of sampling uncertainty are comparable or below the reported analytical precision of most stable-isotope laboratories. It was presumed that the wells were too deep to be affected by local runoff conditions. Depths for the 40 wells in Table 5 range from 57 to 3010 ft, with a mean of 383 ft. Some of the depths were estimated on the basis of nearby well logs. Sources of base flow as evidenced by stable isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen. During this study, extensive review of the existing stable-isotope data identified several problems with the available sample results. First, although lower Granite Creek had been sampled more than 10 times between 1991 and 1997, none of the samples could be identified as having been collected at the initial onset of base flow in Granite Creek. This leaves the possibility that base flow may have been slightly affected by a small contribution from bank storage, or that a small evaporative shift could have occurred as a consequence of the hot climate and long residence time in the marshy area downstream from the spring. Either scenario could affect the interpretation of the data. A second problem was that there were no

unmixed spring samples representing the major source of ground-water discharge (Big Chino Springs) in the gaining reach downstream from river mile 2.3. Armed with an improved understanding of water-budget relations and of the effects of local geologic controls on ground-water movement, the upper Verde River was revisited on May 1, 1999 with two objectives: first, to find the precise onset of perennial flow in lower Granite Creek, and secondly, to find a location where the major springs downstream from river mile 2.3 could be sampled directly before entering the Verde River streambed and mixing with the Granite Creek source of water. Both sampling locations were identified and sampled in a flowing reach as close as possible to where ground water was emerging from the sub-surface. The samples were collected following an extended dry period, during which almost no rainfall or runoff is known to have occurred for more than 6 months. For quality assurance, the samples were submitted to three independent laboratories at the University of Colorado in Boulder, Colorado; ASU in Tempe, Arizona; and the Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona (Table 5). The isotopic values and standard deviations of the three replicates for lower Granite Spring were δ18O + -9.7+0.2 and δ2H + -68.4+0.4. The mean values for Big Chino Springs were δ18O of -10.2+0.1 and δ2H of 72.2+0.8. During collection of the spring samples, several important observations were made. As mentioned earlier, the onset of first perennial flow in lower Granite Creek coincided with a fault zone identified by Krieger in Martin Limestone and Tapeats Sandstone (1965), about 1 mile upstream from the mouth (Fig. 2B). The sample was collected in the part of the reach where moving current was present, near a side drainage with large cottonwood trees on the west riverbank. The Big Chino Springs sample was collected on the north bank of the Verde River from a previously unknown spring flowing from the base of a cliff of Martin Limestone. The spring is just below a small side canyon near river mile 2.3, which also coincides with a small fault (Fig. 2B). A thicket of brushy vegetation in a grove of trees hides the spring from view. A narrow channel (approximately 2-3 ft wide and 50 ft in length) connects the spring to the main stream channel. Flow was estimated at greater than 0.1 ft3/s near the cliff and about 5 ft3/s in the river. The following discussion of the stable-isotope results follows an upstream to downstream order, beginning with Sullivan Lake and Stillman Lake, fol-

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona

Mean Daily Discharge in cubic feet per second

28 mean annual base flow = 24.9 cfs

beginning of gage record

lowest recorded base flow (36-year record)

J F M A M J J A S O ND J F M A M J J A S O N D

1963

1964

J F M A M J J A S O N

1965

Figure 9. Mean daily discharge for the Paulden gage (09503700) for calendar years 1963-65 showing lowest recorded base flow of 15 ft3/s for 11 consecutive days in May, 1964. Gaging records began on July 17, 1963.

lowed by a discussion of the lower Granite and Big Chino aquifer sources and their corresponding stream reaches. Next, the stable-isotope characteristics of the two springs will be compared with the available ground-water data to present the evidence for groundwater ﬂow paths between the major recharge areas and the upper Verde River. Sullivan Lake and Stillman Lake. The stable-isotope values of ASU and USGS samples collected from Sullivan Lake (river mile 0.0) and Stillman Lake are isotopically heavier than Verde River base-ﬂow samples from river miles 2.1 to 2.3 (Fig. 10A). Sullivan Lake and Stillman Lake samples vary greatly with the seasons and with respect to runoff conditions. Evaporation of water molecules, preferentially containing a higher percentage of lighter isotopes in the vapor phase, causes the water that remains behind to be isotopically heavier. Evaporated meteoric waters characteristically plot increasingly below and to the right of the Meteoric Water line (MWL) (Craig, 1961). In addition, summer thunderstorms in Arizona often produce rainfall that is isotopically heavier than precipitation at other times of the year (Van Metre et al. 1997, p. 29-30). Water in Sullivan Lake and Stillman Lake may contain ground-water discharge, but may 34

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378

also include impounded water leftover from the last major storm that may or may not show an evaporative influence. In general, summer samples tend to be more evaporated than winter samples. These impounded and evaporated waters do not appear to supply a significant source of base flow to the Verde River, but they do suggest the presence of ground water seeping to the surface at a slow rate. The stable-isotope evidence shows at least two distinct sources of base flow; one that is above and one that is below river mile 2.3. Base flow in the Verde River upstream from mile 2.3 is isotopically similar to the lower Granite Creek and Lower Granite Spring (Fig. 10B; Table 4). The unevaporated isotopic composition of the spring discharging to upper Stillman Lake has not been sampled and thus its potential contribution is unknown. Although only three baseflow samples were collected from the Verde River upstream from river mile 2.3, their values generally fall within the range of values measured for 10 baseflow samples collected from Granite Creek above its confluence with the Verde River from 1991 to 1997 = -67.9+2.5). In addition, the ( 18O = -9.4+0.3; three samples are similar to the stable isotope value of Lower Granite Spring of 18O = -9.7+0.2 and = -68.7+0.4 that was collected on May 1, 1999. The

one exception is the δ2Η value of −61 per mil that was measured in December 1996. A possible explanation is that this sample could represent evaporated water or unidentified inflow from the Stillman Lake spring network. Stable-isotope data for Verde River miles 2.1 to 2.3 indicate that evaporated contributions to base flow from Stillman Lake and Sullivan Lake are negligible, however, a contribution of unevaporated ground water flowing beneath Stillman Lake is a distinct possibility. Verde River miles 2.3 to 10. Base-flow samples in the Verde River collected downstream from river mile 2.3 are isotopically similar to the sample from Big Chino Springs (δ18O = -10.2+0.12 and δ2Η = -72.1+0.7). Ground-water discharge from Big Chino Springs is significantly depleted in 18O and 2Η in comparison to Lower Granite Spring and Verde base flow upstream from river mile 2.3. The blending of base flow from lower Granite Creek and the Big Chino Springs gaining reach yields a mixture that is intermediate to the two springs. Stable-isotope characteristics of major aquifers and their recharge areas. The δ18O and δ2Η values of the source aquifers are assumed to be conservative, meaning that the stable-isotope values remain constant from the recharge source area to the point of discharge. Despite non-homogeneities in different water-bearing units and variations in recharge characteristics that are spread over a wide area, we also assume the aquifer is well mixed at the point of spring discharge. Candidate aquifer sources must have (1) a flow path that is geologically feasible, (2) a recharge area capable of receiving enough precipitation or runoff, and (3) stable-isotope values that are similar to Lower Granite Spring or Big Chino Springs. Measured stable-isotope values for Lower Granite Spring and Big Chino Springs were compared with those of ground-water samples from wells in Little Chino Valley, near Sullivan Lake, Big Chino Valley, Williamson Valley and Walnut Creek, and Big Black Mesa (Fig. 11 and Table 5). In instances where more than one sample was collected at the same location on different days, those values were averaged so as not to weight the mean. Little Chino Valley. Mean stable-isotope values from seven Little Chino wells and Del Rio Spring (δ18O = -9.8+ 0.4 and δ2H = -69.5+4.0 per mil; Fig. 12A and Table 5) compare closely with Lower Granite Spring

(δ18O = -9.7+ 0.2 and δ2Η = -68.7+0.4 per mil). Given the hydrologic and geologic considerations, ground water discharge to Lower Granite Spring must be derived from within the Little Chino Valley. The homogeneous stable-isotope signature of Del Rio Springs (δ18O = - 9.9+0.1 per mil and δ2H = - 68+1 per mil), which has been measured four times in the past decade, is undistinguishable from Lower Granite Spring, indicating a Little Chino Valley source for both spring networks. The Little Chino aquifer may contribute to Big Chino Springs, but only if mixing were to occur with an equal or greater amount of water from a second source having a substantially lighter (more negative) average isotopic value. Wells near Sullivan Lake. Because it is still unknown whether wells near Sullivan Lake intercept flow from Little Chino Valley, Big Chino Valley, or a mixture of both, samples within 5 miles of the lake were grouped separately (see Fig. 12A and Table 5). The mean of the 10 wells (δ18O = -9.8+ 0.3 and δ2Η = 70.3+2.5 per mil) falls within the range for both Little Chino and most Big Chino well (Fig. 12B) samples. Ground-water flow paths for the two basins converge in the vicinity of Sullivan Lake (Fig. 6), hence a mixture is quite possible. Big Chino Valley. The scatter of stable-isotope values for most well samples in Big Chino Valley is indistinguishable from Little Chino Valley (Fig. 12B, Table 5). Like the Little Chino samples, Big Chino samples are similar to samples from wells near Sullivan Lake; lower Granite Creek base flow, and Lower Granite Spring. The mean values for 13 well samples are δ18O = -9.9+ 0.3 and δ2H = -71+2.4 per mil. Samples from three wells along the northeast lateral margin of Big Chino Valley (Fig. 12B), however, are indistinguishable to Big Chino Springs in δ18O and δ2H. Two of the wells (BCM-11 and BCM12) are north of Paulden near the Big Chino Fault. The well logs for these two wells indicate limestone at 285 and 504 ft, respectively. The third well (BCM18) is in the northern end of Big Chino Valley and is 500 ft deep. The lithology and proximity to faulting of the third well is unknown, although contact with limestone is likely on the basis of depth. Sand, gravel, clay, conglomerate, boulders, and basalt or malpais are prevalent in most other Big Chino well logs, but only BCM-11 and BCM-12 are known to penetrate limestone. These differences are consistent with the conceptual model of an unconfined, predominantly alluvial aquifer overlying a confined, predominantly bedrock aquifer of Paleozoic limestone.

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona

The more negative isotopic composition of wells BCM-11, BCM-12, and BCM-18 may represent ground water recharged from higher altitudes and transmitted to faults along the valley margins. Recharge to these three wells could be from the higher altitude mountain ranges on the southwest edge of the basin. A second possibility is that these wells are producing older, deeper ground water that was recharged during cooler, wetter climate conditions—such as the Pleistocene. As mentioned earlier, Robertson (1991) has shown that the chemistry of deep ground water in other southwestern alluvial basins evolves under closed conditions without mixing after the initial filling of the basins. Hence, deeper ground water would be expected to have chemical characteristics that are distinct from shallow ground water. Although the source and timing of the recharge are unknown, the differences in isotopic composition for these three wells versus other Big Chino Valley samples—and their similarity to Big Chino Springs—is attributed to their contact with Paleozoic limestone. Ashfork and Big Black Mesa. The measured stableisotope values of several alternate source areas, including Ash Fork and Big Black Mesa, are also shown in Fig. 12. A deep water-supply well was sampled at the town of Ash Fork in 1987 and again in 1991 by the USGS. Ash Fork is about 25 miles north of Paulden on a plateau surrounded by basalt exposures. Surface drainage is southeast to Big Chino Valley. The direction of ground-water flow in this area is largely unknown, owing to the scarcity of wells in the region. Although no well log was available, the well is believed to be in contact with limestone on the basis of its 1700-ft depth. The Ash Fork sample is not statistically unique from other samples from Big and Little Chino Valleys and Big Chino Springs, however it is most similar to samples from the Big Chino limestone wells. Two wells were sampled north of the Verde River on the low altitude end of Big Black Mesa. Well BBM-04, or “Hell’s Well” near Drake was sampled by the USGS in 1987 and has a depth of 460 ft, and is completed in limestone. Well BBM-111, near Glidden, was sampled twice by ASU in May and September of 1996. No well log is available for BBM111. Because of the disparity in the deuterium (–70 and –78 per mil for the two samples from the Glidden well), all three Big Black Mesa analyses were plotted individually, instead of averaged (Fig. 12B). The disparity might be explained by seasonal variations in the source of the ground water; however, because the δ18O analyses match closely (-10.4 36

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378

and -10.5), it is thought that an analytical problem with the deuterium of one or both samples is more likely. The Big Black Mesa samples cannot be differentiated from that of Big Chino Springs or any of the major aquifers. They are most similar to other samples from limestone wells in Big Chino Valley and Ash Fork. Despite the apparent similarities with other limestone wells, Big Black Mesa is probably not a major recharge source of ground water to Big Chino Springs (as asserted by Knauth and Greenbie, 1997) on the basis of the following geologic and hydrologic evidence. The water level of the Glidden well, measured by ADWR on both April 12, 1994, and April 19, 1999, was about 4,218 ft above sea level(Frank Corkhill, oral commun., July 13, 1999). This value is slightly lower than the range in altitude of Big Chino Springs (4220 to 4240 ft); and is strong physical evidence that this part of Big Black Mesa is not contributing to the springs. It is conceivable that ground water may travel east as far as the Limestone Canyon Monocline near river mile 13 (Edward DeWitt, oral commun.,1999; Figs. 2 and 6) , which is underlain by uplifted granite; however, there is little evidence of ground-water discharge beyond the monocline toward Hell Canyon. A more likely possibility is that ground water travels from northeast to southwest from the limestone aquifer underlying Big Chino Valley toward the Verde River and Big Black Mesa. As noted earlier, ground water in the vicinity of Drake would be most likely to drain southeast toward the Verde River (river miles 10 to 13) through exposures of Martin Limestone or Tapeats Sandstone in the canyon (Ed deWitt, oral commun., 2000). A small gain in base flow may occur in this reach, but this cannot be verified because of limited data and the large (as high as + 2 ft3/s) diurnal variability in discharge. Big Black Mesa probably contributes an unknown amount of mountain-front recharge to the northwest margin of Big Chino Valley along the Big Chino Fault, however it is unlikely to contribute a significant amount of recharge to the upper Verde River in the vicinity of Big Chino Springs. Williamson Valley and Walnut Creek. Isotope ratios of samples from Williamson Valley and Walnut Creek closely match those of the three limestone wells in Big Chino Valley; however, this could be coincidental, as these wells appear to tap alluvial sediments (Fig. 12). The wells are relatively shallow, ranging in depth from 150 to 300 ft, and probably do not encounter limestone. Two of the six wells (WV-109 and WV-110) are cased in alluvium at the northern end of Williamson Valley near its confluence with

Big Chino Wash. Well logs for the other wells are absent. Based on their geographic locations, stableisotope values, and water levels, these wells appear to intercept ground water from the Williamson Valley and Walnut Creek drainages. The Bradshaw, Santa Maria, and Juniper Mountains range in altitude from 5,000 to more than 7,600 ft, and average annual precipitation commonly exceeds 20 inches and may exceed 30 inches during wet years (Sellers and Hill, 1974). On the basis of water-level contours (Fig. 6) ground water from Walnut Creek and Williamson Valley appears to travels eastward across Big Chino Valley toward the area north of Paulden. One possibility explaining the similarity in isotopic composition is that ground water from Williamson Valley and Walnut Creek recharges the deeper limestone aquifer. Mixing from several source areas in the vicinity of Paulden would also produce water that is isotopically similar to Big Chino Springs. The δO18 and δD values for Big Chino Springs (-10.2+0.1 and -72.2+0.8 per mil) closely match the mean (10.2+0.4 and -72.9+2.9 per mil) of all wells that were sampled in Big Chino Valley including the limestone wells (16 wells), Williamson Valley (5 wells), and Walnut Creek (1 well). Hence, Big Chino Springs may be a composite of ground water from several interconnected aquifers that receive recharge from different parts of Big Chino Valley. An unknown contribution of ground water from Little Chino Valley or upper Big Black Mesa to Big Chino Valley is also possible. Bill Williams Mountain. Because of its high altitude and abundant snow in winter, Bill Williams Mountain has been mentioned as a possible source of recharge for the upper Verde River. The major southern drainage for Bill Williams Mountain is Sycamore Creek, which joins the Verde River nearly 35 miles downstream from Sullivan Lake. Despite the limestone terrain, it is probable that ground water moving southwest from Bill Williams Mountain is intercepted by Hell Canyon. Hell Canyon contributes no measurable base flow to the Verde River near its outlet. On the basis of samples collected in 1991, Sycamore Creek is significantly depleted in δ18O and δ2Η compared to Big Chino Springs, with values of –11.7 and –80.5 per mil (Fig. 12C). Water with the isotopic value of Sycamore Creek mixed with equal amounts of water from a source with an isotopic value for δ18O of –8.7 would produce the δ18O of Big Chino Springs. To evoke mixing between Sycamore Creek and a heavier δ18O source, however, would require an unknown recharge

source having either a lower altitude or higher rate of evaporation, such as from another alluvial basin recharged by ephemeral streams. All of the obvious sources, however, have been sampled. Virtually all of the δ18O sample data are lighter than –9.0 with the exception of one well sample in Little Chino Valley having a δ18O value of –8.9. Such a scenario might be possible but is highly unlikely, as there are no alluvial basins lower in altitude or more arid than Little Chino Valley adjacent to the Sycamore Creek subbasin. Given these considerations, Bill Williams Mountain is an unlikely source of ground-water recharge for the first 26 miles of the Verde River, although it is the most likely source supplying large limestone springs in the reach between Perkinsville and the mouth of Sycamore Creek (Wirt, 1992; Wirt, 1993). Carbon isotopes as an indicator of aquifer lithology. Carbon-13 is useful for determining sources of carbon and is particularly valuable for distinguishing between carbon derived from organic matter (light) and carbon derived from carbonate minerals (heavy). The δ13C of ground water is determined by the δ13C of the inflow water and the supply of carbon to and removal of carbon from the water during its transit through the aquifer (Drever, 1988). Dissolution of limestone introduces relatively heavy carbon, as dissolved carbonate materials in the ocean have δ13C equal to 0 per mil, whereas atmospheric CO2 is about –7 per mil. The major process that introduces relatively light carbon (having a more negative value) into ground water is the dissolution of carbon dioxide from soil gas in the unsaturated zone. Selected ground-water and base-flow samples collected by the USGS in 1991 were analyzed for carbon isotopes (13C/12C values or δ13C). Stable carbon ratios were interpreted with respect to δ18O and saturation indices for calcite (Fig. 13). As discussed earlier, the 18O serves as a conservative ground-water tracer from the point of recharge to discharge, providing an indication of the altitude and climate of the recharge area. Saturation indices of calcite provide an indication of the equilibrium with respect to calcite (CaCO3) and were calculated using PHREEQC, a computer program capable of performing speciation and saturation-index calculations (Parkhurst, 1995). The PHREEQC calculations utilized major and trace element analyses of water samples collected by the USGS in 1991. No cation or anion analyses were available for Lower Granite Spring and Big Chino

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona

10 l in

te r

-10

s lo

te o

r ic

-20

ift

-30

o ap

iv e

-40 -50

Sullivan Lake to mouth of Granite Creek Verde River at mile 10 Stillman Lake Sullivan Lake

-60 -80 -10.0

-60

Î´

2-H (per mil)

-70 0.0

-70 M

-80 -11.0

10.0

ic or

r te

lin

Upper Verde River base flow Lower Granite Spring Granite Creek base flow Verde River above mile 2.3 Big Chino Springs Verde River at mile 10

-10.0

-9.0

-8.0

-7.0

Î´ O-18 (per mil) Figure 10. Oxygen-18 and deuterium plots for (A) impounded water in Sullivan Lake and Stillman Lake and (B) base flow from lower Granite Creek, Big Chino Springs, and the upper Verde River. In graph A, samples from Sullivan Lake and Stillman Lake show a substantial evaporative shift to the lower right of the meteoric water line, unlike unevaporated base flow in the Verde River near river mile 10. In graph B, which is an inset of graph A, a mix of flow from Verde base flow above mile 2.3 with discharge from Big Chino Springs yields water with an intermediate isotopic composition at river mile 10. Granite Creek base flow and the Verde River above river mile 2.3 are isotopically similar to Lower Granite Spring. 38

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona

Stillman Lake " " " " " " " " " " " "

" " "

" " " " " "

" " "

28 Big Chino Springs " " 29 " 30 " " " Mean+standard deviation (x=3) 31 Verde River nr Paulden gage (09503700) 32 Verde River nr Perkinsville 33 Sycamore Creek 34 Verde River nr Clarkdale (09504000)

24 25 26 27

" " " " " " " " " Sullivan Lake " " " " " "

21 " 22 " 23 "

17 18 19 20

CU UA V-05 V-09 SC-14 V-16

10 26 34 36

USGS USGS USGS USGS

ASU

" "

ASU ASU " ASU " " "

USGS ASU " ASU

ASU " "

ASU ASU ASU ASU " USGS ASU " " "

ASU CU UA

Laboratory

BC-1

VP-203R3 VP-202 " SL-207 " " "

VP-01 VP-203R1 " VP-203R2

V-204 " "

GC-215 " GC-302 " " GC-02 GC-201 " " "

LG-1 " "

Sample_Id

2.3 " "

" " " 0.0 " " "

1.0 to 1.9 " " "

2.3 " "

14 Verde River <0.3 mile blw confluence with Granite Creek 15 " " " " " " " " " 16 " " " " " " " " "

Mean+standard deviation (x=3)

NA " " " " " " " " "

NA " "

Verde River Mile

Granite Creek abv confluence with Verde River " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " 13 " " " " " " " Mean+standard deviation (x=10)

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Mean+standard deviation (x=3)

1 Lower Granite Spring 2 " " " 3 " " "

Location

" " 7/3/91 7/2/91 7/2/91 7/4/91

May-99

Dec-96 May-96 Dec-96 May-96 Sep-96 Dec-97 Mar-97

7/1/91 May-96 Dec-96 Dec-96

May-96 Dec-96 Jul-97

Dec-96 Mar-97 Dec-96 Mar-97 Jul-97 7/1/91 May-96 Sep-96 Dec-96 Mar-97

5/1/99 " "

Sample Date

-10.3 -10.1 -10.3 -10.2+0.1 -10.1 -11.7 -10.9

-9.0 -6.6 -6.7 9.3 -0.4 -7.8 -7.3

-4.4 -1.1 -6.0 -9.2

-9.2 -9.1 -9.6 -9.3+0.3

-9.4 -9.4 -9.4 -9.4 -9.9 -9.2 -9.0 -9.0 -9.5 -9.4 -9.4+0.3

-9.7+0.2

-9.8 -9.5 -9.7

Oxygen-18 per mil

-72.0 -73.0 -71.5 -72.2+0.8 -71.5 -80.5 -77.5

-70.0 -55.0 -59.0 9.4 -21.0 -51.0 -63.0

-48.5 -40.0 -62.0 -70.0

-65.0 -61.0 -69.0 -65.0+4.0

-69.0 -69.0 -64.0 -64.0 -72.0 -66.5 -68.0 -68.0 -69.0 -69.0 -67.9+2.5

-68.7+0.4

-69.0 -68.8 -67.5

Deuterium per mil

1.7+0.6

2.9+0.6

-5.9

<5.1

10.4+0.7

5.0+0.6

<5.1

Tritium (PCI/L)

-5.4 -4.4

-3.0

-5.3

-11.0

-8.80

Carbon-13 per mil

Table 4. Stable-Isotope and Hydrologic Data for Base Flow in the Upper Verde River [NA = not applicable]

BC-19

BC-104

W illia m

WV-115

e Cr

BC-08

WV-118

Paulden

BC-108 BC-04

WV-03

LC-126

LC-03, LC-301 LC-5, LC-113

LC-01

BBM-111 LS-11 BC-107 BC-12 SL-120, SL-06

LS-12

n Ca

Drake

el l H

BBM-04

LC-114

LC-125

SL-07 SL-02, SL-127 SL-122, SL-112, SL-117, SL123, SL-124

shSL-121

WV-110 WV-109

BC-106

BC-09

BC-105

Ashfork

Figure 11. Ground-water sampling locations in the Verde River headwaters area.

t a l nu

BC-102

WC-119

BC-17

LS-18

V n

W a

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378

a lle y

oW h Gr a t e ni Cr e ek

g n hi

10 kilometers

10 miles

Water-level index well

Lower Granite Spring

RBig Chino Springs i v e r

Ash Fork well

Big Black Mesa well

Walnut Creek well

Williamson Valley well

Big Chino limestone well

Big Chino Valley well

Well near Sullivan Lake

Little Chino Valley well

Ground-water Sampling Locations

Springs, which were sampled at a different time. In Fig. 13A, Big Chino Springs (–3.0 per mil) is enriched in δ13C relative to base flow for Lower Granite Spring (-8.8 per mil). The presence of heavy carbon suggests that the major source to Big Chino Springs is a carbonate aquifer and, conversely, that the source of Lower Granite Spring contains relatively less carbonate. For example, an alluvial aquifer might be expected to contain more isotopically light dissolved carbon from soil gas in the unsaturated zone than a bedrock aquifer. Except in its northern end, close to the Verde River where the Martin and Tapeats formations are exposed, Little Chino Valley is largely underlain by a variety of igneous and metamorphic rocks (Corkhill and Mason, 1995). The Big Chino unconfined aquifer is also non-carbonate and is largely composed of alluvium and basalt. Samples from wells in contact with limestone are on the right side of graph 13A, while ground water from wells and springs in contact with non-carbonate rock types plot toward the left side. Interestingly, the limestone wells were consistently lighter in δ18O, which may reflect the altitude or climate of the recharge environment. High altitude or mountainfront recharge would tend to produce isotopically lighter recharge than low altitude recharge, such as might occur beneath ephemeral streams on the valley floor. For example, mountain-front recharge might predominantly occur during periods of snowmelt (isotopically lighter), whereas ephemeral stream runoff might include a higher component from summer thunderstorms (isotopically heavier), as shown by Van Metre et al. (1997, p. 29-30). In Fig. 13B, saturation indices for calcite are generally higher for wells enriched in 13C, owing to contact with carbonate minerals. As might be expected, ground water in contact with marine limestone has more heavy carbon than ground water in contact with non-marine rocks. Non-carbonate ground water from Del Rio Spring, Little Chino well LC-01, and Lower Big Chino wells BC-02 and BC-04 are relatively depleted in δ13C. Upper Big Chino wells BC-06, BC-07, BC-08, BC-09, and Little Chino well LC-05 are moderately depleted in δ13C. Ground water in contact with limestone from wells BCF-11, BCF-12, and Ash Fork are nearly as enriched in δ13C as Verde River surface water. Enrichment of 13C in ground water is probably correlated to the amount of contact with limestone along the flow path, however, stream-flow samples δ13C may become more enriched in δ13C because lighter carbon tends to be

lost when CO2 degasses into the atmosphere or is taken up by growing plants. No relation between δ13C and well depth was observed. Carbon-13 enrichment in Big Chino Springs and Verde River base flow is a compelling indication that the ground water has traveled extensively through limestone before discharging to the river. This is consistent with the conceptual model of ground water flowing through the deeper confined aquifer in the Martin Limestone, and also through the shallower unconfined aquifer comprised of limestone-bearing alluvium along the Big Chino Fault zone, before discharging to Big Chino Springs. Unfortunately, no carbon-13 data were available for wells in Williamson Valley or Walnut Creek. As water transmits to the underlying limestone, it is enriched in δ13C before emerging to the surface as flow in the Verde River, shown conceptually in Fig. 3. Carbon-13 enrichment may prove useful in distinguishing among the interconnected aquifers in Big and Little Chino Valleys. Discussion of isotope evidence. The stable isotope data are consistent with the geologic and hydrologic evidence presented earlier in the surface-water, ground-water, and water-budget sections. Major ground-water recharge areas for Big Chino Valley include Williamson Valley, Walnut Creek, and other major tributaries of the Bradshaw, Santa Maria, and Juniper Mountains that receive higher amounts of precipitation. Snowmelt and surface runoff recharge the southwest edge of Big Chino Valley and Williamson Valley. These waters are relatively depleted in 18O and 2Η because the primary source of recharge is precipitation at higher altitudes. The upper end of Big Chino Valley may also contribute a substantial fraction of the total recharge, and more data are needed to quantify the relative contributions. Stable-isotope values for wells in Ash Fork and Big Black Mesa are similar to those for other wells in Paleozoic limestone. Possible recharge areas that have not been sampled extensively include the upper end of Big Chino Valley (which may or may not include the area north of Seligman), Pine Creek and Turkey Creek in the Juniper Mountains, and runoff from Big Chino Wash and the major ephemeral drainages of Big Black Mesa, such as Partridge Creek. More isotopic data are also needed from wells in these areas to determine the extent of possible contributions. Big Chino Fault apparently serves as a mixing zone as well as conduit for waters from various recharge areas. Ground water from Williamson Valley and Walnut Creek travels across Big Chino Valley

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378

" " " LC-101 " " " " " " " LC-10 Mean+standard deviation (x=9)

nr Sullivan Lake " " " " " " " " "

" " " "

" " " SL-123 " " " SL-02 " " " SL-124 " " " SL-122 Mean+standard deviation (x=10)

Big Chino Basin " " " " " "

13 14 15

16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31

32 33 34

" " " "

BC-107 " BC-108

" SL-117 " "

SL-121 SL-112 " "

SL-06 SL-120 SL-07 SL-127

LC-126 LC-125 LC-114 "

" LC-113 " LC-05

" " " "

" " "

9 10 11 12

" " "

" " " "

5 6 7 8

LC-01 LC-03 LC-301 "

Little Chino Basin " " " " " " " " "

ASU " ASU

ASU USGS ASU ASU

" ASU " "

ASU ASU " "

USGS ASU USGS ASU

ASU " USGS

ASU ASU ASU "

" ASU " USGS

USGS USGS ASU "

B(18-2)27 dda " B(18-3)3 aaa

B(17-2)9 ccd B(17-2)09ddd2 B(17-2)15 cdd B(17-2)17 aad

" B(17-2)9 ccb " "

B(17-2)6 aba B(17-2)9 bbc " "

B(17-2)2cac B(17-2)S03cbb1 B(17-2)4aaa "

B(15-2)23 cba " B(15-2)23cbd

B(17-2)35 cda B(16-2)4 cbb B(16-2)15 ada "

" B(17-2)34 aca " B(17-2)34bba

May-96 Sep-96 May-96

Dec-96 09-09-91 Dec-96 Dec-96

Mar-97 Sep-96 Dec-96 Mar-97

Dec-96 May-96 Sep-96 Dec-96

08-30-91 Dec-96 09-09-91 Dec-96

May-96 Sep-96 07-04-87

Dec-96 Dec-96 May-96 Sep-96

Jul-97 May-96 Dec-96 09-09-91

09-09-91 08-26-91 Dec-96 Mar-97

Sample Date

B(17-2)22bca4 B(17-2)26ccc " "

Sample_ID Agency Location

1 2 3 4

Location

O-18

2003 " 230

260* 130 128 320*

" 130 " "

240* 207* " "

480 167 298 "

560 " 578*

110* 200* 300 "

" 130* " ?

57 Del Rio Spring " "

(ft blw surface)

Well Depth

[* indicates that well depth is estimated on the basis of nearby well log(s); ? indicates that well depth is unknown] Note: Averaged value of wells that were sampled repeatedly was used to calculate standard deviation.

Table 5. Stable-Isotope and Well Data for Ground Water in the Verde River Headwaters Region

-10.0 -10.3 -9.6

-9.6 -9.5 -9.8 -10.2 -9.8+0.3

-10.2 -9.5 -9.7 -9.5

-9.5 -10.0 -10.0 -10.3

-10.0 -10.0 -9.4 -10.4

-10.1 -10.1 -10.3 -9.8+0.4

-9.4 -10.0 -8.9 -8.9

-9.9 -9.5 -10.1 -10.1

-9.9 -9.9 -10.0 -9.9

C-13

-61.0 -74.0 -67.0 -66.0

-72.0 -65.0 -70.0 -71.5

-71.0 -71.0 -69.0 -74.0

per mil

-72.0 -69.0 -65.0

-71.0 -69.5 -72.0 -72.0 -70.3+2.5

-71.0 -73.0 -73.0 -76.0

-65.0 -66.0 -69.0 -68.0

-71.5 -69.0 -71.5 -69.0

-69.0 -67.0 -73.0 -69.5+4.0

H-2 per mil

0.433

0.243

-9.4

-11.8

0.529

0.196

0.294 0.401

Saturation Indices (CaCO3)

-9.6

-10.3

-11.9 -11.5

per mil

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona

" ASU " ASU

All wells in Big Chino Basin and tributaries

" " " BC-12 Mean+standard deviation (x=13)

Limestone wells LS-11 " " " " LS-12 " " " " " " " " " LS-18 Mean+standard deviation (x=3)

Walnut Creek Williamson Valley " " " " " "

" " " " " WV-115 " " " " " WV-118 Mean+standard deviation (x=6)

Mean+standard deviation (x=21)

49 50 51 52

53 54 55 56 57

58 59 60 61

Ash Fork AF-06 " " Mean+standard deviation (x=2)

Big Black Mesa nr Drake BBM-04 Big Black Mesa nr Glidden BBM-111 " " " " Mean+standard deviation (x=3)

64 65 66

WC-119 WV-03 WV-109 " WV-110

BC-102 BC-17 BC-19 BC-10

62 63

" " " "

USGS ASU ASU

USGS "

ASU USGS ASU " ASU

USGS USGS " USGS

USGS

ASU USGS USGS USGS

USGS USGS ASU "

B(18-1)06 abb B(18-1)27 aac "

B(21-02)14bcc "

" B(17-4)14 cbd " B(16-4)14 dcd

B(18-6)24 ddd B(17-4)36bcb B(18-3)25 ada " B(18-3)26 baa

B(18-2)27cba B(18-2)27cda " B(22-7)25adb

B(17-2)N34acc

B(21-5)35 aba B(21-6)14ccd B(23-7)1ccc B(23-7)26dda

B(19-3)18ccc B(19-4)4cac B(19-4)15 aac "

07-04-87 May-96 Sep-96

08-31-87 08-27-91

Sep-96 May-96 Dec-96 Dec-96

Dec-96 08-30-87 May-96 Sep-96 May-96

09-10-91 08-31-87 08-30-91 07-04-87

07-04-87

May-96 07-06-87 07-05-87 07-04-87

09-10-91 08-27-91 May-96 Sep-96

Sep-96 09-10-91 May-96 Sep-96

" " " "

BC-09 BC-08 BC-104 "

" B(18-3)25cda B(19-4)1 bad "

" " " "

" USGS ASU "

May-96

44 45 46 47

" " " "

" BC-04 BC-105 "

B(18-3)4 ccc

" " " "

ASU

40 41 42 43

" " " "

BC-106

" " " "

36 37 38 39

460 ? ?

1700 "

" 150 " 250

150 200 300* " 285

285 3010 " 500*

420*

110 140 500* 474

200 ? 350* "

" 334 300 "

-10.1 -10.4 -10.5 -10.3+0.2

-10.1 -10.1 -10.1+0.04

-10.2+0.4

-10.3 -10.8 -10.6 -10.6 -10.6+0.3

-10.4 -11.1 -10.4 -10.6 -10.2

-10.3 -10.5 -10.5 -10.4 -10.4+0.1

-10.2 -9.9+0.3

-10.0 -9.9 -9.6 -9.9

-10.0 -9.4 -9.4

-10.2 -9.7 -10.0 -10.2

-10.0

-73.5 -70.0 -78.0 -73.8+4.0

-75.5 -76.0 -75.8+0.4

-72.9+2.9

-77.0 -77.0 -70.0 -75.0 -75.4+2.0

-73.0 -77.0 -78.0 -78.0 -75.0

-75.5 -74.0 -76.0 -74.5 -75.3+0.8

-72.0 -70.8+2.4

-71.0 -74.5 -69.0 -72.5

-72.5 -70.0 -69.0

-74.0 -72.0 -69.0 -75.0

-70.0

0.651

0.627

-6.4

-7.1

0.410

0.207 0.257

0.156

-6.6

-8.0 -9.1

-11.3

down gradient from the clay unit, as shown both by stable-isotope data and water-level contours (Figures 12 and 6; Schwab, 1995). These ground waters join the Big Chino Fault near Paulden, where ground water moves downgradient from Big Chino alluvium into the Martin Limestone as the basin becomes shallower near its outlet. Fractures and solution cavities in the underlying limestone along the extension of the Big Chino Fault provide the likely conduit for water to reach Big Chino Springs. Ground water is significantly enriched in δ13C at the point of discharge to the Verde River, indicating extensive contact with carbonate rocks. Thus, a composite of ground water from interconnected aquifers in Big Chino Valley supplies Big Chino Springs, the primary source of base flow in the upper Verde River. Because ground water from wells in most of Big Chino Valley are heavier in 18O and 2Η than ground water from the wells that are known to intercept limestone (Fig. 12B), one can infer that recharge to the upper (unconfined) non-carbonate aquifer is derived from a different source. Recharge to the unconfined alluvial aquifer may be from precipitation that has been substantially evaporated, has fallen principally at lower altitudes, or has a larger component from summer storms that recharge along mountain fronts. Direct infiltration may occur within the center of the basin along stream channels during periods of extended runoff. This would appear to be the main source of recharge for most wells tapping the unconfined alluvial aquifer in the lower end of Big Chino Valley. The stable-isotope values of the unconfined Big Chino aquifer are largely indistinguishable from that of the Little Chino alluvial aquifer, suggesting that recharge areas in both basins are similar in altitude, climate, and mechanism. Based on the range of values for δ18O in wells in lower Big Chino Valley (Fig. 12; Table 5), the zone of mixing between the two basins could extend as far north as the town of Paulden. The present data do not preclude the possibility that ground water from Little Chino Valley may have entered Big Chino Valley in the vicinity of Sullivan Lake. The source of Lower Granite Spring is probably a non-carbonate aquifer, as evidenced by δ13C of –8.8 per mil. Determining the recharge area for ground water discharging at Lower Granite Spring, however, is problematic. Both the Little Chino and the unconfined Big Chino aquifers are candidates, but well samples from the two aquifers are largely indistinguishable from one another on the basis of stable isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen. The mean δ18O 44

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378

and δ2Η for the two basins are within error bars of one another. Both aquifers are relatively depleted in δ13C with values ranging between –11.9 and –8.0 per mil. Because the values are so similar, the source of Lower Granite Spring could be from the unconfined Big Chino aquifer, the Little Chino aquifer, or a mixture of the two. Compounding the problem, faults in lower Granite Creek are covered to the west by volcanic and sedimentary deposits. Ground water from northern Little Chino Valley and the Sullivan Buttes area may have mixed with Big Chino ground water in the vicinity of Sullivan Lake. Additional sampling is needed to determine a more accurate age of the spring waters. Ground-water age dating techniques such as carbon-14 or chlorine-36 applications could be useful in determining ground-water flow paths, time of travel, and degree of mixing between Big and Little Chino aquifers, if any.

SUMMARY The following major conclusions are each supported by multiple lines of evidence: 1. Two spring networks in the upper Verde River contribute virtually all base flow in the upper 24-mi reach. Big Chino Springs is fed by ground water from a carbonate aquifer, and Lower Granite Spring is fed by ground water from a non-carbonate aquifer. Evidence for two aquifer sources supplying base flow is based on mapped fault and spring locations, lowflow discharge measurements spanning three decades, and significant variations in two independent types of isotopic data. Differences in δ18O and δ2Η values indicate at least two different groundwater recharge areas. Differences in carbon-13 enrichment suggest different degrees of ground-water exposure to carbonate rock. 2. There is a strong hydrologic connection between water levels in Big Chino Valley and Big Chino Springs, which presently (1991-99) supplies at least 80 percent of total base flow in the upper Verde River. Water-level contours clearly indicate that the Big Chino Fault serves as a conduit for ground water from various recharge areas in Big Chino Valley and possibly Little Chino Valley. Geologic evidence indicates that ground water likely exits Big Chino Valley north of Paulden through fractures and solution features in the Martin Limestone that have been observed at river level in the major gaining reach. Increases in base flow correspond to fault locations

-60

Little Chino Valley Wells in Little Chino Valley

near Sullivan Lake

Lower Granite Spring Big Chino Springs

-70

2-H (per mil)

-80

-60

Wells near Sullivan Lake

ic or

L te r

in e

Big Chino Valley Wells in Big Chino Valley Big Chino limestone wells

BBM-111

Big Chino Springs

-70

analysis from Big Black Mesa well Ash Fork well

-80

-60

te Me

a te

e L in

BBM-04 BBM-111

limestone wells

C Williamson Valley and Walnut Creek

te Me

L te r

in e Williamson Valley wells Walnut Creek well Big Chino Springs Sycamore Creek

-70

-80

-12.0

-11.0

-10.0

-9.0

Î´ 18-O (per mil) Figure 12. Oxygen-18 versus deuterium plots for samples (A) near Sullivan Lake and from Little Chino Valley, (B) from Big Chino Valley, Ashfork and Big Black Mesa, and (C) in major tributaries to Big Chino Valley and Sycamore Creek (analogous to Bill Williams Mountain runoff).

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona

Î´ O-18 (per mil)

-9.2

Perkinsville

Lower Granite Spring

BC-04

-9.6 -10.0

BC-07

BC-02

Del Rio Spring

Paulden gage

Ashfork

LC-01

BC-09

BC-06

BC-11 BC-12

LC-05

-10.4

Big Chino Springs

Saturation indices for calcite

-10.8

1.00

Paulden gage

0.75

BC-12 BC-06

0.50 0.25

Ashfork

BC-02 Del Rio Spring LC-05 LC-01

BC-07 BC-08

BC-11 BC-09

BC-04

0.00 -12.0

-8.0

-10.0

-6.0

-4.0

Î´13-C (per mil) Non-carbonate spring Non-carbonate well Limestone well Verde River base flow Limestone spring

Figure 13. Plots of carbon-13 ratios versus (A) oxygen-18, and (B) saturation indices for calcite in base flow and ground water.

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378

-2.0

and to changes in pH, specific conductivity, and stable-isotope chemistry. Water-budget relations show strong correlation between measured water levels in Big Chino Valley, base flow in the Verde River, and historical pumping for irrigation in Big Chino Valley. On the basis of historical measurements in Big Chino Basin, a 1-ft decline in water level at the index well correlates with a 1.3-ft3/s decrease in the base flow. Water-budget interpretations are consistent with the work of Wallace and Laney (1976), Freethey and Anderson (1986), Krieger (1965), and Ewing et al. (1994), and are based on historical data in the USGS and ADWR databases. In addition, stable-isotope values for Big Chino Springs closely match analyses for Big Chino Valley limestone wells and analyses for Williamson Valley and Walnut Creek wells, as well as the statistical mean for all of the available stable-isotope analyses in Big Chino Valley. 3. Tributaries that drain higher-altitude drainages such as Williamson Valley Wash and Walnut Creek, and/or Pleistocene recharge are likely sources of recharge to the Big Chino Valley limestone aquifer. The highest altitudes and consequently the greatest rates of precipitation in the Verde headwaters region are in the Bradshaw, Santa Maria, and Juniper Mountains. Williamson Valley and Walnut Creek are the major drainages on the northeast slope of these ranges. In addition, the amount of recharge may have been greater (and isotopically similar to that from present-day higher altitude areas) during the cooler, wetter Pleistocene era. Stable-isotope values for Williamson Valley and Walnut Creek samples closely match analyses of well samples penetrating limestone along the margins of the basin. Water-level contours indicate that ground water from these two tributaries travels across Big Chino Valley to join the Big Chino Fault zone in limestone bedrock north of Paulden. Additional recharge to the shallow aquifers may also occur in the center of the basins beneath ephemeral tributaries such as Big Chino Wash and Granite Creek. 4. The most likely source(s) of Lower Granite Spring is the Little Chino Valley aquifer, the Big Chino unconfined aquifer, or a mixture from both aquifers. Mean oxygen-18 and deuterium values for Little Chino Valley of -9.8+0.4 and -69.5+4 per mil, respectively (where x = 9 well samples), are within standard deviation of the means of 10 wells near Sullivan Lake, 13 wells from Big Chino Valley, and 10 spring samples from lower Granite Creek; as well as for Lower Granite Spring. Because of the north-sloping gradient from Del Rio Springs toward Sullivan Lake,

there may be flow from Little Chino Valley into Big Chino Valley. Some Little Chino ground water may also reach the Verde River via the lower reach of Granite Creek. 5. Ground-water discharge from the Little Chino Valley to the Verde River (and/or to the Big Chino Valley) may have decreased in recent decades. In the northern part of Little Chino Valley, discharge at Del Rio Springs is presently 50 percent lower than it was from 1939 to 1945, and ground-water levels in the Chino Valley artesian aquifer have decreased in some areas by more than 75 ft. The surface drainage from Del Rio Springs along Little Chino Creek to the Verde River above Stillman Lake was once considered perennial and is now ephemeral. Moreover, waterbudget relations show a less-than-predicted recovery of Verde River base flow associated with decreasing pumping in Big Chino Valley for the past several years, which may or may not be fully accounted for by recent changes in aquifer storage. 6. The regions surrounding Ash Fork, Big Black Mesa, and Bill Williams Mountain contribute little if any direct base flow to the uppermost Verde River above Perkinsville. Although ground water underlying Big Black Mesa is isotopically indistinguishable from Big Chino Springs, it is not a likely source on the basis of hydrologic and geologic evidence. Precipitation is considerably less for Big Black Mesa, which is a few thousand feet lower in altitude than the Bradshaw, Santa Maria, and Juniper Mountain ranges. Recharge is also likely to be substantially lower. Hell Canyon, the major tributary, contributes little if any base flow to the reach of the Verde River near its outlet. More likely sources with the same isotopic signature as Big Chino Springs include Williamson Valley, Walnut Creek, and the limestone aquifer in Big Chino Valley. Interpretations in this study are based on three independent approaches: (1) evaluation of the existing geologic and hydrologic information, (2) modified water-budget analysis of historical field measurements and (3) evaluation of stable-isotope data. The use of multiple lines of evidence significantly improves the confidence level of these interpretations. All geologic, hydrologic, and stableisotope data during recent conditions (1991-99) strongly indicate that the Big Chino Valley is the major source of base flow in the Verde River. Moreover, the available hydrologic data are sufficient to qualitatively assess the effect of pumping on the water levels in lower Big Chino Valley and Verde River base flow.

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Area, Yavapai County, Arizona: Arizona Department of Water Resources Modeling Report No. 9, 143 p.

The authors are grateful for the thorough and insightful reviews of USGS employees Thomas E. Reilly, James W. LaBaugh, and Geoffrey Freethey.

Craig, H. 1961. Isotopic variations in meteoric waters: Science, 133, p. 1702-1703.

REFERENCES CITED

Drever, J.I. 1988. The geochemistry of natural waters: Prentice Hall, Englewood, New Jersey, 367-381.

Anning, D. W., and N. R. Duet. 1994. Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona 1987-90: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-476,1 map.

Ewing, D.B., J.C. Osterberg, and W.R. Talbot. 1994. Big Chino groundwater study: Bureau of Reclamation Technical Report, 3 sections.

Arizona Department of Water Resources. 1999. Report on the final decision and order that the Prescott Active Management area is no longer at safe-yield: January 12, 1999, 31 p.

Freethey, G.W., and T.W. Anderson. 1986. Predevelopment of hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basin of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-664, 3 maps.

Arizona Department of Water Resources. 1998. Preliminary determination report on the safe-yield status of the Prescott Active Management Area: August 28 1998, 44 p. plus appendices. Baker, T. L., S. R. Rae, J. E. Minor, and S. V. Connor. 1973. Water for the Southwest-Historical Survey and Guide to Historic Sites: American Society of Civil Engineers, Historical Publication No. 3, 205 p. Bills, D.J., and H. W. Hjalmarson. 1990. Estimates of groundwater flow components for Lyman Lake, Apache County, Arizona, with a section on Geochemistry of surfacewater and ground water in the Lyman Lake area by F.N. Robertson: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 89-4151, 55 p. Boner, F.C., R.G. Davis, and N.R. Duet. 1991. Water resources data: Arizona water year 1991, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report AZ-91-1. Bureau of Reclamation. 1974. Chino Valley unit appraisal report, Western United States water plan: U.S. Department of the Interior, 125 p. Clark, I., and P. Fritz. 1997. Environmental isotopes in hydrology. Lewis Publishers, New York. Coplen, T.B. 1996. Guidelines for reporting certain isotopic values relevant to ground-water studies: Ground Water, vol. 34, no. 3, p. 388. Corkhill, E.F. and D.A. Mason. 1995. Hydrogeology and simulation of groundwater flow: Prescott Active Management

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378

Henson, Pauline. 1965. Founding a Wilderness Capital, Northland Press, 261 p. Hjalmarson, H.W., and F. N. Robertson. 1991. Hydrologic arid geochemical approaches for determining ground-water flow components: in W. F. Ritter, ed., Irrigation and Drainage, Proceedings of the 1991 National Conference: New York, American Society of Civil Engineers, p. 508-515. Karl, T. R. and W. E. Riebsame. 1989. The impact of decadal fluctuations in mean precipitation and temperature on runoffâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;a sensitivity study over the United States: Climate Change, 15:3, p. 423-447. Knauth, L. P., and M. Greenbie. 1997. Stable isotope investigation of ground-water-surface-water interactions in the Verde River headwaters area: Arizona State University Department of Geology report in fulfillment of Arizona Water Protection Fund Grant #95-001, administered by Arizona Department of Water Resources, 28 p. Krieger, M.H. 1965. Geology of the Prescott and Paulden quadrangles, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 467, 127 p. Krieger, M.H. 1967a. Reconnaissance geologic map of the Ash Fork quadrangle, Yavapai and Coconino Counties, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map 1-499, scale 1:62,000. Krieger, M.H. 1967b. Reconnaissance geologic map of the Picacho Butte quadrangle, Yavapai and Coconino Counties, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map 1-500, scale 1:62,000.

Krieger, M.H. 1967c. Reconnaissance geologic map of the Simmons quadrangle, Yavapai and Coconino Counties, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map 1-503, scale 1:62,000. Levings, G.W., and L.J. Mann. 1980. Maps showing groundwater conditions in the upper Verde River area, Yavapai and Coconino Counties, Arizona-1978: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations, Open-File Report 80-726. Lindsley, R.K., M.A. Kohler, and J.L. Paulhus, 1949. Applied Hydrogeology: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, chapter 15, p. 387-404. Lins, H. F. and J. R. Slack. 1998. Streamflow trends in the United States: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 26, p. 227-230. Matlock, W. G., P. R. Davis, and R. L. Roth. 1973. Groundwater in Little Chino Valley, Arizona: University of Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin 201, 19 p. Menges, C.M., and P.A. Pearthree. 1983, Map of neotectonic (latest Pliocene-Quaternary) deformation in Arizona: Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology, Open-file Report 83-22, 48 p. Minitab. 1995, Minitab statistical software release 10Xtra: Minitab Inc., State College, PA. Ostenaa, D.A., U.S. Schimschal, C.E. King, J.W. Wright, R.B. Furgerson, H.C. Harrel, and R.H. Throner. 1993. Big Chino Valley Groundwater Study: Geologic Framework Investigations, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Office, 31 p. Owen-Joyce, S.J., and C.K. Bell. 1983. Appraisal of water resources in the Upper Verde River area, Yavapai and Coconino Counties, Arizona: Arizona Department of Water Resources Bulletin 2, 219 p. Ott, L. 1988. An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis. PWS-Kent Publishing Company, Boston, 835 p. Parkhurst, D.L. 1995. User's guide to PHREEQC--A computer program for speciation, reaction-path, advective-transport, and inverse geochemical calculations: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4227.

of radiometric age determinations in Arizona: Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology Bulletin 197, 258 p., 2 plates, scale 1,000,000. Richard, S. M. and Kneale, S. M. (eds.) 1998. Geologic map of Arizona, GIS database: Arc/INFO export file (.e00) format, 2 disks, 10 p. Robertson, F.K. 1991. Geochemistry of ground water in alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico, and California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1406-C, 90 p. Schwab, K.J. 1995. Maps showing groundwater conditions in the Big Chino Sub-Valley of the Verde River Valley, Coconino and Yavapai Counties, Arizonaâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;1992: Department of Water Resources, Hydrologic Map Series Report Number 28, Phoenix, Arizona, 1 sheet. Schwalen, H.C. 1967, Little Chino Valley artesian area and groundwater basin: Technical Bulletin 178, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 63 p. Sellers, W.D., and R.H. Hill. 1974. Arizona climate 1931-1972. Revised second edition. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 616 p. State of Arizona Office of the Auditor General. 1999. Performance audit of the Arizona Department of Water Resources: Groundwater depletion is likely to continue: April 1999, Report 99-8, p. 9-19. Thorstenson, D. J. and L. S. Beard. 1998. Geology and fracture analysis of Camp Navajo, Arizona Army National Guard, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-242, 42 p. Van Metre, P.C., L. Wirt, T.J. Lopes, and S.A. Ferguson. 1997. Effects of uranium-mining releases on ground-water quality in the Puerco River Valley, Arizona and New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2476, 73 p. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed designation of critical habitat for the Spikedace and Loach Minnow; Proposed Rule. December 10, 1999, 50 CFR Part 17, p. 69324-69355.

Remick, W.H. 1983. Maps showing groundwater conditions in the Prescott Active Management Area, Yavapai County, Arizonaâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;1982. Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series, Phoenix, Report Number 9.

Wahl, K. L. 1998. Sensitivity of non-parametric trend analysis to multi-year extremes: Proceedings of the Western Snow Conference, April 1998, Snowbird, UT, p.157-160.

Reynolds, S.J., F.P. Florence, J.W. Welty, M.S. Roddy, D.A. Currier, A.V. Anderson, and S.B. Keith. 1986. Compilation

Wallace, B. L. and R. L. Laney. 1976. Maps showing groundwater conditions in the lower Big Chino Valley and William-

Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona

son Valley areas, Yavapai and Coconino Counties, Arizona 1975-76: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations 76-78 Open File Report, 2 maps. Wirt, Laurie. (abs.) 1993. Isotopic content and water chemistry of ground water that supplies springs in the Verde headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona: Proceedings of the Arizona Hydrological Society Annual Symposium, 4 p. Wirt, Laurie. (abs.) 1992. Use of stable isotopes and water chemistry to determine movement of water in the upper Verde River basin, Yavapai County, AZ. Sixth Annual Meeting of the Arizona Riparian Council, Cottonwood, Arizona, 2 p. Woods & Poole Economics, Incorporated. 1999. 1999 Arizona State Profile report: Washington, D.C., January 1999, 220 p.

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0378

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for The Upper Verde River

Prepared by Kelly Evans and Cacia McClain In conjunction with the Arizona Wilderness Coalition Completed April 2005

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River

Table of Contents Overview Map..…………………………………………………………………….page 1 Glossary and Abbreviations……………………………………………………………...2 Proposal Summary……………………………………………………………………….3 I.

Introduction and Background……………………………………………4 A. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act………………………….…4 B. Purpose and Need for Wild and Scenic River Designation of the Upper Verde River…………….6 C. Description of Citizen’s Proposal/Study Report…………………...…9 D. Wild and Scenic River Study Reports..………………………………..10 E. Methods for Creating this Proposal…………………………………..11

II.

Description of the Study Area……………………………………………13 A. Regional Setting………………………………………………………13 B. Access………...………………………………………………………15 C. Climate…………………………………………………………...…...16 D. Geology, Hydrology, Geomorphology…..……………………………16 E. Ecology and Vegetation………………………………………………19 F. Wildlife………………………………………..………………………22 G. Fish………….……………………………………………………...…27 H. Cultural…………………………………..……………………………31 I. Historic………………………………………………………....……..32 J. Recreation………………………………………………………….....34 K. Scenery……………………………………………………………......36

III.

Eligibility.…………………………………………………………………38 A. Free Flowing Character…..…………………………………………...38 B. Outstandingly Remarkable Values and Region of Comparison………..38 C. Eligibility Findings……………………………………………………49

IV.

Classification……………………………………………………………...51

Suitability………………….………………………………………………55 A. Other Resource Issues………………………………………………...55 B. Potential Management Assistance with WSR Designation…………….57 C. Past Study and New Circumstances………………...…………………59

VI.

Conclusion…………………………………………………………...…60

VII.

Bibliography……………………………………………………………62

VIII.

Appendices:.……………………………………………………………66 A. Wildlife Species Lists………………………………………………..67 B. Paulden to Perkinsville Photos (with GIS maps) ……………………77 1. Geology Photos 2. Ecology/Vegetation Photos 3. Wildlife Photos 4. Cultural Photos 5. Hisctoric Photos 6. Routes Photos 7. Impact Photos 8. Scenic Photos C. Perkinsville to Clarkdale Photos (with GIS maps) ………………….117 1. Geology Photos 2. Ecology/Vegetation Photos 3. Wildlife Photos 4. Cultural and Historic Photos 5. Recreation Photos 6. Route and Impact Photos 7. Hydrology Photos 8. Scenic Photos D. Summary Information Document……………………………………166 E. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968………………………………..…168 (includes WSR Act without provisions for specific rivers)

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Glossary and Abbreviations Wild River Areas – Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and

generally inaccessible except by trail or boat, with watersheds and shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America (U.S. congress 1968).

Scenic River Areas – Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines and watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by road (U.S. congress 1968).

Recreational River Areas – Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that my have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past (U.S. congress 1968).

Eligibility – Qualification of a river for inclusion in the National WSR System through

determination that it is free-flowing and with its adjacent land area possesses at least one outstandingly remarkable value (NPS and USFS 1982).

Classification – The process of determining which of the classes outlined in section 2(b) of the Act (wild, scenic, or recreational) best fit the river or its various segments (NPS and USFS 1982). Suitability – Includes the determination of whether eligible rivers are appropriate for

designation based upon the environmental and economic consequences, and manageability of the river if it is designated (USFS, NPS, and BLM 1996).

ESA – Endangered Species Act NPS – National Park Service NWSRS – National Wild and Scenic Rivers System ORV – Outstandingly Remarkable Value PNF – Prescott National Forest USFS – U.S. Forest Service WSR – Wild and Scenic River WSRA – Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Proposal Summary This proposal evaluates the eligibility and classification for the Upper Verde River to be designated as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS). Recommendations for designation are based on a systematic evaluation of natural and cultural values along the river segments and adjacent lands. The criteria for determining eligibility were the free flowing character of the river segments and the presence of one or more outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs); including scenery, geology, fish, wildlife, historic and cultural, recreation, and other values. This proposal shows that 33.9 miles of the 37.2 miles studied on the Upper Verde River have been found eligible for inclusion in the NWSRS. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) provides a three-tiered classification system for eligible river segmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;wild, scenic, and recreational-- based on the degree of human development on the river and adjacent shorelines. The Upper Verde River section (approximately Paulden to Clarkdale) described in this proposal has been divided into five segments that each have their own classification (see overview map above). Segment One, from the Prescott National Forest Boundary to the western edge of the Verde Ranch property should be designated Wild. Segment Two, from the eastern boundary of the Verde Ranch to about 2 miles upstream of Bear Siding where the 500 kv power line crosses the river canyon, should be designated Wild. Segment Three, from the 500kv power line to the Perkinsville Bridge is proposed as a Scenic river area. From east of Perkinsville to the Alverez Ranch is Segment Four, proposed Scenic. And Segment Five, from the southeastern end of the Packard Ranch to the Forest Service boundary near Clarkdale is proposed as Recreational. While the key issues related to suitability are described briefly in this proposal, this is not intended to offer a comprehensive suitability study. That study is to be conducted by the Forest Service as the managing agency as part of their planning process. This WSR study has been completed in two large pieces. In the spring of 2004, a proposal for the section from Paulden to Perkinsville was written. Then, in the spring of 2005, the section from Perkinsville to Clarkdale was studied, and the final proposal was expanded to include both of these sections. This whole stretch is referred to in this proposal as the Upper Verde River. Note on GIS data: The CD included with this proposal contains GIS shapefiles for all photo points and the proposed river segment. The CD also includes all of the digital photos. The photo points in the appendices are hot linked to the photos taken at these locations.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

I. Introduction and Background A. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law 90-54289; 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287) was enacted by Congress in October of 1968 to provide federal protection for selected free flowing rivers that possess outstandingly remarkable values. Congress recognized the need to preserve natural conditions along some of the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s remaining free flowing rivers because of the dramatic degradation and modification caused by dams, diversions, and over-development of many riverine areas. The purpose of the WSRA of 1968 is stated in section 1(b) of the Act: It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Congress declares that the established national policy of dam and other construction at appropriated sections of the rivers of the United States needs to be complemented by a policy that would preserve other selected rivers or sections thereof in their free-flowing condition to protect the Figure 1. View of the Upper Verde River at high water, water quality of such rivers looking North from a basaltic canyon rim near and to fulfill other vital Clarkdale. national conservation purposes. (Direction N, photo aba00041)

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Under Section 7(a), the WSRA provides legislative protection for designated free flowing rivers from any â&#x20AC;&#x153;dam, water conduit, reservoir, powerhouse, transmission line, or other project works under the Federal Power Actâ&#x20AC;? (41 Stat. 1063), as amended (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.). Within the same section, the Forest Service (or other managing agency) cannot recommend any water resources project that would adversely affect the outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs) for which the WSR was established. There are also unyielding restrictions on any new development of land within the quarter mile adjacent to each stream bank that might compromise or detract from existing outstandingly remarkable values (P.L. 90-542 Section 7(a)). This protection may also apply to rivers that have received legislative authorization from Congress for study as potentially eligible rivers (P.L. 90-542 Section 7(b)). Rivers can be added to the NWSRS through an Act of Congress. A river or river segment may have a designated classification of wild, scenic, or recreational, depending on the amount of development within the river corridor at the time of study (see glossary in front of document). Once Congress has designated a river wild, scenic, or recreational under the WSRA, the managing agency must manage for protection of the ORV(s) for which the river was designated (P.L. 90-542 Section 10(a)). A WSR study is conducted or adopted by the federal agency managing the area. These agencies are within the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) or the Department of the Interior (USDI), and include the National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), United States Forest Service (USFS), and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The study report is reviewed and commented on by other state and federal agencies, conservation organizations, and the public. If the river is found to be eligible and suitable for designation, a final report is then sent to the president who recommends specific action to Congress. Another approach for designating a WSR is addressed in Section 2(a)(ii) of the WSRA. A given state may designate a river wild, scenic, or recreational through legislation and thus designate the river as a component of the stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s preservation system. A Governor then has the ability to request that the Secretary of the Interior add the river to the National System. The NPS evaluates the river, and if criteria for federal inclusion have been met, then the Secretary of the Interior has the authority to designate the river on the condition that the Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

state assumes funding and management responsibilities. In these cases, Congress is not involved, but the resource values of the river are still protected from degradation (P.L. 90542 Section 2(a)(ii)). In the US, over 11,370 river miles have been designated within the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NPS 2005). Only 40 of those miles are in Arizona; the Wild and Scenic segment of the Verde (located downstream of Camp Verde) is the only Wild and Scenic River in the state!

B. Purpose and Need for Wild and Scenic River Designation of the Upper Verde The Upper Verde River is in great need of protection. Though visitors may marvel at the pristine and wild character of the river corridor, this riparian ecosystem is facing many threats to its health, diversity, and stability. The Verde’s largest threat is the rapidly increasing population, which brings many associated threats, such as: •

Toxic waste runoff.

•

Flow depletion; diverting water from the Upper Verde River for development and consumption, through aquifer pumping and surface water diversion.

•

Gravel mining in the riverbed.

•

Impoundments.

•

Destructive recreation; including excessive use of off highway vehicles (OHVs) on illegally created routes, trashed campsites, litter in popular areas.

•

Building on top of aquifers, marshes, steep hillsides, and natural washes.

•

Dominance of nonnative fish populations.

The Verde has rarely had this much threatening its health, wildlife, free flowing character, and water quality and quantity in the past (VWA 2003). Now is the time to take action and protect the Upper Verde against these threats and for the health of the riparian ecosystem and enjoyment of humans far into the future.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

“Today, the Verde River is the last of the free flowing rivers in Arizona,” and the Verde’s banks make up a major portion of what riparian area is left in the state (VWA 2003). Around 90 percent of riparian communities in the American Southwest have been lost or drastically changed by humans within the last 150 years, leaving less than five percent of Arizona’s riparian communities intact. These areas have been lost to dams, diversions, and development; which all have the potential of affecting the Upper Verde River. Though so little area remains, these riparian communities persist as being host to more biodiversity than any other community in the entire southwest US! In a generally arid region, riparian areas are lush, green ribbons, full of hospitable opportunities for life. Over 340 species of birds use the Verde River corridor, and about 90 percent of all southwestern desert animals depend on riparian areas for part or all of their life cycle (USFWS 1995 and VWA 2003). Because the Verde still flows freely from juniper uplands all the way down to the Sonoran Desert, Figure 2. View of the Verde, near the downstream end of Segment Five.

through large tracts of healthy riparian environment, it serves as an

(Direction: N, Photo: abe00028)

important biological corridor

connecting the Central Arizona Highlands and Sonoran Desert. Animals use the corridor for migrating; seasonally, vertically as the climate changes, or from one sub-population to another, allowing for high genetic variability in the larger populations. The Verde River’s elevational gradient also allows plants to intermix here, with Sonoran species moving up the river corridor and mixing with higher elevation plants that find their way down river. This creates a unique mosaic of environments and habitats. Beavers, an important species in riparian areas, are making a comeback in the Upper Verde, and their dams help to slow the water in certain spots. This allows the water to sink into the ground and recharge aquifers, and diversifies the aquatic and riparian environments.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

The Upper Verde River provides essential habitat for many species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, or as sensitive species identified by the Forest Service. Some of these species include: speckled dace, spikedace, roundtail chub, Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo, Bald Eagle, loach minnow, fringed myotis, Arizona toad, Verde Valley sage, and Ripley wild buckwheat and more (see Tables 1 and 2 for names and listings) (Arizona Game and Fish 2004). These species are already struggling and we need to protect the incredible habitat that the Upper Verde River provides for them. Though the remaining riparian areas of the Southwest are few, there is hope of restoration. We can see examples of successful restoration in such places as the Lower Colorado River (Burke 2005). This means that if the Verde is protected now, it will not always have to be an insular place for this type of riparian ecosystem to exist. If riparian areas have hope of being restored in the future, the Upper Verde can be a source of biodiversity that will jump start restoration of other riparian areas in the region. Inclusion into the NWSRS will protect the Upper Verde River by legally protecting its instream flows. Dams and diversions that would negatively affect the ORVs (including values such as wildlife, ecology, recreation, and fish) for which the river segment is designated would be prohibited. Though large dams would not be very logical on the stretches of the Upper Verde, other diversions and/or water-extraction projects are a very real threat. For example, the City of Prescott is currently planning to pump water out of the Big Chino Aquifer, which feeds the upper stretches of the Verde with an estimated 80% of its baseflow through the springs at the headwaters (Wolfe 2005). If the Upper Verde is designated Wild and Scenic, the average instream flow (instream flow amount is yet to be determined) will legally have to be allowed to flow through the river segment. Though this may not stop the pumping of the Upper Verdeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perennial flow supply, it may ensure that there is still at least some instream flow for the upper stretches of riparian corridor that depend on this water. Since the 1960s, the public, the Arizona state government, and the federal government have all shown strong support for riparian protection. Commissions, governors, and agencies Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

have taken steps towards and done studies regarding riparian protection (ARC 1991), and this proposal is a continuation of these actions. It is mandated that the Forest Service do a study on all rivers eligible for WSR designation when revising their forest management plan. Since circumstances on the Upper Verde River have changed and the study segments have been reformed, since the last WSR study in the area, the Prescott National Forest must consider this river segment when it begins to revise its Forest Management Plan in 2006. Now is the critical time to protect the Upper Verde River with federal Wild and Scenic River designation.

C. Description of Citizen’s Proposal/Study Report A citizen’s proposal for WSR designation is a study report compiled by a citizen or citizen group. The proposal (study report) is then given to the appropriate agency, which may adopt and sponsor the study as written, or revise/amend it as necessary. For this type of proposal, it is preferable that the managing agency is included and consulted during the actual study process. A citizen’s proposal may show scientific support and recommendations for a river segment’s eligibility, classification, and/or suitability. The purpose of a WSR Proposal for the Upper Verde River is to determine if the stream is eligible for inclusion in the National System based on criteria from the WSRA and the US Forest Service Handbook (USFS 2005). This particular WSR citizen’s proposal, Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River, presents a unique perspective by bringing in new information that has not been considered before and augments the Forest Service WSR study report; it also provides information to the public, federal and state agencies, conservation organizations, Congress, and the President to support the Upper Verde River’s inclusion into the NWSRS. The importance of citizen action cannot be emphasized enough! Citizens have the power to comment on federal agency proposals in most cases, as a public comment period is required by NEPA. Citizens also have the opportunity to volunteer their efforts toward protecting the places they value, such as the Upper Verde River. There are endless opportunities for Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

citizens to create partnerships with the local government agencies to help enforce agency guidelines, clean up local areas of interest, and help with data collection, such as recreational impacts or species accounts. Not only does a citizen’s proposal such as this one act as a cooperative effort between local land/river users, federal agencies, and private landowners, but it also voices public concern and care for our public lands. More details about this specific proposal are below in (Section E. Methods for Creating this Proposal). D. Wild and Scenic River Study Reports In Section 4(a) of the WSRA, the affected agency is required to create a report that includes: …maps and illustrations, shall show among other things the area included within the report; the characteristics which do or do not make the area a worthy addition to the system; the current status of land ownership and use in the area; the reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and water which would be enhanced, foreclosed or curtailed if the area were included in the national wild and scenic rivers system. As noted above, the agency may adopt a study report prepared by a citizen or group. The study process and report includes three sections: eligibility, classification, and suitability. Specific requirements must be met for a river to qualify as a WSR through section 2(b) of the WSRA. First, the river or river segment must meet eligibility criteria. The eligibility report describes the area’s natural and cultural resource values through descriptions, maps, and photos of the river area; and determines if the river is eligible. The river, or river segment, must be free flowing, and the river corridor and related adjacent land area must possess one or more “outstandingly remarkable values” (P.L. 90-54289 Section 16). From this paragraph on, the phrase “Outstandingly Remarkable Values/ORVs” will be capitalized to emphasize the importance of these values; however, in the WSRA these words are not capitalized. Potential Outstandingly Remarkable Values include: geology, ecology, fish, wildlife, historic, cultural, scenic, recreation, or other similar values that are deemed regionally or nationally significant, and are directly river-related. Interagency guidelines clarify that “other similar values,” i.e. Native American use or educational importance, can justify eligibility. Because neither the Act nor Interagency Guidelines provide specific criteria to evaluate the ORVs, determination is based on regional agency standards, and educated judgment by the WSR study team. Basis for judgment must be documented in the study report. Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Section 2(b) of the Act requires that eligible river segments be classified as Wild, Scenic or Recreational. The classification depends on the level of shoreline development and the amount and type of access to the river corridor. Segments of the same river may have different classifications. Wild classification means the river has very little access accept by foot or boat, undeveloped shorelines, no impoundments, and clean water (meaning â&#x20AC;&#x153;fishable and swimmableâ&#x20AC;? under the Clean Water Act). Scenic classification can have some road access, but is still mostly primitive, and has no impoundments. Recreational river segments may be readily accessible by roads, have some shoreline development, and may have had impoundments in the past (PL 90-54289; 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287). (Also see Glossary section of this document.) Government agencies must use these classifications to guide their management plans and decisions regarding uses along designated river segments. Determination of classification for each river segment is included in the study report. The suitability portion of the study addresses whether WSR designation is in the publicâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s best interest, and if designation is the most appropriate conservation measure for the study river. Factors involved in the consideration include politics, management, land ownership, costs, conflicting water projects, and other development proposals. Suitability also considers whether there is conservation support from the public and the agencies, and if there will be management support from entities outside of the managing agency. The suitability study is the last, and probably most controversial, part of a WSR study. This proposal will briefly address factors of suitability, but it is not intended to replace a full suitability study done by the Forest Service.

E. Methods for Creating this Proposal Methods and criteria from the Wild and Scenic River Review in the State of Utah, the WSRA of 1968, USDI/USDA Interagency WSR Guidelines, and WSR Evaluation (Chapter 80) of the Forest Service Handbook were used to determine WSR eligibility for the Upper Verde River. The Outstandingly Remarkable Values have been identified based on regional comparison within the Arizona Central Highlands, and on significant resource values recognized nationally. Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Through field inventory, research, and communication with the USFS, Cacia McClain completed a proposal for the Paulden to Perkinsville stretch of the Upper Verde River. For the Perkinsville to Clarkdale section of the river, Kelly Evans used the same methods and extended the final proposal which includes Paulden to Clarkdale, which is the whole stretch that is referred to here as the Upper Verde River. Both individuals were Prescott College Environmental Studies students, and prepared the report in the spring of 2004 and spring of 2005. As this study has been an ongoing process, the photograph appendices of this proposal are divided into the two stretches that were studied at different times. All of this work has been done in conjunction with the Arizona Wilderness Coalition. This proposal is meant to be clear, concise, and thorough, allowing the common person with no exceptional knowledge of policy or the designation process to understand the process and report. It is also well organized so that informed agency personnel may refer directly to the sections that are of importance to them.

View to the southwest of the Upper Verde River, near Clarkdale, storm over snowy mountains, February 2005. (direction SW, photo KE-36)

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

II. Description of the Study Area A. Regional Setting The Upper Verde River is one of the last perennial rivers in Arizona. The river segment of this study is 37.2 miles long, reaching from the Prescott National Forest boundary west of the old Morgan Ranch property at UTM coordinates 372688E, 3860203N to the Forest Service (FS) boundary near Clarkdale at UTM coordinates 403166 E, 3852501 N. The study area includes the river itself and an average of Âź mile buffer on each side. The Upper Verde River watershed is bordered on the west by the Big Chino Fault and Chino Valley, to the east by the Coconino National Forest, to the north by the Mogollon Rim and the Kaibab National Forest, and to the south by the town of Jerome. The Sycamore Canyon Wilderness lies just north of the eastern part of the river segment (see Figure 3) and the Woodchute Wilderness lies south of the river. The river segment is located in Yavapai County,

Figure 3. View to north from study area, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness.

is east of the town of Paulden, and northwest of

(Direction N, photo P1010094)

Clarkdale. The Upper Verde River is primarily on Prescott National Forest land, with some private property and some shared border with the Coconino National Forest. The only private land between the western FS boundary and Perkinsville is the Verde Ranch, an 83-acre parcel that the Prescott National Forest and The Nature Conservancy are working collaboratively with the landowners to acquire (Christman 2004). The river flows for about Â˝ mile through this land at mile 4.7 which is not included in the proposed WSR segments. The Perkins Ranch is the next piece of private property, at about mile 19. Downstream of Perkinsville, there are two small homesteads and the Packard Ranch along the river around mile 30. Sycamore Canyon also joins the Verde here, and marks the joining of the two National Forests, with the Prescott to the west and the Coconino to the east of the river.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

The river segment flows southeast through a diverse canyon that is characterized in places by majestic vertical layers of sandstone, limestone, and volcanic rock up to about 200 feet high, forming a narrow, deep, constrained river channel. In other places the river has gently sloping walls and wide riverbanks that form a shallow, meandering, unconstrained river channel. The diverse geology of the study segment allows river visitors to have many perspectives within the river ecosystem; one feels minute and uninfluential when hiking through the narrow canyon walls and more like an elemental part of the river when hiking through the wider sections. Numerous archaeological sites and cliff dwellings have been recorded and mapped along the Upper Verde River. Many of the sites are located on ridges above the river, placed defensively and safely with a view of the entire Verde Valley (see photo 017_16). The prehistoric sites along the canyon rim and the floodplain of the Verde suggest the river corridor was used for trade, travel, and agriculture for thousands of years. The prehistoric cultures documented have been the Pueblo I to Pueblo IV people, Prescott Culture and the Sinagua people (Lopez and Springer, no date; Rice and LeBlanc 2001). Barely downstream of the proposed section, Tuzigoot National Monument showcases such archeological sites to visitors from all over, showing the national significance of the sites of the Verde River. Miners traveled through the river in the early 19th Century and were looking for gold and copper (Sheridan 1998); they left behind tailings, old mine shafts, and ruins like the one in Figure 9. Because the Verde River is one of the last perennial rivers of the southwestern deserts, it represents critical habitat for many aquatic and riparian-obligate species of fish, mammals, and birds such as the spikedace (Meda fulgida), Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Yuma Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris yumaensis), and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) (USDA 2003d). The riparian vegetation is dominated by cottonwood (Populus spp.), willow (Baccharis spp.), (Salix sp.), (Chilopsis sp.), ash (Fraxinus sp.), cattails (Typha spp.), reeds, and sedges. The habitat is barely affected by invasive vegetation, such as tamarisk, which is rarely seen in the section. The lack of impoundments and the free flowing character of the Upper Verde River have not allowed tamarisk to become dominate in the area. Nonnative fish populations have been more invasive in the area, as over thirty introduced nonnative fish species are present (see Tables 2 and 3). The Upper Verde River has maintained its natural character despite these disturbances.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Today, the river is used widely for recreation. Local visitors enjoy hiking along the river, swimming, fishing, and camping along its banks. There are legal Forest Service routes that access the river that are also important recreational routes for off highway vehicles (OHVs) to access the area.

B. Access State Road 89 is the main road that runs north-south perpendicular to the west of the Upper Verde Canyon. County Roads 71, 70, and 137 in Chino Valley all turn east off of State Route 89 into the Prescott National Forest and lead to various Forest Service routes that can be confusing to follow and sometimes are not well-marked. The upper section of the study area can be accessed from Forest Service Route (FR) 638 with a high clearance vehicle, which can be accessed by either County Road 137 (now marked Verde Ranch Road) north of the study area or County Road 70 (also called Perkinsville Road). County Road 70 leads to FR 9112J, FR 164, and FR 9110R, which all lead to the river corridor and require a high clearance, sometimes four-wheel drive vehicle. County Road 71 leads to a few access points from north of the river. FR 492A, FR 9115W, and FR 182 (which turns into FR 9711K and then into FR 9010) all turn south off of County Road 71 and access the river corridor. The Perkinsville Bridge (on Perkinsville Road) is an access point to the river in the center of the study area, and it does not require high clearance. Perkinsville Road (County Road 70) leaves State Route 89 in Chino Valley, 20 miles from the river. Downstream of the bridge, there is no road access to the river for the next ten river miles. FR 155 turns into a jeep trail that almost comes within the

Figure 4. View of FR spur off of FR 131, looking across river canyon.

corridor, but does not reach the river, it can be accessed from FR 318A. North of the river FR 131

(Direction: E Photo: KE-322)

leads to the border of the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, and there is some riverside private property access via FR 131, but no public access. Downstream, on river left, in the Coconino National Forest, several short roads lead toward the river from FR 131, including FR 9951, 9952, 9505, 9506, and 9507. These roads do come within the Âź mile corridor, but never reach the river because they Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

sit on top of basaltic cliffs that line the canyon. In addition to road access, there is a tourist railway (Verde Canyon Railroad) that runs six days a week from Clarkdale to Perkinsville and back. The tracks follow the river canyon between these points, moving slowly for sightseeing, but the train never lets anyone off. Thus the impact of individuals, trampling, trash, etc. is kept to a minimum.

C. Climate The Upper Verde River climate is affected by the regional topography of the Mogollon Rim to the north-northeast and the Black Hills to the southwest. Moisture-laden air rises and cools when it meets these features and creates precipitation. The precipitation in the entire Verde Valley usually ranges from 12 to 17 inches per year and occurs mostly in the form of rain. Runoff is highest during March and April because of snowmelt from the Colorado Plateau (Owen-Joyce and Bell 1983). The summer season typically has the highest precipitation when monsoon rains occur and cause flash flooding. Temperatures range from 100ยบ F in the summer to 31ยบ F in the coldest winter months, according to the Clarkdale, Arizona weather records. D. Geology/ Hydrology/ Geomorphology The Verde River flows through the Central Mountain Highlands of Arizona, which are characterized by mountain ranges and alluvial basins. The Central Mountains are mostly made up of granitic rocks with relatively young basalt and lava flows on the surface. The geology of the Central Mountain region is distinguished as the Transition Zone between the Colorado Plateau and the Basin and Range Province (Pearthree 1996) (see Figure 5). This geographic province is nationally unique, the Transition Zone between the Mogollon Rim and the Basin and Range topography is about fifty miles wide and runs southeast. Faulting and erosion that have occurred since the Tertiary Period are what separated this area from the Colorado Plateau. Headward erosion from tributaries of significant rivers in the area, such as the Gila and Salt, has carved out deep canyons, valleys, and steep mountains. The three greatest valleys in this Transition Zone are the Chino, Verde, and Tonto (Wilson 1962). Some of the sedimentary layers found in the Grand Canyon are the same as those found throughout the Verde Valley and the Mogollon Rim country below the Colorado Plateau (Arizona Wilderness Coalition 2004). The Verde River developed into its current form about 2 to 2.5 million years ago. The Upper Verde River runs through a narrow canyon, then the middle

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

section of the river runs through the more open Verde Valley, and soon flows into the canyons below Beasley Flats. Limestone and sandstone layers and granitic basement rocks are exposed in the walls and floodplains of the Upper Verde River canyon and can be easily identified (see photos 010_9; P1010188; P1010089). The Big Chino Fault lies 26 miles northwest of Paulden, just north of the study area. This fault is a central component in the formation of the Verde River canyon and displays late Cenozoic sedimentary and volcanic deposits (Wirt and Hjalmarson 2000). As the river flows past Perkinsville, Paleozoic sedimentary

Figure 5. Physiography of Arizona. (Chronic 1983)

layers (sandstones and limestones) are exposed. Further downstream, younger (Cenozoic) sedimentary layers are exposed at the surface as well as basaltic rock, also of the Cenozoic (ADWR 2000). Because of possible regional uplift during the late Miocene (5-10 million years ago) downcutting by the Verde River has occurred. This downcutting was slowed about 8 to 2 million years ago because of volcanic activity and faulting when the Verde Valley was naturally dammed with basaltic flows. The downcutting commenced again about 2.5 million years ago when the natural basaltic dam was broken. This long-term downcutting has formed terrace deposits that can be mapped historically. The terraces are thin layers that have been deposited on carved out rock types of the region that could also have formed during periods when the river eroded laterally and created a broader floodplain composed of alluvial deposits of fine sands and coarse gravel bars (Pearthree 1996). There is also the unique Verde Formation; a limestone that was formed from sediments deposited before the river even existed. Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

This formation commonly forms low cliffs along the river and is quite resistant to erosion (Pearthree 1993). The various limestones in the area have given way to soil that hosts the endemic Arizona cliffrose (Purshia subintegra). The upstream half of the study area is distinguished by Martin Limestone, usually layered on top of the Tapeats Sandstone. In places where the river has eroded through these layers, the granitic basement rock can be seen (see photos P1010089; P1010187; P2190094). Downstream of Perkinsville, the river canyon also showcases these sedimentary rocks (see photos KE-335, KE-334), and the last five miles of the study area are bound by basaltic cliffs that display exemplary columnar jointing (see photos KE-28, KE-274). Also, the Verde Formation described above comes to the surface in places between Sycamore Canyon and Clarkdale. The Verde River flows year-round and is supplied by groundwater discharge, and ephemeral and perennial tributaries. The regional aquifers that feed the river are the Big and Little Chino Aquifers. Currently, the base flow of the Verde is fairly steady annually but changes seasonally, usually having a maximum flow in January and February and a minimum flow in July and August. It is important to note that changes in the base flow of the Verde may come from changes in the Big and Little Chino Aquifers (Lopez and Springer, no date). The base flow of the Upper Verde River has shown increasing flow trends over the past thirty years. Neary and Rinne (2001) found that the mean daily minimum flow of the Upper Verde River at the Paulden gage increased over the three decades prior to 1997. Mean daily minimums ranged from 15 to 25 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the Paulden gage and from 60 to 82 cfs at the Clarkdale gage. The USGS water flow gage 9503700 near Paulden showed that between 1964 and 1994 the maximum monthly discharge was 1,440 cfs in February and the minimum monthly discharge was 27 cfs in June. The mean annual discharge for the twenty-year span was 46 cfs (USGS 2004). Although the base flow has increased over this short period of time, it is not yet protected from diversion of consumptive extraction. Threats to the base flow are apparent with the recent proposal by the City of Prescott to pump up to 45 billion gallons of groundwater from the Big Chino aquifer, which could adversely affect the baseflow of the Upper Verde River (Neary and Rinne 2001). From April 1, 1964 through July 15, 1964, groundwater pumping from the Big Chino Basin of 6,500 gallons/minute decreased the flow at the Paulden gage by 25 percent (Neary and Rinne 2001). The amount pumped in 1964 is only two-thirds of the amount proposed by the City of Prescott today. Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Base flow is obviously very important for the existence of endangered riparian habitat and the wildlife that depend upon this habitat. Studies have clearly shown that pumping the legally allowed amount from the Big Chino Aquifer will deplete or eliminate the perennial flow from headwaters of the Upper Verde River (Wolfe 2005, Harrington 2005).

E. Ecology and Vegetative Characteristics The Upper Verde River provides an incredibly diverse array of vegetation, which is supported by the riverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s significant perennial base flow. Riparian areas in Arizona represent some of the most significant habitat in the American Southwest. Riparian areas have the richest biodiversity in the Southwest, and cover only a small percentage of the land (USFWS 1995). They provide the harsh desert climate and arid environment with water, cover, shade, and travel corridors for hundreds of species (as discussed above, in the importance of WSR designation, Section I. B.). The Upper Verdeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perennial surface water has enabled an ecologically important corridor to exist. This corridor is currently functioning in relatively pristine, intact conditions, though it is threatened to change. These waters create an oasis for wildlife in the arid lands of central Arizona and support a high rate of species richness and biodiversity. In 1991 and 1992 the Verde River was listed as the thirteenth most threatened river in the U.S. and in 1987 it was the fifth most endangered river in the U.S. (American Rivers 2004). In 1980 the Forest Service found that twenty percent of the river corridor from the National Forest Figure 6. Vegetative community zones from riparian to upland a few miles downstream of Perkinsville. (Photo: KE-250)

Boundary near the old Morgan Ranch to Tangle Creek Junction is capable of having

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

high quality productive vegetation (USDA 1980). The riparian corridor of the Upper Verde River is dominated by mixed-age classes of a diverse array of deciduous tree species, including Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), velvet ash (Fraxinus velutina), netleaf hackberry (Celtis reticulata), burrobrush (Ambrosia spp.), desert willow (Chilopsis linearis), coyote willow (Salix exigua), and velvet mesquite (Prosopis velutina). These species create a dispersed canopy allowing enough sunlight to reach the ground for a mixed understory to develop. These species provide wildlife such as beaver (Castor canadensis) and elk (Cervus elaphus), with abundant and diverse habitat, forage, and breeding area. The cottonwood and willow community grows right in or bordering the riverbed, with high flows many of these trees are in or under water. Well-adapted, pushed over willows will sprout branches straight upward out of a horizontal trunk. Mesquite bosques are the next vegetation community up, with a lush herbaceous layer in wet times. Above, the uplands are vegetated more sparsely with pinions and junipers dominating, and plentiful shrubs and herbaceous species (see Figure6). Directly in the riparian corridor one will find mostly wetland species such as willows (Baccharis sp.), and cottonwoods (Populus fremonti). Some unidentified burs are present, and in places overtake the riverbanks in the upper 18 miles of the study area. Russian thistle (Salsola tragus/iberica/kali) is common in places, and is a nonnative tumbleweed. Desert cliffrose (Cowania mexicana) is a native used by humans in the past and by other animals, and is abundant throughout the Upper Verde corridor. Arizona cliffrose (Purshia subintegra) occurs in the area and is a federally endangered species (see Table 1 below, in Wildlife section for a full list of special status species). The groundcover species in the riparian area consist mostly of grasses and small flowering plants. The aquatic vegetation creates yet another diverse microhabitat for many aquatic fauna and bird species. The predominant aquatic species are cattails (Typha latifolia), reeds (Phragmites spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), watercress (Rorippa nasturum-aquaticum), and species of green algae. Southwestern riparian areas are some of the most productive ecosystems and contribute to the health and species diversity of connected lands. These ecosystems act as nutrient sinks for runoff from uplands. Much energy is exchanged between upland terrestrial ecosystems, riparian, and aquatic ecosystems through seasonal flooding and runoff into the aquatic and riparian environments, resulting in a highly productive ecosystem. Flooding provides adequate water supply to support Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

vegetation, and varied soil chemistry occurs because of the influx of upland nutrients into the riparian corridor. Floods and high water flows oxygenate root systems and flush out waste products (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). The river corridor vegetation has maintained its natural character throughout time despite continued grazing practices. There are small sections of the Upper Verde that have supposedly been closed to grazing, but because the fencing surrounding a closure to protect the watershed and wildlife has been breached on the Prescott National Forest boundary at FR 638, and other closures are ineffective, the riverbed itself is still grazed by cattle. Although grazing has occurred along the river for almost a century, the riparian habitat has persisted and the vegetation is predominantly composed of native species. The surrounding upland vegetation communities beyond the riparian corridor consist of pinyonjuniper woodlands, with a mixed shrub understory and grassland groundcover. Pinyon pine (Pinus edulis), Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma), and one-seed juniper (Juniperus monosperma) are the primary components of this woodland. The shrubby species include mesquite (Prosopis velutina), catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), scrub oak (Quercus turbinella), prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), and creosote (Larrea tridentata) on the lower stretches. The dominant grasses include dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis), three-awn species (Aristida spp.), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), and sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) (USDA 1980).

In some riparian areas of the southwestern U.S., a common invasive species is tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima). These trees are very successful in the desert southwest riparian areas because they can tolerate drought more than the native species they tend to occur with, such as Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), coyote willow (Salix exigua), and Goodding's willow (Salix gooddinggii). Tamarisk also reproduces incredibly fast and disperses seeds by wind and water (Warren and Turner 1975, Stevens and Waring 1985, and Stevens, in press, as referenced in Stevens, no date). Dam controlled rivers have much higher occurrences of tamarisk because they have lost their flash flood hydrology. Because of the free flowing character of the Upper Verde River, tamarisk has not become a dominant species in the river (Moser and Crisp, no date). It also appears that the recent flooding and high flows (September 2004 through April 2005) may have wiped out some tamarisk, while leaving well-adapted native species intact. Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

F. Wildlife The Upper Verde River provides habitat to innumerable wildlife species in the riparian environment, a transition between the aquatic and terrestrial habitats. It provides habitat for wildlife migrating through the river corridor and for wildlife that seasonally visit the river for mating, nesting, foraging, or caring for young. Some species, such as the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are of special concern and require specific management and protection by the managing agency under the Endangered Species Act. The diverse and fascinating taxa of wildlife includes macro-invertebrates, fish, reptiles, amphibians, all sizes of mammals, and plant life. However, addressed here will be mainly birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians, as vegetation/ecology and fish have their own categories for description. The Upper Verde provides exceptional opportunities for wildlife viewing. Wildlife that can be commonly seen ranges from birds such as Clapper Rails (Rallus longirostris), Robins (Turdus sp.), Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), and the endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) to mammals such as the American pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), coyotes (Canis latrans), and elk (Cervus elaphus). While many mammals are hard to spot, tracks, scat, and other signs will tell the educated visitor that they are there, such as beaver (Castor canadensis), river otter (Lontra Canadensis), and mountain lion (Felis concolor). Beavers are an important part of this riparian habitat because their activities create diversity in the flow regime of the river, allowing for more diverse aquatic habitat and therefore a higher species richness and density throughout the whole riparian corridor (Meffe and Carroll et al. 1997). Beavers can be considered a keystone species since they create an environment that many other species depend on. Their dams help reduce stream bank erosion, counteracting the impacts of cattle grazing on the river corridor and stability. The scattered ponds formed along the riverbed create habitat for many life forms such as insects, fishes, waterfowl, and mammals (National

Figure 7. Evidence of recent beaver activity in riverbed, Segment Four.

Audubon Society 1996). Beaver ponds also slow the (Photo KE-130)

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

water, allowing it to sink back into the ground, feeding the aquifers. Evidence of beavers inhabiting the Upper Verde River has been documented in photos DSCF0024, DSCF0025, KE-130 (Figure 7), and KE-30. There are five federally listed threatened or endangered species that inhabit the river either seasonally or year-round (see Table 1). Bald Eagles are federally listed as threatened and occur within the Upper Verde River corridor year-round. Bald Eagles are threatened by the long-term loss of habitat quality along the whole Verde River as mature cottonwood trees become less abundant. Within the downstream Verde WSR, recreational-related disturbance has the highest potential to affect reproduction and fledging success (Prescott National Forest 2002). In the Upper Verde, there are still plentiful large cottonwoods, and protected perches for nests in cliffs. The birds and nests do not seem to be disturbed by the train between Clarkdale and Perkinsville, as railroad tourists commonly see eagles, eaglets, and nests on the train trip (eagle nest from train in photo KE-327). The Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), also federally listed as threatened, is connected with conifer stands near the Mogollon Rim, and nests in rocky canyons like those found in the Upper Verde River Canyon. This species winters in lowland riparian areas and may use these areas as travel ways between nesting sites (Prescott National Forest 2002). Although the habitat quality is exceptional here, there are no known nesting sites on the Upper Verde River for the Mexican Spotted Owl. The Prescott National Forest (2002) has explained that, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Guidelines for the species restrict grazing management because of potential removal of herbaceous vegetation which provides habitat for prey species. Increases in the number of developed campgrounds or recreation improvements could also affect the speciesâ&#x20AC;?. The Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) is federally endangered and does occur on the Upper Verde River (Schuhdardt 2004). Current estimates show that only 300 - 500 nesting pairs remain within the southwestern United States. Habitat occupied by breeding pairs of this species also occurs above and below the Verde WSR in the Verde Valley (Prescott National Forest 2002), including the Upper Verde River (Arizona Game and Fish 2005). The southwestern river otter (Lontra canadensis sonora) is an historic inhabitant of the Verde River watershed. Otters feed on fish, amphibians, turtles, crayfish, and other aquatic animals. In 1981 and Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

1982 the Arizona Game and Fish (AZGF) Department introduced river otters from Louisiana into Fossil Creek and the Verde River near the Fossil Creek and East Verde confluences. This species may have interbred with any southwestern river otters that remained in the river (Prescott National Forest 2002). Schuhardt (2005) says that there were also introductions in the Perkinsville area. There have been sightings of otters in the Upper Verde River within the past two years, including spring of 2005. So it seems that the otters are persisting in the Upper Verde River, but the specifics about the species of otters that are living here is unknown. According to University of New Mexico Research Associate Professor Paul Pochela, “The southwestern river otter is one of the most endangered mammals in North America, even more so than the Mexican gray wolf. There is no captive population and no one has identified an existing population in the wild.” He also stated that, “Otters are indicators of good water quality for humans. They are also a great model for the health of the aquatic environment” (University of New Mexico 2004). The fact that otters do appear in the Upper Verde is at least one indicator of good health. Even though otters are making a comeback, they are still a species to be protected. Protecting otters means protecting riparian areas, clean water, and healthy fish populations. Appendix A contains lists of common and scientific names of known bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian species to occur in the Upper Verde River Corridor. Table 1 (on the following page) shows special status species of the Upper Verde River and corridor. It contains federal and state listed species of concern (animals and plants), an explanation of the listing abbreviations follows.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Table 1: Arizona Game and Fish Department: Heritage Data Management System Special Status Species within Verde River Corridor from Paulden to Clarkdale (within 0.5 mile of the river) NAME

COMMON NAME

ESA USFS BLM STATE

Agave delamateri

Tonto Basin Agave

Agosia chrysogaster

Longfin Dace

Bufo microscaphus

Arizona Toad

Buteogallus anthracinus

Common Black-Hawk

Catostomus clarki

Desert Sucker

Catostomus insignis

Sonora Sucker

Cicindela oregona maricopa

Maricopa Tiger Beetle

Coccyzus americanus occidentalis

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo

WSC

Empidonax traillii extimus

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

WSC

Eriogonum ripleyi

Ripley Wild-buckwheat

Falco peregrinus anatum

American Peregrine Falcon

WSC

Gila robusta

Roundtail Chub

WSC

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Bald Eagle

WSC

Meda fulgida

Spikedace

WSC

Myotis thysanodes

Fringed Myotis

Purshia subintegra

Arizona Cliff Rose

Rhinichthys osculus

Speckled Dace

Salvia dorrii ssp. mearnsii

Verde Valley Sage

Thamnophis eques megalops

Northern Mexican Gartersnake

WSC

Thamnophis rufipunctatus

Narrow-headed Gartersnake

WSC

Xyrauchen texanus

Razorback Sucker

WSC

HS S

S S

WSC

S HS S

Designated Critical Habitat for the razorback sucker within project area. Proposed Critical Habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher occurs just south of Cottonwood. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Heritage Data Management System, March 22, 2005. Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Definitions for Table 1: Federal and State Special Status Species Federal Status:

1. ESA Endangered Species Act (1973 as amended) USDI, USFWS LE LT C

Listed Endangered: imminent jeopardy of extinction. Listed Threatened: imminent jeopardy of becoming Endangered. Candidate: Species for which USFWS has sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list as Endangered or Threatened under ESA. Species of Concern: describes the entire realm of taxa whose conservation status may be of concern to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, but the term does not have official status.

SC 2. USFS

US Forest Service USDA, USFS

Sensitive: those taxa occurring on National Forests in Arizona which are considered sensitive by the Regional Forester.

3. BLM

US Bureau of Land Management (2000 Animals, 2000 Plants)USDI, BLM, Arizona S

Sensitive: those taxa occurring on BLM Field Office Lands in Arizona which are considered sensitive by the Arizona State Office.

State Status:

1. NPL

Arizona Native Plant Law (1999), AZ Department of Agriculture SR HS

2. WSCA

Salvage Restricted: collection only with permit. Highly Safeguarded: no collection allowed. Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona, AZGF

WSC

Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona: Species whose occurrence in Arizona is or may be in jeopardy, or with known or perceived threats or population declines, as described by the Arizona Game and Fish Department's listing of Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona (WSCA, in prep). Species indicated on printouts as WSC are currently the same as those in Threatened Native Wildlife in Arizona (1988).

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

G. Fish The Upper Verde River has excellent habitat for native fish that are well adapted to the highly varied water flows. Native fish can still be found here, but nonnatives are continuing to increase as native numbers decrease. E.O. Wilson, in his book, The Diversity of Life (1999), emphasizes the importance of protecting fish and wildlife habitat and the existence of native species: In the United States, Canada, and Mexico, 1,033 species of fishes are known to have lived entirely in fresh water within recent historical times. Of these, 27 or 3 percent have become extinct within the past hundred years, and another 256 or 26 percent are liable to extinctionâ&#x20AC;ŚThe changes that forced them into decline are: destruction of physical habitat, 73% of species; displacement by introduced species, 68% of species; alteration of habitat by chemical pollutants, 38% of species; hybridization with other species and subspecies, 38% of species; overharvesting, 15% of species (p 254). Fishes of the Upper Verde River have definitely been affected by these changes, especially by introduced species. The Upper Verde has been home to native fishes such as the spikedace (Meda fulgida), the speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), and the longfin dace (Agosia chrysogaster), which are all threatened species and have inhabited the Upper Verde River within the past ten years (Neary and Rinne 1997). As shown in Table 2, the percent of native fishes has been decreasing over the past ten years. However, the Verde River is still a significant source of diverse river conditions for the existence of loach minnow. The spikedace and loach minnow are two species that have been federally listed as threatened fish species since 1986. Critical habitat for these historically significant species was designated on sections of the Upper Verde in April of 2000 (USFWS 2003). Below, critical habitat is explained in the Final Designation of Critical Habitat Report (USFWS 2000): Critical habitat is defined in the section 3(5)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as â&#x20AC;&#x201C; (i) the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

The Upper Verde is currently especially significant for fish because of the historical range of these two species. Spikedace have been present throughout Arizona on additional rivers such as the Gila, Salt, and San Pedro since the 1880s. However, the Upper Verde River has not shown large populations since 1994. Currently, they do occur in the Upper Verde, but it is rare to find them (Sillas 2004 and 2005). The critical habitat that is necessary for the survival of spikedace populations consists of zones where rapid flow

Table 2. Fish community composition at seven sampling sites in the Upper Verde River, 1994-1999. (Rinne 1999) 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Native Spp. Longfin dace 1319 12 282 21 13 2 Desert sucker 2644 328 471 231 126 167 Sonora sucker 1810 322 654 240 125 118 Roundtail chub 776 341 259 50 64 25 Spikedace 428 72 140 0 0 0 Speckled dace 171 25 68 1 12 2 Nonnative Spp. Yellow bullhead 31 29 9 40 33 15 Common carp 23 6 13 19 9 4 Red shiner 1473 97 275 2238 1047 545 Channel catfish 5 2 0 1 0 0 Mosquito fish 0 0 0 3 6 59 Flathead catfish 0 1 1 1 1 0 Green sunfish 4 29 6 8 21 49 Smallmouth bass 14 10 32 35 66 104 Flathead minnow 7 0 0 0 0 0 Total fishes 8750 1274 2210 2288 1523 1090 Percent native 82 86 85 19 2 29

meets slow flow, sand and gravel bars where spawning can occur, a natural flood regime, water temperatures ranging from 35-85째 F depending on time of day and season, and many other constituents that are all interdependent (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). The Upper Verde River does have these conditions, and thus it is probable that spikedace populations could thrive here once again. Neary and Rinne (1997) found that longfin dace and speckled dace are most abundant in the upper reaches of the Verde River. They found that with increased human impacts, there is a decrease in native fish species abundance and an increase in exotic species abundance. Because the Upper Verde River is so wild, and has less impact than other areas, it contains higher populations of natives than stretches further downstream. The spikedace is found in only four river systems of Arizona and New Mexico, and is nearly extirpated from this study area. In 1997 no individuals were found following a six-year census of the species (Rinne 1999). The historical range of loach minnow also includes portions of the Upper Verde but it is now very rare in this area (USFWS 2003). There are remnant populations in the neighboring Gila River, which are fairly isolated. The Upper Verde River, despite the absence of large populations of loach minnow, is still critical habitat for this species and maintains the qualities necessary for the existence of both spikedace and loach minnow (USFWS 2003). According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2000): Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

The relatively stable hydrologic and thermal regimes of the Verde River complex (including the Verde River upstream of Fossil Creek â&#x20AC;Ś) are unique compared to other river systems of the arid southwestern United States. These conditions show a significant possibility for successful reintroduction efforts of both species on the Upper Verde River, which makes this river regionally significant for these native fish species. Furthermore, because the establishment of secure, self-sustaining populations is necessary for species conservation, it has been stated that the areas where these species have been extirpated or depleted are essential to their recovery and conservation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). Protection and restoration of native species is essential to maintaining the wild quality of the Upper Verde River. See Table 3 for Native, Extirpated, and Nonnative species in the Verde Watershed (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998).

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Table 3: Native, Extirpated, Reintroduced, and Nonnative Fishes of the Verde Watershed (USFWS 1995) Fishes of the Verde Watershed U.S. Fish and wildlife service, 1998 Natives Spikedace (T) Gila Chub Roundtail Chub (C) Longfin dace (C) Speckled dace (C) Sonora sucker (C) Desert Sucker (C)

Meda filgida Gila intermedia Gila robusta Agosia chrysogaster Rhininchthys osculus Catostomus insignis Catostomus clarki

Extirpated Natives Gila Trout (E) Onochrynchus gilae Bonytail Chub (E) Gila elegans Woundfin (E) Plagopterus argentissumus Loach minnow (T) Tiaroga cobitis Desert pupfish (E) Cyprinodan macularius Flannelmouth sucker Catostomus latipinnis

Extirpated Natives That Have Been Reintroduced Colorado squawfish (R,D) Ptychocheilus lucius Razorback sucker (E,CH) Xyrauchen texanus Gila topminnow (E) Poeciliopis occidentalis

Threadfin shad Rainbow trout Cutthroat trout Brown trout Northern pike Carp Goldfish Red shiner Golden Shiner Fathead minnow Flathead catfish Channel catfish Black bullhead

Nonnative Species Dorosoma petenense Oncorhynchus mykiss Oncorhynchus clarki Salmo trutta Esox lucius Cyprinus carpio Carassius auratus Cyprinella lutrensis Notemigonus chrysoleucus Pimephales promelas Pylodictis olivaris Ictalurus puntatus Ameiurus melas

Yellow bullhead Mosquitofish Smallmouth bass Largemouth bass Spotted bass Green sunfish Bluegill White crappie Black crappie Walleye Yellow perch Tilapia

Ameiurus natalis Gambusia affinis Micropterus doloe Micropterus salmonides Micropterus punctulatus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis macrochirus Pomoxis annularis Pomoxis nigromaculatus Stizostedion nigromaculatus Perca flavescens Tilapia mossambica

E- endangered T- threatened C- species of concern D- delisted in Verde Watershed CH- critical habitat in Verde Watershed R- reintroduced as experimental, nonessential population

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

H. Cultural The Upper Verde River had much to offer prehistoric peoples traveling through or living in the Central Mountain Highlands of Arizona. The water offered a chance to sustain life and the high canyon walls and diverse topography provided ultimate protection from other peoples in the area. The following information was found clearly presented in Tellman, Yarde and Wallace (1997). The first evidence was of nomadic inhabitants of the Verde River occurred between 2,000 – 10,000 years ago. After these people came the Sinagua, from about 700 – 1425 A.D. The Sinagua were believed to have traded with the Anasazi to the north and used dry farming techniques on the mesas and grew corn on the floodplains. The Sinagua people are responsible for the construction of Tuzigoot, Montezuma’s Castle, and other pueblo ruins in the area. The Verde River sustained the Pueblo I through Pueblo IV people, Prescott Culture, and the Sinagua people (Lopez and Springer, no date; Rice and LeBlanc 2001). It is assumed that, by 1425 A.D., a dramatic event such as drought, war, overpopulation, depletion of resources, or loss of trade networks happened and the Verde Valley was abandoned. The people moved north to find a better life there (Tellman, Yarde, and Wallace 1997). The prehistoric people of the Upper Verde were agriculturalists and inhabited almost every high hilltop. Because of the limestone geology of the region, cliff dwellings and cave habitations were widely spread throughout the study area. Extensive archaeological sites have been found on terraces and riverbanks where agriculture was a definite possibility, (Fewkes 1913). Sites of cliff dwellings and stone structures called “corrals” by ranchers occur in this section of the river (see Figure 8). There is one site that sits atop a 300-400’ volcanic cliff, possibly used as a large fort. The site is of aboriginal creation and is said to give the appearance of a castle “towering above and commanding a view of the stream”

Figure 8. Overgrown archaeological site on mesa above study area. (Direction NW, photo P1010007)

(Fewkes 1913). Prehistoric artifacts like

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

potsherds and arrowheads can be found around these sites, which suggests that the prehistoric people were not only passing through, but inhabited the area for some periods of time (See photos P1010010, P1010015, P1010144, KE-318, KE-319, and KE-332). Preserving the many archaeological sites will provide future generations the opportunity to gain insight into prehistoric cultures and learn to appreciate human history through direct experience of a place of prehistoric habitation. Being an observer of these sites is an exquisite opportunity that is not common in the U.S. As I hiked this part of the river in my inventory, I felt a sense of place that allowed me to imagine what the river was like when these people were here. Was the vegetation different? Was there more water? Would it be possible to farm here today? What kind of relationship did the people at this site have with those at a site downstream only a few miles? The questions and wonder I experienced connected me to the area in a way not many places have in the past. The value of this type of experience where one is allowed to connect to their prehistoric ancestry is one that should be protected (McClain 2004). I. Historic After the Sinagua people abandoned the Verde Valley in 1425 A.D., the Apache and Yavapai peoples moved into the area. When miners arrived in Central Arizona in the 1860’s, they observed Native Americans practicing agriculture, hunting, gathering, and some ditch irrigation. The Spanish were said to have moved through the Valley without much interest in it (Tellman, Yarde, and Wallace 1997). The largest impact the Spaniards had on the natives was the introduction of horses. Settlers from the East entered the Verde Valley for the first time in the 1850’s and trapped beaver in the Verde River, but didn’t explore it much. In the 1860’s miners entered the valley looking for copper, silver, and gold. The Verde River was likely a place of battle between the Yavapai, Apache, and the U.S. Army in their efforts to claim the Southwest as their own and protect the miners from the natives (Prescott National Forest 2002; Tellman, Yarde and Wallace 1997). The Army “resettled” the Yavapai and Apache tribes onto reservation lands.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

In the 1860’s Fort Whipple and Fort McDowell were established to protect settlers and miners in the Verde and Salt River Valleys. This allowed for mining prospectors to claim land, and in the late 1880’s a man named Clark decided to buy a mine that had revealed gold. Clarkdale was thus established and populated. The mine was one of the most profitable in the U.S., but also one with an enormous impact on the surrounding landscape. The open mines devastated the air quality and vegetation in the Verde Valley. Agriculture and grazing developed along the river and also had impacts on the water quality and ecology of the Verde (Tellman, Yarde and Wallace 1997). The Verde River played an important part in the survival of many prehistoric cultures and later

Figure 9. Historic mining site.

enabled the first modern settlers

(Direction NE, photo P2250034)

to graze cattle, mine, and farm the Southwest. Within the Upper Verde River there are a few historic corrals dotting the river corridor and historic mining camps, like the one in Figure 9, to remind us of the history of the Southwest’s settlement. Another part of the area’s history is the mining boom in the Clarkdale area, which eventually supported building the railroad that runs from Clarkdale to Perkinsville. Since its construction, the train has been used for transportation of residents to the area, hauling freight such as ore and cattle, and is now used exclusively for tourism. Every tourist on the train trip now views and hears about prehistoric and historic sites along the river corridor. Michael King, previous Prescott National Forest Supervisor, has written a passage on the Verde River’s history, emphasizing the importance of protecting this value in order to learn from it:

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

More than just the landscape, though, the heritage resources of the Verde River provide evidence of what we are only now beginning to recognize as a remarkable history of cultural development. Initially one of several corridors of travel, trade, and migration between Northern and Southern Arizona, the river eventually became the scene of historical and cultural events that transcended mere topography. Before it was abandoned prehistorically (undoubtedly quite a story in itself), the river ceased to function as a long distance trade and travel route. Instead, it was incorporated into the geographic territories of cultural groups that spanned it from east to west and whose boundaries crossed it north to south. The information contained in and represented by the archaeological sites present here can make an outstanding contribution to the reconstruction of prehistoric lifeways in Arizona. (Prescott National Forest 2002) These archaeological sites, both prehistoric and historic, can be protected from unnatural degradation from OHVs, road development, increased access/looting, and cattle grazing if the river corridor is protected as a Wild and Scenic River. This protection will stress the value Americans place on learning from history and from confrontations with other cultures.

J. Recreation The unique cultural, historic, wildlife, geological, and scenic qualities have given reason for the Upper Verde River to become a widely appreciated escape from the desert heat, dry uplands, and the rush of city life. The Upper Verde is valued as a place for people to fish, camp, kayak, canoe, view wildlife, attend festivals, and is especially popular with birders. Because of its hidden location it is a place where local people are able to access the riparian

Figure 10. People recreating in the study area. (photo 027 26)

corridor without encountering hordes of other recreationists. The natural landscape of the riparian green ribbon surrounded by the arid pinyon-juniper environment attracts and delights visitors. This incredible contrast of ecosystem and temperature regime makes it easy Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

for visitors to greatly appreciate the riparian environment. Many people visit the Upper Verde River to day-hike, backpack, take photographs, bird watch, take the scenic train ride, and it is even the sight of festivals like the annual Verde Valley Birding and Nature Festival. The festival and the train are two things that draw people from all over the nation, as well as locals, to this special place. People come to explore the wild nature of the Upper Verde River, and the remote nature of the river makes it easy to have a true wilderness experience (see Figure 10). Another form of recreation is one that is more detrimental to the health of the riparian ecosystem: off road travel. Off Highway Vehicles (OHVs) often illegally use closed routes to access and cross the river, like the one in Figure 11. This misuse of the river corridor causes more damage to the vegetation and wildlife in the river corridor than any other recreational activity that happens on the Upper Verde River. The closed Forest Service Routes do not effectively protect the river corridor from OHV destruction of vegetation, wildlife habitat, and riverbank stability. The increase in these extended illegal routes has negative impacts on wildlife such as Bald Eagles. Havlick (2002) explains that Bald Eagle reproduction has been known to diminish with proximity to roads. Havlick further explains the adverse effects of roads by

Figure 11. Illegal route crossing river, damaging habitat beyond end of FR 638.

stating that â&#x20AC;&#x153;illegal, user-created roads lack

(Direction N, photo P2130016)

the planning, grading and maintenance of

many constructed routes and are particularly susceptible to erosion from useâ&#x20AC;? (p 46). Havlick mentions that higher road densities usually correspond to diminished water quality and damaged fisheries. OHVs commonly create new routes in the sparsely-vegetated pinyon-juniper scrubland. There are also OHV users that do stay on trails/roads, and these vehicles do have less impact than full-sized cars and trucks if they remain on legal routes. Still, effective management of this type of recreation is necessary to protect this endangered riparian ecosystem, whether the river is designated as a WSR or not. Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

K. Scenery From the rim of the Upper Verde River canyon, there are great views of the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness to the north, the San Francisco Peaks to the northeast, Mingus Mountain to the east, and the Verde Valley to the south. This is one of the last undeveloped riparian areas in Arizona. The scenic beauty of the Upper Verde can be seen in Figures 12 and 13, though reality is much more amazing than the photos. There is one 500KV power line that crosses the river section near the middle section of the Upper Verde that can be seen from FR 164. Although it crosses the river, it does not have significant bearing on the scenic qualities of the riparian corridor, as the towers holding up the cable are outside the corridor. The geology and vegetation of the Upper Verde River corridor creates an incredible scenic beauty that allows for an outstanding sense of solitude. Amateur naturalists can enjoy the unique vegetation community that serves as a contrast to the vegetation of the surrounding arid lands of the Central Highlands and the pine forests of the Colorado Plateau. The Upper Verde River

Figure 12. Scenic view of the study river, upstream of Perkinsville. (Direction SE, photo P1010085)

is a place where visitors commonly find rest from their routine lives and can take in the scenic beauty of the riparian corridor. Upstream of Perkinsville, the scenery is rarely interrupted by human impacts. Downstream of Perkinsville, the river canyon narrows into steep and colorful walls of sandstone and limestone, and later dark basalt. The green ribbon of vegetation winds its way through this incredible geology. Bob Williams (1996) calls the Perkinsville to Clarkdale section the most Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

scenic on the whole Verde River, attributing most of this to the geology. From Perkinsville downstream to Clarkdale, the Verde Canyon Railroad runs along the river corridor. Though this may interrupt the incredible scenery for some, the railroad bed is generally a ways above the water on a flat terrace, often not visible at all from the river, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sometimes used as a trail for hikers, and can be seen as an historic part of the scenery of the area. The trainâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s purpose is to bring visitors on the scenic train ride, and thousands of people from all over the U.S. (who would not otherwise access the river corridor) enjoy this scenic train ride every year. The tourists are not allowed off the train at any point and thus the trip is solely for viewing scenery and possibly wildlife.

Figure13. Scenic view of the Verde at high water February, from the eastern rim near Clarkdale. (Direction: NW, Photo: KE-41)

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

III. Eligibility To determine the Upper Verde’s eligibility for addition to the National WSR System, the river must be free flowing and must possess one or more Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs). Free flowing is defined in the WSRA (Section 16): Applied to any river or section of a river, means existing or flowing in natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway. The existence, however, of low dams, diversion works, and other minor structures at the time any river is proposed for inclusion in the national wild and scenic rivers system shall not automatically bar its consideration for such inclusion. ORVs are values that are “rare, unique, or exemplary” on a regional, national, or global level, and they may be categorized as: scenic, recreational, geologic, ecologic, fish, wildlife, historic, cultural, and other similar values such as human use or educational (P.L. 90-542, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287). A.

Free Flowing Character

The Upper Verde River is one of the last free flowing perennial rivers in the American Southwest. It is completely free flowing, thus supporting a rich ecosystem that thrives in highly varied flows. The free flowing character of the Upper Verde River supports high quality habitat for native vegetation and fish. A free flowing river system of this size and quality is rare in Arizona. Protection for this endangered ecosystem and free flowing character of the Verde is a timely and essential necessity.

Outstandingly Remarkable Values and Region of Comparison

The framework and criteria used to evaluate the Upper Verde River’s resource values were based on the Wild and Scenic River Review in the State of Utah-Process and Criteria for Interagency Use (USFS, NPS, & BLM 1996) and the US Forest Service Handbook, FSH 1909.12—Land Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Management Planning, Chapter 80—Wild and Scenic River Evaluation (USFS 2005). Under the Forest Service criteria, a river segment can be evaluated on seven resources: scenery, recreation, geology, fish, wildlife, historic and cultural, and other values. The directives state that the resource values are Outstandingly Remarkable Values if they are rare, unique, or exemplary on a regional or national scale. ORVs are identified based on an analysis of the Upper Verde River’s resource values as compared with the Arizona Central Highlands regionally, or within the US nationally. The Arizona Central Highlands region encompasses two biologically rich and unique eco-regions: the Central Mountains and the Sonoran Desert. The Central Mountains include almost the entire watershed of the Verde River. With the beautiful slot canyons of the Mogollon Rim to the north and the Sonoran Desert to the south, it is one of the most important links between these two eco-regions as well as being an endangered ecosystem on its own. This area is still unprotected from the pressures of Off Highway Vehicle use, water diversion, and consumptive water mining threats from growing cities. The designation of the Upper Verde River as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational will surely help protect its unique resources and regionally significant values. Eligibility criteria from the Outstandingly Remarkable Value standards were applied to the Upper Verde River’s resources and if elements from the criteria definitions were met it provided a basis for regional and national assessment of an ORV. It is important to realize that having one or more ORVs may often lead to qualifying for more. For example, having varied and dramatic geological features, and healthy vegetation and wildlife could undoubtedly be the factors that qualify a river segment a scenic ORV. Below, the criteria from the US Forest Service Handbook (USFS 2005) is quoted for each ORV category. The findings for the Upper Verde River are then explained under each quote. Some ORVs do apply to one river segment, and not to another. The segments and classification of each segment are described in the next section (Classification), and are one through five from upstream to downstream. At the end of this Eligibility section, there is a table that summarizes each segment’s ORVs.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Scenery The landscape elements of landform, vegetation, water, color, and related factors result in notable or exemplary visual features and/or attractions. When analyzing scenic values, additional factors, such as seasonal variations in vegetation, scale of cultural modifications, and the length of time negative intrusions are viewed, may be considered. Scenery and visual attractions may be highly diverse over the majority of the river or river segment (USFS 2005). The Verde Valley is the Transition Zone between the Central Mountains and the Sonoran Desert. Lying between two completely different eco-regions, it is one of the most beautiful areas in the state of Arizona; displaying vegetation, wildlife, and geology from both ecoregions, and unique features of the riparian corridor. When standing on the rim of the western half of the Upper Verde River, one can look north across the pinyon-juniper scrubland at the 12,000-foot snowcapped peak of Mount Humphrey’s in Flagstaff, northeast of the river at the red rocks of Sedona, east of the river at Mingus Mountain, and north of the river at the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness. The placement of this river canyon is set in between a diverse array of geologic features that form the Central Arizona Highlands Region. Visitors can view redwalls, caves, and formations of limestone and sandstone; while dramatic columns of

Figure 14. Scenic view of the Upper Verde River’s water, spring green vegetation, wildflowers, and dark basaltic cliffs.

basalt line the river on the last six miles of this river section. The geologic beauty is

(photo KE-323)

breathtaking. The cultural sights in this section of the river are also of scenic quality. The cliff dwellings and mesa ruins allow one to gaze into the past and imagine what life must have been like before modern civilization. A pastime that can only be undertaken while immersed in the area of habitation, this journey into the prehistoric ways of life, is certainly one of the Upper Verde River’s scenic values.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

The geological and cultural features contribute greatly to the scenic quality of the Upper Verde River, and alone could demonstrate regional significance in regards to scenic beauty. However, the presence of the perennial river is another great scenic treasure that completes the picture of a river pulsing through an arid region, one that is rarely found in the Desert Southwest. Riparian vegetation and wildlife are a vital part of the scenery, both of which exist here in flourishing quality and quantity. The amount of water available in this ecosystem allows for incredible seasonal changes in vegetation that are beautiful processes to witness. The summer is lush and busy with wildlife; the autumn sees the coloring and loss of deciduous leaves; the winter hosts quiet, calm dormant life and snow-touched hillsides. The spring energizes the dormant wildlife, the whole corridor turns bright green, and it is one of the most enlivening places to witness one of the largest bird migrations in the Western United States. Thousands of people each year are attracted to the scenic Upper Verde River Canyon, and view the canyon via the railroad (Perkinsville to Clarkdale). Other visitors can enjoy the canyonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s scenic beauty on foot or from boat, while only getting a few glimpses of the train and tracks. This long list of landforms, color, water, vegetation, wildlife, and the combination of all of these, definitely qualify every segment of the Upper Verde River for having scenery as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Recreation Recreational opportunities are, or have the potential to be, popular enough to attract visitors from throughout or beyond the region of comparison or are unique or rare within the region. River-related opportunities include, but are not limited to, sightseeing, interpretation, wildlife observation, camping, photography, hiking, fishing, hunting, and boating. The river may provide settings for national or regional usage or competitive events (USFS 2005). There are many recreational opportunities along the Upper Verde River. These include diverse activities such as hiking, wildlife viewing, swimming, train riding, camping, fishing, and interpretation or observation of geological features, cultural features, and ecological features. Although this section of the river can be canoed or kayaked, the water level is often not high enough to allow for outstanding whitewater boating opportunities. Most of the time, there are many places where the boat must be portaged because of the low water. When there is high water, the section makes an incredible trip for experienced boaters; with small, but continuous rapids and ripples, and amazing scenery and solitude. Hiking is possible in the area, but there are not many marked trails, except for the popular trail in the adjacent Sycamore Canyon Wilderness. Hiking in solitude is a definite possibility in this area. Overall, the area is used and valued by recreationists, but it is not the most popular hiking or boating area in the region. Thus, even though these recreational activities are extremely important, they were not regionally significant enough to qualify for an ORV for Segments One, Two, and Three. In Segments Four and Five, the Verde Canyon Railroad carries tourists through the canyon six days a week. Thousands of people a year come to this part of the canyon via the train for sightseeing,

Figure 15: Canoeist surrounded by spring green box elder maples, enjoying solitude and wilderness surroundings.

wildlife observation, photography, and are exposed to interpretation of natural and

(photo KE-251)

human history along the way. This

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

recreational opportunity is nationally significant, as it draws visitors from all over the nation. To protect this opportunity, it should be noted that the health of the ecosystem, the wildlife presence, and the pristine scenery must be preserved. Also important in this stretch, are recreational opportunities that involve hiking, boating, scenery, fishing, and great amounts of solitude. Though this may seem contradictory to the train full of tourists, one can find solitude in this section, as the train passes only twice a day, and the tracks are often completely invisible from the river bed. For these opportunities combined, in Segments Four and Five (Perkinsville to Clarkdale), recreation is considered an Outstandingly Remarkable Value.

Geology The river, or the area within the river corridor, contains an example of a geologic feature, process, or phenomena that is unique or rare within the region of comparison. The feature(s) may be in an unusually active stage of development, represent a "textbook" example, and/or represent a unique or rare combination of geologic features (erosional, volcanic, glacial, or other geologic structures) (USFS 2005). The Upper Verde River is characterized by a diverse canyon that allows for a diverse range of wildlife and river morphology. The Verde Valley, one of the three great valleys in the Transition Zone, is regionally significant in its existence as a separate physiographic feature between the Colorado Plateau and the Basin and Range province. For Segments One, Two, and Three, it was determined that the geological features are not enough to qualify as regionally or nationally significant. The geologic formations in the Upper Verde River are of local importance and scenic beauty, they are not outstanding in Figure 16: Caves carved in limestone, at river level, downstream of Perkins Ranch.

comparison to those geologic formations found nearby.

(photo KE-103)

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

In Segment Four, the canyon consists of continuous exemplary layers of Paleozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary rock. Formations that can be typically found in the Grand Canyon can be viewed in the Upper Verde canyon, such as the Redwall and Mauv Limestones downstream of Perkinsville (ARC 1991). Caves, windows, and spires decorate the layers of limestones and sandstones. In Segment Five, the canyon turns suddenly into steep basaltic walls, topped with cones of white limestone, and there are areas where the unique Verde Formation is at the surface, and all of these combine with views of red rock formations in the distance. For Segments Four and Five, the mixture of formations and combinations of rock types gives these segments the Outstandingly Remarkable Value of its geology.

Fish Fish values may be judged on the relative merits of either fish populations or habitat or a combination of these river-related conditions. Populations: The river is nationally or regionally an important producer of resident and/or anadromous fish species. Of particular significance is the presence of wild stocks and/or Federal or State listed or candidate threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. Diversity of species is an important consideration and could in itself lead to a determination of outstandingly remarkable. Habitat: The river provides exceptionally high quality habitat for fish species indigenous to the region of comparison. Of particular significance is habitat for wild stocks and/or Federal or State listed or candidate threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. Diversity of habitats is an important consideration and could in itself lead to a determination of outstandingly remarkable (USFS 2005). The aquatic habitat of the Upper Verde River is so wild and pristine that it has been designated critical habitat for the spikedace and loach minnow by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2000). The Upper Verde River is the only place where small, isolated populations of spikedace have been recently detected. The critical habitat available here may become absolutely necessary for the survival of spikedace populations. Although loach minnow no longer inhabit the river, reintroduction could revitalize the river with native populations of these fish. The river is still home to several native fish species that are listed as species of concern, as well as the nationally endangered razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). Before the introduction of cattle and nonnative fishes, the Upper Verde River was home to more than

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

seven native fish species, most of which are either threatened, endangered, species of concern, or have been extirpated nationally. Because of the past abundance of native fish, it is probable that prehistoric Native American cultures found them useful for Figure 17: Ripple around sandstone. Pools and stretches of fast water make great diverse habitat for aquatic life.

survival. The quality of habitat for wildlife and fish, combined with the abundance of water in a desert ecosystem is most likely

(photo KE-118)

what allowed Natives to inhabit the area. The abundance of base flow and the diverse stream morphology of the Upper Verde River create a river channel that is advantageous to the existence of healthy populations of these historically known native fish. This quality is combined with the abundance and diversity in wildlife species, such as beaver, which create a more diverse stream character, which further enhances the regional significance of the river habitat. The presence of native fish diversity together with the great potential to restore other native fish populations, gives the Upper Verde River national and regional significance. Both populations of and high quality habitat for native fishes qualify as Outstandingly Remarkable Values for all segments of the Upper Verde River.

Wildlife Wildlife values may be judged on the relative merits of either terrestrial or aquatic wildlife populations or habitat, or a combination of these conditions. Populations: The river, or the area within the river corridor, contains nationally or regionally important populations of indigenous wildlife species. Of particular significance are species considered to be unique and/or populations of Federal or State listed or candidate threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. Diversity of species is an important consideration and could in itself lead to a determination of outstandingly remarkable. Habitat: The river, or the area within the river corridor, provides exceptionally high quality habitat for wildlife of national or regional significance, and/or may provide unique habitat or a critical link in habitat conditions for Federal or State listed or candidate threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. Contiguous habitat conditions are such that biological needs Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

of the species are met. Diversity of habitat is an important consideration and could in itself lead to a determination of outstandingly remarkable (USFS 2005). The Upper Verde River supports one of the most biologically diverse areas of Arizona, with recorded sightings of over 340 migratory and year-round birds, including the Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), a candidate for federal listing on the Endangered Species List; the federally endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus); many local and migratory mammals including mountain lion (Felis concolor), river otter (Lontra canadensis), and elk (Cervus elaphus); amphibians and reptiles such as the Arizona toad (Bufo microscaphus microscaphus) and the narrow-headed garter snake (Thamnophis rufipunctatus); and 16 sensitive or federally listed species of concern such as the Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and the fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes). Being highly productive in vegetation means high quality habitat for an incredible array of wildlife. The Arizona Central Highlands region has very few places that can compare to the biodiversity of the Upper Verde River. Vegetation communities and geography make the Verde River an Figure 18: Adult and two baby javelinas on river bank, March, Segment Four. Unlike javelinas adjusted to towns, these stay far away from humans and subsist on natural diets.

incredible wildlife corridor. The river and riparian corridor connect the Sonoran Desert with the higher elevations, creating a unique mixture

(photo KE-127)

of vegetative habitats for animals. Animals use the corridor for migrating: seasonally, vertically as the climate changes, or from one sub-population to another, allowing for high genetic variability in the larger populations. The biodiversity found in the Upper Verde River is so regionally and nationally significant that it is very clear that its wildlife character qualifies as an Outstanding Remarkable Value for all segments. Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Historic and Cultural The river, or area within the river corridor, contains important evidence of occupation or use by humans. Sites may have national or regional importance for interpreting history or prehistory. History: Site(s) or feature(s) associated with a significant event, an important person or a cultural activity of the past that was rare or one-of-akind in the region. An historic site of feature, in most cases, is 50 years old or older. Prehistory: Sites may have unique or rare characteristics or exceptional human interest value; represent an area where a culture or cultural period was first identified and described; may have been used concurrently by two or more cultural groups; or may have been used by cultural groups for rare sacred purposes (USFS 2005). The Upper Verde River and its watershed possess an extremely high density of Native American archaeological sites. Because of the regional and local topography most sites are very isolated and undisturbed, these cultural sites have remained intact and naturally preserved; some by the geology, being tucked under a shelf of rock. Many more sites are believed to have existed where natural preservation did not occur, such as on the terraces where flooding may have washed them away. The cliff dwellings documented in this proposal (see photos 017_16, KE-318, KE-319) are still visible because they have been well preserved by the natural geologic protection of a rock roof above it. These dwellings are of regional and national interest in understanding and further studying prehistoric cultures of the American Southwest. The abundance and quality of archaeological sites and the potential for educational research of them qualifies the Upper Verde Riverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s prehistoric cultural resources as national and regional Outstandingly Remarkable Values (all segments). The Upper Verde River is dotted with historical evidence, from mining sites to the historic railways that used to transport cattle and other merchandise. The story of the Southwestâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s settlement is one of historical importance and helps to define the Southwest lifestyle today. The prehistoric sites lead to historic inhabitation, as some of the cultures that inhabited the Verde Valley were pushed out by Anglos or Mexicans in their efforts to politically control the Southwest. The presence of ranching as a way of life for over one hundred years is represented in this river corridor by the numerous historic corrals, now rusted and hidden by vegetation. Grazing permits are still sold to ranching families who have been in the area for generations. Although the impacts of grazing can be detrimental to the riparian vegetation Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

and aquatic habitat and may need to be phased out in the near future, it is important to recognize the role that ranching has played in the history of Arizona. It is important to appreciate the way of life and understand that partly because of ranching, and partly because of the mining history and the Santa Fe Railway, the historical values of the Upper Verde River qualify as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value for all segments.

Other Values While no specific national evaluation guidelines have been developed for the “other similar values” category, assessments of additional river-related values consistent with the foregoing guidance may be developed, including, but not limited to, hydrology, paleontology, and botany resources (USFS 2005). The ecology (including botanical resources) and hydrology of the Upper Verde River are other resource values that don’t quite fall into the other categories outlined by the Forest Service directives. These two resources are intertwined: the river’s perennial base flow supports the most biologically rich ecosystem found in Arizona. Riparian areas in Arizona represent some of the most significant habitat in the Southwest, while the state’s landscapes are composed of less than 1% of streams and riparian ecosystems, and 90% of these have been degraded from grazing, logging, mining and impacts from urban development (USFWS 1995). The Upper Verde is one of the rivers that comprises this 1% and can

Figure 20: Giant, exemplary cottonwood! (With person for scale, Segment Four)

be referenced as an endangered

(photo KE-259)

ecosystem (Omhart and Anderson 1986). Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Riparian areas provide the harsh desert climate with water, cover, shade, and travel corridors for hundreds of species. The Upper Verde’s surface water has maintained an ecologically important corridor functioning in relatively pristine, intact conditions. These waters create an oasis in the arid lands of Central Arizona and support a high percentage of species richness and diversity. The Verde River supports a diverse vegetative community, including sensitive plant species, such as the Verde Valley sage (Salvia dorrii ssp. Mearnsii) and the federally endangered Arizona cliffrose (Purshia subintegra), which is found in the Upper Verde River corridor. Today, this biodiversity can be protected and enhanced by allowing the riparian areas to remain connected to other protected areas in the region, such as the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness. The hydrology and riparian ecology of the region are nationally significant because of the river’s flash flood regime. Additionally, the Upper Verde River is regionally significant because it is part of a large river system that is nearly completely free flowing. The Upper Verde River’s hydrology is also unique in that the river’s headwaters are fed by grasslands, while most headwaters are fed by mountains. All segments of the Upper Verde River have hydrologic and ecological Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

C. Eligibility Findings Of the 37.2 mile study river segment, between Paulden and Clarkdale, 33.9 miles is eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. This is an incredible segment of one of the last free flowing, perennial rivers in the American Southwest and sustains several Outstandingly Remarkable Values, as described above. Segments within the study river meet the criteria for some or all of these Outstandingly Remarkable Values: scenery, recreation, geology, fish, wildlife, historic and cultural, and other values. Table 4 summarizes which segments qualify for specific ORVs. It also lists the segments’ location and classification, which is explained in detail in the following section.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Table 4: Overview of River Segments, Classifications, and Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Upper Verde River (see corresponding text sections for details) Qualifying Outstandingly Remarkable Values River

Tentative

Miles

Segment Classification 1

Wild

Scenery Recreation Geology

Historic &

Other Values

Fish

Wildlife

Cultural

(Ecology & Hydrology)

6.7

7.4

5.75

(west FS boundary to Verde Ranch) 2

Wild (Verde Ranch to 500 kv powerline)

Scenic (from powerline to Perkinsville Bridge)

Scenic (from Perkinsville to old Alverez Ranch)

Recreational

(from Alverez Ranch to southern FS boundary near Clarkdale)

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

IV. Classification Each WSR segment has a distinct classification based on its qualities and must be managed accordingly to protect the Outstandingly Remarkable Values for which the river segment was designated. The levels of classification are determined with the intent of preserving the quality of the river at the time of the study. Section 2(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act states that each river segment must be classified as one of these three types: wild, scenic, or recreational. Wild classification means the river has very little access accept by foot or boat, undeveloped shorelines, no impoundments, and clean water. Scenic classification can have limited road access, but is still predominately primitive, and has no impoundments. Recreational river segments may be readily accessible by roads, have some shoreline development, and may have had impoundments in the past (PL 90-54289; 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287). (Also see Glossary in the front of this document.) Based upon the guidelines for classification, it has been determined that the river’s 33.9 eligible miles be classified in five segments, described below. Please refer to the overview map in the front of this proposal to see the boundary lines.

Segment One: The National Forest boundary, near Paulden, to the western boundary of the Verde Ranch*, 4 miles: Wild This segment can only be accessed by one road, FR 638, which is about a mile downstream of the National Forest boundary. This road requires a high-clearance vehicle and on the southern access point is closed at the Arizona Game and Fish permanent concrete closure. This closure lies just under ¼ mile from the river and has been illegally bypassed. The access point of FR 638 from the northern side of the river is ineffectively closed off about ¼ mile from the river’s edge. This section of the river segment is free of impoundments. There are no human-made structures in this segment of the Upper Verde River that are in current use. There is an old corral that is falling into disrepair and is set back from the river’s edge about one hundred feet. The presence of cattle is insignificant until one reaches the active Verde Ranch property. Upstream of the ranch, there is no recent evidence of cattle, which are not usually seen in this segment. This segment is not impacted by timber harvesting and the watersheds and shorelines are essentially primitive. Most importantly, because this segment is as close as it gets to a pristine water source, the Verde Springs, native fishes Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

inhabit the river. This segment is a prime area for human activity that leaves little or no human evidence, such as hiking, camping, and fishing. *Note: Under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Section 6(a)(2): When a tract of land lies partially within and partially outside the boundaries of a component of the national wild and scenic rivers system, the appropriate Secretary may, with the consent of the landowners for the portion outside the boundaries, acquire the entire tract. If the Verde Ranch can be mostly acquired by the National Forest, this segment of river within the property has the potential to be classified as Wild. Restoration of the river corridor would be necessary because of the impact of cattle grazing on the areas soils and vegetation. The old concrete road and culvert that lie on each side of the riverbank and the old living structures and new house would most likely be kept in a Conservation Easement with The Nature Conservancy; these buildings would not be an issue. For this proposal, we have divided the Wild section into two segments to exempt this private property while focusing on the wild qualities of the river corridor. Since the Verde Ranch property does have potential to be classified as Wild, Segments One and Two also have the potential to become one contiguous Wild River segment.

Segment Two: The eastern boundary of the Verde Ranch to about 2 miles upstream of Bear Siding where the 500 kv power line crosses the river canyon, 6.7 miles: Wild This segment is only accessible by one road, FR 9097U, which requires a high-clearance vehicle. This road ends at an effective closure more than Âź mile from the river. The topography of this segment is diverse and in the middle contains multiple cultural sites and steep cliffs over two hundred feet high. This segment is also free of impoundments. Cattle have historically been grazed and corralled here, as there are two old corrals that are falling apart. One lies at the confluence of Verde Canyon and Bull Basin Canyon and the other is located at Duff Spring, downstream of Bull Basin Canyon. Because the corrals are no longer in use and are in disrepair, they present a feeling of history to the river segment rather than the presence of adverse human impact. Although there is weathered evidence of cattle, this segment is not impacted by the current presence of cattle or timber harvesting and the watersheds and shorelines are essentially primitive. The base flow and Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

water quality of this segment suggest that it can support populations of native fishes. This segment seems to be the most wild of the Upper Verde because of its steep cliff walls and inaccessibility. The opportunity for solitude here is outstanding. These characteristics classify this segment as Wild, with the extra potential of contiguous designation with Segment One.

Segment Three: From the 500kv power line to the Perkinsville Bridge*, 7.4 miles: Scenic Although presence of the power line is insignificant to anyone within the river corridor, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act states that watersheds or shorelines should be free of power lines to qualify as Wild. This segment is also more impacted by historical human uses of the Upper Verde River. Recreational uses are the most concentrated at Bear Siding, downstream of the power line. The end of the road leading to the river corridor, FR 492A, lies less than one hundred feet from the river’s edge, and this area is a popular camping area. There is a quarry here that is in current use that lies just outside the river corridor by barely ½ mile. However, the shorelines and the immediate river environment still present an overall natural character and are largely primitive and undeveloped. About three miles downstream of FR 492A, there is an old corral and rusted metal cable that runs across the river, becomes buried underground, and surfaces again, attaching to a large metal threesided post. There are two coils of unused barbed wire rusting on the ground at the entrance of the old corral. It is indiscernible what this cable’s purpose was in the past. Between this access point and the Perkinsville Bridge, the river becomes fairly wild and lacks human impact. From the Perkinsville Bridge upstream about ¼ mile, the river corridor is used heavily for camping. Above this camping area, the river is essentially unvisited by humans. All of these pristine qualities, plus the use and access of this segment qualify it for Scenic classification. *While segments three and four are both recommended for Scenic classification, they are separated by the privately owned Perkins Ranch. Like the above Wild segments, these two Scenic segments (Three and Four) have the potential of being contiguous, and/or managed together. However, it may be more reasonable for the purposes of designation and management to leave the private property out of the designation.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Segment Four: From the railroad bridge at Perkinsville to the old Alverez Ranch, 10 miles: Scenic Between the bridge and the old Alverez Ranch (which is now FS land), the river is quite wild. Visitors can hike and canoe into this section, and expect a great amount of solitude. The exception to this is that for two blocks of five minutes per most days, the train passes, which may be noticeable to other recreationists. However, the train can be nearly unnoticeable from the river with the thick, tall vegetation blocking the view and noise of the train. Though the train passes through this area, it does not stop or allow people any access besides passing through, and it may serve some as a flat hiking surface. Walking on the sandy banks, visitors are sure to see the untouched tracks of beaver, otter, javelina, and many others, while swallows nests and large, soaring birds are a common site. The scenic geology of steep canyon walls of red rock (limestone and sandstone) also means the area is completely inaccessible by individual vehicles. On the railroad, which follows the river within the corridor, there are places with piles of materials, but they are contained more than scattered. No roads reach into this segment, no powerlines or gages are present, and the railroad is usually not visible from the river level. This river segment is extremely scenic and wild, with the presence of the railroad it can be classified as a Scenic river segment.

Segment Five: From the southeastern edge of Packard Ranch to the FS boundary near Clarkdale, 5.75 miles: Recreational This segment does have a gaging station, powerlines cross the river in a couple of places, and Forest Service roads do come within Âź of a mile of the river. However, downstream of the parcels of private property, and the last powerline (at UTM coordinates 403464 E, 3855030 N), the river takes on its wild and isolated character once again. Basaltic layers of rock form tall cliffs along the canyon, creating incredible views for a canoeist on the water or the hiker on the rim, and very effective separation from the roads and railroad for wildlife and people alike. There are several Forest Service roads in this section, which do come within the Âź mile corridor. However, these roads lie on top of the basaltic cliffs and do not reach the river itself because of the topography (thus having less effect on scenery, erosion, wildlife, and water quality). On the other side of the river, the railroad is also restrained to run along the rim, and not inside of the basaltic canyon. The roads in this segment are used for recreation and private property access. This segment has Prescott National Forest on river Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

right/west, Coconino National Forest on river left/east, and ends with the National Forest boundaries. With the continuous Outstandingly Remarkable Values and the amount of development and use in the corridor, this segment can be classified as Recreational.

V. Suitability Suitability for recommendation for inclusion in the NWSRS is determined by comparing WSR designation with other options. Determining suitability should answer these questions, as directed in the latest Forest Service Handbook (USFS 2005, p17): 1. Should the river’s free flowing character, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values be protected, or are one or more other uses important enough to warrant doing otherwise? 2. Will the river’s free flowing character, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values be protected through designation? Is the designation the best method for protecting the river corridor?… 3. Is there a demonstrated commitment to protect the river by any nonfederal entities that may be partially responsible for implementing protective management? Below, this proposal will address other resource issues that may be affected by WSR designation, potential assistance in management of the area, and the findings of past studies done in the area. However, this proposal is not intended to be a full suitability study. Detailed requirements for a full suitability study can be found in the USFS Handbook, Chapter 80: Wild and Scenic River Evaluation (USFS 2005).

A. Other Resource Issues Other issues may include uses of the Upper Verde’s resources that do not coincide with the goals of WSR designation, such as water diversion projects, Off Highway Vehicle use within the ¼ mile corridor, cattle grazing, and private property. The illegal use of OHVs within the river corridor leads to erosion of stream banks, potential damage to archaeological sites; disturbance of nesting or sensitive wildlife, soils, and vegetation; and degradation of the scenic values of the river corridor. Cattle grazing also leads to many damaging

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

impacts on a riparian corridor. Of these, the most harmful are habitat fragmentation and disturbance to threatened, endangered, or sensitive wildlife species. Impacts to riparian vegetation from recreational camping are devastating in places. Bear Siding and the area at the Perkinsville Bridge are the areas within the Upper Verde River that need better management pertaining to camping. Both areas have been stripped of vegetation at dispersed campsites and degraded from user-created looping routes leading to the campsites. The accumulation of trash at these campsites is common as well. In the Forest Service Directives, under directive 2350.2 (3) Objectives, the management guidelines require the Forest Service to “mitigate adverse impacts of users on the natural resources, cultural and historical resources, and on other users” (USFS 2004). Campers at Bear Siding are adversely impacting the natural vegetative resources through cutting of live juniper trees for firewood. Carrie Christman (2004) at the Prescott National Forest said that near the Bear Siding camping area there is an archaeological site that may be degraded by users as well. Land ownership affects the WSR designation consideration of the Upper Verde River. The majority of the Upper Verde River is on National Forest lands, and a total of ___ miles is privately owned. The Forest Service and The Nature Conservancy are currently working to acquire some of this land and put the more into a conservation easement. This would potentially allow the private land to fall under Forest Service management, and allow Wild designation, merging segments One and Two to create one contiguous Wild segment (see descriptions of Segments One and Two above). There is one mine located at Bear Siding on the Segment Three (Scenic). This is an active rock quarry and runs into the ¼ mile river corridor. However, the Act calls for average acreage, so the boundary does not have to be exactly ¼ mile from each side of the riverbank, but must total the same acreage. Using these guidelines, this area can still be designated. In between several of the sections there are small inholdings of private property, and these could be included within the designated segments by redrawing the boundaries. If this does happen, existing private property rights would remain valid. Another issue that falls under suitability considerations is the pumping of the Big Chino Aquifer. If the river were included in the NWSRS, some level of water flow (whatever is determined instream flow at Paulden) should be protected from consumptive pumping of the aquifer. Pumping the Big Chino Aquifer is currently in the planning stages by the City of Prescott. Since this aquifer feeds the Upper Verde with an estimated 80% of its base flow (Wolfe 2005), the plans and instream flow rights must be examined. The Outstandingly Remarkable Values that need protection within the Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

river corridor could be devastated from this pumping plan, if the flows are lowered enough or disappear altogether. There would be no chance for wildlife or vegetation to exist as they do now in this endangered ecosystem. It is possible that the aquifer can still feed the Verde River while it is being pumped, but no one knows the limit at which the river will be drastically affected. The Upper Verde River runs almost completely through Prescott National Forest land, with part of Segment Five creating the border between Prescott and Coconino National Forests. Agricultural crops and/or timber harvesting are not issues within the river corridor. However, cattle grazing is a use that could be affected by WSR designation. The river corridor is affected by the Chino Grazing Project China Dam, Muldoon, Sand Flat, and Perkinsville Allotments, as well as on the private inholdings. The new 10-year Environmental Assessment that includes guidelines for the grazing permits on these allotments, which include the entire Upper Verde River, are currently in the planning process. The desired conditions for the Chino Grazing Project, which covers part of the Prescott National Forest, are (1) a diverse vegetative community that provides for watershed health, wildlife habitat, and forage for herbivores” (1-4); (2) adequate vegetative ground cover to “provide biological productivity and maintain environmental quality” (1-4); and (3) “soil conditions that sustain long-term productivity” (1-4) (USFS 2004). The area has not been managed to meet these criteria, and grazing may have to be excluded from the river corridor. To meet these criteria more strict enforcement will have to be taken in keeping cattle out of the river corridor to allow a buffer zone along the river to re-vegetate and regulate itself. Under Section 10(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act any part of a river in the NWSRA must be managed to “enhance the values which caused it to be included” and the management emphasis should be placed on protecting these values.

B. Potential Management Assistance with WSR Designation The Upper Verde River is a very popular river in the region because of its importance to wildlife and its regional significance as being one of the last perennial rivers in Arizona. There are several local citizen-based organizations that have invested time and energy into the river’s protection and may possibly be able to help the tightly budgeted Forest Service to enforce the protection under WSR designation. The Verde Watershed Association (VWA) strives to educate the public about the forums, conferences, and upcoming decisions about the watershed. They state on their internet site, Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

that the “VWA strives to preserve and manage the Verde River watershed with local direction while encouraging long term, productive use of natural resources.” There is also a group of partners of the Verde Nature Tourism Alliance that support local events such as the Verde Valley Birding and Nature Festival that occurs each April. Some other groups that have shown interest in the protection and celebration of the magnificent wildlife and ecology of the Upper Verde River are the Northern Arizona Audubon Society, Arizona State Parks, Arizona Game & Fish, the YavapaiApache Nation, Montezuma Castle & Tuzigoot National Monuments, the Prescott and Coconino National Forests, Yavapai College, the Bureau of Land Management, Verde Natural Resources Conservation District, the Verde Watershed Association, Prescott College, the Arizona Wilderness Coalition, and the Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter. Other organizations that may be a great source of volunteers or do volunteer projects already to support the Verde watershed include the Cattlemen’s Association, Backcountry Horsemen, and the Citizen’s Water Advisory Group (CWAG). The Verde Canyon Railroad may also have a part in helping with the management of the area. Offering a tourist trip from Clarkdale to Perkinsville and back, the company of course wants to keep this section of the canyon pristine, scenic, and full of wildlife. The company does not allow passengers to deboard the train at any point, thus limiting the impacts of the large numbers of visitors. The Railroad also promotes awareness, appreciation, and stewardship of the canyon. Another possibility is cooperation with the town of Clarkdale, where Mayor Doug Van Gausig has a very conservation-minded reputation. Also, The Nature Conservancy (as mentioned above) is already working with the Forest Service to acquire and protect lands along the Upper Verde River. These organizations are key to the education of water use and awareness as well as important groups that can coordinate local volunteers to help physically protect or manage the river. There are endless opportunities for volunteer service work for the Forest Service such as trash pick-up; patrolling of closed vehicle routes within the corridor; helping with wildlife, fish, and vegetation censuses; and general local citizen education of WSR designation and what its management entails. The potential here for the regional community to work together with the Forest Service to find common ground and cooperation is enormous and potentially a saving grace for the wild rivers of Arizona. WSR designation can lead to this method of building community in the “Land of Many Uses” where resource and land uses often have conflicting interests.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

C. Past Study and New Circumstances In November of 1980, the Forest Service completed a Draft Environmental Statement and Wild and Scenic River Study for the entire Verde River (USDA 1980). In this study, the Upper Verde River was contained in “Segment A”, which ran 38.5 miles from Sullivan Lake to the town of Clarkdale. Within this segment, there were ninety-four private inholdings. This segment did meet criteria for WSR eligibility, however, the Forest Service ultimately chose an alternative that did not include “Segment A” as a WSR segment. In the document, the classification that was suggested was Recreational, “after evaluating the combined impacts of the shoreline improvements and numerous access routes, the study team determined that this section of the river does not meet the criteria for wild or scenic classification. However, it could be classified as recreational” (USDA 1980 p36). This segment covered many miles and had many diversions, inholdings, developments, and other impacts to keep it from meeting the wild or scenic classification. Following the Draft Statement and Study of 1980, in September 1982 the Forest Service completed the Verde River Wild and Scenic River Study Report and Environmental Impact Statement. The “preferred alternative” in this statement stated that “Segment A” have no designation, even though it met the Recreational designation criteria. Now, this WSR proposal from the Arizona Wilderness Coalition is being submitted with new information and different circumstances than studies in the past; such as the change in private property status, divided proposed river segments, and growing threats to the health of the Upper Verde River’s riparian ecosystem. Currently, the proposed segments of the Upper Verde River are completely on National Forest land, therefore assessing the management implications of WSR designation doesn’t have to deal much with private property. The start/end points of the recommended segments can easily be slightly altered to include private property along the river, thus creating more contiguous segments. This citizen’s proposal focuses directly on relatively pristine sections of the Upper Verde River that were dropped from designation in 1982 as part of “Segment A”. It includes new land ownership information and new information based on sensitive species and the importance of protecting one of Arizona’s last perennial rivers and natural riparian corridors. Because there have been changes in Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

the land ownership of the study area, and in other factors such as statewide population growth and development, the Upper Verde River needs to be reassessed by the Forest Service. The study segments are still eligible, re-classified, and in need of protection now more than ever.

VII. Conclusion Healthy riparian areas and rivers are extremely rare in Arizona, representing only one percent of the landscape. Riparian environments of the American Southwest have been lost, modified, or face severe degradation from recreation, grazing, logging, mining, water extraction, and other impacts from development. In addition, 90% of Arizonaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rivers no longer run year round due to diversions, withdrawals, and dams. The Verde River is what we have left of these precious ecosystems and corridors. Water is a critical resource in the arid Southwest; it is needed for livestock and agriculture, some hydroelectric projects, drinking water, recreation, and wildlife and vegetation. Water is an essential aspect to maintaining ecosystem health in arid landscapes. Often when riparian areas face development or multiple use impacts, the health of the overall landscape suffers serious consequences, as most life throughout the entire system depends at least partially on the riparian areas. Both state and federal agencies have a responsibility to preserve the ecosystem integrity and natural conditions of the Upper Verde River, as it is a vestige river of the American Southwest. Goals of this proposal are to heighten local awareness of the Upper Verde River and its related resources, and lead the Forest Service to assess these segments of wild river for potential inclusion to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, while providing protection from any development or recreational uses that might impact the identified resource values. The proposed WSR designation for the 33.9 miles of the 37.2 mile length of the Upper Verde River study section is based on the Outstandingly Remarkable Values that exist within the scenery, recreation, geology, fish, wildlife, historic and cultural, ecology, and hydrology of the area. This proposal for WSR designation of the Upper Verde River represents an important opportunity to protect and restore critical riparian and aquatic habitat as well as the natural and cultural resource Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

values the river corridor possesses. It will be a milestone for the reversal of riparian degradation in Arizona and the American Southwest. We have the great opportunity to protect this river now, and to let it thrive as an undisturbed, intact, natural riparian ecosystem. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was designed to protect places exactly like this, places that are endangered ecosystems and have clean water that is demanded for many purposes. Wild and Scenic River designation is the most effective way to preserve the unique, rare, and exemplary outstandingly remarkable values that now thrive on the Upper Verde River.

(photo KE-219)

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

References Arizona Department on Water Resources (ADWR). 2000. Verde River Watershed Study. ADWR: Phoenix, AZ. Arizona Game and Fish Department. Arizona's Natural Heritage Program: Heritage Data Management System (HDMS). Accessed March 2005. http://www.gf.state.az.us/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml Arizona Game and Fish Department. Heritage Data Management System (HDMS). 22 March 2005. Chart: Special status species within 0.5 mile of the Verde River from Paulden to Clarkdale. Contact: Sabra Schwartz. Arizona Rivers Coalition (ARC). 1991. Arizona rivers: lifeblood in the desert: a citizenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposal for the protection of rivers in Arizona. ARC: Phoenix, AZ. American Rivers website. Accessed March, 2004. http://www.amrivers.org/index.php?module=HyperContent&func=display&cid=1359 Arizona Wilderness Coalition. 2004. Geologic Significance. http://www.azwild.org/regions/central_sonoran.php Burke, K. and the Grand Canyon Wildlands Council. 12 March 2005. Stream/riparian restoration on the Colorado River. Conservation Biology Conference Presentation. Prescott, AZ. Christman, Carrie. Spring 2004. Prescott National Forest Land Management Planner. Personal Communication. Dupperault, M. 2003. Fossil Creek Wild and Scenic River Study. Arizona Wilderness Coalition: Prescott, AZ. Fewkes, J.W. 1913. Antiquities of the Upper Verde River and Walnut Creek Valleys, Arizona. Washington Government Printing Office: Washington D.C. Harrington, M. March 2005. Water Forum Presentation. Rivers Program Director, The Center for Biological Diversity. Water Forum: Prescott, AZ. Havlick, D.G. 2002. No Place Distant: roads and motorized recreation on Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s public lands. Island Press: Washington D.C. p xiii. Lopez, S.M. and A.E. Springer, PhD. No date. Assessment of human influence on riparian change in the Verde Valley, Arizona. Department of Geology, Northern Arizona University. NAU: Flagstaff, AZ.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Meffe, G.K., Carroll, C.R. and Contributors. 1997. Principles of Conservation Biology, Second Edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc.: Sunderland, Massachusetts. p.238. Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York. Moser, L; D. Crisp. No date. San Francisco Peaks Weed Management Area fact sheet on Tamarix ramosissima. Coconino National Forest. National Audubon Society. 1996. Field Guide to Mammals. Chanticleer Press, Inc.: New York. NPS 2002. River Mileage Classifications for Components of the National Wild & Scenic Rivers. Accessed February 2005. http://www.nps.gov/rivers/wildriverstable.html NPS 2004. River Mileage Classifications for Components of the National Wild & Scenic Rivers System. Accessed April 2004 and February 2005. http://www.nps.gov/rivers/wildriverstable.html NPS 2005. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System website. Accessed Spring 2005. http://www.nps.gov/rivers/ NPS & USFS. 1982. Wild and Scenic Rivers Guidelines. USDA & USDI: Washington D.C. http://www.nps.gov/rivers/guidelines.html Nature Conservancy, The. Arizona Chapter. Accessed April 2005. http://nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/arizona/ Neary, G.N. and J.N. Rinne. 1997. Baseflow trends in the Upper Verde River relative to fish habitat requirements. Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science, editor. Hydrology and water resources in Arizona and the Southwest. University of Nevada: Las Vegas. p 57-63. Neary, G.N. and J.N. Rinne. 2001. Base flow trends in the Upper Verde revisited. In: Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science, editor. Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest. University of Nevada:Las Vegas. p 37-41. Ohmart, R. D., and B. W. Anderson. 1986. Riparian habitat. In A. Y. Cooperrider, R. J. Boyd, and H. R. Stuart, eds., Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center. Denver, CO. Owen-Joyce, S.J. and C.K. Bell. 1983. Appraisal of water resources in the upper Verde River area, Yavapai and Coconino counties, Arizona. Arizona Dept. of Water Resources: Phoenix. Pearthree, P.A. 1993. Geologic and geomorphic setting of the Verde River from Sullivan Lake to Horseshoe Reservoir. Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-4. Arizona Geological Survey: Tucson, AZ.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Pearthree, P.A. 1996. Historical geomorphology of the Verde River. Arizona Geological Survey Open File Report 96-13. Tucson, AZ. Prescott National Forest. 2001. The watershed condition assessment for select Verde River 5th code Watersheds Report. USDA: Washington D.C. Prescott National Forest. 2002. Verde Wild & Scenic River Comprehensive River Management Plan Scoping Report. Prescott National Forest: Prescott. Rice, G.E. and S.A. Leblanc. 2001. Deadly Landscapes: case studies in prehistoric Southwestern warfare. University of Utah Press: Salt Lake City. Rinne, J.N. 1999. The status of Spikedace in the Verde River, 1999: Implications for management and research. In: Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science, editor. Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest. Northern Arizona University: Flagstaff. p 57-64. Schuhardt, S. Spring 2004, 2005. Written and personal communication. Prescott National Forest, Chino Valley Ranger Station. Sheridan, T.E. 1998. A history of the Southwest: the land and its people. Southwest Parks and Monuments Association: Tucson, AZ. Sillas, Albert. Spring 2004 and 2005. Personal communication. Prescott National Forest, Verde Ranger Station. Stevens, L.E. No date. Exotic Tamarisk on the Colorado Plateau. Accessed on March 27th, 2004. http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/Biota/tamarisk.htm Tellman, B., R. Yarde, and M.G. Wallace. 1997. Arizonaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s changing rivers: how people have affected the rivers. Water Resources Research Center, College of Agriculture. University of Arizona: Phoenix. U.S. Congress. 1968. National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. P.L. 90-542, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287. Washington D.C. USDA. 1980. Draft Environmental Statement and Wild and Scenic River Study for the entire Verde River. USDA: Washington, D.C. USGS. 2004. USGS Realtime Streamflow Data. Accessed February 2004 and February-April 2005. http://www.verde.org/gauges/vpaul.html USFS. 2004. Chino Grazing Project Environmental Assessment. USDA: Washington, D.C. USFS. 2004. Forest Service Directives. Accessed April 2004. http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/ Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

USFS. 2005. Forest Service Handbook. FSH 1909.12—Land Management Planning. Chapter 80—Wild and Scenic River Evaluation. National Headquarters: Washington, D.C. USFS, NPS & BLM. 1996. Wild and Scenic River Review In The State Of Utah: Process and Criteria for Interagency Use. USDI: Washington D.C. USFWS. 1995. Field notes: riparian habitat in the Southwest. Albuquerque, NM. USFWS. 1998. Fishes of the Verde Watershed. USDA: Washington, D.C. USFWS. 2000. 50 CFR Part 17, Part V: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Spikedace and the Loach Minnow; Final Rule. USDI: Washington D.C. USFWS. 2003. Biological Opinion to Ms. Cindy Lester of the Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch. USDI: Phoenix, AZ. University of New Mexico. 2003. UNM biologist searches for rare elusive Southwestern River Otter. University of New Mexico: Albuquerque. http://www.unm.edu/news/Releases/03-06-19otter.htm Verde Watershed Association. 2003. Verde River Almanac. Cottonwood, Arizona. Verde Watershed Association. Accessed April 2004. http://vwa.southwest-water.org Williams, B. 1996. A floater’s guide to the Verde River. Graphic Center: Prescott, Arizona. Wilson, E.D. 1962. A Resume of the Geology of Arizona. The University of Arizona Press: Tucson. Bulletin 171. Wilson, E.O. 1999. The Diversity of Life. W.W. Norton and Company: New York. P 254. Wirt, L. and H.W. Hjalmarson. 2000. Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona. USGS Open File Report. USGS: Denver, CO. Wolfe, E. March 2005. Presentation at Community Water Forum. Citizen’s Water Alliance Group. Water Forum: Prescott, AZ.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Appendices

A. Wildlife Species Lists B. Paulden to Perkinsville Photos (with GIS maps) 1. Geology Photos 2. Ecology/Vegetation Photos 3. Wildlife Photos 4. Cultural Photos 5. Hisctoric Photos 6. Routes Photos 7. Impact Photos 8. Scenic Photos 9. Field Data Photopaths C. Perkinsville to Clarkdale Photos (with GIS maps) 1. Geology Photos 2. Ecology/Vegetation Photos 3. Wildlife Photos 4. Cultural and Historic Photos 5. Recreation Photos 6. Route and Impact Photos 7. Hydrology Photos 8. Scenic Photos 9. Field Data Photopaths D. Summary Information Document E. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (includes WSR Act without provisions for specific rivers)

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Appendix A: Wildlife in the Upper Verde River Lists include birds (page i), mammals (page vii), reptiles and amphibians (page ix), and were compiled from the AZGF lists, the AZGF Heritage Data Management System special status species listing, field documentation provided by Sue Schuhardt at the Prescott National Forest Chino Valley Ranger District, and field documentation by the authors of the proposal. Species with a â&#x20AC;&#x153;(?)â&#x20AC;? after the common name are likely to be found in the Upper Verde River corridor, but have not yet been confirmed by sightings.

Birds of the Upper Verde River Common Name

Scientific Name

Family Accipitridae Bald Eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Common Black-hawk

Buteogallus anthracinus

Coopers Hawk

Accipiter cooperii

Golden Eagle

Aquila chrysaetos

Ferruginous Hawk

Buteo regalis

Northern Harrier

Circus cyaneus

Osprey

Pandion haliaetus

Red-tailed Hawk

Buteo jamaicensis

Swainson's Hawk

Buteo swainsoni

Zone-tailed Hawk

Buteo albonotatus

Family Aegithalidae Bushtit

Psaltriparus minimus

Family Alaudidae Horned Lark

Eremophilia alpestris

Family Alcedinidae Belted Kingfisher

Megaceryle alcyon

Family Anatidae Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Bufflehead

Bucephala albeola

Common Merganser

Mergus merganser

Mallard Duck

Anas platyrhynchos

Family Apodidae White-throated Swift

Aeronautes saxatilis

Family Ardeidae Great Blue Heron

Ardea herodias

Green Heron

Butorides virescens

Family Caprimulgidae Common Nighthawk

Chordeiles minor

Lesser Nighthawk

Chordeiles minor

Family Cardinalidae Black-headed Grosbeak

Pheuticus melanocephalus

Indigo Bunting

Passerina cyanea

Lazuli Bunting

Passerina amoena

Northern Cardinal

Cardinalis cardinalis

Redbreasted Grosbeak

Pheucticus ludovicianus

Family Cathartidae Turkey Vulture

Cathartes aura

Family Columbidae Band-tailed Pigeon

Columba fasciata

Mourning Dove

Zenaida macroura

White-winged Dove

Zenaida asiatica

Family Corvidae Common Raven

Corvus corax

Scrub Jay

Aphelocoma coerulescens

Family Cuculidae Western yellow-billed Cuckoo

Coccyzus americanus occidentalis

Family Emberizidae

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Abert's Towhee

Pipilo aberti

Brown Towhee

Pipilo fuscus

Canyon Towhee

Pipilo fuscus

Chipping Sparrow

Spizella passerina

Dark-eyed Junco

Junco hyemalis

Song Sparrow

Melospiza melodia

White-crowned Sparrow

Zonotrichia leucophrys

Lark Sparrow

Chondestes grammacus

Lincoln's Sparrow

Melospiza lincolnii

Rufous-sided Towhee

Pipilo erythrophthalmus

Family Falconidae American Kestrel

Falco sprverius

American Peregrine Falcon

Falco peregrinus anatum

Family Fringillidae American Goldfinch

Spinus tristis

Lesser Goldfinch

Spinus psaltria

House Finch

Carpodacus mexicanus

Family Herundinidae Cliff Swallow

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

Northern Rough-winged Swallow

Stelgidopteteryx serripennis

Violet-green Swallow

Tachycineta thalassina

Family Icteridae Hooded Oriole

Icterus cucllatus

Bronzed Cowbird

Molothrus aeneus

Brown-headed Cowbird

Molothrus ater

Bullock's Oriole

Icterus bullockii

Great-tailed Grackle

Quiscalus mexicanus

Meadowlark

Sturnella neglecta

Northern Oriole

Icterus sp.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Red-winged Black Bird

Agelaius phoeniceus

Family Laniidae Loggerhead Shrike

Lanius ludovicianus

Family Mimidae Mockingbird

Mimus polyglottos

Family Family Odontophoridae Gambel's Quail

Callipepla gambelii

Family Paridae Bridled Titmouse

Parus wollwebri

Family Parulidae Worm-eating Warbler

Helmitheros vermivorus

Yellow Warbler

Dendroica petechia

Common Yellowthroat

Geothlypis trichas

Lucy's Warbler

Vermivora luciae

Orange-crowned Warbler

Vermivora celata

Yellow-breasted Chat

Icteria virens

Black-throated Gray Warbler

Dendrioca nigrescens

Yellow-rumped Warbler

Dendroica coronata

Family Picidae Red-shafted Flicker

Colaptes auratus

Acorn Woodpecker

Melanerpes formicivorus

GilaWoodpecker

Centurusuropygialis

Ladder-backed Woodpecker

Dendrocopus scalaris

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Sphyrapicus varius

Family Psittacidae Roadrunner

Geococcyx californianus

Family Ptilogonatidae

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Phainopepla

Phainopepla nitens

Family Rallidae Clapper Rail

Rallus longirostris

Virginia Rail

Rallus limicola

Family Ramizidae Verdin

Auriparus flaviceps

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher

Polioptila caerula

Family Regulidae Ruby-crowned Kinglet

Regulus calendula

Family Scolopacidae Kildeer

Charadrius vociferus

Least Sandpiper

Calidris minutilla

Family Sittidae White-breasted Nuthatch

Sitta carolinensis

Family Slyviidae Gnatcatcher

Polioptilla spp.

Family Strigidae Common Screech Owl

Otus asio

Great Horned Owl

Bubo virginianus

Mexican Spotted Owl (maybe)

Strix occidentalis lucida

Family Sturnidae Starling

Sturnus vulgaris

Family Thraupidae Summer Tanager

Piranga rubra

Western Tanager

Piranga ludoviciana

Family Trochilidae Black-chinned Hummingbird

Archilochus alexandri

Broad-tailed Hummingbird

Selasphorus platycercus

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Rufous Humminingbird

Selasphorus rufus

Family Troglodytidae Bewicks Wren

Thryomanes bewickii

Canyon Wren

Catherpes mexicanus

House Wren

Troglodityes aedon

Rock Wren

Salpinctes obsoletus

Family Turdidae Robin

Turuds migratorius

Family Tyrannidae Gray Flycatcher

Empidonax wrightii

Ash-throated Flycatcher

Myiarchus cinerascens

Black Phoebe

Sayornis nigricans

Brown-crested Flycatcher

Myriarchus tyrannulus

Cassion Kingbird

Tyrannus vociferans

Hammond's Flycatcher

Empidonax hammondii

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

Empidonax traillii extimus

Vermillion Flycatcher

Pyrocephalus rubinus

Western Kingbird

Tyrannus verticalis

Western Wood Pewee

Contopus sordidulus

Willow Flycatcher

Empidonax traillii

Family Vireonidae Arizona Bell's Vireo

Vireo belliiarizonae

Plumbeous Vireo

Vireo plumbeus

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Mammals of the Upper Verde River Common Name

Scientific Name

American beaver

Castor canadensis

Arizona Myotis

Myotis occultus

Badger

Taxidea taxus

Big Brown Bat

Eptesicus fuscus

Black bear

Ursus americanus

Black-tailed jack rabbit

Lepus californicus

Bobcat

Lynx rufus

Brazilian free-tailed bat

Tadarida brasiliensis

California myotis

Myotis californicus

Cliff chipmunk

Tamias dorsalis

Coyote

Canis latrans

Deer mouse

Peromyscus maniculatus

Desert cottontail (?)

Sylvilagus audubonii

Desert shrew

Notiosorex crawfordi

Eastern cottontail

Sylvilagus floridanus

Elk

Cervus elaphus

Fringed Myotis

Myotis thysanodes

Gopher

Thomomys

Gray fox

Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Hog-nosed skunk

Conepatus mesoleucus

Javelina

Pecari tajacu

Long-legged myotis (?)

Myotis volans

Mexican Free-tailed Bat

Tadarida brasiliensis

Mexican Free-tailed Bat (likely)

Tadarida brasiliensis

Mountain lion

Felis concolor

Mule deer

Odocoileus hemionus

Muskrat (?)

Ondatra zibethicus

Northern grasshopper mouse (?)

Onychomys leucogaster

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Pale Townsend's Big-eared Bat

Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens

Pallid bat

Antrozous pallidus

Pinon mouse

Peromyscus truei

Pocketed free-tailed bat (?)

Nyctinomops femorosaccus

Porcupine

Erethizon dorsatum

Raccoon

Procyon lotor

Ringtail

Bassariscus astutus

Rock pocket mouse

Perognathus intermedius

Rock squirrel

Spermophilus variegatus

Silky pocket mouse

Perognathus flavus

Small-footed myotis

Myotis leibii

Sonoran pronghorn

Antilocapra americana sonoriensis

Southwestern myotis (?)

Myotis auriculus

Southwestern river otter

Lontra canadensis sonora

Spotted bat (?)

Euderma maculatum

Spotted skunk

Spilogale putorius

Striped skunk

Mephitis mephitis

Wapiti (?)

Cervus elaphus

Western pipistrelle

Pipistrellus hesperus

Western Red Bat

Lasiurus blossevillii

White-footed mouse (?)

Peromyscus leucopus

White-throated woodrat

Neotoma albigula

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Amphibians and Reptiles of the Upper Verde River Common Name

Scientific Name

Arizona alligator lizard (?)

Gerrhonotus kingii

Arizona Toad

Bufo microscaphus microscaphus

Black-necked garter snake

Thamnophis cyrtopsis

Black-tailed rattlesnake

Crotalus molossus

Bullfrog

Rana catesbeiana

Canyon Treefrog

Hyla arenicolor

Canyon treefrog (?)

Hyla arenicolor

Collared lizard

Crotaphytus collaris

Common kingsnake

Lampropeltis getulus

Desert spiny lizard (?)

Sceloporus magister

Eastern fence lizard

Sceloporus undulatus

Gila spotted whiptail

Cnemidophorus flagellicaudus

Glossy snake

Arizona elegans

Ground snake

Sonora semiannulata

Lesser earless lizard

Holbrookia maculata

Little striped whiptail (?)

Cnemidophorus inornatus

Long-nosed leopard lizard

Gambelia wislizenii

Mexican Garter Snake

Thamnophis eques megalops

Mexican spadefoot

Scaphiopus multiplicatus

Mohave rattlesnake (?)

Crotalus scutulatus

Narrow-headed Garter snake

Thamnophis rufipunctatus

Night snake

Hypsiglena torquata

Northern Leopard Frog (?)

Rana pipiens

Plateau striped whiptail (?)

Cnemidophorus velox

Ring-necked snake

Diadophis punctatus

Short-horned lizard

Phrynosoma douglassii

Side-splotched lizard

Uta stansburiana

Sonoran mountain kingsnake (?)

Lampropeltis pyromelana

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Southwestern black-head snake

Tantilla hobartsmithi

Striped whipsnake (?)

Masticophis taeniatus

Tree lizard

Urosaurus ornatus

Western patch-nosed snake

Salvadora hexalepis

Western rattlesnake (?)

Crotalus viridis

Western terrestrial garter snake (?)

Thamnophis elegans

Western whiptail

Cnemidophorus tigris

Yavapai leopard frog

Rana yavapaiensis

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Appendices B-1 to B-8: Paulden to Perkinsville Photos and Maps Appendix B-1: Geology

Photo Locations for Geology, Hydrology, Morphology

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Geology, Hydrology, Morphology Photos

Photo CM-016c: Tapeats sandstone

Photo CM-014c: Tapeats sandstone spire

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 78

Photo JW-084: Basaltic rock, distributed from upstream canyons

Photo JW-089: Martin limestone layered above Tapeats sandstone layer

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 79

Photo CM-184: Tapeats sandstone

Photo CM_7a: Redwall limestone cave Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 80

Photo CM-188: Granite basement rock of the Great Unconformity

Photo TC-0094: Redwall limestone cave in canyon wall Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 81

Appendix B-2: Ecology/Vegetation

Photo Locations for Ecology and Vegetation

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 82

Ecology and Vegetation Photos

Photo JW-0087: Cattails and seep willow

Photo CM_4a: Even-aged stand of cottonwoods and seep willow, burrs in foreground, river on left side of photo

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 83

Photo CM_3a: Marsh species, overstory species, and upland species transitions

Photo CM_2a: Cottonwoods surrounding a meadow, ~1/2 mile upstream of Perkinsville Bridge

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 84

Photo CM_15a: Mexican vervain (Verbena ciliata) in railroad bed above river

Photo CM_20a: Penstemon next to railroad above river corridor Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 85

Appendix B-3: Wildlife

Photo Locations for Wildlife

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 86

Wildlife Photos

Photo DSCF-0024: Fresh, wet, beaver-chewed stick

Photo CM-0077: Fish caught by bird and partly eaten Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 87

Photo CM_1a: Small lizard

Photo CM-019c: Javelina skull

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 88

Photo TC-0099: Bark scratched from tree, likely by Elk

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 89

Appendix B-4: Cultural This map has been left out to protect cultural sites.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 90

Cultural Photos

Photo CM-008c: Cliff dwelling high up the side of the canyon

Photo CM-006b: Middle room of archaeological site Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 91

Photo CM-010b: Arrowhead and stone flakes

Photo CM-013b: Overgrown ruin wall, ~2 ft high

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 92

Photo CM-015b: Numerous potsherds of sand, red, and white-on-gray coloring

Photo CM-144: White-on-black colored potsherd

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 93

Appendix B-5: Historic

Photo Locations for Historic ORVs

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

Historic Photos

PhotoCM-0035: Historic mining site, made with 4x4s and metal nails

Photo CM-0049: Historic railroad

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 95

Photo CM-0054: Cable across river, leading to this short, steel tripod

Photo CM-0062: Historic railroad bed, eroding underneath it

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 96

Photo TC-0102: Old railroad bridge, on FR 492A to Verde Canyon

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 97

Appendix B-6: Routes

Photo Locations for Routes

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 98

Route Photos

Photo CM-016: Illegal extension of FR 638 from south access, crossing Verde River

Photo CM-022c: Illegal route continuing from end FR 9097U, passes by an archaeological site Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 99

Photo CM-021c: Erosion ~6â&#x20AC;? deep, same route as photo 004_3

Photo CM-0019a: Illegal route bypassing route closure at end FR 164

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 100

Photo CM-0018a: Average conditions of illegal route extension of FR164

Photo CM-0024: Illegal 4WD tracks on closed FR 164

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 101

Photo CM-069: Illegal driving in wash, accessed from end FR 9110R

Photo TC-086: Bear Siding camping area, end FR 492A, extensive vegetation damage and soil erosion, many user-created routes

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 102

Photo CM-072: Illegal extension of FR9110R crosses Verde River

Photo CM-0029: Illegal extension of closed FR 164 crossing Verde River Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 103

Photo CM-0022: Average conditions closed FR 638 from southern access

Photo CM_26a: Perkinsville Bridge crossing Verde River Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 104

Appendix B-7: Impacts

Photo Locations for Impacts

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

105

Impact Photos

Photo CM-006: FS Route closure at end FR638 from south access

PhotoTC-0078: Rock quarry at Bear Siding, FR 492A Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 106

Photo TC-0091: Man-made dam at Bear Siding for swimming hole

Photo ED-115: Power line in distance from side of Verde Canyon, near Bear Siding Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 107

Photo CM-181: Old, unused concrete road leading to the riverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s edge to the old Verde Ranch buildings, Verde Ranch private property

Photo CM_17a: Railroad ties near railroad grade, ~1 mile upstream of Perkinsville Bridge

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 108

Photo CM_27a: Camping impacts at Perkinsville Bridge

Photo ED-111: Wooden survey marker on hillside Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 109

Appendix B-8: Scenery

Photo Locations for Scenic ORVs

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

110

Scenic Photos

Photo CM-030: Verde River, near end FR 164

Photo CM_23a: Verde River corridor, looking southeast toward Mingus Mountain Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 111

Photo CM-0040: Red rocks near Sedona, from FR 492A, sunset

Photo 9918230-R1-030-13A: Verde River below Verde Ranch

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 112

Photo 9918230-R1-046-21A: River with watercress and algae

Photo CM-137: Verde River from end FR 9097U, Mingus Mtn. in back Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 113

Photo CM-023: Verde River and San Francisco Peaks from end FR 164

Photo CM-159: Verde River and 100â&#x20AC;&#x2122; cliff wall near end FR 9110R

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 114

Photo CM-152: Verde Valley overview, looking north toward Bill Williams Mountain

Photo CM-09: Overhanging cliffs Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 115

Photo CM_28a: Verde River corridor and sandstone cliffs

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005 116

Appendices C-1 through C-8: Perkinsville to Clarkdale Photos and Maps Appendix C-1: Geology

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

117

Geology Photos

KE-28: Exemplary columnar jointing in basaltic cliffs lining Segment Five of the Upper Verde River.

KE-34: Eroding limestone, formed directly on top of basalt flows, Segment Five. Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

118

KE-103: Caves carved in limestone, at river level, looking from the railroad bridge downstream of Perkins Ranch.

KE-111: Great diversity of riverbed stones, basalts, sandstones, and more.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

119

KE-112: Rock formation in riverbed. (details?)

KE-113: Exemplary limestone erosion.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

120

KE-115: Redwall on top of mauv limestone (possibly?)

KE-260: A beautiful river rock: possibly sandstone encased in some type of igneous rockâ&#x20AC;Ś?

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

121

KE-274: Basaltic cliffs, characteristic of Segment Five.

KE-334: Limestone, Segment Four.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

122

KE-335: Layers of sandstone found in Segment Four, on top of limestone (Supai group???)

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

123

Appendix C-2: Vegetation/Ecology Photos

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

124

KE-7: Loco weed, uplands of Segment Five, flowering in February.

KE-18: Lush herbaceous vegetation on basaltic cliffs of Segment Five.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

125

KE-9: Wildflowers in uplands of Segment Five.

KE-5: Cactus species mix with highland species in the Upper Verde corridor. Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

126

KE-22: Mustard and phillory under mesquite/mixed canopy, on depositional bank.

KE-121: Cactus growing in limestone where desert and highlands meet, Segment Four.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

127

KE-133: Wildflowers growing in railroad tracks of Segment Four.

KE-244: Enormous willow in Segment Four!

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

128

KE-250: Layers of vegetation include willow/cottonwoods, mesquite bosque, herbaceous plants, and uplands of juniper and pinons.

KE-255: Spring green leaves in the sun! (Box elder maples and others.) Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

129

KE-257: Water, glowing willows and cottonwoods, red rock outcrop, upland vegetation.

KE-259: Giant, exemplary cottonwood! (With Kelly for scale, Segment Four) Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

130

KE-309: Globe mallow and prickly pear in April, uplands near upstream end of Segment Five.

KE-314: Wildflowers and blanket of green, uplands of Segment Five.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

131

Appendix C-3: Wildlife Photos

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

132

KE-6: Mammal tracksâ&#x20AC;Ś

KE-33: Nest in bare branches, in floodplain, Segment Five.

KE-31: Mammal tracksâ&#x20AC;Ś

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

133

KE-109: Freshwater bivalve, many found in this stretch. These animals are good indicators of water quality.

KE-134: Javelina and large cat prints in mud..?

KE-122: Swallow nests, above upstream end of railroad tunnel entrance. Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

134

KE-123: Fresh deer/javelina bedding very near train tracks.

KE-127: Adult and two baby javelinas on river bank, March, Segment Four.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

135

KE-129: Javelinas on river bank (9 total in group).

KE-130: Recent beaver-chewed tree (looks fresh, also area was under water recently). Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

136

KE-212: A new friend named Thunder (hahaha).

KE-245: Nest in limestone, right at river level, Segment Four.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

137

KE-313: Cliffs and uplands are protected bald eagle habitat, Segment Five.

KE-327: Eagle nest in basaltic cliffs (nest is within arc of white in photo).

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

138

Appendix C-4: Cultural and Historic Photos

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

139

KE-104: Caves of limestone are scattered throughout the area. Smoke-blackened ceilings and remnants of ancient life can be found in many of these caves.

KE-106: Historic railroad bridge near Perkins Ranch.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

140

KE-318: Sinagua dwelling site, visible in Segment Five from Verde Canyon Railroad.

KE-319: Sinagua dwelling site, visible in Segment Five from Verde Canyon Railroad.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

141

KE-329: Archeological site in Segment Five, viewed from Verde Canyon Railroad (barely visible, near dark sang middle right).

KE-332: There is a 12 room archeological site here, on top of Fortress Mountain.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

142

Appendix C-5: Recreation Photos

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

143

KE-117: Great solitude found in Segment Four, river right of recently flooded river bed, lush green vegetation appearing in early March.

KE-135: Visitors aboard the scenic Verde Canyon Railroad.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

144

KE-3: Natural History interpretation opportunities abound where desert and mountain ecology fluidly mixes.

KE-216: Canoeing is another recreational opportunity in the Upper Verde. Looking downstream just after the railroad bridge near Perkinsville.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

145

KE-231: Camping via hiking or boating is a favorite, demonstrated by this crazy dancer in a lush green campsite. Current river is to the right side of the photo.

KE-237: Enjoying solitude by a waterfall in side channel of Tunnel Falls, A spot completely hidden from the railroad (about 400 CFS at Clarkdale).

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

146

KE-251: Canoeist surrounded by spring green box elder maples!

KE-348: Scenery enjoyed by hikers, canoeists, and train-riders alike.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

147

Appendix C-6: Route and Impact Photos

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

148

KE-8: High-impact campsite on South fork of FR 9952, right on the road.

KE-39: Unmarked route, runs SW-NE, uplands of Segment Five.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

149

KE-124: Railroad scrap and materials can be found in places along the tracks. It is only next to the tracks, and in select spots (not scattered).

KE-203: Large amount of OHV use next to river at the bridge in Clarkdale. This photo was taken outside of the study segments of the Upper Verde, but it is representative of impacts that could be seen with OHV use in a riparian corridor.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

150

KE-262: Small private property inholding just downstream of Segment Four.

KE-263: Road that leads into private property inholdings, Segment Five.

KE-322: Forest Service road, viewed from opposite side of river, from the train, Segment Five. Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

151

Appendix C-7: Hydrology Photos

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

152

KE-110: Flood debris caught in juniper in riverbed, exemplifying the Upper Verdeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s flood regime.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

153

KE-27: Recently deposited sediment makes rich soil in flash flood regime river.

KE-118: Ripple around sandstone. Pools and stretches of fast water make great diverse habitat for aquatic life.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

154

KE-241 Pools and stretches of fast water make great diverse habitat for aquatic life. Examples above in KE-241 and below in KE-243.

KE-243

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

155

Appendix C-8: Scenery Photos

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

156

KE-210: Scenic views of Upper Verde River Canyon and San Francisco Peaks, from FR 318A.

KE-242: Wide, slow spot in the Upper Verde, lots of water flowing below towering redwalls and bright green vegetationâ&#x20AC;Śtypical scenery of Segment Four.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

157

KE-20: Lush herbacious layer in February, under mesquite bosque, on depositional bank in Segment Five, an area with generally steep canyon walls lining river.

KE-41: Scenic view with high water, from rim near Clarkdale, February. Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

158

KE-15: Indian paintbrush, flowering in February, basalt and limestone uplands.

KE-224: Upper Verde River in the light of the setting sun.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

159

KE-229: Incredible green layers in the morning sun, looking from river right at canoe campsite, glowing grasses, cottonwoods, and willows, late March.

KE-236: Beautiful rapid (CFS is around 400 at Clarkdale gage), colorful canyon walls, riparian treesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; leaves just appearing in March, just above Tunnel Falls.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

160

KE-241: White riffles stretching into green water, red sandstone, and bright green trees.

KE-219: Looking downstream at the top of Segment Four, awestruck by the colors, landforms, and spring vegetation. Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

161

KE-253: Spring green leaves glowing in the sun! (Box elder maples and others.)

KE-349: Water winding through the red limestone, bring the â&#x20AC;&#x153;ribbon of green.â&#x20AC;? Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

162

KE-301: Wildflowers and green hills dominate the view looking towards the Upper Verde River from FR 131, at FR 9951, Segment Five, early April.

KE-312: Wildflowers, prickly pear, yucca, and red hills from FR 131, Segment Five. Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

163

KE-348: Scenic view enjoyed by visitors, front end of Verde Canyon Railroad train.

KE-350: Colors of the Upper Verde in April: red rocks, green leaves, white water, black trees.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

164

KE-249: More incredible colors, tower of red sandstone above riparian vegetation.

KE-323: Wildflowers overlook the water and cottonwood/willow ribbon that line the basaltic canyon of the Upper Verde River (Segment Five). Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

165

Appendix D: Summary Information Document

STUDY AREA SUMMARY The river segment of this study is 37.2 miles long, reaching from the Prescott National Forest boundary west of the old Morgan Ranch property at UTM coordinates 372688 E, 3860203 N to the Forest Service (FS) boundary near Clarkdale at UTM coordinates 403166 E, 3852501 N. The study area includes the river itself and an average of Âź mile buffer on each side. (See overview map) Name of River: Upper Verde River Location: From FS boundary near Paulden and Verde headwaters to FS boundary near Clarkdale. Segment One: from the National Forest boundary near Paulden to the western boundary of the Verde Ranch, 4 miles Segment Two: from the eastern boundary of the Verde Ranch to about 2 miles upstream of Bear Siding where the 500 kv power line crosses the river canyon, 6.7 miles Segment Three: from the 500kv power line to the Perkinsville Bridge, 7.4 miles Segment Four: from the railroad bridge at Perkinsville to the old Alverez Ranch, 10 miles Segment Five: from the southeastern edge of Packard Ranch to the FS boundary near Clarkdale, 5.75 miles River Mileage:

Studied: 37.2 miles Eligible: 33.9 miles

ELIGIBILITY Determination of Free-flow: All segments are completely free-flowing. Determination of Outstandingly Remarkable Values: Please see section III. B. for details on ORVs. They include scenery, fish, wildlife, historic and cultural, and other values for Segments One, Two, and Three; and scenery, recreation, geology, fish, wildlife, historic and cultural, and other values for Segments Four and Five.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

166

CLASSIFICATION Please see section IV and Table 4 (in section III) for classification details. Segments One and Two are Wild. Segments Three and Four are Scenic. Segment Five is Recreational.

SUITABILITY REPORT Section V of this proposal addresses factors of suitability, but it is not meant to take the place of a comprehensive suitability study done by the Forest Service. Thus, the suitability report and related sections are not present here.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

167

Appendix E This is the WSRA without the provisions that pertain to specific individual rivers. The full document, with footnote and related laws, can be found at http://www.nps.gov/rivers/wsract.html

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542, as amended) (16 U.S.C. 1271-1287) 1

An Act to provide for a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that, (a) this Act may be cited as the "Wild and Scenic Rivers Act." Congressional declaration of policy. (b) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Congress declares that the established national policy of dam and other construction at appropriate sections of the rivers of the United States needs to be complemented by a policy that would preserve other selected rivers or sections thereof in their free-flowing condition to protect the water quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes. Congressional declaration of purpose. (c) The purpose of this Act is to implement this policy by instituting a national wild and scenic rivers system, by designating the initial components of that system, and by prescribing the methods by which and standards according to which additional components may be added to the system from time to time. Composition of system; requirements for State-administered components. SECTION 2. (a) The national wild and scenic rivers system shall comprise rivers (i) that are authorized for inclusion therein by Act of Congress, or (ii) that are designated as wild, scenic or recreational rivers by or pursuant to an act of the legislature of the State or States through which they flow, that are to be permanently administered as wild, scenic or recreational rivers by an agency or political subdivision of the State or States concerned, that are found by the Secretary of the Interior, upon application of the Governor of the State or the Governors of the States concerned, or a person or persons thereunto duly appointed by him or them, to meet the criteria established in this Act and such criteria supplementary thereto as he may prescribe, and that are approved by him for inclusion in the system, including, upon application of the Governor of the State concerned, the Allagash Wilderness Waterway, Maine; that segment of the Wolf River, Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

168

Wisconsin, which flows through Langlade County; and that segment of the New River in North Carolina extending from its confluence with Dog Creek downstream approximately 26.5 miles to the Virginia State line. Upon receipt of an application under clause (ii) of this subsection, the Secretary shall notify the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and publish such application in the Federal Register. Each river designated under clause (ii) shall be administered by the State or political subdivision thereof without expense to the United States other than for administration and management of federally owned lands. For purposes of the preceding sentence, amounts made available to any State or political subdivision under the Land and Water Conservation [Fund] Act of 1965 or any other provision of law shall not be treated as an expense to the United States. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to provide for the transfer to, or administration by, a State or local authority of any federally owned lands which are within the boundaries of any river included within the system under clause (ii). Classification. (b) A wild, scenic or recreational river area eligible to be included in the system is a free-flowing stream and the related adjacent land area that possesses one or more of the values referred to in Section 1, subsection (b) of this Act. Every wild, scenic or recreational river in its free-flowing condition, or upon restoration to this condition, shall be considered eligible for inclusion in the national wild and scenic rivers system and, if included, shall be classified, designated, and administered as one of the following: (1) Wild river areas -- Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America. (2) Scenic river areas -- Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. (3) Recreational river areas -- Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. Congressionally designated components. SECTION 3. (a) The following rivers and the land adjacent thereto are hereby designated as components of the national wild and scenic rivers system: (Designation language for individual rivers) Establishment of boundaries; classification. (b) The agency charged with the administration of each component of the national wild and scenic rivers system designated by subsection (a) of this section shall, within one year from the date of designation of such component under subsection (a) (except where a different date if [is] provided in subsection (a)), establish detailed boundaries therefor (which boundaries shall include an average of not more than 320 acres of land per mile measured from the ordinary high water mark on both sides of the river); and determine which of the classes outlined in section 2, subsection (b), of this Act best fit the river or its various segments. Notice of the availability of the boundaries and classification, and of subsequent boundary amendments shall be published in the Federal Register and shall not become effective until ninety days after they have been forwarded to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Public availability of maps and descriptions. (c) Maps of all boundaries and descriptions of the classifications of designated river segments, and subsequent amendments to such boundaries, shall be available for public inspection in the offices Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

169

of the administering agency in the District of Columbia and in locations convenient to the designated river. Review requirements for early designations and management plans. (d)(1) For rivers designated on or after January 1, 1986, the Federal agency charged with the administration of each component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System shall prepare a comprehensive management plan for such river segment to provide for the protection of the river values. The plan shall address resource protection, development of lands and facilities, user capacities, and other management practices necessary or desirable to achieve the purposes of this Act. The plan shall be coordinated with and may be incorporated into resource management planning for affected adjacent Federal lands. The plan shall be prepared, after consultation with State and local governments and the interested public within 3 full fiscal years after the date of designation. Notice of the completion and availability of such plans shall be published in the Federal Register. (2) For rivers designated before January 1, 1986, all boundaries, classifications, and plans shall be reviewed for conformity within the requirements of this subsection within 10 years through regular agency planning processes. Requirements for study reports. SECTION 4. (a) The Secretary of the Interior or, where national forest lands are involved, the Secretary of Agriculture or, in appropriate cases, the two Secretaries jointly shall study and submit to the President reports on the suitability or nonsuitability for addition to the national wild and scenic rivers system of rivers which are designated herein or hereafter by the Congress as potential additions to such system. The President shall report to the Congress his recommendations and proposals with respect to the designation of each such river or section thereof under this Act. Such studies shall be completed and such reports shall be made to the Congress with respect to all rivers named in subparagraphs 5(a) (1) through (27) of this Act no later than October 2, 1978. In conducting these studies the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall give priority to those rivers (i) with respect to which there is the greatest likelihood of developments which, if undertaken, would render the rivers unsuitable for inclusion in the national wild and scenic rivers system, and (ii) which possess the greatest proportion of private lands within their areas. Every such study and plan shall be coordinated with any water resources planning involving the same river which is being conducted pursuant to the Water Resources Planning Act (79 Stat. 244; 42 U.S.C. 1962 et seq.). Each report, including maps and illustrations, shall show among other things the area included within the report; the characteristics which do or do not make the area a worthy addition to the system; the current status of land ownership and use in the area; the reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and water which would be enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the national wild and scenic rivers system; the Federal agency (which in the case of a river which is wholly or substantially within a national forest, shall be the Department of Agriculture) by which it is proposed the area, should it be added to the system, be administered; the extent to which it is proposed that such administration, including the costs thereof, be shared by State and local agencies; and the estimated cost to the United States of acquiring necessary lands and interests in land and of administering the area, should it be added to the system. Each such report shall be printed as a Senate or House document. (b) Before submitting any such report to the President and the Congress, copies of the proposed report shall, unless it was prepared jointly by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, be submitted by the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of Agriculture or by the Secretary of Agriculture to the Secretary of the Interior, as the case may be, and to the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Energy, the head of any other affected Federal department or agency and, unless the lands proposed to be included in the area are already owned by the United States or have already been authorized for acquisition by Act of Congress, the Governor of the State or States in which they are located or an officer designated by the Governor to receive the same. Any Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

170

recommendations or comments on the proposal which the said officials furnish the Secretary or Secretaries who prepared the report within ninety days of the date on which the report is submitted to them, together with the Secretary's or Secretaries' comments thereon, shall be included with the transmittal to the President and the Congress. Review requirements for State components. (c) Before approving or disapproving for inclusion in the national wild and scenic rivers system any river designated as a wild, scenic or recreational river by or pursuant to an act of the State legislature, the Secretary of the Interior shall submit the proposal to the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Energy, and the head of any other affected Federal department or agency and shall evaluate and give due weight to any recommendations or comments which the said officials furnish him within ninety days of the date on which it is submitted to them. If he approves the proposed inclusion, he shall publish notice thereof in the Federal Register. Study boundaries. (d) The boundaries of any river proposed in section 5(a) of this Act for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System shall generally comprise that area measured within onequarter mile from the ordinary high water mark on each side of the river. In the case of any designated river, prior to publication of boundaries pursuant to section 3(b) of this Act, the boundaries also shall comprise the same area. This subsection shall not be construed to limit the possible scope of the study report to address areas which may lie more than one-quarter mile from the ordinary high water mark on each side of the river. Study rivers. SECTION 5. (a) The following rivers are hereby designated for potential addition to the national wild and scenic rivers system: (Designation language for individual rivers) Additional study requirements. (c) The study of any of said rivers shall be pursued in as close cooperation with appropriate agencies of the affected State and its political subdivisions as possible, shall be carried on jointly with such agencies if request for such joint study is made by the State, and shall include a determination of the degree to which the State or its political subdivisions might participate in the preservation and administration of the river should it be proposed for inclusion in the national wild and scenic rivers system. Federal agency consideration of wild and scenic values. (d)(1) In all planning for the use and development of water and related land resources, consideration shall be given by all Federal agencies involved to potential national wild, scenic and recreational river areas, and all river basin and project plan reports submitted to the Congress shall consider and discuss any such potentials. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall make specific studies and investigations to determine which additional wild, scenic and recreational river areas within the United States shall be evaluated in planning reports by all Federal agencies as potential alternative uses of the water and related land resources involved. Acquisition procedures and limitations.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

171

SECTION 6. (a)(1) The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture are each authorized to acquire lands and interests in land within the authorized boundaries of any component of the national wild and scenic rivers system designated in section 3 of this Act, or hereafter designated for inclusion in the system by Act of Congress, which is administered by him, but he shall not acquire fee title to an average of more than 100 acres per mile on both sides of the river. Lands owned by a State may be acquired only by donation or by exchange in accordance with the subsection (d) of this section. Lands owned by an Indian tribe or a political subdivision of a State may not be acquired without the consent of the appropriate governing body thereof as long as the Indian tribe or political subdivision is following a plan for management and protection of the lands which the Secretary finds protects the land and assures its use for purposes consistent with this Act. Money appropriated for Federal purposes from the land and water conservation fund shall, without prejudice to the use of appropriations from other sources, be available to Federal departments and agencies for the acquisition of property for the purposes of this Act. Federal agency consideration of wild and scenic values. (2) When a tract of land lies partially within and partially outside the boundaries of a component of the national wild and scenic rivers system, the appropriate Secretary may, with the consent of the landowners for the portion outside the boundaries, acquire the entire tract. The land or interest therein so acquired outside the boundaries shall not be counted against the average one-hundredacre-per-mile fee title limitation of subsection (a)(1). The lands or interests therein outside such boundaries, shall be disposed of, consistent with existing authorities of law, by sale, lease, or exchange. (b) If 50 per centum or more of the entire acreage outside the ordinary high water mark on both sides of the river within a federally administered wild, scenic or recreational river area is owned in fee title by the United States, by the State or States within which it lies, or by political subdivisions of those States, neither Secretary shall acquire fee title to any lands by condemnation under authority of this Act. Nothing contained in this section, however, shall preclude the use of condemnation when necessary to clear title or to acquire scenic easements or such other easements as are reasonably necessary to give the public access to the river and to permit its members to traverse the length of the area or of selected segments thereof. (c) Neither the Secretary of the Interior nor the Secretary of Agriculture may acquire lands by condemnation, for the purpose of including such lands in any national wild, scenic or recreational river area, if such lands are located within any incorporated city, village or borough which has in force and applicable to such lands a duly adopted, valid zoning ordinance that conforms with the purposes of this Act. In order to carry out the provisions of this subsection the appropriate Secretary shall issue guidelines, specifying standards for local zoning ordinances, which are consistent with the purposes of this Act. The standards specified in such guidelines shall have the object of (A) prohibiting new commercial or industrial uses other than commercial or industrial uses which are consistent with the purposes of this Act, and (B) the protection of the bank lands by means of acreage, frontage, and setback requirements on development. (d) The appropriate Secretary is authorized to accept title to non-Federal property within the authorized boundaries of any federally administered component of the national wild and scenic rivers system designated in section 3 of this Act or hereafter designated for inclusion in the system by Act of Congress and, in exchange therefor, convey to the grantor any federally owned property which is under his jurisdiction within the State in which the component lies and which he classifies as suitable for exchange or other disposal. The values of the properties so exchanged either shall be approximately equal or, if they are not approximately equal, shall be equalized by the payment of cash to the grantor or to the Secretary as the circumstances require. (e) The head of any Federal department or agency having administrative jurisdiction over any lands or interests in land within the authorized boundaries of any federally administered component of the national wild and scenic rivers system designated in section 3 of this Act or hereafter designated for inclusion in the system by Act of Congress is authorized to transfer to the appropriate Secretary jurisdiction over such lands for administration in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Lands acquired by or transferred to the Secretary of Agriculture for the

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

172

purposes of this Act within or adjacent to a national forest shall upon such acquisition or transfer become national forest lands. (f) The appropriate Secretary is authorized to accept donations of lands and interests in land, funds, and other property for use in connection with his administration of the national wild and scenic rivers system. (g)(1) Any owner or owners (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as "owner") of improved property on the date of its acquisition, may retain for themselves and their successors or assigns a right of use and occupancy of the improved property for noncommercial residential purposes for a definite term not to exceed twenty-five years, or in lieu thereof, for a term ending at the death of the owner, or the death of his spouse, or the death of either or both of them. The owner shall elect the term to be reserved. The appropriate Secretary shall pay to the owner the fair market value of the property on the date of such acquisition less the fair market value on such a date of the right retained by the owner. (2) A right of use and occupancy retained pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to termination whenever the appropriate Secretary is given reasonable cause to find that such use and occupancy is being exercised in a manner which conflicts with the purposes of this Act. In the event of such a finding, the Secretary shall tender to the holder of that right an amount equal to the fair market value of that portion of the right which remains unexpired on the date of termination. Such right of use or occupancy shall terminate by operation of law upon tender of the fair market price. (3) The term "improved property", as used in this Act, means a detached, one-family dwelling (hereinafter referred to as "dwelling"), the construction of which was begun before January 1, 1967, (except where a different date is specifically provided by law with respect to any particular river), together with so much of the land on which the dwelling is situated, the said land being in the same ownership as the dwelling, as the appropriate Secretary shall designate to be reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the dwelling for the sole purpose of noncommercial residential use, together with any structures accessory to the dwelling which are situated on the land so designated. Restrictions on hydro and water resource development projects on designated rivers. SECTION 7. (a) The Federal Power Commission [FERC] shall not license the construction of any dam, water conduit, reservoir, powerhouse, transmission line, or other project works under the Federal Power Act (41 Stat. 1063), as amended (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.), on or directly affecting any river which is designated in section 3 of this Act as a component of the national wild and scenic rivers system or which is hereafter designated for inclusion in that system, and no department or agency of the United States shall assist by loan, grant, license, or otherwise in the construction of any water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which such river was established, as determined by the Secretary charged with its administration. Nothing contained in the foregoing sentence, however, shall preclude licensing of, or assistance to, developments below or above a wild, scenic or recreational river area or on any stream tributary thereto which will not invade the area or unreasonably diminish the scenic, recreational, and fish and wildlife values present in the area on the date of designation of a river as a component of the national wild and scenic rivers system. No department or agency of the United States shall recommend authorization of any water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which such river was established, as determined by the Secretary charged with its administration, or request appropriations to begin construction of any such project, whether heretofore or hereafter authorized, without advising the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture, as the case may be, in writing of its intention so to do at least sixty days in advance, and without specifically reporting to the Congress in writing at the time it makes its recommendation or request in what respect construction of such project would be in conflict with the purposes of this Act and would affect the component and the values to be protected by it under this Act. Any license heretofore or hereafter issued by the Federal Power Commission [FERC] affecting the New River of North Carolina shall continue to be effective only for that portion of the river which is not included in the national wild and scenic rivers system pursuant to

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

173

section 2 of this Act and no project or undertaking so licensed shall be permitted to invade, inundate or otherwise adversely affect such river segment. Restrictions on hydro and water resource development projects on study rivers. (b)The Federal Power Commission [FERC] shall not license the construction of any dam, water conduit, reservoir, powerhouse, transmission line, or other project works under the Federal Power Act, as amended, on or directly affecting any river which is listed in section 5, subsection (a), of this Act, and no department or agency of the United States shall assist by loan, grant, license, or otherwise in the construction of any water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which such river might be designated, as determined by the Secretary responsible for its study or approval -- (i) during the ten-year period following enactment of this Act [October 2, 1968] or for a three complete fiscal year period following any Act of Congress designating any river for potential addition to the national wild and scenic rivers system, whichever is later, unless, prior to the expiration of the relevant period, the Secretary of the Interior and where national forest lands are involved, the Secretary of Agriculture, on the basis of study, determine that such river should not be included in the national wild and scenic rivers system and notify the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States Congress, in writing, including a copy of the study upon which the determination was made, at least one hundred and eighty days while Congress is in session prior to publishing notice to that effect in the Federal Register: Provided, That if any Act designating any river or rivers for potential addition to the national wild and scenic rivers system provides a period for the study or studies which exceeds such three complete fiscal year period the period provided for in such Act shall be substituted for the three complete fiscal year period in the provisions of this clause (i); and (ii) during such interim period from the date a report is due and the time a report is actually submitted to the Congress; and (iii) during such additional period thereafter as, in the case of any river the report for which is submitted to the President and the Congress for inclusion in the national wild and scenic rivers system, is necessary for congressional consideration thereof or, in the case of any river recommended to the Secretary of the Interior for inclusion in the national wild and scenic rivers system under section 2(a)(ii) of this Act, is necessary for the Secretary's consideration thereof, which additional period, however, shall not exceed three years in the first case and one year in the second. Nothing contained in the foregoing sentence, however, shall preclude licensing of, or assistance to, developments below or above a potential wild, scenic or recreational river area or on any stream tributary thereto which will not invade the area or diminish the scenic, recreational, and fish and wildlife values present in the potential wild, scenic or recreational river area on the date of designation of a river for study as provided in section 5 of this Act. No department or agency of the United States shall, during the periods hereinbefore specified, recommend authorization of any water resources project on any such river or request appropriations to begin construction of any such project, whether heretofore or hereafter authorized, without advising the Secretary of the Interior and, where national forest lands are involved, the Secretary of Agriculture in writing of its intention so to do at least sixty days in advance of doing so and without specifically reporting to the Congress in writing at the time it makes its recommendation or request in what respect construction of such project would be in conflict with the purposes of this Act and would affect the component and the values to be protected by it under this Act. (c) The Federal Power Commission [FERC] and all other Federal agencies shall, promptly upon enactment of this Act, inform the Secretary of the Interior and, where national forest lands are involved, the Secretary of Agriculture, of any proceedings, studies, or other activities within their jurisdiction which are now in progress and which affect or may affect any of the rivers specified in section 5, subsection (a), of this Act. They shall likewise inform him of any such proceedings, studies, or other activities which are hereafter commenced or resumed before they are commenced or resumed. Grants under Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965.

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

174

(d) Nothing in this section with respect to the making of a loan or grant shall apply to grants made under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (78 Stat. 897; 16 U.S.C. 460l-5 et seq.). Limitations to entry on public lands. (a) Designated rivers. SECTION 8. (a) All public lands within the authorized boundaries of any component of the national wild and scenic rivers system which is designated in section 3 of this Act or which is hereafter designated for inclusion in that system are hereby withdrawn from entry, sale, or other disposition under the public land laws of the United States. This subsection shall not be construed to limit the authorities granted in section 6(d) or section 14A of this Act. (b) Study rivers. (b) All public lands which constitute the bed or bank, or are within one-quarter mile of the bank, of any river which is listed in section 5, subsection (a), of this Act are hereby withdrawn from entry, sale, or other disposition under the public land laws of the United States for the periods specified in section 7, subsection (b), of this Act. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this subsection or any other provision of this Act, subject only to valid existing rights, including valid Native selection rights under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, all public lands which constitute the bed or bank, or are within an area extending two miles from the bank of the river channel on both sides of the river segments referred to in paragraphs (77) through (88) of section 5(a) are hereby withdrawn from entry, sale, State selection or other disposition under the public land laws of the Unites States for the periods specified in section 7(b) of this Act. Limitations on mineral entry and development on Public Lands; designated rivers. SECTION 9. (a) Nothing in this Act shall affect the applicability of the United States mining and mineral leasing laws within components of the national wild and scenic rivers system except that - (i) all prospecting, mining operations, and other activities on mining claims which, in the case of a component of the system designated in section 3 of this Act, have not heretofore been perfected or which, in the case of a component hereafter designated pursuant to this Act or any other Act of Congress, are not perfected before its inclusion in the system and all mining operations and other activities under a mineral lease, license, or permit issued or renewed after inclusion of a component in the system shall be subject to such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior or, in the case of national forest lands, the Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe to effectuate the purposes of this Act; (ii) subject to valid existing rights, the perfection of, or issuance of a patent to, any mining claim affecting lands within the system shall confer or convey a right or title only to the mineral deposits and such rights only to the use of the surface and the surface resources as are reasonably required to carrying on prospecting or mining operations and are consistent with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, or in the case of national forest lands, by the Secretary of Agriculture; and (iii) subject to valid existing rights, the minerals in Federal lands which are part of the system and constitute the bed or bank or are situated within one-quarter mile of the bank of any river designated a wild river under this Act or any subsequent Act are hereby withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the mining laws and from operation of the mineral leasing laws including, in both cases, amendments thereto. Regulations issued pursuant to paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this subsection shall, among other things, provide safeguards against pollution of the river involved and unnecessary impairment of the scenery within the component in question. Study rivers. (b) The minerals in any Federal lands which constitute the bed or bank or are situated within onequarter mile of the bank of any river which is listed in section 5, subsection (a) of this Act are Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

175

hereby withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the mining laws during the periods specified in section 7, subsection (b) of this Act. Nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed to forbid prospecting or the issuance of leases, licenses, and permits under the mineral leasing laws subject to such conditions as the Secretary of the Interior and, in the case of national forest lands, the Secretary of Agriculture find appropriate to safeguard the area in the event it is subsequently included in the system. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this subsection or any other provision of this Act, all public lands which constitute the bed or bank, or are within an area extending two miles from the bank of the river channel on both sides of the river segments referred to in paragraphs (77) through (88) of section 5(a), are hereby withdrawn, subject to valid existing rights, from all forms of appropriation under the mining laws and from operation of the mineral leasing laws including, in both cases, amendments thereto, during the periods specified in section 7(b) of this Act. Management direction. SECTION 10. (a) Each component of the national wild and scenic rivers system shall be administered in such manner as to protect and enhance the values which caused it to be included in said system without, insofar as is consistent therewith, limiting other uses that do not substantially interfere with public use and enjoyment of these values. In such administration primary emphasis shall be given to protecting its aesthetic, scenic, historic, archaeologic, and scientific features. Management plans for any such component may establish varying degrees of intensity for its protection and development, based on the special attributes of the area. (b) Any portion of a component of the national wild and scenic rivers system that is within the national wilderness preservation system, as established by or pursuant to the Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C., ch. 23),39 shall be subject to the provisions of both the Wilderness Act and this Act with respect to preservation of such river and its immediate environment, and in case of conflict between the provisions of these Acts the more restrictive provisions shall apply. (c) Any component of the national wild and scenic rivers system that is administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the National Park Service shall become a part of the national park system, and any such component that is administered by the Secretary through the Fish and Wildlife Service shall become a part of the national wildlife refuge system. The lands involved shall be subject to the provisions of this Act and the Acts under which the national park system or national wildlife refuge system, as the case may be, is administered, and in case of conflict between the provisions of these Acts, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. The Secretary of the Interior, in his administration of any component of the national wild and scenic rivers system, may utilize such general statutory authorities relating to areas of the national park system and such general statutory authorities otherwise available to him for recreation and preservation purposes and for the conservation and management of natural resources as he deems appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act. (d) The Secretary of Agriculture, in his administration of any component of the national wild and scenic rivers system area, may utilize the general statutory authorities relating to the national forests in such manner as he deems appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act. (e) The Federal agency charged with the administration of any component of the national wild and scenic rivers system may enter into written cooperative agreements with the Governor of a State, the head of any State agency, or the appropriate official of a political subdivision of a State for State or local governmental participation in the administration of the component. The States and their political subdivisions shall be encouraged to cooperate in the planning and administration of components of the system which include or adjoin State-or county-owned lands. Federal assistance to others; cooperation; use of volunteers. SECTION 11. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall encourage and assist the States to consider, in formulating and carrying out their comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plans and proposals for financing assistance for State and local projects submitted pursuant to the Land and

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

176

Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (78 Stat. 897), needs and opportunities for establishing State and local wild, scenic and recreational river areas. (b)(1) The Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, or the head of any other Federal agency, shall assist, advise, and cooperate with States or their political subdivisions, landowners, private organizations, or individuals to plan, protect, and manage river resources. Such assistance, advice and cooperation may be through written agreements or otherwise. This authority applies within or outside a federally administered area and applies to rivers which are components of the national wild and scenic rivers system and to other rivers. Any agreement under this subsection may include provisions for limited financial or other assistance to encourage participation in the acquisition, protection, and management of river resources. (2) Wherever appropriate in furtherance of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior are authorized and encouraged to utilize the following: (A) For activities on federally owned land, the Volunteers in the Parks Act of 1969 (16 U.S.C. 18g-j) and the Volunteers in the Forest Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 558a-558d). (B) For activities on all other lands, section 6 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (relating to the development of statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plans). (3) For purposes of this subsection, the appropriate Secretary or the head of any Federal agency may utilize and make available Federal facilities, equipment, tools and technical assistance to volunteers and volunteer organizations, subject to such limitations and restrictions as the appropriate Secretary or the head of any Federal agency deems necessary or desirable. (4) No permit or other authorization provided for under provision of any other Federal law shall be conditioned on the existence of any agreement provided for in this section. Management policies SECTION 12. (a) The Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the head of any other Federal department or agency having jurisdiction over any lands which include, border upon, or are adjacent to, any river included within the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System or under consideration for such inclusion, in accordance with section 2(a)(ii), 3(a), or 5(a), shall take such action respecting management policies, regulations, contracts, plans, affecting such lands, following November 10, 1978, as may be necessary to protect such rivers in accordance with the purposes of this Act. Such Secretary or other department or agency head shall, where appropriate, enter into written cooperative agreements with the appropriate State or local official for the planning, administration, and management of Federal lands which are within the boundaries of any rivers for which approval has been granted under section 2(a)(ii). Particular attention shall be given to scheduled timber harvesting, road construction, and similar activities which might be contrary to the purposes of this Act. (b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to abrogate any existing rights, privileges, or contracts affecting Federal lands held by any private party without the consent of said party. (c) The head of any agency administering a component of the national wild and scenic rivers system shall cooperate with the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency and with the appropriate State water pollution control agencies for the purpose of eliminating or diminishing the pollution of waters of the river. Reservation of State and Federal jurisdiction and responsibilities; access to and across wild and scenic rivers. SECTION 13. (a) Nothing in this Act shall affect the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the States with respect to fish and wildlife. Hunting and fishing shall be permitted on lands and waters administered as parts of the system under applicable State and Federal laws and regulations unless, in the case of hunting, those lands or waters are within a national park or monument. The administering Secretary may, however, designate zones where, and establish periods when, no hunting is permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, or public use and enjoyment and shall issue appropriate regulations after consultation with the wildlife agency of the State or States affected. Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

177

(b) The jurisdiction of the States and the United States over waters of any stream included in the national wild, scenic or recreational river area shall be determined by established principles of law. Under the provisions of this Act, any taking by the United States of a water right which is vested under either State or Federal law at the time such river is included in the national wild and scenic rivers system shall entitle the owner thereof to just compensation. Nothing in this Act shall constitute an express or implied claim or denial on the part of the Federal Government as to exemption from State water laws. (c) Designation of any stream or portion thereof as a national wild, scenic or recreational river area shall not be construed as a reservation of the waters of such streams for purposes other than those specified in this Act, or in quantities greater than necessary to accomplish these purposes. (d) The jurisdiction of the States over waters of any stream included in a national wild, scenic or recreational river area shall be unaffected by this Act to the extent that such jurisdiction may be exercised without impairing the purposes of this Act or its administration. (e) Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to alter, amend, repeal, interpret, modify, or be in conflict with any interstate compact made by any States which contain any portion of the national wild and scenic rivers system. (f) Nothing in this Act shall affect existing rights of any State, including the right of access, with respect to the beds of navigable streams, tributaries, or rivers (or segments thereof) located in a national wild, scenic or recreational river area. (g) The Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture, as the case may be, may grant easements and rights-of-way upon, over, under, across, or through any component of the national wild and scenic rivers system in accordance with the laws applicable to the national park system and the national forest system, respectively: Provided, That any conditions precedent to granting such easements and rights-of-way shall be related to the policy and purpose of this Act. Land donations. SECTION 14. The claim and allowance of the value of an easement as a charitable contribution under section 170 of title 26, United States Code, or as a gift under section 2522 of said title shall constitute an agreement by the donor on behalf of himself, his heirs, and assigns that, if the terms of the instrument creating the easement are violated, the donee or the United States may acquire the servient estate at its fair market value as of the time the easement was donated minus the value of the easement claimed and allowed as a charitable contribution or gift. Lease of Federal lands. SECTION 14A. (a) Where appropriate in the discretion of the Secretary, he may lease federally owned land (or any interest therein) which is within the boundaries of any component of the national wild and scenic rivers system and which has been acquired by the Secretary under this Act. Such lease shall be subject to such restrictive covenants as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. (b) Any land to be leased by the Secretary under this section shall be offered first for such lease to the person who owned such land immediately before its acquisition by the United States. Exceptions for Alaska. SECTION 15. â&#x20AC;Ś(Designation language for individual rivers, in Alaska)

Definitions. SECTION 16. As used in this Act, the term -(a) "River" means a flowing body of water or estuary or a section, portion, or tributary thereof, including rivers, streams, creeks, runs, kills, rills, and small lakes. Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

178

(b) "Free-flowing", as applied to any river or section of a river, means existing or flowing in natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway. The existence, however, of low dams, diversion works, and other minor structures at the time any river is proposed for inclusion in the national wild and scenic rivers system shall not automatically bar its consideration for such inclusion: Provided, That this shall not be construed to authorize, intend, or encourage future construction of such structures within components of the national wild and scenic rivers system. (c) "Scenic easement" means the right to control the use of land (including the air space above such land) within the authorized boundaries of a component of the wild and scenic rivers system, for the purpose of protecting the natural qualities of a designated wild, scenic or recreational river area, but such control shall not affect, without the owner's consent, any regular use exercised prior to the acquisition of the easement. For any designated wild and scenic river, the appropriate Secretary shall treat the acquisition of fee title with the reservation of regular existing uses to the owner as a scenic easement for purposes of this Act. Such an acquisition shall not constitute fee title ownership for purposes of section 6(b). Authorization of appropriations for land acquisition. SECTION 17â&#x20AC;Ś(Designation language for individual rivers)

Wild and Scenic River Proposal for the Upper Verde River Arizona Wilderness Coalition April 2005

179