Evaluation of stock water ponds Nogales Ranger District Coronado National Forest. Item Type Thesis-Reproduction (electronic); text Authors Imler, Barry Lynn,1960- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 03/10/2021 23:15:15 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/192107 EVALUATION OF STOCK WA1ER PONDS NOGALES RANGER DISTRICT CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST by Barry Lynn Imler A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the SCHOOL OF RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE WITH A MAJOR IN WA1ERSHED MANAGEMENT In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1998 2 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgement the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. APPROVAL BY THESIS COMMIT I EE This thesis has been approved on the date shown below: :AL/ 114144 kee--- Richard H. Hawkins, Professor of Watershed Management Date kiv I D. Phillip Guertin,iProfessor of Watershed Management Date it - - IC ,TV Don W. Young, Profe or of lfrdrology and Water Resources Date 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank my thesis director, Dr. Richard H. Hawkins, for his guidance and advice on my graduate program. In addition, I am appreciative of the guidance and advice I received from Dr. D. Phillip Guertin and Dr. Don W. Young. I thank my supervisor on the Nogales Ranger District, Duane Thwaits, for his assistance and support during the sometimes-painful process of completing a Master of Science study program. I thank the Nogales District Ranger, Candace W. Allen, for her blessings and support in this endeavor. I thank the Southwest Region of the Forest Service for financial support through the Windows for Learners Partnership Program (WIN Program). I thank the Natural Resources Conservation Service Soils Mapping Unit, Tucson Office, for technical advice and use of the soils laboratory. I am especially thankful for the usually patient love and understanding of my family who suffered many inconveniences during my studies. My wife, Christy, in particular, has made many sacrifices during this period. To her I express my eternal love and gratitude. 4 TABLE OF CON I ENTS LIST OF FIGURES 7 Topography . 20 Soils .24 Site Selection .32 Data Collection. .38 Ponds ..38 ... .43 5 TABLE OF CON1ENTS — Continued Soils Depth 49 Watersheds . 52 Soils. 52 Drainage Areas 53 Curve Numbers .57 Model 59 Rainfall-Runoff Component. ... ......... ......... ......... 59 Runoff .61 Precipitation 61 Initial Abstraction 65 Infiltration 66 Available Storage 66 Potential Evapotranspiration .68 Temperature 69 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Total Available Volume 71 Final Water Volume 71 Initial Water Volume 72 Inflow 72 Evaporation. 72 Pond Characteristics .76 Watershed Characteristics..............................................................78 Modeling .81 APPENDIX A, SOIL MAPPING UNIT DESCRIPTIONS ................................. 85 APPENDIX B, WA1ERSHED STORAGE WORKSHEET. .89 APPENDIX C, PRECIPITATION DATA .....................................................91 APPENDIX D, PRECIPITATION WORKSHEET... .........................................94 APPENDIX E, RUNOFF CAPTURE DATA... ... ...................................97 7 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 . Recommended Minimum Depths for Ponds 14 FIGURE 2. Guide for Estimating Drainage Area Requirements .16 FIGURE 3. Site Locator Map .21 FIGURE 4. Site Map with Mountain Ranges 22 FIGURE 5. Wilderness and Research Natural Areas ..... ..... .........................29 FIGURE 6. Nonfunctioning Pond Locations 34 FIGURE 7. Functioning Pond Locations.............................. .................. .36 FIGURE 8. Model Diagram 60 FIGURE 9. Monthly Evaporation VS Mean Temperature .73 FIGURE 10. Pond Volume to Watershed Area — Nonfunctioning Ponds 79 FIGURE 11. Pond Volume to Watershed Area — Functioning Ponds 80 8 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 . List of Nonfunctioning Stock Water Ponds 37 TABLE 2. List of Functioning Stock Water Ponds... ... ............ .......................37 TABLE 3. Stock Water Pond Data ... ........................................................39 TABLE 4. Climate Data Recording Locations — Precipitation 42 TABLE 5. Mean Annual Precipitation — After Correlation. .42 TABLE 6. Climate Data Recording Locations — Temperature 43 TABLE 7. Watershed Soil Data ...............................................................44 TABLE 8. Watershed Vegetation Data.......................................................46 TABLE 9. Soil Analysis Results ..............................................................48 TABLE 10. Comparison Between Recommended Depth and As-Built Depth .......... 50 TABLE 11. Comparison Between Mean Depth Values and Recommended Values.... 51 TABLE 12. Comparison of Mean Capacity Values 52 TABLE 13. Initial Comparison Between Recommended and Actual Drainage Area 55 TABLE 14. Comparison Between Adjusted NRCS Recommendations and Actual Drainage Areas 56 TABLE 15. Watershed Vegetation, Condition and Curve Numbers 58 TABLE 16. Comparison of Curve Numbers. 59 TABLE 17. Precipitation Zones by Elevation Band... ................. ....................64 TABLE 18. Watershed Precipitation Information. 65 TABLE 19. Watershed Mean Elevation Values. 69 TABLE 20. Temperature Regression Data 70 9 LIST OF TABLES — Continued TABLE 21. Runoff and Pond Model Results by Watershed...... ....... TABLE C-1. Study Area Precipitation Values (1941-1970)................................. 91 TABLE C-2. Correlation References for Tables C-1 93 TABLE C-3. Climate Data Recording Location Information. 93 10 ABSTRACT A number of factors contribute to the importance of careful consideration in the placement of new stock ponds and the prioritization of cleaning or reconstruction of existing ponds. Various pond site and watershed characteristics were compared between non-functioning and functioning ponds in southeast Arizona. Development of a predictive model for pond-watershed relationships included analysis of the relationships associated with isohyetal and isothermic designations, using data readily available within the study area. There appear to be few differences in the materials used for dam construction, pond shape, estimated watershed Curve Numbers, mean number of days at capacity per year, or mean number of days dry per year. The differences are more apparent when considering pond depth, maximum capacity and percent of runoff captured. There is a strong correlation between pond volume and watershed area for functioning ponds, particularly in the broadleaf woodland vegetation type (r2 = 0.99, n = 1 1 INTRODUCTION Although natural resource management can be successful without stock water ponds, these ponds can serve a major role in achieving management goals. Properly designed and located ponds collect and store water to satisfy management objectives for livestock watering, livestock and wildlife distribution, habitat enhancement, erosion control, grade control, and fish and endangered species management. Other names used to describe these ponds are stock tanks, livestock water ponds, farm ponds, catchments, stock ponds, dugouts, plugs, tanques, dams and reservoirs. Statutorily they are called stockwatering ponds. Properly functioning ponds satisfy economic requirements of land management agencies and area ranches. These ponds provide relatively inexpensive water sources for livestock, when compared to more expensive delivery systems with wells, pipelines, storage tanks and troughs (Valentine, 1989; Imler, 1996). Properly distributed ponds also aid in uniform distribution of livestock across rangelands. From an agency perspective, a number of factors contribute to the importance of careful consideration in the placement of new stock ponds and the prioritization of cleaning or reconstruction of existing ponds. Shrinking budgets and shrinking grazing fee collections are reducing the funding available for stock pond maintenance (cleaning) and reconstruction. Reduced livestock numbers (USFS, 1995 and 1996) and poor market 12 conditions in recent years have also reduced the financial resources available for pond maintenance and reconstruction. Recent and current litigation is causing changes in agency priorities for range improvement expenditures. In addition, general water rights adjudications are now taking place in Arizona. Some parties have proposed summary adjudication of certain classes of uses (stock ponds) which comprise the majority of water rights claims but which may have a negligible impact on watershed yield (Young et al., 1996). Recent decisions by the state legislature have created uncertainty regarding water rights within the