Silver Creek Watershed – Arizona Rapid Watershed Assessment June 2007

Prepared by: USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service – Arizona University of Arizona, Water Resources Research Center

In cooperation with: Arizona Association of Conservation Districts Arizona Department of Agriculture Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Department of Water Resources Arizona Game & Fish Department Arizona State Land Department USDA Forest Service USDI Bureau of Land Management

Released by:

Sharon Megdal David McKay Director State Conservationist University of Arizona U.S. Department of Agriculture Water Resources Research Center Natural Resources Conservation Service

Additional Principal Investigators:

Dino DeSimone – Natural Resources Conservation Service, Phoenix, Arizona Keith Larson – Natural Resources Conservation Service, Phoenix, Arizona Kristine Uhlman – Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona D. Phil Guertin – School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona Deborah Young – Associate Director, Cooperative Extension, University of Arizona

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C., 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity provider and employer.

Silver Creek Watershed – 15020005 An RWA can be used as a 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit communication tool between the Natural Rapid Watershed Assessment Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and partners for describing and prioritizing conservation work in selected Section 1: Introduction watersheds. RWAs provide initial estimates of conservation investments Overview of Rapid Watershed needed to address the identified Assessments resource concerns in the watershed. RWAs serve as a platform for A Rapid Watershed Assessment (RWA) conservation program delivery, provide is a concise report containing useful information for development of information on natural resource NRCS and Conservation District conditions and concerns within a business plans, and lay a foundation for designated watershed. The "rapid" part future watershed planning. refers to a relatively short time period to develop the report as compared to a General Description of the Silver Creek more comprehensive watershed Watershed planning effort. The “assessment” part refers to a report containing maps, The Silver Creek watershed is an eight- tables and other information sufficient to digit HUC subbasin located in the east- give an overview of the watershed and central portion of the state of Arizona for use as a building block for future (Figure 1-1). The basin comprises planning. RWAs look at physical and 606,720 acres (948 square miles) and is socioeconomic characteristics and located in Navajo and Apache Counties. trends, as well as current and future Forty-seven percent of the land is conservation work. managed by the Forest Service, 41% is private land, and 10% is State Trust The assessments involve the collection land. The remaining 2% of the land is of readily available quantitative and managed by Bureau of Land qualitative information to develop a Management (BLM) or the White watershed profile, and sufficient analysis Mountain Apache Tribe. of that information to generate an appraisal of the conservation needs of Major towns in the watershed include the watershed. These assessments are Snowflake, Show Low, Lakeside and conducted by conservation planners, Pinetop. The NRCS Field Offices for using Geographic Information System the area are located in Holbrook and (GIS) technology, assessing current Springerville. Conservation assistance levels of resource management, is provided through the Apache and identifying priority resource concerns, Navajo County Natural Resource and making estimates of future Conservation Districts. conservation work. Conservation Districts and other local leaders, along The area ranges in elevation from 5,400 with public land management agencies, to 7,200 feet. Rainfall amounts in this are involved in the assessment process. area range from 10 to 20 inches per year. The area in lower elevations is

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 1 - Introduction page 1- 1 made up of undulating plains and low hills, with an occasionally deeply incised, steep sided drainage way. Some buttes and mesas rise abruptly above the level of the plains. At higher elevation the landscape is generally made up of level plains with hills and low mountains. This area supports a mixture of forest and grassland plant communities.

The majority of this watershed is used for cattle and sheep grazing. Rangeland and grazable forestland comprise over 90 percent of the area, while about 3 percent is used for cropland. The crops produced are corn, alfalfa, small grains and vegetable crops which are usually grown for local consumption. Scattered acreage of dry cropland occurs at the higher elevations.

Resource concerns in the watershed include soil erosion, rangeland site stability, rangeland hydrologic cycle, excessive runoff (causing flooding or ponding), inefficient water use on irrigated land, aquifer overdraft, water quality concerns for ground water (pesticides, nutrients and organics) and surface water (pesticides, nutrients, organics, suspended sediment and turbidity), plant condition – productivity, health and vigor, noxious and invasive plants, wildfire hazard, fish and wildlife habitat fragmentation, domestic animals – inadequate quantities and quality of feed, forage, and stock water.

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 1 - Introduction page 1- 2 Section 2: Physical Description province covers the northern 2/5 of the state of Arizona and is characterized by Watershed Size mostly level, horizontally stratified sedimentary rocks that have been The Silver Creek Watershed covers eroded into canyons and plateaus, and approximately 948 square miles, by some high volcanic mountains. representing less than 1% of the state of Arizona. The watershed has a The edge of the Mogollon Rim exposes maximum width of about 40 miles east- a sequence, nearly 3,000 feet thick, of west, and a length of about 37 miles Paleozoic sedimentary rocks (Parker north-south. and Flynn, 2000). The overall vertical displacement of the Rim varies, but in The Silver Creek Watershed was some multiple fault zones near the delineated by the U.S. Geological Verde River it is estimated at Survey and has been subdivided by the approximately 6,000 feet (Feth et al., NRCS into smaller watersheds or 1954). This exposure, in addition to the drainage areas. Each drainage area downcutting of the Colorado River in the has a unique hydrologic unit code Grand Canyon provides a visible cross (HUC) number and a name based on section of the layered sedimentary rocks the primary surface water feature within of the region. the HUC. These drainage areas can be further subdivided into even smaller Compared with the rest of Arizona watersheds as needed. The Silver geology, the Plateau Uplands seems Creek Watershed has an 8-digit HUC of easy to understand, the rocks are flat- 15020005 and contains the following 10- lying sedimentary strata set in digit HUCs: sequences of oldest (bottom) to youngest (top). At land surface, the • 1502000501 (Show Low Creek); Moenkopi formation overlays (in descending order) the Kaibab • 1502000502 (Upper Silver Limestone Formation, the Permian age Creek); Coconino Sandstone, and the older red siltstone and fine sandstone rocks of the • 1502000503 (Cottonwood Supai Formation. Ancient marine and Creek); and, coastal deposits include a wide range of rock types – limestone, claystone, • 1502000504 (Lower Silver Creek) mudstone, sandstone, and (Figure 1-2). conglomerate – through out the sequence. Geology The 240 million year-old Moenkopi The Silver Creek Watershed is on the formation, which is exposed across the top ridge of the Mogollon Rim land surface of much of the watershed, escarpment, the southern boundary of can be traced from New Mexico, north the Colorado Plateau Uplands to Nevada, and west to California. In physiographic province in the northern Arizona, fossil vertebrate fauna northeastern corner of the state. This have been described throughout the

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 2 – Physical Description page 2- 1 formation, including freshwater sharks, Central Part” and “Soil Survey of coelacanths, and lungfish. Fossil Apache County, AZ, Central Part.” Soils footprints and several fragmentary body data and maps from these Soil Surveys fossils have been found throughout. can be accessed through the NRCS Web Soil Survey website: Nearly a third of the watershed is http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. covered by dark colored lava flows, cinder cones, and associated volcanic Common Resource Areas rocks of the White Mountain Volcanic Fields. The volcanic fields originated The USDA, Natural Resources from a central volcano, Mt. Baldy Conservation Service (NRCS) defines a (11,490 feet above sea level) to the Common Resource Area (CRA) as a south east of the Silver Creek geographical area where resource Watershed. Mt. Baldy’s slopes, and the concerns, problems, or treatment needs rest of the volcanic region that extends are similar (NRCS 2006). It is across this part of the Mogollon Rim, considered a subdivision of an existing were built by eruptions as recent as the Major Land Resource Area (MLRA). past 10,000 years. Figure 2-1 shows Landscape conditions, soil, climate, the geology of the Silver Creek human considerations, and other natural Watershed. resource information are used to determine the geographic boundaries of Soils a Common Resource Area.

Soils within the Silver Creek Watershed The Silver Creek Watershed is are diverse and formed as the result of comprised of four Common Resource differences in climate, vegetation, Areas (Figure 2-2 and Table 2-1). geology, and physiography. Detailed soils information for the watershed is available from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The USFS maintains Terrestrial Ecosystem Surveys on National Forest Lands within the watershed. Lands outside of National Forests are covered by the following NRCS Soil Surveys: “Soil Survey of Navajo County Area, AZ,

Table 2-1: Silver Creek Watershed - Common Resource Areas Common Resource Area Type Area (sq. mi.) Percent of Watershed 35.1 Colorado Plateau Mixed Grass Plains 276 29% 35.2 Colorado Plateau Shrub - Grasslands 23 3% 35.7 Colorado Plateau Woodland - Grassland 362 38% 39.1 Mogollon Plateau Coniferous Forests 286 30% Data Sources: GIS map layer “cra”. Arizona Land Information System (ALRIS 2004). Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS 2006)

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 2 – Physical Description page 2- 2 The lower portion of the watershed is a mesic soil temperature regime and an comprised of CRA 35.2 “Colorado aridic ustic soil moisture regime. The Plateau Shrub – Grasslands” with dominant soil orders are Alfisols and elevations ranging from 3500-5500 feet Mollisols. Deep, coarse to moderately and precipitation averaging 6 to 10 fine-textured, soils occur on plains. inches per year. Vegetation includes Deep, gravelly, medium and fine- shadscale, fourwing saltbush, mormon textured, soils occur on dissected tea, blackbrush, Indian ricegrass, uplands. Shallow to deep, gravelly, galleta, blue grama, and black grama. cobbly and stony, fine-textured, soils The soils in the area have a mesic soil occur on basaltic plains, mesas and temperature regime and a typic aridic hills. soil moisture regime. The dominant soil orders are Aridisols and Entisols. Deep, The upper portion of the watershed is moderately fine and fine-textured, soils comprised of CRA 39.1 “Mogollon occur on floodplains. Shallow and deep, Plateau Coniferous Forests” with moderately coarse to moderately fine- elevations ranging from 7000 to 12,500 textured, soils occur on sandstone and feet and precipitation averaging 20 to 35 shale plateaus. inches per year. Vegetation includes ponderosa pine, Gambel oak, Arizona Moving up the watershed, CRA 35.1 walnut, sycamore, Douglas fir, blue “Colorado Plateau Mixed Grass Plains” spruce, Arizona fescue, mountain occurs at elevations ranging from 5100 muhly, muttongrass, pine dropseed, and to 6000 feet and precipitation averaging dryland sedges. The soils in the area 10 to 14 inches per year. Vegetation have a mesic to frigid soil temperature includes Stipa species, Indian ricegrass, regime and a typic ustic to udic ustic soil galleta, blue grama, fourwing saltbush, moisture regime. The dominant soil winterfat, and cliffrose. The soils in the orders are Alfisols, Mollisols, and area have a mesic soil temperature Entisols. Shallow to deep, gravelly and regime and an ustic aridic soil moisture cobbly, moderately coarse and fine- regime. The dominant soil orders are textured, soils occur on mountains and Aridisols and Entisols. Shallow and hills. Moderately deep and deep, deep, moderately coarse to moderately medium and moderately fine-textured, fine-textured, soils occur on sandstone soils occur on mountains. and shale plateaus. The middle portion of the watershed is These four Common Resource Areas comprised of CRA 35.7 “Colorado (CRA 35.2, 35.1, 35.7, 39.1) occur Plateau Woodland – Grassland” with within the Colorado Plateau elevations ranging from 5000 to 7000 Physiographic Province which is feet and precipitation averaging 14 to 18 characterized by a sequence of flat to inches per year. Vegetation includes gently dipping sedimentary rocks eroded one-seed juniper, Colorado pinyon, into plateaus, valleys and deep Stansbury cliffrose, Apache plume, four- canyons. Sedimentary rock classes wing saltbush, Mormon tea, sideoats dominate the plateau with volcanic fields grama, blue grama, black grama, occurring for the most part near its galleta, bottlebrush squirreltail, and margin. muttongrass. The soils in the area have

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 2 – Physical Description page 2- 3 Slope Classifications than 5%. Lower Silver Creek is comparatively flat, with only 2% of its Slope, as well as soil characteristics and area over 15% slope, and 83% less than topography, are important when 5% slope. The Cotton Wood Creek and assessing the vulnerability of a Show Low Creek Watersheds are watershed to erosion. Approximately relatively steeper, with 16% and 11% of 9% of the Silver Creek Watershed has a the area greater than 15% slope, slope greater than 15%, while about respectively (Table 2-2 and Figure 2-3). 63% of the watershed has a slope less

Table 2-2: Silver Creek Watershed Slope Classifications. Area Percent Slope Watershed Name (sq. mi.) 0-5% 5-15% >15% Show Low Creek 1502000501 227 56% 33% 11% Upper Silver Creek 1502000502 185 65% 27% 7% Cottonwood Creek 1502000503 284 49% 35% 16% Lower Silver Creek 1502000504 251 83% 15% 2% Silver Creek Watershed 948 63% 28% 9% Data Sources: Derived from DEM, obtained from U.S. Geological Survey, April 8, 2003 http://edc.usgs.gov/geodata/

Streams, Lakes and Gaging Stations lakes and reservoirs in the watershed, as well as their watershed location, The locations of active and inactive US surface area, elevation and dam name. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging The unknown lake on Cotton Wood stations, and their respective annual Creek is the largest surface water body mean stream flow, are found in Table 2- in the watershed with an area of about 3.1. The Silver Creek Watershed has 388 acres. Table 2-3.3 lists the major three active gages. The site with the streams and their lengths. Listed largest streamflow is located on Show stream lengths range from about 53 Low Creek near Lakeside. The gage miles for Show Low Creek to about 8 has recorded an annual mean stream miles for Linden Wash. flow of 13 cfs. Table 2-3.2 lists major

Table 2-3.1: Silver Creek Watershed USGS Stream Gages and Annual Mean Stream Flow. Annual Mean USGS Begin Stream Flow Gage ID Site Name Date End Date (cfs) Active gages 09390500 Show Low Creek Nr Lakeside 1/1/1954 12/31/2005 13 09391000 Show Low Lake Nr Show Low* 1/1/1987 12/31/2001 4 Show Low C BL Jacques Dam, Nr Show 09392000 Low 1/1/1956 12/31/2004 9

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 2 – Physical Description page 2- 4 Annual Mean USGS Begin Stream Flow Gage ID Site Name Date End Date (cfs)

Inactive gages 09392500 Show Low Creek at Show Low 10/1/1945 09/30/1954 9 09390000 Silver Creek Nr Shumway 1/1/1945 12/31/1954 12 09393000 Silver Creek at Snowflake 09393400 Cottonwood Wash at Snowflake 10/1/1982 09/30/1983 9 09393500 Silver Creek Nr Snowflake N/A N/A - 09394000 Silver Creek Nr Wooddruff 01/1/1929 12/31/1952 28 *Discontinuous years of data Data Sources: USGS website, National Water Information System http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/

Table 2-3.2: Silver Creek Watershed Major Lakes and Reservoirs. Elevation (feet Surface Area above mean sea Dam Name Lake Name Watershed (acre) level) (if known) Cotton Wood Creek Unknown 1502000503 388 5709 Unknown Show Low Creek Unknown 1502000501 227 5938 Lone Pine Dam White Upper Silver Creek Mountain Lake 1502000502 208 5971 Daggs Dam Fools Hollow Show Low Creek Lake 1502000501 152 6266 Fool Hollow Dam Cotton Wood Creek Upper Tank 1502000503 13 6234 Unknown Data Sources: GIS data layer “Lakes”, and GIS data layer “DEM” Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), February 7, 2003 http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html

Table 2-3.3: Silver Creek Watershed Major Streams and Lengths. Stream Length Stream Name Watershed (miles) Show Low Creek Show Low Creek 53 Lower Silver Creek; Upper Silver Creek; Silver Creek Show Low Creek 51 Cottonwood Wash Cotton Wood Creek; Lower Silver Creek 48 Brown Creek Upper Silver Creek 25 Dodson Wash Cotton Wood Creek 23 Day Wash Cotton Wood Creek 20 Sevenmile Draw Lower Silver Creek 11 Linden Wash Show Low Creek 8 Data Sources: GIS data layer “Streams”, Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), October, 10, 2002. http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 2 – Physical Description page 2- 5 Riparian Vegetation Juniper Woodland as the most common land cover type over the entire The Arizona Game & Fish Department watershed, encompassing about 43% of has identified and mapped riparian the watershed. vegetation associated with perennial waters in response to the requirements The next most common types are Rocky of the state Riparian Protection Program Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland (July 1994). This map was used to (25%), Southern Rocky Mountain identify riparian areas in the Silver Montane-Subalpine-Grassland (9%), Creek Watershed (Figure 2-5). Intermountain Basins Semi Desert Grassland (9%), Intermountain Basins Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Juniper Savanna (8%), and Riparian Woodland and Shrubland is the Intermountain Basins Semi Desert only type of riparian vegetation that is Shrub Steppe (8%). found in the Silver Creek Watershed. Riparian areas encompass Note: There are a total of 26 GAP approximately 2 acres in the watershed vegetation categories present within the (Table 2-4). Silver Creek Watershed boundary. Some of these categories occur only in Land Cover small concentrations, and are not visible at the small scale in which the maps are The Riparian Vegetation map (Figure 2- displayed. Some of the vegetation 5) and Land Cover map (Figure 2-6) categories were re-grouped in order to were created from the Southwest increase the legibility of the map. In Regional Gap Analysis Project land collaboration with NRCS, staff were able cover map (Lowry et. al, 2005). Within to create a total of 13 grouped GAP the Silver Creek Watershed, Table 2-5 vegetation categories, as shown on identifies Colorado Plateau Pinyon- Table 2-5.

Table 2-4: Silver Creek Watershed Riparian Vegetation (acres) by 10-digit Watershed. Riparian Show Low Upper Silver Cottonwood Lower Silver Vegetation Creek Creek Creek Creek Silver Creek Community 1502000501 1502000502 1502000503 1502000504 Watershed Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland - - 2 - 2 Total Area (acres) 0 0 1.78 0 2 Data Sources: GIS data layer “sil_gapveg”, Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS, 2004) http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 2 – Physical Description page 2- 6 Table 2-5: Silver Creek Watershed GAP Analysis Project Land Cover, Percent of 10- digit Watershed Watershed Lower Silver Cotton Show Low Upper Silver Creek Wood Creek Creek Creek Percent

Land Cover 1502000504 1502000503 1502000501 1502000502 Of Total

Agriculture* 3% <1% 1% <1% 1% Colorado Plateau Shrub land 4% 1% <1% <1% 1% Developed 2% 1% 8% 1% 3% Colorado Plateau Pinion-Juniper Woodland 26% 43% 40% 72% 43% Intermountain Basins Juniper Savanna 18% 6% 1% 4% 8% Intermountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 1% <1% <1% <1% <1% Intermountain Basins Semi Desert Grassland 25% 7% 2% <1% 9% Intermountain Basins Semi Desert Shrub Steppe 18% 7% 2% 1% 8% Intermountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinder Land <1% ------<1% <1% Open Water <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine 6% 34% 45% 20% 25% Rocky Mountain Forest and Woodland ------<1% <1% <1% Southern Rocky Mountain Montane- Subalpine Grassland --- <1% 7% .17% 9% 251 284 227 185 948 Area (Sq. mi.) *Not necessarily irrigated land. Data Sources: GIS data layer “Arizona Gap Analysis Project Vegetation Map”, University of Arizona, Southern Arizona Data Services Program, 2004 http://sdrsnet.srnr.arizona.edu/index.php Originated by Arizona Game & Fish Department, Habitat Branch, 1993, this dataset was digitized from the August 1980 David E. Brown & Charles H. Lowe 1:1,000,000 scale, 'Biotic Communities of the Southwest'.

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 2 – Physical Description page 2- 7 Meteorological Stations, Precipitation and Temperature

For the years 1961-1990, the average annual precipitation for the Silver Creek Watershed was about 21 inches (Table 2-6 and Figure 2-7). The Show Low Creek Watershed at Pinetop received the most rainfall with 23.17 inches of rain in an average year, while the Upper Silver Creek Watershed and Cotton Wood Creek Watersheds typically received about 23 and 19 inches, respectively. Average Temperature for the Silver Creek Watershed ranged from about 52.05 oF at Lower Silver Creek to about 48.8 oF at Pinedale.

Table 2-6: Silver Creek Watershed Meteorological Stations, Temperature (oF) and Precipitation (in/yr) with Recent Long-term Records. Meteorological o 10-digit Watershed Temperature ( F) Precipitation (in/yr) Stations and Map Name ID Min. Max. Avg. Min. Max. Average

Lower Silver Creek Snowflake 34.5 69.6 52.05 9 19 14 1502000504

Snowflake 15W 37.3 66.2 51.75

Cottonwood Creek Clay Springs 34.6 65.6 50.1 13 25 18.75 1502000503

Pinedale 32.6 65.0 48.8

Show Low Airport 37.6 65.9 51.75 Show Low Creek

1502000501 Pinetop 34.6 63.7 49.15 13 33 23.17

Silver Creek Upper Silver Creek Ranch ------1502000502 13 33 23 Vernon 4 SSW ------

Silver Creek Watershed ------9 33 21 Data Sources: Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), Temperature data. July 15, 2004. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmaz.html

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 2 – Physical Description page 2- 8 Land Ownership/Management

There are 6 different land ownership/management entities in the Silver Creek Watershed (Figure 2-8 and Table 2-7). U.S. Forest Service land is the largest category, representing about 47% of the watershed, followed by the Private land with about 41%, and State Trust land with about 10%. The BLM and, Indian Reservation and “Other” manage the remaining, small amounts of land in the watershed.

Table 2-7: Silver Creek Watershed Land Ownership/Management (Percent of each 10- digit Watershed) Show Low Upper Silver Cottonwood Lower Silver Silver Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Land Owner 1502000501 1502000502 1502000503 1502000504 Watershed BLM - <1% <1% 7% 2% US Forest Service 71% 47% 69% - 47% Indian Reservation 1.0% - - - <1% Other <1% 1% - - <1% Private 27% 37% 26% 73% 41% State Trust 1% 15% 6% 20% 10% Area (square miles) 227 185 284 251 948 Data Sources: GIS data layer “ownership”, Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), February 7, 2002 http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html

Land Use pasture; orchards, groves, vineyards, nurseries and The land cover condition during the ornamental horticulture, and early 1990’s was determined using the other agricultural land; National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). The NLCD classification contains 21 • Forest, includes areas different land cover categories (USGS, characterized by tree cover NLCD Land Cover Class Definitions); (natural or semi-natural woody however, these categories have been vegetation, generally greater than consolidated into five land cover types 6 meters tall); tree canopy (Figure 2-9 and Table 2-8). The five accounts for 25-100 percent of groupings for the land cover categories the cover; are: • Water, identifies all areas of • Crop, which includes confined surface water, generally with less feeding operations; cropland and

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 2 – Physical Description page 2- 9 than 25% cover of up land; other urban or built-up vegetation/land cover; land; strip mines quarries and gravel pits; transportation, • Range, which includes communication and utilities. herbaceous rangeland; mixed range; shrub and brush The most common land cover type in rangeland; and, the Silver Creek Watershed is Range which makes up about 71% of the • Urban, which includes residential watershed. Forest is the next most areas; commercial and services; common type with about 25% of the industrial and commercial total area. complexes; mixed urban or built-

Table 2-8: Silver Creek Watershed Land Use, Percent of 10-digit Watershed Land Cover - Area Location Crop Forest Urban Range Water (sq miles) Lower Silver Creek 3% <1% 2% 95% <1% 251 Cottonwood Creek <1% 34% 1% 65% <1% 284 Show Low Creek 1% 45% 8 % 46% <1% 227 Upper Silver Creek <1% 20% 1% 78% <1% 185 Percent of Silver Creek Watershed 1% 25% 3% 71% <1% 948 Data Sources: GIS data layer “sil_newgapveg”, Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS 2004) http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html

Mines – Primary Ores

Table 2-9 and Figure 2-10 show the types of ores being mined in the Silver Creek Watershed. The most common types of mines in the watershed are pumice (17), unknown (13), and sand and gravel (11).

Table 2-9: Silver Creek Watershed Mines – Primary Ores. Ore Type Total Number of Mines Pumice 17 Unknown 13 Sand & Gravel 11 Coal 2 Gypsum 1 Iron 1 Clay 1 Note: If a mine contains more than one ore, only the major ore is noted. Data Source: Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS).

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 2 – Physical Description page 2- 10 Section 3: Resource Concerns establishment, water and sediment control basins, water spreading, Introduction windbreak establishment, and wildlife upland habitat management. Conservation Districts and other local leaders, along with NRCS and other Soil Condition resource management agencies, have identified priority natural resource Soil condition is a resource concern concerns for this watershed. These whenever soil tilth is poor or soil concerns can be grouped under the compaction is excessive. Poor soil tilth broad resource categories of Soil, results whenever unsuitable Water, Air, Plants, or Animals (SWAPA). combinations of minerals, air, water, and Refer to Table 3-1 for a listing of priority organic matter occur, resulting in low resource concerns by land use within microbial activity and chemical the Silver Creek Watershed. reactions. Soil compaction results from excessive compressing of soil particles Soil Erosion and aggregates by machines or livestock, thus affecting plant-soil- Soil erosion is defined as the movement moisture-air relationships. Soil condition of soil from water (sheet and rill or gully) can become a problem whenever a field or wind forces requiring treatment when is excessively tilled or tilled when the soil loss tolerance levels are exceeded. soil is wet, lack of crop rotation, and lack Sheet and rill erosion is a concern of addition of organic matter. Poor soil particularly in areas of shallow soils and condition reduces root growth and plant poor vegetative cover. Soil loss results productivity. in reduced water holding capacity and plant productivity. Gully erosion can be Conservation practices applied to a significant problem in areas of steep address this resource concern are slopes and deep soils. Loss of generally those that improve plant vegetative cover and down-cutting of cover, improve soil organic matter, streams contribute to gully formation. improve soil microbial activity, reduce Wind erosion is locally significant where tillage operations, or mechanically break adequate vegetative cover is not up compacted soils. Practices may maintained. include deep tillage, conservation cover, conservation crop rotation, cover & Conservation practices applied to green manure crop, irrigation water address this resource concern are management, mulching, nutrient generally those that help improve management, pest management, vegetative cover, stabilize sites, and residue management, tree and shrub control water flows. Practices may establishment, and waste utilization. include critical area planting, deferred Reduced tillage passes and addition of grazing, grade stabilization structures, organic matter from cover crops or herbaceous wind barriers, prescribed residue will improve soil condition. grazing, range planting, stream channel stabilization, tree and shrub

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 3 – Resource Concerns page 3- 1 Table 3-1: Silver Creek Watershed Priority Resource Concerns by Land Use Cropland Urban Resource Category Concerns Rangeland Concerns Forest Concerns Concerns Roads & Construction Soil Erosion Sheet & Rill Erosion Sheet & Rill Erosion Sites Soil Compaction & Organic Matter Rangeland Site Rangeland Site Soil Condition Depletion Stability Stability Excessive Nutrients & Excessive Organics & Nutrients & Pesticides in Excessive Suspended Excessive Suspended Organics & Ground Sediment in Surface Sediment in Surface Pesticides in Water Quality Water Water Water Ground Water Inefficient Use on Inefficient Use Irrigated Land on Irrigated & Aquifer Rangeland Site Rangeland Site Land & Aquifer Water Quantity Overdraft Stability Stability Overdraft

Air Quality Plant Productivity, Plant Productivity, Plant Condition Health & Vigor Health & Vigor Noxious & Invasive Noxious & Invasive Noxious & Invasive Plants Plants Plants Inadequate Quantities Inadequate Quantities & Quality of Feed & & Quality of Feed & Domestic Animals Forage & Water Forage & Water Fish and Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation Habitat Fragmentation T&E Species & Declining Species & Species of Concern Species of Concern (NRCS, 2007)

Water Quality Once a surface water has been identified as impaired, activities in the The Arizona Department of watershed that might contribute further Environmental Quality (ADEQ) loadings of the pollutant are not allowed. assesses surface water quality to Agencies and individuals planning future identify which surface waters are projects in the watershed must be sure impaired or attaining designed uses and that activities will not further degrade to prioritize future monitoring. Strategies these impaired waters and are are implemented on impaired waters to encouraged through grants to reduce pollutant loadings so that surface implement strategies to reduce loading. water quality standards will be met, unless impairment is solely due to One of the first steps is the development natural conditions. of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analysis to empirically determine the

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 3 – Resource Concerns page 3- 2 load reduction needed to meet Water Quantity standards. It is estimated that ground water The draft 2006 Status of Ambient satisfies 90% of the water demand in Surface Water Quality in Arizona this area of the Little Colorado River indicates the following status of surface Watershed (ADWR, 2006). Ground waters in the Silver Creek Basin (Figure water is pumped from several large 3-1). regional aquifers of sedimentary formations of sandstone and limestone, stacked on top of one another and • Billy Creek, from headwaters to generally separated by impermeable Show Low Creek. 15020005-019. shales and siltstones. 18.5 miles. Attaining some uses. E. coli bacteria exceedance in 1 The Silver Creek Watershed has two of 8 samples. (01 Show Low predominant stream types: perennial Creek Sub-Basin) and ephemeral/intermittent. The definitions for the three different stream • Porter Creek, from headwaters to types are below: Show Low Creek. 15020005-246. 4.4 miles. Attaining all uses. (01 • Perennial surface water means Show Low Creek Sub-Basin) surface water that flows continuously throughout the • Rainbow Lake. 15020005-1170. year, with base flow maintained 110 acres. Not attaining by ground water discharged into (impaired) by nutrients and high the channel; pH. These conditions lead to occasional fish kills. (01 Show • Intermittent surface water means Low Creek Sub-Basin) a stream or reach of a stream that flows continuously only at • Show Low Creek, from certain times of the year; such as headwaters to Linden Wash. when it receives water from a 15020005-012. 41.7 miles. seasonal rainfall, a spring, or Attaining all uses. No from another source, such as exceedances. (01 Show Low melting spring snow; and, Creek Sub-Basin) • Ephemeral streams are at all • Silver Creek, from headwaters to times above the elevation of the Show Low Creek. 15020005-013. ground water table, has no base 33.6 miles. Attaining all uses. No flow, and flows only in direct exceedances. (02 Upper Silver response to precipitation. Creek Sub-Basin) Three streams in the Silver Creek (Data collected on other stream Watershed contain perennial segments: reaches or lakes was insufficient to Brown Creek with a little over three determine if impaired or attaining any miles of the nearly 25 miles length, or designated use.) 12.9% of the creek; Show Low Creek

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 3 – Resource Concerns page 3- 3 with 15 miles out of 52 miles mapped as wildlife wetland habitat management, perennial, or 29%; and, Silver Creek, and windbreak establishment. the entire length of 48 miles are perennial. Noxious and Invasive Plants

Most streams in Arizona are intermittent Noxious and invasive plants are a or ephemeral. Some of the stream resource concern whenever these channels in the Little Colorado species cause unsuitable grazing Watershed are dry for years at a time, conditions for livestock or wildlife and but are subject to flash flooding during due to their potential to out-compete high-intensity storms (Gordon et al., native species which are generally 1992). preferred for wildlife habitat value. Increases in noxious and invasive plants Air Quality can result from poor grazing management, drought, control of There are no known air quality concerns wildfires in the higher elevations, and in the watershed (Figure 3-2). other causes.

Plant Condition Conservation practices applied to address this resource concern are Plant condition is a resource concern generally those that control the whenever plants do not manufacture establishment or reduce the population sufficient food to continue the growth of noxious and invasive plant species. cycle or to reproduce. Plant condition is Practices may include brush frequently a concern where proper management, deferred grazing, fencing, grazing management is not being forest stand improvement, pest applied. management, prescribed burning, prescribed grazing, and wildlife upland Conservation practices applied to habitat management. address this resource concern are generally those that maintain or improve Bark Beetle, Drought and Wildfire the health, photosynthetic capability, rooting and reproductive capability of Over the past several years, Arizona vegetation. Practices may include brush has experienced increased piñon and management, critical area planting, ponderosa pine mortality due to deferred grazing, fencing, forest stand outbreaks of several species of bark improvement, herbaceous wind barriers, beetles. Low tree vigor caused by nutrient management, pest several years of drought and management, prescribed grazing, excessively dense stands of trees have prescribed burning, range planting, combined to allow beetle populations to recreation area improvement, riparian reach outbreak levels. These insects forest buffers, tree and shrub are native to ponderosa pine forests and establishment, wetland development or piñon-juniper woodlands of the restoration, wildlife upland habitat Southwest, and normally only attack a management, wildlife watering facility, small number of diseased or weakened

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 3 – Resource Concerns page 3- 4 trees. Healthy trees are usually not Domestic Animal Concerns susceptible to these beetles. Domestic animal concerns occur Based on an analysis of the Forest whenever the quantity and quality of Service GIS data for bark beetle food are not adequate to meet the occurrence, approximately 857 acres of nutritional requirements of animals, or lands in the Silver Creek Watershed adequate quantity and quality of water is have been affected by bark beetles, or not provided. Changes in species about 0.14 percent. The dominant composition resulting from poor grazing vegetation communities in this management and drought can reduce watershed are also the dominant the availability of suitable forage. vegetation types where bark beetles occur: Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Conservation practices applied to Woodland and Colorado Plateau address this resource concern are Pinyon-Juniper Woodland. generally those that maintain or improve the quantity, quality, and diversity of The Climate Assessment for the forage available for animals, reduce the Southwest (CLIMAS) website concentration of animals at existing (www.ispe.arizona.edu/climas) provides water sources, and insure adequate information on Arizona’s drought status. quantity and reliability of water for the Recent precipitation events have placed management of domestic animals. the area of Arizona that encompasses Practices may include brush the Silver Creek Watershed in moderate management, deferred grazing, fencing, drought status. However, the watershed pest management, prescribed burning, remains abnormally dry, and the long prescribed grazing, pipelines, ponds, term drought status remains moderate. range planting, water spreading, wells, spring development, watering facility, The Southwest Coordination Center and wildlife upland habitat management. (gacc.nifc.gov/swcc/predictive/outlooks/ outlooks.htm) places the Silver Creek Species of Concern Watershed in the Normal category for significant wildland fire activity potential There are 55 threatened and due to favorably moist conditions. endangered species listed for Arizona (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service The upper portion of the Silver Creek website). In 1990 Arizona voters Watershed is comprised primarily of the created the Heritage Fund, designating Rocky Mountain ponderosa pine up to $10 million per year from lottery woodland vegetation type. Most of this ticket sales for the conservation and area was moderately to severely burned protection of the state’s wildlife and during the massive Rodeo-Chediski natural areas. The Heritage Fund wildfire of 2002. This event killed many allowed for the creation of the Heritage of the pine trees along with most of the Data Management System (HDMS) ground vegetation, thereby leaving the which identifies elements of concern in soils within much of the upper Arizona and consolidates information watershed unprotected and subject to about their status and distribution runoff and erosion.

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 3 – Resource Concerns page 3- 5 throughout the state. (Arizona Game & threatened (LT), or species of concern Fish website, 2006) (SC), under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (Table 3-2). The Silver Creek Watershed contains 13 species that are either listed as

Table 3-2: Silver Creek Watershed Species of Concern and Endangered Species Classifications and Observations(1) USESA USFS BLM STATE Last Recorded Common Name Species Name (2) (3) (4) (5) Observation Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis SC S WSC 1998 Agosia Gila Longfin chrysogaster Dace chrysogaster SC S 2001 California Anodonta Floater californiensis SC S 1995 Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos 2005 Desert Sucker Catostomus clarki SC S 2001 Little Colorado Sucker Catostomus sp. 3 SC S WSC 1999 Designated Critical Habitat CH for Strix for Mexican occidentalis spotted owl lucida Y Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle (wintering pop.) LT,PDL S WSC 2005 Little Colorado Lepidomeda Spinedace vittata LT S WSC 1993 Arizona Myotis Myotis occultus SC S 1986-PRE Myotis Fringed Myotis thysanodes SC S 1993 Osprey Pandion haliaetus WSC 1994 Paper-spined Pediocactus Cactus papyracanthus SC SR 1994 Perognathus Springerville flavus Pocket Mouse goodpasteri SC S 1986-PRE Chiricahua Rana Leopard Frog chiricahuensis LT S WSC 1972 Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens S WSC 1972 Speckled Rhinichthys Dace osculus SC S 2001

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 3 – Resource Concerns page 3- 6 Data Sources: Arizona Land Information System (ALRIS), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). Note: Status Definitions as Listed by Arizona Game and Fish Department, November 26, 2006 http://www.gf.state.az.us/w_c/edits/hdms_status_definitions.shtml

(1) Proposed for Listing: (USEA) Federal U.S. Status ESA Endangered Species Act (1973 as amended) US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

(2) Listed:

LT Listed Threatened: imminent jeopardy of becoming Endangered.

PDL Proposed for Delisting

Candidate (Notice of Review: 1999):

SC Species of Concern. The terms "Species of Concern" or "Species at Risk" should be considered as terms-of-art that describe the entire realm of taxa whose conservation status may be of concern to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, but neither term has official status (currently all former C2 species).

(3) USFS US Forest Service (1999 Animals, 1999 Plants) US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 3 S Sensitive: those taxa occurring on National Forests in Arizona which are considered sensitive by the Regional Forester.

(4) BLM US Bureau of Land Management (2000 Animals, 2000 Plants) US Department of Interior, BLM, Arizona State Office S Sensitive: those taxa occurring on BLM Field Office Lands in Arizona which are considered sensitive by the Arizona State Office.

(5) State Status SR Salvage Restricted: collection only with permit.

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).

Resources Concern Summary two areas with significant development: the Show Low to Pinetop corridor and The Silver Creek Watershed is a mosaic the communities of Taylor and of federal, state, tribal and private lands Snowflake. where logging, livestock grazing, agriculture and recreation are the The Silver Creek Watershed is primary land uses. The upper portion of recognized as an important wildlife area the watershed is primarily managed by in the state. Fishing, hunting, and motor the U.S. Forest Service, while the lower touring are the primary recreational portion of the watershed is primarily activities. Silver Creek is considered to private lands. Livestock grazing and be one of the best sport fisheries in agriculture are the primary land use Arizona, especially for rainbow and activities on the private land, while Apache trout. The Arizona Game and livestock grazing and logging occur on Fish Silver Creek Hatchery is located the U.S. Forest Service lands, in the near Show Low. The endangered Little higher elevations. The watershed has Colorado spinedace (Lepidomeda

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 3 – Resource Concerns page 3- 7 vittata) and Chiricahua leopard frog been reports of decreased summer low (Rana chiricahuensis) have been found flows related to increased groundwater within the watershed. The aquatic pumping, and water quality concerns in species of concern are Gila longfin dace the vicinity of Pinetop and Lakeside. As (Agosia chrysogaster chrysogaster), the area continues to grow, low impact desert sucker (Catostomus clarki), development and water conservation speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), practices should be considered to and northern leopard frog (Rana alleviate the potential impacts of pipiens). Water quality and instream development on the important aquatic flow are fishery concerns on Silver resources found in the Silver Creek Creek. Watershed.

Hunting is another important activity Conservation Progress/Status within the watershed, with game species including turkeys, deer and elk. Special Conservation progress for the previous status species observed on the Silver five years in the Silver Creek Watershed Creek Watershed include the northern has focused on addressing the following goshawk (Accipiter gentiles), bald eagle primary resource concerns: (Haiaeetus leucocephalus), Arizona myotis (Myotis occultus), fringed myotis 9 Soil Erosion – Sheet and Rill (Myotis thysanodes), and osprey Erosion (Pandion haliaetus). The area has also 9 Water Quality – Excessive been designated as critical habitat for Suspended Sediment and the Mexican spotted owl (Strix Turbidity in Surface Water. occidentalis lucida). The Silver Creek area is also noted for its large 9 Plant Condition – Productivity, concentration of archaeological sites. Health and Vigor.

Forrest health and fire prevention are 9 Domestic Animals – Inadequate issues on the U.S. Forest Service lands Quantities and Quality of Feed especially near the communities of and Forage. Linden, Show Low and Pinetop. With access to winter sports and a mild The following table presents climate, the area is likely to see conservation accomplishments in this increased development in the near watershed during fiscal years (FY) 2002 future with potential water quality and through 2006, according to the NRCS quantity impacts. There have already Progress Reporting System (Table 3-3).

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 3 – Resource Concerns page 3- 8 Table 3-3: Silver Creek Watershed Conservation Treatment Applied Silver Creek Watershed (15020005) FY02-06 Conservation Treatment Applied TOTAL Brush Management (acres) 2,475 Fence (feet) 66,918 Irrigation Water Management (acres) 100 Pipeline (feet) 33,423 Prescribed Grazing (acres) 39,893 (NRCS, 2007)

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 3 – Resource Concerns page 3- 9 Section 4: Census, Social and A population density map (Figure 4-2) Agricultural Data was created from these data. The mean population density in 2000 was about 40 This section discusses the human people per square mile. Show Low component of the watershed and the Creek had the highest mean population pressure on natural resources caused density with 87 people per square mile. by humans and by population change. Lower Silver Creek had the highest maximum density of 1894 people per Population Density, 1990 square mile.

Census block statistics for 1990 were Population Density Change, 1990-2000 compiled from information prepared by Geo-Lytics (Geo-Lytics, 1998). These The 1990 and 2000 population density data were linked with census block data maps were used to create a population and used to create a density map density change map. The resulting map (Figure 4-1) through a normalization and table (Figure 4-3 and Table 4-3) process using a grid of 7 km squares. show population increase or decrease This process involves calculating over the ten year time frame. Overall, density per census block and mean population density showed a intersecting it with the grid, which is then mean increase of 16 people per square used to calculate the number of people mile during this ten-year time period. and thus density per grid square. Show Low Creek had the highest mean increase in population density at 34 Table 4-1 shows the tabulated people per square mile. minimum, maximum and mean number of people per square mile in 1990 for Housing Density, 2000 and 2030 each watershed. In 1990, the mean population density for the entire The Watershed Housing Density Map watershed was about 25 people per for the years 2000 and 2030 were square mile. Show Low Creek had the created with data developed by David highest population mean with about 48 M. Theobald (Theobald, 2005). people per square mile. Lower Silver Theobald developed a nationwide Creek had the highest maximum housing density model that incorporates population density with 899 people per a thorough way to account for land-use square mile. change beyond the “urban fringe.”

Population Density, 2000 Exurban regions are the “urban fringe”, or areas outside suburban areas, having The Census Block 2000 statistics data population densities greater than 0.68 – were downloaded from the 16.18 ha (1.68 – 40 acres) per unit. Environmental Systems Research Theobald stresses that exurban areas Institute (ESRI) website (ESRI Data are increasing at a much faster rate than Products, 2003) and are shown in Table urban sprawl, are consuming much 4-2. more land, and are having a greater impact on ecological health, habitat

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 4 – Census, Social and Ag page 4- 1 fragmentation and other resource zone, a higher percent of impervious concerns. surfaces, and higher pollution because of more vehicle miles traveled to work Theobald estimates that the exurban and shopping. density class has increased at a much faster rate than the urban/suburban Figure 4-4 and Table 4-4, Silver Creek density classes. Theobald’s model Watershed Housing Density for 2000, forecasts that this trend will continue identifies that about 407 sq. miles of and may even accelerate by 2030. This housing is located in “undeveloped indicates that development patterns are private” areas, while about 204 sq. miles shifting more towards exurban, lower is located in “exurban” areas. Figure 4- density, housing units, and are thereby 5 and Table 4-5, Housing Density for consuming more land. He suggests that 2030, projects “undeveloped private” exurban development has more overall areas decreasing to about 345 sq. miles effect on natural resources because of and “exurban” areas increasing to 214 the larger footprint and disturbance sq. miles.

Table 4-1: Silver Creek Watershed 1990 Population Density (people/square mile)

Area Population Density (people/sq.mile) 10-digit Watershed Name (sq. mile) Min Max Mean Show Low Creek - 1502000501 227 0 609 48 Upper Silver Creek - 1502000502 185 0 99 6 Cottonwood Creek - 1502000503 285 0 779 15 Lower Silver Creek - 1502000504 251 0 899 26 Total Silver Creek Watershed 948 0 899 25 Note: Adjacent watersheds may share a grid square. Census block statistics for 1990 were compiled from a CD prepared by Geo-Lytics (GeoLytics, Inc.1998. Census 1990. Census CD + Maps. Release 3.0.)

Table 4-2: Silver Creek Watershed 2000 Population Density (people/square mile)

Area Population Density (people/sq.mile) 10-digit Watershed Name (sq. mile) Min Max Mean Show Low Creek - 1502000501 227 0 1467 87 Upper Silver Creek - 1502000502 185 0 142 13 Cottonwood Creek - 1502000503 285 0 757 21 Lower Silver Creek - 1502000504 251 0 1894 37 Total Silver Creek Watershed 948 0 1894 40 Note: Adjacent watersheds may share a grid square. Census block statistics for 1990 were compiled from a CD prepared by Geo-Lytics (GeoLytics, Inc.1998. Census 1990. Census CD + Maps. Release 3.0.)

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 4 – Census, Social and Ag page 4- 2 Table 4-3: Silver Creek Watershed Population Density Change 1990-2000 (people/square mile)

Area Population Density (people/sq. mile) Watershed Name (sq. mile) Min Max Mean Show Low Creek - 1502000501 227.4 -106 508 34 Upper Silver Creek - 1502000502 185.1 -38 101 7 Cottonwood Creek - 1502000503 284.4 -40 241 6 Lower Silver Creek - 1502000504 251.1 -813 1894 11 Total Silver Creek Watershed 948 -813 1894 16 Note: Adjacent watersheds may share a grid square. Data Sources: Derived from data from the GIS data used for tables 4-1 and 4-2.

Table 4-4: Silver Creek Watershed Housing Density 2000 (Percent of Watershed) Silver Show Low Upper Silver Cottonwood Lower Silver Silver Creek Housing Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Watershed Density 1502000501 1502000502 1502000503 1502000504 Watershed (sq. miles) Undeveloped Private 28% 18% 57% 54% 43% 407 Rural 14% 54% 19% 39% 33% 308 Exurban 44% 28% 24% 7% 22% 204 Suburban 9% 1% <1% <1% 2% 21 Urban 4% <1% <1% <1% 1% 8 Source: Theobald, D. 2005. Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020. Ecology and Society 10(1): 32. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art32/

Table 4-5: Silver Creek Watershed Housing Density 2030 (Percent of Watershed) Silver Show Low Upper Silver Cottonwood Lower Silver Silver Creek Housing Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Watershed Density 1502000501 1502000502 1502000503 1502000504 Watershed (sq. miles) Undeveloped Private 50% 11% 48% 50% 36% 345 Rural 40% 54% 23% 40% 35% 330 Exurban 9% 31% 28% 9% 23% 214 Suburban 1% 4% 1% 1% 5% 48 Urban <1% <1% <1% <1% 1% 12 Source: Theobald, D. 2005. Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020. Ecology and Society 10(1): 32. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art32/

Silver Creek Watershed Agricultural also provides the food and fiber to Statistics sustain life in the desert. Arizona is also one of the most diverse agricultural Arizona is known as one of the most producing states in the nation, productive and efficient agricultural producing more than 160 varieties of regions in the world, with beauty that vegetables, livestock, field crops and

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 4 – Census, Social and Ag page 4- 3 nursery stock. The climate, natural are easier to map. The Bureau created resources, agribusiness infrastructure special `XX ZCTAs (ZCTAs with a valid and farm heritage help make agriculture 3-digit ZIP but with “XX” as last two a $9.2 billion dollar industry employing characters of the code) which represent more than 72,000 individuals. large unpopulated areas where it made no sense to assign a census block to an According to the United States actual ZIP code. Similarly, HH ZCTAs Department of Agriculture’s, 2002 represent large bodies of water within a Census, there are more than 7,000 3-digit zip area. There is typically no farms and ranches, seventy-eight population in either an XX or HH ZCTA. percent of which are owned by individuals or families. The total Data is withheld by NASS for categories farmland in Arizona is comprised of with one to four farms. This is to protect more than 26,000,000 acres with the identity of individual farmers. Farm irrigated crops on 1,280,000 acres and counts for these zip codes are included pasture for animals on 23,680,000. in the "State Total" category. Some categories only contained stars instead Agriculture in general on the Silver of numbers. Each star was counted as Creek Watershed is comprised of one farm. But because each star could livestock grazing and a few apiary represent as many as 4 farms, each (honey bee) locations. Of the 96 farms number on the tables are actually that have pasture and rangeland, 30% greater than or equal to the number have 100 or more acres. Seventy- listed. In some cases this results in seven percent of all farms in the percentages that add up to more or less watershed are less than 1,000 acres in that 100 percent. size. Of the 56 farms that harvest crops, 88% are 49 acres or less in size. Tables Include data from zip codes both contained within the watershed and zip The NASS (National Agricultural codes crossing watershed boundaries. Statistics Service, United States Silver Creek Watershed has four Department of Agriculture) has farm contained zip codes and 12 crossed zip data by zip code. We used the U.S. codes. Census Bureau ZIP Census Tabulation Areas (ZCTA) to generate maps. A Three zip codes in the Silver Creek typical 5-digit ZCTA (there are 3-digit Watershed contained no information ZCTAs as well) is typically nearly about agricultural practices in the NASS identical to a 5-digit U.S. Postal Service database. NASS assumes that no ZIP code, but there are some information for those areas means that distinctions. Unlike ZIP codes, ZCTA there was no agricultural activity taking areas are spatially complete and they place within that zip code area.

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 4 – Census, Social and Ag page 4- 4 Figure 4-6: Silver Creek Watershed Farms by Size (2002)

50%

s 40% m r 30% t fa n

e 20% c r e

P 10%

0% 1 to 49 acres 50 to 999 acres >1000 acres

Figure 4-6: Silver Creek Watershed Farms by Size (2002) All farms 1 to 49 acres 50 to 999 acres >1000 acres 53 32% 45% 21% Percents rounded. Data source: NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture)

Figure 4-7: Silver Creek Watershed Permanent Pasture and Rangeland (2002)

120 s

m 100 r a

f 80

of 60 r A

be 40 20 num 0 Total Farms Farms with 100 acres or more

Permanent Pasture and Rangeland All other land

Table 4-7: Silver Creek Watershed Pasture and Rangeland (2002) Category Total farms Farms 100 acres or more Permanent pasture and 96 30% rangeland All other land 107 6% Percents rounded. Data source: NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture)

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 4 – Census, Social and Ag page 4- 5

Figure 4-8 : Silver Creek Watershed Cropland Harvested (2002)

50 to 999 >1000 acres, acres, 13% 0%

1 to 49 acres, 88%

Table 4-8: Silver Creek Watershed Cropland Harvested (2002) Total farms 1 to 49 acres 50 to 999 acres >1000 acres 56 88% 137% 0% Percents rounded. Data source: NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture)

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 4 – Census, Social and Ag page 4- 6 Section 5: Resource Assessment Management System (RMS) is defined Tables as a complete system of conservation practices that addresses all of the Soil, The following Resource Assessment Water, Air, Plant, and Animal (SWAPA) Tables summarize current and desired resource concerns typically seen for this future natural resource conditions for the land use in this watershed. Silver Creek Watershed. The tables present information on benchmark and For each land use, the results of the future conservation systems and assessment are presented in two parts. practices, qualitative effects on primary Part 1 (Assessment Information) resource concerns, and estimated costs summarizes the conservation practices for conservation implementation. at each treatment level and the Conservation District board members, quantities of practices for current NRCS conservationists, and other benchmark conditions and projected people familiar with conservation work in future conditions. Part 1 also displays the watershed were consulted for the four primary resource concerns, estimating current and future natural along with individual practice effects and resource conditions. an overall Systems Rating (ranging from a low of 1 to a high of 5) indicating the The tables show three levels of effectiveness of the conservation conservation treatment (Baseline, system used at each treatment level. Progressive, Resource Management Part 2 (Conservation Cost Table) System) for each of the major land uses summarizes the installation, (crop, range, forest, urban) within the management, and related costs by watershed. Baseline is defined as a conservation practice and treatment low level of conservation adoption with level for the projected future conditions landowners who are typically not by federal and private share of the participating in conservation programs. costs. Part 2 also displays the There are, however, a few practices that benchmark and future conservation have been commonly adopted by all conditions status bars. landowners in this watershed. Progressive is defined as an Credit goes to NRCS in Oregon for intermediate level of conservation development of the template for these adoption with landowners who are Resource Assessment Tables. actively participating in conservation programs and have adopted several NOTE: the numbers in the first column practices but not satisfied all of the of each table represent NRCS Quality Criteria in the NRCS Field Office conservation practice codes. Technical Guide. Resource

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 5 – Resource Assessment page 5- 1

– r e y e t t it a eters e

l ) 0 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 u m 0 m o 10 a ic 1 i t tter less r cr r Qual an i a i h

A Pa m t m in d (PM 000 532 , , 25% 1 6

ity

l ter n ve a a an i u s

w cs i 2 4 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 1 1 3 3 3 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 -1 -1 -1 RNS i nt Q r nd E e i e r t xcess NC Wa – E Nut Organ Grou

S S N d n E IO o R

URCE CO T e C CRE – Lan A O s A y d S A ent 5 5 5 1 3 3 1 3 4 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 1 1 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 IP U E E tit r r ZE IC n R e e t t ffici a T gate i SI e

r R n r Wa Qu I Wa I A IT NDUS A P L

D E L UN T ion t i A

CA d c L n i

PI n o U 1 4 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 3 n i

o Y t a r T e e g LC C t r l t i pl o CA S – O Ma De

> > > - - -

s 4 0 8 8 8 0 8 4 8 0 8 0 6 7 8 4 9

81 t a ng ng ng i t 8 4 7 ti ti ti 67 47 38 38 47 38 38 67 38 47 38 47 77 83 38 67 34 14 735 919 735 694 139 139 735 694 a a a To Un 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 7, 13, R R R

ns o stem stem stem 5 i t y y y it n

S S S

d e s t n w i m 0 35 35 0 3 6 35 90 0 0 35 35 0 22 67 45 35 90 84 90 67 0 80 0 67 t 02000 73 73 7 7 7 4 7 7 1 3 2 7 4 1 4 3 9 3 Ne Un 5,634 2,939 Co ea

- 15 re Tr

u K t OP E Fu E d

CR e R g

n s

C i t t i 5 5 R 35 53 35 98 4 4 8 19 53 35 53 67 49 35 98 51 98 27 6 6 is 7 6 7 8 9 6 7 6 3 4 7 8 5 8 3 E Un 3,674 3,674 1,266 1,102 1,837 1,796 8,247 3,674 4,409 chang V Ex n L I U S

k ns

l o s i t a m t it 5 5 7 h 899 225 899 450 306 532 899 899 65 65 , , , , , , , , 980 653 980 653 653 490 653 653 490 327 980 653 490 653 980 327 To Uni 4 1 4 2 1 6 4 4 nd nc o C Be

l e E E P D vel in Le Leve

sel TY S E 28 28 28 ve & CO i M

E ) 4 ) 4 ) 4 R l . . . t t t e M

f f f e at Ba v at ress A NDUS

e 3 3 3 e A N ag

og 4 4 4 ng ( ng ( ng ( L 345 i i i e r ) D r ag . P c e c ) 4 ) 4 ) 4 ent L r . . . A HE at c

t e 430 430 430 ill (a A nal Lin nal Lin nal Lin RS a

tal (ac (ac (ac l

T a a a 1 e ) ) ) o ag

. . . 344 344 r ta ce ce ce t t t h T TE e T o a a a 44 r

) )

A f f f lc . . T r r r c y u 28 28 ) u u u . 2 W 449 449 and C and C and C A M ) ) 4 l

line (f line (f line (f . . 587 587 587 (ac (ac s b , bs bs bs h h h 4 4 4

(ac ) ) ) c c c u u u ta

t t t pe pe pe c.) 3 c.) 3 i i i ) 4 i i i (ac (ac 46 46 46 n o . 90 ent

N S S S

P P P c T no. no. no. io

D D D ) ) ) (a (a 5 O m t t stem onal onal . . . ( ( ( I

(a y ) s s c c c 95

T and and and n n ge en en a a a a a S igat c. o o 5

A e e i i e e e ler rol rol rol a t t ( ( ( ) t t t ance, ance, ance, ance, ance, ance, c c c k S S M a a em em

n n n on oirr ana a a a ( t t g c. , , r t t o o o ey ey ey ey ey ey ti n a rin rf rf rf c i i ling ling l M p u u u Ro Ro en en ( nv nv nv nv nv nv e e e ent FOR M S anag anag

S S S , , , , , N m ter C ter C ter C op op Co Co Co M M r r I a a a ent m m m m m illage r Co r Co r Co r r r r r e e e e e nserva e e e e e e e e C C agem agem m d Lev d Lev d Lev W W W t t t t t t t t T

o st st st st st n n r r r nage a a a a a a a a ENT y y y y y on on C a a ve o o o a i i i f f f t t S S S W W W W W W W W

M M M S S

Lan Lan Lan a a and nage

e M S v v a n on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on on nt ure ure ure i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i t t t er er ress t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t

M due due due ie i i i a a a a a a a a a a t a a a a a a r S t s s s s g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g og ruc ruc ruc i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i aseli u e ons e ons e SSES t t e t r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r A B I I I I S P C I I I I I R S RM C I I I I I I I N P R R S

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 5 – Resource Assessment page 5- 2

7 4 1 4 1 8 2 2 9 2 0 7 2 2 2 2 0 9 6 7

$0 $0 4 15 87 9 t 14 39 54 72 5 80 26 31 73 31 33 98 33 31 31 07 4 85 99 48 s ent $5 $9 o es $2, $3, $7, $5, $7, $4, $2, r C $11, $13, $11, $78, $72, $26, $11, $11, e $115, $157, $306, $535, $693, P l u l a Va

Tot 2 0

53 00 25% 6, 1,

$0 $0 M

$73 $18 $34 349 511 349 205 899 511 498 899 349 349 123 470 470 901 196 974 697 926 900 , , , , , , , , , , , , E & $ $ $

2 0 7 5 7 2 4 5 2 4 7 7 3 1

2, 4, 2, 5, T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ .3 .4 A O $2 $1 $5 $7 Costs vate i IV r 25% 100% P $214 $729 nual PR

n + Mgt

c A P

o pe S S N CRO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 37 99 41 45 56 58 14 62 35 92 50 05 97

s 8 8 8 7 1 4 5 8 9 8 6 n

IO l $4 $8 o st T

a ti t CRE CRE 20 74 o e $1, $4, % A la

$91, $11, $55, $62, $22, l

A C IPA der $105, $244, $390, $496, a E E 50 Cos t Rat V 248. 767. t Refers T Z IC s Fe I $ $ r P In e ion S RT t T

a A Cha NDUS ag p r i A P e c i L

v t r e

ED $0 $0 A L UNI a p 205 216 879 810 014 052 109 052 034 137 955 042 034 052 052 222 228 389 940 171 561 T A ent , , , , , y $529 A 2 7 5 4 1 4, 4, 4, 6, 6, 4, 7, 6, 4, 4, 0, 0, 2, 3, 4, 6, C I es L $ $ $ $ $ r ed P e T

P $2 $1 $2 $1 $6 $7 $2 $1 $2 $2 $1 U

$11 $18 $29 $56 $74 Y at us l P ue Cost

l T ul og a LC a t r c stem o V P RMS y T CA Land Cal S

l $0 $0 a ce $88 409 352 409 323 939 507 939 409 409 874 371 319 990 023 492 614 933 c n $367 $980 $882 $169 %

$4, $2, $4, $1, $2, $4, $2, $4, $4, $1, hni sta c L $18, $31, $48, $11, $12, $95, 126, 20 si $ A Te R As

FE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ent

614 369 409 046 046 705 697 697 046 046 263 968 0005 3 yrs

$6, $9, $4, 0% - $22, $22, $50, $14, $14, $22, $22, $87, 137, t $ 10 s nagem

a - 1502 P Co M K E CRO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 on i

837 899 441 845 856 758 114 462 535 892 950 805 697 CRE t , , , , , , , , , , , $ $ R lat $1 $4 E al $91 $11 $55 $62 $22 50% Cos t V $105 $244 $390 $496 s L I In S

e 4 0 9 s t

URE 3 6 0 63 47 93 73 73 T 367 980 735 367 245 367 490 735 490 735 184 490 735 122 New Uni 5, 1, 2, U F Treatm

735 735 l E a t PE D o otal otal Y t t b b u u nd T 28 28 S S & CO SE T a 4 4 E U

) ) Gr l . . D M t t e f f A N (

(

A g L 345 D N Lev ) t ning nin . 443 443 n c ) ) HE e l Li (a a

m l l RS i nal Li

430 430 (ac. (ac. E e e ) ) eat . . T c c r t t h T 344 344 A a a c T ) ) 441

. . ) y W urf urf . 87 87 ne (f ne (f Mul ) 449 ) 449 (ac (ac li li , h and Can h and Ca bs bs 4 4 ) 328 ) 328 442 s b

. .

) 5 ) 5 c c u u 6 6 (ac . . t t pe pe c ) i i 4 4

. ent

(ac. (ac. a S S P P

c ion

Di Di ) ) (ac ( 590 m t t onal onal . . 5 stem

(no (no ) s s e, e, e, c c e, y

. l l BLE r (a ge gat a a en en i c on on 59 o o e r e e A S e and e and l r r ti ti r (a (a ) t t c c k n . a a T S S ana oi a a (a n g g c , ,

r gem gem t t T ri a rf rf tio c n n i lin lin M S p Con Con u u a

e e ( e e ent r r

ana ana t v v S S M S e e , , , , m t t n e e age em em l e l a a e m m m m serv i r Conveyanc r Conveyanc r M r M r Conveyanc r Conveyanc e e e e e e e e e e n m t t t t W W t t t t t t ON CO

s s s s I r r a a a a a a y y y y on Crop Rot on Crop Rot T o o i i nd T f f Co t t age S S S S W W W W W W A Manag a a n ve

n i n Land L n Land L n n n n n n n n n V t a ure ure io io io io io io io io io io io io R erv erv due Manag due Manag due a M ien E i i i ess r r

st gat gat gat gat gat gat gat gat gat gat gat gat ruct ruct i i i i i i i i i i i i t t e g r r r r r r r r r r r r S NS r r r r r r r r r r r r o Cons I I I I I Res S Cons I I I I I I I Nut P Res Res S r CO P RM

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 5 – Resource Assessment page 5- 3

d n

c at es a d i of

s – u 1 1 0 0 4 5 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 4 0 5 5 5 ti l y st ti t a an e ge a deq an m r

nim eed Do A Ina Qu Quali F Fo 00 164 0 , 25% 29, 50

4 ,

d vit

NS t on – 1 1 0 0 4 5 0 4 5 1 1 1 1 0 4 4 1 5 5 5 i an R

E t th n oduc a gor r i Pl Condit P Heal V

CONC

S S N CE E

E ter

nd ity IO e l R R a n d T v a a i C C t A u

y si A t A SOUR 1 1 3 3 4 3 3 0 4 1 4 4 4 3 1 1 4 3 3 2 i nde IP Q E d e r men ace W ZE IC R p e bi xces t s rf di USE SI u u e RT E Wa – S S Tur S A IT ND N A P L

D l – l E L U

i T n A R A C io d L s n PI U 0 0 1 4 4 3 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 5 5 4 o Y r a C t T L E il o CA S Shee

> > >

l s 0

40 81 40 62 97 97 81 97 97 62 97 a 4 t 1 2 1 5 1 1 2 1 1 5 1 , ting - ting - ting - , , , , , , 120 , , 656 120 , , , 120 39 91 18 48 a a a 4 8 4 6 1 1 8 1 1 6 1 To Unit 9, 9, 9, 9, 2 4 2 9 9 9 4 9 9 9 9 241 R R R

m m m e e e t t t ons s s s 5 i t t y y y i

S S S

d e

n 28 28 19 28 2000 m 0 5 0 312 015 281 281 312 015 281 281 187 0 o 0 0 0 t 8 8 2 8 nits 1 3 1 a New U 4, 4, 3, 4, C e 19, 37, 48, 48, 19, 37, 48, 48, 32,

E Tr - 150 G ture K E N Fu d

RA g

0 9 2 0 9 1 6 2 6 1 0 CRE 2 05 8 1 2

nge 4 tin 14 96 18 14 96 28 91 18 91 28 01 R 9 29 82 90 29 s 29 56 48 , 1, , , , i E Units 4 4 5 4 x cha 24, 28, 54, 24, 28, 48, 42, 54, 42, 48, 59, V 24 E L I Un S

k r

l ons s i

t a t 87 i t i 187 187 916 187 187 375 916 916 916 375 916 9 292 437 292 292 , , , , , , , , , , , 26 43 64 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 4 2 To 4, Un 6, 4, 4, nchma 3 3 4 3 3 6 4 4 4 6 4 321, e Cond B

l l e E E n P ve i eve Y Le

L sel T S ve & COD i s E USE l s RM e t M e at Ba v a A ND e A ag Le g L t re Progre n c

e rea A at c

m 645 t A

RSHED N a tal l ) e a E age c. r t To T a o re T A ( T c y

W b 8 l A s 4 ent

ta 6 m m

o e N ) T 8 8 O 14 st 38 38 I age y 3 no. 52 52 T n

S ( 3 3 ) a

A ) ) ) ) .

. . . . c M y c c M 550 c c

t 614 614 614 a i t ion l

( i ) ) ) (a (a ) t a

(a (a . t c a

c a bi no. no. no. a g g F ( ( ( 6 6 6 ng ng

( ent erv i i Ha INFOR y y y

2 2 2

t t t m 51 51 51 i i i ng rn rn g l l l i azin azin e i i i

r f u u n 38 38 38 ) ) ) NT i ons c c c ge li . . . e e

Gr Gr t t t t a a a E d ) ) ) C

B B f f f l . . . a ( ( ( i iv

ant M F F F l

s ana (ft (ft (ft W W S s

bed bed bed bed

ne ng ng ng i i i i S i i i e i r r r r ne ne ne f l e P r r r e e e

i i i h M li e e e c c c t t t and d SE l n n n ogre esc esc esc esc us i a a a pel pel pel S r r r r i i r i r e e e A Base F P W P F P P P W RMS B F P P P Rang Upl W W

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 5 – Resource Assessment page 5- 4

1 8 5 0 6 1 8 7 0 8 7 7 1 6 9 5 2

8 t 09 04 23 85 26 21 87 24 14 61 17 6 87 24 00 04 44 s ent o es $6, $5, r C $33, $90, $36, $64, $87, $24, $96, $22, 241, e $130, $297, $314, $173, $157, $944, P l u l $1, a Va Tot

164 000 9, 25%

50, $0 $0 42 M

794 $97 159 090 414 952 221 922 609 897 062 290 765 367 320 , , , , , , , , , ,

E & $

5 1 3 2 6 2 5 1 2 1

2, 2, 9, T $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 56 A 16 O $6 $8 $8 Costs vate i IV r 25% $6. 100% $19. P nual PR

n + Mgt c E A

r NG

o pe S S N 86 $0 RA 28 28 69 50 11 23 68 40 03 12 02 59 62 43 53

s 6 8 8 9 2 2 5 4 1 7 2 7 9 0 8 2 n

IO l o st T

a ti t CRE CRE o e $4, $4, 27 66 % A la

$28, $77, $36, $55, $80, $24, $17, 033, l

A C IPA der $120, $267, $289, $148, $144, $765, a E E 23. 50 Cos t Rat V $6. t Refers T $1, Z $ IC s Fe I r P In e ion S RT t T

a A Cha NDUS ag p r i A P e c i L

v t r e

ED A L UNI a p 623 794 794 762 699 453 628 562 969 244 735 286 843 551 674 811 431 T A ent , , y A 5 5 7, 4, 2, 3, 6, 6, 8, 1, 3, 5, 4, 1, 7, 3, 5, C I es L $ $ r ed P e T

P $3 $9 $4 $6 $9 $2 $2 12 44 U

$14 $32 $34 $17 $17 $20 Y at us l P ue Cost

l T ul $1, $1, og a LC a t r c stem o V P RMS y T CA Land Cal S

l a ce 937 794 242 828 541 450 140 592 105 612 094 969 659 710 302 c n $966 $966 %

$5, $7, $4, $3, hni sta c L $15, $24, $53, $57, $11, $29, $16, $28, $37, 190, 244, 20 si $ $ A Te R As

FE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ent

296 296 296 0005 3 yrs

0% - 188, 188, 188, t $ $ $ 10 s

nagem a E - 1502 Co M G K E N RA $0 on i

686 828 828 969 250 211 523 468 140 703 212 702 959 062 843 253 CRE t , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , R lat $4 $4 E al $28 $77 $36 $55 $80 $24 $17 033 50% Cos t V $120 $267 $289 $148 $144 $765 s L I $1, In S

2 5 2 1 7 1 1 2 5 1 e 8 8 9 8 s

t 0

URE 31 01 56 28 28 31 01 28 18 28 82 82 21 82 1 10 35 T New Uni 4, 4, 3, 4, U 19, 37, 96, 19, 37, 48, 32, 48, F Treatm

48, 48, l E a t PE D o otal otal Y t t b b u u nd T S S & CO SE T a E U

Gr l D M e A N A L D N Lev t n 5 HE e m RS 64 ) E eat T r A T

(ac. y W

8 4 ent s b m 6

) . o stem 38 38 age n y 3 3 n BLE 314

) a ( ) 528 ) 528 ) ) A S .

. . . . c n c c ty M T 614 614 i a t l 550 T ) ) ) ( tio (ac (ac . ta ci S (a (a a

g g g Fa

ng (ac (no. (no. ent y y

Habi t t serv m ng rnin rni 82 82 i e e ili ili n 516 516 f r ng u u 3 3 i ) ) ON CO i c c . . I t

t t te a a ) ) B Grazin Grazin B T ldl . . a i Co t t d d d d an F F A f f l (f (f ve W g g W i V

( ( Manag ibe ibe ibe ibe

r r r r R ne ne fe e P rin rin e e h li E e e ess t t and r

ld esc us esc esc esc a a i peli peli r r r r r i i g enc enc S NS o F P P P W B F P P P Rang Upl W W r CO P RM

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 5 – Resource Assessment page 5- 5

d n

c at es a d i of

s – u 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 5 5 1 ti -3 l y st ti t a an e ge a deq an m r

nim eed Do A Ina Qu Quali F Fo 00 383 0 , 10% 51, 50

1 ,

d vit

NS t on – 1 1 0 1 0 0 4 5 5 0 0 1 1 1 4 4 4 5 5 4 i an R

E t th n oduc a gor r i Pl Condit P Heal V

CONC

S S N CE E

E ter

nd ity IO e l R R a n d T v a a i C C t A u

y si A t A SOUR 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 4 3 0 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 3 3 0 i nde IP Q E d e r men ace W ZE IC R p e bi xces t s rf di USE SI u u e RT E Wa – S S Tur S A IT ND N A P L

D l – l E L U

i T n A R A C io d L s n PI U 0 0 0 3 1 4 5 4 3 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 5 5 5 0 o Y r a C t T L E il o CA S Shee

> > >

l s 4

24 24 a 2 t 6 6 , 57 3 8 2 57 57 57 ting - ting - ting - 785 , 569 785 569 569 , 569 569 569 569 27 7 7 7 7 a a a 3 3 To 3, 7, 3, Unit 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 1 1 136 R R R

m m m e e e t t t ons s s s 5 i t t y y y i n

S S S

d e

n 28 12 28 69 69 12 69 69 69 2000 m 0 o 0 0 2 6 2 0 t 0 8 0 5 5 8 5 5 5 nits 757 757 757 757 a New 3, 6, 3, U 7, 7, 6, 7, 7, 7, C e

Tr - 150 ST ture K E Fu d

FORE 4 4

CRE 45

nge 2 tin 62 62 R 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s 27 6, i 757 757 757 757 E Units x cha 13, 13, V 13 E L I Un S

k r

l ons s i

t a t 38 i t i 138 138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 30 5 5 To Un nchma 1 1 151, e Cond B

l l e E E n P ve i eve Y Le

L sel T S ve & COD i s E USE l s RM e t M e at Ba v a A ND e A ag Le g L t re Progre n c

e rea A at c

m 645 t A

RSHED N a tal l ) e a E age c. r t To T a o re T A ( T

c y

W b 8 l A s 612 4 ent

ta 6 m ) m .

o e N ) c T 8 8 a O 14 st 38 38 I ( age y 3

no. 52 52 T n

S ( 3 3 t ) a

A ) ) ) ) .

. . . . c y M c c M c c en t

614 614 614 a i t ion l ( i ) ) ) (a (a t m a

(a (a t c a h

a bi no. no. no. g g lis F ( ( ( 6 6 6 ng ng

ent b erv i i Ha INFOR y y y 2 2 2 a

t t t m 51 51 51 t i i i ng rn rn l l l i azin azin e i i i

r f u u 38 38 38 ) ) ) NT ons c c c ge li . . . e e

Gr Gr t t t t a a a E d ) ) ) C

B B f f f l . . . a ( ( ( i iv

M F F F ub Es

s ana (ft (ft (ft r W W S s

bed bed bed bed

h ne ng ng ng i i i i S i i i e i r r r r ne ne ne f l r r r S e e e

i i i h M li e e e c c c t t t and d SE l n n n ogre esc esc esc esc us i a a a ee/ pel pel pel S r r r r i i r i r e e e r A Base F P W P F P P P W RMS B F P P P T Upl W W

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 5 – Resource Assessment page 5- 6

1 7 7 7 8 3 1 7 0 0 0 7 7 4 4

48 21 t 24 30 67 67 89 79 15 51 60 94 84 51 14 87 47 s ent $9 $8 o es $5, $5, $5, $3, $3, r C $14, $20, $46, $49, $11, $31, $20, $15, e $142, $189, P l u l a Va Tot

383 000 1, 10%

50, $0 $0 15 M

$45 $72 $15 908 090 090 840 182 484 378 409 378 182 894 984 , , ,

E & $ $ $ $ $ $ $

1 1 9

2, 3, T $ $ $ 88 A 16 O $1 $1 Costs vate i IV r 10% $6. 100% $18. P nual PR

n + Mgt c A ST

o pe S S N 15 $0 41 77 77 95 28 57 57 11 23 09 18 49 23 62 71

FO s 4 5 6 6 5 0 1 9 0 2 2 9 8 8 n

IO l $7 $7 o st T

a ti t CRE CRE o e $4, $5, $5, $3, $3, 46 66 % A la

$12, $18, $42, $45, $10, $27, $18, l

A C IPA der $114, $156, a E E 22. 50 Cos t Rat V $6. t Refers T Z $ IC s Fe I r P In e ion S RT t T

a A Cha NDUS ag p r i A P e c i L

v t r e

ED A L UNI a p 498 450 812 812 314 633 533 707 411 262 699 707 206 040 451 T A ent , , , , , y $908 $908 A 4, 5 6 6 4 3 4, 2, 0, 2, 2, 2, 2, 0, 0, C I es L $ $ $ $ $ r ed P e T

P $1 $2 $5 $5 $1 $3 $2 $3 U

$17 $22 Y at us l P ue Cost

l T ul og a LC a t r c stem o V P RMS y T CA Land Cal S

l a ce 083 422 785 135 402 044 450 785 135 904 876 278 c n $908 $151 $719 $606 $151 %

$2, $3, $1, $8, $9, $2, $5, $3, $1, $5, hni sta c L $28, $37, 20 si A Te R As

FE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ent

520 520 520 0005 3 yrs

0% - $29, $29, $29, t 10

s nagem a - 1502 Co M K EST E FOR $0 on i

415 541 677 677 595 028 757 757 111 923 009 218 249 923 862 871 CRE t , , , , , , , , , , , , , , $ $ R lat $4 $5 $5 $3 $3 E al $12 $18 $42 $45 $10 $27 $18 50% Cos t V $114 $156 s L I In S

8 e 8 2 9 9 8 2 9 9 9 s t

URE 13 2 2 6 02 81 56 56 02 81 56 56 56 T 757 757 757 757 New Uni 3, 6, 3, 6, 7, 7, 7, U 15, F Treatm

7, 7, l E a t PE D o otal otal Y t t b b u u nd T S S & CO SE T a E U

Gr l D M e A N A L D N Lev t n 5 HE e m RS 64 ) E eat T r A T

(ac. y W

8 612 4 ent s b

) m . 6

) . o stem 38 38 age (ac n y 3 3 n BLE 314

t ) a ( ) 528 ) 528 ) ) A S .

. . n . . c n c c e ty M T 614 614 i a t l T ) ) m ( tio (ac (ac ta ci S h (a (a a s

i g g g g l Fa

(no. (no. ent b y y a Habi t t serv m t ng rnin rnin 82 82 i e e ili ili n 516 516 f r u u 3 3 i ) ) ON CO c c . . I

t t te a a ) ) B B Grazin Grazin T ldl . . a i Co t t d d d d F F A f f (f (f ve W g g W i V

( ( hrub Es Manag ibe ibe ibe ibe

r r r r R ne ne fe rin rin S e e h / li E e e ess t t and e r

ld esc us esc esc esc a a i e peli peli r r r r r i i g enc enc r S NS o F P P P W B F P P P T Upl W W r CO P RM

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 5 – Resource Assessment page 5- 7

r – r y e te t i

ess ete

0 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 1 3 0 3 0 l al m r met 10 e icula 10) t t t r cro r Qu an i a i A Pa m th m in dia (PM 01 8 , 10 22%

18 r

e ity l ve a u s and s in

NS si wat 0 3 4 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 R nt Q r E e i e r xces t E Wa – Nut Organic Ground

CONC S S N CE E E nd IO on R R

T t e C C – La A s

A y d A SOUR en 0 3 4 0 1 5 4 4 1 0 0 5 0 t IP i i e

E c r U r i ZE IC R e e t t ant USE a eff u SI RT rrigat n Wa Q I W I A IT ND N A P L

D n E L U o T i A A C c L i PI ndit U 0 2 3 0 0 4 0 0 3 2 4 0 0 n

Y tion r a C T e L Co t l t ple e CA Soi – Org Ma D

> > >

l s 37 a t 5 10 10 0 ting - ting - ting - 162 102 , 102 102 102 102 102 162 081 3 3 a a a 3 To Unit 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1 R R R

m m m e e e t t t ons s s s 5 i t t y y y i n

S S S

d e

n 92 62 62 27 92 62 62 92 2000 m o 0 0 t 6 1 1 9 6 1 1 6 nits 216 216 846 a New U 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, C e Tr N - 150 A ture K B E Fu d

UR g

CRE 5 0

nge tin 53 R 0 17 41 s 94 94 , , i 940 470 940 940 470 235 940 E Units 1 1 x cha 13, V E L I Un S

k r

l ons s i

t a t i t i 921 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 70 40 0 , 94 94 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 4 9 6 To Un nchma 1 e Cond B

l l e E E n P ve i eve Y Le

L sel T S ve & COD i s E USE l s RM e

t M e at Ba v a A ND l e A e ag 370

Le g v L t 443 443 ) re le Progre n

c. ) ) e rea s i A a at c

c. c.

m h t a a t t ( A

RSHED N a tal n ( ( l e e e e a E at age r t c c To T d o a 441 a re T e 49 49 f A

f em i T r r c y ) u u . W 4 4 b c ) ) l A nag s bs bs a appl

c. c. a

u u ta ( 442 a a 0 m g ) n o S S . e ( ( N n

o i

c T i y M

t 59 O e t t st

I (a lit a y n n ) 95 . b T and and r g e e 5 S i c s

A r e e le a e r m m ) c c Qua k . c M

i oi a a ( n c t ion f i f r

e t r r r c age age c a u p u a (a n n r

ent ur

S a a t P o , Mic , S , , S m erv n INFOR M M e e m m m m r r on e e e e i e e m t t t t t t t NT ons s s s s a e nag a a c Res E y y y y C ge v a ri iv S S S W W

er s M S s n n n n n n s ana ne phe o o o o o o S i i i i i i i l s t t t t t t

ent M i o a a a a a a r SE st g g g g g g ogre i i i i m i i S e t r r r r r r r r r r r r r A Base No Con P I I RMS A I I I I Nut P

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 5 – Resource Assessment page 5- 8

0 7 7 7 3 3 6 6 3 0

$0 $0 t 97 04 04 04 28 28 46 74 79 84 s ent o es r C $26, $26, $19, $26, $33, $33, e $230, $214, $557, $583, P l u l a Va Tot

801 10 22%

18, $0 $0 M

973 351 921 921 216 921 621 621 703 624 ,

E &

9 2, 7

6, 6, 6, 6, 1, 1, 6, 3, T $ 39 .9 A O $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $2 $2 $9 Costs vate i $11 IV r 22% 100% $15. P $257 nual PR

+ Mgt c A

r BAN

R o pe S S N U $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 59 80 38 38

s 1 7 9 9 n

IO l o st T

a ti t CRE CRE 71 o e 73 % A la

A C IPA der $162, $183, $345, $345, a E E 32. 50 Cos t Rat V 302. t Refers T Z $ IC s Fe I $ r P In e ion S RT t T

a A Cha NDUS ag p r i A P e c i L

v t r e

ED $0 $0 A L UNI a p 460 382 382 382 766 766 590 536 501 883 T A ent y A 2, 5, 5, 5, 0, 0, 4, 0, 4, 9, C I es L r ed P e T

P $5 $5 $4 $5 $7 $7 U

$19 $22 $65 $70 Y at us l P ue Cost

l T ul og a LC a t r c stem o V P RMS y T CA Land Cal S

l $0 $0 a ce 784 153 153 432 756 153 973 973 069 222 c n %

$7, hni sta c L $10, $10, $32, $36, $10, $12, $12, 113, 123, 20 si $ $ A Te R As

FE $0 $0 $0 $0 ent

918 763 763 763 863 863 408 170 0005 3 yrs

0% - $50, $50, $38, $50, $64, $64, 219, 270, t $ $ 10 s nagem a N - 1502 Co M A K E B UR $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 on i

159 780 938 938 CRE t , , , , R lat E al 50% Cos t V $162 $183 $345 $345 s L I In S

e 2 2 2 4 2 7 2 2 s t 62

URE 16 69 69 85 16 1 69 92 16 T 216 846 216 New Uni 2, 3, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, U F Treatm

2, 1, l E a t PE D o otal otal Y t t b b u u nd T S S & CO SE T a E U

Gr l D M e A N

A L 370 D N Lev

t ) 443 443 n ) ) HE e (ac. m RS

(ac. (ac. E ent e e eat T c c r A a a T 441 em

) y W urf urf . ) 449 ) 449 bs bs 442 s b

u u (ac ) (ac.

. (ac. Manag S S

c ion y

590 t t t 5 stem ) y . ali BLE r (a gat en en i c 59 e r A S e and e and l r ) c c k n . Qu T oi a a (a n c

r gem gem e T ri a rf rf tio c c i S p u u a ( ent

ana ana t S M S S our , , , , m n s e e m m m m serv r M r M e e e e e e n m t t t t t t Re ON CO s s s s I a a c y i y y y T r Co age S S S S W W A Manag n ve

n i n n n n n V t a phe io io io io io io R s M ien E o ess r r

st gat gat gat gat gat gat i i m i i i i t e g r r r r r r S NS r r r r r r o I I A I I I I Nut P r CO P RM

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 5 – Resource Assessment page 5- 9 Section 6: References

Arizona Association of Conservation Districts (http://www.aaocd.org/).

Arizona Dept. of Agriculture (http://www.azda.gov/).

Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality Water Quality Monitoring & Assessment (http://azdeq.gov/environ/water/assessment/assess.html).

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEA). Draft 2006 Status of Ambient Surface Water Quality in Arizona – Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Phoenix, Arizona.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/plan/notmeet.html#phoenix.

Arizona Department of Water Resources, Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan, Background & Impact Assessment Section, Governor’s Drought Task Force, Governor Janet Napolitano, October 8, 2004 http://www.azwater.gov/dwr/content/find_by_program/GDTF/conclusion/Backgro und_Section_100804FINAL.pdf.

Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2007. Arizona Water Atlas, Vol. 2, web published at http://www.azwater.gov/dwr/.

Arizona Game & Fish Dept. Heritage Database http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml).

Arizona Game & Fish website, 2006, http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/heritage_program.shtml.

Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), GIS data layer “Geology,” February 7, 2003. http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.

Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), GIS data layer “Lakes,” February 7, 2003, http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.

Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), GIS data layer “mines”, February 7, 2002 http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.

Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), GIS data layer “natveg”, June 12, 2003 http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 6 – References page 6- 1

Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), GIS data layer “ownership”, February 7, 2002 http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.

Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), GIS data layer “Streams”, Arizona, October, 10, 2002 http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html.

Brown, David E., and Charles H. Lowe, Biotic Communities of the Southwest 1:1,000,000 scale, August 1980.

Bureau of Land Management Arizona Website (http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en.html).

Chronic, Halka. 1983. Roadside Geology of Arizona. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Montana.

Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS) website (www.ispe.arizona.edu/climas), information on Arizona drought status.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website http://epa.gov/air/airtrends/aqtrnd95/pm10.html.

ESRI Data Products, http://arcdata.esri.com/data/tiger2000/tiger_download.cfm Census 2000. October 17, 2003.

Feth, J.H., and N.D. White, J.D. Hem, 1954. Preliminary Report of Investigations of Springs in the Mogollon Rim Region, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, Tucson, Arizona.

GeoLytics, Inc. 1998. Census 1990. Census CD + Maps. Release 3.0.

Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology; Chapter 4- Getting to know your stream. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York.

Lowry, J. H, Jr., R. D. Ramsey, K. Boykin, D. Bradford, P. Comer, S. Falzarano, W. Kepner, J. Kirby, L. Langs, J. Prior-Magee, G. Manis, L. O’Brien, T. Sajwaj, K. A. Thomas, W. Rieth, S. Schrader, D. Schrupp, K. Schulz, B. Thompson, C. Velasquez, C. Wallace, E. Waller and B. Wolk. 2005. /Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project: Final Report on Land Cover Mapping Methods/, RS/GIS Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

National Agricultural Statistics Service (http://www.nass.usda.gov/).

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 6 – References page 6- 2 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2007, Table generated by NRCS Phoenix Office. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Fact Sheet, Silver Creek Watershed.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Website 2006, Technical Guide – New Mexico http://www.nm.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/fotg/transmittals/fotg-1.doc.

Natural Resources Conservation Service Arizona Website (http://www.az.nrcs.usda.gov/).

Natural Resources Conservation Service Arizona GIS Webpage (http://www.az.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/gis/index.html).

Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/).

Natural Resources Conservation Service Water & Climate Center (http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/).

Parker, John T.C., and M. E. Flynn. 2000. Investigation of the Geology and Hydrology of the Mogollon Highlands of Central Arizona: A Project of the Arizona rural Watershed Initiative. In cooperation with the Arizona Department of Water Resources. USGS Fact Sheet 159-00.

Southern Arizona Data Services Program, GIS data layer “Arizona Gap Analysis Project Vegetation Map”, University of Arizona, 2004, http://sdrsnet.srnr.arizona.edu/index.php, originated by Arizona Game & Fish Department, Habitat Branch, 1993, this dataset was digitized from the August 1980 David E. Brown & Charles H. Lowe 1:1,000,000 scale, 'Biotic Communities of the Southwest'.

Southwest Coordination Center (gacc.nifc.gov/swcc/predictive/outlooks/outlooks.htm)

Southwest Regional GAP Project (http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/.

Theobald, D. 2005. Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020. Ecology and Society 10(1): 32. [online] URL: http://www.ecology and society.org/vol10/iss1/art32/.

United States Department of Agriculture, GIS Data Analysis, obtained from U.S. Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Forest Health office, Feb. 26, 2007.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Surf Your Watershed (http://www.epa.gov/surf/).

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Trends, http://epa.gov/air/aritrends/aqtrnd95/pm10.html.

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 6 – References page 6- 3

United States Fish & Wildlife Service, Threatened and Endangered Species Listed for Arizona, http://ecos.fws.gov.

United States Fish & Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services (http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/).

United States Forest Service (USFS), Southwestern Region, Forest Health Office. Bark Beetle section based on analysis of GIS data of bark beetle impacts, obtained from the U.S. Forest Service Feb. 26, 2007.

United States Forest Service, Forest Service, Fact Sheet “Arizona Bark Beetle Epidemics,” produced by Forest Health Staff, Southwestern Region, USDA Forest Service, January 2004, http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/prescott/forest- health/index.shtml.

United States Forest Service (USFS), Terrestrial Ecosystem Surveys. Surveys are available for National Forest Lands within the watershed.

United States Forest Service Southwestern Region (http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/).

United States Geological Survey, NLCD Land Cover Class Definitions, http://landcover.usgs.gov/classes.php.

United States Geological Survey, April 8, 2003, derived from DEM, http://edc.usgs.gov/geodata/.

United States Geological Survey website, National Water Information System http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/.

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), Temperature data. July 15, 2004. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmaz.html.

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 6 – References page 6- 4 GLOSSARY Drainage Basin A region or area bounded by a topographic divide and occupied by a drainage system, also known as a watershed. The Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) of a Drainage Basin is a 6-digit HUC. Drought There is no universally accepted quantitative definition of drought. Generally, the term is applied to periods of less than average precipitation over a certain period of time; nature's failure to fulfill the water wants and needs of man. Flood A flood is an overflow or inundation that comes from a river or other body of water and causes or threatens damage. It can be any relatively high streamflow overtopping the natural or artificial banks in any reach of a stream. It is also a relatively high flow as measured by either gage height or discharge quantity. Ground Water The supply of fresh and saline water found beneath the Earth's surface which is often used for supplying wells and springs. Because ground water is a major source of drinking water, there is a growing concern over areas where leaching agricultural or industrial pollutants are contaminating ground water. Soil Moisture Aridic is a soil moisture regime that has no water available for plants Regimes for more than half the cumulative time that the soil temperature at 50 cm (20 in.) below the surface is >5°C (41° F.), and has no period as long as 90 consecutive days when there is water for plants while the soil temperature at 50 cm (20 in.) is continuously >8°C (46°F.). Udic is a soil moisture regime that is neither dry for as long as 90 cumulative days nor for as long as 60 consecutive days in the 90 days following the summer solstice at periods when the soil temperature at 50 cm (20 in.) below the surface is above 5°C (41° F.). Ustic is a soil moisture regime that is intermediate between the aridic and udic regimes and common in temperate sub humid or semiarid regions, or in tropical and subtropical regions with a monsoon climate. A limited amount of water is available for plants but occurs at times when the soil temperature is optimum for plant growth. Soil Orders A soil order is a group of soils in the broadest category. In the current USDA classification scheme there are 12 orders, differentiated by the presence or absence of diagnostic horizons.

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 7 – Glossary page 7- 1 Soil Hyperthermia is a soil temperature regime that has mean annual Temperature soil temperatures of 22°C (72°F.) or more and >5°C (41° F.) Regimes difference between mean summer and mean winter soil temperatures at 50 cm (20 in.) below the surface. Thermic is a soil temperature regime that has mean annual soil temperatures of 15°C (59°F.) or more but <22°C (72°F.), and >5°C (41° F.) difference between mean summer and mean winter soil temperatures at 50 cm (20 in.) below the surface. Mesic A soil temperature regime that has mean annual soil temperatures of 8°C (46°F.) or more but <15°C (59°F.), and >5°C (41° F.) difference between mean summer and mean winter soil temperatures at 50 cm (20 in.) below the surface.

Surface Water Water on the earth's surface. Lakes, bays, ponds, impounding reservoirs, springs, rivers, streams, creeks, estuaries, wetlands, marshes, inlets, canals, and all other bodies of surface water, natural or artificial, inland or coastal, fresh or salt, navigable or non-navigable, and including the beds and banks of all watercourses and bodies of surface water, that are wholly or partially inside or bordering the state or subject to the jurisdiction of the state; except that waters in treatment systems which are authorized by state or federal law, regulation, or permit, and which are created for the purpose of waste treatment.

Watershed The area of land that contributes surface run-off to a given point in a drainage system and delineated by topographic divides. The Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) of a Drainage Basin is an 8-digit HUC.

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 7 – Glossary page 7- 2 Acknowledgements

The following University of Arizona staff and students contributed to the production of this report.

Terry Sprouse Erin Westfall Lainie Levick Melisa Kennedy Ivan Parra Myrtho Joseph Dilruba Yeasmin Ari Posner Mickey Reed

NRCS Field Office, Area Office and State Office staff contributed to the development of this assessment.

Silver Creek Watershed Rapid Watershed Assessment Section 7 – Glossary page 7- 3