Hydrology of the Verde River
Abe Springer
Visiting Chair in Water and
the Environment
Outline
• Basic hydrology and hydrogeology
• Baseflow of the Verde River
• Sources of baseflow
• Variations in baseflow
• Environmental flow needs
• Springs ecosystems
Verde
Watershed
Blasch and others 2006
Groundwater
Dependence
of Streams
and Creeks
Connected Basins
Upper and Middle Verde River Basin
Paulden
gage
Clarkdale
gage
Camp
Verde
gage
USGS stream gages
Generalized Geologic Section
A’
South
A
North
MESA BUTTE FAULT
COLORADO RIVER
INDIAN GARDEN SPRING
8,000
TUSAYAN
SYCAMORE
CREEK
RED HORSE FAULT
ALTITUDE, FEET
7,000
CANYON
MINE
VERDE RIVER
WILLIAMS
Volcanic
Rocks
VALLE
SUMMER
SPRING
6,000
5,000
4,000
?
?
3,000
2,000
Undifferentiated Precambrian
Bright Angel
BRIGHT ANGEL FAULT
0
5
10
Tapeats
15
MILES
VERTICAL EXAGGERATION 20:1
ERROL L. MONTGOMERY & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Precipitation
Blasch and others 2006
Deviations in precipitation
Limnocrene – 3.1 %
Rheocrene – 67 %
Springs Geomorphology – Sources, Channels, Environment
Cave – 0.6 %
Hillslope – 5.7
Gushette – 0.6 %
Hanging garden – 3.1 %
Flora 2004
Helocrene – 20 %
Spring box/house 23 %
 65 % of springs have some form of microhabitat modification.
Piping 15 %
Geologic Unit
Description
# of
%
Total
%
Springs springs Discharge Discharge
(gpm)
Alluvium
Holocene sand and gravels
in channels
8
5.3
3
Verde Formation
Lake Sediments,
Conglomerates, tan
sandstones, gray
mudstones
Pliocene to limestone
Miocene
Basaltic lava flows
6
3.9
180
5
45
30
42
1.2
Pliocene to Miocene
Rhyolitic to Andesitic lava
flows
Gray fractured and
cavernous limestone
34
22
123
3.4
11
7.2
8.5
0.3
Permian, fine grained
massive sandstone cross
bedding
Red sandstone and shale
4
2.6
370
10
1
0.7
0
0
Formations of thick red
sandstone, siltstone and
limestone
Reddish Gray fractured
and cavernous limestone
13
8.5
215
5.8
7
4.6
2700
73
1
0.7
0
0
22
14.5
43
1.2
152
100
3685
100
Tertiary Rim
Basalts
Tertiary Volcanic
Rocks
Kaibab
Formation
Coconino
Formation
Schnebly Hill
Formation
Supai Group
Redwall
Formation
Martin/Naco
Formation
Gray dolomitic limestone
with shaly mudstone
Tapeats
Formation
Medium grained sandstone
grading upward to siltstone
and limy mudstone
Proterozoic granite and
metamorphic rocks
Precambrian
Basement Rocks
Totals
0.1
Log Spring
Pivot Rock Spring
Baseflow of the Verde River to
Camp Verde
USGS, Blasch and others 2005
Springs of the Upper Verde
Wirt and others 2005
Median monthly discharge
Monthly Peak Discharge
Deviations in discharge at gages
Headwaters - Paulden
Fracture flow
Headwaters - Paulden
Mean annual 25.1 cfs
Season variation 23-25.5 cfs
USGS, Blasch and others 2005
Orchard Fault
+ ~10 cfs, total ~30 cfs
USGS, Wirt and others 2005
Mormon Pocket (Verde Fault)
+ ~25 cfs, Total ~57 cfs
Wirt and others 2005
Kreiger 1968
Sycamore Canyon
Summer Spring (Flora 2004, Rice 2006)
Discharge (gpm)
2800
2400
2000
1600
7/1/02
12/30/02
7/1/03
12/30/03
7/1/04
12/30/04
7/1/05
12/30/05
+ ~15 cfs, Total ~70 cfs
Clarkdale gage (mainstem)
Mean annual 83.5 cfs
Seasonal variation
73 – 84 cfs
USGS, Blasch and others 2005
Oak Creek
Headwaters
Sterling Springs (Flora 2004, Rice 2006)
1000
Discharge (gpm)
800
600
400
200
0
7/1/02
12/30/02
7/1/03
12/30/03
7/1/04
12/30/04
7/1/05
12/30/05
•
•
•
•
Springs to Indian
Gardens
Page Springs
Spring Creek
+ ~ 40 cfs
Total ~120 cfs
USGS, Blasch and other 2005
Flora 2004, Rice 2006
400
300
Discharge (gpm)
• Gains from Sterling
Lower
Oak Creek
200
100
0
7/1/02
12/30/02
7/1/03
12/30/03
7/1/04
Spring Creek Spring
12/30/04
7/1/05
12/30/05
Wet Beaver Creek
Mean annual ~8 cfs
Total ~130 cfs
Montezuma Well
West Clear Creek
Mean annual ~ 18 cfs
Total ~150 cfs
Fossil Creek
Mean annual ~45 cfs
Long-term variation
Total Spring discharge (cfs)
70
60
50
40
30
Jan-2000
Jan-2001
Jan-2002
Jan-2003
Jan-2004
Jan-2005
Jan-2006
East Verde River
Pine Creek confluence
Ellison Creek confluence
Mean annual low, Incredible seasonal variation
Depends on releases from C.C. Cragin Diversion
63,
Flora 2004
Climate change
Clover Spring 2005
Clover Spring 2002
• Comparing synoptic survey in 2006 and 2005 to
2002-2003 survey.
• ~50 % of 160 visited in 2002 were dry
• 72 % of the dry springs in 2002 were wet in 2005
• 78 % of the springs wet in 2005 were dry in 2006
(Flora 2004, Rice 2007)
Finding The Right “Balance”
E = ecosystem support
H = human use
Environmental Flows
Tying Biologic Needs to Hydrologic Conditions
Tying Biologic Needs to Hydrologic
Conditions
Defining Ecological Flows
Verde River Watershed
Step 1
Orientation
Meeting
•
•
•
•
Collaborative
Science-based
Interdisciplinary
Step 4
Adaptive
Dissemination of
Step 5
Integration of Results
with Other Studies
Step 2
Lit Review &
Background
Report
Results
Step 3
Ecological Flows
Workshop
Result –informed decision making.
Hydrologic
and Hydraulic
Analysis
Verde Ecoflows Workshop
•
•
•
•
2 days (plus field trip)
35 experts
15 organizations
hydrology,
geomorphology, riparian
ecology, ichthyology,
ornithology, mammalogy,
herpetology, entomology,
and water quality
Summary of Flow-Ecology Relationships
HYDROLOGIC
VARIABLE
Depth to water table
ECOLOGIC
VARIABLE
SPECIES
Health/vigor
Riparian vegetation,
beaver, riparian birds
Relative abundance
Goodding willow
Areal extent
Marsh, wading birds
# of no-flow days/year
Abundance/diversity
Aquatic invertebrates
Magnitude: base flow
Population size
Native fish and garter
snake
Recruitment
Spikedace
Response
Fish species biomass
and diversity
Predation
Lowland leopard frogs
Identified flow-response curves
• Indicate threshold relationships for some
environmental condition.
• May provide warning signs in advance of
species decline or loss from the river
system.
Anticipated changes from
reduction in base flow
• Reduction in native fish
• Cottonwood
– Reduction in recruitment
– Smaller groves due to inability recover floods
• Expanded tamarisk and mesquite groves
• Reduction in birds and beaver from loss of
cottonwoods
• Smaller patches marshland plants
Responses to groundwater
depth
Trees, beaver, raptors
Goodding willow and
Insectivorous birds
Ecological responses
Sedge and cattail during
dry season
Aquatic invertebrates to
more no-flow days
Ecological responses
Vertebrates
Lowland leopard frog
predation
Changes by river reach
Canyon reach
• Most susceptible to loss
of baseflow from
pumping.
• Narrow canyon with
limited alluvial storage.
• Impact likely severe.
Valley reach
• Less severe because of
multiple groundwater
sources.
• Complicated by over 20
irrigation
diversions/returns.
Anticipated scorecard
Winners
• Non-natives
Losers
• Native fish
– Tamarisk
– Predatory, sport fish
• Mesquite
– Spikedace
– Roundtail chub
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Beaver
River Otter
Muskrat
Willow flycatchers
Yellow-billed cuckoos
Goodding willow
Fremont cottonwood
Summary
• Most of Verde River sources from springs
at faults or other major structures.
• Although long-term measurements are
sparse
– Seasonal and climate variability in discharge.
• Baseflow discharge locations important for
dependent ecosystems.
Research Platform
• Physical characterization platform
–
–
–
–
–
Select representative reaches and study sites
Survey river cross sections
Develop stage-discharge relationships
Characterize depth to groundwater
Characterize sediment transport
• Biological characterization platform
– Conduct riparian vegetation surveys
– Characterize fish use of macro- and micro-habitat
– Survey sensitive species