skyislandalliance.org...Ec Fire osyst to Lou and W ems a Respo Wate Reporting ise Miszta ater nd A nd to Fi rSMART Agr Dates: Sept l, Samanth Janua Sky Is …

EcFire

cosystto

Lou

and Wtems aRespo

WateReporting

uiseMiszta

Waterand Aond to

FierSMARTAgrgDates:Sept

al,SamanthJanua

Sky IsTucs(520

www.skyi

: Assedaptino Clim

inalReportreementNo.ember2013

haHammerary25,201

sland Alliancson, Arizona0)‐624‐7080islandallianc

essingng Ma

mate C

R13AP80033–September

r,Carianne16

ce

ce.org

g Sprinanage

Change

3r 2015

eCampbell

ngs emente

t

Preferred Citation:

Misztal,L.W.,S.J.Hammer,C.F.Campbell(SkyIslandAlliance,Tucson,AZ).2016.FireandWater:AssessingSpringsEcosystemsandAdaptingManagementtoRespondtoClimateChangeFinalReporttotheDesertLandscapeConservationCooperativeforWaterSMARTAgreementNoR13AP80033;January2016.

1

Table of Contents

Figures..........................................................................................................................................1

Tables............................................................................................................................................3

Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................4

ExecutiveSummary.................................................................................................................5Introduction.........................................................................................................................................5Methods..................................................................................................................................................5Results....................................................................................................................................................6ManagementConsiderations..........................................................................................................7

Introduction...............................................................................................................................9ProjectNeed–AdaptingtoaChangingClimate.......................................................................9ProjectBackgroundandGoals....................................................................................................11SpringsEcology................................................................................................................................12OtherRegionalEffortsBenefitingfromthiswork...............................................................13

Methods.....................................................................................................................................14StudyAreaSelectionandDescription......................................................................................14InformationSources..................................................................................................................................15

RandomSampleDesign.................................................................................................................16SelectionofFireInfluencedSpringsforStudy......................................................................20FieldandAnalysisMethods.........................................................................................................21SpringInventoriesandAssessments..................................................................................................21Newforthisproject....................................................................................................................................23CataloguingEffectsofFireatSprings.................................................................................................25Adopt‐a‐SpringMonitoring.....................................................................................................................26

DevelopingToolsandGuidanceinSupportofMonitoring,StewardshipandRestoration........................................................................................................................................29SpringsOnlineDatabase..........................................................................................................................29ArizonaSpringsRestorationHandbook............................................................................................30ManagementWorkshops:FireandWater........................................................................................31Outreach..........................................................................................................................................................32

Results.......................................................................................................................................32RandomSampleSpringInventoriesandAssessments......................................................32BasicStatisticsAcrossRandom‐SampleSpringsinSantaCruzBasin...................................33SpringsEcosystemAssessments..........................................................................................................40

CataloguingEffectsofFireonSprings......................................................................................43ConditionofFireAffectedSprings.......................................................................................................46SpringsasFireRefugia.............................................................................................................................47ObservationsatFireAffectedSprings................................................................................................48

SpringsinFuelTreatmentAreas...............................................................................................56Adopt‐a‐SpringResults..................................................................................................................56SummaryofProjectOutcomes....................................................................................................60PartnerEngagement..................................................................................................................................60SpringsInventoriesandMonitoring...................................................................................................61SpringsOnlineDatabase,Updates,UseandTrainings................................................................61

2

NewInformationAvailableandActivelyDisseminatedtoSpringsStewards...................63DecisionSupportToolUpdated............................................................................................................64EngagingVolunteersinSpringInventories......................................................................................64

Discussion................................................................................................................................65LessonsLearned...............................................................................................................................66ManagementRecommendations................................................................................................67ProjectBenefitsandNextSteps..................................................................................................68LeveragingDesertLandscapeConservationCooperativeResources...................................68RecommendedNextSteps.......................................................................................................................69

References................................................................................................................................71

AppendixA:SpringsInventoryandAssessmentProtocolsandDataSheets

AppendixB:SpringInventoryandAssessmentReportsForSpringsSurveyedintheUpperSantaCruzBasinStudyArea

AppendixC:SpringInventoryReportsforSpringsSurveyedforFireEffects

AppendixD:FireEffects:RestorationofWatershedsandSpringsWorkshopReport

1

Figures Figure1:MapoftheSkyIslandRegion............................................................................................9

Figure2:Overviewofadaptationprojectcomponents..........................................................11

Figure3:MapofstudyarealocationintheSkyIslandRegion...........................................17

Figure4:Mapofspringssurveyedinstudyarea......................................................................18

Figure5:Mapofbioticcommunitiesinthestudyarea..........................................................19

Figure6:Overviewofspringspotentiallyimpactedbyfire.................................................20

Figure7:VolunteersconductaspringinventoryatBarfootParkintheChiricahuaMountains.........................................................................................................................................21

Figure8:SampleSiteMap...................................................................................................................24

Figure9:OverviewoffireperimetersontheCoronadoNationalForest.......................25

Figure10:VolunteersinventoryandassessLowerRustlerParkSpringintheChiricahuaMountains.................................................................................................................26

Figure11:Adopt‐a‐Springsites........................................................................................................27

Figure12:MembersoftheSkyIslandRestorationCooperativediscussrestorationoptionsandresults.......................................................................................................................32

Figure13:Springtypesinthestudyarea.....................................................................................33

Figure14:Areaofspringsinthestudyarea...............................................................................34

Figure15:Isolationofspringsinthestudyarea.......................................................................35

Figure16:Flowrate(L/s)plottedagainstElevation(m).....................................................36

Figure17:Waterqualityversuselevationofspringsinthestudyarea.........................37

Figure18:Typesofhumanimpactsonsprings.Highscoresrepresentlowerhumanimpact.................................................................................................................................................42

Figure19:Stewardshipriskstospringsfromhumanimpactsplottedagainstoverallnaturalresourcecondition.Springsintheupperrightquadranthavehighnaturalresourceconditionandhighriskfromhumanimpactsandarecandidatesforprotection...........................................................................................................43

Figure20:Springsmappedwithinfireperimetersbymountainrange.........................45

Figure21:SEAPFireInfluenceconditionscoreinrelationtoburnseverity...............46

2

Figure22:SEAPFireInfluenceconditionscoreinrelationtoaspect..............................47

Figure23:Theassociationbetweenaspectandburnseveritydifference,byburnseverityoftheareawithin50mofthespring..................................................................48

Figure24.Closeupofsurveyedspringsinrelationtoburnseverity,a)EmeraldSpring,Pinaleños,b)HighPeakCienega,Pinaleños,c)BaldySpring,SantaRitas,andd)CasecoSpring,Catalinas.Circlesindicatethe50mand250mradiiaroundthespring..........................................................................................................................49

Figure25:HighPeakCienegainthePinalenoMountainsmaybeapopulationsourceforspruceandfirregeneration...............................................................................................50

Figure26:DownedtreesanderosionatAnitaSpringintheChiricahuaWilderness................................................................................................................................................................50

Figure27:SevereupslopeerosionsandsoilwastingintheChiricahuaWilderness.51

Figure28:PinalenoMountains‐springsmappedinrelationtoburnseverity...........52

Figure29:ChiricahuaMountains‐springsmappedinrelationtoburnseverity.......53

Figure30.SantaRitaMountains‐springsmappedinrelationtoburnseverity........54

Figure31.SantaCatalinaMountains‐springsmappedinrelationtoburnseverity.55

Figure32:NumberofvolunteersparticipatinginmultiplesurveysfortheAdopt‐a‐Springpilotprogram....................................................................................................................56

Figure33:FlowrateatAshSpringduringtheAdopt‐a‐Springpilotprogram............57

Figure34:SoilmoistureinthemicrohabitatsatMcGrewSpringduringtheAdopt‐a‐Springpilotprogram.Rangegoesfrom0(dry)to11(inundated).........................57

Figure35:SizeofthewetmeadowatHospitalFlatduringtheAdopt‐a‐Springpilotprogram.Monsoonseasonishighlightedbythelightblueboxes...........................58

Figure37:DataEntryInterfaceoftheOnlineSpringsInventoryDatabase..................62

3

Tables Table1:Adopt‐a‐Springsiteinformation.....................................................................................28

Table2:Adopt‐a‐Springmonitoringwindows...........................................................................29

Table3:AverageFlowbySpringType..........................................................................................35

Table4:Waterqualityofspringsacrossmountainrangeinthestudyarea,includingspecificconductance(SC),pH,andtemperature(T).....................................................37

Table5:SpringsatwhichinventorieswereconductedintheUpperSantaCruzRiverstudyareaincludingdate,area,springtype,elevation,coordinates,andwhethertheywerenew,opportunistic,orpartoftherandomsample.SpringshighlightedinblueweresurveyedbySaguaroNationalParkStaff........................38

Table6:SpringswhichwereunlocatableintheUpperSantaCruzRiverstudyareaincludingdateandthepurportedelevationandcoordinatesrecordedinthespringsdatabase............................................................................................................................39

Table7SpringsEcosystemAssessmentOverallNaturalResourceConditionandRiskScoresforRandomSampleSprings.......................................................................................40

Table8:Springsanalyzedforfireorfueltreatmenteffects,includingsitename,date,springtype,elevation,coordinates,mountainrange,andlocation.Locationindicateswhetherthespringwasinhighburnseverity(BS),moderate,low,verylow,unburned,orinoradjacenttothePERPfueltreatmentarea...............44

Table9:Springsurveysconductedwithinfireperimeters..................................................46

Table10Priorityspringsitesforrestorationoractivemanagement.............................59

Table11:Priorityspringsitesforprotection.............................................................................59

4

Acknowledgments ThisprojectwassupportedbyfundingfromtheDesertLandscapeConservationCooperativethroughaBureauofReclamationWaterSMARTgrant.OthersupportingfundersfortheprojectincludedtheNinaMasonPulliamCharitableTrust,TheKresgeFoundation,andTheWildlifeConservationSocietyClimateChangeAdaptationFund.

WewouldliketosayaheartfeltthankyoutoJeriLedbetterandLarryStevensoftheSpringsStewardshipInstitute(MuseumofNorthernArizona).Theyprovidedvaluableexpertinputtoassistwithprojectdesign,workedcloselywithSkyIslandAlliancetoconveneRestorationHandbookworkshops,andprovidedmuchoftheHandbookcontentandlayout.TheycontinuetosupportinventoryworkbymaintainingandimprovingtheonlineSpringsInventoryDatabase.

Wewouldliketothankourfederal,state,andlocalpartnersthatsupportedthisprojectbyprovidinginputatmeetingsandclimatechangeadaptationworkshops,attendingtrainings,contributingdataandexpertise,supportingspringsinventoryonlandstheymanage,andsupportingimprovedspringsstewardshipintheSkyIslandRegion:PimaCounty,BureauofLandManagement(especiallytheLasCienegasNationalConservationAreaandSaffordFieldOffice),U.S.ForestService(Region3andtheCoronadoNationalForest),U.S.FishandWildlifeService,BatConservationInternational,U.S.GeologicalSurvey,SonoranInstitute,PimaAssociationofGovernments,NationalParkServiceSonoranDesertMonitoringNetwork,ArizonaGameandFishDepartment,DepartmentofDefense–FtHuachuca,NorthernArizonaUniversity,TheNatureConservancy,andUniversityofArizonaWaterResourcesResearchCenter.

Thisprojectwouldnothavebeenpossiblewithoutthededicationandenthusiasmof122SkyIslandAlliancevolunteersthatspenttheirweekendsinthefielddrivingroughroadsandhikingsteepterrainwithouttrails.Thesevolunteerscontributed2,357hourstothisproject.

5

Executive Summary

Introduction SkyIslandAllianceisanon‐governmentalorganizationthatworkstoprotectandrestoretherichnaturalheritageofnativespeciesandhabitatsintheSkyIslandRegion.Weworkwithvolunteers,scientists,land‐owners,publicofficials,andgovernmentagenciestoestablishprotectedareas,restorehealthylandscapes,andpromotepublicappreciationoftheregion'suniquebiologicaldiversity.

SpringsarekeystoneecosystemsintheSkyIslandRegion,exertdisproportionateinfluenceonsurroundinglandscapes,andareknowntobebiodiversityhotspots.Althoughtheyareabundantinthisaridregion,theyarepoorlydocumentedandlittlestudied.Changingfireregimes–particularly,increasedsizeofhigh‐severityburnpatchesandmoreintenseprecipitationeventspost‐fire–aredirectlyaffectingspringsecosystems,yettheseeffectsarepoorlyunderstood.Finally,manyspringssufferfromextensivehumanmodification.Lackofinformationontheirlocation,managementcontext,andbiological,hydrological,andecologicalcharacteristicshinderseffectivestewardshipoftheseresources.

ThisprojectbuildsonapreviousspringinventoryandmanagementprojectsupportedbytheDesertLCC(Misztalet.al.2013).ThisprojectaddressedoutstandinginventoryneedsandkeymanagementquestionsforspringecosystemsintheSkyIslandRegionofsoutheasternArizonalocatedattheheartoftheDesertLandscapeConservationCooperative(DesertLCC)geography.NewlycollectedbaselineinformationonpreviouslyunassessedspringsintheUpperSantaCruzRiverBasinandotherareasofhighpriorityisnowavailablethroughSpringsOnline,anonlinespringsandsprings‐dependentspeciesdatabase,andanArcGISspatialquerytool.SpringsstewardsintheDesertLCCgeographyarebecomingtrainedinuseofthedatabase.Weemployedacombinationofexpertandcitizenscienceinventoriesandassessmentstocollectcriticalbaselineinformationonknownspringsinareasofinterestandpriorityintheregion,includingareasaffectedbyrecentfires.Thisvolunteer‐driveninventoryprogramisamodelformonitoringclimatesensitiveresourceswithlimitedresources.

Additionally,wedevelopedandimplementedmethodologiesforclimate‐savvymonitoringatasetofhigh‐priorityspringsthroughtheAdopt‐a‐Springprogram,andworkedcloselywiththeSpringsStewardshipInstitutetodevelopguidanceandbestmanagementpracticesforprotectingandrestoringspringsthroughpublicationofanArizonaSpringsRestorationHandbook.Weworkedwithmanagerstoincorporatenewly‐collecteddataandguidanceonmonitoringandrestorationofspringsintoplanningandprojectimplementationtoreducevulnerabilitytoclimatechange.

Methods ToenhancethemanagementandrestorationofspringsintheSkyIslandRegionoftheDesertLCC,wecollectedbaselinedataonthebiology,ecology,geomorphology,andmanagementstatusofspringsforwhichthisinformationdoesnotcurrentlyexist;wealsocataloguedtheeffectsoffueltreatmentsandwildfireinareasofhighpriority.Ourprimary

6

studyareawastheUpperSantaCruzRiverBasinhydrogeologicarea,withinwhichweidentified274springsusingexistingmaps,expertinput,andsurveydata.WithintheUpperSantaCruzRiverBasin,weinventoriedspringsandconductedassessmentstocharacterizeecologicalintegrityinrelationtohumaninfluences.Weusedgeospatially‐stratifiedrandomsamplingtoidentifyasubsetof50springsfortargetedassessment.Thisallowedustodrawconclusionsaboutspringsecosystemsandintegrityataregionallevel.Wevisitedatotalof84springs,41ofwhichwerepartoftherandom‐samplestudydesignand71ofwhichwewereabletolocate.Wealsoinventoriedallpreviouslyunmappedspringsthatwediscoveredthroughfieldsurveys.Tocatalogueeffectsofrecentfiresonsprings’ecology,weinventoriedandassessed25springsintheChiricahuaandPinaleñoMountainRangesthatwereinareasthatrecentlyexperiencedfireorwereslatedforfuelstreatments.

WeconductedspringinventoriesandassessmentswithteamsthatconsistedofatleastoneSkyIslandAlliancestaffpersontrainedinspringsinventoryprotocols(orasuitableprofessionalpartnersubstitute)andoneormorevolunteersformallytrainedinassessmentprotocols.

SpringsinventoriesandassessmentswerepartofalargerSkyIslandRegionprojectfocusedonimprovingtheunderstanding,management,andrestorationofsprings.Otherprojectcomponentsincludedextensivecoordinationwithresourcemanagers,traininglandandresourcemanagersinuseofSpringsOnline(theinventorydatabase),developmentofanAdopt‐a‐Springmonitoringprogram,developmentofanArizonaSpringsRestorationHandbook,andsite‐specificmanagementplanningforsprings.Herewepresentadescriptionofthefullprojectmethodology,projectoutcomes,andanalysisoftheresultsofspringsinventoriesandassessments.AppendixBandCincludesfullreportsonthe71springslocatedduringtheproject.

Results SpringsTypes:Wedetected8typesofspringswiththefollowingorderofabundance(Figure13):

Rheocrene>>Hillslope>Anthropogenic>HangingGarden;Helocrene>Cave;Hypocrene;Limnocrene

Fivespringswereclassifiedasprimarilyorsecondarilyanthropogenicwithanotherprimaryorsecondarytypebecausetheyweremodifiedsoextensivelythattheirsphereofdischargewasaltered.Ofthe32randomlysampledspringssuccessfullyinventoried,19weredevelopedforadevelopmentrateof59%acrossthestudyarea.Developmentsatspringsprimarilyincludedspringboxes,constructeddams,pipingtoholdingtanksorcattledrinkers,andaccompanyingdeviceslikefloats.

SpringsHabitatArea:Springsiteareacalculatedfromsitesketchmapsrangedfromalowof0.1m2atBrinkleySpringtoahighof100,000m2atAguaCalienteSpring,withanaveragespringareaof5,140m2(s=19,625).Mostspringswerebetween10and100m2,withamedianspringareaofonly80m2.ThetotalareaencompassedbyspringssurveyedintheUpperSantaCruzRiverstudyareawas153,933m2or0.0024%ofthe(6,319,761,736m2)studysite.

7

Elevation:Elevationatspringsitesrangedfromalowof822metersatAguaCalienteSpringtoahighof2,742metersatCascadeSpringnearthepeakofMountLemmonintheSantaCatalinas,withanaverageelevationof1,888meters.

Isolation:Thedistancefromspringsinventoriedtothenextnearestspringsiterangedfromalowof132metersatRockSpring,toahighof4,431metersatAguaCalienteSpringwithanaveragedistancetonearestspringof967meters.Mostspringswerewithin1,500mofanotherspring,butasmallnumberwerequiteisolated

Flow:Forthespringswithsufficientflowpresenttomeasure,theflowraterangedfromahighof0.2L/satBellowsSpringtoalowof0.003L/satRuelasSpring.Theaverageflowrateforthestudyareawas0.06L/s(n=12).

WaterQuality:Fieldspecificconductancerangedfromahighof1,086ųS/cmatCrescentSpringtoalowof42ųS/cmatCascadeSpringwithanaverageof347ųS/cm(n=18,s=343).

PHrangedfromalowof6.4atRangerStationUnnamedspring,anundevelopedhigh‐elevationspring,toahighof8.6atRedSpring,anundevelopedmid‐elevationrheocrenespring,withanaverageof7.3(n=19,s=0.56).

Watertemperaturerangedfromalowof5.95CatBellowsSpring,anundevelopedhigh‐elevationspring,toahighof27.9CatRedSpring,anundevelopedmid‐elevationrheocrenespring,withanaverageof7.3(n=19,s=0.56).

FloraandFauna:Wecollected808plantrecordsatsurveyedsprings,including231speciesidentifiedtothespecieslevel,85speciesidentifiedtothegenuslevel,and4speciesidentifiedtoahighertaxonomiclevel.Ofthese,21specieswereidentifiedasinvasive.Wecollectedinvertebrateobservationsat24springsandrecorded21ordersofinvertebrates.Wecollectedvertebrateobservationsat29springs.Weobserved102speciesofvertebrates:12speciesofreptilesandamphibians,includingChiricahualeopardfrog;15mammalspecies,1fishspecies,theinvasivemosquitofish;and74birdspecies.Themostcommonlyrecordedvertebrateswere:

Deer>Yellow‐eyedJunco>HouseWren,WesternTanager>AmericanRobin,SpottedTowhee

FireEffects:Weconductedinventoriesandassessmentsat24springsinthePinaleñoandChiricahuaMountainsonCoronadoNationalForestlandwithinburnedareasorthePERP.TheaverageSEAPfireinfluenceconditionscoreforfireaffectedspringswas3.5;whenunlocatablespringswereincludedintheaveragewithascoreof0(fireinfluencehaseliminatedthespring),theaveragewasonly3(moderatenegativeinfluence).Differentspringtypeshadaboutthesameaverageconditionaseachother.Aswouldbeexpected,springsthatexperiencedhigherburnseveritytendedtohavelowerconditionscores,withtheburnseverityinthe50mradiushavingastrongercorrelationthaninthe250mradius.

Management Considerations WeusedtheSpringsEcosystemAssessmentProtocolstocollectinformationonecologicalintegrityandthreatstonaturalresourcevaluesatindividualspringsites.Thisprotocol

8

specificallyincludesfireinfluence.FlowregulationandadjacentlandconditionsexertthemostinfluenceonspringsintheUpperSantaCruzRiverstudyarea,followedcloselybyroad,trail,andrailroadimpacts.Atspringsinareasthathadrecentlyburned(inthelast15years),erosion‐includinglossofsoilfunctionandchangesinmicrohabitatsandrunoutchannelgeometry‐seemedtobethemostpronouncedimpactsoffire.Manyofthesespringswereinareasthatpreviouslyhadcanopycoverandforestedcoverupslopeofthespringemergenceandhaveexperiencedadecreaseinflow.Toidentifyspringswithpotentialforrestorationactionsorprotectivemanagementactionsandoffersomeprioritizationofthese,weplottedspringsbasedontheirnaturalresourceconditionandriskscores.Priorityspringsitesforrestorationandprotectionaredescribedindetailintheresultssection.Specificmanagementrecommendationsforindividualspringsareincludedinthesprings’reportsinAppendixBandC,andmoregeneralregionalrecommendationsformanagementareincludedinthediscussionsection.

Introd

Project NThisproRegionoChihuahConservranges,“influence(Figure1range,an

Figure 1: M

ArizonahighestcIslandRprevious(Misztal

uction

Need – Adajectdevelopofsoutheastua.TheSkyationCoope“skyislandsedbytheSi1).Itsdiverndrareand

Map of the Sk

istheseconconcentratioegionhavesDesertLCCet.al,2013

apting to a pedbaselinternArizonayIslandRegerative(Dess,”surroundierraMadresehabitatsendemicsp

ky Island Regi

ndmostaridonofspringrecentlybeCsupported).Informati

Changing Ceinformatioa,southwesionislocatesertLCC)rededbyinterve,RockyMouandtopograpecies,maki

ion

dstateinthgs(Springsguntobesydprojecttoionthatdoe

Climate ononsprinsternNewMedattheheegion.Itischveningdeseuntains,andaphysuppoingitaninc

econtinentStewardshiystematicallinventorysesexistons

ngsecosysteMexico,andartoftheDharacterizedertandgrasdSonoranaortmanyspecrediblybio

talUnitedStpInstitute,lyinventorispringsinthspringscont

emsintheSknorthernSoesertLandsdbyforestessland“seasandChihuaheciesatthelogicallydiv

tatesyetlik2013).SpriiedinparttheCienegaCtinuestobe

kyIslandonoraandscapeedmountains”andishuanDesertedgeoftheverseregion

kelycontainingsintheSthroughaCreekBasinpredomina

9

n

tseirn.

stheSky

nately

10

ininaccessibleformats,yearsorevendecadesold,oronlyavailablebyjurisdiction.Lackofinformationonthelocation,status,ecology,dischargesphere,andotherinformationhinderstheunderstandingandeffectivestewardshipofspringsecosystems(StevensandMertesky2008,Misztal2011).

Thefirststeptowardachievingenhancedmanagementofspringsisidentifyingthecurrentstatusofsprings,includingactuallocationontheground;currentmanagement;humanornaturalalterations;floraandfaunasupported;waterproduction;statusofunderlyinggroundwaterbasin;andcontributionofthesewaterstothewatershedwheretheyarelocated.

TheneedandframeworkforthisprojectwasidentifiedataseriesofthreeregionalclimatechangeadaptationworkshopsconvenedbySkyIslandAlliancein2010,2012,and2013.1Workshopsweredesignedtoidentifykeynaturalresourceandmanagementvulnerabilitiestoclimatechange,andtocollaborativelydevelopimplementablestrategiestoreducevulnerabilities.Workshopparticipantsincludedfederal,state,andlocalresourcesmanagers,scientists,conservationists,andprivateland‐owners(moreinformationisavailableatwww.skyislandalliance.org/adaptationworkshops.htmandwww.Ecoadapt.org/workshops.htm).

NaturalresourcemanagersintheSkyIslandRegioncollaborativelydevelopedclimatechangeadaptationstrategiestorespondtothemostpressingthreatintheregionfornaturalsystems:increasingaridityandscarcityofavailablewater(Misztal2011;Misztaletal.2012,Misztal2013,Hansen2013).Springsemergedasafocalnaturalresourceinthisdiscussion.Strategiesdevelopedtoreducethevulnerabilityofspringsandwildlifeincluded(seealsoFigure2):

Inventoryspringlocations,conditionsandcharacteristics,speciespresenceandmanagementstatus.

Coordinatedatasharingacrossjurisdictionstounderstandspringsinaregionalcontext.

Prioritizespringsforrestorationandprotectivemanagement. Coordinatemanagementacrossjurisdictionstoimplementprotectionand

restorationofspringecosystems. Createclimate‐smartspringrestorationmethodologies. Conductuplandhabitatrestorationtoincreaserechargeanddecreaseerosion–

includefireconsiderations.

Conductpost‐firemonitoringofspringsanduplandhabitattounderstandeffects

AtthemostrecentworkshopinMayof2013,participantsindicatedtheyarehighlyconcernedabouthowfireandpre‐firetreatmentsmaybeaffectingspringsecosystems.TheyalsoindicatedinterestinworkingwithtrainedSkyIslandAlliancevolunteerstoimplementclimate‐sensitivemonitoringathighprioritysprings.Thereisaregionaltrend

1 These workshops were supported by The Kresge Foundation and the Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust.

ofincreawhichwthatarehabitat.Cimportanrefugiaf

Figure 2: O

SpringsirelativelearthenalteredforiginallManyopwillenhacombinaintegrityactivities

Project BSIAisanheritagescientist

asedsizeofwilllikelylealocatedincChangesinntasasourfollowingfir

Overview of a

intheSkyIsyintacttomstocktanksforhumanulyaltered,opportunitiesancetheirvationofdecry,thereisastogenerat

Backgroundnon‐governofnativespts,land‐own

high‐severiadtonegativchannelsandfirebehaviorceofperenreeventsin

adaptation pro

slandRegiomostlytranss.Inmanyinusebutarenrhavebeensexisttofulvalueashabreasingmanneedtopriotethebesto

d and Goalmentalorgapeciesandhners,public

itywildlandveimpactsodareoftentorcouldalsnialwateriSkyIslands

oject compone

nexistinasformedbynstancesacrnolongerbenmodifiedflyorpartiabitat,waterfnagementreoritizewheroutcomespo

s anizationthhabitatsintofficials,an

dfiresandeonsprings,thesourceooleadtospnanotherws.

ents

varietyofsinstallationrosspublicaeingusedfofarbeyondwllyrestoresforwildlife,esourcesanreandhowossibleforw

hatworkstotheSkyIslanndgovernme

arlieronsetparticularlyofperenniapringsbecomwisearidlan

tatesranginnofstructurandprivateorthepurpowhatisnecespringstoa,andclimatndincreasintofocusmawaterandw

oprotectanndRegion.Wentagencie

toffireseasyrheocrenealwaterandmingincreandscapeand

ngfromundressuchasselands,sprioseforwhicessaryforthamorenaturerefugia.Dngthreatstoanagementwildlife.

ndrestorethWeworkwistodevelop

son,bothofe‐typesprindripariansinglydasspecies

developedaspringboxengswerechtheywerheircurrentralstatethauetotheoresourceandrestora

herichnatuithvolunteepscienceto

11

fngs

s

andesor

retuse.at

ation

uralers,o

12

informregionalconservation,determineconservationpriorities,restorehealthylandscapes,establishprotectedareas,andpromotepublicappreciationoftheregion'suniquebiologicaldiversity.Becauseofourlong‐standingcollaborativerelationshipswithlandandresourcemanagersandourlargecorpsofskilledvolunteers,wewereinauniquepositiontospearheadthisproject.

SIAinitiatedthisprojecttoenhancetheconservationandrestorationofkeystonespringecosystemsintheSkyIslandRegion.Todothis,wedevelopedbaselineinformationonspringstoinforminterestedagenciesandcitizensontheconditionoftheseresourcesandonmanagementactionsthatcanbetakentoenhancetheirresilienceinthefaceofclimatechange;wealsodevelopedtools,guidance,andcapacitytosupportclimate‐savvymanagement,restorationandmonitoringofspringsatthelandscapelevel.

ThisprojectbeganinSeptemberof2013andwascompletedinSeptemberof2015.Thespecificgoalsoftheprojectwereto:

Reducethevulnerabilityofspringstoclimatechangeandnon‐climatestressors. Increaseregionalunderstandingofspringsecology,managementstatus,springs’

contributiontolandscape‐levelresilience,fireimpactsonthem,andtheirrelationshiptothehydrologicareasinwhichtheyarelocated.

Buildandenhancetechnicalcapacitytocollectandunderstandcriticalbaselineinformationonunstudiedspringsandtomonitorthemlong‐term.

Helpmanagersadaptmanagementofspringstoclimatechangeandpromoteclimatechangeadaptationpracticesatthelandscapescale.

Guidefuturespringrestorationeffortstoincreasetheresilienceofecosystemsinthefaceofclimatechangeimpactsandnon‐climatestressors.

Weworkedcollaborativelywithlandandresourcemanagerstoidentifypriorityareasinwhichtoconductspringinventoriesandassessmentsandcollectednewdataonpriorityspringsintheregion.WeworkedwiththeSpringStewardshipInstitutetodevelopaclimate‐smartSpringRestorationHandbookforthestateofArizona,andwedevelopedandimplementedapiloteffort(Adopt‐a‐Spring)tomonitorspringslong‐termtounderstandclimatechangeandrestorationeffectsonthem.

Springs Ecology Springsoccurwheregroundwaterreachestheearth’ssurface(Meinzer1923).Springsarescatteredoveralllandscapesinthearidsouthwest,andinthearidregionsofNorthAmerica,theyoftencaptureourimaginationaslushoaseswithinharshlandscapes.Therearemanylensesthroughwhichtoviewthevalueofsprings:archaeologistshaveshownhowspringswerethefocusofmanyNativeAmericanactivities;hydrologistsunderstandthemaswindowsintogroundwatersystems;ecologistsseethemasbiodiversityhotspots;ranchersoftenrelyonthemaswatersourcesforlivestock;andconservationistsrecognizethattheyareimportantriparianandaquaticsystemscriticaltothesurvivalofmanyobligatoryspring‐dwellinganimalsandplants.Inspiteofthisrecognition,springshavebeenlargelyneglectedasimportantcultural,scientific,andeconomicresources,andmosthavebeenalteredbyhumanactivities.Asaconsequence,fewspringshaveretainedtheir

13

naturalcharacter,andtheirfaunahaveexperiencedsomeofthehighestextinctionratesknowninNorthAmerica(StevensandMeretsky2008).StevensandMeretskycharacterizespringsasamongthemostthreatenedecosystems.

Springsoftenfunctionaskeystoneecosystems–althoughtheyoccupyasmallareaonthelandscape,theyplayadisproportionatelylargeroleintheecologyofthesurroundinglandscape(PeralandStevens2008).Despitetheirutilityinlandmanagementandthegrowingrecognitionoftheirecologicalimportance,thefunctionalandecologicalstatusofspringsremainslargelyunknown.

Ithasonlybeeninrecentyearsthataconsistentclassificationsystemhasbeendevelopedtodescribespringsecosystems(SpringerandStevens2008).Thissystemprovidesaframeworkforsprings ecosystem conservation, management, and restoration. SpringerandStevens(2008)identify12typesofspringswhichtheyrefertoas“spheresofdischarge.”Thefollowingeightspringtypesarerelevanttothisproject.PleaseseeSpringerandStevens(2008),andAppendixAforfurtherinformation.

Rheocrenespringsareflowingspringsthatemergeinoneormorechannels. Helocrenespringsemergefromlowgradientwetlandandoftenhaveindistinctor

multiplesourcesseeping. Hillslopespringsemergeonasteep(30‐60°)slopeandoftenhaveindistinctor

multiplesources. Limnocrenespringsemergeinpools. Mound‐formspringsemerge from (usually carbonate) precipitate mounds or peat

mounds. HangingGardenspringsusuallyemergehorizontallyalongageologiccontactalonga

cliffwallanddisplaydrippingflow. Cavespringsemergeinacaveinmaturetoextremekarstwithsufficientlylarge

conduits. Hypocrenespringsareburiedspringswhereflowdoesnotreachthesurface,

typicallyduetoverylowdischargeandhighevaporationortranspiration

Other Regional Efforts Benefiting from this work IntheSkyIslandRegion,numerouspartnerswerealreadymapping,monitoring,inventorying,orotherwisepayingsomeattentiontoselectspringsundertheirstewardship.Wecoordinatedwiththefollowingextantinitiativesduringourproject:aspringsnailassessmentonFortHuachuca,effortstodocumentspringsnailsinArizonaledbytheUSFWSandAZGFD,identificationofspringsintheSantaRitaMountainsnearaproposedcoppermine,surveysofwaterresourcesintheTumacacoriMountainstomonitorbullfrogoccurrenceandnativefrogpopulations,surveysoflowlandleopardfrogpopulationsandknownlocationsintheTucsonBasin(oncounty,private,USFSandNPSlands),aspringinventoryeffortandongoingtinajaandspringmonitoringinassociationwithranidmonitoringatSaguaroNationalPark,effortstocatalogueCarexandJuncusspeciesinArizonaanddevelopaguidebook,restorationeffortsatvariousspringsonfederallyandprivatelymanagedland,anefforttoinventoryallspringsonPimaCountyConservationlandsandwetdrysurveysoftheirknownsprings,recoveryeffortsfortheendangered

14

Chiricahualeopardfrogincludingrestorationofaquatichabitatanddocumentationofpotentialhabitat,anddocumentationofwaterrightsontheCoronadoNationalForest.

Atthestartoftheproject,theCoronadoNationalForesthaddevelopedsurveyprotocolsfordocumentingbeneficialusesofwateratspringsandotherwater‐dependentecosystems.PimaCountyacquiredlandandresourcemanagementresponsibilitieson225,000acresoflandineasternPimaCountyoverthepast6yearsandwascollectinginformationonthelocation,status,andtrendsofkeynaturalresourcesandthreatstothoseresources.PimaCountyhasalonghistoryofdatacollectiononriparianandaquaticfeaturesthroughregionalassessmentstoinformandimplementtheSonoranDesertConservationPlan(seewww.pima.gov/cmo/sdcp/).Forthedurationofthisproject,SkyIslandAllianceworkedundercomplimentaryfundingtoconductrestorationworkat9springssitestoimproveecologicalresiliencetoclimatechange,aswellasworkingwithinarecentlyburneddrainageintheChiricahuaMountainstoinstalllow‐techerosioncontrolstructuresandnativeplantsthatwillprovidecoverandfoodforwildlifeandrestoretheseedbank.

Methods Thisprojectinvolvedacombinationoffielddatacollection,spatialandotheranalysisofspringinventoryandassessmentinformation,coordinationwithadiversityofpartnersstewardingsprings,andpartnerengagementinformalmanagementincludingclimatechangeadaptationplanning.Thissectiondescribesourmethodsandapproaches.

Study Area Selection and Description Thisprojectgrewdirectlyoutofcollaborativeclimatechangeadaptationplanningeffortsthatinvolvedscientists,resourcemanagers,landowners,andconservationists.Theprojectwasdesignedtoberesponsivetotheinformationandmanagementneedsofregionallandmanagers.Weengageabroadarrayofagencies,conservationorganizations,tribes,researchinstitutions,andprivatelandownersthathadattendedregionalclimatechangeadaptationworkshops,hadpreviouslyexpressedinterestinspringsorthatweknewhadspringsresourcesundertheirstewardship.Throughouttheprojectwehaveaskedparticipantstosharetheirmanagementinterestsinsprings,existingregionaldata,andtoidentifywhotheythoughtshouldbeinvolved.

Wedecidedtofocusoureffortsononehydrogeologic/watershedareaintheregioninwhichtoinventoryandassessarandomsampleofsprings.InJanuary2014,weheldanoutreachandcoordinationmeetingwithprojectpartnerswherewesharedfindingsfromourprevious2‐yearspringsinventoryandmanagementplanningprojectintheCienegaCreekhydrogeologicarea;reviewedcomponentsofthiscurrentproject;discussedpartners’workintheregionrelatedtosprings;andreviewedmapsandinformationandgatheredpartners’inputonselectionofthenextthestudyareaforthisproject.Therewere21attendeesfromthefollowingagenciesandgroups:

FederalAgencies‐U.S.GeologicSurvey,BureauofLandManagement(SaffordOffice),USFishandWildlifeService,USForestService(CoronadoNationalForest),National

15

ParkService(SaguaroNationalParkandtheSonoranDesertNetwork),andtheDesertLandscapeConservationCooperativeStateagencies‐ArizonaGameandFishDepartmentLocalagencies‐PimaCounty,andPimaAssociationofGovernmentsUniversityofArizona‐ArizonaWaterResourcesResearchCenterNon‐governmentalOrganizations‐TheNatureConservancy,ArizonaNativePlantSociety,BatConservationInternational,SpringsStewardshipInstitute

WeselectedtheUpperSantaCruzRiverBasinforourstudyarea,whichencompasses274mappedspringsandincludeslandmanagedbytheUSFS,NPS,BLM,PimaCounty,TNCandavarietyofprivatelandowners(Figure3andFigure4).Theareaincludesadiversityofhabitattypes,sixdistinctmountainranges,andavarietyofareaswithhighconservationvalue.WeutilizedGISandworkedwiththeSpringsStewardshipInstitutetoensurespringsdataforthestudyareawasuptodateandweidentifiedaclusteredrandomsampletoallowustoinventoryspringsrepresentativeofthediversityofelevations,habitats,mountainrangesandlandownershipinthestudyarea.

TheUpperSantaCruzRiverstudyareaiscomprisedof2,440squaremiles(6,320squarekm)andincludes274documentedsprings.ThestudyareaencompassesportionsofPima,SantaCruz,andPinalinsouthernArizonaandabutstheU.S.‐Mexicoborder.Thestudyareacontainsthefollowingbioticcommunities(BrownandLowe1981)SemidesertGrassland(855,016acres),ArizonaUplandSonoranDesertcrub(459,930acres),MadreanEvergreenWoodland(206,647acres),InteriorChaparral(24,419acres),PetranMontaneConiferForest(14,205acres),andasmallareaoflowerColoradoRiverSonoranDesertscrub(1,298acres)(Figure5).

SignificantmanagementunitsintheUpperSantaCruzBasinstudyareaincludetheSantaRita,Rincon,Tumacacori,Huachuca,andSantaCatalinaEcosystemManagementAreasoftheCoronadoNationalForestmanagedbytheU.S.ForestService(USFS);SaguaroNationalParkmanagedbytheNationalParkService;andotherconservationlandsmanagedbyPimaCounty.

Information Sources Priortoconductingfieldwork,weattemptedtolocateallspringsintheUpperSantaCruzRiverBasinstudyarea.WeutilizedaspatialdatasetfromtheSpringsStewardshipInstitutethatincludeddatafromtheArizonaLandResourceInformationSystem(1993),ArizonaGeologicInformationCouncil(2008),theCoronadoNationalForest,PimaCounty,TheNatureConservancy,SWCAEnvironmentalConsultants,andtheUSGSandtheNationalHydrologyDataset.ThroughacomplimentaryprojectfundedbytheDesertLCC,theSpringStewardshipInstitutebroughtallofthesedatasourcestogetherintooneseamlessdatasetandremovedduplicates.WeusedGoogleEarth,GoogleMaps,hikearizona.com,andtopographicmapstoassistinlocatingandnavigatingtosprings.

16

Random Sample Design Inordertodevelopanunderstandingofsprings’health,characteristics,andmanagementneedsatalandscape‐level,weusedaclusteredrandomsampledesigntodeterminesitesforsurvey.Surveysiteswereselectedbyanalyzingall274springsinthestudyareabasedontheirX,Y,andZcoordinatestocreate“springclusters,”thenrandomlyselectingoneormorespringswithineachclustertoreacharandomsamplesizeof50springs.Wechooseasamplesizeof50togetadequaterepresentationofspringsacrossthestudyareabasedonexpertinputfromDr.LarryStevensoftheSpringsStewardshipInstitute.Weusedacluster‐basedrandomsampletoensurespringswereinventoriedacrossarangeofelevations,levelsofgeographicisolation,andownershipstatusinordertosupportalandscapescaleecosystemassessment.Thismethodologyensuredwewerenotlimitingoursurveysitestospringsthatwerewell‐known,easilyaccessed,orofhighmanagementinteresttoourpartners,andinsuredweweregatheringabroadsampleofsprings.

Ifwewereunabletovisitaspringintherandomsampleof50duetoaccessorotherissues,wemoveddownthelisttothenextspringinthesample.Inadditiontotherandomlyselectedsprings,weopportunisticallyassessed“non‐random”springsthatwereincloseproximitytorandomsprings,andselectspringsthatwereofhighmanagementconcernorhighprioritytopartners.Figure4showstherandomlyselectedandotherspringsthatwerevisitedoverthecourseofthisproject.

Thisstudyframeworkprovidedtwocrucialtypesofinformation—alandscape‐scaleassessmentofspringecosystemswithintheUpperSantaCruzRiverstudyareaandspecificdataontheecologicalconditionsatindividualsprings.

Figure 3: M

Map of study area location

in the Sky Islland Region.

17

18

Figure 4: Map of springs surveyed in study area.

19

Figure 5: Map of biotic communities in the study area

SelectioProjectpthecondimpacttspecificaCatalinacombinalocationsResponsandon‐t

Atthestareasof

Figure 6: O

Wechoowereplaforestswconcerntheriskapproximspringsi

n of Fire Inpartnersandditionofsprhem.ToaddallyforfireeandSantaRationofinpusinrelationse(BAER)Sothe‐ground

tartoftheprinteresttot

Overview of s

osetofocusannedfueltwithinthePisprotectinofstand‐repmately200,iswithinthe

fluenced SdcollaboratringsinrelatdressthisineffectsthatRitamountautfromthentoburnsevoilBurnSevfirerespons

rojecttheretheForesta

prings potent

ourfiresurreatmentsfinaleñoEconghabitatfoplacingfires000acrePiePERParea

prings for StorsindicattiontofiresnformationwereinaddainsinareasCoronadoNverity.WeveritydataaseontheCo

ewereanumandSkyIsla

ially impacted

rveyeffortsfor2,641acosystemResortheendans.Eighty‐fivnaleñoEcosa,andanad

Study tedtousthasordocumegap,weseleditiontoransofrecentfNationalFormappedsprandtalkedworonadoNat

mberofrecendAlliance

d by fire.

inthePinalcresofhighstorationPrngeredMouvespringshasystemMandditional9a

atthereisnentinghowfectedspringndomsampfire.WebasrestandaspringsagainswithmanagtionalFores

entlargefir(Figure6).

leño,andChelevationsprojectarea(untGrahamavebeenmnagementAareimmedia

oexistingdfueltreatmegstoinventlespringsinsedourselepatialanalystBurnedAgersworkinst.

resintheSk

hiricahuaMpruce‐firan(PERP).PERredsquirre

mappedwithArea(EMA).atelyadjace

datadescribentsmaytoryandassntheSantaectiononaysisofspringAreaEmergegonFireSca

kyIslandsin

Mountains.Tndmixed‐coRP’sprincipelandreduchintheOneofthesnttoit.

20

ing

sess

gencyape

n

Thereoniferplecing

se

Assessmtreatmentreatmentreatmenthinningecosyste

Field an

Spring InTocollecinventor(Stevensthemainintheprwedevesolelygebiologicavariable

Surveytquality,caccompafromapwasreprgeographisolatedclosepro

Figure 7: V

Tomaximopportunwouldbehydrolog

mentscanprntsandcreantsonsprinntsincluding.Understanemswillbev

d Analysis

nventories actbaselinedryandassessetal.2012nworkforcerojecthadvalopedprotoeographicinal,geomorpsforspring

eams,typicconsistencyaniedbyanartnerorgaresented.Foher,andabspringsandoximitytoa

Volunteers co

mizefielddnities,wecoeconductedgicalandge

rovidebaselateamonitongs.PERPongprescribendingtheinvaluablefor

Methods

nd Assessmdataonsprissmentprot)andadapteforaccomparyinglevelocolsthatstnformationophological,ggs(Ledbette

allyrangingy,andcomplSIAstaffmeanization.Worexample,biologist.Wedvolunteeraclusterofs

onduct a sprin

datacollecteonductedsudduringtheeologicalsur

linedataonoringframeoffersoneidedfire,lopanterplayoftrfutureland

ents ingsintheUtocolsdeveltedforusewplishspringlsofnaturaltruckabalanonsprings,geological,heretal.2010

ginsizefromliancewithembertrain

Westructureastaff‐volueconductedweekendswsprings.

g inventory at

edwithinthurveysthroegrowingserveyswould

ntheconditieworkfordedealstudyenandscatter,thesemanagdscape‐scal

UpperSantalopedbythewithtrainedssurveys(FlistorscienncebetweeandaTypehumanimpa0;Stevense

m2‐5peoplsurveyprotnedinthepredvolunteerunteerteamdfieldworkwhereweca

t Barfoot Park

efundingpughouttheeasontocapdbeconduc

ionsofsprinetectingthenvironmentpileandbugementtecherestoratio

aCruzRivereSpringsStdvolunteersFigure7).VntificexpertinaTypeIIIIInventoracts,andadmetal.2012).

le,visitedsptocols,volurotocols,orrteamssotmmightinclukthroughacampedata

k in the Chiric

eriodandvyear.Ideallptureflowectedinwinte

ngsinadvaneinfluencestwithnumeurning,andshniqueswitonprojects.

rstudyareatewardships.TrainedvVolunteersthise.Toacconventory,thrythatcollecministrative

prings.Toenteerteamsrbyareliabthatadiversudeabirdercombinatiosinglelocat

cahua Mounta

volunteerenly,biologicaeringandbrertocaptur

nceoffuelsoffuelserousplannsmall‐diamethsprings’

a,weusedInstitutevolunteerswhatparticipmmodatethhatcollectsctsphysicalecontext

ensuredataswerealwalesubstitutsityofexperr,abotanistnofdaytriptionthatwa

ains

ngagementalinventoryreeding,whirepeak

21

nedeter

werepatedhis,

l,

aystertiset,apstoasin

ile

22

baseflowinformation(Stevensetal.2011).Theseopposingconsiderationsfortimingofsurveyshighlighttheimportanceofmakingadditionalsitevisitsindifferentseasons,andofmonitoring.Thedatacollectedthroughthisprojectprovideasnapshotintimeofeachofthespringsvisited.

Atallspringssitesthatwerelocatedinthefield,thefollowinginventorydatawascollected:

SiteOverviewInformation:includesGPSlocation,elevation,springsphereofdischarge,siteconditionattimeofvisit,sitedescription,directionstosite,surveyors’namesandsurveytime.Thespringsphereofdischargeisbasedonthecombinationofsourceflowandphysicalcharacteristicsofthesite(Springeretal.2008)(seeAppendixAformoreinformation).Thisoverviewinformationisnecessarytomapthespring,re‐locatethespringduringsubsequentvisits,trackchangesinspringconditionovertime,andtorelatespringstomanagementareasandactivities.EquipmentusedincludedaGPSdevice,acompass,andaclinometer.

SiteMap:includesamapwithascale,areameasurements,truenorth,thelocationofphotographs,thelocationofvariablesmeasureincludingwater,GPSandsolarradiationmeasurementpoints,andspringmicrohabitatslabeled(Figure8).Mapsweredrawntoincludetheareadirectlyinfluencedbythespring.Thesketchmapsynthesizeslocationsofgeomorphologicallandmarksandbiologicalcharacteristics,allowsforrepeatmeasurements,andmeasurestheareaofspringssitesandmicrohabitats.Equipmentusedincludeda30or50metertapemeasureandgraphpaper.

PhotoDocumentation:includesanoverviewphotoofthesitetakennearthesourcepointlookingdownchannel,asecondaryphotolikelytakenbelowspringemergencelookingupchannel,andanyotherobjectsofinterest.Photosprovideanoverviewofsitegeomorphology,hydrology,biologyandcondition.

SolarRadiation:includesrecordingasunriseandsunsettimeforeachmonthoftheyear.ASolarPathfinderwasusedtorecordatotalsolarbudgetforthesite.Theamountofsolarbudgetatasitedetermineslightenergyavailableforphotosynthesis,durationoffreezinginwinter,evaporationandrelativehumidityandisthereforeanimportantfactorinmicroclimate(Stevensetal.2006;Stevensetal.2011).ASolarPathfinderisarelativelyinexpensivetoolforcollectionofsolarradiationdataandprovidesfinerresolutionthancanbeprovidedthroughaGISanalysis.Thisisimportantwhensurveyingspringsthatareverysmallintotalarea,orarelocatedonverticalsurfacesorinsteepterrain.

FloraandFauna:includeslistsofplantandanimalspeciespresentoridentifiablebysignorcallswithcarefulattentiontothepresenceofsensitiveandinvasiveorganisms.Thiswasdonetothebestoftheabilityofthesurveyteamandwasintendedtogetaninitialsnapshotofthespeciespresentatsprings.

Flow:Flowratemeasurementsweretakenwhenpossible.Surveyorsusedasimpletimedvolumecaptureprotocol.Flowisoneofthemostimportantandusefulvariablesforunderstandingwhatbioticcomponentsaspringcansupportandthelevelofitsfunctioning,andissensitivetoanthropogenicinfluencessuchaswaterextraction.Equipmentused

23

includedPVCpipingofvarioussizes,calibratedcapturecupsrangingfrom.75Lto1.5L,andastopwatch.

WaterQuality:includespH,specificconductance,temperatureanddissolvedoxygen.Waterqualitywasmeasuredasclosetothesourceaspossible.WaterqualitymeasurementsweretakeninthefieldusingtheHannahHandheldCombometerthatwascalibratedatthestartofeveryfieldworkday.ThisinstrumentwasusedtomeasurepH,specificconductance,andtemperature.

Inadditiontotheinventorydatalistedabove,crewsperformedSpringsEcosystemAssessmentProtocols(SEAP).ThissetofprotocolswasdevelopedbytheSpringsStewardshipInstituteandcollectsinformationregardingtheecologicalcondition,risks,andrestorationpotentialofsprings.Characteristicsscoredbytheassessmentfallunderthefollowingcategories:Aquifer/WaterQuality,Geomorphology,Habitat,BioticIntegrity,HumanInfluence,andAdministrativeContext.Specificcharacteristicsundereachofthesecategoriesarescoredonascaleof1‐6andaregivenascoreforbothconditionandriskbasedonadetailedscoringrubric.SeeAppendixAfordetailedassessmentprotocols,scoringrubric,andfieldforms.Assessedspringscanthenberankedbasedonspecificstewardshipobjectives,providingaroadmapformanagementoptionsataspecificspring.Thisinformationcanalsobeexaminedinaggregateacrossastudyareaorregionofinteresttodevelopanunderstandingofoverallconditionsandthreatsfortheregion.Springsinventoriesandassessmentsprovideinformationonthespringsconditionandecologiccontributionincontextwithlocalandregionalthreatsincludinggroundandsurfacewaterextraction,contamination,livestockuse,humanalterationofthesite,recreationalimpacts,andclimatechange.

New for this project Basedoninputfrommanagementpartners,weaddedseveralnewprotocolstoourspringinventoriesthisyear:springsnailsurveys,waterrightsdocumentation,andwatersamplecollection.WecoordinatedwiththeArizonaGameandFishDepartmentandtheU.S.FishandWildlifeServicetoincorporatetheirspringsnailprotocolsintooursurveysand3SIAstaffmembersattendedaspringsnailsurveytrainingattheoutsetoftheproject.WeworkedwiththeCoronadoNationalForesttoincorporateanewsurveyprotocolthatcapturesinformationonspringcharacteristicsinaformatsuitablefortheForesttouseasdocumentationofbeneficialusesofwaterforwaterrightadjudicationpurposes.

DuringthisprojectwebegancoordinatingwithresearchersattheUniversityofArizonaandUSGSwhohaveaninterestinanalyzingisotopiccompositionofwatersamplesfromspringstodetermineflowpathandrechargetype.Webegancollectingwatersamplestosharewiththem.Thiscomplimentaryanalysiswillprovidemuchneededinformationtoinformspringsmanagement,protectionandrestoration,andwillimproveourunderstandingofspringsecosystemsandgroundwaterhydrologyinthestudyarea.

Figure 8: S

Sample Site MMap

24

CataloguTheCorotheSkyIwildfirepercentWecondMountai

Figure 9: O

WeusedtoinventdangerfEcosyste

uing Effects oonadoNatioIslandRegiofrom130seofspringsoductedinvennsonCoron

Overview of f

dthesameintoryandassforpotentiaemAssessm

of Fire at SponalForeston(1.7millieparatefireontheCoronntoriesandnadoNation

fire perimeters

nventorymsessspringslfire(Figur

mentProtoco

rings isthemajorionacres).Ses,128ofwhnadoNationassessmentnalForestla

s on the Coron

methods(Stesinareasthre10).Tobolcategory

rlandmanaSince2000,hichwerelanalForestartsat24spriandwithinb

nado National

evensetal.2hathadreceettercapturaddressing

ageroffores46%oftheargerthan1rewithinaingsinthePburnedarea

l Forest.

2012)adaptentlyburnedrefireeffecnegativeef

stedSkyIslaeForesthas100acres.TburnperimPinaleñoanasorthePE

tedforusewdorwereints,weaddeffectsoffire

andhabitatexperienceThirty‐fourmeter(FigurndChiricahuERP.

withvoluntnareasofhidanewSpreatsprings,

25

tined

e9).ua

teersighringsas

wellaspnotes.

Figure 10:

ToanalywithinaMadreanburnsevlowburn3.25‐4astheirsur250mraeach50

Adopt‐a‐Partnersinteresteinterestparticulaparticulasharingoprotocoladditioncollectsiconsidertheneedthesesitatavoluweadderestorati

payingspeci

: Volunteers in

yzehowthe50mandanArchipelagverityoffirenseverity,1shighburnrroundings,adiusaveragmradiusfro

‐Spring MonsattheJanuedintheneinparticipaarsitesinmarlyNationaofexpertiseldevelopmenalsitesthatimilarmonirationrecendforreferentes,i.e.accesunteerorienedasixthsitionstudent

ialattention

nventory and

sespringswa250mradigoREAburnesfrom1991.25‐2.24asseverity.Towecalculatge(BurnSeoma30mD

nitoring uary2014owAdopt‐a‐atinginsitemind,whileoalParkServe,weheldaent.Weseletmanagersitoringinforntrestorationcesitesintssibilityandntationmeettemonitoreclub.

ntodocume

assess Lower

wereaffecteiusaroundnseverityd7through2slowburnsounderstantedthediffeeverityDiffeDEM.

utreachandSpringcomselectionanothershaddviceaffiliatepartnermeected5sitesareregularrmation.Inoneffortsattheregion,adappeal.WtingandkicdbytheCie

entingsitec

Rustler Park

edbyfire,weachspringdistribution2011.Wecaeverity,2.2ndifspringserencebetwerence).We

dstudysiteponentofthndmethododonesimilas.ToaccomeetinginAprstomonitorlyvisitingwadditiontotthesesitesandthereal

WerecruitedckedoffmonenegaClub,

conditionan

k Spring in the

wecalculatedg(onascalelayer,whicategorizeda5‐3.24asmswerelessvweenthe50alsocalcula

selectionmhisproject,ologydeveloarworkandmmodateintril2014focrwithvolunwherewecamanagers’s,potentialflitiesofaskdvolunteersnitoringinJtheUnivers

ndobservat

e Chiricahua M

dtheaverageof0‐4).Wehdepictsthanaverage0moderatebuvulnerabletmradiusavatedaverag

meetingwerandmanyeopment.Somhadprotocterestandccusedonsitnteersandiancollaboraneeds,wetfuturerestoingvoluntesandformeJune2014.sityofArizo

tionsinthe

Mountains.

geburnseveusedthehemaximum0‐1.24asveurnseveritytofirethanverageandgeaspectwi

reveryexpressedmepartnerscolsuggestioapitalizeoneselectionaidentifiedtwatewiththetookintoorationefforerstomonidspringteaInApril201ona’swaters

26

verity

mery,and

thethin

shadons,nandwoemto

rts,itorams15,shed

The6Addriveortohikessitesbefvarietyh

Figure 11:

dopt‐a‐Sprinfour‐wheelof6milesrforeandaftehelpedusbe

: Adopt-a-Spr

ngsites(Figdrive,driveround‐trip,aeractiveresetterunders

ring sites.

gure11andesof30minavarietyofstoration,afstandwhat

dTable1)innutesto3hlandjurisdifterpassivetypesofsit

ncludesprinours,onanictions,avaerestorationevolunteer

ngsaccessibdoff‐trailharietyofsprn,andreferrsarewillin

blebytwo‐wikes,nohikringtypes,aencesites.Tgtovisit.

27

wheelkingandThis

Table 1: ASpringNameMcGrew

Alamo

WestHospitalFlat

Aliso

Ash

Rock

TocaptuincludesmonsoonmonitorBecausemeasurilargeheleachsuratthesitmeasure

SIAstaffandensu

Adopt-a-SprinSpringPh

ureseasonal5surveywn,andfallseingwindoweachsitewngfeatureslocrenesiterveywindowte,choseatedtheareao

fconductedureproperc

ng site informaoto

ldataatsprwindowstoceasons(Tabwtorecordwwasunique,wsuchasdiae,weusedLw;weperfothresholdtoofthewetm

initialsitevcompliance

ation. ConservaTargetsPre‐restobats,midpollinator

ChiricahuLeopardF

Highplandiversity,elevationmeadow

Jaguarinpotentialdevelopmnearby

Recentlywetmeadponds,Chleopardfr

Recentlyin‐channelowlandlfrog

ringsiteswcapturedatable2).VolunwaterqualitwedevelopameterofpoandSatdatarmedatassodifferentiameadow.

visitswithvwiththepr

ation ST

oration,‐storyrplants

H

uaFrog

R

nt,highnwet

H

thearea,mine

ment

R

restored,dowwithhiricahuarog,bats

HH

restoredelspring,leopard

R

edevelopedaduringwinteerteamsty,waterfloedwaystoondsandlenatomeasurseledcapanatethewetm

volunteerstrotocols.Col

SpringTypeHillslope

Rheocrene

Helocrene

Rheocrene

Hillslope,Helocrene

Rheocrene

daschedulenter,springsvisitedtheowdata,andmeasurewngthofoutfethesizeofnalysistoexmeadowfro

toorientthellectinggoo

LandOwner

USFS,adjacenKartchnerCaStatePark,WhetstoneMountainsUSFS,PajaritMountains

USFS,PinaleñMountains

USFS,SantaRMountains

USFS,ChiricaMountains

NPS,RinconMountains

eformonitog,dryfore‐seirsiteoncedspeciesocetnessatthflow.AtHosfthewetmxtracttheweomitssurro

emtotheirodbotanical

rship

nttoaverns

to

ño

Rita

ahua

oringthatsummer,duringeacccurrence.hesitesbyspitalFlat,aeadowdurietnessofpioundings,an

monitoringlinformatio

28

h

ingxelsnd

gsiteon

hasbeenAdopt‐a‐conductebotanicadevelop

Volunteewindowvolunteeforwatechoosingpersonsresponsiwhenth

Table 2: A

DevelopRestoratAkeycoandtocostewarddatabaseRestoratofspring

Springs OInthefaworkingcapabilitshootissdatabaseMonitoritointegr

nachalleng‐SpringsiteedaBotanyalexpertsfrplantlistsb

ermanagemtovolunteeerssuppliedrquality.Wgadate.Westoredthesuibleforscheerewereto

Adopt-a-Sprin

ping Tools ation mponentofollaborativeshipofsprie,hostingwtionHandbogsfollowing

Online Databllof2013,tgsessionswtiesandtoasues.InFebewebinarwingNetworkratetheirda

eforourvos(atwhichyBlitzinAuomtheregibymicrohab

mentprimarerstoscheddwithsurveWeoccasionaerecruitedourveykit,reedulingsurvofewvolun

ng monitoring

and Guidan

fthisprojecelydevelopngs.Wedidworkshopsoook,andcongfire.

base heSpringS

withPimaCoactuallyworruary2014withstafffrok.Webinarsataintothe

olunteerbasweparticulgust2014,aion,includinbitat.

rilyincludedduletheirsueykitmaterallyassistedonevolunteeturnedcomveys.Staffonteersavaila

windows.

ce in Suppo

ctwastodevguidelinesadthisbytraionspringresnveningwo

tewardshipountystafftrkwithstaff4,weworkedomSaguarosprovidedaonlinedata

sedspringslarlywantgattheheighngaCarexe

dsendingouurvey,settinrials,suchasdbysettingeerforeachmpleteddatoccasionallyableforagi

ort of Mon

velopcapacandbestmainingmanagstoration,drkshopsfoc

pInstitutehofamiliarizfdirectlyasdwiththeSNationalPaanoverviewabase.Thist

urveys.Toagooddatatohtofthegroexpert,andv

utreminderngupsurveysdatasheetsupDoodlesitetoservtasheetsandyaccompaniivenwindow

itoring, Ste

citytousesanagementgersinuseodevelopingacusedonma

ostedaserizethemwithstheyenterSpringStewarkandthewofdatabastypeoftarge

addressthisocorrelatewowingseasovisitedsprin

rspriortoeykits,andksandcalibrpollstoassveasateamdphotostoiedvolunteew.

ewardship a

pringsassepracticestooftheSprinanArizonaSanagement

iesofwebinhthedatabaedspringsd

wardshipInsSonoranDesestructureetedtrainin

sissuewithwithflow),wn.Werecrungssitesto

eachsurveykeepingrationsolutiistvolunteeleader.Thius,andwasersonsurve

and

essmentdataoinformngsOnlineSpringandrestora

narsandaseanditsdatatotroustitutetohoeserteandhowbnghasprove

29

htheweuited

y

ionsersinsseys

a,

ation

ubleosta

esten

30

effectiveinsupportingorganizationsintransitioningtheirexistingdatatothedatabaseandinbeginningtoutilizethedatabaseintheirworkflow.

InFebruary2015,theSpringsStewardshipInstitutehostedanotherSpringsOnlineDatabaseTrainingavailablehere(http://springstewardshipinstitute.org/online‐database‐training/).In2015,weconductedasurveyofregistereddatabaseuserstoassessusabilityandtroubleshootpotentialproblems.Wereceived25responsesindicatingthatgenerallyusersarereturningtothesiteandpleasedwiththecurrentlyavailabletutorials.

Arizona Springs Restoration Handbook WedevelopedanArizonaSpringsRestorationHandbookthatwalkspractitionersthroughconsiderationsandaprocessforplanningandimplementingspringsrestoration,includinghowtoeffectivelyconsiderclimatechangeandfireeffects.Todevelopthehandbook,weworkedwiththeSpringsStewardshipInstitutetoholdtwoworkshopswithmanagersandpractitioners.Theseworkshopshelpedusscopetheneedsofmanagersengagedinspringrestorationandtogathertheirexpertinput.Topicsincluded:definingdesiredconditionsandgoalsatspringrestorationsites;restorationoptionsbyspringtype;developingcasestudiesforthemostcommonspringtypesbasedonpreviouswork;associatedmanagementstrategies,includinginventoryingspringsandprioritizingsitesforrestoration;legalandregulatoryissues;andimplementing,monitoring,andevaluatingsuccess.

Thisfirstworkshopallowedustoidentifykeytopicsonwhichtofocus.Basedonparticipantinput,weareworkingtodevelopandreleasetheHandbookthroughacombinationofmedia,includinginformationalbrochures,apublishedversionforuseinthefield,andawebsitewithmorecomprehensiveinformationandlinkstoadditionalresources.Thesecondworkshopincludedparticipantsfromadiversityofagenciesandorganizations;itfocusedonapproachesforprioritizingwhichspringstorestore(landscapescale)andwhatconservationtargetstofocusonataparticularsite(localscale).Wealsofocusedoncollectingpractitioners’experiencesandthetechniquestheyusedatdifferenttypesofsprings.Aftermuchdiscussionwithworkshopparticipants,wedecidedtoincludesustainablemanagementandinventoryandassessmenttechniquesinthehandbooktogivecontexttorestorationefforts.TheHandbookcontainsthefollowingsections:

ArizonaSpringsEcosystems InventoryandAssessment Springs‐DependentSpecies RestorationPlanning SpringsRestoration SpringsMonitoring FieldFormsandSEAPCriteria HydrologyVariables WorksheetandEquipmentList SpringsRestorationPlantSpecies Bibliography

31

ThehandbookbringstogetherthecurrentstateoftheknowledgeaboutspringrestorationinArizonaandprovidesaconsistentapproachforpractitioners.

Management Workshops: Fire and Water Weconvenedtwoworkshopswithmanagersandexpertstoaddressthefollowing:identifystrategiesforconsideringspringsresourcesinfiretreatments,meetingpost‐firerestorationneedsutilizingvolunteers,coordinateagencypost‐firerestorationresponsesacrossjurisdictionstoprotectcriticalwaterresources,andidentifypoliciesandframeworksthatsupporteffectiveinter‐jurisdictionalresponses.

InFebruary2014,weworkedwiththeSouthwestFireScienceConsortiumtodevelopandconveneFosteringresilienceinSouthwesternecosystems:Aproblemsolvingworkshop,heldinTucson,AZ.Theworkshophadover150participantsfromArizonaandNewMexicorepresentingadiversityofagenciesandorganizationsandwithexpertiseinawidediversityofdisciplinesrelatedtofiresuppression,firemanagement,restoration,andfishandwildlifemanagement.Participantsworkedthroughavarietyofquestionsinroundtablesettingsinordertodevelopimplementablestrategiesformanagementandfireresponsethatwillsupportresilienceasfireregimescontinuetochange.Therewasrobustandcreativestrategydevelopmentaroundprotectionofrefugiasuchasspringsfromfireimpacts,andonre‐thinkingpost‐fireresponsestoincludeactiverestorationinsupportofsensitivewaterresources.Furtherinformationontheworkshopresultscanbefoundhere:http://swfireconsortium.org/Fire%20and%20Resiliency%20Ecology%20Workshop/

InNovember2015,wehostedaworkshopaspartoftheSocietyforEcologicalRestorationSouthwestChapterconferencetitledFireEffects:RestorationofWatershedsandSprings.Theworkshopwasdesignedtoprovideparticipantswithinformationontrendsinfireeffectsonwatersheds,streams,andsprings;offertoolstorespondtotheseimpactsbeforeandafterfires;andfosteradiscussiononnextstepsforrestorationpractitioners.Wefocuseddiscussiononhowlandmanagersandrestorationpractitionerscanfosterresilience,restoreecologicalfunction,andeasetransitionforecosystemsandspeciesinthefaceofchangingfireregimes.

Theworkshophad67participantsincludinglandandresourcemanagers,researchers,restorationpractitioners,conservationpractitionersandtribalmembers.Theformatconsistedofaseriesof11presentationsfollowedbyfacilitatednetworkingandsmallgroupdiscussionsorganizedbytopicthataddressedthefollowingquestions:

Tools:Whatrestorationtoolsarecurrentlyworkingforwildfireeffects? Challenges:Whathasn’tworked?Whataresomeofthechallenges?Howareyou

takingclimatechangeintoaccount? Recommendations:Whatare2‐3recommendationsyouhaveformanagersand

practitioners?(specificstrategies/tools,research,training,newpartnerships,etc.)

SeeAppendixDforfurtherinformationontheworkshopresults.

OutreachAkeycoshareremanagemcommunregionalpersonmprojectpviameetcoordina

ToreachatanummanagemEcologicCommittCenterwsymposiresults.

Figure 12:

Results

RandomWecond5).Twospringswsampleddocumen

h mponentofsults,andenmentandconicationsanspringsstemeetings,wprogress.WtingsoftheationwithC

hmanagersmberofbroamentandadcalRestoratiteemeetingwebinarseria.Ourprese

: Members of

s

m Sample Spductedinvenofthe56siwerepartod,1springwnted5sprin

fthisprojecnsurethattonservationndcoordinatewardshipnwebinars,andWealsocoordrecentlyforChiricahuale

beyondouradreachingdaptationtoionNationagsandwebiniesSafeguarentationsfo

the Sky Island

pring Invenntoriesataitesweresuftheclusterwasassessedngsthathad

ctwascontitheprojectwnneeds.Thrtionwithmnetwork.WdregularemdinatedthrormedSkyIseopardfrog

ractiveregivenues,incoclimatechalandChaptnarseries,trdingWildliocusedonsh

d Restoration

ntories and totalof56surveyedbySredrandomdaspartofdnotprevio

nuedengagwasprogresroughoutthorethan30ecoordinatmailcontactoughmoreflandRestorgrecoverye

ionalpartneludingconfhange(e.g.NterConferenthroughtheifefromClimharingproje

Cooperative

AssessmenspringsinthSaguaroNatmsample,9stheAdopt‐Auslybeenm

gementofmssinginamheproject,w0entitiesthatedthroughtwiththefuformalregiorationCoopefforts.

ergroup,weferencesfocNationalAdances),throuNationalComateChangectmethodo

discuss restor

nts heUpperSationalParkspringswerA‐Springprmapped.Of

managerstomannerconswemaintainatmakeuphacombinatullgrouptoonalinformerative(Fig

epresentedcusedonnataptationForughDesertLonservationge,workshoologiesinad

ration options

antaCruzstStaff.Fortyreopportunogram,andthe41spri

gatherinpusistentwithnedtheinformationofin‐updatethe

mationsharigure12),an

donthisproturalresourrum,SocietyLCCSteerinnTrainingps,anddditionto

and results.

tudyarea(Ty‐oneofthenisticallywengsthatwe

32

ut,

al

monngd

ojectrceyforng

Table

ere

partofthwereopp–drawinrandomiinthispr‐onedesdescribin

Basic StaSpringsdetectedabundan

RheocreLimnocr

Fivespriprimarydischargweredevspringspcattledr

Figure 13:

Springsof0.1m2

averagewitham

herandomportunisticangconclusioizedsamplerojectinApscribingthengoverallp

atistics AcrosTypes:Thd8typesofnce(Figure

ne>>Hillslrene

ingswereclorsecondagewasaltervelopedforprimarilyinrinkers,and

: Spring types

HabitatAr2atBrinkleyspringarea

mediansprin

sample,9wallysampledonsaboutspeset.FullspppendixBaneanalysisreprojectoutco

ss Random‐Sereare12sspringsamo13):

ope>Anthr

lassifiedasarytypebeced.Ofthe3adevelopmncludedspriaccompany

s in the study a

rea:SpringySpringtoaaof5,140mngareaofon

wereunlocatd,3wereunpringsacrospringinventndC.Thepresultsfromsomes.

Sample Sprispringtypesongthe32w

ropogenic>

primarilyoausetheyw2randomlymentrateofingboxes,cyingdevices

area

siteareacaahighof10

m2(s=19,62nly80m2(F

tablebysurnlocatablebssthestudytoryreportsrojectresultspringsinve

ings in Santasrecognizedwesurveye

>HangingG

rsecondariweremodifieysampledspf 59%acrosonstructedslikefloats.

lculatedfro00,000m2at25).MostspFigure14).T

rveyors(Tabysurveyoryarea‐weosareavailabtsaredescrentoriesand

a Cruz Basind(Springerdwiththef

Garden;Helo

ilyanthropoedsoextenpringssuccsthestudydams,pipin.

omsitesketctAguaCalieringswereThetotalar

rheocrene(18

hillslope(10)

anthropogeni

hanginggarde

helocrene(2)

hypocrene(1)

limnocrene(1

cave(1)

ble6).Ofthrs.Forpurponlyanalyzebleforallspibedbelowdassessme

n randStevenfollowingor

ocrene>Cav

ogenicwithsivelythattessfullyinvarea.Develngtoholdin

chmapsranenteSpring,between10reaencompa

8)

ic(5)

en(2)

)

1)

he9springsosesofanaledthepringssurveintwosectntsandone

ns2008).Wrderof

ve;Hypocre

anothertheirsphereventoried,19lopmentsatngtanksor

ngedfromawithan0and100massedby

33

sthatlysis

eyedtionse

We

ene;

eof9t

alow

m2,

34

springssurveyedintheUpperSantaCruzRiverstudyareawas153,933m2or0.0024%ofthe(6,319,761,736m2)studysite.

Figure 14: Area of springs in the study area.

Elevation:Elevationofspringsitesrangedfromalowof822metersatAguaCalienteSpringtoahighof2,742metersatCascadeSpringnearthepeakofMountLemmonintheSantaCatalinas,withanaverageelevationof1,888meters.

Isolation:Thedistancefromspringsinventoriedtothenextnearestspringsiterangedfromalowof132metersatRockSpring,toahighof4,431metersatAguaCalienteSpringwithanaveragedistancetonearestspringof967meters(s=908).Mostspringswerewithin1,500m1500mofanotherspring,butasmallnumberwerequiteisolated(Figure15).

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

1000.0

10000.0

100000.0

SpringArea(logscale)

35

Figure 15: Isolation of springs in the study area.

Flow:Ofthe41randomlysampledsprings,surveyorswereunabletolocate9,indicatingtheywerelikelydryforsomeextendedperiodoftime.Anotherthreeofthe41randomlysampledspringswerelocatedandinventoriedbuthadnowaterpresentonthesiteatthetimeofvisit.Twenty‐nine,or91%,ofthe32springssampledhadsomewaterpresentatthesiteatthetimeofsurvey(or71%ofthe41randomlysampledspringsthatweresearchedfor).

Forthespringswithsufficientflowpresenttomeasure,theflowraterangedfromahighof0.2L/satBellowsSpringtoalowof0.003L/satRuelasSpring.Theflowwasnotmeasuredat13springsatwhichwaterwaspresentduetooneofthefollowing:pooledwaterordiffuseflowpreventedcapturingflow,theflowratewaslowenoughthatwatercouldnotbecapturedforvolumetricmeasurement(e.g.wettedsoilpresent),orthepresenceofinfrastructurepreventedmeasurement.Theaverageflowrateforthestudyareawas0.06L/s(n=12).Table3showsaverageflowbyspringtype.Figure16showsthelackofarelationshipbetweenflowrateandspringtypeforthestudyarea.

Table 3: Average Flow by Spring Type Springtype AverageFlowatMeasuredSpringsRheocrene 0.054L/s(s=0.070)Hillslope 0.059L/s(s=0.077)(only5of9hadmeasurableflow)Hanginggarden Nomeasurableflow

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Count

DistancetoNearestSpring(m)

36

Figure 16: Flow rate (L/s) plotted against Elevation (m).

WaterQuality:Fieldspecificconductancerangedfromahighof1,086ųS/cmatCrescentSpringtoalowof42ųS/cmatCascadeSpringwithanaverageof347ųS/cm(n=18,s=343).Generally,specificconductancedecreasedwithincreasingelevation(Figure17).SpecificconductancewaslowestintheSantaCatalinaandRinconMountains,andhighestinthePatagoniaandnorthernSantaRitamountains.

PHrangedfromalowof6.4atRangerStationUnnamedspring,anundevelopedhigh‐elevationspring,toahighof8.6atRedSpring,anundevelopedmid‐elevationrheocrenespring,withanaverageof7.3(n=19,s=0.56).PHhadnorelationshipwithelevation(Figure17)ormountainrange.

Watertemperaturerangedfromalowof5.95CatBellowsSpring,anundevelopedhigh‐elevationspring,toahighof27.9CatRedSpring,anundevelopedmid‐elevationrheocrenespring,withanaverageof7.3C(n=19,s=0.56).Generally,watertemperaturedecreasedwithincreasingelevation(Figure17).SeeTable4formoredetailedinformationonwaterqualitybymountainrange.

R²=0.0732

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Flow

(L/s)

Elevation(m)

37

Figure 17: Water quality versus elevation of springs in the study area.

Table 4: Water quality of springs across mountain range in the study area, including specific conductance (SC), pH, and temperature (T).

Range SC pH T

Atascosas 409 7.7 23.8

Catalinas 124 7.3 11.7

Patagonias 1086 7.6 13.6

Rincons 228 6.9 14.1

SR N 765 7.7 15.6

SR W 354 7.3 10.0

FloraandFauna:Thefloraandfaunaanalysisislimitedbytheconstraintofspringsurveyteamshavingvaryingplantandanimalidentificationskillsets.Alsospringsacrossthestudyareawerevisitedatdifferenttimesoftheyear.Thus,theplantandanimalspecieslistsprovideaninitialsnapshotofdiversitypresentateachspring.

Wecollected808plantrecordsatsurveyedsprings(262werecollectedbySaguaroNP),including231speciesidentifiedtothespecieslevel,85speciesidentifiedtothegenuslevel,and4speciesidentifiedtoahighertaxonomiclevel.Ofthese,21specieswereidentifiedasinvasive.Therewere56plantrecordslistedasunknown.

Wecollectedinvertebrateobservationsat24springsandrecordedanarrayofinvertebrates.Werecorded21ordersofinvertebrates.ThegreatestnumberofinvertebratefamiliesrecordedatasinglespringwasrecordedatLaCebadillaCienega.ThemostcommonlyrecordedfamiliesofinvertebratesatspringswereDytiscidae,predaciousdivingbeetles;Apidae,bees;Pieridae,whiteandsulphurbutterflies;Hesperiidae,skipperbutterflies;Nymphalidae,brush‐footedbutterflies;Vespidae,wasps;Lycaenidae,gossamer‐wingedbutterflies;Papilionidae,swallowtailbutterflies;Erotylidae,pleasingfungusbeetles;Formicidae,ants;andNotonectidae,waterboatmen.

Wecollectedvertebrateobservationsat29springs.Weobserved102speciesofvertebrates:12speciesofreptilesandamphibians,includingChiricahualeopardfrog;15

R²=0.3476

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1000 2000 3000

SpecificConductance(µS/cm

)

Elevation(m)

R²=0.0929

5

6

7

8

9

10

1000 2000 3000

pH

Elevation(m)

R²=0.5051

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1000 2000 3000

Tem

perature(C)

Elevation(m)

38

mammalspecies,1fishspecies,theinvasivemosquitofish;and74birdspecies.ThegreatestnumberofvertebratespeciesrecordedatasinglespringwasrecordedatCasecoSpring.Themostcommonlyrecordedvertebrateswere:

Deer>Yellow‐eyedJunco>HouseWren,WesternTanager>AmericanRobin,SpottedTowhee

Table 5: Springs at which inventories were conducted in the Upper Santa Cruz River study area including date, area, spring type, elevation, coordinates, and whether they were new, opportunistic, or part of the random sample. Springs highlighted in blue were surveyed by Saguaro National Park Staff

SiteName DateArea(m2)

SpringTypeElevation(m)

UTME UTMN Category

AguaCalienteSpring

100,000 limnocrene 822 525524 3571579 randomsample

AlamoSpring 6/29/14 98 rheocrene 1319 486936 3470165 AdoptASpring

BellowsSpring 11/15/14 140 rheocrene 2574 514130 3507062 randomsample

BogSprings 11/16/14 327 hillslope 1748 512966 3509573 opportunistic

BrinkleySpring 6/29/14 0.1anthropogenic/hanginggarden

2705 519909 3588834 randomsample

BrokenArmSpring

10/4/14 1 rheocrene 1319 490216 3474456 opportunistic

BuschSpring 6/13/15 54 rheocrene 2357 522547 3588814 randomsample

CascadeSpring 6/29/14 47rheocrene/anthropogenic

2742 519810 3588992 randomsample

CasecoSpring 6/28/15 179 rheocrene 2323 527703 3585599 randomsample

ChivaFalls 9/3/14 970 hanginggarden 1204 538097 3569127 newlymapped

CrescentSpring 4/20/14 204hanginggarden/anthropogenic

1454 523562 3471702 randomsample

DeeringSpring 8/9/15 nomaprheocrene/anthropogenic

1726 522612 3519274 opportunistic

Devil'sBathtubSpring

9/14/14 183 rheocrene 2328 542852 3562298 randomsample

FlickerSpring 6/28/14 90rheocrene/hillslope

2624 520863 3589684 randomsample

FloridaSpring 11/15/14 23 rheocrene 2125 515331 3510509 randomsample

GibbonSprings 9/11/15 7130helocrene/hypocrene

859 521335 3574177 randomsample

HuntsmanSpring 6/13/15 nomap rheocrene 2462 522662 3587823 randomsample

IronSpring 2/7/15 150 rheocrene 1762 509056 3504223 opportunistic

ItalianSpring 9/13/14 39 rheocrene 2298 543728 3565922 randomsample

JackaloMineSpring

4/19/14 185 anthropogenic 1659 524011 3474354 newlymapped

KentSpring 11/16/14 70 hillslope 2063 513627 3508574 randomsample

KingletSpring 6/28/14 50 hillslope 2535 520821 3590007 randomsample

LaCebadillaCienega

4/22/12 43,695 helocrene 826 529348 3567583 randomsample

MercerSpring 6/28/15 70 rheocrene 1371 527928 3577772 randomsample

MineShaftunnamednorth

10/5/14 100 rheocrene 1257 490123 3470905 opportunistic

Observatoryunnamed


39

OjoBlancoSpring 11/14/15 301rheocrene/hillslope

1536 526996 3528674 randomsample

PalisadeRSUnnamed


PapagoSpring 11/17/15 98 hillslope 1190 539259 3549577 randomsample

PenaBlancaSpring*

10/4/14 268 hillslope 1209 491220 3472685 randomsample

PuertoSpring 7/31/15 nomap rheocrene 1112 488593 3498918 opportunistic

RanchoFundoshiSpring

6/12/13 1495 rheocrene 833 518963 3574681 newlymapped

RangerStationunnamed


RedSpring 7/31/15 265 rheocrene 1215 487059 3500103 randomsample

RockSpring 12/12/14 nomap rheocrene 1060 530558 3564525 randomsample

RockWaterSpring


RuelasSpring 2/7/14 100 rheocrene 1523 520218 3521289 randomsample

SabinoGreensUnnamed

9/11/15 1502 rheocrene 849 520202 3574313 newlymapped

SallySpring 2/7/15 18.75 hillslope 1742 509782 3503818 randomsample

SolsticeSpring 12/20/14 1 rheocrene 1554 522661 3519057 randomsample

SprungSpring 11/15/14 0.25rheocrene/anthropogenic

1980 513205 3506803 randomsample

Unnamed 11/14/15 nomap rheocrene 1347 528178 3529438 newlymapped

Vine 12/20/14 34 cave 1986 510135 3507215 randomsample

WrenSpring 6/13/15 50hillslope/anthropogenic

2400 522416 3589421 randomsample

Table 6: Springs which were unlocatable in the Upper Santa Cruz River study area including date and the purported elevation and coordinates recorded in the springs database.

SiteName DateElevation(m)

UTME UTMN Category

BarrelSpring 9/11/15 875 520575 3574239 randomsample

BasinSpring 4/19/14 1636 522853 3476375 opportunistic

BoxSpring 6/27/15 1997 522685 3585483 randomsample

BreazealSpring 6/13/15 2288 522856 3588226 randomsample

D‐13‐1220DCB1 7/17/15 991 486851 3571782 randomsample

OcotilloSpring 7/31/15 1161 474528 3496283 randomsample

PidgeonSpring 6/28/14 2508 521226 3589844 randomsample

ProctorSpring 12/20/14 1363 518730 3519533 randomsample

ShannonSpring 4/20/14 1350 522632 3472676 opportunistic

Zimmerman#1Spring 6/27/15 2349 522872 3590245 randomsample

Zimmerman#2Spring 6/27/15 2349 522872 3590245 opportunistic

Zimmerman#3Spring 6/27/15 2449 522873 3589844 randomsample

40

Springs Ecosystem Assessments TheSpringsEcosystemAssessmentProtocolisaframeworkforevaluatingecologicalintegrityofsprings,overallconditionofthenaturalresourcesatspringsandtherisksposedbyhumanimpacts.Wescoredthequalityandriskof33variablesatassessedspringstoevaluateecologicalintegrity,risk,andhumanimpacts(Table7).Scoresrangefrom1to6(lowtohigh)andareassignedbasedonadetailedscoringrubricforthe33characteristics(seeAppendixA).Itisimportanttonotethatriskscoresforhumanimpactsincludetheconsiderationofhowdifficultitwouldbetorestorethesitebyundoingtheidentifiedhumanimpact.Scoresfornaturalresourcesconditionrangedfrom0.93atSprungSpringto5.24atPalisadeRSUnnamedSpring.Scoresforrisksfromhumanimpacts(naturalresourceriskscore)rangedfrom1.42atRockSpringto5.5atSprungSpring.Ingeneral,highscoresfornaturalresourcesconditioncorrespondedwithlowscoresforrisksfromhumanimpacts.ScoresforallrandomsamplespringsarepresentedinTable7.

Table 7 Springs Ecosystem Assessment Overall Natural Resource Condition and Risk Scores for Random Sample Springs

Spri

ng

Nam

e

Aq

uif

er F

un

ctio

nal

ity

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Sco

re

Aq

uif

er F

un

ctio

nal

ity

Wat

er

Qu

alit

y R

isk

Geo

mo

rph

olo

gy S

core

Geo

mo

rph

olo

gy R

isk

Sco

re

Hab

itat

Sco

re

Hab

itat

Ris

k Sc

ore

Bio

tic

Inte

grit

y Sc

ore

Bio

tic

Inte

grit

y R

isk

Sco

re

Free

do

m f

rom

Hu

man

Infl

uen

ces

Sco

re

Free

do

m f

rom

Hu

man

Infl

uen

ces

Ris

k Sc

ore

Nat

ura

l Res

ou

rce

Co

nd

itio

n S

core

Nat

ura

l Re

sou

rce

Ris

k Sc

ore

BellowsSpring 4.0 1.8 4.6 1.8 4.6 2.0 6.0 1.5 4.8 1.9 4.80 1.80

BrinkleySpring 6.8 4.0 1.8 4.6 3.4 3.4 5.1 1.9 4.6 2.6 4.34 3.30

BuschSpring 3.4 2.4 3.4 2.2 2.8 2.0 3.0 1.5 4.4 1.8 3.40 1.98

CascadeSpring 3.8 2.8 3.6 2.4 3.8 2.8 5.0 2.0 3.4 3.2 3.92 2.64

CasecoSpring 4.2 2.4 4.6 2.2 4.0 2.6 4.5 2.5 4.8 2.2 4.42 2.38

CrescentSpring 2.0 4.0 4.6 2.2 4.3 2.7 5.1 2.1 4.2 3.0 4.04 2.80

Devil'sBathtubSpring 2.0 5.8 3.90 n/a

FlickerSpring 4.7 2.0 5.2 1.8 4.2 2.6 5.3 1.8 5.1 1.9 4.90 2.02

FloridaSpring 4.7 2.0 3.4 3.0 4.0 2.8 5.0 2.0 4.7 2.1 4.36 2.38

GibbonSprings 0.0 6.0 3.6 3.2 3.5 4.8 2.5 5.5 3.0 4.0 2.52 4.70

ItalianSpring 4.6 4.60 n/a

KentSpring 4.4 1.8 4.5 2.5 4.5 2.5 4.7 2.7 5.0 1.6 4.62 2.22

KingletSpring 4.5 2.0 4.4 2.2 3.8 3.0 5.0 2.0 4.2 2.2 4.38 2.28

LaCebadillaCienega 4.7 2.8 3.4 2.2 4.4 2.7 5.0 2.5 4.2 2.2 4.33 2.48

MercerSpring 0.0 6.0 4.4 1.6 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.9 2.0 3.26 3.12

Observatoryunnamed 4.2 2.0 4.0 2.4 4.0 2.2 4.7 2.0 4.8 2.2 4.34 2.16

OjoBlancoSpring 4.2 3.2 4.0 2.0 4.4 2.6 4.8 2.5 4.35 2.58

PalisadeRSUnnamed 5.0 2.0 5.8 2.0 4.4 2.0 5.3 2.3 5.7 1.9 5.24 2.04

41

Spri

ng

Nam

e

Aq

uif

er F

un

ctio

nal

ity

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Sco

re

Aq

uif

er F

un

ctio

nal

ity

Wat

er

Qu

alit

y R

isk

Geo

mo

rph

olo

gy S

core

Geo

mo

rph

olo

gy R

isk

Sco

re

Hab

itat

Sco

re

Hab

itat

Ris

k Sc

ore

Bio

tic

Inte

grit

y Sc

ore

Bio

tic

Inte

grit

y R

isk

Sco

re

Free

do

m f

rom

Hu

man

Infl

uen

ces

Sco

re

Free

do

m f

rom

Hu

man

Infl

uen

ces

Ris

k Sc

ore

Nat

ura

l Res

ou

rce

Co

nd

itio

n S

core

Nat

ura

l Re

sou

rce

Ris

k Sc

ore

PapagoSpring 6.0 2.4 2.6 2.0 3.2 2.2 4.8 2.0 4.3 1.9 4.18 2.10

PenaBlancaSpring 4.7 1.5 4.2 2.2 4.6 1.2 5.4 1.6 4.1 1.8 4.60 1.66

RangerStationunnamed 3.8 2.4 3.6 2.8 3.5 2.5 3.8 3.0 4.0 2.6 3.74 2.66

RedSpring 3.8 2.0 4.8 2.0 4.4 2.2 5.0 2.0 4.8 1.9 4.56 2.02

RockSpring 5.5 1.4 4.4 1.2 4.5 1.5 4.7 1.3 5.0 1.7 4.82 1.42

RockWaterSpring 3.0 2.7 3.0 2.4 3.8 2.2 4.9 2.0 3.8 2.4 3.70 2.34

RuelasSpring 3.8 2.8 5.3 1.8 3.5 1.5 5.7 0.9 4.58 1.75

SallySpring 5.3 1.8 5.2 1.8 3.6 2.2 4.6 2.6 5.1 1.3 4.76 1.94

SprungSpring 1.0 4.5 0.8 6.0 1.0 6.0 0.93 5.50

Vine 5.3 1.8 4.6 2.2 3.0 2.2 3.9 2.6 4.8 2.0 4.32 2.16

WrenSpring 5.4 3.4 3.2 3.6 2.5 3.8 3.0 3.5 4.2 3.2 3.66 3.50

Tounderstandthemainimpactsthatarecurrentlydecreasingtheintegrityofspringsinthestudyareaweexaminedthearrayofhumanimpactsonsurveyedsprings(Figure18).FlowregulationandadjacentlandconditionsexertthemostinfluenceonspringsintheUpperSantaCruzRiverstudyarea,followedcloselybyroad,trail,andrailroadimpacts.Toidentifyspringswithpotentialforrestorationactionsorprotectivemanagementactionsandoffersomeprioritizationofthese,weplottedspringsbyoverallnaturalresourceconditionandriskscores(Figure19).Weusedresourceconditionvaluescoresof3(moderateecologicalcondition/value)andhumanriskscoresof3(moderateriskwithmoderaterestorationpotential)asthemidpoints.Springsintheupperrighthandquadrantarecandidatesforprotectionbecausetheyhavehighnaturalresourcevaluebutareathighriskfromhumanimpacts.Springsnearthemidpointofthegraphicarecandidatesforrestorationactivitiesbecausetheyhavemoderatenaturalresourcevaluesandareatmoderateriskfromhumanimpacts.Theactionstobetakenwoulddependonsite‐specificconditions.SeeTable10PriorityspringsitesforrestorationoractivemanagementandTable11:Priorityspringsitesforprotectionfordetailsonspringsthatemergedbasedonthisanalysisandreviewofon‐siteconditionsdescribedinthesurveynotes.

Figure 18:

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

: Types of humman impacts oon springs. Higgh scores reprresent lower hhuman impactt.

42

43

Figure 19: Stewardship risks to springs from human impacts plotted against overall natural resource condition. Springs in the upper right quadrant have high natural resource condition and high risk from human impacts and are candidates for protection.

Cataloguing Effects of Fire on Springs Weconductedinventoriesandassessmentsat24springsinthePinaleñoandChiricahuaMountainsonCoronadoNationalForestlandwithinburnedareasorthePERP.SixteenoftherandomsamplespringsthatwevisitedintheSantaCatalinaMountainswereinfireperimeters.IntheSantaRitaMountains,weanalyzed8springswithinfireperimeters–5assessedopportunisticallyoraspartoftherandomsamplefortheUpperSantaCruzRiverBasin,1assessedaspartoftheAdopt‐A‐Springprogram,and2assessedintheCienegaCreekBasinaspartofthepreviousspringsproject(Figure20).SeeTable8foralistofallspringsanalyzedinrelationtofireeffectsandfueltreatmentsandTable9forabreakdownofspringsurveysbymountainrangeandburnseverity.

BrinkleySpringMercerSpring

WrenSpring

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Riskfrom

HumanIm

pacts

NaturalResourcesCondition

44

Table 8: Springs analyzed for fire or fuel treatment effects, including site name, date, spring type, elevation, coordinates, mountain range, and location. Location indicates whether the spring was in high burn severity (BS), moderate, low, very low, unburned, or in or adjacent to the PERP fuel treatment area.

SiteName Date SpringType Elevation UTME UTMN Range Location

BoxSpring 6/27/15 notfound 1997 522685 3585483 Catalina HighBS

Breazeal 6/13/15 notfound 2288 522856 3588226 Catalina LowBS

BrinkleySpring 6/29/14anthropogenic/hanginggarden

2767 519910 3588833 Catalina ModerateBS

BugSpring 4/22/12 rheocrene 1570 527531 3579320 Catalina ModerateBS

BuschSpring 6/13/15 rheocrene 2357 522547 3588814 Catalina ModerateBS

CascadeSpring 6/29/14rheocrene/anthropogenic

2767 519810 3588992 Catalina VeryLowBS

CasecoSpring 6/28/15 rheocrene 2323 527703 3585599 Catalina Unburned

FlickerSpring 6/28/14rheocrene/hillslope

2566 520824 3589704 Catalina LowBS

KingletSpring 6/28/14 hillslope 2566 520748 3589947 Catalina LowBS

MercerSpring 6/28/15 rheocrene 1371 527928 3577772 Catalina LowBS

PalisadeRSUnnamed 6/14/15 rheocrene 2440 526855 3586061 Catalina VeryLowBS

PidgeonSpring 6/28/14 notfound 2508 521226 3589844 Catalina LowBS

RangerStationunnamed

6/14/15 hillslope 2389 526797 3585486 Catalina ModerateBS

WrenSpring 6/13/15 hillslope 2400 522416 3589421 Catalina HighBS

Zimmerman#1 6/27/13 notfound 2349 522872 3590245 Catalina HighBS

Zimmerman#3 6/27/13 notfound 2449 522873 3589844 Catalina HighBS

AnitaSpring 5/30/15 hillslope 2837 662231 3525301 Chiricahua ModerateBS

AshSpring multiple hillslope 2150 666001 3527538 Chiricahua LowBS

BarfootSpring multiple helocrene 2409 662800 3532347 Chiricahua HighBS

BoogerSpring 5/31/15hillslope/rheocrene

2936 662511 3526935 Chiricahua ModerateBS

CimaCreekSpring 5/31/15 rheocrene/hillslope

2764 662331 3526357 Chiricahua LowBS

DeerSpring 5/30/15 hillslope 2761 663670 3523549 Chiricahua LowBS

EagleSpring 5/30/15 hillslope 2845 662832 3523550 Chiricahua LowBS

HeadquartersSpring 5/29/15 hillslope 2818 662306 3524561 Chiricahua LowBS

JuniperSpring 5/30/15 hillslope 2796 663085 3523289 Chiricahua LowBS

LoneJuniper 5/30/15 notfound 2738 663485 3522626 Chiricahua LowBS

LowerRustlerSpring 7/22/13 hillslope 2566 662832 3531315 Chiricahua ModerateBS

OjoAguaFria 5/29/15 hillslope 2722 662760 3524353 Chiricahua ModerateBS

UpperRustlerSpring 7/22/13 hillslope 2578 662586 3530995 Chiricahua HighBS

BearwallowSpring 8/9/13 rheocrene 3145 605210 3618749 Pinaleño ModerateBS

EmeraldSpring 8/9/13 helocrene 3021 604450 3618829 Pinaleño LowBS

HairpinSpringUnnamed 8/3/13 rheocrene 2816 606498 3614309 Pinaleño PERPadjacent

HeliographSpring 8/3/13 hillslope 2760 607245 3613504 Pinaleño PERPadjacent

HighPeakCienega 8/9/13hillslope/helocrene 3142 606147 3617915 Pinaleño ModerateBS

MiddleTreasSpringUnnamShannonCamUnnamed

SnowFlatUn

TreasureParCampground

UpperTreasu

WesternHos

AlisoSpring

BaldySpring

BellowsSprin

BogSprings

FloridaSprin

KentSpring

SawmillSprin

SprungSprin

Figure 20:

sureParkmed

8/

mpground8/

nnamed 8/

rkdUnnamed

8/

urePark 8/

spitalFlat m

m

g 5/

ng 1

1

ng 1

1

ng 5/

ng 1

: Springs map

/4/13 he

/3/13rhhe

/3/13hean

/4/13 hil

/4/13 he

multiple he

multiple rh

/19/12 he

1/15/14 rh

1/16/14 hil

1/15/14 rh

1/16/14 hil

/19/12 hil

1/15/14 rhan

pped within fir

locrene

eocrene/locrenelocrene/thropogenic

llslope

locrene

locrene

eocrene

locrene

eocrene

llslope

eocrene

llslope

llslope

eocrene/thropogenic

re perimeters

2733 6

2793 6

2741 6

2785 6

2738 6

2750 6

1780 5

2647 5

2574 5

1748 5

2125 5

2063 5

2133 5

1980 5

by mountain

605790 361

607160 361

606429 361

605957 361

605773 361

605264 361

518707 351

514615 350

514130 350

512966 350

515331 351

513627 350

516932 351

513205 350

range.

14327 Pinale

13735 Pinale

13464 Pinale

14622 Pinale

14419 Pinale

15074 Pinale

11126 Santa

07093 Santa

07062 Santa

09573 Santa

10509 Santa

08574 Santa

10413 Santa

06803 Santa

eño PERPa

eño Moder

eño PERP

eño PERPa

eño PERPa

eño PERPa

Rita VeryL

Rita Moder

Rita LowB

Rita VeryL

Rita Moder

Rita LowB

Rita Moder

Rita LowB

45

adjacent

rateBS

adjacent

adjacent

adjacent

LowBS

rateBS

S

LowBS

rateBS

S

rateBS

S

46

Table 9: Spring surveys conducted within fire perimeters. MountainRange NumbersofSpringsSurveyedbyBurnSeverityType

VeryLow/LowSeverity ModerateSeverity HighSeverityPinaleño 2 2 0Chiricahua 8 3 2SantaRita 5 3 0SantaCatalina 8 4 4

Condition of Fire Affected Springs TheaverageSEAPfireinfluenceconditionscoreforfireaffectedspringswas3.5;whenunlocatablespringswereincludedintheaveragewithascoreof0(fireinfluencehaseliminatedthespring),theaveragewasonly3(moderatenegativeinfluence).Differentspringtypeshadaboutthesameaverageconditionaseachother.Aswouldbeexpected,springsthatexperiencedhigherburnseveritytendedtohavelowerconditionscores,withtheburnseverityinthe50mradiushavingastrongercorrelationthaninthe250mradius(Figure21).AspecthadlittlecorrelationwiththeSEAPfireinfluenceconditionscore(Figure22).

Figure 21: SEAP Fire Influence condition score in relation to burn severity.

R²=0.2258

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0

SEAPFireInfluenceCondition

BurnSeverity‐ 50m

R²=0.1847

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0


BurnSeverity‐ 250m

47

Figure 22: SEAP Fire Influence condition score in relation to aspect.

Springs as Fire Refugia Becausespringshavecooler,moistermicroclimates,theycouldpotentiallybelessaffectedbyfirethantheirsurroundings.However,theaveragedifferenceinburnseveritybetweenthe50mradiusareaaroundspringsandthe250mradiusareawas‐0.008(veryslightlylowerburnseverityclosertosprings).Sixteenspringsexperiencedlowerburnseveritythantheirsurroundings,5hadthesameseverity,and20experiencedhigherburnseveritythantheirsurroundings.Acrossspringtypes,therewereaboutthesamenumberofspringsthatexperiencedlowerburnseverityasthosethatexperiencedhigherburnseverity,andtheaveragedifferencewasalwayslessthan0.2.Aspecthadnostrongeffectonburnseveritydifference,butthereweresomediscernablepatterns(Figure23).Burnseveritywasalwayslowernearthespringwhenburnseveritywasverylowingeneral,whileitwasgenerallythesameorhighernearthespringwhenburnseveritywashigh,particularlyonwest‐facingslopes.Oneast‐facingslopes,springsdidseemtofunctionabitasrefugia,withlowerburnseveritynearthespring.Thesepatternsmightmisssomeeffects‐manyspringsinthisregiontendtobequitesmall,soa50mradiusmayhaveswampedoutsomerefugia‐typeeffectswithtoomuchareaoutofthesprings’influence.Also,seebelowforobservationsofspringsinthePinaleños.

R²=0.0127

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 100 200 300 400


Aspect

48

Figure 23: The association between aspect and burn severity difference, by burn severity of the area within 50 m of the spring.

Observations at Fire Affected Springs InthePinaleñoMountains,weobservedthatspringswithwetmeadowswerelowburnseverityislandsinhigherburnseverityareas(Figure24).Theedgesofthesewetmeadowsweretheonlyplacesspruceandfirsurvivedorwerecomingback(Figure25).Whenweexaminedburnseverityatotherhelocrenesprings,wefoundthispatternintheSantaCatalinaandSantaRitaMountainsalso.

‐2.0

‐1.5

‐1.0

‐0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360

BurnSeverityDifference

Aspect

High Low Moderate Unburned VeryLow

E S W NN

Figure 24.Peak Cien50m and 2

a)

c)

. Close up of snega, Pinaleño250m radii aro

surveyed sprinos, c) Baldy Spound the sprin

ngs in relationpring, Santa Rng.

b)

d)

n to burn severRitas, and d) C

)

)

rity, a) EmeraCaseco Spring,

ald Spring, Pin, Catalinas. Ci

naleños, b) Hiircles indicate

49

igh e the

Figure 25:regenerati

IntheChproblemerodedd

Figure 26:

: High Peak Cion.

hiricahuaMms(Figure26duringthep

: Downed tree

Cienega in the

ountains,sp6andFigurpost‐fireclea

es and erosion

Pinaleno Mou

pringsinmoe27),andsanupproce

at Anita Spri

untains may b

oderateandspringsnearss.

ing in the Chir

be a population

dhighburnrRustlerPa

ricahua Wilde

n source for sp

severityararkweretra

erness.

pruce and fir

eashaderoampledand

50

osion

Figure 27:

IntheSasupportobliterat

IntheSaunlocata

Ineverybyfire.

Figure2inrelatioMountai

: Severe upslo

antaRitaMorifflebeetletedthesprin

antaCatalinable;theseh

range,spri

8,Figure29ontoburnsnsrespectiv

ope erosions an

ountains,ateswaslosting.Manyof

aMountainhadthethre

ngsinvery

9,Figure30severityforvely.

nd soil wasting

leastonespintherangefthesprings

s,threeouteehighestav

lowandlow

,andFigurethePinaleñ

g in the Chiric

pringprevioetoduesevesinthisran

toffoursprverageburn

wseverityb

e31belowsño,Chirichau

cahua Wilder

ouslyknowerechannelngearedeve

ingsinhighnseverities

burnareasw

showtheloua,SantaRi

rness.

wntoForestlerosionpoeloped.

hburnseverwithin50m

wererelativ

ocationofspitaandSant

Servicetoost‐firethat

rityareaswmofthespr

velyunaffect

pringssurvetaCatalina

51

werering.

ted

eyed

Figure 28:: Pinaleno Moountains - spriings mapped in relation to bburn severity..

52

Figure 29:: Chiricahua MMountains - spprings mappeed in relation tto burn severiity.

53

Figure 30.. Santa Rita MMountains - spprings mappedd in relation too burn severitty.

54

Figure 31.. Santa Catalinna Mountainss - springs mappped in relatioon to burn sevverity.

55

56

Springs in Fuel Treatment Areas TheaverageSEAPfireinfluenceconditionscoreforspringswithinoradjacenttothePERPwas4.9,muchhigherthanthatofthespringsinburnedareas.TheaverageSEAPfireinfluenceriskscoreforthesespringswas3.2,indicatingmoderateriskfromfire.

Adopt‐a‐Spring Results SinceJune2014,51volunteersconducted36surveysofour6Adopt‐a‐Springsites(Figure32);theycontributed732hoursand8,686miles.VolunteersfortheBotanyBlitzcontributed211hoursand1,680miles.Oncesurveyswereinitiatedatasite,allwerecompleted,exceptonewintersurveyateachoftwosites(AlamoandAshSpring)andonedryfore‐summersurveyateachoftwosites(AlamoandMcGrew).Forty‐fivepercentofvolunteersparticipatedinatleast2surveys,and33%participatedin3ormoresurveys(Figure32).Allofthesitesnowhaverelativelyregularvolunteersmonitoringthem.RockSpringisbeingsurveyedbytheCienegaClubfromtheUniversityofArizona,theirwatershedmanagementclub.TheteamleaderforMcGrewSpring,inKartchnerCavernsStatePark,isNikkiMiscione,aparkemployee.Wefoundthatmany,butnotall,ofthemostcommittedvolunteersareretirees.Someteamshavebeenveryself‐directed,whileothersrequiremoretimetohelporganizeandmaintain.Twoofthethreemoreremotesitesaremonitoredbycouplesthatliveclosetothem–AshSpringismonitoredby1‐2couplesfromPortal,AZandAlamoSpringisnowmonitoredbyacouplefromGreenValley,AZ.

WecompletedsomepreliminaryanalysisofthedatacollectedatAshSpring,McGrewSpring,andHospitalFlat.AtAshSpring,flowratesappeartobehighestinthespring‐timeandduringmonsoonseason(Figure33).AtMcGrewSpring,soilmoistureinthepoolandchannelremainshigh(inundated)throughouttheyear,butvariesinthebanksandwetmeadow(Figure34).AtHospitalFlat,1.5yearshasnotbeenlongenoughtorevealanystrongpatternsinthesizeofthewetmeadow(Figure35).

Figure 32: Number of volunteers participating in multiple surveys for the Adopt-a-Spring pilot program.

28

6

10

2

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5

Num

berofPeople

NumberofTrips

57

Figure 33: Flow rate at Ash Spring during the Adopt-a-Spring pilot program.

Figure 34: Soil moisture in the microhabitats at McGrew Spring during the Adopt-a-Spring pilot program. Range goes from 0 (dry) to 11 (inundated).

0

40

80

120

160mL/sec

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

SoilMoisture(1‐11)

Pond Channel Banks Meadow

58

Figure 35: Size of the wet meadow at Hospital Flat during the Adopt-a-Spring pilot program. Monsoon season is highlighted by the light blue boxes.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

July

August

Septem

ber

October

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

Septem

ber

October

Novem

ber

Hectares

59

Table 10 Priority spring sites for restoration or active management SpringName RecommendationsBrinkley Thishigh‐elevationhanginggardenhasbeennearlycompletelyencased

andconveyedunderground.Theareaisnowdesignatedwilderness,soitmaybefeasibletoremovetheinfrastructuretobenefitwildlife.

Cascade Themainemergenceofthishigh‐elevaitonspringhasbeencompletelydevelopedandnowhasawellcasing,pumpstation,etc.withnospringhabitatattheoriginalsite(thereissomeinanadjacentdrainage).Whilethesiteisclearlyimportantforhumanconsumption,ideallyadiversionofsomeofthewatercouldbecreatedtorecreatethespringhabitatandprovidewaterforwildlife.

Mercer Thismid‐elevationrheocrenespringwasdryinJune,buthasriparianvegetation.Ithastwospringboxes–thesecouldberemovedtoletthewaterbeusednaturallybythefloraandfauna.Itisatsomeriskfromhumans,asitisattheendofacampgroundandiscrossedbyatrail.Springsarerarerinlowerelevaitons,sothisspringprovideagoodopportunitytoimprovespringsupportedhabitat.

Papago Thisspringwasdevelopedforcatttlein1933andispumpedbyawindmilltoadecrepittank.Whiletheleakingtankprovidessomespring‐likehabitat,itwouldbegoodtoworkwiththeUSFStodevelopaplanforthissitethatmovedittowardsanaturalconditionaswellasothermanagementobjective.

Sprung Thisspringistotallydeveloped,anditsactualsourceisunclear.Inthelastseveralyears,itsinfrastructureappearstohavedeterioratedtothepointthatitisalmostnonfunctional.Itonlyprovideswaterforwilfdlifeandhikers,soitwouldbeidealtofollowthepipingbacktothesource,andremovetheinfrastructuretorestorenaturalflowtothesite.

RangerStationUnnamed

Thisspringhasexperiencedmultiplestagesofdevelopment,andappearstobeusedtoprovidewaterforacampcurrently.Ithasmanyaldersandappearstobeaprolific,dependablespring.Itisclosetoaroad/trailandthecamp,soisvulnerabletootherhumanimpacts.WerecommendworkingwiththeUSFStodevelopapurposefulplanforthispotentiallyveryspecialsite.

Table 11: Priority spring sites for protection SpringName RecommendationsChivaFalls Thisisahanginggardensitewithawaterfallinanareathatisverypopular

withOHVusers.Itexperiencesheavyuse,andthereisabadlyeroded,illegalroadgoingnearlytothespringitself.Theareaoftenisheavilylitteredwithtrash.Theroadshouldbeclosedandrestored.Protectingandrestoringthesitemaybedifficult,consideringhowthepublicisaccustomedtousingthesite,butcoouldprovideopportunitiesforengagementwithanewaudience.

OjoBlancoSpring Thisisabeautifulspotwithmanyripariantrees.Itisinanareathatappearstohavehigher‐than‐usualspringdensity,anditinitiatesflowinadrainagethatcontinuesforseveralhundredmeters,perhapsfedbyadditionalsprings.Thespringappearstohaveveryhighwaterquality.ItissomewhatremoteanddifficulttoaccesswithoutOHVsorhorses.ItisalsowithintherangeofthejaguarcurrentlylivingintheSantaRitas.

60

SabinoGreensUnnamed

Thisspringisoneofthefewlow‐elevationsiteswithinthestudyarea;itisoneofaclusterofspringsinthevicinitythatappeartoberelatedtoadetachmentfaultatthebaseoftheSantaCatalinas.Itisundeveloped,butsurroundedbyagolfcourseandhomes.Therearetravertinedepositsthatsuggestithasbeenactiveforalongtime.

WrenSpring Thisspringhasbeennearlyobliteratedbyadirtroadthatbisectsit.Itishardtotellitsoriginalemergenceenvironment.Wemaynothavefoundthemainspringsource,asitisonprivateland.Recordsindicateitmaybeusedbyhumans.Itmaybepossibletoworkwithlocallandownerstoimprovetheconditionofthissite.

Becausespringsaresoheavilyalteredbyhumanuses,animportantbenefitofspringsassessmentsisidentifyingreferencesitesthatcaninformrestorationandmanagementactionsintheregion.Severalinterestingspringsitesemergedaspotentialreferencesites.

WestHospitalFlat,helocrene,PinaleñoMountains:thissiteprovidesanexcellentintactexampleofahighelevationwetmeadow.ThesiteiscurrentlypartofourAdopt‐a‐Springprogramwhichiscollectingbaselineinformationonthesitethatwillbeusefultoinformrestoration.

RockSpring,rheocrene,RinconMountains:thisisasmallrheocrenesitemanagedbytheNationalParkServicethatwasoncedevelopedtoprovidewatertoadownstreamtank,buthasbeenrestoredbytheParkService.Thissiteoffersanexampleofaspringwheredevelopmenthasbeenremoved.Importantly,surveydataexistspre‐restoration,anditisbeingmonitoredlong‐termfollowingrestorationthroughtheAdop‐a‐Springprogram.Thissitemayprovideinsightsintohowrehocreneandotherspringsrespondwhenflowcontrolinfrastructureisremoved.

Summary of Project Outcomes

Partner Engagement Throughoutthedevelopmentandimplementationoftheprojectweworkedwithadiversityofnaturalresourcemanagementpartnersintheregiontoensurewewerebuildingonexistingworkandcreatingprojectoutcomesrelevanttomanagers’needs.Throughdirectoutreachandpartnermeetings,weengagedatleast60peoplerepresentingover30differentorganizations.Thefollowingorganizationshavebeeninvolvedintheproject:ArizonaGameandFishDepartment,PimaCounty,USGS,USFWS,CoronadoNationalForest,U.S.ForestServiceRegion3,BLM‐SaffordFieldOfficeandLasCienegasNationalConservationArea,SaguaroNationalPark,NPSSonoranDesertMonitoringNetwork,PimaAssociationofGovernments,theDesertLCC,theSonoranInstitute,TheNatureConservancy,BatConservationInternational,theUniversityofArizonaWaterResourcesResearchCenter,NorthernArizonaUniversity,ArizonaStateUniversity,EcoAdapt,theDesertBotanicalMuseum,andtheSpringsStewardshipInstitute.

61

Springs Inventories and Monitoring Weworkedwithvolunteersandpartnerorganizations’staffmemberstoinventoryandecologicallyassessatotalof84springsintheSkyIslandRegion‐56springsintheUpperSantaCruzRiverstudyarea,25springsinthePinaleñoandChiricahuaMountains,and3atadditionalAdopt‐a‐Springsites.Thisincludes7springsthatwerenotpreviouslymapped.Volunteerscontributed1,414hoursand6,460milesdriven.

Springs Online Database, Updates, Use and Trainings

Updates and Use TheonlineSpringsInventoryDatabaseisavailableathttp://springsdata.org/andadministeredbytheSpringStewardshipInstitute.Thedatabaseservestocompileinformationongeomorphology,soils,geology,solarradiation,flora,fauna,waterquality,flow,georeferencing,culturalresources,andconditionandrisks,andtofacilitateanalysisofbiological,physical,andculturalrelationships.Thedatabaseisanessentialtooltostorequalitativeandquantitativeinformationinordertofacilitatedocumentationofpresentconditions,establishabaselineforfuturereference,informtheassessmentprocess,guidemonitoring,evaluatestewardshipefforts,andmonitorchangesinfluencedbyaquiferdepletionclimatechangeorotherfactorsaffectinganindividualspringsormanyspringsacrossalandscape(Ledbetteretal.2010).

UserpermissionsareadministeredbytheSpringsStewardshipInstitute.Usersofthedatabasemustfirstregisterandwillthenbegivenpermissionstoviewand/oreditdataaccordingtotheirregion,landmanagementunitsofinterest,projectsofinterest,andotherrelevantcategories.Onceusershaveestablishedpermissions,theycanquerydata,enternewdatarealtime,anddownloadrelevantspringsinformationascsvfilesforuseinotherapplications,suchasaGIS.Userscanalsogeneratesite‐specificreportsinWordorPDFformat.

TheSpringsInventoryDatabaseallowsforthemanagementofawidevarietyofdata,includinggeneralinformationthatremainsrelevantforaspringregardlessofwhenitwassurveyed(localityinformation,asitedescription,microhabitatpolygons,geomorphicdata,solarradiationdata(SPF)),ameasureofdatathoroughness(EOD),ahistoryofdatachanges,andlinkstoassociatedsurveydata.Surveydataiscollectedwitheachvisittoaspring–somespringshavenumeroussurveysassociatedwiththem.Surveydataincludesadescriptionofsiteconditions,surveyorspresent,flowstatistics,waterqualitydata,floralists,faunalists,SpringEcosystemAssessmentProtocol(SEAP)scores,andameasureofdataquality(QAQC).

Figure 36:

ThefolloStewardsummar

SppstfoNintoinsire8

TSpspOfi

Selasu

: Data Entry I

owingupdatshipInstituy)(Springs

pringsOnlinrominentsotudents,Tribornearly10Newfunctionnformation,odesignatencludedaseite'slocationequestedby‐digitHUC.

Thefloraandprings‐DepepringlifehisOccurrencediletoviewon

ecurityandandmanageurveys,and

Interface of th

tesarevalidutewebsiteStewardshi

nehas284uouthwesternbalmember00,000springnswithintheandwhethewhichsitesensitivitystanissensitiveseverallandWeupdated

dfaunasectendentSpecstory,endemdataforreponGoogleEa

permissionserstosecureshareinform

he Online Spri

dattheclos(http://spripInstitue,

users,withnnspringsresrs,andindepgsacrossthedatabaseierornotthearenotavaatusfieldthae,surveydatdmanagersdallreporte

tionsofthedies(SDS)infmism,conserortedspeciearth,orexpo

sstructuresesensitiveinmationwith

ings Inventory

seof2015aingsteward2015):

newonesjoinsearchersanpendentreseewesternUincludetheaesiteispublilabletotheatallowslantaaresensits.Wealsoadedspringsin

databasehaformation,irvationstatuescanbevieortedintoac

havealsobnformation,ghothercolla

y Database

andcomedidshipinstitut

ningeverywndtaxonomiearchers.ThUnitedStatesabilitytovieliclyknown.epublicwithndmanagertive,both,orddedfieldsfontheDLCCw

vealsobeenincludingT/us,rangemwedonGoogcsvfile.

eenenhancegrantaccesborators,de

rectlyfromte.org/dlcc‐

week.Theseists,agencyhedatabases,andover1ewthesourcThisallowshoutpermissrstodesignarneither.ThfortheLCC,Uwiththisinfo

nenhanced/Especiesdeaps,andrefoglemaps,ex

ed,allowingsstosensitivependingon

theSprings‐project‐

includepersonnel,hasinforma15,000surveceofslandmanagsion.SSIalsatewhetherhisstructureUSGSquad,ormation.

toincludeesignation,ferences.xportedasa

gprojectandveprojectsontheirlevel

62

s

ationeys.

gerssoaewasand

akml

dorof

63

accesspermissionswithinthedatabase.SecurityofdataisoftheutmostconcerntoSSI,asitisimportanttoourcollaborators‐particularlyTribesandtheNationalParkService.SSIhasworkedcloselywithseveralTribestocompileandarchivesensitivedataonreservationsprings,advancingSSI'scollaborativerelationshipwithTribalpartners.

Trainings ThroughthisprojectwetrainednumerousspringsstewardsintheuseoftheonlinedatabaseandconductedbroadoutreachwiththeSpringStewardshipInstitutetomanagersandpractitionersintheDesertLCCgeographytomakethemawareofthedatabase.WehostedawebinarwiththeSpringsStewardshipInstitutetointroducethedatabasetospringsstewards.Therecordedwebinarisavailableherehttp://springstewardship.org/Videos/SkyIslandOnlineDatabaseWebinar062614.wmvWehad29participantsfromadiversityofinstitutionsincludingFt.Huachuca(DOD),NationalParkService,ArizonaGameandFishDepartment,BureauofReclamation,BureauofLandManagement,DefendersofWildlife,ArizonaStateUniversityandPhoenixZoo,AmargosaLandTrust,U.S.FishandWildlifeService,NewMexicoStateForestry,UniversityofNewMexico,RioGrandeResearchCenter,TexasTechUniversity,U.S.ForestService,PimaCounty,ArizonaLandandWaterTrust,andthePimaAssociationofGovernments.

IdentificationofPrioritySpringsforProtectionandRestoration:Throughanalysisofsprings’ecologicalintegrityassessments,weidentifiedindividualspringsitesthatshouldbeprioritiesforprotectionandrestoration.

New Information Available and Actively Disseminated to Springs Stewards Weestimatethatwehavereachedhundredsofmanagers,conservationists,andscientistsacrosstheWestthatarestewardingspringresources.SIAstaffgaveoralpresentationsontheprojectmethodsandfindingsatthefollowingconferencesandwebinars:

SocietyforEcologicalRestorationSouthwestandTexasChapterMeeting(Alpine,TX):presentationonspringsurveys,planningandrestorationto150participants

DesertLCCWebinarSeries(online,Oct,2014):presentationonSpringsinventory,restorationandmanagementtools.

FriendsoftheSanPedroRiverGeneralMeeting(Nov2014):presentationonspringsassessmentandrestoration.

SocietyforConservationBiologyNorthAmericanCongressinMissoulaMontana(July2014):presentationonspringsprojecttohundredsofparticipants.

DesertLandscapeConservationCooperativeOutreachMeeting,Aguascalientes,Mexico(July2014):presentationonspringsinventory,managementplanningandrestorationtechniquesto70participants.

“CreatingHabitatforFrogsandBatsatAshSpring”PresentationandFieldtripwiththeArizonaNativePlantSociety(Sept2014):presentationto35participantsandfieldtripwith10participantstoAshSpring.

NationalAdaptationForum(May2015):

64

o Presentation‐RespondingtoClimateChangeImpactsintheSkyIslandRegion–fromPlanningtoAction(http://www.nationaladaptationforum.org/program/symposium/few‐good‐ideasground‐wildlife‐and‐ecosystem‐adaptation)

o Poster‐DevelopingGuidanceforClimate‐InformedSpringsEcosystemRestoration(http://www.nationaladaptationforum.org/sites/default/files/presentation_documents/Poster_67.pdf)

SocietyforEcologicalRestorationSouthwestChapterMeeting(Tucson,AZNov2015):presentationonfireeffectsonspringsandontheArizonaSpringRestorationHandbook

Wealsosharedprojectmethodsandfindingsthroughthefollowingpublications:

ClimateAdaptationKnowledgeExchange(October2014):acasestudyhttp://cakex.org/case‐studies/springs‐sky‐island‐region‐inventory‐protection‐and‐restoration

SkyIslandRestorationCooperativeAnnualReport(January2015)http://www.skyislandalliance.org/misc/SIRC2014/SIRC%202014%20Annual%20Report.pdf

SIACommunications:Thisprojecthasbeenregularlyfeaturedinourbi‐weeklyvolunteerannouncementsande‐newscommunications,whichreach1,493and3,261ofoursupporters(respectively)throughoutthecommunity.

VideoProducedbyNOAAfortheUSClimateResilienceToolkit:http://toolkit.climate.gov/taking‐action/boosting‐ecosystem‐resilience‐southwests‐skyislands

Decision Support Tool Updated WithcomplimentaryfundingfromtheDesertLCC,theSpringsStewardshipInstituteupdatedtheonlinemappingapplicationthatcanbeaccessedhere.Thistoolallowsmanagerstoquicklynavigatetogeographicareasofinterestandviewdataassociatedwithsprings.Theusercanseethreelevelsofspringdata:unverifiedspringsthataremapped,buttheirstatusisunknown;verifiedspringswherethelocalityhasbeenconfirmed;andsurveyedspringswheredatahasbeencollected.ReportsforsurveyedspringscanbeviewedbyclickingonthespringpointandaccessingthehyperlinkedPDF.

Engaging Volunteers in Spring Inventories Weworkeddirectlywiththeoriginalauthorsofwidelyacceptedspringsinventoryandassessmentprotocols(Stevensetal.2012)toadapttheprotocolsforusewithtrainedvolunteers.Throughthecourseoftheproject,weengaged122volunteers,manyofwhomweretrainedthroughinventoryparticipation.Wehavehadstrongvolunteerinterestandparticipationintheprojectfromthestart.Atthecloseoftheprojectvolunteerscontributedatotalof2,357hours.Volunteerengagementintheprojectdemonstratesthatthistypeofcriticalbaselinedatacanbecollectedbystaff‐ledvolunteerteams,whichreducescostsand

65

timeinvestmentforpartnerorganizationsthatneedtheinformationtomakemanagementdecisions.

Participatingvolunteershaveexpertiseinplantandanimalidentification,hydrology,backcountrynavigation,landmanagement,andmanyotherdisciplines.Ourworkdemonstratesaframeworkforaccomplishingspringsinventoriesandassessmentsusingtrainedvolunteersandprovidesanimportantfoundationforcitizensciencesupportedmonitoringofspringsintheregion.Involvingvolunteersinthisworkhashadthepositiveeffectofincreasingthepublic’sknowledgeofandappreciationforspringecosystemsandhascreatedsupportforstewardshipoftheseresources.

Discussion AtthestartofthisprojectagenciesintheUpperSantaCruzRiverstudyareahadscatteredandincompleteinformationaboutspringsundertheirstewardship.Insomecases,theyknewthelocationofspringsbuthadnoinformationregardingtheflowrate,speciessupportedorpotentialalterationsofthehabitat(Misztaletal.2012).Inmanycases,managersdidnothaveaccesstoinformationaboutspringsonneighboringlandsoracrosswatersheds,limitingtheirabilitytorespondwithinalandscapeandwatershedcontext.Inmuchoftheregion,landsmanagedbytheUSFSneighborlandsmanagedbyBLMandcounties,withwatershedsandgroundwaterbasinsoverlappingthesejurisdictionalboundaries.

Informationdevelopedthroughthisprojectisnowavailabletoassistmanagersinunderstandinghowtheirspringscontributeatalandscapescale.Itisalsoavailabletohelpmanagersunderstandhowfiremayhavealreadyaffectedspringsandwhattobethinkingabouttoprotectspringsinthefaceoffuturefire.Inthefaceofdramaticfireeffectsatspringsandinsurroundinglands,itNewinformationdevelopedthroughthisprojectisbeingusedinsupportofplanninganddecisionsthataddressresourceprotectionattheregionallevelandinclimatechangeadaptationplanningfornaturalresources.ExamplesincludetheMadreanRapidEcoregionalAssessmentconductedbytheBureauofLandManagementandwatershedrestorationplanningandprioritizationconductedbytheCoronadoNationalForest.Bycollectingmorein‐depthbiologicalandhydrologicalinformation,aswellasinformationonfireeffectsforknownlocations,weareprovidingabasisforunderstandinghowenvironmentalimpacts,especiallyclimate,areaffectingtheseresources,andforchangingmanagementtobetterconservetheseresources.

Therandomsamplestudydesignofthisprojectprovidedaframeworkforanalyzingspringscharacteristicsandoverallhealthatalandscape‐scale.Italsoensuredthatspringschosenforsurveywouldnotbelimitedtowell‐known,oreasilyaccessiblesitesandhelpedusavoidfavoringoneagencypartneroveranother.Theninerandomsample‐springswedidnotreachdidtendedtobeinmoreremoteorinaccessibleareas,whichmayhavecreatedsomebiasinourresults.Managerscanuseresultsfromindividualspringinventoriestodeterminewhichpriorityspringsareinneedofimmediateconservationandrestorationactions.Forexample,SkyIslandAllianceworkedwiththeCoronadoNationalForestandotherpartnerstoconductrestorationatninesitesintheregionalreadybeen

66

lookingatpriorityspringsforrestorationTable10andworkedwiththeFROGProjecttoconductrestorationactionsatCottonwoodSpring,includingtransplantingnativeaquaticvegetationforChiricahualeopardfroghabitat.AsmoredataiscollectedonspringsindifferentstudyareasoftheSkyIslandregion,itwillbepossibletocomparewaterquality,flow,andotherparametersacrossstudyareas.Thistypeofcomparisonwillfurtherinformmanagementandimproveunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweenspringsandtheirunderlyinghydrogeology.

Thisprojectwillenhancelong‐termmanagementandmonitoringofspringsecosystemsthroughapplicationofmethodologiesforconductinginventoriesinwhichtotrainvolunteersandtoengagethemforthelongrun.Thesemethodologiesandtrainedcitizensareastrongfoundationforexpansionofthisprojectandforon‐goingcollectionofdataatestablishedsites.

Giventhemedianspringecosystemhabitatareaof80m2andaveragehabitatareaof5,140m2,wecanexpectthatthe274mappedspringsintheUpperSantaCruzRiverstudyareaencompassbetween21,120–1,408,360m2or0.0003‐0.0223%oftheentirearea.Yetspringsinthisregionhaveinitiallybeendocumentedassupportingatleast231plantspeciesand102vertebratespecies.Collectionofplantdatawasconstrainedbyalimitednumberofsurveyteammemberswithplantidentificationskills,aswellassomesurveysbeingconductedduringdormantperiods.Collectionofvertebrateandinvertebratedatawasalsoconstrainedbyalimitednumberofsurveyteammemberswithidentificationskills.TherearecertainlymanymoreplantandanimalspeciessupportedbyspringssitesintheUpperSantaCruzRiverstudyareathanwererecordedthroughthisproject.However,theresultsofthisprojectprovideaninitialsampleofplantandanimaldiversityatthesesites.ThissnapshotindicatesthatspringsintheSkyIslandRegionarebotanicallyrichandsupporthighfaunaldiversitycomparedtosurroundingareas.

SkyIslandRegionencompasseshydrologicareasthathavesimilarcharacteristicstotheUpperSantaCruzstudyareaexaminedbythisproject.Inotherareas,landownershipisasimilarpatchworkofForestService(dominatinghigherelevations),BureauofLandManagement,State,Privateandlocaljurisdictionlandswithvaryingdegreesofaccessandhumanuse.Althougheachhydrologicareahasuniquequalitiesandcircumstances,wewouldexpectapproximatelythesamelevelofhumanimpactsandthesametypesofimpactstobeoccurringatspringsthroughouttheregion.

Lessons Learned Queryingmanagerstounderstandtheirinformationneedsandmanagementobjectivesbeforeconstructingthisprojectproposalwaskeytoitssuccess.Itensuredweweredevelopingtherightlevelofinformationandfocusingoureffortsontherightoutcomes.Continuedcoordinationwithpartnersthroughouttheprojecthasalsobeenkeytoitssuccess.Thistypeofcoordinationhasledtochangesinapproachestomanagementasmorecreativeenergyisfocusedonidentifyingandsolvingmanagementchallengesassociatedwithsprings.Springsecosystemshaverisentotheforefrontofconversationsintheregioninrelationtowildlifeadaptationtoclimatechange,amphibianmanagement,watershedrestorationefforts,managementplanning,andothertopics.

67

Volunteersurveyorswereacriticalcomponentofthisproject.Wewouldnothavebeenabletocompletetheextensivefieldworkwithoutacorpsoftrainedvolunteers.Thisprojectdemonstratesthatintimesofdecreasedagencyresources,properlytrainedandledvolunteersareavaluableworkforceforgatheringbaselineinformationonsprings.Akeyconsiderationinusingvolunteersastheprimaryworkforceisdataqualitycontrolandprotocolcompliance.Becauseofthis,werecommendthatvolunteerteamsalwaysbeaccompaniedbyastaffprofessionalformallytrainedinassessmentprotocols.

Volunteerrecruitmentandmaintenancewerecriticaltothisproject.Wefoundthatplanningfieldworktotraveltohighelevationssitesinthesummerandlowelevationsitesinthewinterismosteffectiveforvolunteerparticipation.Wefoundengagingvolunteersinspringsinventoriestobeanexcellentavenueforeducatingthepublicontheimportanceofthesewaters.Ourvolunteerengagementmodelisbuildingacommunityoflocalcitizensthathaveaninterestinunderstandingandstewardingspringsecosystems,andmaybeapowerfulvoiceforconservationmeasuresthatwillrequirepublicsupport.

OurpilotAdopt‐a‐Springprogramdemonstratedthatusingvolunteersisaviablewaytomonitorsprings.Wewereabletorecruitvolunteerstomonitoreventhemoreremotesitesthatrequiredlongeroroff‐trailhikes,orlongerdrives.WedidfindthatthesitesfartherfromTucsonweremoreeasilymonitoredwithvolunteerswholivedclosertothesite,sorecruitingvolunteersoutsideofTucsonmaybeimportantforcontinuingandexpandingthisproject.Also,somevolunteersarereadytomoveontoothertypesofworkafteroneyearmonitoringasite;itseemsasifthebestapproachmaybetoholdonce‐ortwice‐yearlytrainingstorecruitnewvolunteers,andtoaskvolunteersforjustaoneyearcommitmenttotheproject.Thisprojecthasrevealedhowdynamicmanyspringsare,withchangesthroughtheyearinflow,microhabitatsize,andsoilmoisture.

Therandomizedsampledesignwasnecessarytodevelopinformationonspringsthatcouldbegeneralizedtothefullstudyarea.Thisframeworkwasimportanttoensurethatspringsinventorieswerenotlimitedtowell‐knownand/oreasilyaccessiblesites,butcoveredadiversityofsprings.

Thisprojectofferedalimitedfirstlookatfireeffectsatsprings.Tobetterunderstandtheseeffectsitisimportanttocontinuetocollectassessmentinformationatspringsbeforetheyburnaswellasaftertheyburn.Thereisstillmuchtobelearnedabouttheroleofspringsasclimaterefugiawithinburnareas,aswellashowfireareaffectingsprings.

Management Recommendations Ecosystemfunctioningofspringsinthestudyareawasmostdisruptedbyflowregulationandadjacentlandconditions,followedcloselybyroad,trail,andrailroadimpacts.

Managementoptionstoaddressflowregulationinclude:

maintainingcurrentinfrastructuresothatwaterisnotwastedorlost; removinginfrastructurethatisnolongerinusetoallowwatertosupportwetted

habitat;

68

modifyingflowregulationstructuressothatwaterisavailabletowildlifeinadditiontotheuseitisregulatedfor;and

splittingflowregulationorotherwiseputtingsomewaterontothelandtosupportwettedhabitatwhilestillkeepingsomewaterregulatedfortheintendeduse

Managementoptionstoaddressadjacentlandconditionsinclude:

activepost‐firerestorationtoaddresserosionduetofire; modificationofgrazinginadjacentlandstoallowforvegetationre‐growthand

diversification; decreasingerosionassociatedwithtrampling;and otherwatershedmanagementactionstomaintainandrestorehealthylandscapes

thatwilldecreasethreatsoferosionsandincreaseinfiltrationofwater addressingadjacentlandconditionstopreventcatastrophicfireandothererosion‐

causingevents.

ManyoftheabovedescribedmanagementoptionsarewithinthereachoflandmanagersintheSkyIslandRegion.Theycanbeimplementedthroughotherinitiativesoccurringintheregion.Keyinitiativesincludedistrict‐widewatershedrestorationactivities,FireScapeandthePinaleñoEcosystemRestorationProjectcurrentlybeingledbytheCoronadoNationalForest,endangeredspeciesrecoveryfortheChiricahualeopardfrogbeingledbytheAZGFandUSFWS,andlandscaperestorationeffortsbeingledbytheBLM.TheCoronadoNationalForestiscurrentlyrevisingitsLandandResourceManagementPlan,whichprovidesanopportunitytobegincodifyingspecialprotectionsforspringsthatareinmoderatetoexcellentecologicalcondition.Italsoprovidesanopportunitytoprescribemanagementdirectionforspringsthatareactivelybeingmanagedforhumanuseswhichwillsupportadaptationtoclimatechangeforspringsecosystemsandwildlife.

Project Benefits and Next Steps

Leveraging Desert Landscape Conservation Cooperative Resources WewereabletoleveragetheoriginalfundingprovidedbytheDesertLCCandBORWaterSMARTgranttosecurethefollowingadditionalresources:

Atwo‐yeargrantfromtheDorisDukeCharitableFund’sClimateChangeAdaptationFund(administeredbyTheWildlifeConservationSociety)torehabilitatechannelsandspringsinareasthatareexperiencepost‐fireerosionandlossofhabitat.

Amulti‐yearcollaborativeprojectwithSaguaroNationalParkfocusedonsisterparkscollaborationthatisbuildingonspringinventoryworkintheU.S.bysharingspringsurveyandrestorationtechniqueswithNationalParksandprotectedareasinMexico.

FundingfromtheUSFSandBLMtosupportspringinventory,monitoringandrestorationworkontheirlands.

Additionally,datagatheredonspringsthroughthisprojectwasusedtoinformtheMadreanEcoregionalRapidAssessmentconductedbytheBureauofLandManagement.

69

Recommended Next Steps Attheconclusionoffouryearsofworktoinventoryspringsandconductadaptationplanning,wehaveidentifiedandareactivelyworkingonanumberofnextstepsthatwillenhancestewardshipofspringsintheSkyIslandRegion.

1. Continuetotrainmanagers,researchers,andconservationistsintheuseoftheonlineSpringsInventoryDatabaseinanefforttoexpanduseofthedatabase.Continuingtotrainlandandresourcemanagersandotherinterestedspringstewardsinuseofthedatabasewillengagetheminuseofthedatabaseandimproveourlandscape‐levelinformationbaseonthestatusofsprings.

2. IncorporatespringinventoryandassessmentdataintolargelandscapeplanningeffortsincludingLandscapeConservationDesignbeingconductedbytheDesertLCC,andprogrammaticNEPAeffortsbeingconductedbytheCoronadoNationalforestandotherfederallandmanagementagenciesintheDesertLCCgeography.

3. EngagemanagersandpractitionersinuseoftheArizonaSpringsRestorationHandbookforspringrestorationprojectsandreviseasneeded.OverthecomingyearwewillbeworkingtoreachouttomanagersandpractitionersintheDesertLCCgeographytomakethemawareofthenewlyreleasedrestorationguidebookandtoidentifyprojectswithintheSkyIslandRegionwherewecancollaborativelyutilizethehandbook.Weanticipateusingthisfirstversionasaworkingversionandreleasingasecondversionbasedonfeedbackandreviewin2017.Wearealreadyworkingtoexpandthesectionrelatedtochoiceofplantsatrestorationsites,aswellastodevelopmoreexplicitinformationonhowtoincorporateclimatechangeconsiderations.

4. ExpandtheAdopt‐a‐SpringprogramtoincludemoreprioritysitesintheSkyIslandRegion,andreviseprotocolsasneededbasedonfindingsandpractitioner/managerinput.Seasonalmonitoringofspringswillbeanincreasinglyimportantaspectofunderstandingandtrackingchangesinspringsecosystems.Itisnecessarytodocumentthefullsuiteoffloraandfaunasupportedbyaspring,todetectseasonalfluctuationsinflow,andtodetectlong‐termchangesinflowvolume.Theprogramhasgonewellinitsfirsttwoyearsandwerecommendexpandingthenumberofsitesonthemonitoringroster.WerecommendworkingwithprojectpartnerstoidentifysitestheyareplanningtoconductrestorationorothermanagementactivitiesatinthecomingyearssothatAdopt‐a‐Springmonitoringcanbeinitiatedaheadofmanagementactions.Werecommendaddingmoremonitoringsitesandeventuallyrotatingsitesoutofmonitoringfora“restperiod”ofatleastayear.Thiswillreducelong‐termimpactstospringsitesfrommonitoringactivities,aswellasprovidingvolunteerswithamorediverserosterofsitestomonitor,hopefullyhelpingtomaintaininterestintheprogram.

5. FurthercatalogueandanalyzehowfireisinfluencingspringsintheSkyIslands,aswellashowspringsmaybeinfluencingfirebehavioronthelandscape.Basedonourinitialfindings,springsareexperiencingadiversityofnegativeinfluencesfromfireinSkyIslands,particularlypost‐fireerosion.Someoftheseimpactsmaybeaddressedthroughpost‐firerestorationefforts,bothatspringsitesandupslope.Ourinitialresultsalsoindicatethatspringsmaybeimportant

70

refugiafortheregenerationofspeciesfollowingfires.Furtherinformationinsupportofthisidea,anddevelopmentofmanagementresponsesthattakeadvantageofthisinformationmaybeessentialforspringsandecosystemsinthefaceofchangingfireregimeacrossthewest.

6. CollectnewspringsinventoryinformationindifferenthydrogeologicareasoftheSkyIslandRegion,particularlynorthernMexico,andcompareparametersandcharacteristicsacrossdifferentareastobetterunderstandthefunctionofspringsatthelandscapelevel.

7. ConductacomparativeanalysisofspringinventoryandassessmentresultsfromtheCinegaCreekstudyareaandtheUpperSantaCruzstudyarea.Atthecloseofthisprojectthereisnowrandomsampledataonspringsintwodifferenthydrologicareas.Thispresentsanewopportunityforcomparativeanalysisbetweenareas.Comparativeanalysisofareasmayhelpusdeterminetheutilityofutilizingresultsfromoneareatomakeassumptionsaboutthestatusofspringsinneighboring,ornearbyhydrologicareas.

8. DevelopaSkyIslandsWetlandandRiparianPlantIdentificationGuide.Throughouttheassessmentprocess,botanicalknowledgewasidentifiedasalimitingfactor;wetlandspeciesinaridregionsarenotalwayswidelyknown,evenamongstnativeplantenthusiasts.ThereisnospecializedbotanicalguidefortheseimportanthabitatsfortheSkyIslandRegion.Thistypeofguidewouldbeinvaluableforuseinspringinventoriesintheregion,andwouldatleastpartiallyaddresstheneedforimprovedbotanicalrecordcollectionatspringinventories.ItcouldalsobeacomponentoftheRestorationGuidebook.Thisguidecouldincludehighlightsofsensitiveorparticularlyimportantwetlandassociatedplantsthatsurveyorsshouldbeonthelookoutfor,possiblybymountainrange,watershed,orsomesmallerlandscapeunittofacilitateuse.UseoftheSouthwestEnvironmentalInformationNetwork(SEINet;http://swbiodiversity.org/portal/index.php)andMadreanArchipelagoBiodiversityAssessmentMABA(http://www.madrean.org/symbflora/)onlinedatabaseswouldallowsuchanefforttobeconstantlyupdatedandrefinedsothatuserscouldcompileregionalorspecificfieldguidesfortheareatheyareworkingin.

9. ContinuetoexpandinventoryandrestorationeffortsintotheMexicanportionoftheSkyIslandRegion.ThedearthofinformationonspringsintheU.S.portionoftheSkyIslandRegionisclear;thislackisevenmorepronouncedintheMexicanSkyIslands.Thereisnotcurrentlygoodspatialinformationonthelocationofsprings,letaloneinformationontheircondition.ItisimpossibletoaccuratelyassesstheconditionofspringsthroughouttheregionwithoutamatchingeffortinMexico.Manyoftheregion’smost‐importantwaterways(theSanPedroandSantaCruzrivers,forinstance)havebi‐nationalwatersheds.WearecurrentlyworkingwiththeNationalParkService‐ledsisterparksprogramtoincorporatespringinventoryprotocolsanddatabaseuseintoconservationactivitiesat11collaboratingNationalParksandprotectedareaslocatedinArizona,Sonoran,andBajaCalifornia.

a. Translatespringinventoryandassessmentprotocols,supportingtrainingmaterials,theSpringInventoryDatabase,andrelevantportionsoftheArizonaSpringsRestorationHandbookintoSpanishforuseinSonora.WeareseekingfundingtoworkwiththeSprings

71

StewardshipInstitutetotranslatespringinventoryandassessmentprotocolsintoSpanish,offerinventoryandassessmenttrainingsinSpanishtospringsstewardsinSonora,andtranslatetheSpringsInventoryDatabaseintoSpanish.

References Anning,D.W.,andKonieczki,A.D.,2005,Classificationofhydrogeologicareasand

hydrogeologicflowsystemsintheBasinandRangePhysiographicProvince,SouthwesternUnitedStates:U.S.GeologicalSurveyProfessionalPaper1702,37p.

Brown,D.E.andC.H.Lowe.1981.BioticcommunitiesoftheSouthwest,map(1:1,000,000).Gen.Tech.Rep.RM78,U.S.D.A.ForestService,FortCollins,CO.

Hansen,L.2013.AdaptationActionPlanForSpringsEcosystemsfromLearningtoLivewiththeHeat:AdaptingtoaChangingClimateintheSkyIslandRegion.SkyIslandAlliance.8p.Accessibleathttp://www.skyislandalliance.org/adaptationworkshop2013.htm

Ledbetter,J.D.,L.StevensandA.E.Springer.2010.SpringsInventoryDatabase.34p.Accessedathttp://www.springstewardship.org/PDF/BrochureText060411.pdf

Misztal,L.2011.ClimateChangeAdaptationintheAridSouthwest:AWorkshopforLandandResourceManagementWorkshopSummaryReport.SkyIslandAlliance.42pp.Accessibleathttp://www.skyislandalliance.org/adaptationworkshop2010.htm

Misztal,L.,L.Hansen,andG.Garfin.2012.RespondingtoclimatechangeimpactsintheSkyIslandRegion:Fromplanningtoaction.In:Gottfried,GeraldJ.;Ffolliott,PeterF.;Gebow,BrookeS.;Eskew,LaneG.;Collins,LoaC.Mergingscienceandmanagementinarapidlychangingworld:BiodiversityandmanagementoftheMadreanArchipelagoIIIand7thConferenceonResearchandResourceManagementintheSouthwesternDeserts;2012May1‐5;Tucson,AZ.Proceedings.RMRS‐P‐67.FortCollins,CO:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,RockyMountainResearchStation.p.60‐67.

Misztal,L.W.,N.Deyo,C.F.Campbell(SkyIslandAlliance,Tucson,AZ).2013.SpringsintheSkyIslandRegion:Inventory,Assessment,andManagementPlanningProject.FinalReporttotheDesertLandscapeConservationCooperativeforWaterSMARTAgreementNoR11AP81528;December2013.43ppplusAppendices.

Misztal,L.2013.AdaptationActionPlanForFirefromLearningtoLivewiththeHeat:AdaptingtoaChangingClimateintheSkyIslandRegion.SkyIslandAlliance.8p.Accessibleathttp://www.skyislandalliance.org/adaptationworkshop2013.htm

Meinzer,O.E.,1923.OutlineofGround‐waterHydrology,withDefinitions.U.S.GeologicalSurvey.WaterSupplyPaper494.

Perla,B.S.andL.E.Stevens.2008.Biodiversityandproductivityatanundisturbedspring,incomparisonwithadjacentgrazedripariananuplandhabitats.Pp.230‐2243inStevens,

72

LE.andV.J.Meretsky,editors.2008.AridlandSpringsinNorthAmerica:EcologyandConservation.UniversityofArizonaPress.Tucson,AZ.

Powell,Brian.2011.InventoryandStatusofUnsupplementedandPerennialSurfaceWateronPimaCountyOpen‐spaceProperties.PimaCountyOfficeofSustainabilityandConservation.12pp.

SolarPathfinder,Inc.2012.SolarsiteanalysisLinden.

SpringsStewardshipInstitute.Accessed12/12/13athttp://www.springstewardship.org/arizona.html.

Springer,A.E.andL.E.Stevens.2008.Spheresofdischargeofsprings.HydrogeologyJournalDOI10.1007/s10040‐008‐341‐y.

Stevens,L.E.,H.Kloppel,A.E.Springer,D.W.Sada.2006.TerrestrialSpringsEcosystemsInventoryProtocolsNarrative.Revised4/20/06.NationalParkServiceCooperativeAgreementNumberCA1200‐99‐009.45pp.

Stevens,LE.andV.J.Meretsky,editors.2008.AridlandSpringsinNorthAmerica:EcologyandConservation.UniversityofArizonaPress.Tucson,AZ.406pp.

Stevens,L.E.,J.D.Ledbetter,andA.E.Springer.2011.InventoryandMonitoringProtocolsforSpringsEcosystems.56pp.Accessibleathttp://www.springstewardship.org/PDF/Springs_Inventory_Protocols_110602.pdf

Stevens,L.E.,J.D.Ledbetter,andA.E.Springer.2012.SpringsInventoryandAssessmentTrainingManual,Version2.01.SpringsStewardshipInstitute,MuseumofNorthernArizona.

AppendixA:SpringsInventoryandAssessmentProtocolsandDataSheets

SPRINGS STEWARDSHIP INSTITUTE SPRINGS INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT

TRAINING MANUAL

SPRINGS ECOSYSTEM INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS VERSION 2.01

SPRINGS INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP

FOR THE SKY ISLANDS ALLIANCE HISTORIC Y IN TUCSON AND ROSE COTTAGE, AGUA CALIENTE PARK

APRIL 13-14, 2013, 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M.

BY

SPRINGS STEWARDSHIP INSTITUTE MUSEUM OF NORTHERN ARIZONA

3101 N. FT. VALLEY RD. FLAGSTAFF, AZ 86001

2 | P a g e

3 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ 4AGENDA ........................................................................................................................................ 5CHAPTER 1: SPRINGS ECOLOGY AND STEWARDSHIP— AN INTRODUCTION ............ 7CHAPTER 2: SPHERES OF DISCHARGE .................................................................................. 9CHAPTER 3: A SPRINGS ECOSYSTEM CONCEPTUAL MODEL ....................................... 21CHAPTER 4: THREATS TO SPRINGS: HUMAN IMPACTS .................................................. 23

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 23Altered Regional Groundwater Availability ............................................................................. 23Pollution .................................................................................................................................... 23Flow Regulation and Diversion ................................................................................................ 24Interruption of Disturbance Regimes ........................................................................................ 24Herbivore Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 24Exotic Plant and Animal Invasions ........................................................................................... 25Fire Effects ................................................................................................................................ 26Visitor Impacts .......................................................................................................................... 26Mining Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 26Traditional Use and Science Impacts ........................................................................................ 26Management Impacts ................................................................................................................ 26

CHAPTER 5: RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION OF SPRINGS ................................ 29CHAPTER 6: SPRINGS INVENTORY AND MONITORING .................................................. 31

Overview ................................................................................................................................... 31Safety Issues .............................................................................................................................. 33Springs Inventory Equipment List ............................................................................................ 35

CHAPTER 7: SEAP—SPRINGS ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT .............................................. 37REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................................. 39FIELD DATA SHEETS ............................................................................................................... 41

4 | P a g e

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This workbook was supported by the Museum of Northern Arizona (Flagstaff). Additional support for development of the protocols was provided the Hualapai Tribe, the Sky islands Alliance in Tucson, Arizona, and the University of Lethbridge, Alberta. We thank the supporting organizations for funding and/or administrative guidance. We thank our collaborators, particularly including Dr. Kelley Hays-Gilpin and Dr. Stewart Rood for advice and work on springs assessment. We also thank the many volunteers for field and laboratory work on this effort. We thank the many other southwestern Tribes who have participated in past springs stewardship workshops, who added their voices to the call for improving stewardship of springs. We thank Don Bay, Alex Cabillo and their staff at the Hualapai Natural Resources Department; Christine Albano and Kate Waters of the Grand Canyon Trust; Kelly Burke of Grand Canyon Wildlands Council; Don Sada of the Desert Research Institute; Miguel Vasquez of NAU’s Anthropology Department; and other collaborators for their contributions to our understanding of springs ecosystems and management.

This workbook is published by the Springs Stewardship Institute, an initiative of the Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

Copyright ©2012 by Springs Stewardship Institute. All rights reserved. Version 2.01 September 2012

Springs Stewardship Institute Museum of Northern Arizona 3101 N. Ft. Valley Rd. Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 springstewardship.org

Recommended Citation: Stevens, L.E., J.D. Ledbetter, and A.E. Springer. 2012. Springs Inventory and Assessment Training

Manual, Version 2.01. Springs Stewardship Institute, Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. http://springstewardship.org/workshops.html.

http://springstewardship.org/workshops.html�

5 | P a g e

AGENDA

Historic Y in Tucson and Rose Cottage, Agua Caliente Park (520) 624-7080

DAY 1, SATURDAY APRIL 13 9:00 A.M. (HISTORIC Y IN TUCSON 738 N 5TH AVE, TUCSON, AZ 85705)

INTRODUCTION Sky Island Alliance Introduction Agua Caliente County Park History Overview of workshop Housekeeping, logistics, etc.

WHAT AND WHERE ARE SPRINGS? State, national, global

WHY STUDY SPRINGS? Springs and aquifers Springs as cultural-biodiversity hotspots Springs as evolutionary theatres Human threats to springs

SPRINGS ECOSYSTEM ECOLOGY Conceptual Model Applications to Improved Stewardship

BREAK: 10 MINUTES

HOW TO INVENTORY AND ASSESS SPRINGS ECOSYSTEMS

Interdisciplinary approaches Inventory approaches – 3 levels Level 1 – geography Level 2 – detailed inventory and assessment Level 3 – long-term studies

SIA HYBRID LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 SPRINGS INVENTORY Geography and site description Geography Sphere of discharge Microhabitat description Site sketch mapping Soils description Solar radiation budget Flora and vegetation Fauna Geology and Geomorphology Geologic context

6 | P a g e

Geomorphology Flow Geochemistry

TRAVEL TO AGUA CALIENTE COUNTY PARK AT 12:00 P.M. (Rose cottage12325 E Roger Rd, Tucson, AZ 85749)

LUNCH: 30 MINUTES

SPRINGS ASSESSMENT

SEAP structure: resource condition and risk Categories and subcategory scoring Hydrogeology Geomorphology Habitat Biota Human influences Administrative context Analyses and application of SEAP results Conduct Level 1 inventory and SEAP

SITE VISIT 1: AQUA CALIENTE SPRING Conduct Level 1 inventory and SEAP

CONCLUDE AT 5:00 P.M. DAY 2: SUNDAY 14 APRIL 2013: 9:00 A.M (MEET AT AGUA CALIENTE COUNTY PARK 12325 E ROGER RD, TUCSON, AZ 85749)

INTRODUCTIONS

Review of previous day’s training Questions and refinements

SITE VISIT 2: LA CEBADILLA CIENEGA Conduct Level 1 inventory and SEAP

RETURN TO AGUA CALIENTE COUNTY PARK AND DEBRIEF LUNCH: 45 MINUTES

SITE VISIT 3: BUG SPRINGS Conduct Level 1 inventory and SEAP Debrief in field

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

CONCLUDE AT 5:00 P.M.

7 | P a g e

CHAPTER 1: SPRINGS ECOLOGY AND STEWARDSHIP— AN INTRODUCTION

Although they are among the most biologically and culturally important and highly

threatened ecosystems on Earth, springs are poorly studied and inadequately protected (Stevens and Meretsky 2008). Most springs are relatively small size, yet they support at least 16% of the endangered animals in the United States, as well as untold thousands of rare or highly restricted species. Emerging in many forms, springs are windows into the Earth, and some of the most sensitive indicators of global climate change. Springs are also sites of enormous cultural significance to indigenous cultures.

Little research has been focused on springs ecosystems. Until recently there has been no systematic effort or methodology for comprehensive eco-assessment. Although there have been recent efforts to develop a more consistent terminology, classification, and methodology, these have not yet been widely accepted. As a result, existing information is often minimal, fragmented and largely unavailable to researchers, land managers, and conservation organizations.

Due to the lack of information and attention to these ecosystems, many springs have been lost through poor groundwater and land use practices, with estimates in some landscapes exceeding 90 percent. This loss of springs habitat constitutes a global environmental crisis. However, if the supporting aquifer is not impaired, springs ecosystems can be relatively easily and inexpensively rehabilitated or restored.

The need for improved stewardship of springs is widely recognized, not only in arid regions but throughout the world. They are of concern to all who manage springs and care about stewardship of critical natural and cultural resources.

The Springs Stewardship Institute is working to improve communications among springs managers to improve understanding and management of springs, and the potential for collaboration and partnership. Our goal is to focus discussion on springs stewardship by sharing information and by presenting technological tools that support efforts to understand the complex ecology of springs. We also conduct research, training workshops, and coordinate with other organizations, agencies, Tribes, and researchers who are trying to locate, study, and protect these critical endangered ecosystems.

8 | P a g e

Spheres of discharge of springs

Abraham E. Springer & Lawrence E. Stevens

Abstract Although springs have been recognized as im-portant, rare, and globally threatened ecosystems, there is asyet no consistent and comprehensive classification system orcommon lexicon for springs. In this paper, 12 spheres ofdischarge of springs are defined, sketched, displayed withphotographs, and described relative to their hydrogeology ofoccurrence, and the microhabitats and ecosystems theysupport. A few of the spheres of discharge have beenpreviously recognized and used by hydrogeologists for over80years, but others have only recently been defined geo-morphologically. A comparison of these spheres of dis-charge to classification systems for wetlands, groundwaterdependent ecosystems, karst hydrogeology, running waters,and other systems is provided. With a common lexicon forsprings, hydrogeologists can provide more consistent guid-ance for springs ecosystem conservation, management, andrestoration. As additional comprehensive inventories of thephysical, biological, and cultural characteristics are con-ducted and analyzed, it will eventually be possible toassociate spheres of discharge with discrete vegetation andaquatic invertebrate assemblages, and better understand thehabitat requirements of rare or unique springs species. Giventhe elevated productivity and biodiversity of springs, andtheir highly threatened status, identification of geomorphicsimilarities among spring types is essential for conservationof these important ecosystems.

Keywords Springs classification . Generalhydrogeology . Ecology

Introduction

Springs are ecosystems in which groundwater reaches theEarth’s surface either at or near the land-atmosphereinterface or the land-water interface. At their sources(orifices, points of emergence), the physical geomorphictemplate allows some springs to support numerous micro-habitats and large arrays of aquatic, wetland, andterrestrial plant and animal species; yet, springs ecosys-tems are distinctly different from other aquatic, wetland,and riparian ecosystems (Stevens et al. 2005). Forexample, springs of Texas support at least 15 federallylisted threatened or endangered species under the regu-lations of the US Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Brune2002). Hydrogeologists have traditionally classified thephysical parameters of springs up to their point ofdischarge (e.g., Bryan 1919, Meinzer 1923), but havepaid little attention to springs after the point of dischargewhere they are more interesting to ecologists, conservationbiologists, cultural anthropologists, and recreation sociol-ogists. Classification systems that incidentally includesprings have been developed for surface waters (Hynes1970), wetlands (Euliss et al. 2004), groundwater depen-dent ecosystems (Eamus and Froend 2006), and ripariansystems downstream from the point of discharge (Warnerand Hendrix 1984; Rosgen 1996). An integrated springsclassification system should include the major physical,biological, and socio-cultural variables. Such a classifica-tion system will permit assessment of the distribution ofdifferent kinds of springs ecosystems, thereby improvingresource inventory and development of conservation andrestoration strategies (e.g., Sada and Vinyard 2002; Perlaand Stevens 2008).

Alfaro and Wallace (1994) and Wallace and Alfaro(2001) updated and reviewed the historical springsclassification schemes of Fuller (1904); Keilhack (1912);Bryan (1919); Meinzer (1923); Clarke (1924); Stiny(1933), and others. Of the previously proposed systems,Meinzer’s (1923) classification system has been the mostpersistently recognized. He included 11 characteristics ofsprings based on various physical and chemical variables.Although Meinzer’s (1923) scheme has been widely used,it is not comprehensive. Clarke (1924) considered threecriteria to be most important for springs classification:geologic origin, physical properties, and geochemistry.Other classifications have been developed for specifictypes of geomorphology such as karst geomorphology

Received: 10 March 2008 /Accepted: 19 June 2008

* Springer-Verlag 2008

A. E. Springer ())Department of Geology,Northern Arizona University,Box 4099, Flagstaff, AZ 86001, USAe-mail: [email protected].: +1-(928)-523-7198Fax: +1-(928)-523-9220

L. E. StevensCurator of Ecology and Conservation,Museum of Northern Arizona,3101 N. Ft. Valley Rd., Flagstaff, AZ 86001, USAe-mail: [email protected]

Hydrogeology Journal DOI 10.1007/s10040-008-0341-y

(free draining, dammed, or confined springs; Ford andWilliams 2007) or classification of karst springs by eightattributes—flow duration, reversing flow, conduit type atspring, geology, topographic position, relationship tobodies of surface water, distributaries, recharge, chemistry,culture/exploitation—(Gunn 2004). Springs, particularlythose in arid regions, are renowned as hotspots of biologicaland cultural diversity, and the presence of endangered orunique species and ethnological and historic resources oftengreatly influences their management. Therefore, ecologicaland cultural variables also relevant to springs classificationinclude: size, spatial isolation; microhabitat distribution;paleontological resources; the presence of rare or endemicbiota; archeological or traditional cultural resources; and asprings’ context to surrounding ecosystems. To date, nocomprehensive springs classification system has beendeveloped or accepted (Wallace and Alfaro 2001). Manypublications related to springs focus on specific regions thathave a limited number of types of springs (e.g., Brune2002; Scott et al. 2004; Vineyard and Feder 1982; Borneuf1983). For example, because limnocrene springs of Floridaare influenced by karst processes, their classification hasfocused primarily on the type of spring (vent or seep),whether or not it is onshore or offshore, and the magnitudeof the discharge (Scott et al. 2004).

In Springer et al. (2008), previous classification effortswere discussed and an integrated springs classificationsystem was presented, with the understanding that testingand refinement of this classification system requires much

further work. Springer et al.’s (2008) organizationalstructure integrates springs inventory data and reiteratesnine of Meinzer’s (1923) classes, Alfaro and Wallace’s(1994) recommendations, and proposed additional eco-logical and cultural elements. An organizational structurethat integrates springs data and reiterated Alfaro andWallace’s (1994) recommendation to develop a globaldatabase on springs using this comprehensive classifica-tion system is discussed. The criteria used for classifica-tion by Springer et al. (2008) include geomorphicconsiderations (hydrostratigraphic unit, emergence environ-ment, orifice geomorphology, sphere of discharge, channeldynamics), forces bringing water to the surface, flowproperties (persistence, consistency, rate, variability), waterquality (temperature and geochemistry), habitats (synopticclimate, surrounding ecosystems, biogeographic isolation,habitat size, microhabitat diversity), springs biota (speciescomposition, vegetation, faunal diversity), and springsmanagement and use. Seeps are considered to be lowmagnitude discharge springs in this classification system.

In this paper, the 12 spheres of discharge of springs ofSpringer et al. (2008) are described in more detail thanwas included in their manuscript (Table 1). A textdescription, a sketch and a photograph of each sphere isincluded, as is a discussion of how each sphere corre-sponds to equivalent language used by aquatic ecologists,wetland and riparian scientists, or other specialists todescribe springs. For spheres of discharge where it isknown, a description of how the spheres of discharge of

Table 1 Sphere of discharge and types of springs (modified from Springer et al. 2008) with examples of known springs and references ofdescriptions of sphere of discharge

Spring type Emergence setting and hydrogeology Example Reference

Cave Emergence in a cave in mature to extremekarst with sufficiently large conduits

Kartchner Caverns, AZ Springer et al. (2008)

Exposuresprings

Cave, rock shelter fractures, or sinkholeswhere unconfined aquifer is exposed nearthe land surface

Devils Hole, Ash Meadows,NV

Springer et al. (2008)

Fountain Artesian fountain with pressurized CO2 in aconfined aquifer

Crystal Geyser, UT Springer et al. (2008)

Geyser Explosive flow of hot water from confinedaquifer

Riverside Geyser, WY Springer et al. (2008)

Gushet Discrete source flow gushes from a cliff wallof a perched, unconfined aquifer

Thunder River, GrandCanyon, AZ


Hanginggarden

Dripping flow emerges usually horizontallyalong a geologic contact along a cliff wallof a perched, unconfined aquifer

Poison Ivy Spring, ArchesNP, UT

Woodbury (1933);Welsh (1989);Spence (2008)

Helocrene Emerges from low gradient wetlands; oftenindistinct or multiple sources seeping fromshallow, unconfined aquifers

Soap Holes, Elk Island NP,AB, Canada

Modified from Meinzer(1923); Hynes (1970);Grand Canyon WildlandsCouncil (2002)

Hillslope Emerges from confined or unconfined aquiferson a hillslope (30–60o slope); often indistinctor multiple sources

Ram Creek Hot Spring, BC,Canada


Hypocrene A buried spring where flow does not reach thesurface, typically due to very low dischargeand high evaporation or transpiration

Mile 70L Spring, GrandCanyon, AZ


Limnocrene Emergence of confined or unconfined aquifersin pool(s)

Grassi Lakes, AB, Canada Modified from Meinzer(1923); Hynes (1970)

(Carbonate)mound-form

Emerges from a mineralized mound, frequentlyat magmatic or fault systems

Montezuma Well, AZ DalhousieSprings, Australia

Springer et al. (2008);Zeidler and Ponder (1989)

Rheocrene Flowing spring, emerges into one or morestream channels

Pheasant Branch, WI, US Modified from Meinzer(1923); Hynes (1970)


Fig. 1 Sketches of springs spheres of discharge: a cave, b exposure, c fountain, d geyser, e gushet, f hanging garden, g helocrene,h hillslope, i hypocrene, j limnocrene, k mound form, l rheocrene. A aquifer, I impermeable stratum, S spring source. The inverted trianglerepresents the water table or piezometric surface. Fault lines are also shown, where appropriate


springs create diverse microhabitats which lead to rich anddiverse ecosystems is made. Each sphere of discharge hasbeen linked to a conceptual model for springs created byStevens and Springer (2004) and the array of micro-habitats. The success of a future integrated, comprehen-sive classification system for springs will depend on aninclusive and descriptive set of spheres of dischargecoupled with an association of aquatic invertebrates and/or vegetation. However, an insufficient number of com-prehensive physical, biological and cultural inventories ofsprings ecosystems have as yet been conducted tostatistically determine these associations.

Background

Conceptual models and classifications systems helporganize and categorize complicated natural systems.Various classification systems have been created forvarious types of hydrological systems. Euliss et al.(2004) created a conceptual framework called the wetlandcontinuum to include factors describing the influence ofclimate and hydrologic setting on biological communitiesin wetlands. Although their system is applicable to springsthat occur in wetlands, it is not applicable to the manytypes of springs that do not occur in wetlands. Also,springs only have groundwater discharge, so the wetland

continuum concept of Euliss et al. (2004) of recharge isnot applicable to springs. Springs occurrence in somegeomorphic settings is far more complicated than wet-lands (e.g., cliff walls), creating a wide array of micro-habitats not observed in wetlands.

Another prominent classification system that includessprings is for groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDE).Three primary classes of GDEs have been proposed(Eamus and Froend 2006). GDE classification tends tofocus more on vegetation components of the ecosystembecause of the paucity of invertebrate data. The threeclasses described are: (1) aquifer and cave ecosystems, (2)all ecosystems dependent on the surface expression offlow, and (3) all ecosystems dependent on the subsurfacepresence of groundwater (Eamus and Froend 2006). As

Fig. 1 (continued)

Fig. 2 Photographs of springs spheres of discharge: a cave spring,Kartchner Caverns, Arizona, US, b exposure spring, Devil’s Hole,Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada, US, c fountainspring, Crystal Geyser, Utah, US—photo by Joel Barnes, d geyser,Riverside Geyser, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, US, egushet, Thunder River Spring, Grand Canyon National Park,Arizona, US, f hanging garden, Poison Ivy Spring, Arches NationalPark, Utah, US, g helocrene, soap hole, Elk Island National Park,Alberta, Canada, h hillslope spring, Ram Creek Hot Spring, BritishColumbia, Canada, i hypocrene, 70R mile spring, Grand CanyonNational Park, Arizona, US, j limnocrene, Grassi Lakes, Alberta,Canada, k mound form spring, Montezuma Well, Arizona, US,l rheocrene, Pheasant Branch Spring, Wisconsin, US

b



will be demonstrated in this paper and by Meinzer (1923)and Hynes (1970) the spheres of discharge of springsand the associated ecosystems with them are morecomplex than these three classes. Several notable booksabout springs ecology that have been published (e.g.,Botosaneanu 1998 and Stevens and Meretsky 2008) andOdum’s (1957) work on Silver Springs in Florida (whichlaid the groundwork for much of modern ecosystemecology) also indicate that springs and their associatedecosystems are more complex than the three GDE classesof Eamus and Froend (2006).

Sphere of discharge

The “sphere” into which the aquifer is discharged asdescribed by Meinzer (1923) was greatly simplified byHynes (1970) into three different classes (rheocrene,limnocrene, helocrene). Springer et al. (2008) expandedthese historical schemes to include 12 spheres of dischargeof springs, including: (1) springs that emerge in caves, (2)exposure springs, (3) artesian fountains, (4) geysers, (5)gushets, (6) contact hanging gardens, (7) helocrene wetmeadows, (8) hillslope springs, (9) hypocrene buried

Fig. 2 (continued)


springs, (10) limnocrene surficial lentic pools, (11) moundforms, and (12) rheocrene lotic channel floors (Figs. 1 and2; Table 1). In addition, paleosprings are recognized, whichflowed in prehistoric times, but no longer flow (Haynes2008). Both Meinzer’s (1923) original and Hynes (1970)classification schemes become complicated if multiplespheres of discharge are present, or if the spring has ahighly variable discharge rate and creates multiple spheresover time. For example, a mound spring may discharge intoa limnocrene pool. In the system of Springer et al. (2008),each sphere of discharge should be described for a spring.

CaveCave springs are those that emerge entirely within a caveenvironment and are not directly connected to surfaceflow (Figs. 1a and 2a). They are most common in karstterrain. Although there are almost an infinite number ofdifferent types of karst features (Ford and Williams 2007),engineering geologists have recommended a classificationsystem for karst that includes descriptions of karst classes(juvenile, youthful, mature, complex, and extreme),sinkhole density, cave size, and rockhead (bedrock) relief(Waltham and Fookes 2003). Cave type springs are mostlikely to occur in the “mature” to “extreme” karst groundconditions of Waltham and Fookes (2003) where theconduits are sufficiently large enough to allow foremergence and in “free draining or dammed” type karstsprings (Ford and Williams 2007). The ecosystems ofthese types of springs have species and habitats charac-teristic of biologically active caves, such as thosedescribed by Elliott (2007).

ExposureExposure springs are those in which groundwater isexposed at the surface but does not flow, a form ofsprings sphere of discharge proposed as new by Springeret al. (2008; Figs. 1b and 2b). These types of springstypically occur in the “dissolution” type of sinkholes(Waltham and Fookes 2003), but could form in othertypes of vertical conduits into an aquifer. A prominentexample is Devil’s Hole in Ash Meadows NationalWildlife Refuge in Nevada. Because of the uniquemicrohabitats of Devil’s Hole, that system supportsendemic Ash Meadows riffle beetle (Elmidae: Stenelmiscalida) and Devils Hole pupfish (Cyprinodontidae:Cyprinodon diabolis; Deacon and Williams 1991;Schmude 1999). The plight of the latter species has ledto special legal and management protection of theassociated aquifer.

FountainFountain springs are cool-water artesian springs that areforced above the land surface by stratigraphic head-drivenpressure or CO2 (e.g., Crystal Geyser; Glennon and Pfaff2005; Figs. 1c and 2c). Discharge at fountain springs,thus, is not driven by thermal processes, such as geysers,

but still require a confined aquifer with water pressurized byCO2, not heat. Other examples of fountains are cold water,submarine seeps of hydrocarbons, carbonates or brine,which may support dense macrofaunal communities suchas those in the Gulf of Mexico slope, Sunda Arc, and 30other known locations on active and passive continentalmargins through the world’s oceans (Cordes et al. 2007).

GeyserGeysers are globally rare, geothermal springs that emergeexplosively and usually erratically (Figs. 1d and 2d). “Ageyser is a hot spring characterized by intermittentdischarge of water ejected turbulently and accomplishedby a vapor phase.” (Bryan 1995) There are over 1,000geysers worldwide, with nearly half of them existing inYellowstone National Park, WY, USA. (Bryan 1995).Yellowstone has 600 geysers of which 300 erupt frequent-ly. The only other place in the world with more than 40geysers is the Kamchatka Peninsula of Russia withapproximately 200 geysers (Bryan 1995). There are over10,000 non-geyser hot springs of various types in Yellow-stone, many being other spheres of discharge such aslimnocrene and helocrene springs. These thermal waterssupport unique communities of bacteria (Brock 1994).

GushetGushet springs pour from cliff faces and were proposed asa new, unique sphere of discharge by Springer et al.(2008; Figs. 1e and 2e). They typically emerge fromperched, unconfined aquifers, often with dissolutionenhancement along fractures. Gushets typically supportmadicolous habitat, which consists of thin sheets of waterflowing over rock faces (Hynes 1970; Table 2). All 13microhabitat types may be present at gushet springs, leadingto very diverse ecosystems. Although they occur promi-nently in areas with steeply dissected topography (e.g.,Vasey’s Paradise in Grand Canyon, AZ, USA), they can alsooccur in regions with more modest topography, such asWisconsin, US, as long as there is sufficient topographicrelief to allow for free-falling flow.

Hanging gardenHanging gardens are complex, multi-habitat springs thatemerge along geologic contacts and seep, drip, or pouronto underlying walls (Figs. 1f and 2f). In the southwest-ern U.S., they typically emerge from perched, unconfinedaquifers in aeolian sandstone units. The hydrogeologicprocesses that lead to these unique ecosystems alsocontrol the geomorphologic processes which shape therock wall or associated canyons. Generally, three types ofhanging gardens are recognized (alcoves, window-blinds,and terraces; Welsh and Toft 1981). In the US, hanginggardens support distinctive assemblages of wetland,riparian and desert plants, including some species (e.g.,Primula spp.) that occur in indirect light on wet backwalls(Welsh and Toft 1981; Wong 1999; Spence 2008).


HelocreneHelocrene springs usually emerge in a diffuse fashion incienega (marshy, wet meadow) settings (Figs. 1g and 2g).Hynes (1970) distinguished these types of springs asdifferent from the limnocrene type springs described byBornhauser (1913). What are described as soap holes ormud springs in Alberta also are examples of helocrenes. Asoap hole or mud spring is “a part of the land surfacecharacterized by a local weakness of limited extentunderlain by a mixture of sand, silt, clay, and water”(Toth 1966). The formation of these springs is similar tothat of quicksand. In the semi-arid regions of Alberta,Canada where these occur, groundwater discharge istypically saline, leading to the occurrence of halophytes.Other helocrenes may have fresh water, but low oxygenconcentrations, and support species characteristic of wet-lands, or they may have thermal waters and primarilysupport bacteria. Other helocrene springs may havehypersaline water and support marine relict taxa thatmay occur far inland on continents at great distances fromthe ocean (Grasby and Londry 2007). The wetlandcontinuum of Euliss et al. (2004) provides furtherclassification of helocrenes.

HillslopeHillslope springs emerge from confined or unconfinedaquifers on non-vertical hillslopes at 30–60° slopes, andusually have indistinct or multiple sources (Figs. 1h and2h). Hillslope springs were proposed as a unique sphereof discharge by Springer et al. (2008) because of thediverse array of microhabitats they support (12 of 13common microhabitat types; Table 2). The diversity ofhillslope springs is generally negatively related to theslope gradient, and is strongly influenced by aspect,although those relationships have yet to be rigorouslyquantified.

HypocreneHypocrene springs are springs in which groundwater levelscome near, but do not reach the surface (Figs. 1i and 2i).Discharge from the springs is low enough that evaporationor transpiration consumes all discharge and there is nosurface expression of water. In the wetland continuum ofEuliss et al. (2004), hypocrene springs would represent asite with the lowest amount of discharge and the lowestinputs of atmospheric water. Investigations of this springtype indicate that they most commonly support halotolerantand drought-tolerant plant species; species that support fewherbivorous invertebrates.

LimnocreneLimnocrene springs occur where discharge from confinedor unconfined aquifers emerge as one or more lentic pools(Figs. 1j and 2j). The term was first used by Bornhauser(1913) and then reinforced by Hynes (1970). Limnocrenesprings exist in both the wetland continuum and GDET

able

2Estim

ated

likelihoo

dof

occurrence

of13

spring

microhabitats

at12

terrestrialspring

typesrepo

rted

ontheColoradoPlateau

(datafrom

Springeret

al.20

08andL.Stevens,

unpu

blishedob

servations)

SpringTyp

eSprings

microhabitats

Cave

interior

Orifice

Hyp

orheic

Wet

wall

Madicolou

sSpray

zone

Open-water

pool

Spring

stream

Low

-slope

wetland

sHillslop

ewet

meado

wRiparian

Adjacent

dryrock

Adjacent

upland

slin

kage

Average

microhabitat

diversity

ofa

spring

stype

Cave

51

25

31

55

55

3.7

Exp

osure

55

15

11

14

32.2

Fou

ntain

15

23

33

35

33

45

53.5

Geyser

15

23

33

34

31

35

33.0

Gushet

45

33

33

45

43

55

54.0

Hanging

garden

13

25

34

55

24

55

53.8

Helocrene

12

32

21

33

53

52

52.8

Hillslop

e1

23

22

13

34

55

35

3.0

Hyp

ocrene

11

34

45

53.3

Lim

nocrene

15

11

15

53

15

35

3.0

Mou

nd-form

15

23

31

45

31

35

33.0

Rheocrene

35

33

34

54

15

55

3.8

Meanmicrohabitat

frequencyacross

spring

stypes

2.1

3.9

2.2

2.8

2.6

2.1

4.0

4.5

3.2

2.5

4.1

4.3

4.5

—

Occurrencelik

elihoo

d:missing

microhabitdo

esno

toccurat

that

spring

stype,1very

low

likelihoo

dof

occurrence,2low

likelihoo

d,3mod

eratelik

elihoo

d,4fairlik

elihoo

d,5high

likelihoo

dof

occurrence

atthat

spring

stype.Average

diversity

values

werecalculated

forwith

inandam

ongspring

stypes


classification systems. Although limnocrene springs mayhave pond and aquatic species, their relatively uniformtemperature and chemistry may cause different species tobe present than in an adjacent surface-water dominatedwater body. Montezuma Well in central Arizona is alimnocrene pool in a collapsed carbonate mound spring;the harsh, uniform water chemistry there appears tosupport the highest concentration of endemic species ofany point in North America (Stevens 2007).

Mound formMound-form springs emerge from (usually carbonate)precipitate mounds or peat mounds (Figs. 1k and 2k).They are extensively known and described for the GreatArtesian Basin in central Australia and from other limitedareas of Western Australia, and also in North America(Knott and Jasinska 1998, Springer et al. 2008). Traver-tine-forming mound springs are often located along activemagmatic or fault systems and therefore may be hot, or inthe case of “black smokers” hyperthermic, waters, andthese systems may emit large volumes of CO2 fromendogenic water sources (Crossey et al. 2008). Mound-form springs often support high numbers of endemicspecies because of the unique quality of the water orbecause of their importance as a water source in aridregions where they commonly occur (Knott and Jasinska1998; Blinn 2008).

RheocreneThe term rheocrene was first coined by Bornhauser (1913)to describe springs where discharge emerges as flowingstreams (Figs. 1l and 2l). Spring-fed streams are alsoreferred to as springbrooks or spring runs. The term wascontinued as a special habitat of running waters by Hynes(1970) because of the relatively uniform temperature andthe de-oxygenated groundwater contribution to the stream.Springer et al. (2008) further recognized that there is acontinuum between channels which are springs dischargedominated and those that are dominated by surface runoff.These longitudinal changes in flood-related disturbance,water quality, and geomorphology strongly direct evolu-tionary processes. Springflow-dominated springs may besufficiently stable habitats to allow for evolutionarymicroadaptation, and ultimately speciation, whereas sur-face flow-dominated systems are typically occupied byweedy, generalist species (McCabe 1998). The differenttypes of channels along this continuum are distinctivelydifferent, in turn influencing the types of microhabits thatexist in them (Griffiths et al. 2008).

Distribution of spheres of discharge

To date, comprehensive inventories following the protocolsof Springer et al. (2006) have been conducted for 244springs of the Colorado Plateau (Springer et al. 2006) andthe Verde Valley of Arizona (Flora 2004) and for 48

springs in Wisconsin (Swanson et al. 2007) in the US. Thesphere of discharge was determined for each of the springs onthe Colorado Plateau andWisconsin during those inventories.Although cave, exposure, and fountain springs are known orlikely exist in these regions, they have not yet beencomprehensively inventoried (Table 3). Geyser springs arenot known to exist in those regions. Results of comprehen-sive inventories of selected springs in the two counties inWisconsin conducted by Swanson et al. (2007) determinedthat 40% were helocrene, 38% were rheocrene, 13% werehillslope, 2% were limnocrene, and 8% had other spheres ofdischarge. Analyses of global distribution of spheres ofdischarge of springs will not be accomplished until globalinventories are conducted and databases constructed.

Threats to springs ecosystems

Springs are among the most threatened ecosystems(Stevens and Meretsky 2008). Primary anthropogenicimpacts include groundwater depletion and pollution,alteration of source area geomorphology, and diversionof runout flows. Excessive groundwater pumping present-ly threatens the flows and biota of springs in the EdwardsAquifer in Texas (McKinney and Watkins 1993), theVerde River watershed in central Arizona (Haney et al.2008), the hot springs of the Bruneau River in Idaho (USFish and Wildlife Service 2002), Ash Meadows in Nevada(Deacon and Williams 1991) and the Owens Valley inCalifornia (Minckley and Deacon 1991), and elsewhere inthe US. Groundwater pollution threatens water clarity ofmany Florida limnocrene springs (Scott et al. 2004). TheEnvironmental Protection Agency requires that ground-water used for potable water supplies not be exposed tothe atmosphere, a management strategy that often resultsin the capping of springs and obliteration of the sourcearea. Fencing that focuses livestock into source areas, anddiversion of runout streams to watering troughs or pondsare two very common practices throughout the WesternUS. A survey of springs not protected by the US NationalPark Service in northern Arizona revealed that more than

Table 3 Spheres of discharge of springs inventoried on the VerdeValley of Arizona and the Colorado Plateau (Springer et al. 2006;Flora 2004)

Sphere of discharge Numberinventoried

Percent of totalinventoried

Cave 0 0Exposure 0 0Fountain 0 0Geyser 0 0Gushette 2 0.820Hanging garden 29 11.8Helocrene 38 15.6Hillslope 31 12.7Hypocrene 1 0.410Limnocrene 13 5.33Mound-form 2 0.820Rheocrene 128 52.4Total 244 100


93% were moderately to severely ecologically impaired(Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 2002).

Conclusions

As Brune (2002) noted, “The study of springs is aborderline discipline, because springs are the transitionfrom groundwater to surface water. Hence they have beenstudied to some extent by groundwater specialists and tosome extent by surface-water specialists.” Because springsresearch is typically conducted by researchers from onlyone specialty or locality, there has grown a proliferation ofdifferent and varying classification and description sys-tems for springs specific to that specialty or locality. Thispaper is an attempt to allow hydrogeologists to reclaim thedescription and classification of springs, as well as toinform that classification with information from otherdisciplines, particularly ecology and evolution. For exam-ple, springs in arid regions are hotspots of endemism: thehighest concentrations of unique species in North Americaare found in the pool-forming springs of Ash Meadows(Nevada), Montezuma Well (Arizona), and Quatro Ciene-gas (Coahuila, Mexico; Stevens and Meretsky 2008).

The 12 spheres of discharge of springs, their descrip-tions and sketches included in this paper may allowsprings researchers from many disparate specialties toshare a common language and simplified visualization ofthese springs types. Also, hopefully, this paper may leadto a more thorough discourse in the literature of theshortcomings of this proposed system, leading to im-provement over time. With a common language forsprings, it may be possible to better focus limited research,management, and restoration resources onto spring typesthat are most at risk or most threatened.

When more comprehensive, integrated, springs ecosys-tems inventories are conducted, including analysis ofspecies distribution among different spheres of discharge,an international database is built, and large-scale statisticalanalyses are conducted that include the species presentalong with the sphere of discharge, it will be possible toassociate characteristic plant and animal assemblages withthose spheres of discharge, and to clearly define acomprehensive springs classification system.

Acknowledgements This manuscript was partially prepared whileDr. Springer was a Fulbright Visiting Chair at the University ofLethbridge, Alberta, Canada. Additional support from the NationalPark Service, Salt River Project, US Forest Service, Arizona WaterProtection Fund, and Arizona Water Institute contributed to the datacollection and analyses. Dr. Stevens work was supported, in part, bythe Gordon Family Foundation, and his sketches of springs wereskillfully rendered as finished drawings by V. Leshyk of NorthernArizona University Bilby Research Center.

References

Alfaro C, Wallace M (1994) Origin and classification of springs andhistorical reviewwith current applications. Environ Geol 24:112–124

Blinn DW (2008) The extreme environment, trophic structure, andecosystem dynamics of a large fishless desert spring: Mon-tezuma Well, Arizona. In: Stevens LE, Meretsky VJ (eds)Aridland springs in North America: ecology and conservation.University of Arizona Press, Tucson

Borneuf D (1983) Springs of Alberta, Earth sciences report 82–3.Alberta Research Council, Edmonton, AB, Canada

Bornhauser K (1913) Die Tierwelt der Quellen in der UmgebungBasels [The fauna of the springs in the vicinity of Basel,Switzerland]. Int Revue ges Hydrobiol Hydrogr Suppl 5(3):1–90

Botosaneanu L (1998) Studies in crenobiology: the biology ofsprings and springbrooks. Backhuys, Leiden, The Netherlands

Brock TD (1994) Life at high temperatures. Yellowstone Associa-tion for Natural Science, History and Education, YellowstoneNational Park, WY

Brune G (2002) Springs of Texas. Texas A&M University Press,College Station, TX

Bryan K (1919) Classification of springs. J Geol 27:522–561Bryan TS (1995) Geysers of Yellowstone. University Press of

Colorado, Niwot, COClarke FW (1924) Mineral wells and springs. In: The data of

geochemistry. US Geological Survey, Reston, VA, pp 181–217Cordes EE, Carney SL, Hourdez S, Carney R, Brooks JM, Fisher

CR (2007) Cold seeps of the deep Gulf of Mexico (1900 to3300 m): community structure and biogeographic comparisonsto Atlantic Equatorial Belt seep communities. Deep Sea Res,Part I 54:637–653

Crossey LJ, Karlstrom KE, Springer AE, Newell D, Hilton DR,Fischer T (2008) Degassing of mantle-derived CO2 and 3Hefrom springs in the southern Colorado Plateau region: flux rates,neotectonic connections, and implications for groundwatersystems. Geol Soc Am Bull (in press)

Deacon JE, Williams CD (1991) Ash Meadows and the legacy ofthe Devils Hole pupfish. In: Minckley WL, Deacon JE (eds)Battle against extinction: native fish management in theAmerican West. Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, pp 69–87

Eamus D, Froend R (2006) Groundwater-dependent ecosystems: thewhere, what and why of GDEs. Aust J Bot 54:91–96

Elliott WR (2007) Zoogeography and biodiversity of Missouricaves and karst. J Cave Karst Stud 69:135–162

Euliss NH, LaBaugh JW, Fredrickson LH, Mushet DM, LaubhanMK, Swanson GA, Winter TC, Rosenberry DO, Nelson RD(2004) The wetland continuum: a conceptual framework forinterpreting biological studies. Wetlands 24:448–458

Flora SP (2004) Hydrogeological characterization and dischargevariability of springs in the Middle Verde River watershed,Central Arizona. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ

Ford DC, Williams PF (2007) Karst geomorphology and hydrology.Wiley, Hoboken, NJ

Fuller ML (1904) Underground waters of eastern United States. USGeol Surv Water Suppl Pap 114

Glennon JA, Pfaff RM (2005) The operation and geography of carbon-dioxide-driven, cold-water geysers. GOSATrans 9:184–192

Grand Canyon Wildlands Council (GCWC) (2002) Inventory of100 Arizona strip springs, seeps and natural ponds: final projectreport. Arizona Water Protection Fund, Phoenix, AZ

Grasby SE, Londry KL (2007) Biogeochemistry of hypersalinesprings supporting a mid-continent marine ecosystem: ananalogue for Martian Springs. Astrobiology 7:662–683

Griffiths RE, Springer AE, Anderson DE (2008) The morphologyand hydrology of small spring-dominated channels. Geomor-phology (in press)

Gunn J (ed) (2004) Encyclopedia of caves and karst science.Fitzroy, New York

Haney JA, Turner DS, Springer AE, Stromberg JC, Stevens LE,Pearthree PA, Supplee V (2008) Ecological implications ofVerde River flows. Arizona Water Institute, The NatureConservancy, and Verde River Basin Partnership, Tucson, AZ.http://www.azwaterinstitute.org/. Cited 5 May 2008.

Haynes V (2008) Quaternary cauldron springs as paleoecologicalarchives. In: Stevens LE, Meretsky VJ (eds) Aridland springs in


North America: ecology and conservation. University ofArizona Press, Tucson, AZ

Hynes HBN (1970) The ecology of running waters. University ofToronto Press, Toronto

Keilhack K (1912) Lehrbuch der Grundwasser und Quellenkunde[Textbook on the studies of groundwater and springs], 3rd edn.Borntraeger, Berlin

Knott B, Jasinska EJ (1998) Mound springs of Australia. In:Botosaneanu L (ed) Studies in crenobiology: the biology ofsprings and springbrooks. Backhuys, Leiden, The Netherlands

McCabe DJ (1998) Biological communities in springbrooks. In:Botosaneanu L (ed) Studies in Crenobiology: The biology ofsprings and springbrooks. Backhuys, Leiden, The Netherlands

McKinney DC, Watkins DW Jr (1993) Management of the Edwardsaquifer: a critical assessment. Technical Report CRWR 244.Center for Research in Water Resources, Bureau of EngineeringResearch. University of Texas, Austin

Meinzer OE (1923) Outline of ground-water hydrology, withdefinitions. US Geol Surv Water Suppl Pap 114 494

Minckley WL, and Deacon JE (eds) (1991) Battle againstextinction: native fish management in the American west.University of Arizona Press, Tucson

Odum HT (1957) Trophic structure and productivity of SilverSprings, Florida. Ecolog Monogr 27:55–112

Perla BS, Stevens LE (2008) Biodiversity and productivity at anundisturbed spring in comparison with adjacent grazed riparianand upland habitats. In: Stevens LE, Meretsky VJ (eds)Aridland springs in North America: ecology and conservation.University of Arizona Press, Tucson

Rosgen D (1996) Applied river morphology. Wildland Hydrology,Pagosa Springs, CO

Sada DW, Vinyard GL (2002) Anthropogenic changes in historicalbiogeography of Great Basin aquatic biota. In: Great Basin aquaticsystems history. Smithsonian Contributions to Earth Science 33,Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC, pp 227–293

Schmude KL (1999) Riffle beetles in genus Stenelmis (Coleoptera:Elmidae) from Warm Springs in southern Nevada: new species,new status and a key. Entomol News 110:1–12

Scott TM,Means GH,Meegan RP,Means RC, Upchurch SB, CopelandRE, Jones J, Roberts T, Willet A (2004) Springs of Florida. FloridaGeological Survey, Bulletin No. 66, Tallahassee, FL

Spence JR (2008) Spring-supported vegetation along the ColoradoRiver: Floristics, vegetation structure and environment. In:Stevens LE, Meretsky VJ (eds) Aridland springs in NorthAmerica: ecology and conservation. University of ArizonaPress, Tucson, AZ

Springer AE, Stevens LE, Anderson DE, Parnell RA, Kreamer DK,Levin L, Flora S (2008) A comprehensive springs classificationsystem: integrating geomorphic, hydrogeochemical, and eco-logical critera. In: Stevens LE, Meretsky VJ (eds) Aridlandsprings in North America: ecology and conservation. Universityof Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ

Springer AE, Stevens LE, Harms R (2006) Inventory and classificationof selected National Park Service Springs on the Colorado Plateau,Final Report. Northern and Southern Colorado Plateau NPSInventory and Monitoring Networks, Flagstaff, AZ

Stevens L (2007) Water and biodiversity on the Colorado Plateau.Plateau J 4:48–55

Stevens LE, Meretsky VJ (eds) (2008) Aridland springs in NorthAmerica: ecology and conservation. University of ArizonaPress, Tucson, AZ

Stevens LE, Springer AE (2004) A conceptual model of springsecosystem ecology. National Park Service, Flagstaff, AZ. http://www1.nature.nps.gov/im/units/scpn/phase2.htm. July 2008

Stevens LE, Stacey PB, Jones A, Duff D, Gourley C, Caitlin JC(2005) A protocol for rapid assessment of southwestern stream-riparian ecosystems. In: van Riper C III, Mattson DJ (eds) Fifthconference on research on the Colorado Plateau. University ofArizona Press, Tucson, AZ, pp 397–420

Stiny J (1933) Springs: the geological foundations of springs forengineers of all disciplines, as well as students of naturalsciences. Springer, Vienna

Swanson SK, Bradbury KR, Hart DJ (2007) Assessing theecological status and vulnerability of springs in Wisconsin,Wisconsin Dept. Natural Resources, Madison, WI

Toth J (1966) Mapping and interpretation of field phenomena forgroundwater reconnaissance in a prairie environment, Alberta,Canada. Bull Int Assoc Sci Hydrol 9:20–68

US Fish and Wildlife Service (2002) Recovery plan for the Bruneauhot spring snail (Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis). Region I, US Fishand Wildlife Service, Portland, OR

Vineyard JD, Feder GL (1982) Springs of Missouri, revised edn.WR29, Missouri Geological Survey and Water Resources,Jefferson City, MO

Wallace MP, Alfaro C (2001) Geologic/hydrogeologic setting andclassification of springs. In: LaMoreaux PE, Tanner JT (eds)Springs and bottled waters of the world: ancient history, source,occurrence, quality and use. Springer, Berlin

Waltham AC, Fookes PG (2003) Engineering classification of karstground conditions. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 36:101–118

Warner RE, Hendrix KM (1984) California riparian systems:ecology, conservation, and productive management. Univ.California Press, Berkeley, CA

Welsh SL (1989) On the distribution of Utah’s hanging gardens.Great Basin Nat 49:1–30

Welsh SL, Toft CA (1981) Biotic communities of hanging gardensin southeastern Utah. Nat Geogr Soc Res Rep 13:663–681

Wong D (1999) Community analysis of hanging gardens at ZionNational Park, Utah and the Colorado Plateau. NorthernArizona University, Flagstaff, AZ

Woodbury AM (1933) Biotic relationships in Zion Canyon, Utahwith special reference to succession. Ecol Monogr 3:147–246

Zeidler W, Ponder WF (eds) (1989) Natural history of DalhousieSprings. South Australian Museum, Adelaide, Australia


20 | P a g e

Revised rheocrene spring diagram

21 | P a g e

CHAPTER 3: A SPRINGS ECOSYSTEM CONCEPTUAL MODEL Springs are ecosystems in which groundwater reaches the Earth’s surface through

complex, sometimes lengthy, flow paths through subsurface structural, geochemical and geomorphic environments. At their point of emergence, the physical geomorphic template allows some springs to support large arrays of aquatic, wetland and terrestrial species and assemblages, sometimes including cave and hyporheic biota. Many springs serve as paleorefugia, and as long-term stable habitats in which the evolutionary processes of natural selection, isolation, and adaptation (sometimes to extreme environmental conditions) support restricted and endemic species. In ecological time-frames, small isolated springs in arid regions may be tremendously productive, and may provide the only available water and habitat in the landscape for many plant and animal species. From a biogeographical perspective, springs often function as islands of habitat, and may contain paleontological remains that reveal much about changing climates and ecosystem responses over time, particularly in arid regions. Although in temperate regions, the differences between springs and the surrounding uplands may appear to be subtle, studies of Silver Springs in Florida demonstrate the complex interplay between ground and surface water, and aquatic-riparian linkages that characterize springs ecosystem ecology. Many springs emerge in freshwater or marine settings, and recent information on subaqueous springs demonstrates many parallels with those of subaerial springs, including high levels of biodiversity, species packing, productivity and endemism. Although poorly explored, arid lands springs often appear to function as keystone ecosystems, exerting a vastly disproportionate impact on adjacent ecosystems and regional ecology as compared to non-springs habitats. Several symposia and survey studies of springs have been conducted in the United States; however, springs ecosystem ecology remains rarely studied and poorly known. The scope of most previous work has been on a relatively small suite of physical characteristics of springs (e.g., flow and water quality), individual taxa or biota (e.g., Trichoptera, aquatic snails, aquatic invertebrates, and springs biota in general), or on relatively restricted geographic areas. Virtually all studies conducted in recent decades have recognized the threatened ecological condition of springs ecosystems and the imperiled state of their biota. However, human demands for water often preclude their protection, and the complex, highly multi-disciplinary nature of springs research has retarded development of a comprehensive, conceptual approach to understanding springs as ecosystems.

We proposed a conceptual model of springs ecosystems (Stevens and Springer 2004). We developed the general model from a suite of dynamic ecosystem models, associated process-component mechanistic models, and a state-and-transition framework of human impacts on springs ecosystems. Such an effort is important to ground inventory, assessment, stewardship activities, and monitoring. Until it is more fully quantified and tested, the model will not provide much predictive capability, but it is needed to expose gaps in knowledge, uncertainty, and previously unrecognized interrelationships among springs ecosystems processes and components. When coupled with rigorous groundwater models, and with additional research, much new insight into springs ecology is likely to emerge from this model.

22 | P a g e

Fig. 1: A conceptual springs ecosystem model, showing the interactions among 8 submodels. T1-TX represents the springs ecosystem from time 1 through time x. Solid lines represent strong, direct effects and dotted lines indicate indirect or uncertain effects.

The many complex interactions between aspect and springs vegetation across elevation and among climate regions, provide a remarkably rich setting in which to better understand microclimate impacts on vegetation composition and structure. With enough springs inventory data, important baseline patterns may begin to be understood, particularly in relation to climate change.

Springs: One Ecosystem or Many?

As indicated by Springer and Stevens (2008), a dozen types of springs exist in the Southwest; however, numerous microhabitats may co-occur within individual springs. These microhabitats include: caves, pools, riparian terraces and runout channels, wet or dry backwalls, wet or dry colluvial slopes, spray zones, and madicolus (cascading water flows) microhabitats. Each microhabitat within a springs ecosystem may support its own array of species, which may or may not interact with those of other adjacent microhabitats. With such complex biological interactions, it is little wonder that springs are each highly individualistic.

23 | P a g e

CHAPTER 4: THREATS TO SPRINGS: HUMAN IMPACTS

Introduction Human activities have greatly reduced the ecological integrity of many wetland, riparian and springs ecosystems through competing exploitative uses, including groundwater depletion, fuel wood harvest, recreation, livestock grazing, and wildlife management (Fig. 2). Overall estimates of springs and riparian habitat loss range from 40% to >93% in the arid southwestern United States, but assessment and understanding of human impacts at springs is only now emerging. Below we describe the array of human threats on springs and the ecological consequences of those impacts.

Altered Regional Groundwater Availability Alteration of springs flows may arise from several potential anthropogenic impacts on

aquifers. Anthropogenic climate change may reduce precipitation, infiltration and aquifer dynamics. Land-use change may alter the processes for recharge to an aquifer. For example, urbanization leads to an increase in impervious surface area over an aquifer, increasing the amount of surface runoff and decreasing the potential for recharge. Also, changes in land use by fire suppression or grazing can change the role of plant water use in a watershed and subsequently recharge to the aquifer. Reduction of the water-table elevation or well-drilling may allow inflow of lower-quality groundwater into an aquifer. In addition, pollution of percolating surface water or groundwater may reduce the quality of an aquifer’s water. Extraction of groundwater from the aquifer may partially or wholly dewater individual springs or entire complexes of springs resulting in fragmentation of habitat, increasing isolation of springs ecosystems, and interruption of biogeographic processes at microsite-regional spatial scales in perpetuity. Groundwater augmentation may occur when aquifers are artificially recharged by urban run-off, when reservoirs increase water tables, or through climate changes that increase precipitation. Increased springs flow is often accompanied by a change in flow chemistry and pollutants.

Pollution Groundwater and surface water pollution strongly alters springs ecosystem integrity and is a common phenomenon in agricultural and urban areas. Agricultural groundwater pollution may shift ecosystem nutrient dynamics to entirely novel trajectories creating conditions to which few native species may be able to adapt. Non-point-source agricultural fertilizers have contaminated virtually all of the springs in Florida which emanate from shallow aquifers. Such increases in pollutant concentrations constitute a “push” form of disturbance on springs with effects lasting at least for more than the duration of the recharge cycle. Local contamination may also affect springs microhabitats by polluting surface waters. Such impacts are abundant at springs on the southern Colorado Plateau where springs sources are often fenced and concentrate ungulate use.

24 | P a g e

Flow Regulation and Diversion Springs have long been the target of human alteration to improve water supplies

for culinary, livestock, and other uses. Following the lead of the Environmental Protection Agency, most states require that groundwater used for culinary purposes remain below-ground thereby avoiding exposure to surface contamination. The implications of this legal requirement have commonly meant that springs sources are dewatered before point of emergence or that facilities are constructed over the springs (spring boxes, spring houses, etc.), voiding their ecological functions. We have noted several forms of springs flow alteration including diversion from the pre-orifice (prior to the point of emergence) or post-orifice (after emergence) environment. Pre-source diversion is often achieved by: 1) sealing the springs orifice from bedrock (and sometimes sealing the surrounding bedrock fractures) and installing piping; or 2) excavating the springs source in colluviums or alluvium, installing a slotted pipe catchment system, back-filling the excavation, and piping the water. We also have noted that diverted springs flows on the Arizona Strip were sometimes piped more than 30 km from the source to the delivery point.

Post-orifice diversion is also common, particularly for livestock watering and development of ponds. Spring flows are commonly captured into open troughs or into covered tanks and then piped to troughs or ponds. These alterations may preserve some ecological function at the springs source, but often eliminate spring channel and cienega (wet meadow) functions.

Interruption of Disturbance Regimes Humans commonly influence the frequency and type of disturbance, impacts that strongly affect springs ecological development. Surface-flow dominated springs are characterized by frequent flood events and considerable interannual flux in vegetation cover and diversity. For example, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council (2004) reported 10-70 percent variation in vegetation cover in one such spring that was monitored for three years. Moderate to high variability in the size and spatial arrangement of vegetation patches or aquatic invertebrate composition in such settings is a normal system attribute, and resilience to disturbance may be the only useable metric of ecosystem health other than wetted area or flow. Flow regulation may stabilize normally highly disturbed streamside springs ecosystems altering structural, functional, and trophic characteristics of springs. For example, LES reported that flood control of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon by Glen Canyon Dam resulted in a 40 percent increase in vegetation cover of Vaseys Paradise spring. This increase in habitat area likely allowed a large expansion of the endangered Kanab ambersnail population there. Flow regulation of ephemeral stream channels on the Colorado Plateau commonly occurs through the construction of cattle tanks, and such structures undoubtedly affect disturbance regimes of channel springs downstream; however, such effects have yet to be studied.

Herbivore Impacts Foraging: The foraging of large ungulates, such as cattle, horses, sheep, elk, deer, can alter springs ecosystems by removing vegetation cover, altering plant and invertebrate assemblages, increasing erosion, and contaminating surface water (Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 2002). While such impacts occur at naturally functioning springs with native mammalian populations,

25 | P a g e

anthropogenic modification of springs for ungulate grazing degrades springs ecosystem function. Grazing impacts may be further intensified if the source is fenced to control ungulate movement. Native herbivores also may include beaver, whose activities (tree clearing, dam construction, den construction, etc.) may be regarded as detrimental or beneficial influences on springs ecosystem functioning. Trampling: Livestock grazing continues to exert pervasive adverse influences on springs and other riparian habitats because riparian zones provide water, shade, and succulent vegetation. Although livestock grazing impacts on springs have received relatively little attention, much attention has been devoted to understanding, assessing, and improving management of grazed wetland and riparian habitats.

Exotic Plant and Animal Invasions Widespread introduction of non-native species may similarly greatly

compromise ecological functioning at springs. The susceptibility of springs ecosystems to invasion by alien (non-native) species is a complex function of interactions among abiotic and biotic factors, introduction history, and invading species autecology. Non-native species are abundant at springs across the southern Colorado Plateau (Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 2002; Stevens and Ayers 2002).We found that non-native species in northern Arizona and southern Utah include at least 247 plant, 7 invertebrate, 39 fish, 1 amphibian, 2 reptile, 8 bird, and 13 mammal species. Alien plant and animal species were abundantly but unevenly distributed across seven groups of ecosystems in the Grand Canyon region. A total of 155 alien vascular plant species (10.4% of the total flora) and 33 alien vertebrates (7.3% of the total vertebrate fauna) were detected there. In contrast to Elton’s prediction that invasibility should be negatively correlated with diversity, recent studies report spatial scale-dependent and fertility-related positive correlations among alien and native plant species diversity. The Colorado River corridor, other riparian areas including springs, and areas with high densities of roads and livestock trails had the highest densities of alien species. Alien species richness and density vary among ecosystems there in relation to relative productivity and relative disturbance intensity, and alien diversity was positively correlated with native biodiversity. Therefore, it appears that highly diverse ecosystems, such as springs, are most prone to alien invasions and attendant changes in composition, trophic structure, and function. These studies provide welcomed insight into habitat invasibility and alien population eruptions which are among the most significant, long-lasting and complex anthropogenic impacts on the world’s ecosystems. Although the life history strategies of eruptive alien species have been studied, many efforts to predict which introduced species will erupt and where eruptions compromise ecosystem integrity have met with limited success. In part this is because alien population eruption often occurs irregularly across spatial scales and among habitats and ecosystems within a biome (Horvitz et al. 1998). Also, alien eruption may be greatly delayed after initial colonization: Kowarik (1995) reported that on average 147 yr elapsed between introduction and eruption of alien populations around Brandenburg, Germany.

26 | P a g e

Fire Effects The impacts of anthropogenic fire on springs have been little studied. Graham (2008)

presented data on the slow recovery responses of a hanging garden to visitor-caused fire in southern Utah. The Grand Canyon Wildlands Council (2002) presented limited data indicating the potentially more rapid recovery of a spring than adjacent coniferous forest in northern Arizona. However, recovery of a burned hanging garden spring in one study in southern Utah was remarkably slow. Evidence from the White Mountain Apache Tribe indicates that springs wetland vegetation at White and other springs may recover relatively quickly after forest fires, but that springs were collaterally damaged by increased sheet flow erosion and channel-cutting (Burnette et al. 2003). Research in progress in Hart Prairie, northern Arizona by Springer indicates that reintroduction of fire to upland forests above wet meadows has the potential to increase water yield to the wet meadows.

Visitor Impacts Recreational use impacts at springs have long been a concern at springs in some

National Park Service units with management attention focused at Vaseys Paradise and other recreationally heavily used springs in Grand Canyon and at hanging gardens in Zion National Park. In most cases, creation and maintenance of discrete trails greatly reduced visitor impacts at springs; however, focused visitation is likely to affect larger wildlife populations and reduce springs-uplands trophic linkage.

Mining Impacts The impacts of mines on springs may involve ground and surface water abstraction, diversion, regulation, or pollution, as well as construction and processing impacts and disturbances. Mine-related pollution and dewatering operations can significantly alter groundwater discharge to springs. Also, for submarine springs, mining of geothermal mineral deposits can do much damage to spring source geomorphology and biota. Recent controversies over potential uranium mining in northern Arizona have highlighted the many information gaps in our understanding of short- and long-term mining impacts.

Traditional Use and Science Impacts Trampling may occur during traditional uses and research activities at springs, including

the assessment efforts undertaken in this project. Such disturbances may or may not affect springs ecosystem processes depending on the size and type of the spring, its susceptibility to disturbance, and the intensity of activity. Overharvesting may be an issue in ethnobiology, and handling of rare fish or other vertebrate species may reduce population viability. For example, concern exists that tag-marking and electro-shocking of a great percentage of the total adult humpback chub may be implicated in the decline of this endangered fish species in Grand Canyon.

Management Impacts Management actions to protect springs often simply involve site closure, prohibiting

visitation, or creation of discrete trails to allow visitors to reach the springs but limit their impacts. If done without inventory and assessment information, such actions may actually damage, rather than help recover, the springs ecosystem (Kodrick-Brown et al. 2007). For

27 | P a g e

example, fencing livestock out of a spring source may allow excess vegetation to develop eliminating surface water and threatening aquatic species persistence. Maintaining a sufficient disturbance regime to create some open water and space may be an important management decision. Creation of a surfaced trail to facilitate visitation (e.g., as occurs at some hanging garden springs) may eliminate leaf litter and prohibit movement of land snails and other invertebrate species. However, erosion can become a serious influence on springs geomorphic integrity if management fails to construct and maintain a trail to a regularly visited springs.

Restoration actions also may affect springs ecosystems, particularly if restoration goals fail to consider the range of natural variability of discharge, habitat area, and natural environmental impacts, such as fire, flooding, or rockfall.

Fig. 2: Springs state-transition submodels, springs types, and anthropogenic alterations. Ecological functioning varies with each suite of interactions: NC – natural condition; APC – acceptable functioning condition in relation to management plan; FAR – ecological functioning at risk, impaired; NF – non-functional.

28 | P a g e

29 | P a g e

CHAPTER 5: RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION OF SPRINGS

Much hyperbole touts the notion of sustainable ecosystem management – forests that can be perpetually farmed for trees, ocean fisheries that can be forever exploited despite enormous impacts of by-catch, and rangelands that can forever withstand intensive livestock grazing. Most of the hype over sustainability has arisen after it’s too late – the ecosystem damage has been done, but the demand for the ecosystem goods is so great that we are forced

to re-conceptualize our justification for the ecological overdraft. Springs are heavily used by humans for domestic and livestock water, and other natural resources. However, unlike many ecosystems, if the aquifer is relatively intact, springs can be rescued and rehabilitated very effectively. A case in point is the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s collaboration with the Grand Canyon Wildlands Council in the rehabilitation of Pakoon Springs in northwestern Arizona. This

former ostrich and cattle ranch is

one of the largest springs on the Arizona Strip, and was sold to the BLM in 2005. After removing an alligator and more than 100 tons of scrap metal, ostrich stalls, and numerous rundown ranch buildings, the restoration team reconfigured the landscape and replanted native wetland and riparian plants and trees. The first year after geomorphic rehabilitation, native wetland vegetation quickly began to regrow across the site and native insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals recolonized

the former ranch site. Today, the recovery of native species has created one of the finest patches of wetland-riparian springs habitat on the Arizona Strip.

Pakoon Springs in 2007 (above) and 2011 (below, with rehabilitation effort well underway.

30 | P a g e

Many other examples of successful springs restoration projects across the United States are documented by Davis et al. (2011), and demonstrate that springs are extraordinarily resilient, provided groundwater flow is maintained. Because this is the case for a great many springs, there is much hope for improved springs management for both natural ecological function while still providing goods and services to springs stewards.

31 | P a g e

CHAPTER 6: SPRINGS INVENTORY AND MONITORING

Overview Improving springs stewardship requires assessment, planning, implementation, and

monitoring, all of which are best when based on rigorous, scientific inventory. We have developed springs inventory and monitoring protocols that rigorously but efficiently to serve the purposes of ecosystem assessment and improved stewardship.

Inventory is a fundamental element of ecosystem stewardship, providing essential data on the distribution and status of resources, processes, values, and aquatic, wetland, riparian, and upland linkages. Systematic inventory is important for assessment, management planning and action, and monitoring. Interdisciplinary inventory data also are needed for improving understanding of springs ecosystem ecology, distribution, status, and restoration.

Here we introduce and describe efficient, effective inventory and monitoring protocols for springs. These techniques are derived from a review of the scientific literature, and a decade of field experience across North America, inventorying many different kinds of springs subjected to numerous uses, from pristine springs in national parks, to springs fenced to focus livestock grazing, springs used for domestic water supplies, and springs used for intensive recreation. This Springs Inventory Protocol (SIP) is based on the springs ecosystem conceptual model of Stevens and Springer (2004), is directly related to the Springs Inventory Database, and informs our Springs Ecosystem Assessment Protocol (SEAP) to provide guidance for springs stewards.

The most recent version of the Springs Inventory Protocols (SIP) is available online at: springstewardship.org. A description of the Springs Inventory Database is available online at: http://springstewardship.org/database.html.

Given the challenges associated with mapping springs and understanding springs distribution at various scales, we normally recommend three levels of inventory to springs stewards. These approaches are described in more detail below. However, the data collection described in this manual represents a hybrid approach between Levels 1 and level 2, an approach adapted to assist Nothern Arizona University and its collaborators in their evaluation of springs ecosystem health in northern Arizona forests. Level 1 Inventory: Level 1 inventory involves georeferencing individual springs, photographing the site, determining the sphere of discharge (Table 1), evaluating flow magnitude and what equipment is needed to measure flow, and recording anecdotal observations about ecosystem resources and ecological conditions. Level 1 inventories are designed as brief site visits usually conducted by citizen scientists or non-expert technicians to promptly and efficiently document the location and general characteristics of springs. Data are recorded on the first page of the SIP field sheets. Additional details of Level 1 data collection are described in the springstewardship.org website. Level 2 Inventory: Level 2 springs inventory includes an array of measured, observed, or otherwise documented variables related to site and survey description, biota, flow, and the socio-cultural-economic conditions of the springs at the time of the survey. These inventories are conducted by a team of 3-4 experts, often with 1-2 assistants on a 1 to several hour site

http://springstewardship.org/PDF/Springs_Inventory_Protocols_110602.pdf�

http://springstewardship.org/database.html�

32 | P a g e

visit; however, 1-2 additional days of office time per site may be needed for compilation of background information, laboratory analyses, completion of data management, and reporting for a study site. Expertise within the inventory team includes geography, information management, hydrogeology, botany, ecology, and cultural resources. The team gathers information on flow, water quality, geomorphology, sphere of discharge (Table 1), habitat characteristics, flora and fauna, human influences, and the administrative context of stewardship.

To the greatest extent possible, measurements and estimates are to be made of actual, rather than potential, conditions—a practice needed to establish baseline conditions and for monitoring comparisons (e.g., Stevens et al. 2005). The protocols presented here are compiled from the recommendations by Grand Canyon Wildlands Council (2002, 2004), Sada and Pohlmann (2006), Springer et al. (2006), Stevens et al. (2006), Springer et al. (2008), and Springer and Stevens (2008), and are based on the springs ecosystem conceptual model of Stevens and Springer (2004) and Stevens (2008). These variables considered constitute the suite needed to improve basic understanding of springs ecology, as well as the site’s ecological integrity and developmental trends related to anthropogenic influences, including regional or local ground and surface water extraction or pollution, livestock or wildlife grazing use, recreational visitation, and climate change.

Monitoring protocols are selectively derived from Level 2 inventory approaches, and are applied in Level 3 efforts (below). Details of Level 2 data collection are described in the clarifying criteria at the end of the field data sheets, and further data collection details and entry of data from the field sheets into the SSI springs database are described at the springstewardship.org website. With appropriate background information, a Level 2 springs sampling visit is sufficient for assessment of ecosystem integrity using the Springs Ecosystem Assessment Protocol approach described below. Level 2 inventory protocols and information management protocols also can be used as a baseline for longer-term Level 3 site management and restoration efforts. The Level 2 approach is designed as a rapid assessment of a springs ecosystem. We regard activities such as wetland delineation, soil profile analyses, paleontological and historical use investigations, and other in-depth scientific and management activities as Level 3 activities, and to time- and labor-expensive for Level 2 inventory. Level 3 Inventory: Level 3 inventory of springs involves longer-term monitoring, often for planning and implementing rehabilitation, conducting other management actions, or research. Level 3 inventory is defined loosely to accommodate various and often detailed inquiries into springs ecological change over time or responses to treatments through multiple bouts of sampling and site visits.

33 | P a g e

Table 1: Spheres of discharge and emergence characteristics of various types of springs. Discharge Sphere Emergence Characteristics Cave springs Emerge entirely within a cave environment and not directly connected to surface flow Limnocrene springs Emerge as one or more lentic pools Rheochrene springs Emerge in a well-defined stream channel Mound-form springs Emerge from (usually carbonate) precipitate mounds Heleocrene springs Emerge usually in a diffuse fashion in marshy, wet meadow, fen, or cienega settings. Hillslope springs Emerge from non-vertical hillslopes at 30-60o

sources slope, usually with indistinct or multiple

Gushet springs Pour from cliff faces Hanging gardens Complex, multi-habitat springs emerge along geologic contacts and seep, drip, or pour onto underlying walls Geysers Usually geothermal springs that emerge explosively and usually erratically Fountain springs Cool-water artesian springs forced above the land surface by stratigraphic head- driven pressure. Exposure springs Settings in which groundwater is exposed at the surface but does not flow Hypocrene springs Springs in which groundwater approaches but does not quite reach the surface.

Safety Issues Staff Safety: Protection of staff who are searching for springs in remote landscapes requires attention to personal safety and the oversight of the crew leader. Injuries, accidents, confrontations with unreceptive individuals, as well as to weather conditions all pose potentially serious threats to springs assessors. Safety threats can be reduced by having a clear plan of action, considering contingencies, wearing proper clothing, using high quality radios when in remote settings, carrying an appropriate first responder kit, carrying sufficient food and water, and knowing one’s own limits and those of one’s companions. The crew leader should be specifically trained in wilderness first aid, and should carry either a cell phone (if cell phone service covers the study area) or a satellite phone.

Care of the Study Site General Site Protection: Care should be taken not to trample or erode the study site, and to leave it in the best possible condition after the inventory. Stepping on rocks rather than on soil or vegetation is preferred, and removing garbage and equipment from the site is required. Do not wash equipment on the springs site. Do not overcollect – single individuals of any plant or animal may be photographed, but should not be collected.

Preventing Chytrid Fungus Infection in Springs: The following passage is quoted from the U.S. Forest Service “Protect Your Waters Program” (2012).

“The greatest concern for amphibian populations at this point involves the chytrid

fungus. A large amount of research and resources has been dedicated to understanding why and how this fungus is responsible for the decline of the wild boreal toad. Until we can easily detect, treat, and/or prevent this pathogen from causing irreparable mortality to the wild populations, we must prepare for the worst case scenario. This fungus was observed in a wide range of the amphibian population, with die-offs in Panama and Australia. The fungus has also been identified in some amphibian populations in Arizona and has caused the death of many zoo Amphibians in the United States. Scientists don’t know how this fungus is transmitted from one area to another, let alone why the fungus is affecting amphibian populations around the world.

34 | P a g e

Whether the chytrid fungus is responsible for the frog or toad mortality or the declines of frogs and toads in many western states is still unknown. Because fungal infections are considered secondary infections in other vertebrates, USGS is completing further tests for viruses, parasites and bacteria to rule out other factors that could predispose the animals’ susceptibility to the fungus. Sick and dying toads in the Colorado population were first discovered in May of 1999. Live toads show few clinical signs of the disease, but some may appear weak, lethargic and reluctant to flee at the approach of humans. Upon being examined microscopically many of the dead toads showed a myriad of minute chytrid fungi in the skin of the abdomen and toes. Where did the chytrid fungus come from? We know that there are about 80 species of chytrid fungus world wide, which feed on algae, plant material, keratin, etc. But how did the amphibian chytrid come to be toxic to the boreal toad? Did it mutate from another chytrid? Was it altered by environmental conditions to become toxic? How does chytrid kill amphibians? Does it suffocate them? Does it poison them? Does it alone kill the toad or does it cause something else to happen which kills the toad? Why does chytrid kill all the toads in a specific area and not another? Has chytrid fungus always been around but not active all the time, or has it come from somewhere else and is being spread by something such as another host, weather patterns, people, etc.? Or is this a new disease which is being spread? Much research needs to be done needless to say. "

Disinfecting your Gear Heat gear to 140o F (60 o C) for 5 minutes, or 117 o F (47 o

Dry the gear for 48 hrs at less than 70% relative humidity. C) for 30 minutes.

Chlorine bleach (4% solution) for 3 minutes. The FS web address for more information is: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:HZxSluZRxTYJ:www.azadoc ents.org/boreal_toad.pdf+chytrid+fungus+prevention&hl=en

35 | P a g e

Springs Inventory Equipment List Science Equipment Day pack or backpack Background data. maps to site GPS unit – set to NAD83 Horizontal Datum, extra GPS batteries Field data sheets Data pouch with waterproof field book SEAP scoring criteria Pencils, indelible markers (Sharpies) Clipboards Graph paper for sketchmap 5 m measuring tape, two 30-100 m measuring tapes or a range finder Solar Pathfinder and templates for latitude Sighting compass or Brunton compass Clinometer Trowel or shovel Binoculars Flash light and extra batteries Hand lens Munsell soil color chart Water quality kit (EC or SC, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen) Handheld thermometer (backup) Plant press and newspaper Flow measurement (capture pipes, calibrated volumetric containers, weir plate, plastic sheet

for capture of diffuse or dripping flow, flume?, stopwatch) Natural history field guides Camera (memory cards, spare batteries) Spray bottle and disinfectant Invertebrate collecting gear (optional: 70-100% EtOH, soft forceps, vials, dip and kick nets,

aerial net, killing jar and fluid such as ethyl acetate) Personal and Safety items

Hat, bandana, food, water, sunscreen, warm clothing, knee pad, work gloves) Cell or satellite telephone First aid kit

36 | P a g e

37 | P a g e

CHAPTER 7: SEAP—SPRINGS ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT

A comprehensive, broadly applicable assessment protocol is needed to: 1) evaluate and compare the ecological health of springs ecosystems, 2) detect change and trends over time, and 3) develop management priorities at local, regional, national, and global scales. We developed a springs ecosystem assessment protocol (SEAP) to evaluate the ecological status or condition, and the risks and restoration potential within and among springs. The SEAP is based on a conceptual ecosystem model developed by Stevens and Springer (2004), and it incorporates information from on-site inventory, literature review, and interviews with the resource manager(s), as well as recent advances in springs classification (Springer and Stevens 2008; Springer et al. 2008). This assessment process ranks the condition (or value) of each subcategory, and the risk to that subcategory resource variable. Risk is interpreted as the potential threat or the “condition inertia” (probability of remaining unchanged, the inverse restoration potential) of that variable. The SEAP includes evaluation of six overall categories of variables, including the supporting aquifer, site geomorphology, the habitat and microhabitat array, and the site biota, all in relation to human uses and influences, and the administrative context under which the spring is managed. Each category is scored on the basis of 5-8 subcategory variables, which are ranked on a 0-6 scoring scale by the inventory team (categories 1-5, aquifer integrity to human influences) and through a discussion with the land or resource manager (category 6). Category scores are averaged from subcategory scores, and the overall ecological health score is evaluated in relation to human influences, and compared with the stewardship plan for the site.

The SEAP has the flexibility to be developed from several levels of information and time/funding availability, including: a very rapid, in-office assessment developed by a manager with good understanding of a site; the results of a brief (10-20 minute) Level 1 rapid field examination of the site; or a comprehensive Level 2 inventory conducted by a team of 3-4 experts during a several-hour site visit. The SEAP’s quantitative approach also allows it to be used as a monitoring tool, permitting comparison of ecological condition over time, or following management actions. As an example, we conducted a Level 2 inventory of Montezuma Well, a large limnocrene (pool-forming spring) in Montezuma Castle National Monument in central Arizona. The SEAP produced from that inventory showed that the Well was in fairly good ecological condition but is threatened by regional groundwater pumping and intensive recreational impacts.

We tested the SEAP on springs in several regional landscapes (southern Alberta, southern Nevada, northern Arizona, and elsewhere), managed by various federal, provincial, tribal, and local stewards. Our studies to date show the SEAP to be broadly and multi-culturally applicable, efficient, comprehensive, and specifically informative for virtually all spring ecosystems. Analysis of large suites of springs in those studies reveals strong responses of springs types and habitats to anthropogenic stressors, particularly groundwater depletion, flow diversion, geomorphic alteration, livestock grazing, and non-native species introductions. We used the results of the SEAP to advise federal and tribal managers on prioritized stewardship and restoration options, advice has been used to undertake springs restoration projects in Ash Meadows, Nevada (Otis Bay 2006) and on the Arizona Strip (Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

38 | P a g e

2002, 2010). We expect and welcome future improvement of the SEAP approach as additional data are compiled and further analyses are undertaken. We invite interested individuals and agencies to consider using both the SEAP and the springs inventory protocol on which it is based to prioritize understanding and improve stewardship of springs ecosystems in all landscapes.

Completion of a SEAP form for each site visited is one of the goals for the field-based component of the NAU/Pulliam Trust springs assessment project. Therefore, we recommend that assessors carefully study the SEAP questions and scoring criteria (provided at the back of the SEAP field form). Furthermore, we recommend that the site visit team collectively decide site scoring information.

39 | P a g e

REFERENCES CITED

Burnett W.C., J.P. Chanton, and E. Kontar, Editors. 2003. Submarine Groundwater Discharge. Biogeochemistry Special Issue 66(1–2).

Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, Inc. 2002. Inventory of 100 Arizona Strip springs, seeps and natural ponds: Final Project Report. Arizona Water Protection Fund, Phoenix.

Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, Inc. 2004. Biological inventory and assessment of ten South Rim springs in Grand Canyon National Park: final report. National Park Service Report, Grand Canyon.

Otis Bay, Inc. and Stevens Ecological Consulting, LLC. 2006. Ash Meadows Geomorphic and Biological Assessment: Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Las Vegas.

Springer, A.E. and L.E. Stevens. 2008. Spheres of discharge of springs. Hydrogeology Journal DOI 10.1007/s10040-008-0341-y.

Springer, A.E., L.E. Stevens, D. Anderson, R.A. Parnell, D. Kreamer, and S. Flora. 2008. A comprehensive springs classification system: integrating geomorphic, hydro-geochemical, and ecological criteria. Pp. 49-75 in Stevens, L.E. and V. J. Meretsky, editors. Aridland springs in North America: Ecology and Conservation. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Stevens. L.E.2008. Every last drop: future of springs ecosystem ecology and management. Pp. 332-346 in Stevens, L.E. and V. J. Meretsky, editors. Aridland Springs in North America: Ecology and Conservation. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Stevens, L.E. and T.J. Ayers. 2002. The biodiversity and distribution of alien vascular plant and animals in the Grand Canyon region. Pp. 241-265 in Tellman, B., editor. Invasive exotic species in the Sonoran Region. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Stevens, L.E. and V. J. Meretsky, editors. 2008. Aridland Springs in North America: Ecology and Conservation. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Stevens, L.E. and A.E. Springer. 2004. A conceptual model of springs ecosystem ecology. http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/ncpn/Bib_Library/Appendix%20K%20 Springs%20Model.pdf (accessed 15 April 2012).

U.S. Forest Service. 2012. Protect Your Waters Program. Available on-line at: http://www.fs.fed.us/invasivespecies/documents/Aquatic_is_prevention.pdf (accessed 15 April 2012).

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/ncpn/Bib_Library/Appendix%20K%20%20Springs%20Model.pdf�

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/ncpn/Bib_Library/Appendix%20K%20%20Springs%20Model.pdf�

http://www.fs.fed.us/invasivespecies/documents/Aquatic_is_prevention.pdf�

40 | P a g e

Spring Name__________________________ Country____ State_______ County________________________ Access Directions 1Land Unit_____________ 2Land Unit Detail_____________ Quad_________________ HUC_______________

Georef Source_____________ Device__________________________ Datum_______________ UTMZone________

UTM E__________________ UTM N__________________ Lat____________________Long____________________

Elev______ EPE______ feet or meters? Declination _____ Georef Comments_____________________________

Date__________________ Begin Time_______________ End Time________________

Surveyor’s Names__________________________________________________________________________________________ Project____________________

Gen

eral

Geo

ref

Sur

vey

3SurfType

4Sub-Type

5Slope Var

Mic

roha

bita

ts

ABCDEFG

DescriptionArea(m2)

Water 6Soil moist dpth(cm)

Slope Deg

Aspect T/M____ 1

7Substrate %765432 Org

Prec%

Litter %

Wood %

Litter(cm)

Page ______ of _________ OBS____________

Camera Used_______________________________________ Sketch Map Location__________________________________

Imag

es

Photo # Description

SP

F Sunrise: D_______ J_______ N_______ F_______ O_______ M_______ S_______ A_______ A_______ M_______ J_______ J_______

Sunset: D_______ J_______ N_______ F_______ O_______ M_______ S_______ A_______ A_______ M_______ J_______ J_______

Site Condition

©Springs Stewardship Institute 2012

13Discharge Sphere

Entered by ____________________________________ Date_____________ Checked by ______________________________ Date ________________

Site Description

8 Oth%

Fauna

Sci

entifi

c N

ame

Com

mon

Nam

eR

epM

eth-

odN

o.

Ind

Are

a (m

2 )C

omm

ents

A/T

Spr

ing

Nam

e___

____

____

____

____

____

___

Pag

e __

____

of _

____

____

OB

S__

____

____

__

Ent

ered

by

____

____

____

____

____

_ D

ate_

____

____

_ C

heck

ed b

y __

____

____

____

____

____

Dat

e __

____

____

©S

prin

gs S

tew

ards

hip

Inst

itute

201

2

Flor

aSpecies Name No.

CollA16Str No. IndComments

Spring Name__________________________ Page ______ of _________ OBS____________

B C D E F G H

Entered by __________________________ Date___________ Checked by ___________________________ Date ______________©Springs Stewardship Institute 2012

Flor

aSpecies Name No.

CollA16Str No. IndComments

Spring Name__________________________ Page ______ of _________ OBS____________

B C D E F G H

Entered by __________________________ Date___________ Checked by ___________________________ Date ______________©Springs Stewardship Institute 2012

Geo

mor

phol

ogy

8Emerg Env___________________________

8Detail_______________________________

9Source Geo___________________________

10Mechanism___________________________ 11Rock Type____________________________ 11Rock Subtype_________________________

Geologic Layer________________________

12Channel Dynamics_____________________

Polygon 13Discharge Sphere 13Secondary Discharge Comments

14Flow Consistency_____________________ 15Measurement Technique_________________________ Flow Rate (Mean)_______________________________

Location of Measurements_____________________________________________________________Total Site % Captured______________________________

Discharge Comments______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wat

er Q

uant

itySpring Name__________________________ Page ______ of _________ OBS____________

Weir l/s m/s other_____Point Weir Size Measurements % Flow ____ _______ ______ ______ ______ ______ _______ ____ _______ ______ ______ ______ ______ _______ ____ _______ ______ ______ ______ ______ _______ ____ _______ ______ ______ ______ ______ _______ ____ _______ ______ ______ ______ ______ _______ ____ _______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___________ _______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___________ _______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ___________ _______ ______ ______ ______ ______ _______

Flume l/s m/s other_____Point Flume Size Measurements Avg Stage % Flow____ ________ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _________ _____________ ________ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _________ _____________ ________ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _________ _____________ ________ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _________ _____________ ________ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _________ _____________ ________ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _________ _____________ ________ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _________ _____________ ________ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _________ _________

Current Meter l/s m/s other_____Cell Distance Width Depth Reading ____ ________ _______ _______ ___________ ________ _______ _______ _______ ____ ________ _______ _______ _______ ____ ________ _______ _______ ___________ ________ _______ _______ ___________ ________ _______ _______ ___________ ________ _______ _______ _______ ____ ________ _______ _______ _______ ____ ________ _______ _______ ___________ ________ _______ _______ ___________ ________ _______ _______ ___________ ________ _______ _______ _______ ____ ________ _______ _______ _______ ____ ________ _______ _______ ___________ ________ _______ _______ ___________ ________ _______ _______ ___________ ________ _______ _______ _______ ____ ________ _______ _______ _______ ____ ________ _______ _______ ___________ ________ _______ _______ ___________ ________ _______ _______ _______

Volume Container Size/Units___________Point Volume Time to Fill % Flow ____ ________ _________ ____________ ________ _________ ____________ ________ _________ ____________ ________ _________ ____________ ________ _________ ____________ ________ _________ ____________ ________ _________ ____________ ________ _________ ________

Entered by ____________________________________ Date_____________ Checked by ____________________________ Date ________________©Springs Stewardship Institute 2012

Measurement Device(s)________________________________________________ Date Last Calibrated________________ Air Temp ____________

Collection Location/Comments_______________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wat

er Q

ualit

ySpring Name__________________________ Page ______ of _________ OBS____________

Depth (cm) pH Conductivity Dissolved O2 Water Temp. (oC)

Average

Field Measurements

Collected for Analysis

Sample Type Sample Taken? Container

Anions

DuplicateTaken?

CationsNutrients2H and 18O Isotopes

Turbidity DeviceAlkalinity

Filtered (Y/N) Treatment

Other

Entered by ____________________________________ Date_____________ Checked by ______________________________ Date ________________


Spring Name __________________________________________________ Date ____________________ Page ____ of ____Obs_________

Information Source ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Notes:

Entered by ____________________________________ Date_____________ Checked by _____________________________ Date ________________

SE

AP


Recommendations:

1 G

eore

fere

nce

Sou

rce

GP

SM

apO

ther

2 La

nd U

nit

BLM

DO

EN

PS

Priv

ate

Sta

teTr

ibal

US

FSO

ther

3 S

urfa

ce T

ype

BW

B

ackw

all

C

C

ave

CH

C

hann

elC

S

C

ollu

vial

slo

peH

GC

H

igh

Gra

d. C

iene

gaLG

C

Low

Gra

d C

iene

gaM

ad U

nfoc

used

Mad

icul

ous

O

O

rgan

ic O

oze

P

P

ool

PP

Plu

nge

Poo

lS

B

S

lopi

ng B

edro

ckS

M

Spr

ing

Mou

ndTE

Terr

ace

TU

Tun

nel

Upl

A

djac

ent U

plan

dsW

H

Wet

Hill

slop

eO

th

Oth

er

4 S

urfa

ce S

ubty

peC

H R

iffle,

Run

, Mar

gin,

Eph

TE

LRZ,

MR

Z, U

RZ,

HR

Z

UP

L,LR

ZMR

Z,LR

ZUR

Z,

M

RZU

RZ,

HR

ZMR

ZA

ll A

nthr

o

5 S

lope

Var

iabi

lity

Low

, Med

ium

, Hig

h

6 S

oil M

oist

ure

1 - D

ry2

- Dry

-Moi

st3

- Moi

st-D

ry4

- Wet

-Dry

5 - M

oist

6 - S

atur

ated

-Dry

7 - W

et8

- Sat

urat

ed-M

oist

9 - W

et-S

atur

ated

10 -

Sat

urat

ed11

- In

unda

ted

7 S

ubst

rate

1 cl

ay2

silt

3 sa

nd4

fine

grav

el5

coar

se g

rave

l6

cobb

le7

boul

der

8 be

droc

kO

rgan

ic S

oil/M

atte

rO

ther

/ant

hrop

ogen

ic

8 E

mer

genc

e E

nviro

n/D

etai

lC

ave

Sub

aeria

l S

ubgl

acia

lS

ubaq

ueou

s-le

ntic

fres

hwat

erS

ubaq

ueou

s-lo

tic fr

eshw

ater

Sub

aque

ous-

estu

arin

eS

ubaq

ueou

s-m

arin

e

9 S

ourc

e G

eom

orph

olog

yC

onta

ct S

prin

gFr

actu

re S

prin

gS

eepa

ge o

r filtr

atio

nTu

bula

r Spr

ing

10 F

low

For

ce M

echa

nism

Ant

hrop

ogen

icA

rtesi

anG

eoth

erm

alG

ravi

tyO

ther

11 P

aren

t Roc

k Ty

pe/S

ubty

peIg

neou

san

desi

teba

salt

daci

tedi

orite

gabb

rogr

ando

dior

itegr

anite

perid

otite

rhyo

lite

Met

amor

phic

gnei

ssm

arbl

equ

artz

itesl

ate

schi

stS

edim

enta

ryco

alco

nglo

mer

ate

dolo

mite

evap

orat

eslim

esto

nem

udst

one

sand

ston

esh

ale

silts

tone

Unc

onso

lidat

ed

12 C

hann

el D

ynam

ics

(rhe

ocre

nes)

Mix

ed ru

noff/

sprin

g do

min

ated

Run

off d

omin

ated

Spr

ing

dom

inat

edS

ubaq

ueou

s

13 D

isch

arge

Sph

ere

Ant

hrop

ogen

icC

ave

Exp

osur

e Fo

unta

inG

eyse

rG

ushe

tH

angi

ng G

arde

nH

eloc

rene

H

illsl

ope

Hyp

ocre

neLi

mno

cren

eM

ound

-form

Rhe

ocre

ne

14 F

low

Con

sist

ency

Dry

Inte

rmitt

ent

Err

atic

Inte

rmitt

ent

Per

enni

alR

egul

ar In

term

itten

t

15 M

easu

rem

ent T

echn

ique

Cur

rent

met

erW

eir

Cut

thro

at fl

ume

Oth

er

16 C

over

Cod

esG

C G

roun

d C

over

SC

Shr

ub C

over

MC

Mid

cano

py C

over

TC T

all C

anop

y C

over

AQ

Aqu

atic

Cov

erN

V N

onva

scul

ar (m

oss,

etc

)B

C B

asal

Cov

er

©S

prin

gs S

tew

ards

hip

Inst

itute

201

2

1

Aquifer and Water QualityAFWQ0 Springs Dewatered (Y/N)AFWQ1 Aquifer functionality 0 Aquifer depleted 1 Aquifer nearly depleted 2 Aquifer in significant decline 3 Aquifer declining slightly but detectably 4 Low to moderate aquifer withdrawal 5 Aquifer not or only very slightly pumped 6 Aquifer pristine; good potential reference site 9 Unable to assess aquifer functionalityAFWQ2 Springs discharge 0 No flow 1 Less than .1 liters per second 2 Between .1 and 1 liters per second 3 Between 1 and 10 liters per second 4 Between 10 and 100 liters per second 5 Between 100 and 1000 liters per second 6 Over 1000 liters per second 9 Unable to assess flowAFWQ3 Flow naturalness 0 Springs dewatered 1 Springs mostly dewatered 2 Springs flow strongly reduced 3 Springs flow slightly, but distinctively, reduced 4 Springs flow only slightly reduced 5 Springs flow apparently natural 6 Springs pristine; good potential reference site 9 Unable to assess flow naturalnessAFWQ4 Flow persistence 0 No springs flow 1 Flow ephemeral, less than 50% of time 2 Flow rarely ephemeral 3 Flow recently persistent 4 Flow apparent during Holocene 5 Flow continuous since late Pleistocene 6 Flow since mid-Pleistocene or earlier 9 Unable to assess flow persistenceAFWQ5 Water quality 0 No water 1 Water quality less than 10% of natural condition 2 Water quality 10 to 30% of natural condition 3 Water quality 30 to 60% of natural condition 4 Water quality 60 to 90% of natural condition 5 Water quality 90 to 99% of natural condition 6 Water quality fully natural 9 Unable to assess water qualityAFWQ6 Algal and periphyton cover 0 Algal or periphyton cover wholly unnatural 1 Natural cover of algae or periphyton very poor 2 Natural cover of algae or periphyton poor 3 Natural cover of algae or periphyton moderate 4 Natural cover of algae or periphyton good 5 Natural cover of algae or periphyton very good 6 Cover of algae or periphyton wholly natural 9 Unable to assess algal and periphyton cover

GeomorphologyGEO1 Geomorphic functionality 0 Site obliterated unnaturally 1 <25% original natural microhabitat types remain 2 25-50% of natural microhabitat types remain 3 50-75% of natural microhabitat types remain 4 75-90% of natural microhabitat types remain 5 90-98% of natural microhabitat types remain 6 Natural microhabitat types pristine 9 Unable to geomorphic functionalityGEO2 Runout channel geometry 0 Original runout channel unnaturally obliterated 1 Channel virtually obliterated, trenched, or otherwise manipulated 2 Channel strongly altered, with only scant evidence of original course 3 Channel highly altered but with some functionality 4 Channel slightly altered, mostly functional 5 Channel functioning apparently naturally 6 Channel pristine 9 Unable to assess channel geometryGEO3 Soil integrity 0 Natural soils eliminated 1 Virtually all natural soils eliminated 2 Soils thin or eliminated on most of site but a detectable amount remaining 3 Soils patchy and compromised, with degraded functionality 4 Soils large intact, and only slightly compromised 5 Soils apparently natural, with very minor reduction in functionality 6 Soils fully natural 9 Unable to assess soil integrityGEO4 Geomorphic diversity 0 None; a completely unnatural condition 1 Very low geomorphic diversity 2 Low geomorphic diversity 3 Moderate geomorphic diversity 4 Good geomorphic diversity 5 Very good geomorphic diversity 6 Pristine; fully natural geomorphic diversity 9 Unable to assess geomorphic diversityGEO5 Natural physical disturbance 0 Natural disturbance regime obliterated 1 Natural disturbance regime virtually eliminated 2 Highly altered natural disturbance regime 3 Moderately altered natural disturbance regime 4 Little altered natural disturbance regime 5 Nearly natural disturbance regime 6 Natural disturbance regime virtually pristine 9 Unable to assess natural disturbance regime

Site______________________________________ Date____________Info Source_______________________

Springs Ecosystem Assessment Protocol Scoring Criteria

2

HabitatHAB1 Isolation 0 <10 m from the nearest springs ecosystem 1 10-50 m from the nearest springs ecosystem 2 50-100 m from the nearest springs ecosystem 3 100-500 m from the nearest springs ecosystem 4 500-1000 m from the nearest springs ecosystem 5 1-10 km from the nearest springs ecosystem 6 >10 km from the nearest springs ecosystem 9 Unknown distance to nearest springs ecosystemHAB2 Habitat patch size 0 No springs habitat area 1 < 10 sq m habitat area 2 10 - 100 sq m habitat area 3 100-1000 sq m habitat area 4 .1 - 1 hectare habitat area 5 1 - 10 hectare habitat area 6 >10 hectare habitat area 9 Unable to assess habitat areaHAB3 Microhabitat quality 0 No microhabitats exist or remain 1 Very low microhabitat quality 2 Low microhabitat quality 3 Moderate microhabitat quality 4 Good microhabitat quality with some indication of impairment 5 Very good microhabitat quality, but past impairment suspected 6 Pristine microhabitat quality 9 Unable to assess microhabitat impairmentHAB4 Native plant ecological role 0 No native plant species present 1 Native species cover and biomass <25% of natural condition 2 Native species cover and biomass 25-50% of natural condition 3 Native species cover and biomass 50-75% of natural condition 4 Native species cover and biomass 75-90% of natural condition 5 Native species cover and biomass 90-98% of natural condition 6 Native species cover and biomass virtually pristine 9 Unable to assess native plant species ecological roleHAB5 Trophic dynamics 0 No trophic dynamics occurring 1 Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency scarcely extant (<25%) 2 Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency poor (25-50%) 3 Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency moderate (50-75%) 4 Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency fair (75-90%) 5 Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency good (90-98%) 6 Trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency pristine (>98%)

9 Unable to assess trophic dynamics and ecological efficiency

Biolota

BIO1a Native plant richness and diversity 0 No native plant species remaining 1 <25% of expected species remaining 2 25-50% of expected species remaining 3 50-75% of expected species remaining 4 75-90% of expected species remaining 5 90-98% of expected species remaining 6 >98% of expected species remaining 9 Unable to assess native vascular plant richness and diversityBIO1b Native faunal diversity 0 No expected species remaining 1 <25% of expected species remaining 2 25-50% of expected species remaining 3 50-75% of expected species remaining 4 75-90% of expected species remaining 5 90-98% of expected species remaining 6 >98% of expected species remaining 9 Unable to assess native faunal diversityBIO2a Sensitive plant richness 0 No sensitive or listed plant species remain 1 <25% of expected species remaining 2 25-50% of expected species remaining 3 50-75% of expected species remaining 4 75-90% of expected species remaining 5 90-98% of expected species remaining 6 >98% of expected species remaining 9 Unable to assess native sensitive vascular plant speciesBIO2b Sensitive faunal richness 0 No sensitive or listed faunal species remain 1 <25% of expected species remaining 2 25-50% of expected species remaining 3 50-75% of expected species remaining 4 75-90% of expected species remaining 5 90-98% of expected species remaining 6 >98 of expected species remaining 9 Unable to assess native sensitive faunal species BIO3a Nonnative plant rarity 0 >75% of plant species are non-native 1 50-75% of plant species are non-native 2 25-50% of plant species are non-native 3 10-25% of plant species are non-native 4 5-10% of plant species are non-native 5 2-5% of plant species are non-native 6 <2% of plant species are non-native 9 Unable to assess nonnative plant species rarityBIO3b Nonnative faunal rarity 0 >75% of faunal species are non-native 1 50-75% of faunal species are non-native 2 25-50% of faunal species are non-native 3 10-25% of faunal species are non-native 4 5-10% of faunal species are non-native 5 2-5% of the faunal species are non-native 6 <2% of faunal species are non-native 9 Unable to assess nonnative faunal species rarity

Site___________________________ Date____________

3

BIO4a Native plant demography 0 No native plant populations remain 1 <25% of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining 2 25-50% of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining 3 50-75% of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining 4 75-90% of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining 5 90-98% of dominant native plant populations present and self-sustaining 6 Dominant native plant populations self- sustaining in a natural condition 9 Unable to assess native vascular plant population demographyBIO4b Native faunal demography 0 No natural faunal populations remain 1 <25% of native faunal populations present and self-sustaining 2 25-50% of native faunal populations present and self-sustaining 3 50-75% of native faunal populations present and self-sustaining 4 75-90% of native faunal populations present and self-sustaining 5 90-98% of native faunal populations present and self-sustaining 6 Native faunal populations self-sustaining in a natural condition 9 Unable to assess native faunal population demography

Freedom from Human InfluencesFHI1 Surface water quality 0 No flow 1 Very poor surface water quality 2 Poor surface water quality 3 Moderate surface water quality 4 Good surface water quality 5 Very good surface water quality 6 Excellent surface water quality 9 Unable to assess desired surface water qualityFHI2 Flow regulation 0 Flow regulation influences have eliminated or destroyed the springs 1 Very extensive flow regulation influences 2 Extensive flow regulation influences 3 Moderate flow regulation influences 4 Limited flow regulation influences 5 Very limited flow regulation influences 6 No flow regulation effects 9 Unable to assess flow regulation influences FHI3 Road, Trail, and Railroad effects 0 Road, trail, or railroad influences have eliminated the springs 1 Very extensive road, trail, or railroad influences

2 Extensive road, trail, or railroad influences 3 Moderate road, trail, or railroad influences 4 Limited road, trail, or railroad influences 5 Very limited road, trail, or railroad influences 6 No road, trail, or railroad influences 9 Unable to assess road, trail, or railroad influencesFHI4 Fencing effects 0 Negative influences of fencing have eliminated the springs 1 Very extensive negative influences of fencing 2 Extensive negative influences of fencing 3 Moderate negative influences of fencing 4 Limited negative influences of fencing 5 Very limited negative influences of fencing 6 No negative influences of fencing 9 Unable to assess influences of fencingFHI5 Construction effects 0 Construction influences eliminated the springs 1 Very extensive negative construction influences 2 Extensive negative construction influences 3 Moderate negative construction influences 4 Limited negative construction influences 5 Very limited negative construction influences 6 No negative construction influences 9 Unable to assess construction influences FHI6 Herbivore effects 0 Herbivory influences have eliminated the springs 1 Very extensive negative herbivory influences 2 Extensive negative herbivory influences 3 Moderate negative herbivory influences 4 Limited negative herbivory influences 5 Very limited negative herbivory influences 6 No negative herbivory influences 9 Unable to assess herbivory influences FHI7 Recreational effects 0 Recreation influences have eliminated the springs 1 Very extensive negative recreational influences 2 Extensive negative recreational influences 3 Moderate negative recreational influences 4 Limited negative recreational influences 5 Very limited negative recreational influences 6 No negative recreational influences 9 Unable to assess recreational influencesFHI8 Adjacent lands condition 0 Ecological condition of adjacent landscape has eliminated the springs 1 Very extensive negative influences of adjacent landscape 2 Extensive negative influences of adjacent landscape 3 Moderate negative influences of adjacent landscape 4 Limited negative influences of adjacent landscape 5 Very limited negative influences of adjacent landscape 6 No negative influences of adjacent landscape 9 Unable to assess influences of adjacent landscape

Site___________________________ Date____________

4

FHI9 Fire Influence 0 Fire influences have eliminated the springs 1 Very extensive negative influences of fire 2 Extensive negative influences of fire 3 Moderate negative influences of fire 4 Limited negative influences of fire 5 Very limited negative influences of fire 6 No undesired negative influences of fire 9 Unable to assess influences of fire

Administrative ContextAC1 Information quality/quantity 0 No information or map exists 1 Very limited mapping or other information 2 Limited mapping or other information exists 3 A modest amount of credible mapping and other information exists 4 Credible mapping and other scientific information exists 5 A great deal of high quality mapping and other information has been gathered and compiled 6 The springs is used as a research site, with much high quality information available 9 Unable to assess information quantity and qualityAC2 Indigenous significance 0 No significance as an indigenous cultural site 1 Virtually no evidence of indigenous cultural features or resources 2 One culturally significant feature or resource 3 Two or more culturally significant features or resources 4 Several culturally significant features or resources 5 Numerous indigenous culturally significant features or resources 6 Cultural significance essential for the well- being of one or more indigenous cultures 9 Unable to assess indigenous cultural significanceAC3 Historical significance 0 No historical significance 1 Very little evidence of historically significant elements 2 One historically significant element 3 Two or more historically significant elements 4 Several historically significant elements 5 Numerous historically significant elements 6 Historical significance essential for the well- being of the culture 9 Unable to assess historical significanceAC4 Recreational significance 0 Desired effects of recreational use not achieved 1 Very extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use 2 Extensive deviation from desired effects of recreational use

3 Moderate deviation from desired effects of recreational use 4 Limited deviation from desired effects of recreational use 5 Very limited deviation from desired effects of recreational use 6 No deviation from desired effects of recreational use 9 Unable to assess deviation from desired effects of recreational useAC5 Economic value 0 The springs has no economic value 1 Very limited economic value 2 Limited economic value 3 Modest economic value 4 Considerable economic value 5 High economic value 6 Very high economic value 9 Unable to assess economic valueAC6 Conformance to mgmt plan 0 No management plan 1 Minimal management planning 2 Very preliminary management plan 3 Management plan exists, but receives little management attention 4 Management plan given moderate attention 5 Management plan given substantial management & legal consideration 6 Management plan fully implemented and followed 9 Unable to assess conformance to management planAC7 Scientific/educational value 0 No features of scientific or educational interest 1 One scientifically or educationally important feature 2 Two features of scientific or educational interest 3 Several features of scientific or educational interest 4 4-9 features of scientific or educational interest 5 At least 10 features of scientific or educational interest 6 Numerous features of scientific or educational interest 9 Unable to assess scientific or educational significanceAC8 Environmental compliance 0 No socioenvironmental compliance conducted or considered 1 Very little socioenvironmental compliance conducted or considered 2 Little socioenvironmental compliance conducted or considered 3 Preliminary socioenvironmental compliance conducted 4 Socioenvironmental compliance undertaken, not yet completed 5 Socioenvironmental compliance completed, not enacted 6 Environmental compliance, and designation of critical habitat, is complete 9 Unable to assess environmental complianceAC9 Legal status 0 No land, water, or ecosystem legal rights exist or are recognized

Site___________________________ Date____________

5

1 Rights may exist but have not been adjudicated or enforced 2 Rights exist but application for those rights/ uses are pending; no enforcement 3 Rights exist and applications have been made; limited enforcement 4 Rights applications have been completed; moderately robust enforcement 5 Rights have been established; robust enforcement 6 Rights established and defended; legislative protection; robust enforcement 9 Unable to assess legal status

Risk 0 No risk to site 1 Negligible risk to site 2 Low risk to site 3 Moderate risk to site 4 Serious risk to site 5 Very great risk to site 6 Extreme risk to site 9 Unable to assess risk to site

Site___________________________ Date____________

6

Cultural ValuesArchaeological Value

0 No archaeological evidence present at or near spring1 Almost no evidence of archeological remains near the spring2 Minor evidence of archaeological artifacts near the spring

(i.e., ceramics)3 Moderate evidence of archaeological remains near the

springs; hunting camp remains, potentially including hearth(s) but no dwellings evident

4 Artifacts, petroglyphs, minor ruins, and/or irrigation works are present, demonstrating fairly extensive prehistoric use of the site

5 Artifacts, petroglyphs, ruins, and/or water works, and dwell-ing sites are present, demonstrating extensive prehistoric use

6 Artifacts, petroglyphs, remains, and extensive ruins nearby, protected by the tribe due to great archaeological significance

9 Unable to assess archaeological value

PetroglyphsShrinesWallsJewelryCeramicsFlakesHearthsRuinsIrrigationMiddensAgricultureHuman RemainsHistorical ArchaeologyOther archaeology

Education/Knowledge Value0 No knowledge of the site recorded in tribal history or aca-

demic records, and no information reasonably expected to exist

1 Knowledge of site expected to exist, but not available, no longer taught

2 Knowledge of site is documented but is minimal and not used in education or research

3 Moderate knowledge of site exists; is used to a moderate extent in education and/or as a research site

4 Fairly significant education and/or research significance

5 Very good educational and/or research significance, provid-ing trans-generational knowledge

6 Outstanding educational and/or research significance; trans-generation knowledge; great concern about protecting site for educational purposes

9 Unable to assess educational or research significance

Youth educationElder knowledgeTrans-generationalCulturally-specificAcademic researchAcademic educationNon-academic educationOther knowledge

Ethnoecology0 No record or presence of plant and/or animal species used for

food, utilitarian, food, medicinal, ceremonial, or other purposes

1 Former presence of ethnobiological resources, but no longer present, or very few ethnobiological resources

2 Only 1 ethnobiologically important species present, or only a few species that can readily be obtained elsewhere

3 Several ethnobiologically important species present, although they can be found elsewhere

4 Several ethnobiologically important species present, of which at least one is difficult to acquire elsewhere

5 Numerous ethnobiologically important species present, with one or more being unique to the site

6 Many ethnobiologically important species present, including many that cannot be found elsewhere

9 Unable to assess ethnobiologically important species

PlantsUsed for foodFirewood, constr, etc.Medicinal purposesCeremonial purposesExtirpated speciesEndangered speciesRestoration potentialMultiple use/other

Ethnoecological processes

Ethnogeological processesDyesPaintsCeramics

Tribal/Band Historical Significance0 History of the site has been lost and is not taught in neither

academic nor non-academic settings

AnimalsUsed for foodUtility animalsMedicinal purposesCeremonial purposesExtirpated speciesEndangered speciesRestoration potentialMultiple use/other

Site__________________________________________________ Date_____________________________

Information Source_____________________________________ Cultural Radius (meters)______________

7

1 History of the site is very limited and poorly available2 History of the site is limited, primarily available in unpub-

lished reports (i.e., water resources, cultural preservation office, etc.)

3 History of the site is moderately available and not well known4 Site history information availability is good and

relatively widely known5 Site history information availability is very good and quite

widely known in both academic and non-academic settings6 Site history information is excellent, and is taught by the

elders to other tribal members in both academic and non-academic settings

9 Unable to assess tribal history of the site

Spring on Historic Route

Site Sacredness0 No record of historical or contemporary site sacredness; no

possibility of the site being sacred1 Site sacredness is very minor; sacredness possible but not

specifically recognized2 Site sacredness is recognized, but has no specific sacred role

or function3 Site sacredness is moderate, related to one specific role or

function4 Site sacredness is fairly high, related to two specific roles or

functions5 Site is highly sacred, related to several specific roles or func-

tions6 Site is very highly sacred, related to many specific roles or

functions9 Unable to assess sacredness of site

Sacredness of waterSacredness of traditional foodsSacredness of materialsSacredness of medicinesSacredness of ceremonial substancesSacredness of archaeological remainsSacredness of storiesSpirits or divine beingsPassage point to/from other worldsSignificance in afterlifeSite is sacredSite is sacred for its pristine characterSite important as route or waypoint

National Registry of Historic Places NRHP Condition

0 Site has no potential for listing with the Tribe(s) or non-tribal agencies

1 Site has not been recognized by Tribe(s) as having potential

for NRHP status, or has been recognized as having very little potential

2 Site has been recognized by the Tribe(s) and/or non-Tribal agencies as having low potential for NRHP status

3 Site has been recognized by the Tribe(s) and/or non-Tribal agencies as having moderate potential for NRHP status, but not formally proposed

4 Site is recognized and listed with the Tribe(s), and NRHP status has been proposed

5 Site is recognized and listed with the Tribe(s), and NRHP status is anticipated and pending

6 NRHP status has been fully completed with both the Tribe(s) and the federal government

9 Unable to assess NRHP potential

Application Status0 No culturally significant properties exist1 NRHP status application completed2 NRHP application submitted3 NRHP status pending acceptance of application4 NRHP status approved, but process not complete5 NRHP status approved6 NRHP status established9 Unable to assess NRHP process

Recognized by Tribe as worthy of listing Recognized by agencies as worthy of listingApplication submitted and refused

Economic Value0 No economic use or sale of springs resources1 Very little economic value OR formerly of very limited eco-

nomic value, but no longer used for agriculture, recreation, or ethnobiological economics

2 Low economic value; use or sale of springs resources depends on erratic availability of resources, weather conditions, etc

3 Moderate economic use(s) or value of springs resources, pri-marily for single family subsistence; limited financial benefits to larger community

4 Good economic uses and sale of springs agricultural, recre-ation, and/or ethnobiological resources to the Tribe and/or external communities

5 Very good economic uses and sale of springs’ agricultural, recreation, and/or ethnobiological resources to the Tribe and/or external communities

6 Tribe receives excellent financial benefits from the use(s) and sale of springs agricultural, recreation, non-use, and/or ethnobiological resources

9 Unable to assess economic value to the Tribe and/or external communities

Single family use/salesCommunal use/salesTribal use/salesLivestock supportPotable waterIrrigation water

Site____________________________________________________________ Date_____________________

8

Mineral extractionMining permitsElectrical powerRecreational visitationNon-agricultural plantsNon-agricultural animalsAquatic agric. plantsWetland agric. plantsNonhunted ethnofaunalNative fishFarmed fishFishing permitsWildlifeHunting licensesReal estateNon-use valuesOther economic values

Tribal Legal Significance0 No legal interest or consideration of the site’s

resources1 Little to no legal status; very little outside interest2 Very low legal status; little outside interest3 Moderate legal significance – some outside interest4 Legal status is fairly well established, and the site is fairly well

protected5 Site legal status is clearly established, and may apply to more

than one Tribe6 Site legal status very clearly established; legal

standing is an important precedent9 Unable to assess legal status

Tribal—individual Tribal-clan Tribal Tribal—multicultural State Federal Agency Other

Tribal Contemporary Useo Tribal use or non-use value1 No direct use but may have potential or non-use value2 One minor use and may have potential non-use value3 Slight use—2 uses plus some non-use value4 Moderate use—3-5 uses plus some non-use value5 Much use—5-7 uses plus some non-use value

6 Extensive use—8 or more uses and non-use value9 Unable to assess tribal use or non-use value

Tribal water useExternal water useIrrigation useAgricultural useCeremonial useFishing useHunting useGathering useEducational useMineral extractionFuel useEnergy useAesthetic useRecreational useGuiding visitation useRoute in use

Site____________________________________________________________ Date_____________________

Appendix B: Spring Inventory and Assessment Reports for Springs Surveyed in the Upper Santa Cruz Basin Study Area

1

SpringssurveyedintheUpperSantaCruzRiverBasin

ContentsAgua Caliente Spring ................................................................................................................................ 3

Alamo Spring .......................................................................................................................................... 4

Barrel Spring ........................................................................................................................................... 7

Basin Spring ............................................................................................................................................ 8

Bellows Spring ........................................................................................................................................ 9

Bog Springs ........................................................................................................................................... 13

Box Spring ............................................................................................................................................ 17

Breazeal Spring ..................................................................................................................................... 18

Brinkley Spring ...................................................................................................................................... 19

Broken Arm Spring ................................................................................................................................ 22

Busch Spring ......................................................................................................................................... 25

Cascade Spring ...................................................................................................................................... 29

Caseco Spring ....................................................................................................................................... 37

Chiva Falls ............................................................................................................................................ 42

Crescent Spring ..................................................................................................................................... 46

D‐13‐12 20DCB1 .................................................................................................................................... 51

Deering Spring ...................................................................................................................................... 55

Devil's Bathtub Spring Survey 1 ............................................................................................................... 58




Flicker Spring ........................................................................................................................................ 66

Florida Spring ........................................................................................................................................ 72

Gibbon Springs ...................................................................................................................................... 76

Huntsman Spring ................................................................................................................................... 79

Iron Spring ............................................................................................................................................ 80

Italian Spring Survey 1 ........................................................................................................................... 84




Jackalo Mine Spring ............................................................................................................................... 92

Kent Spring ........................................................................................................................................... 96

Kinglet Spring ........................................................................................................................................ 99

La Cebadilla Cienega ............................................................................................................................ 103

Mercer Spring ..................................................................................................................................... 107

Mine Shaft unnamed north .................................................................................................................. 112

2

Observatory unnamed ......................................................................................................................... 116

Ocotillo Spring .................................................................................................................................... 120

Palisade RS Unnamed .......................................................................................................................... 121

Papago Spring ..................................................................................................................................... 125

Pena Blanca Spring * ........................................................................................................................... 129

Pidgeon Spring .................................................................................................................................... 134

Proctor Spring ..................................................................................................................................... 135

Puerto Spring ...................................................................................................................................... 138

Rancho Fundoshi Spring ....................................................................................................................... 140

Ranger Station unnamed ...................................................................................................................... 146

Red Spring .......................................................................................................................................... 150

Rock Spring ......................................................................................................................................... 156

Rock Water Spring ............................................................................................................................... 159

Ruelas Spring ...................................................................................................................................... 163

Sabino Greens Unnamed ...................................................................................................................... 165

Shannon Spring ................................................................................................................................... 169

Sally Spring ......................................................................................................................................... 170

Solstice Spring..................................................................................................................................... 175

Sprung Spring ..................................................................................................................................... 178

Unnamed ........................................................................................................................................... 180

Vine ................................................................................................................................................... 181

Wren Spring ....................................................................................................................................... 188

Zimmerman #1 Spring .......................................................................................................................... 193



3

Agua Caliente Spring

Survey Summary Report, Site ID 12823

Location: The Agua Caliente Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the private US owner. The spring is located at 32.28068, -110.72896 in the Agua Caliente Hill USGS Quad (NAD 83). The elevation is approximately 822 meters. Sky Island Alliance surveyed the site on 4/15/13 for 03:00 hours, beginning at 9:00, and collected data in 3 of 12 categories.

Physical Description: Agua Caliente Spring is a limnocrene spring. This site is in a Pima County Park. It is developed, and consists of three ponds and the habitat that surrounds them. The geomorphic diversity is 0.00, based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity index.

The distance to the nearest spring is 5259 meters.

4

Alamo Spring


Location: The Alamo Spring ecosystem is located in Santa Cruz County in the Upper Santa Cruz Arizona 15050301 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Sierra Vista RD, Coronado NF at 31.36593, -111.13737 in the Alamo Spring USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83, estimated position error 20 meters). The elevation is approximately 1319 meters. Cory Jones, Karen Caruso, John Caruso, and Jim Littlejohn surveyed the site on 8/27/14 for 00:45 hours, beginning at 10:45, and collected data in 5 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 Alamo Spring: Upper pool.

5

Physical Description: Alamo Spring is a rheocrene spring. Waters from this rheocrene spring create a shaded oasis of cottonwood and willows over two or three pools encircled by deergrass in an otherwise open canyon.

The emergence environment is subaerial, with an artesian flow force mechanism. The distance to the nearest spring is 1132 meters.

Survey Notes: Recent monsoon rainfall has inundated the entire site. All three previously defined pools have combined into one running channel. The site was lush with wildflowers and grasses. Normally the hike from the end of FS4188 to the site takes 45-50 minutes. Due to surface flow down the entire run of Alamo Canyon and thick vegetative cover, the hike took 1.5 hours to the site.

Table 1 Alamo Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 7.79

Specific conductance (field) (uS/cm) 350

Temperature, water C 24.8

Fauna: Surveyors collected or observed 3 vertebrate specimens.

Table 2 Alamo Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

Bullocks oriole 1 obs

Chiricahua Leopard frog 3 obs

canyon wren 1 call

6

Fig 2 Alamo Spring: Middle pool.

Fig 3 Alamo Spring: Lower pool.

7

Barrel Spring


Location: The Barrel Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the private US owner. The spring is located at 32.30478, -110.78146 in the Sabino Canyon USGS Quad (NAD 83). The elevation is approximately 875 meters. Samantha Hammer, Mirna Manteca surveyed the site on 9/11/15 for 00:45 hours, beginning at 9:15, and collected data in 1 of 12 categories.

Physical Description: Barrel Spring is a hypocrene spring. A possible spring on/near a hill with no surface water emerging, but with a mesquite bosque about 30m below the coordinates. Maybe a hypocrene spring? There are several golf greens within 10-30m of the coordinates, so the spring emergence may have been destroyed in the construction of the golf course. This spring and several others in the immediate area appear to emerge at a detachment fault at the base of the Catalinas. It is possible the location was wrong for this spring, and Barrel Spring actually refers to a spring ~300m to the west that was previously unmapped (Sabino Greens Unnamed, 179834).


Survey Notes: The surveyors spent nearly an hour searching the hillside and approaching the coordinates from several directions and did not find evidence of a current or past spring. The coordinates were on a hillside of desert vegetation. It may have been destroyed by the development of the golf course. There is a mesquite bosque nearby, so it may just be a hypocrene spring currently. The presence of several springs nearby suggests it was probably near these coordinates at some point, in some form. It could also have dried up from internal dynamics in the fault. Examination of another topo map shows the spring between two houses, an area that was not searched. This location should be checked.

8

Basin Spring


Location: The Basin Spring ecosystem is located in Santa Cruz County in the Upper Santa Cruz Arizona 15050301 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Sierra Vista RD, Coronado NF at 31.42181, -110.75956 in the Cumero Canyon USGS Quad (NAD 83). The elevation is approximately 1636 meters. Louise Misztal, Carianne Campbell, Randy Seraglio, Tim Cook, Steve Buckley surveyed the site on 4/19/14 for 00:00 hours, beginning at 0:00, and collected data in 1 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 Basin Spring: possible previous location of spring

Physical Description:


Survey Notes: Spring not found. There was no sign of spring vegetation or habitat found. There was a small depression that may have previously been a hillslope spring site.

9

Bellows Spring


Location: The Bellows Spring ecosystem is located in Santa Cruz County in the Upper Santa Cruz Arizona 15050301 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Nogales RD, Coronado NF at 31.69882, -110.85090 in the Mount Wrightson USGS Quad (NAD 83). The elevation is approximately 2574 meters. Louise Misztal, Randy Seraglio, Chris Hefner, Anamarie Shaecher, Aida Castillo-Flores, Glenn Furnier surveyed the site on 11/15/14 for 01:30 hours, beginning at 13:00, and collected data in 7 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 Bellows Spring.

10

Physical Description: Bellows Spring is a rheocrene spring emerging from multiple points in a rock channel in very steep terrain. The site has 2 microhabitats, including A -- a 140 sqm channel, B -- a 0 sqm terrace.

Bellows Spring emerges as a contact spring from a igneous, rhyolite rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial. The distance to the nearest spring is 570 meters.

Survey Notes: This spring is in an area that burned severely several years ago, which may have influenced the spring. There is a recreational trail created by hikers experiencing some erosion to the side of the channel. Overall, the spring is in good shape and providing water for wildlife.

Table 1 Bellows Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 6.84

Specific conductance (field) (uS/cm) 44.5

Temperature, air C 5


Flora: Surveyors identified 9 plant species at the site, with 0.0643 species/sqm. These included 9 native and 0 nonnative species.

Table 2 Bellows Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 2 1

Shrub 1 0

Mid‐canopy 2 0

Tall canopy 3 1

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 1 0

Table 3 Bellows Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Aquilegia chrysantha GC N W

Fraxinus velutina TC N R

Heuchera sanguinea GC N

moss NV N F

Pinus strobiformis TC N

Populus tremuloides TC N U

Quercus gambelii MC N F

Ribes SC N F

Robinia neomexicana MC N F


11

Table 4 Bellows Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

house wren 1 obs

White‐breasted nuthatch 1 obs

canyon wren call

Green‐tailed Towhee 1 call

yellow‐eyed junco 10 obs

dark‐eyed junco 10 obs

ruby‐crowned kinglet

woodpecker sign

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 24 subcategories, with 18 null condition scores, and 18 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is excellent with no need for restoration and there is negligible risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk.

Table 5 Bellows Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk

Aquifer Functionality & Water Quality 4 1.8

Geomorphology 4.6 1.8

Habitat 4.6 2

Biota 6 1.5

Human Influence 4.8 1.9

Administrative Context 0 0

Overall Ecological Score 4.7 1.8

Management Recommendations: This spring is in an area that burned severely years ago which may have influenced spring flow amount. There is a recreational trail created by hikers experiencing some erosion to the side of the channel. Overall this spring is in good shape and can continue to be managed as is. Is providing water for wildlife.

12

Fig 2 Bellows Spring Sketchmap.

13

Bog Springs


Location: The Bog Springs ecosystem is located in Santa Cruz County in the Upper Santa Cruz Arizona 15050301 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Nogales RD, Coronado NF at 31.72149, -110.86315 in the Mount Wrightson USGS Quad (NAD 83). The elevation is approximately 1748 meters. Louise Misztal, Randy Seraglio, John Pachita, Barbara Coon, Sydney Coen, Chris Hefner surveyed the site on 11/16/14 for 01:36 hours, beginning at 10:54, and collected data in 8 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 Bog Springs.

Physical Description: Bog Springs is a hillslope spring. Bog Springs are a group of low volume springs and seeps on the eastern slope of Madera Canyon. According to the Pima Co. GIS layer, these springs use 2,920,000 gallons a year for domestic water supply. The site has 3 microhabitats, including A -- a 5 sqm pool, B -- a 320 sqm channel, D -- a 2 sqm other.

Bog Springs emerges from a igneous, rhyolite rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial. The distance to the nearest spring is 798 meters.

Survey Notes: There is lots of bear sign and human recreation. There is a constructed hunting blind near the spring source and a wildlife camera.

14

Table 1 Bog Springs Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value Comments

pH (field) 7.41 average of 2 measurements

Specific conductance (field) (uS/cm) 361 average of 2 measurements

Temperature, air C 14.7

Temperature, water C 10.9 average of 2 measurements

Flora: This plant list is for the site as a whole. Surveyors identified 9 plant species at the site, with 0.0276 species/sqm. These included 5 native and 0 nonnative species; the native status of 4 species remains unknown.

Table 2 Bog Springs Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 2 1

Shrub 4 2

Mid‐canopy 1 0

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 3 Bog Springs Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Arbutus arizonica SC N

Carex

Equisetum GC N WR

Fraxinus R

Juniperus SC N U

Lamiaceae GC


Rubus SC R

Vitis arizonica SC N R

Fauna: Surveyors collected or observed 3 aquatic invertebrates and 9 vertebrate specimens.

Table 4 Bog Springs Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method

Ephemeroptera L A Spot

Hemiptera Gerridae Ad A Spot

Mollusca Physidae Physa Ad A Spot

15

Table 5 Bog Springs Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

common bushtit 10 obs

ruby‐crowned kinglet

American black bear sign

deer sign

White‐breasted nuthatch

bridled titmouse

hermit thrush

cooper's hawk

brown creeper

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 28 subcategories, with 14 null condition scores, and 15 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 6 Bog Springs Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk

Aquifer Functionality & Water Quality 4.4 2.4

Geomorphology 4.2 2

Habitat 4 2.3

Biota 5 2




Management Recommendations: Site may be threatened by proposed Rosemont Mine. The site shows signs of hiker/other human use including and eroding trail accessing the ponded water near the spring box.

16

Fig 2 Bog Springs Sketchmap.

17

Box Spring


Location: The Box Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Santa Catalina RD, Coronado NF at 32.40617, -110.75877 in the Mount Lemmon USGS Quad (NAD 83). The elevation is approximately 1997 meters. Sami Hammer, Bryon Lichtenhan, Glenn Furnier, Emily Patterson, Aida Castillo-Flores, Sierrane Gatela, Joe Black, Michela Wilson, Leocadie Haguma, Paola Rocha, Christian Galindo, Michael Parker surveyed the site on 6/27/15 for 01:00 hours, beginning at 10:00, and collected data in 0 of 12 categories.

Physical Description:


Survey Notes: This spring is likely still in the area, but the area was very thick and overgrown with vegetation as it recovers from the Aspen Fire. The trail appears to be rerouted. Bryon bushwhacked to the coordinates and spent ~1/2 hour searching and could not find the spring. There was at least one minor seep in the current trail as we dropped from the last saddle down toward the spring coordinates.

18

Breazeal Spring


Location: The Breazeal Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Santa Catalina RD, Coronado NF at 32.43091, -110.75688 in the Mount Lemmon USGS Quad (NAD83). The elevation is approximately 2288 meters. Sami Hammer, Glenn Furnier, Emily Patterson, Aida Castillo-Flores, Sierrane Gatela, Katy Brown, Kristi Argenbright surveyed the site on 6/13/15 for 00:30 hours, beginning at 9:30, and collected data in 0 of 12 categories.

Physical Description: Spring not found.

Survey Notes: We searched the area on the hillside at the coordinates and in the adjacent drainages for about half an hour and found no sign of a spring. With the open understory, the search felt pretty thorough. Interestingly, the CalTopo map shows a structure of some kind only about 60m uphill from the point - perhaps something is there? The forest had some evidence of light fire, but was not heavily burned in this area.

19

Brinkley Spring


Location: The Brinkley Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Santa Catalina RD, Coronado NF at 32.43645, -110.78821 in the Mount Lemmon USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83, estimated position error 6 meters). The elevation is approximately 2705 meters. Christopher Morris, Eric Bodznick, Elena Martin, Sue Carahan, Curtis Smith, Mike Hughes surveyed the site on 6/29/14 for 00:42 hours, beginning at 11:49, and collected data in 8 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 Brinkley Spring: mike pointing to the spring location

Physical Description: Brinkley Spring is a anthropogenic/hanging garden spring completely encased in concrete and piping, and then conveyed underground. It may have originally been a hanging garden. There is a wet seep emerging from a boulder. The spring is located at the southern base of a large boulder, but the site has no east or west obstructions. The site has 2 microhabitats, including A -- a 0 sqm other, B -- a 0 sqm sloping bedrock. The geomorphic diversity is 0.00, based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity index.

The emergence environment is subaerial. The distance to the nearest spring is 206 meters.

Survey Notes: The probable springbox has been covered up by a tin sheet and then a huge fallen log - surveyors did not find pipes, boxes, etc. after removing the tin sheets. The base of the wall (where the seeps are) are completely covered by vegetation (Ribes, cliffbush, mountain spray). There was a was seep on the rock about 14" by 14."

20

Flora: The vegetation list is for the plants found in the immediate area. Surveyors identified 20 plant species at the site, with 200 species/sqm. These included 19 native and 0 nonnative species; the native status of 1 species remains unknown.

Table 1 Brinkley Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 8 1

Shrub 3 0

Mid‐canopy 1 0

Tall canopy 2 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 2 Brinkley Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Ceanothus fendleri GC N U

Cirsium wheeleri GC N U

Erigeron oreophilus N

Galium aparine GC N WR

Geranium caespitosum GC N F

Glandularia bipinnatifida GC N U

Heuchera sanguinea N

Holodiscus dumosus SC N F

Jamesia americana SC N

Macromeria viridiflora GC N U

Pinus ponderosa TC N F


Pseudotsuga menziesii MC N U

Pteridium aquilinum GC N U

Quercus rugosa N

Ribes pinetorum N

Scrophularia parviflora N

Senecio wootonii GC N

Symphoricarpos oreophilus SC N U

Vicia WR

Fauna: Surveyors collected or observed 2 terrestrial invertebrates and 10 vertebrate specimens.

21

Table 3 Brinkley Spring Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method Species detail

Acarina Spot mite

Coleoptera Spot

Diptera Syrphidae Milesia bella T Spot

Lepidoptera Lycaenidae

Celastrina echo T Spot cinera subspp. (Sue has photo)

Table 4 Brinkley Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

canyon tree frog 1 obs

greater short‐horned lizard 1

Broad‐tailed hummingbird 1 obs

house wren

yellow‐eyed junco

black‐throated gray warbler

pygmy nuthatch

spotted towhee

Common raven

olive warbler

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 32 subcategories, with 10 null condition scores, and 11 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are excellent with no need for restoration and there is high risk. Geomorphology condition is very poor with very limited restoration potential and there is high risk. Habitat condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is moderate risk.

Table 5 Brinkley Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk

Aquifer Functionality & Water Quality 6.8 4


Habitat 3.4 3.4

Biota 5.1 1.9




Management Recommendations: Where does the buried piping go? It must pre-date establishment of wilderness designation - check water rights records? If the spring water is no longer being utilized for modern humans, maybe the concrete and piping could be removed so wildlife could benefit from the spring.

22

Broken Arm Spring


Location: The Broken Arm Spring ecosystem is located in Santa Cruz County in the Upper Santa Cruz Arizona 15050301 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Sierra Vista RD, Coronado NF at 31.40468, -111.10293 in the Pena Blanca Lake USGS Quad (NAD 83). The elevation is approximately 1319 meters. Christopher Morris, Cory Jones, Gus Glaser, Judy Atwell, and Lorrie and Rick Firth surveyed the site on 10/04/14 for 00:32 hours, beginning at 14:08, and collected data in 5 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 Broken Arm Spring: Looking at the seep on the west bank of channel.

Physical Description: Broken Arm Spring is a rheocrene spring. This spring is a wet seep emanating from the bank of a drainage channel bottomed with a combination of bedrock and sandy soils. The site has 1 microhabitat, X -- a 1 sqm backwall.

Broken Arm Spring emerges from a combination rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial. The distance to the nearest spring is 1154 meters.

Survey Notes: The site is barely perceptible with only a small wet spot on the westside of the channel's 2 foot high bank. The channel looks to receive a lot of sediment, potentially affecting this spring.

Flora: Surveyors identified 11 plant species at the site. These included 6 native and 0 nonnative species; the native status of 5 species remains unknown.

23

Table 1 Broken Arm Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count

Ground 5

Shrub 2

Mid‐canopy 0

Tall canopy 0

Basal 0

Aquatic 0

Non‐vascular 0

Table 2 Broken Arm Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Acacia greggii SC N F

Agave schottii GC N

Bidens GC F

Bouteloua curtipendula GC N U

Dasylirion

Erythrina flabelliformis N

Muhlenbergia GC N U

Muhlenbergia rigens GC N U

Opuntia U

Prosopis

Quercus SC U


Table 3 Broken Arm Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

White‐tailed Deer sign

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 28 subcategories, with 14 null condition scores, and 14 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are poor with limited restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Geomorphology condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Biotic integrity is good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Human influence of site is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk.

24

Table 4 Broken Arm Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk


Geomorphology 3.6 2

Habitat 3.2 1.8

Biota 4.8 1.8




Management Recommendations: The site could be fenced off from cattle and be anchored with rocks to restart the accumulation of soils.

Fig 2 Broken Arm Spring Sketchmap: Sketch map.

25

Busch Spring


Location: The Busch Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Santa Catalina RD, Coronado NF at 32.43622, -110.76015 in the Mount Lemmon USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (WGS84, estimated position error 4 meters). The elevation is approximately 2357 meters. Sami Hammer, Glenn Furnier, Emily Patterson, Aida Castillo-Flores, Sierrane Gatela, Katy Brown, Kristi Argenbright surveyed the site on 6/13/15 for 01:15 hours, beginning at 12:00, and collected data in 8 of 12 categories.

Physical Description: Busch Spring is a rheocrene spring. According to the Pima Co. GIS layer, this site is used at a rate of 73,000 gallons per year for domestic purposes. It is a boxed spring in a moderate gradient and moderately wide drainage at high elevation. The microhabitats associated with the spring cover 54 sqm. The site has 3 microhabitats, including A -- a 5 sqm other, B -- a 45 sqm channel, C -- a 4 sqm channel. The geomorphic diversity is 0.25, based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity index.

Busch Spring emerges as a seepage or filtration spring from a igneous, granite rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial, with a gravity flow force mechanism. The distance to the nearest spring is 631 meters.

Survey Notes: The site is overgrown with ferns and very badly burnt from the Aspen Fire. There is an ancient, decrepit hunting blind by the spring and some deadfall across the stream.

Table 1 Busch Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 7.45




Flora: Plant list is for site as a whole. Surveyors identified 15 plant species at the site, with 0.2778 species/sqm. These included 10 native and 2 nonnative species; the native status of 3 species remains unknown.

Table 2 Busch Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 11 2

Shrub 0 0

Mid‐canopy 2 0

Tall canopy 2 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

26

Table 3 Busch Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Achillea millefolium GC N U


Carex GC

Galium GC I F

Mimulus guttatus GC N W


Populus tremuloides MC N U

Pseudotsuga menziesii TC N U



Senecio GC F

Smilacina racemosa GC

Smilacina stellata GC

Toxicodendron rydbergii GC N F

Vicia americana GC N F


Table 4 Busch Spring Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method

Hymenoptera Vespidae Vespula

vulgaris Ad T Spot

Lepidoptera Papilionidae Ad T Spot

Table 5 Busch Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

house wren 1 obs

hummingbirds 1 obs

hairy woodpecker 1 obs

pocket gopher 3 sign

spotted towhee 1 obs

rodent 1 sign

western tanager 1 obs

violet‐green swallow 3 obs

American robin 1 obs

western bluebird 1 obs


Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 29 subcategories, with 13 null condition scores, and 13 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is poor with limited restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is moderate with some

27

restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 6 Busch Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 2.8 2

Biota 3 1.5




Fig 1 Busch Spring Sketchmap.

28

29

Cascade Spring


Location: The Cascade Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Santa Catalina RD, Coronado NF at 32.43788, -110.78927 in the Mount Lemmon USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83, estimated position error 5 meters). The elevation is approximately 2742 meters. Christopher Morris, Eric Bodznick, Elena Martin, Sue Carahan, Curtis Smith, Mike Hughes surveyed the site on 6/29/14 for 01:57 hours, beginning at 9:00, and collected data in 9 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 Cascade Spring.

30

Physical Description: Cascade Spring is a rheocrene/anthropogenic spring. It is a totally developed spring with no wetland vegetation or wet soil. There is a well casing, pump station, and lots of infrastructure. No spring habitat exists any longer. It probably would originally have been a rheocrene spring. There is some water in the drainage ~75m from the spring coordinates. The site has 1 microhabitat, A -- a 47 sqm channel.


Survey Notes: The spring has been totally developed. The surveyors followed the drainage down from the original spring coordinates; they found a small puddle, then a dry stretch, and then water at 519771, 3588919, 2708m elevation. This was where the solar pathfinder was used. Road construction and plumbing/piping of the spring has caused erosion and headcutting above the road and potentially caused the spring to migrate downstream.

Table 1 Cascade Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 7.1




Flora: Surveyors identified 28 plant species at the site, with 0.5957 species/sqm. These included 22 native and 3 nonnative species; the native status of 3 species remains unknown.

Table 2 Cascade Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 19 3

Shrub 2 0

Mid‐canopy 1 0

Tall canopy 2 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

31

Table 3 Cascade Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Athyrium filix‐femina GC N

Carex

Castilleja austromontana N

Cerastium nutans GC N F

Dactylis glomerata GC I W

Deschampsia elongata GC N F

Draba helleriana GC N

Festuca U

Fragaria vesca GC N U


Geranium richardsonii GC N F


Hymenoxys hoopesii GC N F




Pseudocymopterus montanus GC N F



Rubus idaeus GC NI F

Rudbeckia laciniata GC N F

Rumex obtusifolius GC I F

Senecio wootonii GC N

Swertia radiata


Thalictrum fendleri GC N F

Thinopyrum intermedium GC I F


Fauna: Surveyors collected or observed 1 aquatic and 2 terrestrial invertebrates and 15 vertebrate specimens.

Table 4 Cascade Spring Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method Species detail

Annelida Oligochaetae

Oligochaeta A Spot

Coleoptera Spot

Coleoptera Spot orange, same as at Kinglet, Lycus

arizonensis?

Hymenoptera Apidae T Spot

Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Poanes

taxiles T Spot

Trichoptera Spot caddisfly

32

Table 5 Cascade Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name

house wren

Steller's jay

American robin

yellow‐eyed junco

Broad‐tailed hummingbird

mountain chickadee

northern flicker

hermit thrush

yellow‐rumped warbler

wild turkey

western tanager

olive warbler

pygmy nuthatch

Red‐faced Warbler

Arizona gray squirrel

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 33 subcategories, with 9 null condition scores, and 9 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 6 Cascade Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 3.8 2.8

Biota 5 2



Overall Ecological Score 4 2.7

33

Fig 2 Cascade Spring Sketchmap.

34



35


36


37

Caseco Spring


Location: The Caseco Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Santa Catalina RD, Coronado NF at 32.40710, -110.70540 in the Mount Bigelow USGS Quad (NAD83, estimated position error 7 meters). The elevation is approximately 2323 meters. Bryon Lichtenhan, Sami Hammer, Michela Wilson, Glenn Furnier, Emily Patterson, Leocadie Haguma, Paola Rocha, Christian Galindo, Michael Parker, Aida Castillo-Flores, Joe Black, Sierrane Gatela surveyed the site on 6/28/15 for 02:00 hours, beginning at 9:00, and collected data in 9 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 Caseco Spring.

Physical Description: Caseco Spring is a rheocrene spring. This site came from the Pima Co. Springs GIS layer. According to the data source it is used at a rate of 7.0 acre-feet per year for domestic purposes. The spring is a rheocrene spring emerging in two parallel channels with evidence of fairly consistent flow, in a shaded drainage. In June 2015, there was no evidence of infrastructure at the spring site that would indicate it was being used for domestic use, though there were signs indicating a water pipe along the road in to the spring. The microhabitats associated with the spring cover 179 sqm. The site has 5 microhabitats, including A -- a 10 sqm channel, B -- a 13 sqm channel, D -- a 4 sqm channel, E -- a 120 sqm terrace. The geomorphic diversity is 0.44, based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity index.

38

Caseco Spring emerges as a seepage or filtration spring from a metamorphic rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial, with a gravity flow force mechanism. The distance to the nearest spring is 1062 meters.

Survey Notes: The site was in good condition. There was only a few small pieces of trash from the road. The area does not seem to get much traffic/use. There was some incision in the channel, probably some invasive grass species, and some trees had been cut in the past (not recently). It had substantial flow even in late June.

Table 1 Caseco Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 8.1




Flora: Species list is for site as a whole - not identified by polygon. Surveyors identified 24 plant species at the site, with 0.1341 species/sqm. These included 22 native and 0 nonnative species; the native status of 2 species remains unknown.

Table 2 Caseco Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 10 1

Shrub 5 2

Mid‐canopy 1 0

Tall canopy 4 1

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 1 0

Non‐vascular 1 0

39

Table 3 Caseco Spring Vegetation.

Species Cover Code Native StatusWetland

Status

Acer negundo TC N R


Alnus SC WR


Bouvardia ternifolia SC N

Ceanothus fendleri GC N U

Cirsium wheeleri GC N U


Juncus AQ WR

Lathyrus graminifolius GC N

moss NV N F

Oxalis alpina N

Penstemon barbatus GC N U





Rubus neomexicanus SC N F

Rumex obtusifolius GC N F

Salix SC N WR

Salvia arizonica N



Vicia pulchella GC N F


Table 4 Caseco Spring Invertebrates.

Species Lifestage Habitat Method Count Species

detail

arachnid Ad T Spot 1

Coleoptera Coccinellidae Ad T Spot 1

Coleoptera Erotylidae

Megalodacne heros Ad T Spot 1

Coleoptera Scarabaeidae Ad T Spot 1

Lepidoptera L T Spot 1 black

Trichoptera L A Spot 10

40

Table 5 Caseco Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

white‐tailed Deer sign

Red‐faced Warbler 1 obs

Sonoran mountain kingsnake 1 obs

house wren 1 obs


hummingbirds 1 obs





chipmunk 1 obs

Common raven 1 obs

Grace's warbler 1 obs

red‐breasted nuthatch 1 obs

mountain chickadee 1 obs

Hutton's vireo 1 call

white‐throated swift 1 call

violet‐green swallow 1 obs

black‐headed grosbeak 1 obs


pygmy nuthatch 1 obs

Zone‐tailed Hawk 1 obs

Steller's jay 1 obs

painted redstart 1 obs

black‐throated gray warbler 1 obs

cooper's hawk 1 obs

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 30 subcategories, with 12 null condition scores, and 12 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 6 Caseco Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 4 2.6

Biota 4.5 2.5




41

Management Recommendations: The road looping around the site poses a risk to the spring - there is some incision in the channel that may be due to road influence. There is also the helipad in close proximity. We saw a few pieces of trash. Ideally, the site should be monitored for any problems due to the road, particularly erosion-related issues, and any issues that occur should be addressed. The road does have a locked gate, so that is helpful.

Fig 2 Caseco Spring Sketchmap.

42

Chiva Falls


Location: The Chiva Falls ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Santa Catalina RD, Coronado NF at 32.25663, -110.59485 in the USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83, estimated position error 7 meters). The elevation is approximately 1204 meters. Louise Misztal, Christopher Morris, Cyndi Tuell surveyed the site on 9/03/14 for 01:53 hours, beginning at 11:27, and collected data in 9 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 Chiva Falls.

Physical Description: Chiva Falls is a hanging garden spring. It has a steep cliff face with a waterfall and areas of water seeping from the rock face. The site has 7 microhabitats, including A -- a 510 sqm pool, B -- a 120 sqm sloping bedrock.

Chiva Falls emerges as a contact spring from a combination rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial, with a gravity flow force mechanism. The distance to the nearest spring is 3000 meters.

43

Survey Notes: In good condition, though there is quite a lot of trash scattered around. There is evidence of recent flooding events and significant flow in Tanque Verde Creek above and below the spring. The pool below the spring has been silted in due to fire erosion effects - it is still functioning, but is much smaller than it used to be. There is a badly eroded, illegally constructed, road coming almost all the way to the spring.

Table 1 Chiva Falls Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 7.44




Flora: This list is for the entire site. Surveyors identified 18 plant species at the site, with 0.0186 species/sqm. These included 17 native and 1 nonnative species.

Table 2 Chiva Falls Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 1 0

Shrub 7 2

Mid‐canopy 3 1

Tall canopy 2 2

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 1 0

Table 3 Chiva Falls Vegetation.

Species Cover CodeNative

Status Wetland

Status

Aloysia wrightii SC N U

Anisacanthus thurberi SC N

Bouvardia ternifolia SC N

Carex

Celtis reticulata MC N



Heuchera sanguinea N

Juglans major TC N R

Mirabilis longiflora N

moss NV N F


Platanus wrightii MC N R


Salix gooddingii SC N R

Sphaeralcea ambigua SC N F

Toxicodendron rydbergii SC N F


44


Table 4 Chiva Falls Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method

Coleoptera Dytiscidae

Thermonectus marmoratus Ad A Spot

Coleoptera Gyrinidae Ad A Spot

Ephemeroptera Spot

Hemiptera Belostomatidae

Abedus Ad A Spot

Hemiptera Gerridae Ad A Spot

Hymenoptera Pompilidae Pepsis

formosa Ad T Spot

Lepidoptera Sphingidae T Spot

Odonata Libellulidae Libellula Spot

Orthoptera Tettigoniidae Ad T Spot

Table 5 Chiva Falls Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

black‐necked gartersnake 1

summer tanager 1 call

canyon wren 1 call

white‐tailed Deer 1 obs

rock squirrel 2 obs

Clarks spiny lizard 1

canyon tree frog 1

Domestic cow 1 sign

red‐spotted toad 1

Sonoran whipsnake 1

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 31 subcategories, with 11 null condition scores, and 11 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

45

Table 6 Chiva Falls Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk

Aquifer Functionality & Water Quality 5 2

Geomorphology 4.4 2

Habitat 5 2

Biota 5.1 2




Management Recommendations: Close the illegally constructed road that comes almost all the way to the spring.

Fig 2 Chiva Falls Sketchmap.

46

Crescent Spring


Location: The Crescent Spring ecosystem is located in Santa Cruz County in the Upper Santa Cruz Arizona 15050301 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Sierra Vista RD, Coronado NF at 31.37963, -110.75220 in the Cumero Canyon USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83, estimated position error 6 meters). The elevation is approximately 1454 meters. Louise Misztal, Randy Seraglio, Nick Pacini, Karen Lowry surveyed the site on 4/20/14 for 01:45 hours, beginning at 10:15, and collected data in 7 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 Crescent Spring.

Physical Description: Crescent Spring is a hanging garden/anthropogenic spring, now mostly infl. The site has 6 microhabitats.

The emergence environment is subaerial, with a gravity flow force mechanism. The distance to the nearest spring is 1563 meters.

Survey Notes: There is water in what appears to be a mine shaft. The site is in good condition. Plastic piping leaves the adit and goes to the southwest along the creek. It seems that the mine shaft has probably altered flow at what used to be a hanging garden site, and there is a nearby well that is also negatively affecting the water quantity. The riparian habitat in the channel still looks very healthy right around the site. There is garbage in the water in the mine shaft.

47

Table 1 Crescent Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 7.56





Table 2 Crescent Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 5 1

Shrub 5 2

Mid‐canopy 3 1

Tall canopy 1 1

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 3 Crescent Spring Vegetation.


Status


Agave parryi GC N

Anisacanthus N

Baccharis GC N R

Cylindropuntia versicolor SC N U

Eragrostis intermedia GC N

Fraxinus R



Populus fremontii MC N R

Prosopis MC N F

Quercus emoryi MC N

Salix exigua SC N WR


unknown Moss GC


Fauna: This list is combined for all microhabitats. Surveyors collected or observed 2 terrestrial invertebrates and 13 vertebrate specimens.

48

Table 4 Crescent Spring Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method Count Species detail

Lepidoptera Ad T Spot 10 at least 10 different

species

Lepidoptera Nymphalidae

Vanessa virginiensis Ad T Spot 1

Table 5 Crescent Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

Bewick's wren 1 call

Zone‐tailed Hawk 1 obs

Lucy's warbler 5 call

domestic cow 10 sign

ladder‐backed woodpecker 1

common bushtit 1

vireo 1 obs

Bridled Titmouse 1

rufous‐crowned sparrow 1


Cordilleran Flycatcher 1 call

Wilson's warbler 1

ash‐throated flycatcher 1 call

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 23 subcategories, with 19 null condition scores, and 20 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are poor with limited restoration potential and there is high risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 6 Crescent Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 4.3 2.7

Biota 5.1 2.1

Human Influence 4.2 3



Management Recommendations: This sprig is very rich with birds and invertebrates. Protect this site - keep cows out to preserve the microhabitats and diversity. Close the spur road that leads to the spring.

49

Fig 2 Crescent Spring Sketchmap.

50



LocatioCruz Arthe Saguapproxisurveyecategori

Physica

The dist

Survey stains onwere onstrange

on: The D-1rizona 1505uaro NP at mately 991

ed the site onies.

Fig 1 D

al Descripti

tance to the

Notes: Wen the rocks

n a hillside, bare area on

Surve

13-12 20DC50301 HUC32.28272, - meters. Samn 7/17/15 fo

D-13-12 20D

ion:

e nearest spr

e did not finnear the poa bit belown Google E

D‐1

ey Summa

CB1 ecosyst, managed b

-111.13964 mi Hammeror 00:45 hou

DCB1: view

ring is 2697

nd a spring. oint - perhap a rock outc

Earth about 1

51

13‐12 20D

ary Report

tem is locateby the Natioin the Avrar, Sierrane Gurs, beginni

w of point fro

71 meters.

There is a mps indicationcrop. After r100m to the

CB1

t, Site ID 2

ed in Pima Conal Park Sa USGS QuaGatela, Houing at 7:30,

om below, d

mine adit win of water inreturning fre ESE that m

20172

County in thervice. Thead (NAD83uston Harris

and collect

dark stains v

ithin 100m.n the past?

rom the fieldmay be relat

he Upper S spring is lo

3). The elevas, Emily Patted data in 1

visible

There are bThe coordind, Sami notted to a spri

anta ocated in ation is tterson 1 of 12

black nates iced a ing.

FFig 2 D-13-1

Fig 3 D-13-1

2 20DCB1:

12 20DCB1:

52

hillside by p

: map of vic

point - mor

cinity, but n

re dark mark

not bare area

ks

a

Fig 4 D-133-12 20DCB

53

B1: possible water stainns close up

Fig 5 D-13

3-12 20DCB

54

B1: another vview with ddark stains

55

Deering Spring


Location: The Deering Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Upper Santa Cruz Arizona 15050301 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Nogales RD, Coronado NF at 31.80886, -110.76111 in the Helvetia USGS Quad. The elevation is approximately 1726 meters. Louise Misztal, Sami Hammer, Randy Seraglio, Tim Cook surveyed the site on 8/09/15 for 00:30 hours, beginning at 13:00, and collected data in 6 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 Deering Spring: spring origin, adit to left

Physical Description: Deering Spring is a rheocrene/anthropogenic spring now emerging from a mine adit with extensive travertine deposits in the adjacent drainage. The water is piped to stock tanks. The first stock tank is at 31.808722, -110.759976. The site has 4 microhabitats, including A -- a 0 sqm pool, B -- a 0 sqm pool, C -- a 0 sqm wet hillslope, D -- a 0 sqm other.

Deering Spring emerges as a fracture spring from a sedimentary rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial, with a gravity flow force mechanism. The distance to the nearest spring is 263 meters.

Survey Notes: Survey was not finished due to a storm.

56

Table 1 Deering Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 6.72




Table 2 Deering Spring Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method Count

Hemiptera Corixidae Ad A Spot 10

Hemiptera Nepidae Ad A Spot 1

Odonata L A Spot 1

Odonata Libellulidae Libellula

saturata Ad T Spot 1

Table 3 Deering Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

lesser goldfinch 2 call

cordilleran flycatcher 1 call

Fig 2 Deering Spring: leak from tank creating spring habitat

57

Fig 3 Deering Spring: fall in stream, covered in travertine deposits

58

Devil's Bathtub Spring Survey 1


Location: The Devil's Bathtub Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the National Park Service. The spring is located in the Saguaro NP at 32.19642, -110.54536 in the Mica Mountain USGS Quad (NAD 83). The elevation is approximately 2328 meters. DMB, ECW, DCB, SMB surveyed the site on 9/14/14 for 01:45 hours, beginning at 14:30, and collected data in 2 of 12 categories.

Physical Description: Devil's Bathtub Spring is a rheocrene spring. Devil’s Bathtub is a small spring. There are two distinct orifices. The spring consists of two minor channels feeding madiculous flow that runs down to a 2.5m diameter pool in the bedrock. The bulk of the spring consists of water flowing across the bedrock. The spring emerges from colluvium in the middle of a run-off channel that trends to the northeast.

Devil's Bathtub Spring emerges as a seepage or filtration spring from a igneous rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaqueous-lotic freshwater, with a gravity flow force mechanism. The distance to the nearest spring is 1747 meters.

Survey Notes: Site overstory has been reshaped by tree fall in the center above the orifice. The stream above the orifice is now running and the plunge pool below the orifice has been scoured of nearly all vegetation, which previously was all aquatic veg. Only a few small remnants of Jeneus saximontonus remain. The debris pile above the "orifice" is very large and water moves beneath it.

Table 1 Devil's Bathtub Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 6


Temperature, sample 14.8

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 2 categories and 9 subcategories, with 33 null condition scores, and 42 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Geomorphology condition is poor with limited restoration potential and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Habitat condition is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Biotic integrity is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Human influence of site is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is undetermined risk due to null scores.

59

Table 2 Devil's Bathtub Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk


Geomorphology 2 0

Habitat 0 0

Biota 0 0



Overall Ecological Score 5.3 0

60



Location: The Devil's Bathtub Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the National Park Service. The spring is located in the Saguaro NP at 32.19642, -110.54536 in the Mica Mountain USGS Quad (NAD 83). The elevation is approximately 2328 meters. The surveyors surveyed the site on 9/09/12 for 00:50 hours, beginning at 15:55, and collected data in 2 of 12 categories.

Physical Description: Devil's Bathtub Spring is a rheocrene spring. Devil’s Bathtub is a small spring. There are two distinct orifices. The spring consists of two minor channels feeding madiculous flow that runs down to a 2.5m diameter pool in the bedrock. The bulk of the spring consists of water flowing across the bedrock. The spring emerges from colluvium in the middle of a run-off channel that trends to the northeast. The site has 6 microhabitats, including A -- a 0 sqm pool, B -- a 0 sqm sloping bedrock, C -- a 0 sqm madicolous flow, D -- a 0 sqm channel, E -- a 0 sqm other, F -- a 0 sqm colluvial slope. The geomorphic diversity is 0.00, based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity index.



Table 1 Devil's Bathtub Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 33 10

Shrub 6 0

Mid‐canopy 1 0

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

61

Table 2 Devil's Bathtub Spring Vegetation % Cover in Microhabitats.


Status A B C D E F

Agrostis GC I W 0 0 0 0 0 0

Agrostis stolonifera GC I W 1 0 0 1 0 0

Allium geyeri GC N 0 0 0 1 0 0

Bromus ciliatus GC N F 0 0 0 5 0 1

Castilleja austromontana N 0 0 0 1 0 1

Drymaria leptophylla N 0 0 0 0 0 0

Elymus GC F 0 0 0 1 0 1

Elymus canadensis GC N F 0 0 0 5 0 0

Erigeron oreophilus N 0 0 0 1 0 1

Frangula californica SC N U 0 0 0 0 0 5

Gamochaeta purpurea GC N 0 0 0 1 0 1

Gentianella microcalyx N 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hypericum scouleri GC N WR 0 0 0 1 0 1

Juniperus deppeana MC N U 0 0 0 5 5 0

Koeleria macrantha GC N F 0 0 0 1 0 1

Laennecia sophiifolia N 0 0 0 0 0 1

Lipocarpha micrantha GC N 0 0 0 1 0 1

Lobelia anatina GC N WR 0 0 0 1 0 0

Muhlenbergia GC N U 0 0 0 0 0 1

Muhlenbergia emersleyi GC N 0 0 0 1 1 0

Muhlenbergia minutissima GC N U 0 0 0 1 0 0

Muhlenbergia montana GC N U 0 0 0 1 5 5

Muhlenbergia pauciflora N 0 1 0 1 0 1

Oxalis alpina N 0 0 0 1 0 1

Packera quercetorum N 0 0 0 1 0 0

Penstemon linarioides SC N U 0 0 0 1 0 1

Perityle coronopifolia N 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pinus arizonica N 0 0 0 5 35 0

Pinus ponderosa SC N F 0 1 0 1 1 0

Piptochaetium fimbriatum GC N 0 0 0 1 1 0

Pseudognaphalium canescens N 0 0 0 2 0 0

Pseudognaphalium stramineum GC N 0 0 0 0 0 1

Salvia reflexa N 0 0 0 5 0 0

Sisyrinchium GC WR 0 0 0 1 0 0

Stevia serrata N 0 0 0 0 0 5

Trifolium GC I WR 0 0 0 0 0 0

62



Location: The Devil's Bathtub Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the National Park Service. The spring is located in the Saguaro NP at 32.19642, -110.54536 in the Mica Mountain USGS Quad (NAD 83). The elevation is approximately 2328 meters. Nicole Sullivan, Liz Guinessey, Kara Raymond, Shannon McCloskey surveyed the site on 10/01/11 for 03:15 hours, beginning at 8:45, and collected data in 4 of 12 categories.

Physical Description: Devil's Bathtub Spring is a rheocrene spring. Devil’s Bathtub is a small spring. There are two distinct orifices. The spring consists of two minor channels feeding madiculous flow that runs down to a 2.5m diameter pool in the bedrock. The bulk of the spring consists of water flowing across the bedrock. The spring emerges from colluvium in the middle of a run-off channel that trends to the northeast. The site has 6 microhabitats, including A -- a 0 sqm pool, B -- a 0 sqm sloping bedrock, C -- a 0 sqm madicolous flow, D -- a 0 sqm channel, E -- a 0 sqm other, F -- a 0 sqm colluvial slope. The geomorphic diversity is 0.00, based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity index.


Table 1 Devil's Bathtub Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value Comments

Alkalinity, Total (mg/L) 97.5 orifice 1

Calcium (Ca) (mg/L) 25 O1

Chloride (CL‐) (mg/L) 9.1 02

Iron (Fe) (mg/L) 0.01 O1

Magnesium (Mg) (mg/L) 14 O1

Nitrogen, Nitrite (NO2) as NO2 (mg/L) 0.005 O1

pH (field) 6.725 Orifice 1

Phosphate (PO4) (mg/L) 0.07 O1

Phosphorus as P (mg/L) 0.02 O1

Specific conductance (field) (uS/cm) 50.5 O1

Sulfur, sulfate (SO4) as SO4 (mg/L) 12 O1

Fauna: Surveyors collected or observed 1 vertebrate specimens. Table 2 Devil's Bathtub Spring Vertebrates.

Species Common Name Count

canyon tree frog 2

63



Location: The Devil's Bathtub Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the National Park Service. The spring is located in the Saguaro NP at 32.19642, -110.54536 in the Mica Mountain USGS Quad (NAD 83). The elevation is approximately 2328 meters. Besty Vance, Laura Tennant surveyed the site on 6/12/10 for 02:45 hours, beginning at 8:45, and collected data in 4 of 12 categories.

Physical Description: Devil's Bathtub Spring is a rheocrene spring. Devil’s Bathtub is a small spring. There are two distinct orifices. The spring consists of two minor channels feeding madiculous flow that runs down to a 2.5m diameter pool in the bedrock. The bulk of the spring consists of water flowing across the bedrock. The spring emerges from colluvium in the middle of a run-off channel that trends to the northeast. The microhabitats associated with the spring cover 183 sqm. The site has 6 microhabitats, including A -- a 5 sqm pool, B -- a 108 sqm sloping bedrock, C -- a 17 sqm madicolous flow, D -- a 5 sqm channel, E -- a 49 sqm other. The geomorphic diversity is 0.00, based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity index.


Table 1 Devil's Bathtub Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value Comments

Dissolved oxygen (field) % saturation 81.1 average of five measurement

pH (field) 7.86 average of five measurements

Specific conductance (field) (uS/cm) 43.1 average of five values


Temperature, water C 11.1 average of five measurements


Table 2 Devil's Bathtub Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 21 8

Shrub 4 0

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 1 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

64

Table 3 Devil's Bathtub Spring Vegetation % Cover in Microhabitats.


Status A B C D E F

Aquilegia chrysantha GC N W 16 0 0 20 15 30

Berberis wilcoxii SC N 0 0 0 0 5 15

Bromus GC F 15 0 0 1 1 0

Carex 0 0 0 0 1 0

Carex geophila GC N W 0 0 0 0 5 1

Carex siccata GC N W 0 0 0 1 0 1

Elymus glaucus GC N WR 0 0 0 0 0 0

Frangula betulifolia SC N U 0 0 0 0 15 0

Galium aparine GC N WR 0 0 0 1 5 2

Geranium caespitosum GC N F 0 0 0 0 1 1

Heuchera GC N F 0 0 0 0 0 1

Hypericum scouleri ssp. scouleri N 0 0 0 0 1 1

Juncus interior GC N U 0 0 0 1 1 0

Juncus xiphioides GC N W 16 0 0 6 0 0

Luzula multiflora GC N 0 0 0 1 0 1

Lycurus 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mimulus floribundus GC N WR 0 0 0 0 0 0

Muhlenbergia rigens GC N U 0 0 0 1 5 0

Muhlenbergia straminea N 0 0 0 0 5 5

Packera neomexicana GC N U 0 0 0 0 0 0

Perityle 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pinus arizonica TC N 0 0 0 0 0 0

Poa fendleriana GC N F 0 0 0 1 5 2

Potentilla GC N F 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pseudocymopterus montanus GC N F 0 0 0 0 1 2

Quercus hypoleucoides N 0 0 0 1 1 1

Quercus rugosa N 0 0 0 0 0 5

Rubus neomexicanus SC N F 0 0 0 0 15 5

Rudbeckia laciniata GC N F 0 0 0 16 0 0

Senecio quercetorum 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sisyrinchium demissum GC N W 0 0 0 1 1 1

Solidago velutina GC N U 0 0 0 0 2 1

Symphoricarpos oreophilus SC N U 0 0 0 5 15 16

Tagetes lemmonii N 0 0 0 0 0 0

Thalictrum fendleri GC N F 0 0 0 1 1 1

Vicia WR 0 0 0 0 1 0

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 4 categories and 11 subcategories, with 31 null condition scores, and 42 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are very poor with very limited restoration potential and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Biotic integrity is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Human influence of site is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is undetermined risk due to null

65

scores. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is undetermined risk due to null scores.

Table 4 Devil's Bathtub Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk


Geomorphology 4 0

Habitat 4 0

Biota 0 0




66

Flicker Spring


Location: The Flicker Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Upper Santa Cruz Arizona 15050301 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Santa Catalina RD, Coronado NF at 32.44410, -110.77805 in the Mount Lemmon USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83, estimated position error 6 meters). The elevation is approximately 2624 meters. Christopher Morris, Eric Bodznick, Elena Martin, Sue Carahan, Curtis Smith, Mike Hughes, Robin West surveyed the site on 6/28/14 for 01:2 hours, beginning at 12:53, and collected data in 9 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 Flicker Spring.

67

Physical Description: Flicker Spring is a rheocrene/hillslope spring with flow coming out along a similar contour for about 30m, from three points. The site is in a north-facing, steep (~45 degrees), and steep-sided forest drainage with 100' tall conifers. The site has 1 microhabitat, A -- a 90 sqm wet hillslope.


Survey Notes: The spring is in an unburned area, in the middle of a patch of ferns and grass. It is apparently in fully functioning condition and has not been developed by humans.

Table 1 Flicker Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 7.01




Table 2 Flicker Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 14 5

Shrub 2 0

Mid‐canopy 1 0

Tall canopy 4 1

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

68

Table 3 Flicker Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Abies concolor TC N U

Acer glabrum TC N F

Acer grandidentatum TC N F

Acer negundo TC N R

Actaea rubra GC N F

Agrostis exarata GC N W


Corallorhiza maculata GC N U

Cystopteris reevesiana GC N U


Dryopteris

Geranium GC N F

Glyceria elata N W


Maianthemum racemosum GC N U

Mimulus cardinalis GC N W


Piptochaetium



Ribes pinetorum N


Sambucus GC F



Woodsia


Table 4 Flicker Spring Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method Species detail

arachnid Ad T Spot "wood spider"

Coleoptera Dytiscidae A Spot

Trombidiformes Erythraeidae

Balaustium

69

Table 5 Flicker Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Detection

western tanager

house wren

spotted towhee

cordilleran flycatcher

hairy woodpecker

dark‐eyed junco

wild turkey sign

deer sign

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 33 subcategories, with 9 null condition scores, and 9 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Human influence of site is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 6 Flicker Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 4.2 2.6

Biota 5.3 1.8




70

Fig 2 Flicker Spring Sketchmap.


71


72

Florida Spring


Location: The Florida Spring ecosystem is located in Santa Cruz County in the Upper Santa Cruz Arizona 15050301 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Sierra Vista RD, Coronado NF at 31.72990, -110.83816 in the Mount Wrightson USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83, estimated position error 7 meters). The elevation is approximately 2125 meters. Christopher Morris, Rick Mick, Allie Leach, Sidney Coon, Barbara Coon surveyed the site on 11/15/14 for 02:00 hours, beginning at 12:50, and collected data in 8 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 Florida Spring.

Physical Description: Florida Spring is a rheocrene spring. Florida Spring is a wet pocket captured by a spring box and piped all the way down the canyon. On its shaded northern aspect, the morning sun does not hit it at all in the dead of winter. The site has 1 microhabitat, A -- a 23 sqm channel.

Florida Spring emerges from a igneous, rhyolite rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial, with a gravity flow force mechanism. The distance to the nearest spring is 1166 meters.

Survey Notes: There was not much blooming. No grazing or adverse road or recreation effects were observed. We have emailed a scientist at the Santa Rita Experimental Range research station to see where this spring water goes and if some could be returned to the streambed.

73

Table 1 Florida Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 7.03





Table 2 Florida Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 1 0

Shrub 0 0

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 4 1

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 1 0

Table 3 Florida Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status




Poaceae GC


unknown Bryophyte (moss, liverwort, hornwort) NV

Fauna: Fauna records are combined for both the spring polygon (A) and the uplands. Surveyors collected or observed 2 terrestrial invertebrates and 14 vertebrate specimens.

Table 4 Florida Spring Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method Count Species detail

Hymenoptera Formicidae Ad T Spot 1

Lepidoptera Geometridae L T Spot 1 "brown inchworm"

74

Table 5 Florida Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

red‐tailed hawk 2 obs

grey‐breasted jay 1 obs

common raven 5 obs

Montezuma Quail 10 obs


band‐tailed pigeon 20 obs

cooper's hawk 1 obs

wild turkey 1 sign

American black bear 1 sign

Gray fox 1 sign

Arizona gray squirrel 1 obs

striped skunk 1 obs

Western Diamond‐backed Rattlesnake 1 obs

greater short‐horned lizard 1 obs

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 30 subcategories, with 12 null condition scores, and 12 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 6 Florida Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk


Geomorphology 3.4 3

Habitat 4 2.8

Biota 5 2




75

Fig 2 Florida Spring Sketchmap.

76

Gibbon Springs


Location: The Gibbon Springs ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the private US owner. The spring is located at 32.30420, -110.77338 in the Sabino Canyon USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (WGS84, estimated position error 0.8 meters). The elevation is approximately 859 meters. Samantha Hammer, Mirna Manteca surveyed the site on 9/11/15 for 00:30 hours, beginning at 12:30, and collected data in 7 of 12 categories.

Physical Description: Gibbon Springs is a helocrene/hypocrene spring. Probably a helocrene spring at one point, this site is dry currently. It has been developed, with a dam forming a stock tank ~100m below it. This spring and several others in the immediate area appear to emerge at a detachment fault at the base of the Catalinas. The site has 3 microhabitats.


Survey Notes: The site was dry. Near what was probably the source, there was lots of leaf litter with some soil moisture. There was a bare flat area that may have been an old pond or wet meadow - the soil was somewhat spongy or peaty. There was old, fallen-down fencing that looked like it was an exclosure. The stock tank area had lots of invasive grasses and forbs. There were palm trees and other riparian-associated trees, but most were dead or dying. Note: The topo map shows this as a complex of springs. Since the database only had a single point, we did not search the site extensively. In general, there was no standing water in the area, but it would be beneficial to explore the site more thoroughly - perhaps in the springtime.


Table 1 Gibbon Springs Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 3 0

Shrub 3 2

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

77

Table 2 Gibbon Springs Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Arecaceae

Baccharis sarothroides SC N R

Pennisetum GC I

Poaceae GC

Prosopis velutina SC N F

Salix SC N WR

unknown Fungus, fleshy (mushroom) GC


Table 3 Gibbon Springs Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method

Lepidoptera Libytheidae Libytheana carineta Ad T Spot

Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Junonia Ad T Spot

Lepidoptera Papilionidae Papilio cresphontes Ad T Spot

Lepidoptera Pieridae Zerene cesonia Ad T Spot

Table 4 Gibbon Springs Vertebrates. Species Common Name Detection

hummingbirds

cactus wren

deer sign

desert spiny lizard obs

Garter snake obs

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 4 categories and 30 subcategories, with 12 null condition scores, and 12 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are undetermined due to null scores and there is extreme risk. Geomorphology condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Habitat condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is high risk. Biotic integrity is poor with limited restoration potential and there is very high risk. Human influence of site is moderate with some restoration potential and there is high risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is poor with limited restoration potential and there is high risk.

Table 5 Gibbon Springs Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 3.5 4.8

Biota 2.5 5.5

Human Influence 3 4



78

Management Recommendations: The human influence scores really depend on whether the residential development and the golf course caused the spring to dry up, or if it was due to climate alterations and natural processes in the detachment fault that the spring emerges from. These scores assume it had more to do with the human causes.

Fig 1 Gibbon Springs Sketchmap: The topo map shows other springs in the immediate vicinity which we didn’t check for.

79

Huntsman Spring


Location: The Huntsman Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Santa Catalina RD, Coronado NF at 32.42727, -110.75896 in the Mount Lemmon USGS Quad (WGS84). The elevation is approximately 2462 meters. Sami Hammer, Glenn Furnier, Emily Patterson, Aida Castillo-Flores, Sierrane Gatela, Katy Brown, Kristi Argenbright surveyed the site on 6/13/15 for 00:45 hours, beginning at 8:15, and collected data in 0 of 12 categories.

Physical Description: Huntsman Spring is a rheocrene spring. This spring is not obvious as such, but it is apparently a rheocrene spring that maintains a perennial stretch of Marshall Gulch, even in very dry years. There is a stream gage not far below it.

Huntsman Spring emerges from a igneous, granite rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial. The distance to the nearest spring is 568 meters.

Survey Notes: The surveyors searched around the original coordinates for ~45 minutes. There was no spring on the hillside within 100m or so of the original coordinates. The spring must be in the creek (as shown on topos), which is perennial here, as remembered by some members of the survey team. There are use trails and lots of foot traffic, but otherwise the area is in good shape.

80

Iron Spring


Location: The Iron Spring ecosystem is located in Santa Cruz County in the Upper Santa Cruz Arizona 15050301 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Sierra Vista RD, Coronado NF at 31.67325, -110.90446 in the Mount Hopkins USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83, estimated position error 7 meters). The elevation is approximately 1762 meters. Christopher Morris, R. Gillespie, Sara Murphy, John Murphy, Karen Lowery, Bill Knight, and Melis Arik surveyed the site on 2/07/15 for 01:45 hours, beginning at 14:15, and collected data in 9 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 Iron Spring.

Physical Description: Iron Spring is a rheocrene spring. The spring site is perched 30m above a road crossing and is surrounded by deer grass, bush muhly, mosses, and seep willow. The site has 1 microhabitat, A -- a 150 sqm channel.

Iron Spring emerges from a metamorphic rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial, with a gravity flow force mechanism. The distance to the nearest spring is 987 meters.

Survey Notes: This site is apparently pristine; there is no evidence of cattle presence around the spring. Despite its proximity to the road, this spring does not show any adverse effects.

81

Table 1 Iron Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 7.46




Flora: Plant list includes both species in the spring-influenced area, and the adjacent uplands. Surveyors identified 20 plant species at the site, with 0.1333 species/sqm. These included 19 native and 1 nonnative species.

Table 2 Iron Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 8 0

Shrub 8 3

Mid‐canopy 2 1

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 3 Iron Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Artemisia ludoviciana GC N F

Baccharis salicifolia SC N R


Cercocarpus montanus SC N U

Dasylirion wheeleri N

Eriogonum wrightii N

Erythrina flabelliformis SC N

Galium GC I F

Juniperus deppeana MC N U

Mammillaria GC N

Muhlenbergia emersleyi GC N


Nolina microcarpa SC N U

Pinus GC N U


Quercus SC N U

Rhus trilobata SC N F


Selaginella GC N?

Yucca madrensis GC N


82

Table 4 Iron Spring Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method Species detail

Diptera Culicidae L A Spot

Mollusca Ad A Spot Physid? (8‐10mm)

Odonata Ad T Spot small, blue

Table 5 Iron Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

yellow‐rumped warbler 1 obs

red‐tailed hawk 1 obs

common bushtit 1 obs

acorn woodpecker 1 obs

Bewick's wren 1 obs


rufous‐crowned sparrow 1 call

red‐naped sapsucker 1 obs

Hutton's Vireo 1 call

Bridled Titmouse 1 call

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 30 subcategories, with 12 null condition scores, and 12 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 6 Iron Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 4.4 1.6

Biota 5.1 2.1




83

Fig 2 Iron Spring Sketchmap.

84

Italian Spring Survey 1


Location: The Italian Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the National Park Service. The spring is located in the Saguaro NP at 32.22908, -110.53590 in the Mica Mountain USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83). The elevation is approximately 2298 meters. DCB, DMB, ECW surveyed the site on 9/13/14 for 02:5 hours, beginning at 13:45, and collected data in 2 of 12 categories.

Physical Description: Italian Spring is a rheocrene spring. Italian spring is a small spring on the north slope. The orifice is difficult to distinguish, with an excavated pool accumulating water from another 3m of very mucky, thickly vegetated seep. There was difficulty pinpointing the precise orifice in the midst of this nine square meter area. The spring has a very low discharge that then descends down a thickly vegetated slope which narrows from 7-10m wide to less than a meter. The lower end of the channel is more deeply incised and covered deeply in litter, although still wetted. The channel off of the spring appears to not be influenced by the spring, but rather by the runoff coming down the slope. The vegetation outside of the narrow wetted band is generally Pteridium aquilinium with significant pine needle and duff accumulation. There are some shrubs in the lower end, but the overstory is diverse. Overall, the spring is situated on an open hillslope with a large rock outcrop to the west. There is evidence of significant burns in either directions, with while slopes destroyed by fire. There is also significant dead and down with evidence of numerous recent windfalls. The site has 2 microhabitats, including A -- a 0 sqm pool, B -- a 0 sqm channel. The geomorphic diversity is 0.00, based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity index.

Italian Spring emerges as a seepage or filtration spring from a igneous rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaqueous-lotic freshwater, with a gravity flow force mechanism. The distance to the nearest spring is 920 meters.

Survey Notes: No observed discharge. Wetted extent downslope is less than observed in 2010. It is at the junction of Italian Spring and North Slope trails. Human social trails and game trails are evident for spring access. Burned tree bases and logs in area. Spring relatively dry compared to evidence of past extent.

Table 1 Italian Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 6.3



Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 1 category and 8 subcategories, with 34 null condition scores, and 42 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Geomorphology condition is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Habitat condition is undetermined due to null scores and there is

85

undetermined risk due to null scores. Biotic integrity is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is undetermined risk due to null scores.

Table 2 Italian Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk


Geomorphology 0 0

Habitat 0 0

Biota 0 0




86



Location: The Italian Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the National Park Service. The spring is located in the Saguaro NP at 32.22908, -110.53590 in the Mica Mountain USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83). The elevation is approximately 2298 meters. The surveyors surveyed the site on 9/09/12 for 00:45 hours, beginning at 11:10, and collected data in 2 of 12 categories.

Physical Description: Italian Spring is a rheocrene spring. Italian spring is a small spring on the north slope. The orifice is difficult to distinguish, with an excavated pool accumulating water from another 3m of very mucky, thickly vegetated seep. There was difficulty pinpointing the precise orifice in the midst of this nine square meter area. The spring has a very low discharge that then descends down a thickly vegetated slope which narrows from 7-10m wide to less than a meter. The lower end of the channel is more deeply incised and covered deeply in litter, although still wetted. The channel off of the spring appears to not be influenced by the spring, but rather by the runoff coming down the slope. The vegetation outside of the narrow wetted band is generally Pteridium aquilinium with significant pine needle and duff accumulation. There are some shrubs in the lower end, but the overstory is diverse. Overall, the spring is situated on an open hillslope with a large rock outcrop to the west. There is evidence of significant burns in either directions, with while slopes destroyed by fire. There is also significant dead and down with evidence of numerous recent windfalls. The site has 5 microhabitats, including A -- a 0 sqm pool, B -- a 0 sqm channel, C -- a 0 sqm madicolous flow, D -- a 0 sqm high gradient cienega, E -- a 0 sqm other. The geomorphic diversity is 0.00, based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity index.


Survey Notes: No notes taken for 2012


Table 1 Italian Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 22 9

Shrub 2 0

Mid‐canopy 1 0

Tall canopy 2 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

87

Table 2 Italian Spring Vegetation % Cover in Microhabitats.


Status A B C D E

Agrostis stolonifera GC I W 1 1 1 5 0

Bromus anatolicus 0 0 0 0 0

Carex 0 0 1 1 0

Carex geophila GC N W 0 0 0 0 1

Castilleja austromontana N 0 0 0 0 1

Cirsium undulatum GC N F 0 0 0 0 0

Gamochaeta purpurea GC N 0 0 0 0 0

Geranium richardsonii GC N F 0 0 0 1 5

Hypericum scouleri GC N WR 0 0 0 1 20

Koeleria macrantha GC N F 0 0 0 0 1

Oxalis alpina N 0 1 0 0 0

Penstemon barbatus GC N U 0 0 0 0 1

Pinus ponderosa SC N F 0 0 0 1 20

Pseudognaphalium stramineum GC N 0 0 0 1 1

Symphoricarpos oreophilus SC N U 0 0 0 1 5

Trifolium GC I WR 0 1 0 5 1

Vicia pulchella GC N F 0 0 0 1 1

88



Location: The Italian Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the National Park Service. The spring is located in the Saguaro NP at 32.22908, -110.53590 in the Mica Mountain USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83). The elevation is approximately 2298 meters. Nicole Sullivan, Liz Guinessey, Shannon McCloskey surveyed the site on 10/04/11 for 01:18 hours, beginning at 8:30, and collected data in 3 of 12 categories.

Physical Description: Italian Spring is a rheocrene spring. Italian spring is a small spring on the north slope. The orifice is difficult to distinguish, with an excavated pool accumulating water from another 3m of very mucky, thickly vegetated seep. There was difficulty pinpointing the precise orifice in the midst of this nine square meter area. The spring has a very low discharge that then descends down a thickly vegetated slope which narrows from 7-10m wide to less than a meter. The lower end of the channel is more deeply incised and covered deeply in litter, although still wetted. The channel off of the spring appears to not be influenced by the spring, but rather by the runoff coming down the slope. The vegetation outside of the narrow wetted band is generally Pteridium aquilinium with significant pine needle and duff accumulation. There are some shrubs in the lower end, but the overstory is diverse. Overall, the spring is situated on an open hillslope with a large rock outcrop to the west. There is evidence of significant burns in either directions, with while slopes destroyed by fire. There is also significant dead and down with evidence of numerous recent windfalls. The site has 5 microhabitats, including A -- a 0 sqm pool, B -- a 0 sqm channel, C -- a 0 sqm madicolous flow, D -- a 0 sqm high gradient cienega, E -- a 0 sqm other.


Survey Notes: This is a perennial spring that is heavily used by hikers, stock and wildlife. A hiking trail follows just next to the spring and several game trails lead to the spring so it is highly impacted. The spring pool has been excavated and there was a fire prior to the 2010 survey.

Table 1 Italian Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value Comments

Missing parameter 36.3 EC value (uS/cm)


Temperature, water C 10.8 average of 3 measurements

Flora: No polygon data entered in survey notes. Assigned all vegetation to "E" OTHER category. Surveyors identified 7 plant species at the site. These included 6 native and 0 nonnative species; the native status of 1 species remains unknown.

89


Ground 3 1

Shrub 0 0

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 1 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0



Status A B C D E

Eustachys 0 0 0 0 50

Pinus palustris N 0 0 0 0 5

Senecio bigelovii GC N F 0 0 0 20 11

Simmondsia chinensis N 0 0 0 0 50

90



Location: The Italian Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the National Park Service. The spring is located in the Saguaro NP at 32.22908, -110.53590 in the Mica Mountain USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83). The elevation is approximately 2298 meters. Steve Buckley, Laura Tennant, Becky Vance surveyed the site on 6/10/10 for 03:20 hours, beginning at 10:45, and collected data in 5 of 12 categories.

Physical Description: Italian Spring is a rheocrene spring. Italian spring is a small spring on the north slope. The orifice is difficult to distinguish, with an excavated pool accumulating water from another 3m of very mucky, thickly vegetated seep. There was difficulty pinpointing the precise orifice in the midst of this nine square meter area. The spring has a very low discharge that then descends down a thickly vegetated slope which narrows from 7-10m wide to less than a meter. The lower end of the channel is more deeply incised and covered deeply in litter, although still wetted. The channel off of the spring appears to not be influenced by the spring, but rather by the runoff coming down the slope. The vegetation outside of the narrow wetted band is generally Pteridium aquilinium with significant pine needle and duff accumulation. There are some shrubs in the lower end, but the overstory is diverse. Overall, the spring is situated on an open hillslope with a large rock outcrop to the west. There is evidence of significant burns in either directions, with while slopes destroyed by fire. There is also significant dead and down with evidence of numerous recent windfalls. The microhabitats associated with the spring cover 39.11 sqm. The site has 5 microhabitats, including A -- a 2 sqm pool, B -- a 13 sqm channel, C -- a 7 sqm madicolous flow, D -- a 13 sqm high gradient cienega, E -- a 5 sqm other. The geomorphic diversity is 0.62, based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity index.


Survey Notes: This site is considered moderately disturbed due to the close proximity to the trail, which creates disturbance around the spring from both wildlife and human activity. The spring is surrounded on the west, south and southeast sides by a trail. The pool shows signs of excavation by hikers and backpackers as a water source.

Table 1 Italian Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value Comments

pH (field) 6.84 averaged from 4 measurements


91


Ground 15 6

Shrub 1 0

Mid‐canopy 1 0

Tall canopy 2 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0



Status A B C D E

Bromus GC F 0 0 0 1 1

Carex siccata GC N W 1 0 5 5 0

Cirsium GC F 0 0 0 0 0

Elymus GC F 0 0 0 0 0

Galium aparine GC N WR 0 1 1 10 10

Geranium GC N F 0 0 0 0 0

Glyceria striata GC N W 21 36 1 36 0

Hymenoxys hoopesii GC N F 0 1 1 6 1

Hypericum scouleri ssp. scouleri N 0 20 1 0 0

Juncus effusus GC N W 55 40 1 2 50

Juncus marginatus GC N F 0 1 0 0 0

Juncus xiphioides GC N W 0 6 1 1 0

Packera quercetorum N 0 0 0 0 1

Pinus arizonica N 0 25 5 0 15

Pinus strobiformis TC N 0 5 20 100 70

Pseudotsuga menziesii MC N U 20 6 0 5 40

Pteridium aquilinum GC N U 0 5 5 10 180

Quercus gambelii TC N F 0 0 0 0 1

Scrophularia parviflora N 0 0 0 5 0

Symphoricarpos palmeri SC N U 0 0 0 0 5

Thalictrum fendleri GC N F 0 0 0 1 2

Vicia americana GC N F 0 0 0 1 6

Viola nephrophylla GC N WR 5 35 15 6 1

92

Jackalo Mine Spring


Location: The Jackalo Mine Spring ecosystem is located in Santa Cruz County in the HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Sierra Vista RD, Coronado NF at 31.40355, -110.74742 in the USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83). The elevation is approximately 1659 meters. Louise Misztal, Randy Seraglio, Gooch Goodwin, Time Cook, Steve Buckley surveyed the site on 4/19/14 for 01:00 hours, beginning at 13:00, and collected data in 8 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 Jackalo Mine Spring.

Physical Description: Jackalo Mine Spring is a anthropogenic spring. There is an old mine shaft site that now has a constant water flow in a very steep rocky canyon that shows no signs of natural water presence. The mine shaft is dammed by dirt and rock with two pipes leading out of it. The microhabitats associated with the spring cover 185 sqm. The site has 4 microhabitats, including A -- a 3 sqm pool, B -- a 82 sqm other, C -- a 80 sqm adjacent uplands, D -- a 20 sqm channel. The geomorphic diversity is 0.45, based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity index.

Jackalo Mine Spring emerges from a igneous rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial.

Survey Notes: At the time of the visit, there were two water pipes leading from the spring.

93

Table 1 Jackalo Mine Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value Comments

pH (field) 7.48 in the exposed pool

Specific conductance (field) (uS/cm) 1916 in the exposed pool


Temperature, water C 16.95 in the exposed pool


Table 2 Jackalo Mine Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 18 1

Shrub 8 1

Mid‐canopy 3 1

Tall canopy 2 1

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 1 0

94

Table 3 Jackalo Mine Spring Vegetation % Cover in Microhabitats.


Status A B C D

Agave palmeri GC N 0 0 2 0

Artemisia ludoviciana GC N F 0 0 2 0

Astrolepis GC N 0 0 1 0

Bothriochloa barbinodis GC N F 0 1 0 0

Brickellia californica SC N F 0 0 10 0

Castilleja GC N U 0 0 1 0

Coreocarpus arizonicus GC N 0 0 2 1

Dasylirion wheeleri SC N 0 0 2 0

Datura wrightii GC N F 0 1 0 0

Garrya wrightii SC N F 0 0 2 0

Gymnosperma glutinosum SC N 0 0 1 0

Hedeoma dentata GC N 0 0 2 0

Hesperidanthus linearifolius GC N 0 0 1 1

Hymenothrix wislizeni GC N 0 1 0 0

Juniperus deppeana GC N U 0 1 0 0

Juniperus deppeana MC N U 0 1 0 0

Lotus greenei GC N 0 1 0 0

Mimosa biuncifera SC N 0 2 0 0

Muhlenbergia emersleyi GC N 0 0 8 3

Nolina microcarpa SC N U 0 0 2 0

Pellaea truncata GC N 0 0 1 0

Physalis crassifolia GC N F 0 0 1 0

Populus fremontii GC N R 0 1 0 0

Quercus arizonica MC N R 0 0 10 0

Quercus arizonica TC N R 0 0 10 0

Quercus emoryi MC N 0 0 10 0

Quercus emoryi NV N 0 0 0 2

Quercus emoryi TC N 0 0 10 0

Rhus aromatica var. trilobata SC N 0 0 2 0

Silene antirrhina GC N 0 1 0 0

Stachys coccinea GC N 0 0 1 0

Vitis arizonica SC N R 0 0 1 0


Table 4 Jackalo Mine Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

Mountain lion 1 sign

javelina 1

deer 1

Bewick's wren 1

Canyon Towhee 1

canyon wren 1

95

Management Recommendations: Confirm water rights and enforce them. We believe it is currently being used for watering cattle but has also been used for supplying water to exploratory mining.

Fig 2 Jackalo Mine Spring Sketchmap.

96

Kent Spring


Location: The Kent Spring ecosystem is located in Santa Cruz County in the Upper Santa Cruz Arizona 15050301 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Nogales RD, Coronado NF at 31.71247, -110.85619 in the Mount Wrightson USGS Quad (NAD 83). The elevation is approximately 2063 meters. Louise Misztal, Randy Seraglio, John Pachita, Barbara Coon, Sydney Coen, Chris Hefner surveyed the site on 11/16/14 for 01:30 hours, beginning at 13:50, and collected data in 6 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 Kent Spring.

Physical Description: Kent Spring is a hillslope spring. Kent Spring is to the southeast of Bog Springs and is also on the eastern slope of Madera Canyon. It is a hillslope spring emerging to the side of a main channel.

Kent Spring emerges from a igneous, rhyolite rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial. The distance to the nearest spring is 834 meters.

Table 1 Kent Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 7.5




97


Table .2 Kent Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 1 1

Shrub 1 0

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 3 Kent Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status


Carex

Dasylirion

Juncus

Quercus SC U

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 22 subcategories, with 20 null condition scores, and 20 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 4 Kent Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 4.5 2.5

Biota 4.7 2.7

Human Influence 5 1.6



Management Recommendations: This is a small spring in good condition on a steep slope in a narrow channel. It looks like it may have been developed/piped at some point in time but was free flowing at this visit due to an old tank below. It is located close to a popular hiking trail but does not appear to get much use from hikers. Near a much large channel that has been severely eroded by post-fire flooding.

98

Fig 2 Kent Spring Sketchmap.

99

Kinglet Spring


Location: The Kinglet Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Upper Santa Cruz Arizona 15050301 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Santa Catalina RD, Coronado NF at 32.44701, -110.77849 in the Mount Lemmon USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83, estimated position error 14 meters). The elevation is approximately 2535 meters. Christopher Morris, Eric Bodznick, Elena Martin, Sue Carahan, Curtis Smith, Mike Hughes, Robin West surveyed the site on 6/28/14 for 01:20 hours, beginning at 9:45, and collected data in 10 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 Kinglet Spring.

Physical Description: Kinglet Spring is a hillslope spring. It has a NNE trending spring run located on the edge of a ski run. The site has 1 microhabitat, A -- a 50 sqm wet hillslope.


Survey Notes: The site is in very good condition - it supports a sedge and fern-lined run. There was some human trash (plastic, paper). The solar pathfinder was left behind at the vehicle, but the spring is at the NE side of the root ball of a Douglas fir, so it only receives limited sunlight in the afternoon. Also, in the morning, the sunlight is blocked by tall conifers.

100

Table 1 Kinglet Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 7.8




Table 2 Kinglet Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 11 4

Shrub 3 0

Mid‐canopy 1 0

Tall canopy 4 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 3 Kinglet Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status


Acer grandidentatum TC N F

Agrostis GC I W

Carex


Fragaria vesca GC N U



Glyceria elata N W







Robinia F


Rubus neomexicanus SC N F

Rumex obtusifolius GC I F



unknown Lichen, fruticose

Vicia WR

Viola GC N F

101


Table 4 Kinglet Spring Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method Species detail

Acarina Spot mite

Chilopoda T Spot

Coleoptera Lycidae Lycus arizonensis T Spot

Diplopoda T Spot

Diptera Syrphidae Milesia bella T Spot

Hirudinea Ad A Spot many

Homoptera Cicadellidae T Spot

Hymenoptera Apidae T Spot

Isopoda Asellidae Asellus aquaticus A Spot many

Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Epargyreus clarus T Spot

Lepidoptera Lasiocampidae Malacosoma

incurvum T Spot

Lepidoptera Papilionidae Papilio multicaudata T Spot

Lepidoptera Psychidae T Spot

Table 5 Kinglet Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

yellow‐eyed junco

turkey vulture

wild turkey sign

Steller's jay

Common raven

Warbling Vireo

house wren

hermit thrush


mountain chickadee

Arizona gray squirrel

violet‐green swallow

cordilleran flycatcher

western tanager 2

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 33 subcategories, with 9 null condition scores, and 9 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

102

Table 6 Kinglet Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 3.8 3

Biota 5 2




Fig 2 Kinglet Spring Sketchmap.

103

La Cebadilla Cienega


Location: The La Cebadilla Cienega ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the private US owner. The spring is located in the La Cebadilla Estate at 32 14' 40.305", -110 41' 18.468" in the Tanque Verde Peak USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83). The elevation is approximately 826 meters. Larry Stevens, and Sky Islands Workshop Participants surveyed the site on 4/22/12 for 01:15 hours, beginning at 10:30, and collected data in 8 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 La Cebadilla Cienega.

Physical Description: La Cebadilla Cienega is a helocrene spring. It is a large (several hectare) cienega that is surrounded by private homes and is well-protected by the home owner's association.Discharge from the cienega is piped to a one-acre pond at which Rich Bailowitz has detected 44 dragonfly species, the highest point diversity of Odonata in Arizona. The microhabitats associated with the spring cover 43695 sqm. The site has 2 microhabitats, including A -- a 10671 sqm pool, B -- a 33024 sqm low gradient cienega. The geomorphic diversity is 0.24, based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity index.

La Cebadilla Cienega emerges as a seepage or filtration spring from a sedimentary, unconsolidated rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial, with a gravity flow force mechanism. The distance to the nearest spring is 3716 meters.

104

Survey Notes: This is a large perched cienega on the north side of Tanque Verde Wash on the northeast side of Tucson. The groundwater source is apparently well-protected foothills terrain to the north.

Flora: Some of the species listed were from a 2001 report of the area found at this location http://www.pima.gov/cmo/sdcp/reports%5Cd8%5C023WET.PDF Surveyors identified 18 plant species at the site, with 0.0004 species/sqm. These included 15 native and 1 nonnative species; the native status of 2 species remains unknown.

Table 1 La Cebadilla Cienega Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 14 10

Shrub 3 2

Mid‐canopy 1 1

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 2 La Cebadilla Cienega Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Almutaster pauciflorus GC N

Anemopsis californica GC N W


Distichlis spicata GC N WR

Eleocharis parishii GC N W

Eleocharis rostellata GC N W

Eryngium sparganophyllum GC N

Eustoma exaltatum GC N

Isocoma tenuisecta GC N F

Muhlenbergia asperifolia GC N WR



Schoenoplectus americanus GC N A

Sisyrinchium GC WR

Sisyrinchium demissum GC N W

Sporobolus airoides GC N WR

Tamarix SC I WR

Typha GC A

Fauna: Rich Bailowitz reported 44 species of Odonata at Lago La Cebadilla. Need to obtain a bird species list for the site. Surveyors collected or observed 6 vertebrate specimens.

105

Table 3 La Cebadilla Cienega Vertebrates. Species Common Name Detection

javelina obs

bobcat obs

coyote obs

Mountain lion obs

bird obs

mosquito fish obs

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 6 categories and 39 subcategories, with 3 null condition scores, and 3 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Administrative context status is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 4 La Cebadilla Cienega Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 4.8 2

Biota 5 2.33


Administrative Context 4.67 1.88


Management Recommendations: Site is on private land and is well protected. Encroachment of phreatophytic native arborescent shrubs indicates potential risk to open wet meadow habitat. Control of shrub invasion can be accomplished with controlled burns or mechanical removal. Cienega water table is high but is diverted to support large, dragonfly rich pond. Maintaining both the cienega and the pond may require trade-offs during dry years as regional groundwater levels decline. There is evidence of historic terracing that may influence plant community structure. We recommend development of a detailed land survey, soil analysis, several monitoring wells, and more detailed inventory and vegetation mapping of this extraordinarily healthy cienega.

106

Fig 2 La Cebadilla Cienega Sketchmap.

107

Mercer Spring


Location: The Mercer Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Santa Catalina RD, Coronado NF at 32.33648, -110.70324 in the Agua Caliente Hill USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83, estimated position error 6 meters). The elevation is approximately 1371 meters. Bryon Lichtenhan, Sami Hammer, Michela Wilson, Glenn Furnier, Emily Patterson, Aida Castillo-Flores, Joe Black, Sierrane Gatela surveyed the site on 6/28/15 for 00:45 hours, beginning at 14:00, and collected data in 6 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 Mercer Spring.

108

Physical Description: Mercer Spring is a rheocrene spring. A mid-elevation, rheocrene spring in a sandy wash surrounded by riparian-associated trees that was used historically, as evidenced by two spring boxes. The microhabitats associated with the spring cover 69.7 sqm. The site has 3 microhabitats, including A -- a 10 sqm other, B -- a 30 sqm channel, C -- a 30 sqm terrace. The geomorphic diversity is 0.43, based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity index.

Mercer Spring emerges as a seepage or filtration spring from a metamorphic, gneiss rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial, with a gravity flow force mechanism. The distance to the nearest spring is 1707 meters.

Survey Notes: The site was dry, with two old concrete spring boxes. There were lots of riparian woody plants, and water stains on the rocks, suggesting the spring flows regularly, if not year-round. It would be interesting to check in spring or monsoon season.

Flora: Plant list is for all polygons combined. Surveyors identified 19 plant species at the site, with 0.2726 species/sqm. These included 18 native and 1 nonnative species.

Table 1 Mercer Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 8 1

Shrub 8 2

Mid‐canopy 3 1

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

109

Table 2 Mercer Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Artemisia SC N F

Avena fatua GC I


Cylindropuntia SC N

Dasylirion wheeleri GC N

Garrya wrightii SC N F

Gossypium thurberi SC N

Hyptis emoryi SC N

Juncus GC N? R

Mimosa biuncifera SC N

Mimulus GC N W


Nolina GC N F

Opuntia GC N U


Quercus emoryi MC N

Quercus oblongifolia MC N


Sphaeralcea fendleri GC N

Fauna: It was 95-100 degrees F at the time of the observations, and the middle of the afternoon. Surveyors collected or observed 8 terrestrial invertebrates and 8 vertebrate specimens.

Table 3 Mercer Spring Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method Count Species detail

Chilopoda Scolopendridae

Scolopendra polymorpha Ad T Spot 1

Hemiptera Cicadidae Ad T Spot 20

Hymenoptera Apidae Xylocopa Ad T Spot 1

Hymenoptera Vespidae Ad T Spot 2

Lepidoptera Hesperiidae

Staphylus ceos Ad T Spot 1

Lepidoptera Papilionidae Battus

philenor Ad T Spot 1

Odonata Ad T Spot 3 dragonflies

Orthoptera Ad T Spot 1 grasshopper

110

Table 4 Mercer Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

white‐tailed Deer 2 obs

blue‐gray gnatcatcher 2 obs

cassin's kingbird 1 obs

ash‐throated flycatcher 1 obs

mourning dove 1 sign

ornate tree lizard 1 obs

house finch 1 obs

broad‐billed Hummingbird 1 obs

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 4 categories and 30 subcategories, with 12 null condition scores, and 12 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are undetermined due to null scores and there is extreme risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Biotic integrity is good with significant restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk.

Table 5 Mercer Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 4 3

Biota 4 3




111

Fig 2 Mercer Spring Sketchmap.

112

Mine Shaft unnamed north


Location: The Mine Shaft unnamed north ecosystem is located in Santa Cruz County in the Upper Santa Cruz Arizona 15050301 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Sierra Vista RD, Coronado NF at 31.37264, -111.10388 in the Pajarito Peak USGS Quad. The elevation is approximately 1257 meters. Christopher Morris, Cory Jones, Gus Glaser, Judy Atwell, and Lorrie and Rick Firth surveyed the site on 10/05/14 for 01:12 hours, beginning at 13:02, and collected data in 8 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 Mine Shaft unnamed north: Looking upstream. Source of spring is at base of ash tree on the left side of channel.

Physical Description: Mine Shaft unnamed north is a rheocrene spring. This rheocrene spring emerges at the edge of a channel just below a young ash tree. Flow from the spring continues downstream intermittently for 1/2 mile. The site has 1 microhabitat, X -- a 100 sqm channel. The geomorphic diversity is 0.00, based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity index.


Survey Notes: A consistent flow of water was emerging from the side of the wash channel. The area had few signs of negative grazing impacts. The spring is flushed pretty regularly as it exists within a gravelly cobble bed.

113

Table 1 Mine Shaft unnamed north Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 7.1




Table 2 Mine Shaft unnamed north Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 3 0

Shrub 2 1

Mid‐canopy 2 1

Tall canopy 1 1

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 3 Mine Shaft unnamed north Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Abildgaardia

Agave


Celtis R



Leptochloa dubia GC N

Muhlenbergia GC N U



Quercus SC U

Rhus toxicodendron

Rhus virens N


Table 4 Mine Shaft unnamed north Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Species detail

Aranea Agelenidae Hololena hola T

Coleoptera Erotylidae T fungus beetle

Coleoptera Tenebrionidae Eleodes T

Homoptera Cicadellidae T

Lepidoptera Heliconiidae Agraulis

vanillae

Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Vanessa T

Lepidoptera Pieridae Zerene cesonia T

114

Table 5 Mine Shaft unnamed north Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

Red‐spotted Toad obs

Sonoran whipsnake 1 obs

White‐tailed Deer sign

Gray fox sign

coyote sign

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 26 subcategories, with 16 null condition scores, and 16 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Geomorphology condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Human influence of site is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk.

Table 6 Mine Shaft unnamed north Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 4.5 1.8

Biota 5.2 1.8




115

Fig 2 Mine Shaft unnamed north Sketchmap: Sketch map.

116

Observatory unnamed


Location: The Observatory unnamed ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Lower San Pedro Arizona 15050203 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Santa Catalina RD, Coronado NF at 32.41538, -110.72761 in the Mount Bigelow USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83, estimated position error 13 meters). The elevation is approximately 2529 meters. Sami Hammer, Glenn Furnier, Emily Patterson, Aida Castillo-Flores, Sierrane Gatela, Katy Brown, Kristi Argenbright surveyed the site on 6/14/15 for 01:00 hours, beginning at 8:15, and collected data in 8 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 Observatory unnamed.

Physical Description: Observatory unnamed is a rheocrene spring. A small concrete dam in a drainage captures the flow from this spring near a road and trail. The dam is full of sediment, and water flows from a pipe in the base of the dam. The microhabitats associated with the spring cover 25 sqm. The site has 2 microhabitats, including A -- a 10 sqm channel, B -- a 15 sqm channel. The geomorphic diversity is 0.29, based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity index.

Observatory unnamed emerges as a seepage or filtration spring from an igneous, granite rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial, with a gravity flow force mechanism. The distance to the nearest spring is 669 meters.

Survey Notes: The spring is in an unburned area of forest with some large trees. The pipe is broken just after it exits the dam. The dam is completely filled in with sediments, ferns, and

117

other vegetation. The bottom edge of the dam is exposed, and the sediment is eroding out from below the dam.

Table 1 Observatory unnamed Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 6.93




Flora: Plant list is for site as a whole. Surveyors identified 11 plant species at the site, with 0.44 species/sqm. These included 10 native and 1 nonnative species.

Table 2 Observatory unnamed Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 6 2

Shrub 1 0

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 3 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 1 0

Table 3 Observatory unnamed Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status



Galium GC I F

moss NV N F




Ribes SC N F

Rubus idaeus ssp. strigosus GC N R


Viola canadensis GC N F


Table 4 Observatory unnamed Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method Count

Diptera Ad T Spot 50

Diptera Culicidae Ad T Spot 50

Homoptera Aphididae Ad T Spot 50

118

Table 5 Observatory unnamed Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection




yellow‐eyed junco 1 call

red‐breasted nuthatch call

hermit thrush 1 call

cordilleran flycatcher 1 call

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 30 subcategories, with 12 null condition scores, and 12 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 6 Observatory unnamed Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk


Geomorphology 4 2.4

Habitat 4 2.2

Biota 4.7 2




Management Recommendations: The road above the site may pose some risk. The dam alters the natural physical disturbance regime, obliterated the natural emergence microhabitat, is completely silted in, and is being undermined from the bottom.

119

Fig 2 Observatory unnamed Sketchmap.

LocatioArizonaState AZapproxisite on 7

PhysicaAccordiwildlifeminor dprecipitspring. Ton a bea

The dist

Survey soil in aseason pof a spriaway on

on: The Ocoa 15050301 Z at 31.601mately 1167/31/15 for

al Descriptiing to this d

e. Surveyorsdrainage at ttation, the soThe Pima Caring of 58

tance to the

Notes: Sura minor draiprecipitationing. The Pimn a bearing

Surve

otillo SpringHUC, man37, -111.261 meters. S00:20 hour

Fig 1 O

ion: Data fodata source, s found no dthe coordinaource of the

Co GIS layedegrees, or

e nearest spr

rveyors founinage at the n, the sourcma Co GIS of 58 degre

Oc

ey Summa

g ecosystemnaged by the6852 in the Aami Hamms, beginning

Ocotillo Spri

or this site cthe site is u

developed sates, directlye water is uner may possi

one 1200m

ring is 6218

nd no develcoordinates

ce of the walayer may p

ees, or one 1120

cotillo Spr

ary Report

m is located e State. The Arivaca USer, Bryon Lg at 7:45, an

ing: drainag

came from tused at a ratpring, only y below an ncertain. Thibly refer to

m away on a

8 meters.

loped springs, directly b

ater is uncertpossibly ref1200m away

ing

t, Site ID 1

in Pima Cospring is lo

SGS Quad (NLichtenhan, nd collected

ge near coor

the Pima Cote of 4.0 acrsome very ocotillo. W

here was no o one of two

bearing of

g, only somebelow an octain. There fer to one ofy on a beari

19949

ounty in the ocated in theNAD83). TEmily Patte

d data in 1 o

rdinates

o GIS layer re-feet per ymoist, sligh

With recent mvegetation

o stock tank100 degree

e very moisotillo. Withwas no vegf two stock ing of 100 d

Upper Sante Unspecifi

The elevationerson surveyof 12 catego

for springsyear for stochtly muddy monsoon sea

indicative oks, one 750ms.

st, slightly mh recent mongetation inditanks, one 7

degrees.

ta Cruz ed n is yed the

ories.

. ck and soil in a ason of a m away

muddy nsoon icative 750m

121

Palisade RS Unnamed


Location: The Palisade RS Unnamed ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Santa Catalina RD, Coronado NF at 32.41129, -110.71440 in the Mount Bigelow USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83, estimated position error 5 meters). The elevation is approximately 2440 meters. Sami Hammer, Glenn Furnier, Emily Patterson, Aida Castillo-Flores, Sierrane Gatela, Katy Brown, Kristi Argenbright surveyed the site on 6/14/15 for 00:30 hours, beginning at 10:00, and collected data in 6 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 Palisade RS Unnamed.

Physical Description: Palisade RS Unnamed is a rheocrene spring. Data from this site came from the Pima Co. Springs GIS layer. It was marked as “;unnamed spring”; on that layer. According to their information it uses an average of 340,000 gallons per year for domestic purposes. It is possible that this location is wrong and it is actually referring to a spring that is about 640 meters to the south. When Sky Island Alliance looked for this spring, they found a small spring <100m to the west from the original coordinates, with no evidence of development for human use. The spring emerges in a bedrock section of a small drainage, very near but upstream of the Mount Lemmon Highway. There is a larger tank another 100m to the west in the next small drainage whose source may be the spring to which the Pima County layer referred. The microhabitats associated with the spring cover 11 sqm. The site has 2 microhabitats, including A -- a 6 sqm channel, B -- a 5 sqm channel. The geomorphic diversity is 0.30, based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity index.

122

Palisade RS Unnamed emerges as a fracture spring from a igneous, granite rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial, with a gravity flow force mechanism. The distance to the nearest spring is 644 meters. Survey Notes: This spring looked undisturbed.

Flora: Plant list is for the site as a whole. Surveyors identified 13 plant species at the site, with 1.1818 species/sqm. These included 11 native and 1 nonnative species; the native status of 1 species remains unknown.

Table 1 Palisade RS Unnamed Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 4 1

Shrub 2 1

Mid‐canopy 3 1

Tall canopy 3 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 1 0

Table 2 Palisade RS Unnamed Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Alnus oblongifolia MC N R


Galium GC I F

Geranium GC N F

Juncus GC

Mahonia fremontii SC N R

moss NV N F





Quercus hypoleucoides SC N

Quercus rugosa MC N


Table 3 Palisade RS Unnamed Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method

Annelida Oligochaetae Ad T Spot


Megalodacne heros Ad T Spot

123

Table 4 Palisade RS Unnamed Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection



chipmunk 1 obs


White‐breasted nuthatch 1 obs



deer 1 sign

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 30 subcategories, with 12 null condition scores, and 12 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 5 Palisade RS Unnamed Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk


Geomorphology 5.8 2

Habitat 4.4 2

Biota 5.3 2.3




124

Fig 2 Palisade RS Unnamed Sketchmap.

125

Papago Spring


Location: The Papago Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Santa Catalina RD, Coronado NF at 32.08179, -110.58400 in the Rincon Peak USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83, estimated position error 4 meters). The elevation is approximately 1190 meters. Bryon Lichtenhan, Sami Hammer, Bill Binkert, Ramon Rascom, Ruben Rascom surveyed the site on 11/17/15 for 01:30 hours, beginning at 14:30, and collected data in 7 of 12 categories.

Fig 1.1 Papago Spring: the tank/cistern

Physical Description: Papago Spring is a hillslope spring on the bank of an apparently perennial stream that has been boxed, with a windmill pumping it (erected June 1933). The windmill pumps water to a large rusted tank that leaks, and also provides water to a trough. The site has 4 microhabitats, including A -- a 7 sqm other, B -- a 36 sqm pool, C -- a 10 sqm pool, D -- a 45 sqm channel.

Papago Spring emerges from a combination rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial. The distance to the nearest spring is 3005 meters Survey Notes: The tank/cistern is rusted through about halfway up, causing water to cascade out of it in several places - much of the spring habitat is probably here currently. There is a functioning float in the trough, keeping it about half full. The windmill is functioning, with

126

the water level inside the box about 0.4m above the level of the water in the creek. The creek is running nicely. This is a very nice riparian area.

Table 1 Papago Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 7.16




Flora: This plant this is for the site as a whole, not just polygon A. This was a diverse site - many more species likely exist here! Surveyors identified 34 plant species at the site, with 0.3465 species/sqm. These included 19 native and 2 nonnative species; the native status of 13 species remains unknown.

Table 2 Papago Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 10 2

Shrub 7 2

Mid‐canopy 3 1

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

127

Table 3 Papago Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status


Agave

Ambrosia GC I? F

Anisacanthus


Bothriochloa barbinodis GC N F


Carex

Celtis pallida


Conyza GC F

Cucurbita digitata N

Cylindropuntia SC N

Cynodon

Eragrostis lehmanniana GC I U

Ericameria laricifolia SC N U


Ferocactus

Fraxinus R

Gossypium thurberi N

Juniperus SC N U


Lycium SC U

Mimulus GC N W


Nicotiana obtusifolia GC N U

Opuntia U


Prosopis

Quercus emoryi N


Vauquelinia californica MC N

Xanthium GC WR

Ziziphus


Table 4 Papago Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name

ladder‐backed woodpecker

black phoebe

lesser nighthawk

curve‐billed thrasher

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 30 subcategories, with 12 null condition scores, and 12 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are

128

excellent with no need for restoration and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is poor with limited restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 5 Papago Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk


Geomorphology 2.6 2

Habitat 3.2 2.2

Biota 4.8 2




Management Recommendations: The spring is a the end of a gnarly 4WD road, almost at the edge of the wilderness.

Fig 2 Papago Spring Sketchmap.

129

Pena Blanca Spring *


Location: The Pena Blanca Spring * ecosystem is located in Santa Cruz County in the Upper Santa Cruz Arizona 15050301 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Sierra Vista RD, Coronado NF at 31.38870, -111.09236 in the Pena Blanca Lake USGS Quad. The elevation is approximately 1209 meters. Christopher Morris, Cory Jones, Gus Glaser, Judy Atwell, and Lorrie and Rick Firth surveyed the site on 10/04/14 for 01:17 hours, beginning at 9:23, and collected data in 7 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 Pena Blanca Spring *: Pond site at Pena Blanca. Ruby Road to left. Corral right of photo.

130

Physical Description: Pena Blanca Spring * is a hillslope spring. The original hillside spring has been heavily altered. Water is now diverted a cattle trough at a well maintained corral and a separately fenced pond for exclusive wildlife use.


Survey Notes: Two Chiracahua leopard frogs were present at the full water trough. Water spilling over its walls was draining towards the pond. The pond was covered in algae and over 30 CLFs were observed. A vibrant field of rushes were growing in slowly draining water from the shallow banked northern edge of the pond.

Table 1 Pena Blanca Spring * Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 6.71




Table 2 Pena Blanca Spring * Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Species detail

Hemiptera T

Hymenoptera Formicidae T

Odonata Anisoptera

Orthoptera T grasshopper

Table 3 Pena Blanca Spring * Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

Chiricahua Leopard frog 30 obs

Gila woodpecker

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 32 subcategories, with 10 null condition scores, and 10 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk.

131

Table 4 Pena Blanca Spring * Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 4.6 1.2

Biota 5.4 1.6




Management Recommendations: A water sample was taken and will be analyzed by the University of Arizona. This site provides great habitat for Chiricahua leopard frogs and other wildlife species with the exclusion to cattle. It is recommended to continue monitoring the site.

132

Fig 2 Pena Blanca Spring * Sketchmap: Sketch map.

133

Fig 3 Pena Blanca Spring *: Diverted spring site. Looking downslope to trough, dry spring box, and corral.

134

Pidgeon Spring


Location: The Pidgeon Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Upper Santa Cruz Arizona 15050301 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Santa Catalina RD, Coronado NF at 32.44554, -110.77419 in the Mount Lemmon USGS Quad (NAD 83). The elevation is approximately 2508 meters. Christopher Morris, Eric Bodznick, Elena Martin, Sue Carahan surveyed the site on 6/28/14 for 00:00 hours, beginning at 12:00, and collected data in 0 of 12 categories.


Survey Notes: This spring was not located. It is unclear how intensively the spring was searched for (could potentially ask Sue Carahan).

135

Proctor Spring


Location: The Proctor Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Upper Santa Cruz Arizona 15050301 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Nogales RD, Coronado NF at 31.81126, -110.80211 in the Helvetia USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83, estimated position error 10 meters). The elevation is approximately 1363 meters. Cory Jones, Teresa de Koker, Julia Fonseca, Eric Bodznick, Karen Lowery, Jesse Silverman, Michael Stock, Ashlee Simpson surveyed the site on 12/20/14 for 01:35 hours, beginning at 10:20, and collected data in 6 of 12 categories.

Fig 30.1 Proctor Spring.

136

Physical Description: Proctor Spring is a rheocrene spring. This presumed rheocrene site just east of the intersection of the CNF boundary and an unnamed drainage bottom sits at a point where bedrock expresses itself. There is no aquatic vegetation in the area. The site has 1 microhabitat, A -- a 80 sqm channel.

Proctor Spring emerges from a igneous, granite rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial. The distance to the nearest spring is 1995 meters.

Survey Notes: The site was dry with no noticeable aquatic vegetation in the area. This spring was not counted as being found.


Table 1 Proctor Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 5 1

Shrub 3 0

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 2 Proctor Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Abutilon


Anisacanthus

Aristida GC U


Chenopodium GC F

Eragrostis GC I


Eriogonum wrightii N

Ferocactus wislizeni SC N

Ipomoea

Leptochloa


Tetramerium

Fauna: Surveyors collected or observed 3 terrestrial invertebrates specimens.

137

Table 3 Proctor Spring Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method Count Species detail

Diptera Ad T Spot 2 horsefly

Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Vanessa Ad T Spot 1

Lepidoptera Pieridae Pieris rapae Ad T Spot 3 2 white, 1 yellow

Fig 2 Proctor Spring Sketchmap.

138

Puerto Spring


Location: The Puerto Spring ecosystem is located in Santa Cruz County in the Upper Santa Cruz Arizona 15050301 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Nogales RD, Coronado NF at 31.62536, -111.12028 in the Amado USGS Quad, measured using a other (WGS84). The elevation is approximately 1112 meters. Sami Hammer, Bryon Lichtenhan, Emily Patterson surveyed the site on 7/31/15 for 00:45 hours, beginning at 12:30, and collected data in 4 of 12 categories.

Physical Description: Puerto Spring is a rheocrene spring in a major canyon with sycamores and multiple emergence points. The site has 1 microhabitat, A -- a 0 sqm pool. The geomorphic diversity is 0.00, based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity index.

Puerto Spring emerges as a seepage or filtration spring from a rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial, with a gravity flow force mechanism. The distance to the nearest spring is 1646 meters.

Survey Notes: There is an old spring box in the northern channel. There are at least 2 emergence points (the box and the southern channel). The exclosure appears to have been around for awhile. The road crosses the drainage just below the spring's emergence. This was an informal survey collected during lunch.

Flora: This includes just a couple species casually observed in the area. Surveyors identified 2 plant species at the site. These included 2 native and 0 nonnative species.

Table 1 Puerto Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 0 0

Shrub 1 1

Mid‐canopy 1 1

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 2 Puerto Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status




139

Table 3 Puerto Spring Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method


Celastrina echo Ad T Spot


Hemiargus isola Ad T Spot

Lepidoptera Lycaenidae Leptotes

marina Ad T Spot


Libytheana carinenta Ad T Spot

Lepidoptera Pieridae Eurema

mexicana Ad T Spot

Lepidoptera Pieridae Eurema

nicippe Ad T Spot


croceipennis Ad T Spot


saturata Ad T Spot

Table 4 Puerto Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

ladder‐backed woodpecker 1 obs

lesser goldfinch 1 obs

house finch 1 obs

hummingbirds 1 obs

Gila woodpecker 1 obs

javelina 10 sign

northern cardinal 1 obs

bell's vireo 1 obs

cassin's kingbird 1 obs

northern beardless‐tyrannulet 1 call

140

Rancho Fundoshi Spring


Location: The Rancho Fundoshi Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Upper Santa Cruz Arizona 15050301 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Santa Catalina RD, Coronado NF at 32.30879, -110.79856 in the Sabino Canyon USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83, estimated position error 9 meters). The elevation is approximately 833 meters. Christopher Morris, Carianne Campbell, Julia Fonseca, and Nick Deyo surveyed the site on 6/12/13 for 02:30 hours, beginning at 9:00, and collected data in 8 of 12 categories.

Fig 1 Rancho Fundoshi Spring: Looking up Bear Canyon at spring source.

Physical Description: Rancho Fundoshi Spring is a rheocrene spring. This rheocrene spring emerges in Bear Canyon, a major drainage of the Catalina Mountains. Riparian vegetation such as cottonwood, willow, and sycamores are present in the area, which is surrounded by typical Sonoran Desert upland vegetation. The source is difficult to identify. The site has 4 microhabitats, including A -- a 156 sqm channel.


Survey Notes: There are problems with invasive plants at this spring including; fountain grass, giant reed, oleander, and rabbitfoot grass. There is a population of rare buttonbush at the site that should be protected during any restoration activities. Water flow was very low at the time of survey.

141

Table 1 Rancho Fundoshi Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

Dissolved oxygen (field) (mg/L) 2.02

pH (field) 6.2




Table 2 Rancho Fundoshi Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 17 6

Shrub 6 3

Mid‐canopy 2 2

Tall canopy 2 2

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

142

Table 3 Rancho Fundoshi Spring Vegetation.


Status


Ambrosia ambrosioides N

Artemisia ludoviciana GC N F

Arundo donax I F


Brickellia floribunda N F

Bromus rubens GC I F

Carlowrightia arizonica N

Celtis pallida

Cephalanthus occidentalis N

Conyza canadensis GC N R

Coursetia glandulosa N

Cynodon dactylon GC I WR

Cyperaceae

Datura wrightii GC N F

Descurainia pinnata GC N F

Dodecatheon pulchellum GC N W

Enneapogon cenchroides I

Epilobium canum N



Eriogonum GC F



Haplophyton crooksii N

Juncaceae

Maurandya antirrhiniflora GC N R

Mimosa biuncifera


Muhlenbergia porteri GC N U


Nerium oleander I

Opuntia phaeacantha SC N U

Parkinsonia florida N

Pennisetum setaceum N

Penstemon pseudospectabilis N

Phacelia distans N


Polypogon monspeliensis GC I WR



Pseudognaphalium canescens N

Salix exigua SC N WR

Salix gooddingii TC N R

Sisymbrium irio GC I F

Stemodia durantifolia N

143

Tamarix SC I WR

Typha GC A


Table 4 Rancho Fundoshi Spring Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method Species detail

Hemiptera Corixidae Ad A Spot water boatman

Hymenoptera Vespidae Ad T paper wasp

Odonata Anisoptera Ad blue dragonfly


saturata Ad

Table 5 Rancho Fundoshi Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Detection

White‐winged dove obs

hummingbird

Northern Cardinal obs

Gambel's quail obs

Gila woodpecker obs

javelina sign

whiptail lizard obs

Ornate tree lizard obs

canyon tree frog obs

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 31 subcategories, with 11 null condition scores, and 11 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is excellent with no need for restoration and there is very high risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 6 Rancho Fundoshi Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk


Geomorphology 4 2

Habitat 3.8 2.6

Biota 5.9 5




144

Management Recommendations: There are problems with invasive plants at this site. Sky Island Alliance will work with volunteers to hand pull fountain grass, giant reed, and oleander saplings. A backhoe my be useful for removing large oleander plants. Removal of oleander may affect the stream hydrology at the site.

Fig 2 Rancho Fundoshi Spring Sketchmap: Page 1. See "Additional Images" for Page 2.

Fig 3 Ranccho Fundosh

145

hi Spring: PPage 2 of Skketch Map.

146

Ranger Station unnamed


Location: The Ranger Station unnamed ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Santa Catalina RD, Coronado NF at 32.40610, -110.71504 in the Mount Bigelow USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83, estimated position error 5 meters). The elevation is approximately 2389 meters. Sami Hammer, Glenn Furnier, Emily Patterson, Aida Castillo-Flores, Sierrane Gatela, Katy Brown, Kristi Argenbright surveyed the site on 6/14/15 for 01:00 hours, beginning at 11:30, and collected data in 7 of 12 categories.

Physical Description: Ranger Station unnamed is a hillslope spring. A high-elevation developed spring near a scout camp and sewage ponds with a nice spring run and multiple boxes. The spring originates in a small box, flows through a pipe for 12m, and then empties into a channel that flows farther downslope. Most of the spring's flow is probably now piped to a large tank. The microhabitats associated with the spring cover 270.25 sqm. The site has 3 microhabitats, including A -- a 0 sqm pool, B -- a 250 sqm wet hillslope, C -- a 20 sqm channel. The geomorphic diversity is 0.12, based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity index.

Ranger Station unnamed emerges as a seepage or filtration spring from a igneous rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial, with a gravity flow force mechanism. The distance to the nearest spring is 644 meters.

Survey Notes: The spring appears to be in good condition, but quite altered by humans. It is probably piped to the large green tank below, which may be the water source for the adjacent boy scout camp. The springbox clinging to the hillside is empty with wet soil. There are lots of alders! Most of the flow at the flow measurement point was captured, but it is possible that most of the flow is actually piped to the tank via other unseen pipes, which would indicate the reported flow rate only represents a small proportion of the spring's total output.

Table 1 Ranger Station unnamed Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 6.4





147

Table 2 Ranger Station unnamed Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 6 0

Shrub 2 0

Mid‐canopy 1 1

Tall canopy 2 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 3 Ranger Station unnamed Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Alnus oblongifolia MC N R

Galium GC I F

Geranium GC N F

Juncus GC



Poaceae fam GC

Pteridium GC U

Quercus hypoleucoides SC N

Symphoricarpos SC N U

Verbascum GC I F


Table 4 Ranger Station unnamed Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method


Megalodacne heros Ad T Spot

Table 5 Ranger Station unnamed Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

house wren 2 obs

deer 1 sign

lizard 1 obs


rodent 1 sign

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 29 subcategories, with 13 null condition scores, and 13 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is

148

undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 6 Ranger Station unnamed Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 3.5 2.5

Biota 3.8 3




Management Recommendations: There is a sewage pond relatively close to the site, but it is across the drainage, so probably does not influence the spring.

Fig 1 Ranger St

149

tation unnammed Sketchmmap.

LocatioCruz ArNogalesmeasureapproxisite on 7

on: The Redrizona 1505s RD, Coroned using a Gmately 1217/31/15 for

Surve

d Spring eco50301 HUCnado NF at GPS (WGS85 meters. S01:00 hour

R

ey Summa

osystem is l, managed b31.63604, -

84, estimateami Hamms, beginning

Fig

150

Red Spring

ary Report

located in Sby the US F-111.13647 ed position eer, Bryon Lg at 10:15, a

g 1 Red Spri

g

t, Site ID 1

anta Cruz CForest Servi

in the Saucerror 1.5 me

Lichtenhan, and collecte

ing.

12958

County in thice. The sprcito Mountaeters). The eEmily Patte

ed data in 7

he Upper Saing is locate

ain USGS Qelevation iserson surveyof 12 categ

anta ed in the

Quad, s yed the

gories.

151

Physical Description: Red Spring is a rheocrene spring. At this location there is a rocky stretch of wash with standing water; water marks on the rock suggest that water is persistent at the site. It is possible the water in the stream is not from a spring, but monsoon precipitation (though some plants indicate is may be spring-fed); there is an unusually dense patch of trees that is prominent on satellite imagery at the original imported coordinates between the road and the drainage. We did not find an obvious spring there, but perhaps the search was not intensive enough, or the spring is a hypocrene type (see images on 7/31/15 survey). The site has 4 microhabitats, including A -- a 8 sqm pool, B -- a 0 sqm channel, C -- a 27 sqm sloping bedrock.

Red Spring emerges as a seepage or filtration spring from a igneous, granite rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial, with a gravity flow force mechanism. The distance to the nearest spring is 1596 meters.

Survey Notes: There were some migrant trash and clothes nearby. The spring was not flowing, but there were several pools along the drainage. Since there was no flow, and the survey was conducted during monsoon season, it is possible this is not the actual spring location, but we could not find anything else in the vicinity. The spring is not developed. There is an old pad from an exploration well (1996) across the drainage and 200-300m downstream.

Table 1 Red Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 8.6




Flora: Plant list is for the site as a whole. Surveyors identified 18 plant species at the site, with 0.0679 species/sqm. These included 10 native and 8 nonnative species.

Table 2 Red Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 2 0

Shrub 3 1

Mid‐canopy 1 0

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

152

Table 3 Red Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Anisacanthus


Bidens GC F

Brickellia F


Cnidoscolus angustidens N

Dasylirion




Ipomoea

Mimosa biuncifera

Mirabilis



Quercus oblongifolia N

Senna hirsuta N

Verbena F


153

Table 4 Red Spring Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method Count Species detail

Coleoptera Ad T Spot 1 long‐legged beetle

Coleoptera Gyrinidae Ad A Spot 1

Hemiptera Corixidae Ad A Spot 1

Hymenoptera Apidae Apis mellifera Ad T Spot 1

Hymenoptera Vespidae Ad T Spot 1

Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Ad T Spot 1 dark spp

Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Piruna aea Ad T Spot 1

Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Pyrgus T 1 male checkered

Lepidoptera Lycaenidae Celastrina ladon Ad T Spot 50

Lepidoptera Lycaenidae Hemiargus isola Ad T Spot 1

Lepidoptera Lycaenidae Leptotes marina Ad T Spot 1

Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Asterocampa leilia Ad T Spot 1

Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Vanessa virginiensis Ad T Spot 1

Lepidoptera Pieridae Colias cesonia Ad T Spot 1

Lepidoptera Pieridae Eurema nicippe Ad T Spot 1

Lepidoptera Pieridae Nathalis iole Ad T Spot 1

Lepidoptera Pieridae Phoebis sennae Ad T Spot 1

Lepidoptera Sphingidae Ad T Spot 1

Odonata Lestidae Archilestes grandis Ad T Spot 1

Odonata Libellulidae Tramea onusta Ad T Spot 1

Table 1.5 Red Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

rufous‐crowned sparrow 1 obs

white‐winged dove 1 obs

canyon wren 1 call

cactus wren 1 obs

Gambel's quail 1 obs

black‐tailed gnatcatcher 1 obs

verdin 1 obs

house finch 1 obs

pyrrhuloxia 1 obs

black‐throated sparrow 1 obs

ladder‐backed woodpecker 1 obs

loggerhead shrike 1 obs

tadpole 1 obs

white‐tailed Deer 1 sign

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 29 subcategories, with 13 null condition scores, and 12 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is

undetermsite con

Table 6 Category

Aquifer F

Geomorp

Habitat

Biota

Human In

Administ

Overall E

mined due tndition is go

Red Springy

Functionality &

phology

nfluence

rative Contex

cological Scor

to null scoreood with sig

g Assessmen

& Water Qual

xt

re

es and therenificant res

t Scores.

ity

Fig 2 Red

154

e is undetermtoration pot

d Spring Sk

mined risk dtential and t

Condition

3.8

4.8

4.4

5

4.8

0

4.6

ketchmap.

due to null there is low

n R

2

1

scores. Ovew risk.

Risk

2

2

2.2

2

1.9

0

2

erall, the

Fig 3 R

Red Spring: The springg may actua

155

ally be at theese originall coordinatees and hypoc

crene?

156

Rock Spring


Location: The Rock Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the National Park Service. The spring is located in the Saguaro NP at 32.21691, -110.67572 in the Tanque Verde Peak USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83, estimated position error 7 meters). The elevation is approximately 1060 meters. Louise Misztal, Carianne Campbell, Dana Backer, Don Swann, Kristen Cull, Dan surveyed the site on 12/12/14 for 02:00 hours, beginning at 10:30, and collected data in 8 of 12 categories.

Physical Description: Rock Spring is a rheocrene spring. This rheocrene spring flowing towards steel tank is run-off dominated. The spring is hypheric above the orifice (water is traveling through alluvial material). The spring is surrounded by gradual sloping bedrock and boulders. The channel flows to a few small pools as it travels downstream. There is a manmade cement trough and dams present with a small dam interfering with flow. The stream is intermittent. Steel Tank is on the National Register of Historic Places. The grazing lease for this area was retired in 1976. The site has 5 microhabitats, including A -- a 0 sqm channel, B -- a 0 sqm sloping bedrock, C -- a 0 sqm sloping bedrock, D -- a 16 sqm pool, E -- a 0 sqm adjacent uplands.

Rock Spring emerges as a fracture spring from a combination rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial, with a gravity flow force mechanism. The distance to the nearest spring is 3972 meters.

Survey Notes: The site is being passively restored after removal of the piping from the spring to Steel Tank.

Table 1 Rock Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 6.87


Temperature, water C 16

Flora: This plant list is for the entire site. Surveyors identified 31 plant species at the site, with 1.9745 species/sqm. These included 21 native and 4 nonnative species; the native status of 6 species remains unknown.

157

Table 2 Rock Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 12 3

Shrub 5 1

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 3 Rock Spring Vegetation.


Status

Abutilon incanum N


Agave schottii GC N

Aristida GC U



Bouteloua aristidoides N


Bouteloua repens N

Brickellia F

Carnegia gigantea


Eragrostis echinochloidea I



Fouquieria splendens N


Heteropogon contortus N

Ipomoea


Leptochloa filiformis

Melinis repens I



Opuntia engelmannii SC N U

Pennisetum setaceum N


Sonchus GC F

Sphaeralcea laxa N

Sporobolus contractus GC N F

Xanthium strumarium GC N W


158

Table 4 Rock Spring Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method

Lepidoptera Danaidae Danaus

gilippus Ad T Spot

Lepidoptera Papilionidae Papilio

polyxenes Ad T Spot

Lepidoptera Pieridae Ad T Spot

Table 5 Rock Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

Sonoran whipsnake 1 obs

cactus wren 1 call

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 27 subcategories, with 15 null condition scores, and 12 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Biotic integrity is good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Human influence of site is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk.

Table 6 Rock Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 4.5 1.5

Biota 4.7 1.3




Management Recommendations: Set up an Adopt-A-Spring monitoring program here, laying out a transect starting 10m above the spring, using benchmarks for wet/dry mapping to monitor percent of length wetted. At certain points, measure depth.

LocatioSanta Cin the SQuad. TGlaser, beginnin

Fig 1

Physicadry seepslopes cinfrastruThe site

Rock Wemergennearest

Survey Evidencsand. Th

on: The RocCruz Arizona

ierra Vista RThe elevatioJudy Atwelng at 12:14

Rock Wate

al Descriptip within a ncarpeted in ducture belowe has 1 micr

Water Springnce environspring is 11

Notes: Thece of water here's an old

Surve

ck Water Spa 15050301RD, Corona

on is approxll, and Lorri, and collec

er Spring: O

ion: Rock Wnarrow and ddeergrass anw the seep arohabitat, X

g emerges frnment is sub154 meters.

e site believat the site cd rectangula

Rock

ey Summa

pring ecosys1 HUC, manado NF at 3

ximately 120ie and Rick

cted data in

Origin is whe

Water Sprindeeply downd mesquiteand just abo

X -- a 782 sq

rom a sedimbaerial, with

ved to be theconsists of nar cement tr

159

k Water Sp

ary Report

stem is locanaged by the31.40668, -105 meters. C

k Firth surve7 of 12 cate

ere people a

ng is a hillslowncut channee. There is nove the confqm wet hills

mentary rockh a gravity f

e spring sounothing morrough below

pring

t, Site ID 1

ated in Santae US Forest111.09263 inChristophereyed the siteegories.

are to the le

ope spring. el below annon-functionfluence of alope.

k layer in anflow force m

urce is withire than abouw and broke

11942

a Cruz Cout Service. Tn the Pena B

r Morris, Coe on 10/04/1

ft. Piping ru

The site con access roadning cattle w

a more prom

n unknown mechanism.

in an incisedut one squaren piping ru

unty in the UThe spring is

Blanca Lakory Jones, G14 for 00:50

uns to site b

onsists of and surroundewatering

minent drain

unit. The The distanc

d channel. re foot of munning betw

Upper s located ke USGS Gus 0 hours,

below.

n almost ed by

nage.

ce to the

moist ween.

160

Table 1 Rock Water Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 7.7




Table 2 Rock Water Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 3 0

Shrub 6 2

Mid‐canopy 1 0

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 3 Rock Water Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status





Dasylirion

Ipomoea




Prosopis

Quercus SC U



Yucca


Table 4 Rock Water Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

turkey vulture 1 obs

lesser earless lizard obs

javelina 1 sign

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 32 subcategories, with 10 null condition scores, and 10 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are

161

moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 5 Rock Water Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk


Geomorphology 3 2.4

Habitat 3.8 2.2

Biota 4.9 2




Management Recommendations: The access road above the site has led to significant downcutting in the channel where the spring seep originates. Closure of the access road and erosion mitigation work would positively affect site conditions.

FFig 2 Rock W

162

Water Springg Sketchmaap.

163

Ruelas Spring


Location: The Ruelas Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Upper Santa Cruz Arizona 15050301 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Nogales RD, Coronado NF at 31.82708, -110.78635 in the Helvetia USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (WGS84). The elevation is approximately 1523 meters. Louise Misztal, Randy Seraglio surveyed the site on 2/07/14 for 00:30 hours, beginning at 14:00, and collected data in 7 of 12 categories.

Physical Description: Ruelas Spring is a rheocrene spring. At the site is a stretch of stream with water in the lower elevations of the Santa Ritas with little human influence. The site has 1 microhabitat, A -- a 100 sqm channel.

Ruelas Spring emerges as a seepage or filtration spring from a igneous, granite rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial, with a gravity flow force mechanism. The distance to the nearest spring is 1959 meters.

Survey Notes: It seems like the vegetation is trampled, either from or . There is a cairn marking the location, but no development of the spring. Farther downstream (>200m), there is the beginning of a mine adit in the channel, with some water in it.

Table 1 Ruelas Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 8.25





Table 2 Ruelas Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 1 0

Shrub 0 0

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

164

Table 3 Ruelas Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Fraxinus R


Nolina F


Table 4 Ruelas Spring Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method

Coleoptera Dytiscidae Ad A Spot

Table 5 Ruelas Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

bridled titmouse 1 obs

javelina 1 sign

coyote 1 sign

deer 1 sign

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 4 categories and 20 subcategories, with 22 null condition scores, and 22 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Habitat condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Biotic integrity is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Human influence of site is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk.

Table 6 Ruelas Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 3.5 1.5

Biota 0 0




Management Recommendations: This spring is potentially at risk from the proposed Rosemont Mine. Site is in the known range of a Jaguar and free from signs of human use/disturbance. It is fairly remote to access. Good site to keep protected, potential reference site, although difficult to access.

165

Sabino Greens Unnamed


Location: The Sabino Greens Unnamed ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the private US owner. The spring is located at 32.30544, -110.78541 in the Sabino Canyon USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (WGS84, estimated position error 2 meters). The elevation is approximately 849 meters. Samantha Hammer, Mirna Manteca surveyed the site on 9/11/15 for 01:45 hours, beginning at 10:15, and collected data in 8 of 12 categories.

Physical Description: Sabino Greens Unnamed is a rheocrene spring. A rheocrene spring emerging from at least two spots in a sandy drainage amid houses and a golf course at the base of the Catalina mountains. There is evidence the spring has been in existence for quite some time - there is a small waterfall in the channel about 1.5 m tall that seems to have/have been formed by travertine-like water deposits. The microhabitats associated with the spring cover 1500 sqm. The site has 6 microhabitats, including A -- a 0 sqm pool, B -- a 0 sqm channel, C -- a 0 sqm terrace, D -- a 0 sqm other, E -- a 2 sqm other. The geomorphic diversity is 0.00, based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity index.

Sabino Greens Unnamed emerges as a seepage or filtration spring from a sedimentary, unconsolidated rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial.

Survey Notes: The site is in decent condition with some very large willow trees and other riparian/wetland plants. A golf path runs along one side of the drainage, and there is a house very close to the spring above the drainage, but there is little evidence that humans visit it much. There is old barbed wire fencing on the west side of the drainage - it is unclear whether there may have once been an exclosure. The water from the spring eventually runs across the golf path and into the golf course, so no spring/riparian habitat exists past the water crossing.

Table 1 Sabino Greens Unnamed Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 6.8


Flora: The plant list is a generic one for the whole site - plants are not just in polygon A. Surveyors identified 13 plant species at the site, with 0.0087 species/sqm. These included 7 native and 1 nonnative species; the native status of 5 species remains unknown.

166

Table 2 Sabino Greens Unnamed Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 4 2

Shrub 6 3

Mid‐canopy 1 1

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 1 1

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 3 Sabino Greens Unnamed Vegetation.


Status

algae AQ N A

Arecaceae SC

Atriplex canescens SC N R


Carex GC WR

Carnegiea gigantea N

Celtis pallida SC N

Poaceae GC


Salix MC N WR

Tamarix SC I WR

Typha GC A

Xanthium GC WR

Fauna: Conditions for observing animals were poor - the survey was conducted around noon on a day that was in the 80s. Surveyors collected or observed 1 aquatic and 13 terrestrial invertebrates and 6 vertebrate specimens.

Table 4 Sabino Greens Unnamed Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method

Diptera Culicidae L A Spot

Hymenoptera Apidae Ad T Spot

Isopoda Ad T Spot

Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Erynnis Ad T Spot

Lepidoptera Lycaenidae Leptotes marina Ad T Spot

Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Asterocampa celtis Ad T Spot

Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Danaus gilippus Ad T Spot

Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Libytheana carinenta Ad T Spot

Lepidoptera Papilionidae Papilio cresphontes Ad T Spot

Lepidoptera Pieridae Eurema nicippe Ad T Spot

Lepidoptera Pieridae Phoebis sennae T Spot

Lepidoptera Pieridae Zerene cesonia Ad T Spot

Odonata Libellulidae Libellula croceipennis Ad T Spot

Odonata Zygoptera Ad T Spot

167

Table 5 Sabino Greens Unnamed Vertebrates. Species Common Name Detection

hummingbirds obs

javelina sign

cottontail rabbit sign

mourning dove

Gambel's quail obs

Aspidoscelis whiptail lizard obs

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 29 subcategories, with 13 null condition scores, and 13 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is high risk. Biotic integrity is moderate with some restoration potential and there is high risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is moderate risk.

Table 6 Sabino Greens Unnamed Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 4 4

Biota 3.8 4.7




Fig 11.1 Sabino G

168

Greens Unnaamed Sketchhmap.

LocatioCruz ArSierra V(NAD 8Pacini, Kcollecte

Physica

The dist

Survey coordin

on: The Sharizona 1505

Vista RD, C83). The eleKaren Low

ed data in 1

al Descripti

tance to the

Notes: Sprnates. No ve

Surve

annon Sprin50301 HUCoronado NFvation is apry surveyedof 12 categ

Fig 1 Shann

ion:

e nearest spr

ring not foungetation ind

Sha

ey Summa

ng ecosystem, managed bF at 31.3884pproximateld the site onories.

non Spring:

ring is 1563

nd. A mine dicative of a

169

annon Spr

ary Report

m is locatedby the US F43, -110.76y 1350 met

n 4/20/14 fo

dry channe

3 meters.

shaft was fa spring was

ring

t, Site ID 1

d in Santa CForest Servi198 in the Cters. Louise r 00:45 hou

el at spring

found in thes found.

16523

ruz Countyice. The sprCumero CanMisztal, Ra

urs, beginnin

coordinates

e vicinity of

in the Upping is locatenyon USGSandy Seraglng at 12:30,

s

f the spring

er Santa ed in the

S Quad lio, Nick , and

LocatioCruz ArNogalesmeasureapproxiKaren Lbeginnin

on: The Sallrizona 1505s RD, Coroned using a Gmately 174

Lowery, Bilng at 11:15

Surve

ly Spring ec50301 HUCnado NF at GPS (NAD82 meters. Cl Knight, an, and collec

S

ey Summa

cosystem is , managed b31.66959, -

83, estimateChristopher Mnd Melis Arcted data in

Fig

170

Sally Sprin

ary Report

located in Sby the US F-110.89681 ed position eMorris, Ryarik surveyed8 of 12 cate

g 1 Sally Spr

g

t, Site ID 1

Santa Cruz Forest Servi

in the Mouerror 6 metean Gillespied the site onegories.

ring.

19869

County in tice. The sprunt Hopkinsers). The elee, Sara Murpn 2/07/15 fo

the Upper Sing is locate

s USGS Quaevation is phy, John M

or 01:45 hou

Santa ed in the ad,

Murphy, urs,

Appendix C: Spring Inventory and Assessment Reports for Springs Surveyed for Fire Effects

1

SpringsoutsideoftheUpperSantaCruzRiverBasinusedinFireEffectsandFuelsAnalysis

ContentsBug Spring .......................................................................................................................................... 2

Chiricahua Mountains ............................................................................................................................. 6

Anita Spring ........................................................................................................................................ 6

Ash Spring ......................................................................................................................................... 10

Barfoot Spring Survey 1 ...................................................................................................................... 15

Barfoot Spring Survey 2 ...................................................................................................................... 19

Booger Spring .................................................................................................................................... 23

Deer Spring ....................................................................................................................................... 26

Eagle Spring ...................................................................................................................................... 30

Headquarters Spring .......................................................................................................................... 33

Juniper Spring ................................................................................................................................... 37

Lone Juniper Spring ............................................................................................................................ 41

Lower Rustler Spring .......................................................................................................................... 42

Ojo Agua Fria .................................................................................................................................... 47

Upper Rustler Spring .......................................................................................................................... 51

Pinaleño Mountains .............................................................................................................................. 55

Bearwallow Spring ............................................................................................................................. 55

Emerald Spring .................................................................................................................................. 59

Hairpin Spring Unnamed .................................................................................................................... 63

Heliograph Spring .............................................................................................................................. 68

High Peak Cienega ............................................................................................................................. 73

Unnamed (Middle Treasure Park Spring) .............................................................................................. 79

Shannon Campground Unnamed ......................................................................................................... 84

Snow Flat Unnamed ........................................................................................................................... 90

Unnamed (Treasure Park Campground) ............................................................................................... 95

Unnamed (Upper Treasure Park Spring) ............................................................................................. 102

Western Hospital Flat Unnamed ........................................................................................................ 107

Santa Rita Mountains .......................................................................................................................... 113

Aliso Spring Survey 1 ........................................................................................................................ 113

Aliso Spring Survey 2 ........................................................................................................................ 115

Baldy Spring .................................................................................................................................... 117

Sawmill Spring ................................................................................................................................. 121

2

Catalina Mountains

Bug Spring


Location: The Bug Spring ecosystem is located in Pima County in the Rillito Arizona 15050302 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Sierra Vista RD, Coronado NF at 32 21' 1.648", -110 42' 26.68" in the Agua Caliente Hill USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD 83). The elevation is approximately 1570 meters. Bill Beaver, Paul Condon, Graciela Robinson, Karen Lowery, and Randy Serraglia surveyed the site on 4/22/12 for 02:00 hours, beginning at 15:00, and collected data in 4 of 12 categories.

Physical Description: Bug Spring is a rheocrene spring


Survey Notes: This survey was part of a training session early on in the process. There is a pool formed from boulders in the channel that is 3m deep. The trees have some damage due to fire. There is algae covering the top pool, but the bottom pool had none. The channel has a sandy bottom. There is some piping down below the source that are not being used.


Table 1 Bug Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 33 7

Shrub 14 4

Mid‐canopy 4 3

Tall canopy 2 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 2 2

Non‐vascular 1 0

3

Table 2 Bug Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Agave palmeri GC N U

Agrostis GC I W

algae AQ N

Amorpha fruticosa SC N F

Arctostaphylos pungens SC N U

Astragalus nothoxys GC N

Astrolepis sinuata GC N

Berberis wilcoxii N

Bouteloua hirsuta GC N U

Carex GC N

Carex GC N

Castilleja integra GC N

Cercocarpus montanus SC N U

Dasylirion wheeleri N

Dasylirion wheeleri SC N

Echinocereus SC U

Elymus elymoides GC N F

Erigeron GC N F

Garrya GC N U

Garrya wrightii SC N F


Juncus GC N

Juncus GC N


Lactuca GC I WR

Lonicera albiflora SC N U

Mimosa GC N

Mimulus GC N W


Monarda citriodora GC N

moss NV N F


Nasturtium officinale AQ I W


Packera neomexicana GC N U

Penstemon stenophyllus GC N

Pinus discolor TC N

Piptochaetium fimbriatum GC N




Pseudognaphalium GC N W

Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum GC N

Quercus arizonica MC N R

Quercus toumeyi N

Quercus turbinella SC N F

Rhamnus betulifolia SC N WR

4

Rhus virens var. choriophylla N

Rubus SC R

Salix SC N WR

Salix bonplandiana TC N

Taraxacum officinale GC I F


Toxicodendron radicans GC N WR

Tragia nepetifolia GC N F

Typha GC A

unknown grass GC

unknown grass GC

Verbena GC F



Table 3 Bug Spring Invertebrates.


detail

Aranea T Spot more than 1

Coleoptera Dytiscidae Ad Spot 1

Diptera Ad T Spot "gnat‐like

bugs"

Diptera Ad T Spot more than 1

Diptera Asilidae Efferia Ad T Spot 1 female

Diptera Culicidae Ad T Spot more than 1

Hemiptera Belostomatidae Ad T Spot 1

Hymenoptera Ad T Spot 1

Lepidoptera Lycaenidae Ad T Spot more than 1

Odonata Ad T Spot 1 damselfly

Table 4 Bug Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

tree lizard 1 obs

hummingbird 1 obs

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 27 subcategories, with 15 null condition scores, and 16 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Geomorphology condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk.

5

Table 5 Bug Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 4 2.5

Biota 4.2 2.6




LocatioArizonalocated USGS QelevatioCastillo14:00, a

Physicaincludin

Anita SpunknowThe dist

Survey standing

on: The Ania, New Mexin the Doug

Quad, measuon is approxo-Flores, Maand collecte

al Descripting A -- a 1 s

pring emergwn unit. Thetance to the

Notes: Theg dead burn

Surve

ita Spring exico 150400glas RD, Coured using a

ximately 283att Minjeresed data in 9

ion: Anita Ssqm pool, B

ges as a seee emergencee nearest spr

e area has bned trees.

Chirica

A

ey Summa

cosystem is006 HUC, moronado NFa GPS (NA37 meters. Ls surveyed tof 12 categ

Fig

Spring is a hB -- a 12 sqm

page or filtre environmering is 847 m

urned recen

6

ahua Mou

Anita Sprin

ary Report

s located in managed by F at 31.8519AD83, estimaLouise Miszthe site on 5ories.

1 Anita Spr

hillslope sprm channel.

ration sprinent is subaermeters.

ntly. The sit

untains

ng

t, Site ID 1

Cochise Cothe US For

90, -109.285ated positioztal, Randy 5/30/15 for 0

ring.

ring. The s

ng from a ignrial, with a

te is surroun

17176

ounty in therest Service532 in the Con error 3 m

Seraglio, G01:00 hours

ite has 2 mi

neous rock gravity flow

nded by ero

e San Simon. The spring

Chiricahua Pmeters). The Glenn Furnies, beginning

icrohabitats

layer in an w force mec

sion gullies

n g is Peak

er, Aida g at

s,

chanism.

s and

7

Table 1 Anita Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value Comments

pH (field) 8





Table 2 Anita Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 3 1

Shrub 1 0

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 3 Anita Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Ribes SC N F


Sambucus GC F

Veratrum GC N WR


Table 4 Anita Spring Invertebrates.

Species Lifestage Habitat Method Rep# Count Species

detail

Turbellaria Planariidae A Spot 1

Table 5 Anita Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection


Broad‐tailed hummingbird 2 call


Steller's jay 2 obs


house wren 1 obs

cordilleran flycatcher 1

American robin 1

western bluebird 1

American black bear 1 obs

8

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 31 subcategories, with 11 null condition scores, and 11 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 6 Anita Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk


Geomorphology 3.2 3

Habitat 4.4 2.4

Biota 4.9 2.1




Management Recommendations: This spring is in the Chiricahua Wilderness on a a side trail to the main Chiricahua Ridge trail. It is used by hikers/backpackers as well as local bears as a water source. The site has suffered some erosion, especially in the runout channel due to fire in the surrounding hillslopes and unstable soil. The trail leading to the site is in poor shape and suffering from erosion and user created spurs. Overall the site could benefit from some erosion stabilization and possibly restoration of the diversity of plants expected to be at this type of site (assuming some plant diversity has been lost due to fire and seed bank loss.)

Fig 2 Anit

9

ta Spring Skketchmap.

LocatioNew MSierra VmeasureSerraglihours, b

F

Physicaslope indiversity

Ash SprThe emdistance

Survey The spr

Flora: Sincluded

on: The Ashexico 15040

Vista RD, Ced using a Gio, Cariannebeginning at

Fig 1 Ash Sp

al Descriptin a pine oak y index.

ring emergeergence enve to the near

Notes: At ting is flowi

Surveyors id 57 native

Surve

h Spring eco0006 HUC,oronado NF

GPS. The ele Campbell,t 10:45, and

pring: View

ion: Ash Sphabitat. Th

es as a seepavironment isrest spring i

the time of ing and in d

dentified 69and 6 nonn

A

ey Summa

osystem is l managed b

F at 31.8715levation is a, and other vd collected d

w looking do

pring is a hihe geomorph

age or filtras subaerial, is 3678 met

the visit thedecent shape

9 plant specnative specie

10

Ash Spring

ary Report

located in Cby the US F53, -109.245approximatevolunteers sdata in 7 of

ownchannel

llslope sprinhic diversity

ation spring with an art

ters.

e spring is be.

cies at the sies; the nativ

g

t, Site ID 1

Cochise Couorest Servic512 in the Pely 2150 mesurveyed th12 categori

at upper, m

ng. The spry is 0.00, ba

from a rocktesian flow f

boxed, surro

ite, with 0.1ve status of

17194

unty in the Sce. The spriPortal Peak eters. Louisee site on 7/2ies.

middle, and l

ing emergeased on the

k layer in anforce mecha

ounded by a

816 species6 species re

San Simon Aing is locateUSGS Quae Misztal, R20/14 for 02

lower pond

s from 10 dShannon-W

n unknown anism. The

a fence in di

s/sqm. Thesemains unkn

Arizona, ed in the ad, Randy 2:15

ds.

degree Weiner

unit.

isrepair.

se nown.

11

Table 1 Ash Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 36 11

Shrub 14 1

Mid‐canopy 8 3

Tall canopy 3 3

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 1 1

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 2 Ash Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Acer negundo TC N R

Agastache


Agrostis stolonifera GC I W

Amauriopsis dissecta GC N

Asteraceae fam GC N F

Baccharis pteronioides SC N

Berberis wilcoxii SC N



Bouvardia glaberrima SC N

Brickellia betonicifolia GC N

Brickellia grandiflora SC N F

Bromus anomalus var. lanatipes GC N

Callitriche heterophylla GC N W

Carex praegracilis GC N W

Carex senta N W

Cirsium ochrocentrum GC N

Conyza canadensis GC N R


Cyperaceae

Cyperaceae

Desmodium

Equisetum hyemale GC N WR


Erigeron flagellaris GC N U

Erigeron neomexicanus GC N U

Frangula californica SC N U


Galium GC I F


Gymnosperma glutinosum SC N


Juncus marginatus GC N F

Juncus saximontanus GC N W

12


Lactuca graminifolia GC N F


Lonicera albiflora SC N U

Malvaceae

Marrubium vulgare GC I F

Maurandya antirrhiniflora GC N R

Morus MC I R

Muhlenbergia asperifolia GC N WR



Panicum obtusum GC N WR

Parthenocissus quinquefolia SC N F

Pennellia GC F

Pinus engelmannii MC N

Pinus leiophylla MC N

Pinus ponderosa SC N F

Piptochaetium fimbriatum GC N


Poa pratensis GC I F

Prunus serotina SC N



Quercus arizonica MC N R

Quercus grisea SC N F

Quercus hypoleucoides N



Samolus vagans GC N W

Schoenocrambe linearifolia GC N U



Yucca madrensis GC N

Zannichellia palustris AQ N A


13

Table 3 Ash Spring Invertebrates. Species Lifestage HabitatMethod Count Species detail

Diptera Bombyliidae Ad T Spot Many observed.

Ephemeroptera Ad T Spot Unknown mayfly. No quantity

information entered on datasheet

Hemiptera Belostomatidae Ad T Spot 2 Unknown waterbug.

Hymenoptera Ad T Spot Unknown wasp. No quantity


Hymenoptera Formicidae Ad T Spot Unknown ant. No quantity


Lepidoptera Ad T Spot Unknown butterfly. No quantity

information entered on datasheet.

Lepidoptera Papilionidae Papilio

multicaudata Ad T Spot 1

The datasheet says giant swallowtail,

but photos are of two‐tailed

swallowtails.

Lepidoptera Sphingidae

Manduca Ad T Spot 1

Odonata Anisoptera Ad T Spot Unknown dragonfly. No quantity


Table 4 Ash Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

black‐throated gray warbler 1 call

rufus hummingbird 1 obs

blue‐throated hummingbird obs

western kingbird 2 obs

brown‐crested flycatcher 1

hermit thrush call

Cordilleran Flycatcher 1 call

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 24 subcategories, with 18 null condition scores, and 18 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Biotic integrity is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 5 Category

Aquifer F

Geomorp

Habitat

Biota

Human In

Administ

Overall E

Ash Springy

Functionality &

phology

nfluence

rative Contex

cological Scor

g Assessment

& Water Qual

xt

re

t Scores.

ity

Fig 2 Ash

14

h Spring Sk

Condition

4

4

4

4.3

4.2

0

4.1

ketchmap.

n R

2

3

2

2

2

Risk

2.5

2

3.7

2.7

2.3

0

2.5

LocatioArizonaSierra Vmeasureand Maxcollecte

Physicaflows thgeomorp

The dist

Survey

Table 1 Characte

pH (field)

Specific c

Tempera

on: The Bara 15050201 Vista RD, Ced using a Gx Licher su

ed data in 3

al Descriptihrough diverphic diversi

tance to the

Notes: The

Barfoot Spreristic Measur

)

conductance (

ture, water C

Surve

rfoot SpringHUC, manoronado NF

GPS (NAD8rveyed the of 12 categ

ion: This hirse wet meaity is 0.00, b

e nearest spr

e site is rela

ring Water red

(field) (uS/cm)

Barfoo

ey Summa

g ecosystemnaged by theF at 31.915383). The elesite on 8/09ories.

Fig 1

igh-elevatioadow habitabased on th

ring is 1435

atively wet a

Quality with

)

15

t Spring S

ary Report

m is located ie US Forest 36, -109.27evation is ap9/14 for 01:0

1 Barfoot Sp

on boxed spat in a clearie Shannon-

5 meters.

and lush.

h multiple rAverage V

7.68

90

8.6

urvey 1

t, Site ID 1

in Cochise CService. Th

813 in the Rpproximatel00 hours, be

pring.

ring emergeing of pond

-Weiner div

readings aveValue

8

13097

County in thhe spring is Rustler Parkly 2409 meteginning at

es at the toederosa pine wversity index

eraged.

he Willcox located in t

k USGS Quters. Louise 10:48, and

e of a slope woodland. Tx.

Playa the

uad, Misztal

and The

16


Table 2 Barfoot Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 26 13

Shrub 0 0

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

17

Table 3 Barfoot Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status


Agrostis gigantea I F

Amaranthaceae

Asteraceae

Bromus GC F

Bromus inermis GC I F

Cacalia decomposita

Carex kelloggii

Carex microptera GC N W

Carex occidentalis GC N W

Carex wootonii GC N W

Caryophyllaceae fam GC WR

Castilleja GC N U

Chenopodiaceae

Cyperaceae

Cyperus fendlerianus GC N W

Delphinium andesicola N


Hymenoxys

Hypericum scouleri GC N WR

Iris missouriensis GC N F


Lithospermum cobrense N



Monarda citriodora ssp. austromontana N

Oenothera laciniata N

Oxalidaceae

Pennellia micrantha N


Piptochaetium pringlei N

Poa palustris GC N

Polemonium foliosissimum GC N U

Polygonum convolvulus GC I F

Pseudognaphalium GC W

Rumex orthoneurus N

Scirpus microcarpus GC N W

Senecio wootonii N

Sisyrinchium longipes N

Solanum fendleri N


Trifolium pinetorum GC N WR

Valeriana edulis GC N WR

Verbascum thapsus GC I F


18

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 25 subcategories, with 17 null condition scores, and 17 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 4 Barfoot Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 4.3 2.3

Biota 5.4 2




Management Recommendations: Continue to monitor the perimeter fencing to keep cows out. If possible, monitoring water flow would help understand the response surrounding habitat to fire and to climate change.

LocatioArizonaSierra VmeasureMisztalsurveyecategori

Physicaflows thgeomorp

The dist

Survey undisturoriginatstorage

on: The Bara 15050201 Vista RD, Ced using a G, Carianne C

ed the site onies.

F

al Descriptihrough diverphic diversi

tance to the

Notes: At trbed thoughting at the spfacility con

Surve

rfoot SpringHUC, manoronado NF

GPS (NAD8Campbell, Kn 7/21/13 fo

Fig 1 Barfoo

ion: This hirse wet meaity is 0.00, b

e nearest spr

the time of h there are spring box tr

nstructed of

Barfoo

ey Summa

g ecosystemnaged by theF at 31.915383). The eleKaren Loweor 02:00 hou

ot Spring: L

igh-elevatioadow habitabased on th

ring is 1435

the visit, vesigns of dryiraveling dowbrick above

19

t Spring S

ary Report

m is located ie US Forest 36, -109.27evation is apery, Brit Oleurs, beginni

Looking dow

on boxed spat in a clearie Shannon-

5 meters.

egetation waing. There awnslope to e the spring

urvey 2

t, Site ID 1

in Cochise CService. Th

813 in the Rpproximateleson, Tim Cing at 15:00

wn to the op

ring emergeing of pond

-Weiner div

as very lushappears to bthe road. Th

g box.

13097

County in thhe spring is Rustler Parkly 2409 metCook, and N0, and collec

pen meadow

es at the toederosa pine wversity index

h and the sitbe a dry chahere is a fla

he Willcox located in t

k USGS Quters. Louise

Nick Pacini cted data in

w

e of a slope woodland. Tx.

te was relatiannel/ditch dammable ma

Playa the

uad,

n 6 of 12

and The

ively dug aterials

20

Table 1.1 Barfoot Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value


pH (field) 5.75




Table 2 Barfoot Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 12 3

Shrub 0 0

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 3 Barfoot Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status


Amaranthus GC F

Asteraceae fam GC N F

Cacalia decomposita

Carex

Delphinium andesicola N

Glandularia GC U


Lithospermum cobrense N




Piptochaetium

Poaceae fam GC

Polemonium U

Rumex GC WR



Vicia WR


21

Table 4 Barfoot Spring Invertebrates.

Species Lifestage Habitat Species

detail

Coleoptera Coccinellidae Ad T ladybug

Diptera Tipulidae Ad T crane fly

Trichoptera Ad T caddisfly

Table 5 Barfoot Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Detection

northern flicker obs

yellow‐eyed junco obs

western tanager obs

American black bear sign

mule deer obs

Mexican Jay obs

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 25 subcategories, with 17 null condition scores, and 17 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 1.6 Barfoot Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 4.3 2.3

Biota 5.4 2




Management Recommendations: Some of the fencing around the site is in disrepair. It's highly recommended that the perimeter fence be adequately maintained to preclude access to cows. The site has been modified via digging pools to allow bats access to water. We recommend that this practice be discontinued unless the wet meadow habitat can be left undisturbed.

Fig

g 3 Barfoot Spring: Vie

Fig 2 Barfo

ew of flamm

22

oot Spring S

mable mater

Sketchmap.

rial storage facility above spring b

ox.

23

Booger Spring


Location: The Booger Spring ecosystem is located in Cochise County in the San Simon Arizona, New Mexico 15040006 HUC, managed by the US Forest Service. The spring is located in the Douglas RD, Coronado NF at 31.86659, -109.28209 in the Chiricahua Peak USGS Quad, measured using a GPS (NAD83, estimated position error 3 meters). The elevation is approximately 2936 meters. Louise Misztal, Randy Seraglio, Glenn Furnier, Aida Castillo-Flores surveyed the site on 5/31/15 for 00:47 hours, beginning at 10:13, and collected data in 7 of 12 categories.

Physical Description: Booger Spring is a hillslope/rheocrene spring. The microhabitats associated with the spring cover 60 sqm. The site has 2 microhabitats, including A -- a 20 sqm channel, B -- a 40 sqm wet hillslope. The geomorphic diversity is 0.28, based on the Shannon-Weiner diversity index.

Booger Spring emerges as a fracture spring from a rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial, with a gravity flow force mechanism. The distance to the nearest spring is 725 meters.

Survey Notes: A hillslope spring in a moderately burned area, downed trees and erosion apparent with lots of aspen regrowth and some standing pines.

Table 1 Booger Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 8.5





Table 2 Booger Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 3 1

Shrub 2 1

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 2 1

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

24

Table 3 Booger Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Acer negundo TC N R

Juncus


Pteridium GC U

Ribes SC N F

Rubus SC R

Sambucus GC F

Veratrum californicum GC N W


Table 4 Booger Spring Invertebrates.


detail

Coleoptera Coccinellidae Ad T Spot 1

Table 5 Booger Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection




Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 24 subcategories, with 18 null condition scores, and 19 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Habitat condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 6 Booger Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk


Geomorphology 3.5 3

Habitat 3.5 3

Biota 5 2.7




Management Recommendations: This is a boxed spring that flows out into a runout channel. There is no real channel above the box so believe it is a hillslope spring. This spring

is impacoff a shoimportaerosion riparianand signupland r

cted by fire-ort side-trai

ant source osurroundin

n habitat perning of a clerestoration

-effects fromil from a maf water for hg the spring

rsisting at thear trail for efforts to ad

m the surrouain trail thathikers. Therg both from he spring sithikers to ac

ddress post-

Fig 1 Boog

25

unding landt traverses tre are numehuman use

te. The site ccess the wa-fire effects

ger Spring S

dscape as wthe Chiricaherous trails le and from fcould benefater as well .

Sketchmap.

ell as humahua Wildernleading to th

fire effects. fit from thoas erosion

an use. It is lness and is ahe spring anThere is som

oughtful placcontrol and

located an nd me lush cement

d other

LocatioArizonalocated USGS QelevatioCastillo9:45, an

Physicaa south-channel

Deer SpunknowThe dist

Survey some as

on: The Deea, New Mexin the Doug

Quad, measuon is approxo-Flores, Mand collected

al Descripti-facing slopl, C -- a 48 s


Notes: Thespen regene

Surve

er Spring ecxico 150400glas RD, Coured using a

ximately 276att Minjeres

d data in 8 o

Fig 1 D

ion: Deer Spe. The site hsqm wet hil

ges as a seepe emergencee nearest spr

e site is on aration happ

D

ey Summa

cosystem is 006 HUC, moronado NFa GPS (NA61 meters. Ls surveyed tf 12 categor

eer Spring:

Spring is a hhas 3 microllslope.

page or filtre environmering is 806 m

a severely bpening right

26

Deer Sprin

ary Report

located in Cmanaged by F at 31.8358AD83, estimaLouise Miszthe site on 5ries.

best availab

hillslope sprohabitats, in

ation springent is subaermeters.

burned steepabove the s

ng

t, Site ID 1

Cochise Couthe US For


ble image o

ring. A hillsncluding A -

g from an igrial, with a

p slope. It isspring.

17173

unty in the rest Service041 in the Con error 4 m


of spring

lope spring -- a 3 sqm p

gneous rockgravity flow

s barely flow

San Simon . The spring


in steep terpool, B -- a 2

k layer in anw force mec

wing. There

g is Peak

er, Aida g at

rrain on 20 sqm

n chanism.

e is

27

Table 1 Deer Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 7.9





Table 2 Deer Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 1 0

Shrub 2 0

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 1 0

Table 3 Deer Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

moss NV N F

Populus tremuloides SC N U

Pteridium GC U

Ribes SC N F


Table 4 Deer Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection



American black bear 1 obs

spotted towhee 1 call

deer 1 sign


house wren 1 obs

woodpecker 1 sign

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 31 subcategories, with 11 null condition scores, and 11 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Geomorphology condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Habitat condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Biotic

28

integrity is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 5 Deer Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 3.8 3

Biota 4 2.5




Management Recommendations: Site is on very steep slopes in an area that burned severely. It is being effected by erosion, is developed for human use and continues to be used by backpackers in the wilderness. Site is suffering erosion due to the surrounding land condition and is believed to be significantly dewatered due to the loss of canopy cover and other alterations post fire. The site could benefit from upslope erosion control, a trail to send backpackers to the box in the least erosive way, and possibly from restoration of the diversity of plant species you might expect at this type of site. It has lost much of its function as a microhabitat

Fig 2 Dee

29

er Spring Skketchmap.

LocatioArizonaDouglasmeasureapproxisurveyecategori

Fi

Physicasouthwecover, woverflowundevelpool, B

Eagle SunknowThe dist

Survey deer.

on: The Eaga 15080301 s RD, Coroned using a Gmately 284

ed the site onies.

ig 1 Eagle S

al Descriptiest-facing slwhich has a ws the trougloped seep 6-- a 5 sqm c


Notes: The

Surve

gle Spring eHUC, man

nado NF at GPS (NAD85 meters. Sn 5/30/15 fo

pring: view

ion: Eagle Slope with a hole in the

gh and cont6m away frochannel, C

ges as a seee emergencee nearest spr

e site looks

E

ey Summa

ecosystem isnaged by the

31.83602, -83, estimateami Hammor 01:15 hou

w with north

Spring is a hspur trail toside from winues downom the box-- a 3 sqm w

epage or filtre environmering is 458 m

nice - the tr

30

Eagle Sprin

ary Report

s located in e US Forest -109.27927

ed position eer, Brian Durs, beginni

hern seep in

hillslope spo it. There iwhich watern the steep h. The site hawet hillslop

ration sprinent is subaermeters.

rough is full

ng

t, Site ID 1

Cochise CoService. Th in the Chirerror 4 meteeArmon, Bring at 13:15

foreground

ring. It is as a covered r flows into hillside in a as 3 microhe.

ng from an irial, with a

l. The sedge

13108

ounty in thehe spring is ricahua Peakers). The elerian Jones, 5, and collec

d, springbox

boxed sprinspring boxthe trough.bit of a cha

habitats, incl

gneous rockgravity flow

es are graze

e Whitewatelocated in t

k USGS Quevation is Marisa Ricected data in

x farther aw

ng on a stee with an op Water then

annel. Thereluding A --

k layer in anw force mec

ed, most like

er Draw the uad,

e n 9 of 12

ay

ep enable

n e is an a 1 sqm

n chanism.

ely by

31

Table 1 Eagle Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 8.71





Table 2 Eagle Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 1 0

Shrub 0 0

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 1 1

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 3 Eagle Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

algae AQ N A

Carex

Geranium GC N F


Table 4 Eagle Spring Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method Count

Diptera Culicidae L A Spot 100

Table 5 Eagle Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

broad‐billed Hummingbird 1 obs

northern flicker 1 obs

Common raven 2 obs


deer 1 sign


house wren 1 obs

mountain spiny lizard 1 obs

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 30 subcategories, with 12 null condition scores, and 12 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are good

with sigmoderatmoderatwith somsignificaundetermsite con

Table 6 Category

Aquifer F

Geomorp

Habitat

Biota

Human In

Administ

Overall E

Managemicrohathere is good id

gnificant reste with somte with somme restoratiant restoratimined due t

ndition is go

Eagle Spriny

Functionality &

phology

nfluence

rative Contex

cological Scor

ement Recoabitat (but csome potenea to protec

storation pome restoratiome restoratioion potentiaion potentiato null score

ood with sig

ng Assessme

& Water Qual

xt

re

ommendatcreating a nential for slopct the site fr

tential and ton potential on potential al and there al and there es and therenificant res

ent Scores.

ity

tions: The sew one). Thpe failure orom this in s

Fig 2 Eag

32

there is negand there isand there isis low risk.is low risk.

e is undetermtoration pot

ource is boxhe area is her erosion to some way.

gle Spring S

gligible risks moderate s low risk. B Human inf. Administrmined risk dtential and t

Condition

4.4

3.6

3

3.7

4.3

0

3.9

xed, destroyeavily burne

damage or

ketchmap

. Geomorphrisk. HabitaBiotic integfluence of sative contexdue to null there is low

n R

1

2

2

2

2

ying the oried around andestroy the

hology condat conditionrity is modeite is good wxt status is scores. Ove

w risk.

Risk

1.6

3

2.4

2.7

2.3

0

2.4

ginal emergnd above the site. It may

dition is n is erate with

erall, the

gence he site - y be a

LocatioArizonalocated USGS QelevatioRice surof 12 ca

Physicaamong athe othe-- a 2 sq

Headquan unknmechan

Survey channel

on: The Heaa, New Mexin the Doug

Quad, measuon is approxrveyed the sategories.

al Descriptiaspens and er end of theqm pool, C -

uarters Sprinnown unit. Tnism. The di

Notes: Flol) for the tra

Surve

adquarters Sxico 150400glas RD, Coured using a

ximately 281site on 5/29

ion: Headquconifers, flo

e tank. The -- a 1 sqm w

ng emerges The emergenistance to th

w was slowail to cross i

Head

ey Summa

Spring ecosy006 HUC, moronado NFa GPS (NA18 meters. S

9/15 for 01:3

Fig 1 He

uarters Spriowing freelsite has 3 m

wet hillslope

as a seepagnce environ

he nearest sp

w, and there it.

33

quarters S

ary Report

ystem is locmanaged by F at 31.8452AD83, estimaSami Hamm30 hours, be

eadquarters

ing is a hillsy from its s

microhabitate.

ge or filtrationment is subpring is 559

were cobbl

Spring

t, Site ID 1

cated in Cocthe US For

21, -109.284ated positio

mer, Brian Deginning at

s Spring.

slope springsource into ats, including

on spring frbaerial, with9 meters.

les placed in

17175

chise Countrest Service465 in the Con error 5 mDeArmon, B14:15, and

g on a northa tank, and g A -- a 1 sq

rom an igneh a gravity f

n polygon C

ty in the San. The spring

Chiricahua Pmeters). The Brian Jones,collected da

h-facing slopoverflowingqm wet hills

eous rock layflow force

C (the runou

n Simon g is Peak

, Marisa ata in 9

pe g from slope, B

yer in

ut

34

Table 1 Headquarters Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 7.4





Table 2 Headquarters Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 2 2

Shrub 0 0

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 1 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 1 1

Non‐vascular 1 0

Table 3 Headquarters Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

algae AQ N A


moss NV N F


Veratrum GC N WR


Table 4 Headquarters Spring Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method Count Species detail

Lepidoptera Papilionidae Papilio Ad T Spot 1 probably

rutalus or

multicaudata

Trichoptera L A Spot 100 photo taken

35

Table 5 Headquarters Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

Steller's jay 1 call



house wren 2 obs


northern flicker 1 call

Common raven 2 call


White‐breasted nuthatch 2 call




Broad‐tailed hummingbird 1 call



Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 30 subcategories, with 12 null condition scores, and 12 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk.

Table 6 Headquarters Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk


Geomorphology 4.4 2

Habitat 3.4 2

Biota 4.7 2




Fiig 2 Headqu

36

arters Sprinng Sketchmaap.

LocatioDraw Athe Doumeasureapproxisurveyecategori

on: The JunArizona 1508uglas RD, Ced using a Gmately 279

ed the site onies.

Surve

niper Spring80301 HUC

Coronado NFGPS (NAD86 meters. Sn 5/30/15 fo

Ju

ey Summa

ecosystem C, managed F at 31.833683, estimateami Hammor 01:15 hou

Fig 1

37

niper Spri

ary Report

is located iby the US F

63, -109.27ed position eer, Brian Durs, beginni

1 Juniper Sp

ing

t, Site ID 1

in Cochise CForest Serv664 in the Cerror 4 meteeArmon, Bring at 11:45

pring.

17185

County in thvice. The sprChiricahua Pers). The elerian Jones, 5, and collec

he Whitewaring is locatPeak USGSevation is Marisa Ricected data in

ater ted in S Quad,

e n 8 of 12

38

Physical Description: Juniper Spring is a hillslope spring on a south-facing slope at the edge of open pine woodland, with several generations of concete boxes and some unboxed seeps. The site has 3 microhabitats, including A -- a 1 sqm pool, B -- a 10 sqm wet hillslope, C -- a 4 sqm wet hillslope.

Juniper Spring emerges as a seepage or filtration spring from a igneous rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial, with a gravity flow force mechanism. The distance to the nearest spring is 458 meters.

Survey Notes: The site is on the edge of a burn area. The southern-most spring box id dry and disconnected (pipe broken).

Table 1 Juniper Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 7.5





Table 2 Juniper Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 2 0

Shrub 1 0

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 2 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 1 1

Non‐vascular 2 0

Table 3 Juniper Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

algae AQ N A

Geranium GC N F


moss NV N F



Pteridium GC U

unknown Lichen NV N


39

Table 4 Juniper Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection


turkey vulture 1 obs

Steller's jay 1 obs


northern flicker 1 obs

Common raven 1 obs

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 30 subcategories, with 12 null condition scores, and 12 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 5 Juniper Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk


Geomorphology 4.2 2

Habitat 3 2

Biota 3.7 2.7




Fig

Fig 2 Junip

3 Juniper S

40

per Spring S

Spring: uppe

Sketchmap.

er seep close up

LocatioArizonalocated USGS QDeArmoat 9:20,

Physicaspring, b

The dist

Survey thorougdense stthe cooremergen(USFS)

on: The Lona, New Mexin the Doug

Quad (NADon, Brian Joand collect

Fig 1 Lone

al Descriptibut a stand

tance to the

Notes: Theghly and foutand of asperdinates, whnt spring he has also se

Surve

ne Juniper Sxico 150400glas RD, Co

D 83). The eones, Maristed data in 1

Juniper Sp

ion: A poteof regenera

e nearest spr

e surveyors und no sprinen regenerathere the soilere, and therearched for t

Lone

ey Summa

Spring ecosy006 HUC, moronado NFelevation is aa Rice surv

1 of 12 categ

pring. Spring

ntial hillsloating aspens

ring is 928 m

spent searcng. The areating at the sl is also sligre is still a hthis spring a

41

e Juniper S

ary Report

ystem is locmanaged by F at 31.8276approximat

veyed the sitgories.

g coordinates

ope spring -s begins righ

meters.

ched the hilla was burnesite, and theghtly damp hypocrene sand found n

Spring

t, Site ID 1

cated in Cocthe US For

60, -109.272tely 2738 mte on 5/30/1

s fall on dista

there is curht at the coo

lside in the vd quite badl center top - it is possib

spring at thinothing.

13107

chise Countrest Service254 in the C

meters. Sami 15 for 01:00

ant slope at to

rrently no loordinates.

vicinity of tly in 2011. of the standble there was location. Z

ty in the San. The spring

Chiricahua PHammer, B

0 hours, beg

op of aspens

one juniper

the coordinaHowever, t

d begins exaas once an Zac Ribbing

n Simon g is Peak Brian ginning

and no

ates here is a actly at

g

LocatioSimon Ais locateUSGS QelevatioRandy Sbeginnin

Physicaforest thsteep hi

Lower Renviron

Survey USFS istraffic?)across th

on: The LowArizona, Need in the DoQuad, measuon is approxSeraglio, Brng at 9:30,

al Descriptihat feeds dirillock. The s

Rustler Sprinment is sub

Notes: At ts actively cu) crossings. he spring ru

Surve

wer Rustler ew Mexico ouglas RD, ured using a

ximately 254rit Oleson, Tand collecte

Fig

ion: Lower rectly into asite has 2 m

ing emergesbaerial. The

the time of utting downAt the time

un.

Lowe

ey Summa

Spring eco15040006 HCoronado Na GPS (NA49 meters. LTim Cook sed data in 8

1 Lower Ru

Rustler Spra channel lo

microhabitats

s from n igndistance to

the visit, thn burned tree of the visit

42

r Rustler S

ary Report

system is loHUC, manaNF at 31.90

AD83, estimaLouise Miszsurveyed the of 12 categ

ustler Sprin

ring is a hillocated in a ds, including

neous rock lthe nearest

he site is heaees - the vegt, burned tre

Spring

t, Site ID 1

ocated in Coaged by the 608, -109.2ated positioztal, Karen e site on 7/2gories.

g: spring or

lslope sprindeveloped cg A -- a 80 s

layer in an ut spring is 47

avily disrupgetation is trees were ac

17149

ochise CounUS Forest S

27786 in theon error 8 mLowery, Ca

22/13 for 01

rigin

ng in a high ampground

sqm channe

unknown un77 meters.

ted from firrampled frotually down

nty in the SaService. Thee Rustler Pa

meters). The arianne Cam1:20 hours,

elevation cd. It emergesl.

nit. The eme

re in 2011 aom lots of (fn and being

an e spring

ark

mpbell,

onifer s from a

ergence

and the foot

cut

43

Table 1 Lower Rustler Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

Dissolved oxygen (field) % saturation 94.5

pH (field) 6.08





Table 2 Lower Rustler Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 15 5

Shrub 0 0

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 3 Lower Rustler Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Achillea millefolium GC NI U

Asteraceae N

Bromus carinatus GC N WR


Cyperaceae

Delphinium andesicola GC N

Eragrostis GC I WR



Glandularia GC U



Monarda citriodora N


Polemonium foliosissimum GC N U

Rumex GC WR

Sporobolus F




44

Table 4 Lower Rustler Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection


dark‐eyed junco obs

house wren call

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 28 subcategories, with 14 null condition scores, and 15 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 5 Lower Rustler Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk


Geomorphology 4.6 3

Habitat 4.2 2.8

Biota 4.4 2




Management Recommendations: The spring is in an area that burned severely. The USFS is actively cutting down burned trees all around the site. At the time of the visit, burned trees were actually down and being cut across the spring run. Also within a popular developed campground near the road in. The springs is the source of a stream that continues down the mountain. Although the forest is burned all around the spring emmersion, there are areas upslope that have not burned.

Figg 2 Lower R

45

Rustler Sprinng Sketchmmap.

Fig 3 Loweer Rustler Sppring: At sp

46

pring originn, looking uppstream at ffire damage

e

LocatioArizonalocated USGS QelevatioCastillo14:45, a

Physicadrainagehas 2 m

Ojo AguThe emto the ne

Survey severelyopen tan

on: The Ojoa, New Mexin the Doug

Quad, measuon is approxo-Flores, Maand collecte

al Descriptie. Spring em

microhabitats

ua Fria emeergence envearest sprin

Notes: They eroded. Thnk.

Surve

o Agua Fria xico 150400glas RD, Coured using a

ximately 272att Minjeresed data in 8

ion: Ojo Agmerges froms, including

erges as a sevironment isng is 559 me

e site is sevehere is reall

Oj

ey Summa

ecosystem 006 HUC, moronado NFa GPS (NA22 meters. Ls surveyed tof 12 categ

Fig 1

gua Fria is am hillslope wg A -- a 2 sq

eepage or fis subaerial, eters.

erely erodedly no spring

47

jo Agua Fr

ary Report

is located inmanaged by F at 31.8432AD83, estimaLouise Miszthe site on 5ories.

1 Ojo Agua

a hillslope swhere it is b

qm pool, B -

ltration spriwith a grav

d due to fireg habitat bec

ria

t, Site ID 1

n Cochise Cthe US For


Fria.

spring in a sboxed then -- a 52 sqm

ing from a rvity flow for

e effects - thcause the sp

17174

County in threst Service989 in the Con error 3 m


steep area juflows into achannel.

rock layer inrce mechan

he channel bpring is boxe

he San Simo. The spring


ust above a a channel. T

n an unknownism. The di

below the sped and pipe

on g is Peak

er, Aida g at

small The site

wn unit. istance

pring is ed to an

48

Table 1 Ojo Agua Fria Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 8.12




Table 2 Ojo Agua Fria Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 1 1

Shrub 3 1

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 3 Ojo Agua Fria Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Populus tremuloides SC N U

Ribes SC N F

Rubus SC R

Veratrum GC N WR


Table 4 Ojo Agua Fria Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method Count

Hemiptera Gerridae Ad A Spot 1

Table 5 Ojo Agua Fria Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection


house wren 1 obs


Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 29 subcategories, with 13 null condition scores, and 13 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is

49

undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 6 Ojo Agua Fria Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk


Geomorphology 3.8 3

Habitat 4.7 2

Biota 5 2




Management Recommendations: Spring is located in Chiricahua Wilderness in an area that has burned severely in the last few years. Slopes above the spring are primarily aspen regrowth. Mature pine/conifer canopy cover at the site has been lost due to fire. The site is developed and appears to be maintained. There were some erosion control measures taken near the spring box. Spring is used by hikers/backpackers. There is a sign and trail leading to the spring. Upslope instability and channel down cutting near the spring will continue to be a problem. The spring may have previously supported more robust in-channel riparian/aquatic habitat and may still be able to do that while providing water for hikers if the structure is modified.

Fig 2 Ojo A

50

Agua Fria SSketchmap.

LocatioSimon Ais locateUSGS QelevatioRandy Shours, b

Physicaslope abemergin

Upper Remergen

Survey are markthe FS i

on: The UppArizona, Need in the DoQuad, measuon is approxSeraglio, Brbeginning at

al Descriptibove a mounng. The site

Rustler Sprince environ

Notes: Theked with flais actively r

Surve

per Rustler ew Mexico ouglas RD, ured using a

ximately 257rit Oleson, Tt 11:30, and

F

ion: Upper ntain meadohas 2 micro

ing emergesnment is sub

e area arounagging - foremoving bu

Uppe

ey Summa

Spring ecos15040006 HCoronado Na GPS (NA78 meters. LTim Cook, Nd collected d

Fig 1 Upper

Rustler Sprow in conifeohabitats.

s from an igbaerial. The

nd the site wr FS removaurned trees p

51

r Rustler S

ary Report

system is loHUC, manaNF at 31.90

AD83, estimaLouise MiszNick Pacinidata in 8 of

r Rustler Sp

ring is a hillferous forest

gneous rock distance to

was recentlyal? The spripost-fire.

Spring

t, Site ID 1

ocated in Coaged by the 303, -109.2ated positioztal, Karen i surveyed t12 categori

pring: source

lslope sprint. The sprin

layer in an o the nearest

y (2011) sevng is within

13094

ochise CounUS Forest S

28075 in theon error 8 mLowery, Cathe site on 7ies.

e

g that emerg is boxed w

unknown ut spring is 4

verely burnen the campg

nty in the SaService. Thee Rustler Pa

meters). The arianne Cam7/22/13 for 0

rges on a stewith a pipe

unit. The 477 meters.

ed. Trees at ground area

an e spring

ark

mpbell, 01:30

eep

the site where

52

Table 1 Upper Rustler Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value


pH (field) 5.92





Table 2 Upper Rustler Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 11 2

Shrub 3 1

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 3 Upper Rustler Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Androsace septentrionalis GC N U

Asteraceae

Boraginaceae

Cacalia decomposita

Campanulaceae


Chenopodium GC F

Cyperaceae

Delphinium andesicola GC N

Galium GC I F

Glandularia GC U

Hackelia pinetorum N



Ribes SC N F

Rubus SC R

Rumex GC WR

Sambucus nigra SC NI

Tragopogon dubius GC I F



53

Table 4 Upper Rustler Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name

yellow‐eyed junco


Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 27 subcategories, with 15 null condition scores, and 15 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 5 Upper Rustler Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk


Geomorphology 3.8 3

Habitat 4.5 2.3

Biota 5 2




Management Recommendations: Trees at the site are marked with flagging - for FS removal? The spring is within the campground area where the FS is actively removing burned trees post-fire. There has been loss of canopy cover around the site due to fire and most of the trees surrounding and upslope of the site are dead. This may affect the spring over the long term including microhabitats and flow.

Figg 2 Upper R

54

Rustler Sprin

ng Sketchmap.

LocatioSan Caris locateQuad. TBuckley00:50 h

Physicachannelchannel

Bearwaemergen

Survey is surrousurrounthe only

on: The Bearlos Reservoed in the SaThe elevatioy, Molly Mcours, beginn

al Descriptil in a high el, B -- a 800

allow Springnce environ

Notes: Theunded by se

nding the spry location in

Surve

arwallow Spoir Arizona

afford RD, Con is approxcCormick, Cning at 12:4

ion: Bearwalevation me

0 sqm low g

g emerges frnment is sub

e site is in gevere burn/bring. The arn the surrou

Pinale

Bear

ey Summa

pring ecosy15040005 H

Coronado Nximately 317Craig Willc40, and colle

Fig 1 B

allow Sprineadow. The

gradient cien

rom a metambaerial. The

good conditibeetle kill threa around t

unding lands

55

eño Moun

rwallow Sp

ary Report

stem is locaHUC, mana

NF at 32.70175 meters. Lcox, Nick Paected data i

Bearwallow

ng is a rheocsite has 2 m

nega.

morphic rocdistance to

ion with no hat was stanthis spring hscape where

ntains

pring

t, Site ID 1

ated in Grahaged by the 122, -109.87Louise Miszacini surveyn 7 of 12 ca

Spring.

crene springmicrohabita

ck layer in ao the nearest

sign od dirnd replacinghas experiene fir and spr

13240

ham CountyUS Forest

7722 in the ztal, Max Lyed the site ategories.

g emerging ats, includin

an unknownt spring is 7

ect human ig - there is nnces stand rruce are reg

y in the UppService. ThWebb Peakicher, Steveon 8/09/13

at the start og A -- a 150

n unit. The 74 meters.

impacts. Thno longer foreplacing firenerating.

per Gila-he spring k USGS e for

of a 0 sqm

he spring orest re. It is

56

Table 1 Bearwallow Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 7.28





Table 2 Bearwallow Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 27 12

Shrub 1 0

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 1 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

57

Table 3 Bearwallow Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Actaea rubra GC N F

Agrostis scabra GC N W

Allium geyeri GC N

Bromus ciliatus GC N F

Bromus marginatus GC N W

Carex bella GC N

Carex kelloggii



Carex siccata GC N W

Cirsium parryi GC N F

Conioselinum scopulorum GC N F

Deschampsia caespitosa N

Dryopteris filix‐mas GC N R

Epilobium GC WR

Festuca sororia N

Fragaria virginiana GC N U



Laennecia schiedeana N

Luzula parviflora GC N F

Maianthemum stellatum GC N U

Mertensia franciscana GC N F


Oreochrysum parryi N

Paxistima myrsinites SC N U

Picea engelmannii TC N U

Ribes montigenum GC N F


Senecio bigelovii GC N F

Trisetum montanum

Urtica dioica GC NI WR



Viola nephrophylla GC N WR


Table 4 Bearwallow Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

yellow‐rumped warbler 1

chickadee 3 call

yellow‐eyed junco

lesser goldfinch 7

red‐breasted nuthatch

white‐tailed Deer

Assessmnull conexcellenis very gis very gexcellenvery gocontext scores. Onegligib

Table 5 Category

Aquifer F

Geomorp

Habitat

Biota

Human In

Administ

Overall E

Managerheocren

ment: Assesndition scornt with no ngood with egood with ent with no nod with excstatus is unOverall, theble risk.

Bearwallowy

Functionality &

phology

nfluence

rative Contex

cological Scor

ement Recone spring.

ssment scores, and 12 n

need for restexcellent resexcellent resneed for restcellent restondeterminede site condit

w Spring Ass

& Water Qual

xt

re

ommendat

Fi

res were comnull risk scotoration andstoration postoration potoration and

oration potend due to nulltion is very

sessment Sc

ity

tions: This i

ig 1.2 Bearw

58

mpiled in 5 ores. Aquifed there is neotential and otential and d there is nential and thel scores andgood with e

cores.

is an excelle

wallow Sprin

categories er functionaegligible riskthere is negthere is neg

egligible riskere is neglig

d there is unexcellent re

Condition

6

5.6

5.3

5.9

5.4

0

5.7

ent referenc

ng Sketchma

and 30 subcality and watk. Geomorpgligible riskgligible riskk. Human ingible risk. A

ndeterminedestoration po

n R

1

1

1

ce site for a

ap.

categories, wter quality a

phology conk. Habitat cok. Biotic intenfluence of

Administratid risk due tootential and

Risk

1.2

1

1

1

1.2

0

1.1

high elevat

with 12 are ndition ondition egrity is f site is ive

o null d there is

tion

LocatioCarlos Rlocated Quad, mapproxiCraig Wand coll

Physicaburned includin

Emeraldunit. Thdistance

Survey meadowof naturspruce a500m fr

on: The EmReservoir Ain the Saffo

measured usmately 315

Willcox, Niclected data i

al Descriptiarea (2004)

ng A -- a 20

d Spring emhe emergence to the near

Notes: Thew area of theral regerenaand fir arounrom the tele

Surve

merald SpringArizona 1504ord RD, Corsing a GPS (3 meters. L

ck Pacini suin 7 of 12 c

ion: Emeral) with scatte050 sqm hig

merges as a sce environmrest spring i

e spring is ine spring has

ation of sprund the edge

escope and a

Em

ey Summa

g ecosystem40005 HUCronado NF (NAD83, es

Louise Miszturveyed the

ategories.

Fig 1

ld Spring isered spruce/gh gradient c

seepage or fment is subais 902 meter

n the middls always beeuce and fir ines of the wea road. No s

59

merald Spr

ary Report

m is located C, managed at 32.70208stimated potal, Max Licsite on 8/09

Emerald Sp

s a helocrene/fir, but primcienega, B -

filtration spaerial, with ars.

le of a largeen tree-freen the surrout meadow aspringsnail

ring

t, Site ID 1

in Graham by the US

8, -109.8861osition error cher, Steve 9/13 for 01:4

pring.

e spring. Thmarily open-- a 700 sqm

pring from aa gravity flo

burned are. This site a

unding landand along thsearch was

13241

County in tForest Serv17 in the W4 meters). Buckley, M45 hours, be

here is a wen. The site hm channel.

a rock layer ow force me

ea, althoughappears to bdscape. The he runout chconducted.

the Upper Gvice. The spr

Webb Peak UThe elevati

Molly McCoeginning at

et meadow ias 2 microh

in an unknoechanism. T

it appears tbe the only s

cienega hashannel. The

Gila-San ring is

USGS on is

ormick, 14:15,

n a habitats,

own The

the wet source s young site is

60

Table 1 Emerald Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 6.63





Table 2 Emerald Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 16 7

Shrub 0 0

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 1 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 3 Emerald Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status




Carex bella GC N





Dodecatheon GC W






Poa pratensis GC NI F

Poaceae GC





61

Table 4 Emerald Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

yellow‐eyed junco

mountain spiny lizard

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 24 subcategories, with 18 null condition scores, and 18 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Habitat condition is excellent with no need for restoration and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 5 Emerald Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 6 2

Biota 4.8 2




Management Recommendations: Work with Tom VanDevender to locate field records from previous visits to the site both pre-burn and pre-beetle kill. Look at squirrel BO and Scoping EIS for any further information about flow and species presence before the fire. Talk with San Carlos and White Mountain Apache to understand the history and importance of the site to the tribes - they are known to be sacred sites as is the whole top of the mountain.

Fig 2 Emer

Fig 3

62

rald Spring

Emerald Sp

Sketchmap.

pring.

.

LocatioWillcoxlocated USGS QelevatioDiana Wdata in 7

on: The Haix Playa Arizin the Saffo

Quad, measuon is approxWheeler surv7 of 12 cate

Surve

irpin Springzona 150502ord RD, Corured using a

ximately 281veyed the s

egories.

Hairpin

ey Summa

g Unnamed 201 HUC, mronado NF a GPS (NA16 meters. Nite on 8/03/

Fig 1 Hair

63

Spring Un

ary Report

ecosystem imanaged byat 32.66130

AD83, estimaNick Deyo, /13 for 01:3

rpin Spring

nnamed

t, Site ID 1

is located iny the US Fo0, -109.8643ated positioBill Beaves0 hours, beg

Unnamed.

13255

n Graham Crest Service31 in the M

on error 10 ms, Karen Loginning at 1

County in the. The sprinount Grahameters). Theowery, Don 15:00, and c

he ng is am e Davis,

collected

64

Physical Description: Hairpin Spring Unnamed is a rheocrene spring. It is a small spring emerging in a steep, heavily wooded channel. The site has 1 microhabitat, A -- a 38 sqm channel.

Hairpin Spring Unnamed emerges as a seepage or filtration spring from an igneous, granite rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial, with a gravity flow force mechanism. The distance to the nearest spring is 727 meters.

Survey Notes: The spring is covered by logging or thinning debris - lots of downed wood. The road above the spring has likely altered its natural condition. The culvert above the spring is clogged and almost buried, which may cause the road to fail and destroy the spring.

Table 1 Hairpin Spring Unnamed Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value Comments

Dissolved oxygen (field) % saturation 59.2 average of 4 measurements

Dissolved oxygen (field) (mg/L) 4.59 average of 4 measurements


Specific conductance (field) (uS/cm) 27.5 average of 4 measurements


Temperature, water C 11.3 1 measurement


Table 2 Hairpin Spring Unnamed Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 9 4

Shrub 0 0

Mid‐canopy 1 0

Tall canopy 2 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

65

Table 3 Hairpin Spring Unnamed Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Adiantum GC N

Arenaria GC


Fragaria virginiana GC N F

Glyceria GC W

Heracleum GC W

Pinus contorta TC N U



Pyrola GC U

Senecio GC F

Veratrum GC N WR


Table 4 Hairpin Spring Unnamed Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count

red‐breasted nuthatch 1

dark‐eyed junco 1

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 29 subcategories, with 13 null condition scores, and 13 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 5 Hairpin Spring Unnamed Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 3.7 2.3

Biota 5.3 2




Fig 22 Hairpin Sp

66

pring Unnammed Sketchmap.

Fig 3 Hair

67

rpin Spring Unnamed.

LocatioSan Caris locateUSGS QelevatioChristop02:10 h

on: The Helrlos Reservoed in the SaQuad, measuon is approxpher Morrisours, beginn

Surve

liograph Sproir Arizona

afford RD, Cured using a

ximately 284s, katy Browning at 10:5

Fig 1.

Heli

ey Summa

ring ecosys15040005 H

Coronado Na GPS (NA43 meters. Rwn, Maya K59, and colle

1 Heliograp

68

ograph Sp

ary Report

tem is locatHUC, mana

NF at 32.651AD27, estimaRandy Serag

K., Allie L., ected data i

ph Spring. B

pring

t, Site ID 1

ted in Grahaaged by the 145, -109.85ated positioglio, Ries LRick M. surn 8 of 12 ca

Best available

13249

am County US Forest

5026 in the on error 9 mL., Annamarrveyed the sategories.

e photo

in the UppeService. ThMount Grah

meters). The rie Schaechsite on 8/03

er Gila-he spring ham

er, 3/13 for

69

Physical Description: Heliograph Spring is a hillslope spring. The site has a lidded/boxed hillside spring protected by several stone enclosures.

Heliograph Spring emerges from a metamorphic rock layer in an unknown unit. The emergence environment is subaerial. The distance to the nearest spring is 321 meters.

Survey Notes: The spring is heavily developed and piped until it is allowed to flow freely again once it passes through the culvert under the road.

Table 1 Heliograph Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value



pH (field) 6.27





Table 2 Heliograph Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 15 4

Shrub 1 1

Mid‐canopy 1 0

Tall canopy 6 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

70

Table 3 Heliograph Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status


Acer glabrum TC N F

Achillea lanulosa GC N

Actaea rubra GC N F

Carex


Geranium GC N F

Glyceria GC W

Heracleum maximum GC N W


Maianthemum GC U

Mertensia GC N U

Oxalis alpina N


Picea pungens TC N U

Pinus TC U




Rubus SC R


Scirpus GC N W

Solanaceae

Thalictrum GC N U


Viola GC N F

71


Table 4 Heliograph Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

Common raven 1 sign

Steller's jay 1 sign

house wren

hairy woodpecker

yellow‐eyed junco

cooper's hawk


mountain chickadee

common bushtit

hermit thrush

Broad‐tailed hummingbird call

red‐tailed hawk call

White‐breasted nuthatch call

Yarrows spiny lizard 1 obs

deer sign

vole 1 obs

tadpole 1 obs

squirrels, marmots, chipmunks sign

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 32 subcategories, with 10 null condition scores, and 10 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Human influence of site is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 5 Heliograph Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 3.5 2.5

Biota 5.5 2.9




FFig 2 Heliog

72

raph Springg Sketchmapp.

LocatioPlaya Athe SaffmeasureapproxiCraig Wand coll

Physicahillside spring c394 sqmWeiner

High Peemergen

Survey is the onnatural

on: The HigArizona 1505ford RD, Coed using a Gmately 312

Willcox, Niclected data i

al Descriptiin a flat op

cover 430 sqm low gradie

diversity in

eak Cienegance environ

Notes: Thenly site of respruce/fir re

Surve

gh Peak Cien50201 HUCoronado NFGPS (NAD84 meters. L

ck Pacini suin 8 of 12 c

ion: High Pen meadowqm. The siteent cienegandex.

a emerges frnment is sub

e site is in gegenerationegeneration

High

ey Summa

nega ecosysC, managed F at 32.693883, estimate

Louise Miszturveyed the

ategories.

Fig 1 H

Peak Cienegw at the start

e has 2 micr. The geom

rom a metambaerial. The

good conditin of spruce an - all of the

73

h Peak Cie

ary Report

stem is locaby the US F

85, -109.867ed position etal, Max Licsite on 8/09

High Peak C

ga is a hillslot of a drainarohabitats, i

morphic dive

morphic rocdistance to

ion. A largeand fir. Thesurroundin

nega

t, Site ID 1

ated in GrahForest Serv

762 in the Merror 5 metecher, Steve 9/13 for 01:4

Cienega.

ope spring. age. The micincluding A

ersity is 0.12

ck layer in ao the nearest

e fire burnede spring appng landscape

17339

ham Countyvice. The sprMount Grahaers). The eleBuckley, M46 hours, be

The spring crohabitats

A -- a 36 sqm2, based on


d here in 20ears to be the burned in

y in the Willring is locatam USGS Qevation is

Molly McCoeginning at

emerges frassociated w

m channel, Bthe Shanno

n unit. The 457 meters

004 and the he only sou2004, with

lcox ted in Quad,

ormick, 9:54,

om a with the B -- a

on-

.

spring urce of

no

74

signs of regeneration. No spring snails were detected but there were a variety of other insects present - worms, leeches, etc.

Table 1 High Peak Cienega Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 7.05





Table 2 High Peak Cienega Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 34 12

Shrub 0 0

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 1 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

75

Table 3 High Peak Cienega Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status




Agrostis stolonifera GC I W

Allium geyeri GC N

Arenaria lanuginosa GC N U

Bromus ciliatus GC N F

Bromus marginatus GC N W

Campanula parryi GC N U

Carex bella GC N

Carex kelloggii






Dodecatheon dentatum GC N

Dryopteris filix‐mas GC N R

Elymus trachycaulus GC N F

Festuca sororia N

Fragaria virginiana GC N U


Helianthella quinquenervis GC N





Luzula parviflora GC N F



Oreochrysum parryi N


Potentilla albiflora GC N




Sisyrinchium longipes GC N

Trisetum montanum




76


Table 4 High Peak Cienega Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method

Hirudinea A Spot

Table 5 High Peak Cienega Vertebrates. Species Common Name

pine siskin

yellow‐eyed junco

western bluebird

northern flicker

house wren

White‐breasted nuthatch

Annas hummingbird

yellow‐rumped warbler

pygmy nuthatch

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 25 subcategories, with 17 null condition scores, and 17 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Habitat condition is excellent with no need for restoration and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 6 High Peak Cienega Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 6 2

Biota 4.8 2




Management Recommendations: Work with Tom VanDevender to find previous survey information from before 2004 fire, possibly from before beetle kill. Consult BO and telescope EIS for any previous flow information. Talk with San Carlos and White Mountain Apache about the cultural significance of the site.

FFig 2 High P

Fig 3 H

77

Peak Cienega

High Peak C

a Sketchmap

Cienega.

p.

Fig 4 H

78

High Peak CCienega.

LocatioArizonaSafford measureapproxiDavis suof 12 ca

Physicameadowmicroha

Unnameenviron

Survey meadowpassed c

on: The Unna 15050201 RD, Coron

ed using a Gmately 273urveyed theategories.

al Descriptiw denoted babitats, inclu

ed emerges nment is sub

Notes: Thew. This site camping an

Unnam

Surve

named ecosHUC, man

nado NF at 3GPS (NAD83 meters. N

e site on 8/0

ion: Unnamy alder treeuding A -- a

from an ignbaerial. The

e site is heavis part of a

nd driving -

med (Mid

ey Summa

system is locnaged by the32.66153, -83, estimate

Nick Deyo, B04/13 for 02

Fi

med is a heloes and a smaa 375 sqm c

neous, grandistance to

vily used folarger helocRoad engin

79

dle Treasu

ary Report

cated in Grae US Forest 109.87185 i

ed position eBill Beaver,:30 hours, b

ig 1 Unname

ocrene sprinall channel. channel, B -

ite rock laythe nearest

or recreationcrene comp

neering has d

ure Park S

t, Site ID 1

aham CountService. Th

in the Mounerror 4 mete, Karen Lowbeginning a

ed.

ng. The spriThere is no

-- a 1000 sq

yer in an unkt spring is 1

n with signslex with higdegraded th

Spring)

17336

ty in the Whe spring is nt Graham Uers). The elewrey, Dianaat 9:00, and

ing emergeso open wateqm low grad

known unit.37 meters.

s of people dgh quality whe adjacent h

illcox Playalocated in t

USGS Quadevation is a Wheeler, Dcollected da

s from a largr. The site h

dient cieneg

. The emerg

driving throwetland habhabitat (rec

a the d,

Don ata in 7

ge open has 2 a.

gence

ough the itat - ent?).

80


Table 1 Unnamed Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 18 9

Shrub 0 0

Mid‐canopy 1 1

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 2 Unnamed Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status


Agrimonia

Alnus incana MC N WR

Carex lenticularis GC N W

Carex pellita GC N W

Carex stipata GC N W

Carex utriculata GC N W


Cerastium WR


Festuca arizonica GC N U

Glyceria elata N W

Heracleum GC W


Hypericum scouleri GC N WR

Muhlenbergia montana GC N U

Oxalis alpina N


Rorippa A

Rudbeckia GC F


Senecio GC F


Veratrum GC N WR


81

Table 3 Unnamed Invertebrates.


detail

Hymenoptera Apidae Ad T Spot 1 "flower bee"

Hymenoptera Apidae Bombus Ad T Spot 1

Hymenoptera Formicidae Formica Ad T Spot

Table 4 Unnamed Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count

dark‐eyed junco 1

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 25 subcategories, with 17 null condition scores, and 17 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is moderate risk.

Table 5 Unnamed Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk


Geomorphology 4 3.2

Habitat 4.3 3

Biota 5 2.5




Management Recommendations: This site is part of a larger helocrene complex with high quality wetland habitat - passed camping and driving - Road engineering has degraded the adjacent habitat (recent?). The site could benefit from restoration and engineering.

Fig 2 Un

82

nnamed Skeetchmap.

Fi

83

ig 3 Unnameed.

Locatiothe UppServiceMount Gmeters)Morris, 01:4 hou

Physicasite is n

The em

Survey sedges tand normarea accit doesn

on: The Shaper Gila-San. The springGraham US. The elevatKaty Browurs, beginni

al Descriptinearly pristin

ergence env

Notes: Theto access thmal flow. Acessing the an't get a lot o

Sh

Surve

annon Campn Carlos Reg is located SGS Quad, mtion is appro

wn, Maya K.ing at 14:40

Fi

ion: Shannone. It has a f

vironment is

e site was ove origin poi

An abandonearea above of foot traff

hannon Ca

ey Summa

pground Unservoir Arizin the Saffomeasured usoximately 2., Allie L., R0, and collec

g 1 Shannon

on Campgrofaint channe

s subaerial.

vergrown toint. The spried (loggingthe spring,

fic either.

84

ampgroun

ary Report

nnamed ecoszona 15040ord RD, Corsing a GPS

2793 metersRick M., Ricted data in

n Campgrou

ound Unnamel, so is like

The distanc

o the point ting is quite

g) road leadsallowing th

nd Unnam

t, Site ID 1

system is lo005 HUC, mronado NF (WGS84, e

s. Randy Seres L. survey

n 9 of 12 cat

und Unnam

med is a rheely a rheocr

ce to the ne

that the survnatural and

s out to the he road to re

ed

17329

ocated in Grmanaged byat 32.65606

estimated poraglio, Riesyed the site tegories.

ed.

eocrene/helorene site.

earest spring

veyors had td has good vspring area

evegetate. F

raham Couny the US Fo6, -109.8573osition errors L., Christoon 8/03/13

ocrene sprin

g is 321 met

to part backvegetative c. No more vrom the loo

nty in orest 32 in the r 8 opher for

ng. This

ters.

k the cover vehicles oks of it,

85

Table 1 Shannon Campground Unnamed Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value



pH (field) 5.88





Table 2 Shannon Campground Unnamed Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 20 6

Shrub 3 0

Mid‐canopy 1 0

Tall canopy 3 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

86

Table 3 Shannon Campground Unnamed Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Abies TC U

Acer glabrum TC N F

Actaea rubra GC N F


Artemisia SC N F


Bromus GC F

Carex GC

Cerastium WR

Cirsium GC F

Fragaria GC N U





Mertensia GC N U


Oxalis GC N WR

Picea SC U

Poaceae fam GC




Ribes pinetorum N


Sambucus GC F

Scirpus GC N W

Thalictrum GC N U

unknown Fungus, fleshy (mushroom)



Table 4 Shannon Campground Unnamed Invertebrates.


detail

Lepidoptera Arctiidae Gnophaela

vermiculata Ad T Spot 1 photos

Table 5 Shannon Campground Unnamed Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

hermit thrush 3 obs

house wren

mountain chickadee


deer 1 sign

87

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 32 subcategories, with 10 null condition scores, and 10 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Geomorphology condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Human influence of site is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 6 Shannon Campground Unnamed Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 4.5 2

Biota 5.5 2.9




Management Recommendations: The spring is quite natural and has good vegetative cover and normal flow. An abandoned (logging) road leads out to the spring area. No more vehicles area accessing the area above the spring, allowing the road to revegetate. From the looks of it, it doesn't get a lot of foot traffic either.

Fig 2 Shhannon Cam

88

mpground Unnnamed Skeetchmap.

Fig 3 Sh

hannon Cammpground UUnnamed: sp

89

pring in its standing

surroundinggs - spring iis where peo

ople are

LocatioPlaya Athe SaffmeasureapproxiDavis suof 12 ca

Physicawet meageomorp

Snow Femergen

Survey years; th

on: The SnoArizona 1505ford RD, Coed using a Gmately 269urveyed theategories.

al Descriptiadow whichrphic diversi

lat Unnamence environ

Notes: Thehe spillway

Surve

ow Flat Unn50201 HUCoronado NFGPS (NAD82 meters. N

e site on 8/0

ion: Snow Fh drains to aity is 0.00, b


e site is heavis causing e

Snow

ey Summa

named ecosyC, managed F at 32.653183, estimate


Fig 1 Sn

Flat Unnama small dambased on th

from a combaerial. The

vily impacterosion in th

90

w Flat Unn

ary Report

ystem is locby the US F9, -109.864


now Flat Un

med is a helommed pool. T

e Shannon-

mbination rodistance to

ted by recreahe downstre

amed

t, Site ID 1

cated in GraForest Serv

487 in the Merror 5 mete, Karen Lowbeginning a

nnamed.

ocrene/anthrThe site has-Weiner div

ock layer in o the nearest

ation. It haseam channe

17337

aham Countvice. The sprMount Grahaers). The elewrey, Dianaat 10:30, and

ropogenic ss 5 microhabversity index


s been dammel.

ty in the Wiring is locatam USGS Qevation is a Wheeler, Dd collected d

pring. Therbitats. The x.

n unit. The 90 meters.

med for man

illcox ted in Quad,

Don data in 7

re is a

ny

91

Table 1 Snow Flat Unnamed Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

Dissolved oxygen (field) % saturation 22


pH (field) 5.86




Flora: Surveyors identified 11 plant species at the site. These included 6 native and 5 nonnative species.

Table 2 Snow Flat Unnamed Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 9 2

Shrub 0 0

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 3 Snow Flat Unnamed Vegetation.


Status

Agoseris GC U


Carex utriculata GC N W

Epilobium exaltatum

Geranium GC N F

Glandularia GC U

Houstonia wrightii GC N F

Hypericum GC F

Luzula multiflora GC N


unknown Moss


92

Table 4 Snow Flat Unnamed Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method Count Species detail

arachnid Ad T Spot 2 2 spp of crab spiders

Coleoptera Cerambycidae Ad T Spot longhorn beetle

Coleoptera Coccinellidae Ad T Spot ladybug

Diptera Syrphidae Spot

Hymenoptera Apidae Bombus Ad T Spot

Hymenoptera Pompilidae T Spot

Hymenoptera Pompilidae Pepsis Ad T Spot

Lepidoptera Lycaenidae Ad T Spot blue (Polyommatinae)

Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Ad T Spot checkerspot butterfly

Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Adelpha eulalia Ad T Spot

Lepidoptera Pieridae Phoebis sennae Ad T Spot

Odonata Aeshnidae Ad T Spot blue darner

Odonata Anisoptera Ad T Spot multiple spp

Odonata Libellulidae Libellula saturata Ad T Spot

Orthoptera Acrididae T Spot multiple spp

Table 5 Snow Flat Unnamed Vertebrates. Species Common Name

yellow‐eyed junco

pocket gopher

fish

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 29 subcategories, with 13 null condition scores, and 13 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Biotic integrity is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is moderate risk.

Table 6 Snow Flat Unnamed Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 4.3 3.3

Biota 4.8 2.5




Management Recommendations: The dam is creating an unnatural pond. A spillway is causing erosion in the runout channel. There are extensive road and trail impacts around the spring that could be mitigated. Dispersed recreation is heavily impacting the spring and

surrounbenefici

nding areas. ial.

A better de

Fi

esigned cam

ig 2 Snow F

93

mpground an

lat Unname

nd restoratio

ed Sketchma

on of impac

ap.

ted areas wwould be

Fig 3 Sn

Fig 4 Sn

94

now Flat Un

now Flat Un

nnamed.

nnamed.

LocatioArizonaSafford measureapproxiDavis suof 12 ca

Physicadrainagesite has uplands

Unnameenviron

Survey channelDue to t


ed using a Gmately 278urveyed theategories.

al Descriptie near the T2 microhab

s.


Notes: Thel. It is the wthe presence

Unna

Surve

named ecosHUC, man

nado NF at 3GPS (NAD85 meters. N

e site on 8/0

ion: UnnamTreasure Parbitats, includ


e spring is cwater source

e of overflo

amed (Trea

ey Summa



Fi

med is a hillsrk campgrouding A -- a


completely dfor the cam

ow, it may b

95

asure Par

ary Report

cated in Grae US Forest 109.87004 i


ig 1 Unname

slope springund. It is th1120 sqm c


developed wmpground. Itbe possible t

k Campgro

t, Site ID 1


in the Mounerror 9 mete, Karen Lowbeginning a

ed.

g. It is a devhe water souchannel, B -


with no watt was recentto rewater th

ound)

17334

ty in the Whe spring is nt Graham Uers). The elewrey, Dianaat 11:20, and

veloped spriurce for the -- a 1200 sq


ter flowing ttly developehe historic w


USGS Quadevation is a Wheeler, Dd collected d

ing in a smacampgroun

qm adjacent

. The emerg

to the histored or renovwetlands at

a the d,

Don data in 8

all nd. The

gence

ric vated.

the site.

96

Table 1 Unnamed Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 7.14






Ground 17 3

Shrub 0 0

Mid‐canopy 2 1

Tall canopy 5 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

97


Abies U



Bromus GC F

Carex GC


Cerastium WR



Erysimum

Galium GC I F

Geranium GC N F

Glandularia GC U

Heracleum GC W


Mertensia GC N U

Monarda GC F

Oxalis alpina GC N


Picea pungens TC N U






Pteridium GC N U

Rorippa A

Rudbeckia GC F

Veratrum GC N WR


Table 4 Unnamed Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method

Coleoptera Erotylidae Megalodacne heros Ad T Spot

Table 5 Unnamed Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

pocket gopher


Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 26 subcategories, with 16 null condition scores, and 16 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are good with significant restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Geomorphology condition is poor with limited restoration potential and there is high risk. Habitat condition is poor with

98

limited restoration potential and there is high risk. Biotic integrity is poor with limited restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Human influence of site is moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk.




Habitat 2.5 4

Biota 2.5 3.8




Management Recommendations: Due to the presence of overflow from the storage tank, it may be possible to rewater the historic wetlands at the site.

Fig 2 Un

99

nnamed Skeetchmap.

Fi

Fi

100

ig 3 Unname

ig 4 Unname

ed.

ed.

Fi

101

ig 5 Unnameed.

LocatioArizonaSafford measureapproxiSchaech9:19, an

Physicalocated with thecienega

Unnameenviron

Survey a modifspring rdigging head cu


ed using a Gmately 273her, Christond collected

al Descriptiin an open

e spring cova. The geom


Notes: Thefied (?) chanrun. Flow in above sprin

ut? The site

Unna

Surve

named ecosHUC, man

nado NF at 3GPS (WGS88 meters. Lpher Morris

d data in 8 o

ion: Unnammeadow in

vers 1300 sqmorphic dive


e emergencennel above. ncreases as yng dug out ccould use fe

amed (Upp

ey Summa


Louise Miszts surveyed tf 12 categor

Fi

med is a heloan undevel

qm. The siteersity is 0.00


e point has bFortunately

you descendchannel. Thencing to ke

102

per Treasu

ary Report

cated in Grae US Forest 109.87203 ied position etal, Randy Sthe site on 8ries.

ig 1 Unname

ocrene sprinloped campge has 1 micr0, based on


been downcy, aquatic ved the meadohe piled up reep yahoos

ure Park S

t, Site ID 1


in the Mounerror 8 meteSeraglio, Ri8/04/13 for

ed.

ng that is paground arearohabitat, Athe Shanno


cut 5-6' fromegetation haow. The FS rock at sprinout - there a

pring)

17335

ty in the Whe spring is nt Graham Uers). The eleies L., Rudy01:11 hours

art of a largea. The micro

A -- a 1300 son-Weiner d


m the rest oas grown inroad nearby

ng source mare lots of m


USGS Quadevation is y L., Annams, beginning

er complex.ohabitat asssqm high grdiversity ind

. The emerg

f the cienegn to anchor ty massive d

may be to prmotorized tr

a the d,

marie g at

It is sociated radient dex.

gence

ga due to the ditch revent a raffic

103

(quads, etc.) tire tracks through meadow. There is an old campground in the middle of the meadow.

Table 1 Unnamed Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

Dissolved oxygen (field) % saturation 52

pH (field) 6.16






Ground 24 7

Shrub 1 0

Mid‐canopy 1 1

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

104


Achillea lanulosa GC N

Agoseris aurantiaca GC N U


Artemisia SC N F

Brassicaceae

Brassicaceae

Bromus GC F

Campanula rotundifolia GC N U

Carex

Centaurea solstitialis GC I WR

Cerastium fontanum GC I WR

Cirsium GC F



Glyceria GC W



Hypericum frondosum GC N F

Linum lewisii GC N

Monarda GC F

Oxalis GC N WR


Poaceae

Prunella vulgaris GC N F

Rudbeckia laciniata GC N F

Rumex acetosella GC I W

Senecio GC F

Taraxacum officinale GC NI F

Tragopogon dubius GC I F

Veratrum viride GC N WR


Table 4 Unnamed Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method Count Species detail

Lepidoptera Ad T Spot 1 small white moth with small

darker patch at wing base

Orthoptera Acrididae T Spot 1 photo

Table 5 Unnamed Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

terrestrial gartersnake 1 obs


house wren

pine siskin

yellow‐eyed junco

105

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 23 subcategories, with 19 null condition scores, and 20 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.



Geomorphology 3.8 3

Habitat 4.5 2.5

Biota 4.3 2.7




Management Recommendations: The FS road nearby massive ditch digging above spring dug out channel. The piled up rock at spring source may be to prevent a head cut? The site could use fencing to keep motorized users out - there are lots of motorized traffic (quads, etc.) tire tracks through meadow. There is an old campground in the middle of the meadow.

Fig 2 Un

106

nnamed Skeetchmap.

LocatioWillcoxlocated USGS QelevatioAnnamabeginnin

Physicaelevatio160 sqm

Westernan unkn

Survey seconda

on: The Wex Playa Arizin the Saffo

Quad, measuon is approxarie Schaechng at 11:30

Fig 1 West

al Description wet meadm channel, B

n Hospital Fnown unit. T

Notes: A gary terrace h

W

Surve

stern Hospizona 150502ord RD, Corured using a

ximately 275her, Christo, and collec

tern Hospita

ion: Westerdow with brB -- a 0 sqm

Flat UnnameThe emergen

good referenhabitat.

Western Ho

ey Summa

ital Flat Unn201 HUC, mronado NF a GPS (NA50 meters. Lopher Morricted data in

al Flat Unna

rn Hospital raided chann

m low gradie

ed emergesnce environ

nce site! It h

107

ospital Fla

ry Report,

named ecosmanaged byat 32.66831

AD83, estimaLouise Miszis surveyed 8 of 12 cate

amed: middl

Flat Unnamnels. The sient cienega.

as a seepagnment is sub

has a high d

at Unname

, Site ID 17

system is loy the US Fo1, -109.8773ated positioztal, Randy the site on

egories.

le section o

med is a heloite has 3 mic.

ge or filtratibaerial.

diversity of p

ed

79832

cated in Grarest Service38 in the M

on error 5 mSeraglio, R8/04/13 for

f meadow,

ocrene sprincrohabitats,

ion spring fr

plants, as w

aham Coune. The sprinount Graha

meters). The Ries L., Rudr 01:30 hour

from upper

ng. It is a la, including A

from a rock

well as wette

nty in the ng is am

dy L., rs,

arge high A -- a

layer in

ed and

108

Table 1 Western Hospital Flat Unnamed Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value


Dissolved oxygen (field) (mg/L) 503

pH (field) 6.06




Table 2 Western Hospital Flat Unnamed Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 27 13

Shrub 1 0

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 1 0

109

Table 3 Western Hospital Flat Unnamed Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status



Bistorta bistortoides N F

Caltha leptosepala GC N

Carex buxbaumii GC N

Carex interior GC N W

Carex lenticularis GC N W


Carex stipata GC N W


Danthonia U

Deschampsia caespitosa GC N

Dodecatheon pulchellum GC N W

Erysimum capitatum SC N U

Festuca arizonica GC N U

Glandularia GC U


Hypericum frondosum GC N F

Juncus interior GC N U

Juncus longistylis GC N W


Luzula multiflora GC N


moss NV N F


Prunella vulgaris GC N F

Pteridium GC U



Sisyrinchium demissum GC N W



Table 4 Western Hospital Flat Unnamed Invertebrates.


detail

Hemiptera Gerridae Gerris Ad A Spot 1

Hemiptera Notonectidae

Notonecta Ad A Spot 50 collected


Speyeria hesperis Ad T Spot 1

nausicaa,

maybe

Lepidoptera Sphingidae Ad T Spot 1 Sphinx sp.

110

Table 5 Western Hospital Flat Unnamed Vertebrates. Species Common Name

mule deer

mountain chickadee

chipmunk

house wren

red‐tailed hawk

gopher

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 30 subcategories, with 12 null condition scores, and 14 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are very good with excellent restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Habitat condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Biotic integrity is excellent with no need for restoration and there is negligible risk. Human influence of site is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is very good with excellent restoration potential and there is negligible risk.

Table 6 Western Hospital Flat Unnamed Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 5.5 1.8

Biota 6 1.5




Management Recommendations: There is a campground just downhill and a road nearby (including one that crosses the meadow above the spring). There is an erosion ditch forming from the road. There is road sand and gravel build-up on the upper terrace.

Fig 2 WWestern Hosp

111

pital Flat Unnnamed Skeetchmap.

Fig 3 Westtern Hospitaal Flat Unna

112

amed: erosion from roaad going intto meadow

Locatio1505030RD, Comeasureapproxi5/19/12

Physicalocated Weiner

The dist

Survey present.

Flora: Snonnativ

on: The Alis02 HUC, mronado NF ed using a Gmately 178 for 00:14 h

al Descriptiat a well-usdiversity in

tance to the

Notes: The. Water is lo

Surveyors ive species.

Surve

so Spring ecmanaged by t

at 31 44' 7.GPS (NAD 0 meters. Ju

hours, begin

ion: Aliso Ssed campsitndex.

e nearest spr

e surroundinocated in the

dentified 1

Santa

Aliso

ey Summa

cosystem isthe US Fore494", -110 83, estimateulia Fonsecanning at 16:

Fig 1

Spring is a rte. The geom

ring is 1068

ng campsitee a concrete

plant specie

113

Rita Mou

Spring Su

ary Report

s located in est Service. 48' 9.05" ined position a, John Stan16, and coll

1.1 Aliso Sp

rheocrene spmorphic div

8 meters.

e is heavily e tank with

es at the site

untains

rvey 1

t, Site ID 1

Pima CounThe spring

n the Mounterror 5 met

nsberry, Dalected data

pring.

pring. It is aversity is 0.0

used and demoist soil a

e. These inc

17073

nty in the Rig is located it Wrightsonters). The elle Turner suin 5 of 12 c

a partially b00, based on

enuded and around it.

cluded 1 nat

llito Arizonin the Sierra

n USGS Qualevation is urveyed thecategories.

boxed springn the Shann

campers w

tive and 0

na a Vista ad,

e site on

g that is non-

were

114

Table 1 Aliso Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 1 0

Shrub 0 0

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 0 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 2 Aliso Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Carex GC N

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 32 subcategories, with 10 null condition scores, and 10 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are moderate with some restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Geomorphology condition is very poor with very limited restoration potential and there is very high risk. Habitat condition is very poor with very limited restoration potential and there is very high risk. Biotic integrity is poor with limited restoration potential and there is extreme risk. Human influence of site is moderate with some restoration potential and there is very high risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is poor with limited restoration potential and there is very high risk.

Table 3 Aliso Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 1.8 5.6

Biota 2.38 6




Management Recommendations: Steam is flowing nearby, but not next to site. There are interupted segments of flow (ephemeral reaches in between). Unable to determine origin of flow coming out of pipe as there is no evidence of pipe in the stream.

Locatio1505030RD, ComeasureapproxiBryon Lcollecte

Physicalocated geomorp

The dist

Survey down th

on: The Alis02 HUC, mronado NF ed using a Gmately 178

Lichtenhan ed data in 7

al Descriptiat a well-us

rphic diversi

tance to the

Notes: Thehe channel.

Surve

so Spring ecmanaged by t

at 31 44' 7.GPS (NAD 0 meters. Csurveyed thof 12 categ

ion: Aliso Ssed campsitity is 0.00, b

e nearest spr

e site was veThe water w

Aliso

ey Summa

cosystem isthe US Fore494", -110 83, estimate

Cory Jones, Che site on 6/ories.

Fig

Spring is a rte. The site hbased on th

ring is 1068

ery busy wiwas clear an

115

Spring Su

ary Report

s located in est Service. 48' 9.05" ined position Christopher/24/14 for 0

g 1 Aliso Spr

rheocrene sphas 1 microe Shannon-

8 meters.

ith wildlife nd teeming

rvey 2

t, Site ID 1

Pima CounThe spring

n the Mounterror 5 met

r Morris, W1:00 hours,

ring

pring. It is aohabitat, A --Weiner div

activity andwith lots of

17073

nty in the Rig is located it Wrightsonters). The el

Willem Van Kbeginning

a partially b-- a 39 sqm

versity index

d water wasf small inve

llito Arizonin the Sierra

n USGS Qualevation is Kempen, anat 10:00, an

boxed springchannel. Th

x.

s flowing nicrtebrates. T

na a Vista ad,

nd nd

g that is he

cely Two hen

116

turkeys walked to within 10 meters of the surveyors during the visit on separate occasions. Damage from recreational shooting was evident on metal signage and on over 40 trees.

Table 1 Aliso Spring Water Quality with multiple readings averaged. Characteristic Measured Average Value

pH (field) 6.46




Table 2 Aliso Spring Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Count Species detail

Aranea Pisauridae Dolomedes Ad A 1 fishing spider

Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Adelpha eulalia Ad T 2 Arizona sister butterfly

Table 3 Aliso Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Count Detection

Banded rock rattlesnake 1 obs

White‐tailed Deer 1 obs

Gray fox 1 sign

common raven obs

Blue Grosbeak obs

hepatic tanager obs

Bewick's wren obs

painted redstart obs

brown‐crested flycatcher obs

acorn woodpecker obs

wild turkey 3 obs

Bridled Titmouse obs

black‐throated gray warbler obs

plumbeous vireo obs

black‐headed grosbeak obs

black‐chinned hummingbird obs

Broad‐billed Hummingbird obs

lesser goldfinch obs

black‐chinned sparrow obs

white‐breasted nuthatch obs

ash‐throated flycatcher obs

turkey vulture obs

Mexican Jay obs

Locatio1505030CoronadmeasureapproxiFurnier 7 of 12

PhysicasteepnoGardnerspring bthe sprindiversity

The emto the ne

Survey a well-uof water

on: The Bal02 HUC, mdo NF at 31ed using a Gmately 264surveyed thcategories.

al Descriptirth/northeasr Canyon drbox with conng covers 3y index.

ergence envearest sprin

Notes: Thiused hiking r located un

Surve

dy Spring emanaged by t1 41' 56.717GPS (NAD 7 meters. Lhe site on 5/

ion: Baldy st facing slorainage. Thenrete over i5 sqm. The

vironment isng is 570 me

is is a heloctrail within

nder a concr

B

ey Summa

ecosystem isthe US Fore

7", -110 50' 83, estimate

Louise Miszt/19/12 for 0

Fig

Spring is a ope in closee spring emt in designa

e geomorphi

s subaerial, eters.

rene springn 2 m of the rete spring b

117

Baldy Sprin

ary Report

s located in est Service. 44.781" in ed position tal, Randy S

02:00 hours,

1 Baldy Spr

helocrene se proximity

mergence is lated Wildernic diversity

with a grav

located in aspring site

box structur

ng

t, Site ID 1

Santa CruzThe springthe Mount Werror 5 met

Serraglio, A, beginning

ring.

spring. This to a mountalocated undness. The mis 0.00, bas

vity flow for

an area thatand the spri

re. There is

12977

z County in g is located iWrightson Uters). The el

Aida Catillo-at 14:30, an

spring is onain pass abo

der within wmicrohabitatsed on the S

rce mechan

t was severeing emergenold piping i

the Rillito Ain the NogaUSGS Quadlevation is -Flores, Gelnd collected

n a relativelove the orig

what appearst associated Shannon-We

nism. The di

ely burned. nce is a smainfrastructu

Arizona ales RD, d,

lnn d data in

ly in of s to be a with

einer

istance

There is all pool

ure

118

going from the spring to a rusted out tank just across the hiking trail. The main mircrohabitat at this site is a small, very shallow pool of water located directly under the concrete.


Table 1 Baldy Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 2 1

Shrub 1 0

Mid‐canopy 1 0

Tall canopy 2 0

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 0 0

Table 2 Baldy Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Carex GC N

Pinus ponderosa SC N F

Plantago GC WR



Quercus gambelii TC N F


Table 3 Baldy Spring Invertebrates. Species Lifestage Habitat Method

Coleoptera Coccinellidae T Spot

Table 4 Baldy Spring Vertebrates. Species Common Name Detection

yellow‐eyed junco obs

spotted towhee obs

Grace's warbler obs

house wren obs

hepatic tanager obs

Steller's jay obs

Arizona gray squirrel obs

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 33 subcategories, with 9 null condition scores, and 9 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is poor with limited restoration potential and there is moderate risk. Habitat condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Biotic integrity is moderate

119

with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 5 Baldy Spring Assessment Scores. Category Condition Risk



Habitat 3.4 2.6

Biota 3.25 2.5




Management Recommendations: Check for historic flow data to understand the effect the fire has had on the spring. The spring was signed by the FS so it was probably more productive at one time. This spring is of high value for recreation purposes - hikers in the Wilderness- so it would might be beneficial to look at the impact the trail and existing spring box structure is having on spring functionality. Perhaps it would benefit from cleaning the spring box. Due to the fire, the spring is very exposed and may benefit from native plant restoration to provid more shade and microhabitat shelter.

Fig 2 Bald

120

dy Spring Skketchmap.

LocatioArizonaSierra VUSGS QelevatioTurner s7 of 12

Physicathe sprindiversity

The emto the ne

Survey

Table 1 Characte

Tempera

on: The Sawa 15050302 Vista RD, CQuad, measuon is approxsurveyed thcategories.

al Descripting covers 3y index.

ergence envearest sprin

Notes: Non

Sawmill Speristic Measur

ture, water C

Surve

wmill SpringHUC, manoronado NFured using a

ximately 213he site on 5/

ion: Sawmi36 sqm. Th

vironment isng is 262 me

ne recorded

ring Water red

Sa

ey Summa

g ecosystemnaged by theF at 31 43' 4a GPS (NA33 meters. J19/12 for 0

Fig 1

ill Spring ishe geomorph

s subaerial,eters.

d.

Quality wit

121

wmill Spr

ary Report

m is located e US Forest 44.501", -11

AD 83, estimJulia Fonsec1:50 hours,

1 Sawmill Sp

a hillslope hic diversity

with a grav

th multiple rAverage V

14

ing

t, Site ID 1

in Santa CrService. Th

10 49' 16.97mated positioca, Karen Lbeginning

pring.

spring. They is 0.00, ba

vity flow for

readings aveValue

17072

ruz County he spring is 7" in the Moon error 4.5

Lowry, Johnat 12:50, an

e microhabiased on the

rce mechan

eraged.

in the Rillitlocated in t

ount Wright meters). Th

n Stansbury,nd collected

itat associatShannon-W

nism. The di

to the tson he Dale

d data in

ed with Weiner

istance

122


Table 2 Sawmill Spring Cover Type. Cover Type Species Count Wetland Species Count

Ground 6 3

Shrub 2 0

Mid‐canopy 0 0

Tall canopy 4 2

Basal 0 0

Aquatic 0 0

Non‐vascular 1 0

Table 3 Sawmill Spring Vegetation. Species Cover Code Native Status Wetland Status

Aquilegia GC W

Arbutus arizonica TC N

Carex GC N

Carex ultra GC N

Eleocharis GC N W



Juncus GC N

Juniperus SC N U

Mimulus GC N W

moss NV N F


Quercus SC U

Fauna: There was no fauna recorded at this site due to time constraints.

Assessment: Assessment scores were compiled in 5 categories and 31 subcategories, with 11 null condition scores, and 12 null risk scores. Aquifer functionality and water quality are good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Geomorphology condition is moderate with some restoration potential and there is low risk. Habitat condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is negligible risk. Biotic integrity is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Human influence of site is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk. Administrative context status is undetermined due to null scores and there is undetermined risk due to null scores. Overall, the site condition is good with significant restoration potential and there is low risk.

Table 4 Category

Aquifer F

Geomorp

Habitat

Biota

Human In

Administ

Overall E

ManagetramplinFire in tMonitor

Sawmill Spy

Functionality &

phology

nfluence

rative Contex

cological Scor

ement Recong by peoplthe area hasr for health

ring Assessm

& Water Qual

xt

re

ommendatle. The deves reduced thand continu

ment Scores

ity

tions: The selopment at

he canopy coue to protec

Fig 1.2 Saw123

s.

pring is next the spring over but thact from graz

wmill Spring

Condition

4.17

3.8

4.4

4.5

4.56

0

4.22

xt to Sawmimay need m

at may allowzing.

Sketchmap

n R

1

1

1

ill Canyon tmaintenancew other spec

p.

Risk

2

2

1.8

2

.88

0

.95

trail and is ae to maintaicies to thriv

at risk of n flow.

ve.

Appendix D: Fire Effects, Restoration of Watersheds and Springs Workshop Report

Fire E

Fire in thescale of spwatershedpractitionsprings; onext stepsrestore ecregimes w

W

W

H

W

WorkshThe workspractitionpresentatDiscussion

To

C

ch

R

(s

Specific revegetatio

Springs Available vegetatiospringsda

Effects:Socie

e southwest aprings, and tinds and water

ners. This wooffered tools ts. The focus wcological funcwith a focus o

What are exam

What restorat

ow can resto

What are some

op Results shop had 67 p

ners, conservations (see prens were organ

ools: What re

hallenges: W

hange into ac

ecommendat

specific strate

esults from pan, vegetation

tools includen – species/teta.org); and r

: Restoety for Ecolog

No

affects ecosysnajas. As fire sources is berkshop providto respond towas on how lction, and eason the followi

mples of fire‐i

ion and mana

oration approa

e next steps f

participants iation practitioesentation listnized by topic

estoration too

What hasn’t wo

ccount?

tions: What a

egies/tools, re

articipant disn and Burned

e: fencing to eechniques; onremote sensin

ration ogical Restora

ovember 20,

stems both atregimes cont

ecoming increded informat

o these impacand manager

se transition fng questions

induced chan

agement tool

aches at the w

for post‐fire r

ncluding landoners and tribt p. 4) followec and particip

ols are curren

orked? What

are 2‐3 recom

esearch, train

cussions are Area Emerge

exclude ungunline spring inng tools (inclu

of Watation Southw2015, Tucso

t the watershtinuing to chaeasingly impoion on trends

cts before andrs and restorafor ecosystem:

ges in waters

s are current

watershed sc

restoration in

d and resourcbal members.ed by facilitatpants address

ntly working f

t are some of

mmendations

ning, new part

organized beency Response

lates (dependnventory datauding drones)

ershedwest Chapteon, Arizona

hed scale and ange, addressortant for mans in fire effectd after fires; aation practitio

ms and specie

shed and wat

tly working? W

cale and micro

n the southwe

ce managers, . The format

ted networkinsed the follow

for wildfire ef

f the challeng

you have for

tnerships, etc

elow in the foe (BAER), and

ding on manaabase (Spring) to see and m

ds and Ser Conferenc

at the smallesing the effecnagers and rets on watershand fostered oners can fos

es in the face

ter sources?

What is missin

o‐habitat sca

est?

researchers, consisted of a

ng and small gwing question

ffects?

ges? How are

r managers an

c.)

llowing topic d research.

agement objegs Stewardshimonitor wet a

Springsce

er, habitat‐levcts of fire on estoration heds, streamsa discussion o

ster resilienceof changing f

ng?

le be combin

restoration a series of 11group discussns:

you taking cl

nd practitione

areas: spring

ectives); ip Institute, areas.

1

s

vel

s, and on

e, fire

ed?

1 sions.

imate

ers?

gs,

New toolsunderservof springs Participanaccomplis

Figure 1. W

Challenge

Id

La

Lo

Id

C

In

Th

W

La

La

R

U

C

R

La

s that are neeved communis that may be

nts highlighteshed through

o Isotopo Instrum

Workshop part

es include:

dentifying wh

ack of invento

oss of traditio

dentifying and

limate chang

nefficiency of

he lack of leg

Water rights –

ack of human

ack of focus o

oads influenc

nderstanding

limate chang

estoration neo Take in

ack of archaeo Can ar

eded: curricuities (environaffecting the

d an ongoing: ic studies ments to mon

ticipants discus

at we are ma

ories

onal knowledg

d understand

e pushing veg

restoration d

islative need

– which may w

n resources (o

on and unders

cing springs

g how to resto

e that is mak

eeds to be apnto considera

ological survercheological s

ulum for schomental justic

em.

g need for imp

nitor/underst

ss springs and

anaging for at

ge of restorat

ing timefram

getation/spec

due to lack of

to focus on s

work against p

or is it funding

standing of sp

ore springs, a

ing dynamic s

propriately scation landscap

eys – and lacksurveys be a w

ols including ce); inventorie

proved hydro

tand water dy

fire. Photo co

t springs (e.g.

tion techniqu

e/reference c

cies up slope

f basic hydrolo

springs

protection of

g?)

prings by pub

and actually m

systems even

caled pe and geom

k of understaway to find un

adding springes of springs;

ological know

ynamics

ourtesy of Tahn

, surface wat

ues

condition at a

ogy of spring

f springs

blic

measuring suc

n more dynam

orphology

nding of deenmapped spr

gs to Project and identifyi

ledge of sprin

nee Robertson

ter vs wet me

a spring (e.g.,

s (how water

ccess

mic

p history ings?

WET and reaing wells in vi

ngs which can

n.

eadow)

, pre‐fire)

r is getting the

2

ching icinity

n be

ere)?

3

o Could help determine sustainability of springs o Less known about springs at higher elevations

Livestock grazing, including water development

Invasive species Recommendations

Monitor the following: threats, hydrology, fire effects, vegetation and effects of restoration

Monitoring should guide actions to be taken at springs (protection/restoration)

Set conservation priorities for springs

Work to get more people involved – citizen science, education

Bring in cultural resource component, which may bring in regulatory tools o Traditional cultural properties o Archaeological surveys

Make sure restoration is based on data and knowledge; focus on function of systems

Evaluate ecosystem services and functions o Challenge: What if spring found not to be “valuable?”

Vegetation Available tools include: prescribed burns, allowing natural fires to burn, fuel load treatments, post‐fire seeding, and education including FireScape. Challenges include: lack of money for fuel treatment compared to fire suppression; steep slopes hindering vegetation rehabilitation; public perception; monsoon storms leading to high levels of erosion; lack of tree cover, lack of native seed sources including the potential to introduce non‐natives by seeding after fires; limited amount of BAER funds; agency regulations that may not support vegetation rehabilitation; and politics. Recommendations

Take proactive rather than retroactive action

Develop a long‐term view on post‐fire monitoring and treatment (greater than 3 years)

Make native seed more widely available

Education and investment in fuel treatment

Vegetation and BAER Available tools include: stream surveys; botany blitz conducted by NGO‐Agency partners; BAER handbook and communication; retardants and avoidants; and GIS. There is also potential to use tools from other projects in post‐fire response (e.g., wildlife cameras) Challenges include: BAER teams are tasked with a lot of different tasks; lack of funding; there is a need for different types of modeling; lack of long‐term data collection to look at trends; lack of knowledge and location specific expertise; and regional seed restrictions.

Figure 2. Pmanageme

Recomme

P

B

D

Su

C

C

C

C

B

RESEARCAvailable youth). Challengepractitiondevelopinsupport loapplicablecontext (ntranslatin Recomme

Participants disent. Photo cou

endations

rioritize sprin

ring values (s

evelop bette

upport a bett

onduct post‐f

onsider sprin

onduct pre‐f

ross‐training

etter collect p

CH tools include

es include: deners that are nng research thong‐term resee to other locneed for deveg to public).

endations

scuss strategieurtesy of Tahn

ngs and other

such as retard

r seed collect

ter market fo

fire monitorin

gs a value at

fire treatment

of practitione

pictures and

e: spatial mod

eveloping statnot willing to hat is applicabearch; succes

cations/regioneloping young

es for recommeee Robertson.

sensitive aqu

dant avoidanc

tion and stora

r weed‐free s

ng

risk

ts at springs

ers/managers

basic data

deling progra

tistically signitry different

ble at the landssfully extrapons and makingg persons’ mi

endations for .

uatic habitat

ce) to forefro

age

seed

s on other su

ms; bacterial

ficant data; uapproaches; dscape‐scale;olating from eg tools replicands – away fr

next steps to i

in BAER appr

nt of process

bjects in orde

communities

unexpected evability to ach; funding andexisting reseaable; and therom TV, phon

improve BAER

roach

s

er to support

s; outreach (i

vents – losinghieve long‐terd timeframes arch; underste changing sone, Netflix, po

R and vegetatio

monitoring

including reac

g control of srm results; that do not anding if toocial/societal

oliticization,

4

on

ching

ite;

ls are

G

M

Im

Ta

Sh OVERALL

W

Fr

V

Ed

A(e

EnPa

Figure 3. T

Present Fi

FoSa

BAFo

reater collab

More outreach

mproved data

aking youth in

how overwhe

RECOMMEN

Work to develo Educat

rame monito

alue aquatic

ducate abouto Educat

service

ddress issuese.g., Cross‐Wa

ngage citizenathways)

There were 67

ation List ire effects on

orecasting poaguaro Natio

AER – three yorest

oration with

h, better com

a sharing

nto the wilde

elming eviden

NDATIONS

op and makete decision‐m

ring in a long

habitats beyo

t fire preventite about the es studies, bu

s through comatershed Netw

s, volunteers

participants at

watersheds,

ost‐wildfire floonal Park East

years of moni

translators

mmunication t

erness

nce to close‐m

available necmakers about

‐term contex

ond their valu

ion and the dvalue of natu

ut similar conc

mmunication,work)

, and youth w

t the worksho

Ann Youberg

ood risk undet, Jon Pelletie

toring on con

to general pu

minded resea

cessary plant need for plan

xt (i.e., fundin

ue to endange

difference betural resourcescept (e.g., DL

and collabor

with hands‐on

p.

g, Arizona Geo

r current conr, University

ntrol vs. treate

blic

rchers

materials fornt materials

ng) and at the

ered species

tween natures in general –LCC)

ration on shar

n opportunitie

ologic Survey

ditions and fuof Arizona

ed sites, Mike

r rehabilitatio

e landscape‐le

e‐ and humannot necessar

red interests/

es (e.g., Yout

y

uture scenari

e Natharius, G

on work

evel spatial sc

n‐ caused firesrily ecosystem

/challenges/t

h Outdoor

os: Examples

Gila National

5

cale

s m

tools

from

6

Sediment reduction and watershed restoration in response to 2010 Schultz Fire, Flagstaff, Allen Haden, Natural Channel Design

Watershed restoration pre‐ and post‐fire in the Chiricahua Mountains, Carianne Campbell, Sky Island Alliance

Fire effects on tinajas and frog habitat at Saguaro National Park, Don Swann, Saguaro National Park

Initial response to fire on springs, Samantha Hammer, Sky Island Alliance

Response of vegetation after wildfire on the Warm Springs Natural Area in Moapa, Nevada, Von K. Winkel and David J. Syzdek, Southern Nevada Water Authority

Increasing resilience and creating habitat refugia at springs in the Chiricahua Mountains, Carianne Campbell, Sky Island Alliance

Post‐fire spring restoration following Rodeo‐Chediski Fire, Daniel Pusher, White Mountain Apache Tribe

Developing guidance for climate‐informed springs ecosystem restoration, Louise Misztal, Sky Island Alliance

Documents

skyislandalliance.org...Ec Fire osyst to Lou and W ems a Respo Wate Reporting ise Miszta ater nd A nd to Fi rSMART Agr Dates: Sept l, Samanth Janua Sky Is …