United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Southwestern

Region

Prescott 

National 

Forest 

December

2011

Revised 

May 2014

Prescott National Forest

Forest Plan Revision EIS

Hydrology and Soils

Specialist Report

Submitted by: ___________________________

Jules Riley

Hydrologist 

VMS Enterprise Unit

___________________________

Dustin Walters

Soil Scientist 

TEAMS Enterprise Unit

___________________________

Christopher J. Brown

Natural Resource Planner 

Prescott National Forest
i

Table of Contents

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................1

Need for Change..........................................................................................................................................3

Affected Environment ................................................................................................................................3

River Basins ....................................................................................................................................................5

Surface Waters ................................................................................................................................................9

Watershed Conditions ...................................................................................................................................11

Riparian and Wetland Resources...................................................................................................................14

Water Quality ................................................................................................................................................17

Groundwater..................................................................................................................................................24

Water Use......................................................................................................................................................25

Soils...............................................................................................................................................................26

Summary of Alternatives .........................................................................................................................30

Methodology and Analysis Process .........................................................................................................33

Environmental Consequences..................................................................................................................33

Vegetation Management................................................................................................................................34

Roads and Trails............................................................................................................................................36

Mining ...........................................................................................................................................................37

Watershed Integrity .......................................................................................................................................37

Recreation .....................................................................................................................................................39

Grazing..........................................................................................................................................................41

Climate Change .............................................................................................................................................42

Cumulative Environmental Consequences.............................................................................................44

References..................................................................................................................................................47

Appendix A - 5

th level HUC Watershed Map................................................................................................50

Appendix B – Watershed Condition Framework Assessment.......................................................................51
ii

List of Tables

Table 1. Hydrologic Unit Code terms and examples....................................................................................4

Table 2. Hierarchy of hydrologic units intersecting with the Prescott NF....................................................4

Table 3. Bill Williams watersheds (5th level HUC) extent and perennial stream miles...............................5

Table 4. Verde watersheds (5th level HUC) extent and perennial stream miles ..........................................7

Table 5. Agua Fria – Lower Gila watersheds (5th level HUC) extent and perennial stream miles..............8

Table 6. Overall Watershed Condition Assessment....................................................................................12

Table 7. Sub-watershed conditions, by indicator........................................................................................12

Table 8. Springs and seeps, by watershed (5th level HUC)........................................................................16

Table 9. ADEQ Water Quality Attainment Categories...............................................................................18

Table 10. Water Quality Summary .............................................................................................................19

Table 11. Soil types for PNVT....................................................................................................................26

Table 12. Soil Condition.............................................................................................................................28

Table 13. Comparison of Alternatives: Watershed Integrity ......................................................................38

Table 14. Comparison of Alternatives: Recreation.....................................................................................40

Table 15. Prescott NF 4th level HUC ..........................................................................................................44

Table 16. HUC-12 conditions (Appendix B)..............................................................................................51

Table 17. Select condition indicators aggregated at the HUC-10 scale (Appendix B)...............................55
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 1

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to evaluate the potential environmental consequences to water and 

soil resources that may result with the adoption of a revised land management plan. It examines 

the consequences of taking no action to revise the existing plan and of three alternative actions: 

the proposed revision of the Forest Plan, an alternative that emphasizes vegetation and wildlife 

habitat restoration, and an alternative that emphasizes dispersed recreation opportunities. 

The Prescott National Forest Analysis of the Management Situation (Forest Service 2009a) report 

identified the need to maintain/improve watershed integrity. The Prescott National Forest 

determined that a combined water and soil resource report would best address the need for 

change.

This report describes:

 The laws that are relevant to water resources management on the Prescott National Forest

 The hydrologic and soils environment affected by the alternatives

 The needs for change identified in revising the existing plan

 The sections of each proposed alternative that are relevant to water and soils

 The environmental consequences of the alternatives

 The relationship between the short-term and long-term consequences of the alternatives 

 The cumulative consequences to the environment of the alternatives 

Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy that Apply 

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500) as amended in 1977 

(Public Law 95-217) and 1987 (Public Law 100-4), also known as the Federal Clean Water Act

(CWA): 

 CWA Sections 208 and 319: recognize the need for control strategies for non-point 

source pollution. Non-point is the primary pollution source for grazing activities.

 CWA Section 303(d): requires water bodies with water quality determined to be either 

impaired (not fully meeting water quality standards) or threatened (likely to violate 

standards in the near future), to be compiled by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality in a separate list which must be submitted to EPA biannually.

These waters are targeted and scheduled for development of water quality improvement 

strategies on a priority basis.

 CWA Section 305(b): require that states assess the condition of their waters and produce 

a biannual report summarizing the findings.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968) – The outstandingly remarkable values of rivers eligible or 

suitable to be included in the system must be carefully managed. Any management activities that 

could negatively impact these values should not be conducted. 
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 2

Pertinent Executive Orders:

 Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management: Floodplains come under special 

considerations under Executive Order 11988. The purpose of the Order is "...to avoid to 

the extent possible the long and short term impacts associated with the occupancy and 

modification of floodplains..." Section 1 further states: "...to reduce the risk of flood 

loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore 

and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains..."

 Executive Order 11990 - The Protection of Wetlands: Wetlands are protected under this 

order and directs federal agencies to "...minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of 

wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands..."

Section 5 also states: "In carrying out the activities described in Section 1 of this Order, 

each agency consider factors relevant to a proposal's effect on the survival and quality of 

the wetlands. Among these factors are: (a) public health, safety, and welfare, including 

water supply, quality, recharge and discharge; pollution; flood and storm hazards; and 

sediment and erosion..."

Forest Service Manual Requirements:

 Forest Service Manual (FSM) guidelines describe the objectives and policies relevant to 

protection (and, where needed, improvement) of water quality on National Forest System 

lands so that designated beneficial uses are protected (FSM 2532.02 and 2532.03). 

 FSM 2554: The National Forest Management Act requires that lands be managed to 

ensure the maintenance and long-term soil productivity, soil hydrologic function, and 

ecosystem health. Soil quality is maintained when erosion, compaction, displacement, 

rutting, burning, and loss of organic matter are maintained within defined soil quality 

standards.

Best Management Practices: The State has implemented their non-point source management 

plans through State approved BMPs. BMPs (FSH 2509.22) are methods, measures, or practices to 

prevent or reduce water pollution, including, but not limited to, structural and nonstructural 

controls and operation and maintenance procedures. These practices are usually applied as a 

system of practices rather than a single practice and are selected on the basis of site-specific 

conditions that reflect natural background conditions and political, social, economic, and 

technical feasibility. BMPs can be applied before, during, and after pollution-producing activities 

to reduce or eliminate the introduction of pollutants into receiving waters. Section 310 of the 

Clean Water Act directed States to identify BMPs for categories of nonpoint source problems, 

and develop programs to implement the BMPs. Through a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU), ADEQ has designated the Forest Service to be responsible to identify, implement and 

monitor the effectiveness of BMPs to assure that State Water Quality Standards (SWQS) are 

being met. 

Arizona law also has specific requirements regarding grazing. ADEQ has adopted a “surface 

water quality general grazing permit consisting of voluntary best management practices for 

grazing activities.” Although ADEQ must require the application of economically feasible 

voluntary BMPs that are “the most practical and effective means” of reducing or preventing 

discharge of pollutants by grazing activities, ADEQ “shall not require application of more 
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 3

stringent practices if such a requirement would result in cessation or significant reduction of 

grazing activity.” The law requires the development and issuance of a permit, but because the 

BMPs are voluntary, there may be little enforceable action beyond simply requiring the permit.

CWA § 401- State Certification for Grazing, Wetland Dredging, and Mining: Section 401(a) 

requires any applicant for a federal license or permit which may result in any discharge into 

waters of the United States to provide to the licensing agency a certification from the state in 

which the discharge originates that the discharge will comply with applicable provisions of the 

CWA including SWQS and any other appropriate state law. This provision applies to federal 

licenses and permits, and has been used to control pollution from hydroelectric projects, mining 

projects, and wetland dredging. A more recent ruling concludes that grazing does not constitute a 

point source of pollution and does not require State 401 certification. However, for wetland 

dredging and mining activities, State certification is required and as such will mitigate adverse 

sources of pollution in wetland environments and will provide favorable conditions for ecosystem 

diversity.

Need for Change

Retain or improve watershed integrity to provide desired water quality, 

quantity, and timing of delivery.

Addressing this need would provide improved water quality for human health and safety, would 

move toward maintaining water quantity for both municipal watersheds and maintenance of 

aquatic and riparian species habitat, and would provide timing of delivery that is commensurate 

with healthy soil and biological function and natural geomorphology.

Issues to be addressed:

 Desired conditions and activities to improve vegetation structure and composition, 

disturbance regimes, and recreation activities are needed to avoid impacts on watershed 

function.

 Desired conditions and management methods that help retain or improve the function of 

riparian areas, seeps, and springs need to be identified.

 Desired conditions need to be maintained or restored to better provide needed water 

quality, quantity, and timing of delivery to municipal watersheds and aquatic and riparian 

species habitat.

 Ecosystem resilience, in both uplands and near water bodies, needs to be promoted to 

respond to climate change.

Affected Environment

The Prescott National Forest (Prescott NF) lies mainly within the Central Highlands of Arizona 

spanning 1,250,000 acres. The Prescott NF is one of six National Forests within the state of 

Arizona. The Prescott NF forms the headwaters of the Verde, Hassayampa, and Agua Fria Rivers.

A small portion of the forest also lies within the eastern headwaters of the Bill Williams River 
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 4

Basin. The United States Geological Survey developed a hierarchical system for defining ordered 

watersheds. A set of commonly used terms describe relative geographic areas. These areas are 

referred to as a Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) and used with a series 2 digit numeric descriptor 

refer to the order within the hierarchy. A Watershed is synonymous with a HUC-10 or 5th level

HUC (Table 1).

Table 1. Hydrologic Unit Code terms and examples

Hierarchy Term Level HUC Example

Region 1

st level hydrologic unit 15 Colorado

Sub-region 2

nd level hydrologic unit 1506 Salt River

River Basin 3

rd level hydrologic unit 150602 Verde

Sub-basin 4

th level hydrologic unit 15060202 Upper Verde

Watershed 5

th level hydrologic unit 1506020207 Cherry Creek

Sub-watershed 6

th level hydrologic unit 150602020701 Bitter Creek

The Prescott NF is comprised of two mostly contiguous land masses that are roughly the same 

size and shape that are separated by the Big Chino Valley. The varied land ownership in the 

vicinity of Prescott NF influences the hydrologic processes both in and around the Prescott NF.

Major land ownership between the two tracts of the Prescott NF includes the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), Arizona State Trust, and private. The private land includes several 

communities including Prescott, Prescott Valley, Chino Valley. There are also large tracts of 

private land with agriculture being the primary land use. State trust land is often leased 

agricultural use and may be sold to developers hence management of this land is varied and 

subject to significant change.

The Prescott NF land base falls within portions of eight sub-basins; each sub-basin is comprised 

of a number of watersheds, and watersheds are further divided into sub-watersheds. The Prescott 

NF overlaps with portions of 22 watersheds and 127 sub-watersheds. The hierarchical 

relationship of these hydrologic units is displayed below in Table 2.

Table 2. Hierarchy of hydrologic units intersecting with the Prescott NF

River Basin

3

rd level

Sub-Basin

4

th level

Watersheds

5

th level

Sub-watersheds

6

th level

Bill Williams River

Big Sandy 1 3

Burro Creek 2 3

Santa Maria 2 16

Verde River

Big Chino Wash 4 25

Upper Verde 5 34

Lower Verde 1 7
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 5

River Basin

3

rd level

Sub-Basin

4

th level

Watersheds

5

th level

Sub-watersheds

6

th level

Lower Gila / Agua 

Fria Rivers

Aqua Fria 5 30

Hassayampa 2 9

Totals 22 127

River Basins

The Prescott NF administers land within three named river basins: The Bill Williams River, The 

Verde River, and The Lower Gila/Aqua Fria Rivers. The Prescott NF is bordered by three 

National Forests, the Kaibab to the northeast, the Coconino to the east, and the Tonto to the 

southeast. The Kaibab and the Coconino share portions of the Verde River watershed, and the 

Tonto shares portions of the Verde and Agua Fria watersheds. 

Bill Williams River Basin

The Prescott NF in the Bill Williams River Basin comprises 14% of the areal extent of the entire 

forest. The Prescott NF land in the five watersheds (HUC -10) within the Bill Williams River 

Basin lie in the uppermost reaches of the watersheds defined by the Juniper Mountains. Annual 

average precipitation of the watersheds within forest boundaries ranges 17 – 27 inches with the 

average for the area approximately 21. The precipitation on Prescott NF lands in this watershed is 

disproportionately high in comparison to the entire watershed. The streams on the Prescott NF

flow west into the Mojave Desert. Only two short reaches of two streams, Copper Basin Wash, 

and Weed Canyon, within forest boundaries are identified as perennial. Perennial flow in this 

watershed is frequently interrupted even on the larger main stem rivers. Open range grazing is the 

primary land use. One large mining complex exists within the river basin, and historic mine sites 

are scattered throughout the watershed. No large population centers exist within the basin. The 

Prescott NF manages very little land within the Bill Williams River Basin, and therefore has little 

hydrologic influence in context of the river basin scale.

Table 3. Bill Williams watersheds (5th level HUC) extent and perennial stream miles

Basin Sub-basin Watershed

WS 

(sq. mi)

PNF

(sq. mi)

PNF as 

% of WS

WS 

Stream 

Miles

PNF 

Stream 

Miles

PNF as 

% of WS

Bill Williams 

River

Big Sandy 

River

Muddy Creek

1503020102 187 18 9.8 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 %

Burro Creek

Upper Burro 

Creek

1503020202

171 13 7.7 % 19.2 0.0 0.0 %

Boulder Creek

1503020203 150 16 10.8 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 %
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 6

Basin Sub-basin Watershed

WS 

(sq. mi)

PNF

(sq. mi)

PNF as 

% of WS

WS 

Stream 

Miles

PNF 

Stream 

Miles

PNF as 

% of WS

Santa Maria 

River

Kirkland Creek

1503020301 405 74 18.3 % 16.4 0.9 5.4%

Sycamore 

Creek

1503020302

237 152 64.3 % 2.9 0.2 5.5%

Verde River Basin

The Verde River is the only major perennial stream with continuous flow from headwaters to the 

confluence with the Salt River, and eventually the Gila River. The headwaters begin on the 

Prescott NF in the Granite Creek drainage. Fifty-two miles of the 195 mile long Verde River, 

flow through the Prescott. The aquifers in Big Chino Valley are the primary source of Big Chino 

Springs, supplying at least 80% of the upper Verde River’s base flow (Wirt et al. 2000). There are 

102 major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute or greater at any time, the 

largest number reported in any groundwater basin in Arizona (ADEQ, 2009). There are 83 minor 

springs identified and as many as 571 springs mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey. Forty-nine 

percent of the areal extent of the Prescott NF lies within the Verde River Basin. Portions of ten 

watersheds (HUC-10) are delineated within the Prescott NF. In the Verde River Basin the 

Prescott NF constitutes 16%, 22%, and 3%, respectively, of the Big Chino Wash, Upper Verde 

and Lower Verde 4th level (sub-basins) or a total of about 15% of the Verde River Basin. Three 

other National Forests – Kaibab, Coconino, and Tonto – make up a much larger portion of this 

river basin so that about 56% of the Verde River Basin is National Forest (University of Arizona 

NEMO).

Average annual precipitation on Prescott NF lands within these watersheds ranges from 13 – 31 

inches with higher precipitation occurring at high elevations. The rugged terrain influences the 

spatial precipitation patterns and some of the most arid regions of the Prescott NF lie within the 

Verde watersheds. Vegetation types include Sonoran Desert, semi-desert plains, Great Basin 

grasslands, interior chaparral, and conifer forests. Riparian vegetation includes mesquite, and 

mixed broadleaf.

The Verde River flows through alternating bedrock canyons and broader alluvial valleys 

influencing channel morphology. Multiple reaches of the Verde River have been either 

designated or found eligible for Wild and Scenic River status because of outstanding values. This 

river system supports tremendous ecological and cultural diversity. The Verde River remains free 

of large dams and large scale regulation of flow; however, flows along the river have been 

substantially altered by diversions and groundwater pumping (Nature Conservancy, 2008). The 

Verde River is dynamic, and experiences periods of natural instability from floods and droughts. 

Human disturbances such as mining, grazing, and urbanization also play a role in the Verde 

River. Impacts to water quality are described below. 

There are approximately 52 miles of the Verde River within and/or forming the boundary of the 

Prescott NF. Of this the upper 11.6 miles are assessed as Category 1, the next 6.7 miles are 
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 7

omitted in the assessment, and the remaining 34 miles are assessed as Category 4, with a Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), due to exceedances of the former turbidity standard during storm 

events. ADEQ has recommended that the turbidity standard be replaced with suspended sediment 

and that proposed standard has been exceeded only during runoff from major storm events. The 

major identified non-point source pollutant that may be carried downstream to lower reaches of 

the Verde River and Horseshoe Reservoir is sediment but the contribution coming from the Forest 

is probably small since Forest reaches are no longer listed for turbidity (Forest Service 2009c). 

The Verde River mainstem is trending toward Reference condition due to improved riparian 

conditions and floodplain/ channel development following the removal of livestock (RMRS photo 

monitoring report; ADEQ 2001; Prescott NF 2001 from Forest Service 2008).

Table 4. Verde watersheds (5th level HUC) extent and perennial stream miles

Basin Sub-basin Watershed

WS 

(sq. mi)

PNF

(sq. mi)

PNF as 

% of WS

WS 

Stream 

Miles

PNF 

Stream 

Miles

PNF as 

% of 

WS

Verde 

Big Chino 

Wash

Lower 

Partridge 

Creek*

1506020105

204 1 0.4 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 %

Middle Big 

Chino Wash

1506020106

300 38 12.7 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 %

Williamson 

Valley Wash

1506020107

321 169 52.6 % 11.5 0.08 0.7%

Lower Big 

Chino

1506020108

364 136 37.5 % 0.4 0.4 100%

Upper Verde 

River

Granite 

Creek

1506020201

359 70 19.5 % 13.6 4.1 30.1%

Hell 

Canyon

* 

1506020202 

237 104 44.0 % 4.4 0.5 12.3%

Sycamore 

Creek

*

1506020203

477 35 7.4 % 11.4 0.84 7.4%

 

* Major portions of these watersheds are within other National Forests adjacent to the Prescott NF.
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 8

Basin Sub-basin Watershed

WS 

(sq. mi)

PNF

(sq. mi)

PNF as 

% of WS

WS 

Stream 

Miles

PNF 

Stream 

Miles

PNF as 

% of 

WS

Grindstone 

Wash

1506020204

309 227 73.5 % 33.6 27.9 83.1%

Cherry 

Creek

*

1506020207

226 117 51.6 % 32.7 3.4 10.4%

Lower Verde 

River

Fossil 

Creek

*

1506020303

299 65 21.7 % 48.8 18.4 36.0%

Lower Gila - Agua Fria River Basin

The Agua Fria River and the Hassayampa River comprise the two hydrologic units located on the 

Prescott NF within the Lower Gila – Agua Fria River Basin. Both rivers run from north to south 

through the center of their watersheds. The watersheds are characterized by mid elevation 

mountains and valleys. Vegetation types include Sonoran desert, semi-desert grassland, interior 

chaparral, montane conifer forests. Riparian vegetation includes cottonwood, willow, mesquite, 

and mixed broadleaf. Land ownership in the Agua Fria is predominantly federal (> 75%). The 

Prescott and Tonto National Forests administer 47% of the land. In the Hassayampa, 45% of the 

lands are federally managed, 25% by the Prescott NF. Thirty-eight percent of the lands are state 

owned. Average annual precipitation on Prescott NF lands within these watersheds ranges from 

17 – 29 inches with higher precipitation occurring at high elevations. Flood alert systems are 

prevalent in both watersheds. There are four majors springs (>10 gpm) located on the Prescott NF

in the Agua Fria drainage. Hundreds of minor springs have been identified in both watersheds.

Many of these are used as sources of water for livestock. Water quality on the Prescott NF has 

exceeded water quality standards in these watersheds for cadmium, lead, radionuclides, arsenic, 

copper, zinc, and pH. Cadmium, lead, zinc, copper, and pH are attributed to historical mining.

TMDL have been completed for these areas. Arsenic and radionuclides are known to occur 

naturally in some of the local geologic formations, however it is possible that mining activities 

have contributed to these exceedances. Mining has played a large role in these watersheds.

Significant portions of the larger streams have been dredged impacting aquatic habitat, stream 

stability, water chemistry, and sub-surface flow. Grazing is also a major land use in this area.

Population and groundwater use in these watersheds has more than doubled in the last quarter 

century.

Table 5. Agua Fria – Lower Gila watersheds (5th level HUC) extent and perennial stream 

miles

Basin Sub-basin Watershed

WS 

(sq. mi)

PNF

(sq. mi)

PNF as 

% of WS

WS 

Stream 

Miles

PNF 

Stream 

Miles

PNF as 

% of 

WS
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 9

Basin Sub-basin Watershed

WS 

(sq. mi)

PNF

(sq. mi)

PNF as 

% of WS

WS 

Stream 

Miles

PNF 

Stream 

Miles

PNF as 

% of 

WS

Lower 

Gila -

Agua 

Fria

Agua Fria 

River

Ash Creek /

Sycamore 

Creek

1507010201

261 232 89.1 % 22.5 7.7 34.2 %

Big Bug 

Creek

1507010202

324 90 27.6 % 7.6 0.9 11.6 %

Black Canyon 

Creek

1507010203

244 158 64.9 % 0.4 0.4 100.0 %

Bishop Creek

*

1507010204 236 26 11.0 % 11.7 0.4 0.0 %

Agua Fria 

River-Lake 

Pleasant

1507010205

372 25 6.6 % 1.8 0.4 21.8 %

Hassayampa 

River

Upper 

Hassayampa 

River

1507010301

303 192 63.3 % 15.1 13.3 88.3 %

Middle 

Hassayampa 

River

1507010303

349 3 0.8 % 13.0 0.0 0.0 %

Surface Waters

There are approximately 80 miles of perennial streams on the forest. Other than the Verde River, 

most perennial streams flowing through the Prescott NF experience spatially interrupted surface 

flow, especially during periods of drought. Climate conditions, temperature and precipitation, are 

strongly correlated with altitude. Precipitation is generally bimodal, with most precipitation 

occurring during summer monsoons and winter frontal storms. Because of the relatively higher 

precipitation in the central highlands, Prescott NF lies within the most important water producing 

watersheds in Arizona. The climate is cyclic in nature, with consecutive years of low rainfall and 

extended droughts, as well as years with high precipitation associated with flooding. Local flood 

peaks generally occur during major precipitation events. Wildland fire related flood events are 

 

* Major portions of this watershed are within other National Forests adjacent to the Prescott NF.
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 10

exacerbated by the large amounts of sediments that increase the flood volumes. The rugged 

topography of the Prescott NF provides a relatively direct delivery system for precipitation and 

sediment to reach streams.

The combination of high intensity rainfall events, lack of natural groundcover, and steep slopes 

often generates high magnitude storm events that transform stream channel morphology and 

associated riparian habitat, which should be recognized when describing aquatic and riparian 

habitat areas and evaluating potential human impacts on stream channel morphology and aquatic 

and riparian habitat in central Arizona. 

The following describes stream channel characteristics found on the Prescott NF. Dry-land river 

systems are dominated by short, high magnitude storm events. In areas with substantial coarse 

alluvium, many arid rivers exhibit braided channel morphology. Braided channels are generally 

characterized by abundant bedload, steep channel gradients, highly erodible banks, and highly 

variable discharge (Graf 1988 from US Army Corps of Engineers 2001). In dry-land river 

systems, flood events are almost always the forcing factors that convert meandering channels to a 

braided morphology. In several arid regions, large storm events have been responsible for 

changing the dominant channel configuration from meandering to braided in watersheds of 

varying sizes. The Gila River in eastern Arizona in the late 1890s had a narrow (only meters wide 

in some areas) meandering stream channel, but in 1905 a series of large storm events eliminated 

the meandering channel and produced a braided channel more than a kilometer wide in some 

reaches (Graf 1988 from US Army Corps of Engineers 2001). In the 1940s, dense riparian 

vegetation and sedimentation narrowed the Gila River channel and, by the 1980s, the stream had 

a compound appearance similar to its meandering channel geometry of the 1890s (Graf 1988 

from US Army Corps of Engineers 2001). Due to the role of large storm events, the change from 

braided back to meandering channel morphology is much slower than the change from 

meandering to braided channel geometry. 

Horizontal instability (resulting from changes in discharge, sediment load and riparian vegetation) 

is often present in dry-land braided river systems. On large alluvial fans, the plugging of channels 

with sediment and debris results in dramatic changes in the location of active channels (Graf 

1988, Mount 1995 from US Army Corps of Engineers 2001). Rates of channel migration are 

highly variable and depend on the magnitude of storm flows and the resistance of channel 

substrate. In addition to horizontal instability, many dry-land channels exhibit substantial vertical 

instability through entrenchment. In continuous channels, channel entrenchment can result from 

the rapid upstream migration of headcuts during large storm events (Graf 1988 from US Army 

Corps of Engineers 2001). In general, channel entrenchment is the result of some change in the 

amount and/or rate of delivery of water and sediment to the river channel. Three common types 

of causal mechanisms for the above changes include land management, climatic change, and 

internal adjustments (Graf 1988, Mount 1995 from US Army Corps of Engineers 2001). 

Although there is substantial debate in the literature regarding the causal link between specific 

land use changes and the associated physical processes that lead to channel entrenchment, many 

arid river systems can exhibit substantial vertical channel change during large storm events (Graf 

1988 from US Army Corps of Engineers 2001). 

A healthy watershed operates in dynamic equilibrium. This balance can be affected by 

management activities, off-forest uses, and natural events such as droughts and wildland fires. 

Heavy precipitation and flood events cause erosion and sedimentation, and naturally occurring 
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 11

chemical compounds found in the rocks can affect surface water quality. Management activities, 

public uses and natural events that disturb the soil surface, as well as those that impede or remove 

streamflow, generally have the greatest potential to affect aquatic and riparian-dependent 

resources. The risk of adverse impacts increases the closer a ground-disturbing activity is to a 

stream, riparian area or wetland. Surface water, floodplains, groundwater, wetlands, and riparian 

areas are all closely related through proximity to one another and through interflow of water 

traveling at the subsurface between streams and groundwater aquifers (Winter and others 1998).

Watershed Conditions

The US Forest Service Manual, chapter 2520 defines watershed condition as “The state of a 

watershed based upon physical and biological characteristics and processes affecting hydrologic 

and soil functions.” Watershed condition, or watershed health, on the Prescott NF vary depending 

on amount of disturbance that has occurred within each watershed and the effect of the 

disturbance on the natural integrity of the sub-watershed (HUC-12) as a whole. 

The USDA Strategic Plan for FY 2010-2015 targets the restoration of watershed and forest health 

as a core management objective of the National Forests and Grasslands. A National Watershed 

Condition Team was formed to develop methodology for the Watershed Condition Framework 

(WCF) process. 

Human caused disturbances that can adversely affect a watershed's condition include the location 

of National Forest System and non-system roads, mining, recreation, grazing, and timber harvest. 

The severity of effects is influenced in part by the local terrain, fire regime, precipitation and 

potential geological hazards. Changes in watershed condition are reflective of changes in the 

long-term reliability of a watershed to provide the expected water quality and quantity. Most 

conditions leading to poor ratings are associated with high road densities, agriculture, and mining 

within the national forest. Watershed conditions are described in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 

2521.1) using three classes:

 Class 1 watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to 

their natural potential condition (Functioning or Good).

 Class 2 watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative 

to their natural potential condition (At Risk or Fair).

 Class 3 watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to 

their natural potential condition (Impaired or Poor).

These assessments are general in scale and do not consider site specific analyses required for 

proposed project specific activities. It is important to note that these condition classes do not 

prohibit future management activity. Site specific information pertaining to proposed 

management will be required before ascertaining if an activity will further degrade a watershed.
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 12

Table 6. Overall Watershed Condition Assessment

Condition Class Sub-watersheds Total Acres FS Acres Non-FS Acres

1 - Functioning 12 318,715 147,564 171,151

2 - At Risk 83 1,694,773 1,076,526 618,247

3 - Impaired 2 50,812 32,407 18,405

Of the 127 sub-watersheds on the Prescott NF, 97 were analyzed. Five of these sub-watersheds 

consist entirely of National Forest System lands, and a third are at least 90% administered by the 

Forest Service. All of the sub-watersheds that were analyzed were assigned a watershed condition 

rating (Table 6) based on the twelve key indicators identified in the WCF (Forest Service 2011a). 

Prior analysis for the Ecological Sustainability Report (Forest Service 2009b) was performed at 

the HUC-10 watershed level, however, new methodology was used for the WCF and the HUC-12

sub-watershed was determined to be the appropriate scale of analysis to influence and track 

changes in condition class over time.

Overall, eighty-three (85%) of the HUC-12 (sub-watersheds) administered at least in part by the 

Prescott NF were rated as “At Risk” condition. At the HUC-10 or watershed scale, all watersheds 

with the exception of Lower Big Chino Wash were rated as “At Risk”. 

The twelve indicators are grouped into four watershed process categories: Aquatic Physical, 

Aquatic Biological, Terrestrial Physical, and Terrestrial Biological. The Aquatic Physical 

category contains three indicators; Water Quality, Water Quantity, and Aquatic Habitat. The 

Aquatic Biological and Terrestrial Physical categories each have two indicators; Aquatic Biota 

and Riparian/Wetland Vegetation for the Aquatic Biological category, Roads & Trails and Soils 

for Terrestrial Physical. The remaining five indicators are in the Terrestrial Biological category; 

Fire Regime or Wildfire, Forest Cover, Rangeland Vegetation, Terrestrial Invasive Species, and 

Forest Health. Each of the indicators are assessed and combined to produce a watershed score 

which falls into one of three classes. A full listing of the sub-watersheds and their condition 

indicator ratings are listed in Appendix A; a summary of the number of sub-watersheds in each 

condition class, by indicator, is shown below in Table 7.

Table 7. Sub-watershed conditions, by indicator

Condition

1. Water Quality2. Water Quantity3. Aquatic Habitat4. Aquatic Biota5. Riparian Veg.6. Roads & Trails7. Soils8. Fire Regime9. Forest Cover10. Rangeland Veg.11. Invasive Species12. Forest Health

Functioning 68 61 29 33 28 0 6 3 39 2 97 97

At Risk 23 23 44 52 52 12 46 91 4 34 0 0

Impaired 6 13 24 12 17 85 45 3 54 61 0 0

Ratings for the condition indicator Water Quality showed approximately 30% (29 of 97) of the 

HUC-12 sub-watersheds were found to be “At Risk” or “Impaired” and are limited to 12 of the 22 

HUC-10 watersheds. An “At Risk” rating indicates that there is minor impairment to beneficial 
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 13

uses of the water bodies in the sub-watershed. “Impaired” sub-watersheds show significant 

impairment to beneficial uses of the water bodies in the watershed. Areas of greatest concern are 

the Agua Fria/Hassayampa Watersheds and Cherry Creek and Fossil Creek Watersheds in the 

Verde River.

The indicator Water Quantity rated 63% of the HUC-12 sub-watersheds as “Functioning”, 24% 

as” At Risk”, and 13% as “Impaired”. A “Functioning” rating for Water Quantity means that the 

sub-watershed exhibits a rate of flow consistent with natural conditions free from the influence of 

human-created features (e.g., dams and canals) or management actions. ” At Risk” subwatersheds may have moderate recognized departures from these conditions for part of the year, 

and in “Impaired” sub-watersheds the magnitude, duration, or timing of annual extreme flows 

(low or high) depart significantly from the natural rate of flow.

The indicator Aquatic Habitat rated 30% of the HUC-12 sub-watersheds as “Functioning”, 45% 

as” At Risk”, and 25% as “Impaired”. This indicator addresses aquatic habitat conditions with 

respect to habitat fragmentation, large woody debris, and channel shape and function. Subwatersheds with functioning aquatic habitats support large continuous blocks of high-quality 

habitat and stream channel conditions. At risk sub-watersheds support medium to small blocks of 

contiguous habitat. Some high-quality aquatic habitat is available, but stream channel conditions 

show signs of being degraded. Impaired sub-watersheds support only small amounts of 

continuous high-quality aquatic habitat and most stream channel conditions show evidence of 

being degraded by disturbance.

The indicator Aquatic Biota rated 34% of the HUC-12 sub-watersheds as “Functioning”, 54% as” 

At Risk”, and 12% as “Impaired”. This indicator addresses the distribution, structure, and density 

of both native and introduced aquatic fauna. In the functioning sub-watersheds, all the native 

aquatic communities appropriate to the watershed are present and self-maintaining. At risk subwatersheds are strongholds for one or more native aquatic communities within the native range, 

and the range may have been reduced within the watershed. Impaired sub-watersheds may 

support small, wildly scattered populations of native aquatic species, but exotic or non-native

invasive species are pervasive.

Ratings for the indicator Riparian/Wetland Vegetation showed approximately 30% of the HUC12 sub-watersheds as “Functioning”, 54% as” At Risk”, and about 16% of the HUC-12 are 

“Impaired”. “Functioning” sub-watersheds contain native vegetation that is functioning properly 

throughout the stream corridor or along wetlands and water bodies. In those “At Risk”, 

disturbance partially compromises the properly functioning condition of native vegetation 

attributes in stream corridor areas or along wetlands and water bodies. In the “Impaired” subwatersheds, a large percent of native vegetation attributes along stream corridors, wetlands, and 

water bodies is not functioning properly. At the Watershed (HUC-10) scale, most HUC-10 have 

both “Functioning” and “At Risk” sub-watersheds.

The Roads and Trails indicator showed that 12% of the HUC-12 sub-watersheds were rated as 

“At Risk”. In these sub-watersheds, there is a moderate chance that the stream channels and 

flows, sediment amounts, water quality, and riparian conditions have been substantially altered 

due to the density and distribution of the roads and trails. The remaining 88% were rated as 

“Impaired”, meaning that there is a higher probability that the hydrologic conditions have been 

substantially altered by the roads and trails. 
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 14

On the condition indicator for Soils, 7% of the HUC-12 sub-watersheds were rated as 

“Functioning”, 47% were rated “At Risk”, and 46% were rated as “Impaired”. “Functioning”

soils show minor or no alteration to reference soil condition, including erosion, productivity, and 

chemical characteristics. For those “At Risk”, a moderate amount of alteration to reference soil 

condition is evident and the overall soil disturbance is characterized as moderate. “Impaired” soils 

display significant alteration to reference soil condition and the overall soil disturbance is 

characterized as extensive.

The Fire Regime or Wildfire indicator addresses the potential for altered hydrologic and sediment 

patterns due to altered fire frequency and severity. Three percent of the sub-watersheds were 

rated as “Functioning”, 94% were rated “At Risk”, and 3% were rated as “Impaired” for this 

indicator. The “Functioning” sub-watersheds have a low likelihood of losing defining ecosystem 

components because of the presence or absence of fire. The likelihood rises to moderate for “At 

Risk” sub-watersheds, and to a high likelihood for those classified as “Impaired”.

The Forest Cover condition indicator rated 40% of the HUC-12 sub-watersheds as “Functioning”, 

4% as “At Risk”, and 56% as “Impaired”. These ratings are based on the amount of land in the 

sub-watershed that is cut-over, denuded, or deforested. For functioning sub-watershed, this is less 

than five percent; for at risk sub-watersheds it is between five and fifteen percent. Impaired subwatersheds are those where more than fifteen percent of the land is deforested. Extensive loss of 

forest cover affects runoff, erosion, sediment supply, bank stability, large woody debris retention, 

and stream temperature relationships.

Assessment of the indicator Rangeland Vegetation showed 63% of the HUC-12 sub-watersheds

as “Impaired” and 35% as “At Risk”. This indicator addresses impacts to soil and water relative 

to the vegetative health of rangelands. In sub-watersheds that have been rated as impaired for 

Rangeland Vegetation, the composition of the vegetation has been greatly reduced or 

unacceptably altered compared to the natural potential of the area. In areas rated as at risk, the 

vegetation has a slight to moderate deviation from natural potential.

All ninety-seven sub-watersheds analyzed were rated “Functioning” for the condition indicator 

Invasive Species. This indicator addresses potential impacts to soil, vegetation, and water 

resources due to terrestrial invasive species (including vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants). In a 

functioning sub-watershed, there are few or no populations of terrestrial invasive species infesting 

the watershed that could necessitate removal treatments affecting soil or water resources.

All ninety-seven sub-watersheds analyzed were also rated “Functioning” for the condition 

indicator Forest Health. This indicator addresses forest mortality impacts to hydrologic and soil 

function due to major invasive and native forest pest, insect, and disease outbreaks and air 

pollution. In a functioning sub-watershed, only a small amount of the forested land is anticipated 

to experience, or is experiencing, tree mortality from insects, disease, or air pollution.

Riparian and Wetland Resources

Riparian ecosystems comprise the transition area between the aquatic ecosystem and the adjacent 

terrestrial system. The aquatic system includes the stream channel, lakebed, water, and the biotic 

community and habitat.
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 15

In the arid western United States, riparian areas are estimated to be less than 2% of the total land 

area and may be as low as 0.4% of Arizona’s total area (Ffolliott et al., 2004 from Zaimes, 2007).

The role of riparian areas in arid and semiarid environments is disproportionate to their 

occurrence. Ephemeral and intermittent channels comprise 94% of stream miles within Arizona 

(Levick et al., 2007). Although there is much debate of whether areas adjacent to these dry 

streams are truly riparian, they serve many of the same ecological and hydrologic functions as 

riparian areas of perennial streams such as providing hydrologic connectivity, roughness to slow 

stream velocities, sediment transport, surface and subsurface water storage and exchange.

Wetlands are areas inundated by surface or groundwater with a frequency sufficient to support 

vegetation or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions. Wetlands 

include marshes, bogs, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, ponds, springs and seeps.

Federal policy dictates that no net loss of wetlands on federal lands will occur.

Riparian and wetland systems on the Prescott NF in terms of occurrence, structure, function, and 

extent are dependent on a number of physical factors including geological setting, substrate, 

stream gradient, depth to groundwater, contributing watershed, and elevation. Elevation can have 

a significant effect on riparian vegetation as a function of the changes in temperature, 

precipitation, and timing, duration, and magnitude of streamflows. Listed below are generalized 

descriptions of the riverine riparian communities present across the Prescott NF: 

Riverine riparian systems below 3,200 feet (desert)

For streams and riparian systems in this elevation zone, low precipitation and higher air 

temperatures result in high stream water temperatures and rates of evapo-transpiration. This 

riparian community is associated with perennial, intermittent and ephemeral streams that 

generally exhibit broad floodplains and terraced bottoms. Sparse vegetation can be found along 

the stream banks, with minimal vegetation in the stream channel. The vegetation consists of deeprooted trees like saltcedar (Tamarisk L. spp. - Invasive), Arizona sycamore, Fremont cottonwood, 

and many herbaceous plants (Carex L. spp., Juncus L. spp., Eleocharis R. Br. spp., Scirpus L. 

spp., and muhlenbergia spp.). Large stands of willow, cottonwood, and mesquite dominated these 

areas before the European settlers (ASU 2007 from Forest Service 2008a). 

Riverine riparian systems between 3,200-6,500 feet

Surrounding upland terrestrial vegetation can include chaparral, piñon-juniper, and oak 

woodlands. The prevalent riparian tree species in this zone primarily consist of Fremont 

cottonwood, willows, Arizona sycamore, velvet ash and Arizona walnut. In addition, the 

understory supports several species of herbaceous plants. This category supports the greatest 

number of plants and has the highest canopy cover as compared to the other elevation categories. 

The vegetation covers narrow strips along primarily intermittent and ephemeral streams because 

very few perennial streams remain in these elevations (ASU 2007 from Forest Service 2008a). 

Riverine riparian systems greater than 6,500 feet

Characteristic woody species include willows, chokecherry (Prunus virginiana L.), boxelder 

(Acer negundo L.), Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum Torr.) and various conifers along with 
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 16

herbaceous plants. Increased perennial soil moisture can also support wetlands and mountain 

meadows. The terrestrial uplands support spruce-fir, mixed conifer and pine forests and in some 

cases aspen stands (ASU 2007 from Forest Service 2008a). 

The location of springs and seeps are a result of both precipitation and geologic structure, 

generally being at the intersection of an impervious geologic strata and the land surface. Table 8

includes the relative density of springs and seeps in average number per square mile. Watershed 

areas having high precipitation and geologic strata with relatively low permeability (e.g. granitic 

/metamorphic with lower degrees of fracturing) may have higher incidence of small local springs.

Lake Pleasant, Upper Hassayampa, and Big Bug 5th level watersheds in the upper portion of the 

Bradshaw Mountains are in this category (Forest Service 2008a). Cherry Creek, which drains the 

east side of Mingus Mountain, also has a high density. Watershed areas with more permeable 

substrates may contribute to ground water recharge which percolates deeper at the point of 

infiltration and surfaces at springs a further distance from the upland areas of precipitation. In 

these cases the location of the springs is often downstream from the National Forest, e.g., the 

Verde River headwater springs near the confluence with Granite Creek (Forest Service 2008a).

Table 8. Springs and seeps, by watershed (5th level HUC)

Watershed

PNF Area Springs & Seeps

sq. mi % of WS WS PNF PNF % #/sq. mi

Muddy Creek 18 9.8% 0 0 0.0% 0.00

Upper Burro Creek 13 7.7% 11 0 0.0% 0.00

Boulder Creek 16 10.8% 15 3 20.0% 0.18

Kirkland Creek 74 18.3% 71 25 35.2% 0.34

Sycamore Creek – S M 152 64.3% 61 52 85.2% 0.34

Lower Partridge Creek 1 0.4% 1 0 0.0% 0.00

Middle Big Chino Wash 38 12.7% 1 0 0.0% 0.00

Williamson Valley Wash 169 52.6% 52 46 88.5% 0.27

Lower Big Chino Wash 136 37.5% 18 17 94.4% 0.12

Granite Creek-Upper Verde 70 19.5% 36 21 58.3% 0.30

Hell Canyon 104 44.0% 6 2 33.3% 0.02

Sycamore Creek - Verde 35 7.4% 68 6 8.8% 0.17

Grindstone Wash 227 73.5% 14 2 14.3% 0.01

Cherry Creek 117 51.6% 84 60 71.4% 0.51

Fossil Creek 65 21.7% 69 25 36.2% 0.39

Ash Ck & Sycamore Ck 232 89.1% 84 82 97.6% 0.35

Big Bug Creek-Agua Fria 90 27.6% 52 39 75.0% 0.44

Black Canyon Creek 158 64.9% 70 54 77.1% 0.34
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 17

Watershed

PNF Area Springs & Seeps

sq. mi % of WS WS PNF PNF % #/sq. mi

Bishop Creek 26 11.0% 37 7 18.9% 0.27

Lake Pleasant 25 6.6% 129 18 14.0% 0.73

Upper Hassayampa 192 63.3% 141 102 72.3% 0.53

Middle Hassayampa 3 0.8% 34 2 5.9% 0.71

Totals 1,962 31.0% 1,054 563 53.4% 0.29

The Prescott NF has 563 springs and seeps inventoried in the National Hydrologic Dataset. At the 

sub-basin level (4th level HUC) the Forest administers about 13% of the land area but provides 

32% of the known existing springs and seeps. The importance is most evident in the Big Chino 

Wash and Hassayampa River sub-basins where Prescott NF constitutes 16% and 13% of the land 

area, respectively, but provides 83 and 59% of the springs and seeps (Forest Service 2008a).

Water Quality

Water quality has been assessed in most of the major perennial and intermittent stream reaches 

and lakes on the Forest. Currently on the Prescott NF, the most important sources of water quality 

degradation are past and present mining activities, livestock grazing, roads, and ground 

disturbances created by off-highway vehicle use. 

Water quality is assessed by comparing existing conditions (State Water Quality Category 1 – 5) 

with desired conditions set by the State, under authority of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Waters 

that are not impaired (those not on 303 (d) list or Category 4 or 5) are providing beneficial uses 

identified for that stream, and can be considered in a desired condition. The Arizona Department 

of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is the regulating authority for water quality in Arizona.

Standards are established for designated uses and individual water bodies are classified as to the 

designated uses for which water quality standards are applied. Primary designated uses include:

 Aquatic and Wildlife, cold water (generally applied to elevations above 5,000 feet)

 Aquatic and Wildlife, warm water (elevations below 5,000 feet)

 Full Body Contact – bacterial contamination (E. coli, etc.) 

 Partial Body Contact – generally wading but not submersion, less stringent

 Municipal Water Supply

 Domestic Water Source

 Fish Consumption 

 Agricultural Irrigation

 Agricultural Livestock Watering

The general classification used for surface water quality by ADEQ is Attaining, Impaired, 

Inconclusive , and Not attaining for the identified uses. The classification designates each 

waterbody in one of five categories.
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 18

Table 9. ADEQ Water Quality Attainment Categories

Category Category Description

1

Attaining All Uses

There is sufficient data to determine that all designated uses are supported.

2

Some Uses 

At least one designated use assessed as “attaining” and all other uses are assessed as 

“inconclusive” due to a lack of sufficient sampling data.

3

Insufficient data 

All designated uses are “inconclusive” (by default, any surface water not assessed due to lack 

of credible data is actually included in this category).

4 Impaired or threatened for at least one use but a TMDL not required.

4A A TMDL has already been completed

4B Other pollution control requirements are reasonably expected to result in 

the attainment of the water quality standard

4C The impairment is caused by pollution but not a pollutant.

4N The impairment is caused solely by natural conditions (an Arizona list 

only).

5 Impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses by a pollutant, and a TMDL needs to 

be developed or revised.

Under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required 

to develop lists of impaired waters. These are waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded 

to meet the water quality standards set by states, territories, or authorized tribes. The law requires 

that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop TMDLs for 

these waters. A Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL, is a calculation of the maximum amount 

of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still safely meet water quality standards. ADEQ is 

responsible for preparing TMDL analyses which include measures designed to reduce the 

pollutants causing impairment to levels where water quality standards can be met.

The ADEQ interprets its surface water quality standards to apply to “intermittent, non-navigable 

tributaries.” The DEQ interprets the definition of “surface water” to include tributaries (“the 

tributary rule”) and assigns water quality standards to intermittent surface waters that are not 

specifically listed by name in Arizona’s surface water quality standards rules. The DEQ feels it is 

necessary to regulate and protect these types of waters as “waters of the United States” because it 

is estimated that approximately 95% of the surface waters in Arizona are either intermittent or 

ephemeral.

Surface water quality standards do not apply to groundwater. The DEQ has independent statutory 

authority to develop aquifer water quality standards, and has adopted Aquifer Water Quality 

Standards. Groundwater standards in Arizona are the Safe Drinking Water standards established 
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 19

for public water systems and surface water standards for the Domestic Water Source designated 

use.

There are 126 miles of Prescott NF stream courses (including perennial, intermittent, and 

ephemeral reaches) which are included in the most recent ADEQ assessment from 2008. Of these, 

27% are rated as attaining all standards (Category 1). Categories 2 and 3, with some sampling 

data but not enough to determine attainment for all designated uses, make up 23%. Of these 29 

miles only the 3.4 mile Copper Basin Wash and 0.5 miles of a tributary to Lynx Creek had an 

individual sample with an exceedance of sampled parameters. Two lakes, Granite Basin Lake and 

Lynx Lake, are listed in the assessment with additional monitoring required. The remaining 50%, 

or 63 miles is classified as impaired, most of it having an approved TMDL (Category 4) and some 

not yet completed (Category 5). Metal leaching from historic mining operations are the reason for 

the impaired rating of approximately 20 miles of Turkey Creek and 9 miles of the Hassayampa.

Completion and implementation of TMDL’s is expected to improve water quality. Remediation 

projects on the Hassayampa River and Lynx Creek have been initiated. The remediation on 

Turkey Creek has been completed. The majority of streams classified as “Not Attaining” are in 

the Verde sub-basin. These streamcourses include nearly all of the Verde River from the 

Perkinsville Bridge downstream to the boundary with the Tonto National Forest, in four 

separately listed reaches-- all due to turbidity. A TMDL for turbidity has been prepared with 

recommendations that when implemented, are predicted to improve the water quality to a status 

of attaining (Forest Service 2008a).

Table 10 (Forest Service 2008a) documents the water quality category ratings and sampling data 

for 5th level watersheds, stream segments or lakes. This water quality data is the most recent 

published by the State of Arizona.

Table 10. Water Quality Summary

Basin 

(HUC-6)

Watershed (HUC-10),

Lake, or Stream 

Segment

Category Comments

Bill Williams Kirkland Creek 3

Copper Basin Wash, the only assessed stream in 

the Bill Williams Basin, is rated in Category 3, 

Inconclusive, due to limited sampling. The one 

sample analyzed suggested high levels of copper, 

lead, and selenium. Additional samples, taken 

over at least three seasons, are required.

Verde

Lower Big Chino 

Wash

3 Inconclusive, due to inadequate samples. Only 1.8 

of the 20.1 assessed miles are on the Forest. The 

samples taken did not find any exceedances.

Granite Creek-Upper 

Verde

3 or 4 Granite Creek above Willow Creek confluence is 

assessed as inconclusive by ADEQ and as 

impaired for dissolved oxygen by EPA. The report 

indicates that sampling points were within the 

Prescott urban area and several miles below the 

Prescott NF. Additional sampling is called for 

(ADEQ 2005).
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 20

Basin 

(HUC-6)

Watershed (HUC-10),

Lake, or Stream 

Segment

Category Comments

Granite Basin Lake 3 This 7 acre lake is assessed as attaining the 

standard for fish consumption but inconclusive 

with regard to other designated uses. ADEQ 

concluded that one low dissolved oxygen reading 

in late summer of a severe drought year was 

natural due to lake turnover. More testing is 

needed(ADEQ 2005).

Verde River from 

Granite Creek 

downstream to HUC 

boundary at USGS 

Paulden gage.

1 Rated as attaining all uses (Category 1).

Historically, this area was grazed by livestock. The 

removal of livestock coincides with improvements 

in water quality conditions (ADEQ 2001; ADEQ 

2007).

Sycamore CreekUpper Verde River1 This 7.6 miles is rated as slightly upward in trend 

due to reduced impact of livestock grazing.

However, there are still some problems with 

unauthorized ATV use affecting the lower portion.

Verde

The Verde River from 

vicinity of the 

Perkinsville Bridge to 

Railroad Draw

4A The Verde River from vicinity of the Perkinsville 

Bridge to Railroad Draw is assessed as attaining 

all designated uses except for warm water aquatic 

life due to exceedances of turbidity and thus is 

classified as Category 4A. Continued turbidity 

levels are the result of natural background levels.

A Turbidity TMDL was approved and 

implementation of recommendations is expected 

to improve water quality. ADEQ recommended 

that the turbidity standard be replaced with a 

suspended sediment standard. Subsequent 

sampling has found water quality to exceed this 

proposed standard only during flood flows, a 

natural occurrence in this ecosystem. Bioassessment data indicated turbidity levels are not 

impairing macro-invertebrate communities.

Because of this data and the protection of stream 

banks from livestock impact this reach is 

considered to be trending slightly toward reference

condition (ADEQ 2005).

The Verde River from 

Sycamore Creek to 

the HUC boundary

4A The Verde River from Sycamore Creek to the 

HUC boundary is assessed the same as the 

previous reach, i.e., Category 4A due to turbidity.

The same TMDL and trend applies (ADEQ 2005).

This 6 mile reach is part of the boundary with the 

Coconino National Forest.
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 21

Basin 

(HUC-6)

Watershed (HUC-10),

Lake, or Stream 

Segment

Category Comments

Cherry Creek-Upper 

Verde River

4A Only 3.2 miles of the 31 mile reach of the Verde 

River through the middle Verde Valley is adjacent 

to the Prescott NF. The remainder is private land 

passing through the communities of Clarkdale and 

Cottonwood and ending at Camp Verde.

Numerous irrigation ditches dating to the 1800’s 

reduce the flow of the Verde River and 

subsequent return flows affect water quality. This 

reach is a part of the turbidity TMDL previously 

discussed. Because of the impacts of rapid 

urbanization and greatly increased vehicular and 

recreational impacts the trend is estimated to be 

away from reference condition (ADEQ 2005).

Verde

Fossil Creek-Lower 

Verde River

1 Gap Creek is assessed as Category 1, attaining 

all uses. The 5.4 mile reach from Government 

Springs to the Verde River had enough data to 

make this determination. The 2001 Prescott NF 

Watershed Condition Assessment for select Verde 

River 5th code watersheds reported Gap Creek to 

have little or no resource impact and be in 

good/stable condition. Trend is rated as stable or 

toward reference condition (ADEQ 2005).

Verde River from 

Camp Verde “White 

Bridge” to boundary 

between Prescott NF 

and the Tonto 

National Forest

4A Verde River from Camp Verde “White Bridge” to 

boundary between Prescott NF and the Tonto 

National Forest includes two contiguous ADEQ 

reporting reaches. Both reaches were assessed 

as Category 4A with the same turbidity TMDL and

trend as discussed in previous HUCs (ADEQ 

2005). This 15.5 mile reach is the boundary with 

the Coconino National Forest.
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 22

Basin 

(HUC-6)

Watershed (HUC-10),

Lake, or Stream 

Segment

Category Comments

Agua Fria

Big Bug Creek-Agua 

Fria River

2 Lynx Lake is assessed as Category 2, attaining for 

cold water aquatic, fish consumption and 

agricultural uses. However, it is inconclusive for 

full body contact and domestic water source.

Exceedances in manganese and lead in some of 

the samples suggest a need for more sampling to 

determine if a TMDL is needed (ADEQ 2005). This 

50 acre lake is downstream from Lynx Creek. A 

number of historic mines are upstream and runoff 

and leachate from tailings, along with drainage 

from some mine adits, has affected water quality 

in the lake. The Forest has undertaken 

remediation projects on several of these sites, 

resulting in improved conditions and a trend 

toward reference condition.

Lynx Creek tributaries 

in its headwaters

3 Lynx Creek tributaries in its headwaters include 

approximately 1.8 miles assessed as Category 3, 

inconclusive, of which about 0.5 mile is on the 

Forest. Runoff associated with historic mining 

activities has been measured with some samples 

showing exceedances of metals – zinc, copper, 

and cadmium; however, the number of samples 

and of exceedances was not enough to assess 

whether it is attaining the designated uses.

Remediation was done at the Blue John site in 

2005 in one of the two tributaries. Although not 

included in the 2006 ADEQ assessment, all of 

Lynx Creek is covered by water quality standards.

The Sheldon Mine, on private land in the other 

tributary, is being evaluated by the EPA for 

potential remediation.
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 23

Basin 

(HUC-6)

Watershed (HUC-10),

Lake, or Stream 

Segment

Category Comments

Agua Fria

Black Canyon Creek 5 Turkey Creek, which drains a major portion of the 

east side of the Bradshaw Mountains, has been 

split into two reaches for assigning designated 

uses, based on the division between cold and 

warm water aquatic life at about 5,000 feet 

elevation. Portions of the lower segment have 

been assessed as impaired since 1992. A draft 

TMDL completed in September, 2006 

recommended that this 21 mile reach, of which 

19.7 miles is Prescott NF, be delisted for cadmium 

and zinc but found it still impaired (Category 5) for 

copper and lead. Tailings from the Golden Belt 

and Golden Turkey mines downstream from the 

FR 159 bridge were identified as the primary

source of pollutants. The TMDL recommended a 

remediation program including removing tailings 

from the floodplain, capping and re-vegetating 

tailings, and control of pollutant escape from 

shafts and adits. This project was completed in 

July, 2007. The reach has both intermittent and 

ephemeral segments, but is not perennial.

Because of this major remediation project the 

trend is considered to be upward (ADEQ 2005).

The upper reach of 

Turkey Creek is 9.1 

miles

4 The upper reach of Turkey Creek is 9.1 miles, of 

which 8.4 miles is National Forest. In 1998 it was 

combined with the lower reach into one overall 

Turkey Creek reach assessed as impaired. As a 

separate individual reach it is assessed as 

Category 2, attaining standards for aquatic life and 

livestock watering, but inconclusive for other 

designated uses due to an insufficient number of 

samples.

Agua Fria

French Lily Mine 4 The French Lily Mine was included in the 

remediation project with the Golden Belt and 

Golden Turkey mines. Its large tailings pile is 

within a tributary to Poland Creek, which joins with 

Turkey Creek to form Black Canyon Creek.

Although not included in the 2006 ADEQ 

assessment, its remediation is important in 

reducing the movement of heavy metals 

downstream toward Lake Pleasant.
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 24

Basin 

(HUC-6)

Watershed (HUC-10),

Lake, or Stream 

Segment

Category Comments

Upper Hassayampa 

River

4A, 5 A 31 mile reach of the Hassayampa River from its 

headwaters to Blind Indian Creek (10 miles 

downstream from the Prescott NF Boundary) was 

listed as impaired in 1998 due to high levels of 

metals in the stream from historic mining activities 

near Hassayampa Lake. A first phase TMDL was 

completed in 2002. With the division of designated 

uses between cold and warm water aquatic life at 

5,000 feet elevation, this reach was divided into 

two reaches. The upper reach extends from the 

headwaters to Copper Creek and is assessed as 

impaired, but with a TMDL for copper, cadmium, 

and zinc, placing it in Category 4A (ADEQ 2005).

The identified sources are mining tailings and 

shafts on both private and National Forest land 

within an approximate one mile radius of 

Hassayampa Lake. A first step in remediation was 

completed by the Forest Service and EPA by 

treating the McCleur Mine tailings on both National 

Forest and private land. The Senator Mine, 

another identified source of pollutants, is on 

private land and is being evaluated by the EPA.

Impairment from pH has also been determined; 

however a TMDL for this attribute has not been 

completed, resulting in the reach being assessed 

as Category 5 for pH.

Hassayampa River 

downstream from 

Copper Creek

1 The lower elevation reach of the Hassayampa 

River downstream from Copper Creek is assessed 

as Category 1, attaining all designated uses.

Agua Fria Minnehaha Creek 3 Minnehaha Creek, a tributary of the Hassayampa 

River with confluence at Wagoner, has been 

assessed as Category 3, Inconclusive. The very 

limited sampling found no exceedances but was 

inadequate to reach conclusions on attainment 

(ADEQ 2005).

Groundwater

A high proportion of the water used in the area surrounding the Prescott NF is from groundwater.

Agricultural and residential water uses exceed other water uses; however, agricultural use within 

the Chino sub-basins has decreased since the 1960s and 1970s (USGS, 2005). Ground water is 

hydrologically connected to surface water and where withdrawn at a rate greater than recharge 

can lead to reduction of river flows, lower lake levels, and reduction or elimination of 

groundwater discharge to wetlands and springs. It also can influence the sustainability of 
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 25

drinking-water supplies and maintenance of critical ground water-dependent ecosystems. Some 

streams in southern Arizona which were historically perennial have become ephemeral due to 

ground pumping lowering the water table below the streambed (e.g., the Santa Cruz River in the 

Tucson area) (Forest Service 2008a). Diversion of streamflows can reduce in-stream flows and 

aquifer recharge. In natural stream systems with a steady baseflow, long term recharge is assumed 

to be in balance with spring and stream discharge from the aquifer.

Greater recharge occurs in areas of higher precipitation, along geological faults and fractures, and 

in alluvial channels and floodplains when flooded. Forest snowmelt in higher elevations allows 

for greater infiltration to recharge groundwater aquifers. Recharge may also occur through 

transmission losses in hyporpheic or losing streams. Some of the actual recharge may occur on 

alluvium downstream from the Forest with water precipitated on the Forest. Maintenance of 

conditions conducive to recharge is important in order to maintain the overall source for the 

ground water which is eventually discharged to springs and streams.

Several groundwater sub-basins overlap the Prescott NF boundaries. Those of particular 

importance are the Big Chino, Little Chino and the Verde Valley sub-basins in the Verde 

watersheds, and the Upper and Lower Agua Fria sub-basins in the Agua Fria watershed. The 

1980 Arizona Groundwater Management Act established four Active Management Areas (AMA) 

including the Prescott AMA in selected areas where groundwater overdraft has occurred (ADEQ, 

2000). The Prescott AMA is a composite the Little Chino sub-basin and the Upper Agua Fria subbasin. Within the Prescott AMA, groundwater is the primary source for municipal, domestic, 

industrial, irrigation, and livestock uses The population of the basin is projected to increase by 

58% between 1990 and 2025 (ADEQ, 2000).

Groundwater use on the forest is limited to special-use permittees and National Forest System 

campgrounds and administrative sites in which wells are used for domestic purposes. Other 

groundwater uses include domestic livestock and wildlife uses of springs. Water balance 

calculations indicate that about 1 to 2 percent of annual precipitation recharges the Little Chino 

and Big Chino aquifers, and 4% of annual precipitation recharges the Verde Valley aquifer. This 

amount may have been reduced since the predevelopment period before 1940 (USGS, 2005).

These aquifers receive most of their recharge from higher altitudes, predominantly land 

administered by the National Forest Systems. Overdraft of the regional aquifers is occurring as 

groundwater outflows from all three sub-basins are greater than inflows (ADEQ 2009). Most 

groundwater use occurs outside the forest boundary although the proximity to National Forest 

lands affects groundwater within Prescott NF lands.

Water Use

Water use, primarily has groundwater pumping has dramatically increased in aquifers which 

underlie the Prescott NF. Current projections indicate that future demands will continue to rise 

(ADEQ 2009). Pumping groundwater at rates that exceed the recharge potential will result in 

decreased baseflow of streams and reduce spring discharge. The potential to deplete these 

aquifers exists and the consequences to aquatic and water resources and wildlife could be 

extensive. The consumption of these waters is governed by the State of Arizona.
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 26

Many of the springs occurring on the Prescott NF have been developed or modified to 

accommodate stock use (Forest Service 2008a). Many of these springs are in degraded conditions 

and would benefit through implementation of protection measures.

Soils

Potential Natural Vegetation Types (PNVT) aggregated from Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) 

Ecological Units, were used to categorize Prescott NF lands based on soils, climate, and potential 

vegetation (Forest Service 2000). The PNVTs are ecological units based on biophysical settings 

and depict the potential vegetation type that would dominate a site under natural disturbance 

regimes and biological processes (Vander Lee and others, 2006). Additional information on 

PNVTs can be found in the Ecological Sustainability Report (Forest Service 2009b). Soil 

resource characteristics were evaluated and analyzed by PNVT. The crosswalk between TES 

ecological units and PNVTs are in the planning record.

The Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) of the Prescott NF (Forest Service 2000) was used to 

form TES Ecological Units (along with soils). Map Units (ecological units) are identified by 

numbers ranging from 30 to 660. There are 147 TES units mapped for the Forest.

The TES was mapped at a scale of 1:24,000 across the landscape. Therefore, differences in soil 

and vegetation can occur within units over short distances. Generally, vegetation types smaller 

than about 10 to 40 acres were not mapped and are included in larger TES map units. Individual 

map units are based on representative data collected across the Forest and may or may not 

represent existing and potential conditions at a specific location as depicted in the TES. The 

overall accuracy of mapping and information provided by the TES is considered reliable at the 

ecological unit or landscape level. Map unit delineation may represent an area dominated by one 

to three eco-types (components). The map unit is named according to the taxonomic classification 

of the dominant ecosystem (Forest Service 2000).

Soil Type by PNVT

The Forest can be described by 14 PNVTs. Table 11 contains landforms, parent material and soil 

taxonomy for each PNVT (Forest Service 2000). The percentage of the dominant soil taxonomy 

is provided to indicate the degree of variability and diversity within a PNVT.

Common landforms on the Forest consist of mountains, hills, and plains with varying positions.

Parent Material commonly found on the Forest includes granite, basalt, limestone, sandstone, and 

metamorphic comprised of schist and gneiss. Dominant soil taxonomy includes Haplustalfs and 

Argiustolls.

Table 11. Soil types for PNVT

PNVT Parent Material Landforms Dominant Soil Taxa

Aspen Forest Granite, Schist Lowland Plains, Low 

Hills

Udic Haploborolls (100%)

Great Basin Grassland Limestone, 

Mixed Alluvium

Lowland, Elevated, 

and Valley plains

Palesustalfs (33%)

Vertic Haplustalfs (20%)
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 27

PNVT Parent Material Landforms Dominant Soil Taxa

Cottonwood /Willow Mixed Alluvium Valley Plains Aridic Ustifluvents (60%) 

Oxyaquic Ustifluvents (32%)

Desert Communities Metamorphic Schist Mountains & Hills Ustic Torriorthents (100%)

Mixed-Conifer with 

Frequent Fire

Granite, 

Schist & Gneiss

Mountains & Hills Typic Dystrochrepts (65%)

Eutric Glossoboralfs (26%)

Interior Chaparral Granite, 

Metamorphic

Mountains & Hills Lithic Haplustalfs (75%)

Madrean Encinal 

Woodland

Granite, 

Mixed Alluvium

Mountains & 

Lowland/Valley 

Plains

Udic Haplustolls (65%)

Mixed Deciduous 

Broadleaf Riparian Forest

Mixed Alluvium Valley Plains Oxyaquic Ustifluvents (58%)

Riverwash (36%)

Piñon Juniper - Evergreen 

Shrub

Granite, Basalt,

Limestone, 

Sandstone, Alluvium

Mountains, Hills, 

Elevated Hills

Argiustolls & Haplustalfs (50%)

Piñon Juniper – Grassland Basalt, Limestone Elevated & Lowland 

Plains

Vertic intergrades (32%) Typic 

Haplustalfs (27%)

Piñon Juniper – Woodland Basalt, Limestone Hills, Mountains, 

Lowland Plains

Haplustalfs (65%)

Rock outcrops (25%)

Ponderosa Pine -

Evergreen Oak

Granite, 

Metamorphic Schist

Hills, Mountains, 

Elevated Plains

Haplustalfs (53%)

Lithic Ustorthents (27%)

Ponderosa Pine - Forest Basalt, Metamorphic 

Schist

Hills, Mountains, 

Plains

Mollisols (33%), 

Udic Haplustalfs (27%)

Semi-Desert Grassland Limestone, Basalt,

Metamorphic Schist, 

Mixed Alluvium

Hills, Mountains, 

Plains

Haplustalfs (70%)

Soil Condition by PNVT

Soil Condition is an evaluation of soil quality or the capacity of the soil to function within its 

ecological capability to sustain biological productivity, maintain environmental quality and 

promote plant and animal health (FSH 2509.18, 2). Soil condition and soil productivity are 

directly correlated in this analysis and are used as a method to assess existing soil productivity 

(FSH 2509.18, 2). Soil condition evaluates how a soil unit is functioning within its ecological 

capacity. Soil function is the natural process which occurs within the soil resulting from the 

combined interactions of soil chemical, physical, and biological properties (FSM 2550). The three 

primary functions assessed for soil condition evaluations are included below (Forest Service 

2000).

 Stability: The ability of the soil to resist erosion.

 Hydrology: The ability of the soil to absorb, store, and transmit water, both vertically and 

horizontally.

 Nutrient Cycling: The ability of the soil to accept, hold and release nutrients.
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 28

Soil condition classes are Satisfactory, Impaired, and Unsatisfactory, as defined below. For a 

detailed description of the methodology used for soil condition classification, see the Ecological 

Sustainability Analysis of the Prescott National Forest (Forest Service 2008a).

 Satisfactory: Indicators signify that soil function is being sustained and soil is functioning 

properly and normally. The ability of the soil to maintain resource values and sustain 

outputs is high.

 Impaired: Indicators signify a reduction in soil function. The ability of the soil to function 

properly and normally has been reduced and/or there exists an increased vulnerability to 

degradation. An impaired category indicates there is a need to investigate the ecosystem 

to determine the cause and degree of decline in soil functions. Changes in land 

management practices or other preventative measures may be appropriate.

 Unsatisfactory: Indicators signify that a loss of soil function has occurred. Degradation of 

vital soil functions result in the inability of the soil to maintain resource values, sustain 

outputs or recover from impacts. Unsatisfactory soils are candidates for improved 

management practices or restoration designed to recover soil functions.

As can be seen in Table 12, currently about 48% (674,236 acres) of the soils are in “Satisfactory” 

soil condition; about 35% (489,208 acres) are “Impaired”; and 17% (236,700 acres) are rated 

“Unsatisfactory”. Most areas that are currently in impaired and unsatisfactory soil condition 

would most likely have historically been in satisfactory soil condition.

Table 12. Soil Condition

PNVT

Soil Condition Categories

Satisfactory Impaired Unsatisfactory Forest PNVT Total

% of

PNVT Acres

% of

PNVT Acres

% of

PNVT Acres

% of

PNVT Acres

Aspen Forest 100 % 82 --

*

-- -- --

<0.01

%

82

Great Basin

Grassland 0.0 % 0 46 % 28,606 54 % 33,599 4.4 % 62,205

Cottonwood 

/Willow 42 % 2,127 58 % 2,934 0.4 % 29 0.4 % 5,090

Desert 

Communities 57 % 3,513 43 % 2,673 -- -- 0.4 % 6,186

Mixed-Conifer with 

Frequent Fire 100 % 8,995 -- -- -- -- 0.6 % 8,995

Interior Chaparral 91 % 297,042 8 % 27,215 1 % 3,441 23.2 % 327,698

Madrean Encinal 

Woodland 64 % 4,765 -- -- 36 % 2,628 0.5 % 7,393

 

*

zero to trace amount
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 29

PNVT

Soil Condition Categories

Satisfactory Impaired Unsatisfactory Forest PNVT Total

% of

PNVT Acres

% of

PNVT Acres

% of

PNVT Acres

% of

PNVT Acres

Mixed Deciduous 

Broadleaf Riparian 

Forest

11 % 1,324 53 % 6,517 36 % 4,446 0.9 % 12,287

Piñon Juniper -

Evergreen Shrub 40 % 195,436 46 % 225,865 15 % 72,731 35 % 494,032

Juniper –

Grassland 13 % 19,189 25 % 36,666 62 % 91,966 10.5 % 147,821

Piñon Juniper –

Woodland 25 % 18,120 45 % 32,600 30 % 21,989 5.2 % 72,709

Ponderosa Pine -

Evergreen Oak 92 % 64,130 8 % 5,885 -- -- 5.0 % 70,015

Ponderosa Pine –

Gambel Oak 89 % 44,696 11 % 5,386 -- -- 3.6 % 50,082

Semi-Desert 

Grassland 11 % 14,817 85 % 114,861 4 % 5,871 9.6 % 135,549

Total 48 % 674,236 35 % 489,208 16 % 223,657 100 % 1,400,144

As can be seen in Table 12, the greatest areas of satisfactory conditions are found in the MixedConifer with Frequent Fire (100%), Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Oak (92%), Interior Chaparral 

(91%), and Ponderosa Pine- Gambel Oak (89%). These PNVTs are both more resilient and have 

had different management histories than other PNVTs. Soil functions are being sustained in these 

PNVTs.

The greatest areas of unsatisfactory soil conditions are found in the Juniper-Grassland (91,966 

acres), Piñon-Juniper-Evergreen Shrub (72,731 acres), and the Great Basin Grassland (33,599 

acres). Both the Juniper-Grassland and the Great Basin Grassland PNVTs have a large portion 

that is in impaired condition (62% and 54%, respectively).

Semi-Desert Grassland (85%), Cottonwood/ Willow (58%), and Mixed Deciduous Broadleaf 

Riparian Forest (53%) have the largest percent of impaired soil condition, however, the 

Cottonwood/ Willow and Mixed Deciduous Broadleaf Riparian PNVTs combined only represent 

about 1.25% of the Prescott NF. The ability of the soil to function properly and normally has been 

reduced and there is an increased vulnerability to degradation. Conditions in soils in this category 

could improve given a change in land management practices or improved application of 

mitigation measures (FSH 2509.18).

Maintaining satisfactory soil condition is essential for long-term soil productivity. Unsatisfactory 

soil condition (17% of Forest) reduces the ability and potential of the soil to grow plants and 

sustain productive, diverse vegetation. Restoration activity and/or very long periods of time 

would be needed to return these soils to a productive state (FSH 2509.18).
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 30

It should be noted that the piñon-juniper vegetation types constitute half of the acreage on the 

Prescott NF. As can be seen Table 12, these vegetation types all have a relatively low percentage 

of satisfactory soils conditions, with the piñon-juniper-evergreen shrub component having the 

highest amount (40%) of the acreage in satisfactory condition. These vegetation types are often 

types very susceptible to vegetation conversion from a lack of fire and grazing activity.

Another PNVT worth noting is the Mixed Deciduous Broadleaf Riparian Forest. This PNVT has 

a very low (11%) component in satisfactory condition. These riparian types make up a small 

portion of the Prescott NF (0.9%) but are responsible for a disproportionate amount of the 

ecological biodiversity and productivity on the forest. These soils show a need for improvement.

Summary of Soils

Overall, soils on the Prescott NF are functioning within their historic range of productivity. Only 

17% of the forest soils are rated as unsatisfactory and hence show a large loss of productivity.

Soils in the following PNVTs are of particular concern: Juniper-Grassland, Great Basin 

Grassland, Mandrean-Encinal Woodland, and Mixed Deciduous Broadleaf Riparian Forest. In 

terms of extent, the Piñon-Juniper-Evergreen Shrub PNVT has the most acreage of soils in 

impaired or unsatisfactory condition (298,596 acres), followed by the Juniper Grassland (128,632 

acres)and Semi-Desert Grassland (120,732 acres) PNVTs.

Summary of Alternatives

Alternative A – 1987 Forest Plan Direction

Alternative A would continue management under the existing plan for the Prescott NF. The plan 

provides for timber production, fuel wood harvest, hazardous fuel reduction treatments, 

prescribed fire and management of unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives. Project 

specific to watershed restoration including improvement of riparian areas; road and trail 

maintenance, reconstruction, and decommissioning; and restoration of springs and seeps would 

continue as under the existing plan.

Under Alternative A, thinning to alter or restore vegetation structure and composition occurs on 

about 550 acres per year in ponderosa pine and on 300 acres per year in piñon-juniper vegetation. 

Fire managers treat about 7,835 acres per year using prescribed fire across all vegetation types.

Planned ignitions are coordinated with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, as well 

as with adjacent agencies, to ensure that exceedences of State or Federal emissions standards do 

not result.

Alternative B – Proposed Revised Plan

Alternative B represents approximately 1-2 years of collaborative work with citizens, agencies, 

and Prescott NF employees in an iterative manner to respond to suggested changes in proposed 

plan components. It places an emphasis on restoring vegetation, structure, composition, and 

desired characteristics of fire to five ecosystems that are moderately or highly-departed from 
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 31

desired conditions. It also addresses citizen concerns related to smoke emissions and responds to 

the anticipated effects of climate change. Eight potential wilderness areas are recommended. 

Alternative B would increase the number of projects designed to improve watershed condition 

from 8-12 to 20-50. Focus on riparian area improvements would continue and the number 

improvements to groundwater dependent ecosystems would increase from 12 sites to 20 to 55 

sites. Projects to reduce watershed impacts from roads and trails would increase from existing 

management. Alternative B would increase the amount of thinning and prescribed fire occurring 

across the landscape. Planned ignitions would range from 10,600 to 25,300 acres per year on 

average. Thinning treatments would range from 1,750 to 6,500 acres per year on average.

Planned ignitions would be coordinated with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 

as well as with adjacent agencies, to ensure that exceedences of State or Federal emissions 

standards do not result. Additionally, wildland urban interface (WUI) areas would be given high 

priority for fuel reduction treatments, using mechanical methods and/or domestic animals in lieu 

of planned ignitions.

Alternative C – Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Emphasis

Alternative C includes many of the same components of Alternative B, however, it responds to 

public comments to increase emphasis on vegetation trends within both grassland and ponderosa 

pine types. This focus improves vegetation conditions within important wildlife habitats and 

places less emphasis on some vegetation communities and recreational components. In addition, 

Alternative C includes more management treatment for native fish and other aquatic species and 

pronghorn habitats; there is much less emphasis on recommendation of potential wilderness 

areas.

Alternative C would increase the number of projects designed to improve watershed condition 

from 8-12 to 20-50. Focus on riparian area improvements would continue and the number 

improvements to groundwater dependent ecosystems would increase from 12 sites to 20 to 55 

sites. Projects to reduce watershed impacts from roads and trails would increase from existing 

management. Alternative C would emphasize a higher range of prescribed fire and a lower range 

of thinning activity compared to Alternatives A and B. Planned ignitions would range from 

15,500 to 22,800 acres per year on average and would be focused in grassland and ponderosa pine 

vegetation. Thinning treatments would range from 1,750 to 4,000 acres per year on average.

Response to smoke emissions in Alternative C is the same as that described in Alternative B.

Alternative D – Dispersed Recreation Emphasis

Alternative D includes an emphasis on providing increased dispersed recreation opportunities.

Vegetation treatments would be similar to those in Alternative B or slightly reduced. Emphasis on 

pronghorn and native fish would be identical to Alternative B. Within recreational opportunities, 

there would be reduced emphasis on developed recreation, such as campgrounds, and increased 

emphasis on dispersed recreation such as adding trails, improving trailheads and adding 

designated dispersed sites. This alternative also includes recommendation of the highest number 

of potential wilderness areas. 
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 32

Alternative D would increase the number of projects designed to improve watershed condition 

from 8-12 to 20-50. Focus on riparian area improvements would continue and the number 

improvements to groundwater dependent ecosystems would increase from 12 sites to 20 to 55 

sites. Projects to reduce watershed impacts from roads and trails would increase from existing 

management. Alternative D would emphasize less prescribed fire than Alternatives B and C, and 

similar or less thinning activity. Planned ignitions would range from 10,600 to 18,800 acres per 

year on average. Thinning treatments would range from 1,750 to 4,000 acres per year on average 

(the same as Alternative C).

Response to smoke emissions in Alternative D is the same as that described in Alternative B. 

Alternative E – Final Revised Plan

Alternative E, the preferred alternative, is based upon the collaborative effort of alternative B, 

with changes to plan components that address public and leadership concerns raised during the 

comment period. Vegetation treatments would be the same as those in Alternative B. Emphasis 

on pronghorn and native fish would be similar to Alternative B, with an increase in wildlife water 

developments and the acquisition of in-stream flow rights. Within recreational opportunities, it 

combines the lower-end target numbers for Objectives 7 – 9 from alternatives B, C, and D and 

places less emphasis on trail maintenance. This alternative also includes recommendation of 

eight potential wilderness areas, but with less total acreage than the recommendation in 

Alternative B. 

Impairments to watershed function from recreation and management activities: The plan 

components used to address this issue in alternative E would be similar to those described for 

alternatives B, C, and D. Alternative E differs in that it calls for 20 to 100 miles of designated 

roads or motorized trails that impact watershed integrity to be repaired or relocated and does not 

count routine maintenance towards meeting this objective.

Seeps and springs and riparian function: One to 3 critical threats to riparian system 

functionality would be addressed within 2 to 3 years of detection. Twenty-five to 55 seeps and 

springs would be maintained or enhanced, including such activities as road or trail relocation, 

fencing, pasture rotation, or seasonal grazing restrictions.

Desired water quality, quantity, and timing: Over a 10-year period, 5 to 50 essential projects 

would improve conditions within high risk watersheds. Activities would be the same as under the 

other action alternatives and could include range improvements to distribute grazing, treatments 

to increase vegetative ground cover, stream stabilization, and mine site restoration. 

Watershed resilience to climate change: This concern would be addressed the same way as that 

described in alternatives B, C, and D.
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 33

Methodology and Analysis Process 

The analysis of the environmental consequences of the proposed actions was based on 

professional judgment and consultation with the Prescott NF plan revision team, the Prescott NF 

forest hydrologist, field reconnaissance, and literature review. 

Assumptions

 The land management plan provides a programmatic framework for future site-specific 

actions.

 Land management plans do not have direct effects. They do not authorize or mandate any 

site-specific projects or activities (including ground-disturbing actions).

 Land management plans may have implications, or environmental consequences, of 

managing the forests under a programmatic framework.

 Law, policy, and regulations will be followed when planning or implementing sitespecific projects and activities including the implementation of Best Management 

Practices as required by EPA and ADEQ.

 The plan decisions (desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, management 

areas, monitoring) will be followed when planning or implementing site-specific projects 

and activities.

 Monitoring will occur and the land management plan will be amended, as needed.

 Management activities that help ecosystems accommodate changes adaptively will 

improve ecosystem resiliency in the long-term.

 The planning timeframe is 10 years; other timeframes may be analyzed to compare 

anticipated trends into the future.

 Activities associated with aquatic restoration will not impact water resources and the 

effects do not vary between alternatives.

 Action on opportunities acquire land to retain open space would serve to protect water 

resources.

Environmental Consequences

The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions 

but does not authorize, fund, or carry out any project or activity. Because the land management 

plan does not authorize or mandate any ground-disturbing actions, there are no direct effects.

However, there may be implications, or longer term environmental consequences, of management 

the Prescott NF under this programmatic framework.

Watersheds are naturally dynamic in responses to disturbances such as drought, floods, and 

wildland fire. These watersheds can also be affected by forest management activities. On a large 

scale, activities that disturb the soil surface as well as those that alter stream flow have the 

greatest potential to affect aquatic and riparian resources. Site specific activities such as mining 

also have high potential to impact water resources. The risk of adverse impacts increases as the 

distance between a ground disturbing activity and a stream or wetland decreases. Surface water, 

groundwater, floodplains, and riparian areas are all closely related. Because the effects on these 
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 34

resources are typically similar, they are discussed together unless specifically noted and 

described. Water yields from timber harvests and prescribed burns can be significant on a small 

scale such as in a sixth-level watershed, resulting in channel degradation if significant. On a 

larger scale, such as from the forest as a whole, these yields are a very small fraction of the 

forest’s overall water yield and are not measurably detectable from year-to-year.

Watershed conservation practices and forest plan standards and guidelines prescribe extensive 

measures to protect soil, riparian, and aquatic resources. Adverse impacts to these resources can 

be minimized or eliminated when Best Management Practices are implemented. Situations may 

exist where impacts may be unavoidable. In these situations, the extent and the duration of the 

disturbance from the management activities as well the long term benefits must be considered in 

assessing the impacts to water resources.

Vegetation Management

Common to all Alternatives

The risks to watershed condition from vegetation manipulation including timber harvest and 

prescribed fire most commonly include erosion, compaction, sedimentation, timing of peak flows 

and increased water yield in sub-watersheds (i.e. sixth-level watersheds). Riparian ecosystems 

can be affected by vegetation manipulation as well. The degree of impact depends on site specific 

features such as soil erosivity, steepness of slopes, susceptibility to mass wasting, as well as the 

spatial extent and intensity of the prescribed activity. Low-intensity fires typically leave sufficient 

organic matter to protect the soil surface. In contrast, high-intensity fires can consume duff, litter, 

and critical amounts of the vegetation and sterilize soils. Roads, landings, skid trails, and fire 

lines associated with management activity can increase the risk of erosion and sedimentation.

Vegetation manipulation can measurably increase streamflow within the immediate watershed for 

limited periods of duration. Vegetation evapo-transpiration is generally the first factor to recover.

Research has shown that it takes extensive vegetation manipulation to realize any increases in 

water yield, and that the predominant time of year in which water yield can be increased is during 

flood events (Schmidt and Wellman 1999 from Forest Service 2008b). Healthy riparian stands act 

as sponges, and meter out water yield for late season flows. Higher flow rates create greater 

capacity to erode and transport sediment within the stream system. Significant increases in peak 

flows and their duration can adversely impact channel stability and aquatic habitat. Riparian 

vegetation also serves to create roughness that reduces stream velocity and stabilize stream banks.

Removal of riparian vegetation can lead to bank erosion during high streamflows (Neary and 

others, 2010).

If fuels are not managed on the Prescott NF, high intensity fires from unplanned ignition has a 

greater potential to occur and impact water resources and it is useful to compare the impacts 

typically related to wildfire with those from prescribed fire efforts.

Soils may respond to high-intensity fires by becoming hydrophobic (water repellant) thereby 

reducing the potential for infiltration and increasing overland flow. The loss of riparian vegetation 

removes buffers to streams. With little vegetation or organic matter to slow down overland runoff 

and intercept sediments, receiving stream systems can experience increased peak flows and 

sedimentation. Burned over watersheds that provide a source for municipal water supplies are of 
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 35

most concern. Downstream flooding from severely burned watersheds is also a concern where 

dwellings and other structures located in a floodplain are at risk. 

Comparison of Alternatives

Figure 1. Proposed acres of vegetation treatments, by alternative

Alternative A continues the current management as directed in the 1987 Plan. Current trends 

would restore the fewest acres using managed fire and mechanical vegetation treatments (Figure 

1). The result would be the slowest rate of improvement in watershed function among the 

alternatives, and no plan emphasis for watershed restoration. The rate of progress in addressing 

vegetation structure under Alternative A is slower than the rate at which these impacts to the 

watershed have been accumulating. It can be reasonably assumed that in the absence of a change 

in management direction these impacts will continue to accumulate into the future. 

The goals in the 1987 Plan for providing for increased water flow via large scale chaparral 

removal (e.g., Battle Flat project) are outdated, but would remain in place under Alternative A. 

Projects such as the Battle Flat treatment represent an inefficient approach towards improving 

watershed integrity that is not sufficient to reverse the decline in watershed function on the forest. 

The current levels of prescribed burning and mechanical vegetation treatment have been 

insufficient to affect a recovery in watershed function across the forest. Most of the subwatersheds on the forest are currently in an at-risk condition and the continuation of management 

direction under Alternative A would not provide the guidance necessary for measurable 

improvement. 

Alt A Alt B

low

Alt B

high

Alt C

low

Alt C

high

Alt D

low

Alt D

high

Rx Thin 1,027 1,750 6,500 1,750 4,000 1,750 4,000

Rx Fire 7,835 10,600 25,300 15,500 22,800 10,600 18,800

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

Acres

Proposed Average Annual Treatment 

Activity by Alternative
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 36

Areas displaying current poor conditions for soil and forest cover such as Grindstone Wash and 

Hell Canyon watersheds in the Upper Verde sub-basin would be unlikely to recover function. 

Watersheds such as Williamson Valley Wash in the Big Chino Wash sub-basin with a substantial 

number of sub-watersheds in at-risk or impaired condition would be likely to trend downward 

into further impairment. 

All action alternatives (B, C, D, and E) propose to treat more acreage in PNVTs that have poor 

soil conditions, including Semi-Desert Grasslands, Great Basin Grasslands, Juniper Grasslands, 

and Piñon-Juniper-Evergreen Shrub. Figure 1 compares annual acres proposed for prescribed 

burning and thinning by alternative. As these vegetative communities recover with annual 

treatments, soils would move towards a satisfactory condition. As organic matter and ground 

cover increase, the three primary soil functions of stability, hydrology, and nutrient cycling would 

recover in these treated areas.

Alternatives B and E propose the most acres burned under managed fires. The acreages presented 

represent both a risk to watershed resources as well as a protection measure from higher-intensity 

wildfires. Although all fire reduces vegetation, thereby increasing the potential for erosion, the 

overall impacts to watershed resources of a prescribed fire typically are less than those of a 

wildfire. Short term effects including increased peak flows and sedimentation are possible from 

the proposed treatments, however the benefits from these treatments are expected reduce erosion 

and enhance soil productivity over time. The short and long term effects to water resources would 

be greater if large high intensity wildland fire were to occur.

The higher range of Piñon-Juniper acres treated in Alternatives B and E could benefit Grindstone 

Wash and Hell Canyon watersheds in particular. Both of these watersheds contain a high 

percentage of Piñon-Juniper types (89% and 98%, respectively) as well as an impaired rating for 

Soil in all of their sub-watersheds. They also each contain a high percentage of acres rated as 

impaired for Forest Cover and Rangeland Vegetation. 

Alternative C proposes more fire treatments in Semi-Desert and Great Basin Grasslands and less 

overall treatments in the Piñon-Juniper vegetation types than the preferred alternative (E). This 

would favor more soil recovery in the PNVTs with increased treatments and less recovery in the 

others.

Alternative D has less overall treatment in the Piñon-Juniper types than the preferred alternative 

(E). This will have the effect of less improvement in soil conditions to the Piñon-Juniper types.

Roads and Trails

Common to all Alternatives

Roads and to a lesser extent, trails are associated with many forest uses including timber harvests, 

recreation, mining, and are probably the most significant source of increased sediments into 

stream channels on the forest. Roads and trails create lineal features with impermeable surfaces 

that have low roughness. Many roads are located in proximity to surfaces waters and concentrate 

runoff, thereby increasing the ability to transport sediment and reducing the time for runoff to 

reach the stream. Roads, especially when not designed using Best Management Practices, 
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 37

increase the drainage density. Roads constructed on steep slopes or high erosion hazard areas 

result in more displaced material.

Once sediment enters a drainage network it will be transported through the system as stream 

volumes and velocities allow. Deposition of sediments occurs where or when flow rates are not 

sufficient for their transport in suspension. These impacts cannot be estimated at the 

programmatic level such as a forest plan. They will, however, be included in project-level 

analyses. The existing transportation system on the Prescott NF is a source of sediment and 

increased peak flows from runoff. Roads and trails are also features which provide opportunities 

for many human uses. Desired conditions, standards and guidelines, and goals related to roads for 

the plan revision were generated as part of the planning process. These criteria were created with 

the objective to protect water resources. The alternatives generated define these criteria as 

components of Watershed Integrity. Refer to the Watershed Integrity section in Environmental 

Consequences for a comparison of alternatives and mitigative activities related to roads.

Mining

Common to all Alternatives

Mining activity can cause significant long-term impacts to surface and groundwater quality. 

Metal ores on the Prescott NF have leached pollutants such as zinc, copper, lead, selenium, and 

cadmium. Deep in the ground, these minerals are normally stable. Mining exposes these ores to 

air or water. Metals that come in contact with acidic runoff dissolve easily and enter a water body 

in solution. Aquatic life and riparian vegetation are poisoned by acidic water and released toxins. 

Without protective vegetation along stream banks, channel erosion also will also occur. Some 

mining activity, such as exploration, simply disturbs the soil, leaving surfaces exposed to erosive 

forces. Past problems with mining are discussed in the affected environment section and also the 

supporting ecological sustainability analyses. Historic and recreational mining on the Prescott NF

is prevalent in many areas of the forest and surrounding private lands. Future mining activities 

may occur, but will be required to mitigate impacts to water resources. Commercial mining 

activity does not vary by alternative.

Watershed Integrity

Common to all Alternatives

All of these activities are designed to improve water resource conditions. Impacts to water 

resources from roads and trails are described under the roads section.

Comparison of Alternatives

The action alternatives (B, C, D, and E) have the greatest potential to improve watershed 

resources. The least potential for improvement to water resources is through Alternative A. Table 

13 summarizes the differences between alternatives. There are no measurable differences between 

alternatives B, C, D, and E and goals for watershed integrity. The primary differences between 

Alternatives A versus B, C, D, and E are increases in watershed restoration projects, increases in 

road improvements that impact water resources, and increases in spring protection. Alternative E 
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 38

uses different metrics to determine the number of project implemented to improve watershed 

conditions and riparian areas (Table 13), however, the effect is expected to be comparable to or of 

greater benefit than Alternatives B, C, and D. Alternative E also addresses the issue of in-stream 

water flow rights on the forest; Alternatives B, C, and D do not. 

Table 13. Comparison of Alternatives: Watershed Integrity

Current Plan Alternative

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative

D

Alternative

E

Projects to Improve 

Watershed 

Conditions.

4,180 acres, 

3 miles, and 

2 other projects

Estimate 8 to 12 

projects

20 to 50 

projects

20 to 50 

projects

20 to 50 

projects

5 – 50 

essential 

projects

Improve conditions 

in identified 

improperly 

functioning and at 

risk riparian areas 

within 1-5 years of 

detection.

Timing of 

treatments 

unknown

10 acres and 

17 segments 

improved

10-40 % 10-40% 10-40 % Counter 1 to 3 

critical threats 

to riparian 

system 

functionality

Maintain or repair 

designated 

motorized roads or 

trails that impact 

watershed integrity.

30 miles, 

2 erosion control 

projects, and 

62 acres 

improved

20 to 100 

Miles

20 to 100 

miles

20 to 100 

miles

Repair or 

relocate 

20 to 100 

miles

Obliterate, close, 

re-contour, or 

revegetate 

unauthorized routes 

that impact 

watershed integrity.

23 miles and 

14 acres 

obliterated

Minimum 

of 10 miles

Minimum 

of 10 miles

Minimum 

of 10 miles

Minimum 

of 10 miles

Improve stream or 

drainage crossings 

by roads or trails.

2 crossings 

improved

15 to 25 

crossings

15 to 25 

crossings

15 to 25 

crossings

15 to 25 

crossings

Enhance and restore 

ground water 

dependent 

ecosystem sites 

(seeps and springs).

12 sites 25 to 55 

sites

25 to 55 

sites

25 to 55 

sites

25 to 55 

sites
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 39

Current Plan Alternative

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative

D

Alternative

E

Apply for in-stream 

flow water rights

None None None At least 8 

water rights

Recreation

Common to all Alternatives

Water plays an important part in many aspects of recreation. Lakes and streams are attractions to 

those recreating on the forest. Water provides basic needs in campgrounds and other recreation 

sites. The availability of water enhances most recreational uses, and conversely, recreational 

pursuits have varying degrees of impact on this resource. Many developed and dispersed 

recreation sites are located in or near surface water, and developed sites frequently have plumbed 

facilities. Trails and roads, especially those that are user created, frequently lead to and parallel 

streams. Recreational mining commonly occurs in or near streams. Likewise, most wilderness 

visitors travel to and camp near lakes or streams. Such concentrated use typically results in 

trampling of riparian zones and stream banks, damage to riparian vegetation, and soil compaction. 

Erosion and sedimentation can occur. The risk of water pollution from human waste, 

dishwashing, trash accumulation, and horse use is higher where people congregate. These risks 

can be reduced by carefully designing recreation sites and trails to avoid riparian areas. Stream 

crossings should be minimized and routes for motorized and non-motorized off-highway vehicles 

should terminate a distance from water bodies to avoid adverse impacts to riparian zones and 

water quality. Interpretive tools such as signs and the presence of forest staff on site can help to 

educate forest users about ways to reduce their impacts to water resources.

Alternative D proposes more dispersed recreation and less developed recreation sites. As stated 

above, these sites are commonly near water resources. With increased dispersed recreation, there 

is the potential for increased trampling, soil compaction, and a decrease in soil productivity. The 

Mixed Deciduous Broadleaf Riparian Forest PNVT was identified above as having a low overall 

satisfactory rating. Increases in dispersed recreation in these areas has the potential to decrease 

soil recovery.

Comparison of Alternatives

The action alternative (Alternatives B, C, D, and E) have the greatest potential to improve 

watershed resources. The least potential for improvement to water resources is through 

Alternative A. The action alternatives would not likely have a measurable difference in 

environmental consequences to water resources between them. The primary differences between 

Alternatives A versus B, C, and D are improvements in signing, public education, implementation 

of protection measures in impacted areas, and increased trail improvements and maintenance.

Alternative E is similar to Alternative D, however it recommends one to four designatied 

dispersed camping areas (comparable to Alternatives B and C) and does not address the trail 

maintenance backlog (Table 14). All of these activities are likely to result in improvements to 

water resources. The addition of developed recreation areas and designation of dispersed areas 
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 40

have to potential to impact soil and water resources. The design features and maintenance specific 

to these facilities would influence the potential effects. Factors such as the size, proximity to 

surface water, stability of the site, season of use, are relevant to determining the effects.

Assumptions made are that protection measures would be part of the design criteria, and that 

implementation of these recreation areas would not result in degradation to water resources.

Table 14. Comparison of Alternatives: Recreation

Current Plan Alternative

B

Alternative

C

Alternative

D

Alternative

E

Additional 

Developed 

Recreation Areas

0 2 to 5

areas

2 to 5 

areas

1 to 2

areas

1 to 2

areas

Additional 

Designations of 

dispersed camping 

areas.

0 1 to 4 

areas

1 to 4 

areas

2 to 6 

areas

1 to 4 

areas

Percent reduction 

in maintenance 

backlog—

Developed Rec. 

sites.

88% 80 to 90% 80 to 90% 50 to 60% 50 to 60%

Percent reduction 

in maintenance 

backlog—trails.

No reduction, 

expected; 

increase

50 to 70% 35 to 50% 50 to 70% No reduction

Designated target 

shooting areas.

1 area exists; 

permit will not 

be renewed

1 area 1 area 1 area No target 

shooting area

Improvement in 

trailheads.

None reported 5-20 

trailheads

5-10 

trailheads

10-25 

trailheads

5-20

trailheads

Annual trail sign 

Maintenance. 

3 to 5% 10 to 20% 10 to 20% 10 to 20% 10 to 20%

Enhance fishing 

opportunities.

2 lake 

treatments

2 lakes or 

ponds

2 lakes or 

ponds

2 lakes or 

ponds

2 lakes or 

ponds

Enhance means of 

communication with 

visitors.

No Develop 

2 to 5 additional 

communication 

methods

Develop 

2 to 5 additional 

communication

methods

Develop 

2 to 5 additional 

communication 

methods

Develop 

2 to 5 additional 

communication 

methods

Improved 

identification of 

designated 

wilderness 

boundaries.

1 mile marked 2 to 5 

areas

2 to 5 

areas

2 to 5 

areas

2 to 5 

areas
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 41

Current Plan Alternative

B

Alternative

C

Alternative

D

Alternative

E

Add protective 

measures where 

there is evidence of 

resource damage 

due to Recreation 

sites or use. 

2 locations 2 to 5 

locations

2 to 5 

locations

2 to 5 

locations

2 to 5 

locations

Trail improvement 

to meet desired 

conditions (DCRec-2 Trails).

0 5 to 10 

actions

5 to 10 

actions

5 to 15 actions 

including 10 to 

20 miles new 

trail 

construction 

and up to 5 

miles trail 

decommissioning

5 to 10 

actions

Number of areas 

and total acreage of 

potential wilderness 

recommended.

0 acres 8 areas

43,330 acres

0 acres 16 areas

116,260 acres

8 areas

23,137 acres

Grazing

Common to all Alternatives

Grazing, as discussed here, refers to domestic livestock on National Forest System lands under a 

grazing permit. Historic grazing levels have been documented to be a source of impact to water 

resources (Wildeman and Brock 2000). Site specific issues concerns to water resources including 

riparian areas and springs currently exist. The impacts can include erosion, sedimentation, soil 

compaction, loss of wildlife and fish habitat, decreased water quality, and lowered water tables.

When the impacts of livestock grazing range are substantial, modifications in the timing and/or 

amount of grazing activities reduce the overall impact in critical areas. 

Currently active allotments do not vary across alternatives. The number of vacant allotments that 

are retained for potential restocking does not vary by alternative. Any actual reissuance of permits 

to restock any of the retained vacant allotments will be evaluated through site-specific NEPA 

analyses. Because vacant allotments that are retained have not been used for many years and will 

not be restocked without further analysis, there is no change in the risk from grazing to watershed 

resources in the forest plan decision.

Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative A continues the current management as directed in the 1987 Plan. Current trends 

would restore the fewest acres of grassland vegetation types (Semi-Desert Grasslands and Great 

Basin Grasslands), resulting in the slowest rate of improvement in the Rangeland Vegetation 

condition indicator. The rate of progress in addressing rangeland conditions under Alternative A 

is slower than the rate at which impacts to the watersheds have been accumulating. It can be 
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 42

reasonably assumed that in the absence of a change in management direction these impacts will 

continue to accumulate into the future.

Alternatives B, D, and E provide guidance to at least double the number of acres of the grassland 

vegetation types on which wildland fire is used for treatment. This would have the most benefit 

in the Cherry Creek watershed, which contains over 95,000 acres, approximately one-third of 

which are Semi-Desert Grasslands. All seven sub-watersheds within Cherry Creek have been 

rated impaired for Rangeland Vegetation and the increase in treatment acres could be expected to 

trend the Rangeland Vegetation indicator towards better conditions. Black Canyon Potential 

Wilderness Area is located within this watershed and would be recommended for designation 

under Alternative B, but not Alternatives D or E. Vegetation treatments would be allowed at the 

discretion of the Forest Supervisor and should be consistent with the preservation of the 

wilderness character of the area.

Alternative C proposes almost three times as many acres of fire treatments in the grassland 

vegetation types as Alternatives B, D, and E. The grassland vegetation types show a large 

percentage (92 percent) in impaired or unsatisfactory condition as determined by the ERS 

analysis (Forest Service 2009a). This would provide the most benefit to the Ash Creek / 

Sycamore Creek watershed in the Agua Fria sub-basin, Cherry Creek watershed in the Upper 

Verde sub-basin, and Lower Big Chino watershed in the Big Chino Wash sub-basin due to their 

high percentage of acres (19 to 34 percent) in grassland and generally poor soil conditions as 

rated by the WCF indicator. Condition indicators for Rangeland Vegetation could be reasonably 

expected to trend upward in these watersheds as a result of the increased treatments. As noted 

above, all seven sub-watersheds within the Cherry Creek watershed have been rated impaired for 

Rangeland Vegetation, and Alternative C would be the most likely alternative to improve 

rangeland vegetation conditions in this watershed due to the increased extent of treatments in the 

grassland.

Climate Change

Proposed treatments for each Alternative were evaluated for probable effects to water resources 

assuming these hotter, drier environmental conditions: 

 Temperatures are expected to increase 0.5 degrees F per decade

 There will be more hot days with summer heat waves lasting 2 weeks or longer

 Precipitation may decrease

 Winters will be warmer with reduced snow pack and monsoon rains may start later.

 Extreme events, such as floods, may become more common.

Common to All Alternatives:

Qualitatively, climate change may result in:

 Reduced snowpack in higher elevations.

 Less water available for groundwater recharge.

 Reduced base flows.
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 43

 Increased area where precipitation does not exceed evapo-transpiration.

 Changes to stream channel morphology.

Hotter, drier environments are likely to enhance the size and severity of wildfires, and fire 

disturbance would increase. Larger, more frequent, high intensity fires would likely result in 

increased soil erosion, increased runoff, faster response to the hydrograph with higher peak flows, 

increased sedimentation, increased turbidity, and pulses of increased pH from ash. Severe fires 

can often cause changes in succession rates, alter above- and belowground species composition, 

generate volatilization of nutrients and ash entrainment in smoke columns, produce rapid or 

decreased mineralization rates, alter C : N ratios, and result in subsequent nutrient losses through 

accelerated erosion, leaching or de-nitrification. In addition, changes in soil hydrologic 

functioning, degradation of soil physical properties, decreases in micro- and macro-fauna, and 

alterations in microbial populations and associated processes can occur (Neary, 1999). Soil 

formation and vegetation recovery is relatively slow in arid environments. The extent of loss to 

soil productivity would correlate to hydrologic effects. Changes to channels would likely include 

less vigorous riparian vegetation, reduced streambank stability, channel braiding and or 

downcutting, greater turbidity, and increased stream temperatures. Baseflows could be reduced in 

both volume and temporally.

Management approaches that enhance ecosystem resiliency and ability to adapt during climate 

change include: 

 Reducing anthropogenic stresses.

 Reducing uncharacteristic disturbances.

 Allowing disturbances that promote adaptation and biodiversity. 

Modifying vegetation structure and composition to more open conditions allows individual plants 

to better compete for limited water and nutrients, and facilitates ecosystem transition from current 

to new conditions, such as those that result from changing natural and human disturbance regimes 

(Millar and others 2007). 

Landscape-scale application of wildland fire not only mitigates fire risk, it allows fire to continue 

to enhance resistance to loss, and to facilitate natural (evolutionary) adaptation, and migration as 

climate changes (Fulé 2008, Hurteau and Brooks 2011).

In the long-term, vegetation and fire treatment activities would be beneficial in building 

ecosystem resiliency and capacity for plant communities to accommodate expected changes 

imposed by future climate trends.

Comparison of Alternatives

Under the direction of the 1987 Plan in Alternative A, resilience to climate change would not 

likely be emphasized. Watersheds would continue to show some improvement in function, but the 

improvements would be at greater risk of reversing due to the potential effects of climate change. 

Alternative A provides the least amount of resilience and capacity for plant communities to adapt 

to changing climate and a less aggressive strategy for treating non-native invasive plants. 

All of the action alternatives have the same minimum number of acres treated in juniper 

grasslands and piñon-juniper evergreen shrub vegetation types, but Alternatives B and E provide
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 44

direction for a higher maximum. Thus, Alternatives B and E have a greater potential to improve 

watershed function and strengthen resilience at a quicker rate than Alternatives A and D, but not 

as quickly as Alternative C. Alternative B also contains a more aggressive approach to controlling 

non-native invasive plants than Alternatives A or E.

Alternative C would implement the quickest rate of improvement of watershed function and 

strengthening resilience, due to its emphasis on vegetation management and ecosystem 

restoration. Alternative C contains the same direction for controlling non-native invasive plants as 

Alternatives B and D. 

Alternative D would provide the slowest rate of improvement to watershed function of the three 

action alternatives, but would strengthen resilience more than Alternative A, due to more acres of 

vegetation treatment and more mitigation of recreation impacts. Alternative D contains the same 

direction for controlling non-native invasive plants as Alternatives B and C. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative effects analysis for this plan revision is being assessed at the 4th level HUC or 

sub-basin scale. It is impractical to complete a quantitative cumulative watershed effects analysis 

at this scale of strategic planning. Detailed quantitative cumulative watershed effects analyses 

will be completed at the project level. Table 15 displays the 4th level HUC intersecting the 

Prescott NF. The size of the sub-basins and the area administered by the Prescott NF are 

displayed and relevant to the potential cumulative effects Prescott NF activities may contribute to 

the sub-basins. The percentage of lands managed within the sub-basins by the Prescott NF ranges 

from 1% – 22%. Where multiple land ownership exists, it is important that the Prescott NF work 

with the appropriate organizations and individuals.

Table 15. Prescott NF 4th level HUC

Sub-basin HUC-8

Sub-basin

sq. miles

PNF

sq. miles

PNF as % of 

Sub-basin

Agua Fria 15070102 2,785 531 19.10%

Big Chino Wash 15060201 2,153 344 16.00%

Big Sandy River 15030201 2,154 18 0.90%

Burro Creek 15030202 713 29 4.10%

Hassayampa 15070103 1,454 195 13.40%

Lower Verde 15060203 1,965 65 3.30%

Santa Maria River 15030203 1,433 227 15.80%

Upper Verde 15060202 2,507 553 22.10%
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 45

Totals 15,165 1,962 13.0 %

At the 4 th level HUC scale, the conditions outside of the Prescott NF for groundwater dependent 

features (riparian and wetlands, seeps and springs, perennial streams, and water yield potential) 

and water quality were examined for the Ecological Sustainability Report (Forest Service 2009b). 

Species and their associated aquatic and riparian habitats (streams, rivers, etc.) were also 

examined with no regard for administrative boundaries. A determination was then made as to 

whether there was a risk to the sustainability of each feature from actions and conditions in areas 

surrounding the Prescott NF. 

At the sub-basin scale, the Big Chino Wash exhibits the most risk to sustainability. The features 

found to be at risk include the upland soils, the riparian and wetland areas, seeps and springs, 

perennial streams, and species associated with aquatic and riparian habitats. 

Three sub-basins, Burro Creek, Hassayampa River, and Santa Maria River, were found to have 

four of seven features at risk for sustainability. All displayed risks to the sustainability of their 

riparian and wetland areas and species associated with aquatic and riparian habitats. The 

Hassayampa River sub-basin also showed a risk to water quality, the Santa Maria River sub-basin 

contained a risk to upland soils, and they both were at risk for their perennial streams. Burro 

Creek was at risk for its upland soils and seeps and springs.

The Upper Verde, Lower Verde, and Agua Fria sub-basins were determined to be at risk to 

sustainability for water quality and species associated with aquatic and riparian habitats. 

Additionally, the Upper Verde is at risk to sustainability for upland soils. The was not enough 

data to perform a risk assessment on the Big Sandy River sub-basin; the Prescott NF contributes 

only one percent to the sub-basin area.

Nearly all of the management activities conducted by the Prescott NF have potential to affect 

water resources. Their cumulative impact to a watershed depends upon the effects of past, 

present, reasonably foreseeable actions, and the watershed’s sensitivity to disturbance.

Cumulative effects include activities on the Prescott NF as well as other public and privates lands.

Urbanization near and adjacent to the forest can contribute substantially to cumulative watershed 

effects. Development has the potential to affect aquatic and riparian resources through increased 

runoff and pollutants from roads, other impermeable surfaces, emissions, and fertilized lots. In 

addition to the above potential impacts, activities that have a high risk of adverse watershed 

impacts include water diversions and extractions, irrigation, loss of groundcover, mining, 

increased trail density and use, and trampling of riparian areas. The cumulative effects of 

management activities and the expansion of urban populations in vicinity of the Prescott NF trend 

toward increased pressure to develop more groundwater resources. The results are increased risks 

of damage to groundwater quality, lowered groundwater tables, reduced base flows, loss of 

groundwater dependent springs and seeps, and shifts in riparian species. In addition, there is 

increased risk to degrading surface and groundwater quality.

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site specific actions 

but does not authorize, fund, or carry out any project or activity. Before any ground-disturbing 
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 46

actions take place, they must be authorized in a subsequent environmental analysis. Therefore 

none of the alternatives cause unavoidable adverse impacts. Mechanisms are in place to monitor 

and use adaptive management principles in order to help alleviate unanticipated impacts that need 

to be addressed singularly or cumulatively.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions 

but does not authorize, fund, or carry out any project or activity. Because the land management 

plan does not authorize or mandate any ground-disturbing actions, none of the alternatives cause 

an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources.
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 47

References

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 2008. Ambient groundwater quality of the Agua 

Fria Basin: a 2004-2006 baseline study. Fact Sheet Publication Number FS 08-15. 4 pp.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 2009. Bill Williams Watershed water quality 

assessments. In: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 2009. 2006/2008 Status of 

ambient surface water quality in Arizona. Phoenix, AZ. 596 pp.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 2009. Lower Gila Watershed. In: Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality. 2009. 2006/2008 Status of ambient surface water quality 

in Arizona. Phoenix, AZ. 596 pp.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 2009. Middle Gila Watershed. In: Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality. 2009. 2006/2008 Status of ambient surface water quality 

in Arizona. Phoenix, AZ. 596 pp.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 2009. Verde Watershed. In: Arizona Department 

of Environmental Quality. 2009. 2006/2008 Status of ambient surface water quality in Arizona.

Phoenix, AZ. 596 pp.

Blasch, Kyle W.; John P. Hoffmann; Leslie F. Graser; Jeannie R. Bryson and Alan L. Flint. 2006.

Hydrogeology of the Upper and Middle Verde River watersheds, central Arizona. USDI 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5198. Reston, VA. 102 pp., 3 plates.

Northern Arizona University. 2008. Managing coarse woody debris in fire-adapted southwestern 

forests. Working Papers in Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forest Restoration. Northern Arizona 

University Ecological Restoration Institute. Flagstaff, AZ. 12 pp.

Forest Service, U.S .Department of Agriculture. 2000. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the 

Prescott National Forest. Albuquerque, NM: Southwestern Regional Office.

Forest Service, U.S .Department of Agriculture. 2008a. Ecological Sustainability Analysis of the 

Prescott National Forest: An Evaluation of Water Resource Characteristics, and their 

Contribution in Ecosystem Diversity and Ecological Sustainability. Prescott, AZ: Prescott 

National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S .Department of Agriculture. 2008b. Review of vegetation management and 

water yield with local application to the Ashley National Forest. Draft document prepared by 

Mark Muir. Vernal, UT: Ashley National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S .Department of Agriculture. 2009a. Analysis of the Management Situation. 

Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S .Department of Agriculture. 2009b. Ecological Sustainability Report. 

Prescott, AZ: Prescott National Forest.

Forest Service, U.S .Department of Agriculture. 2009c. Sycamore Creek in-stream-flow 

assessment. Application Number 33-96804. February 2009. Prescott, AZ: Prescott National 

Forest.
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 48

Forest Service, U.S .Department of Agriculture. 2010. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel 

management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: 

Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Forest Service, U.S .Department of Agriculture. 2011a. Watershed Condition Classification 

Technical Guide. FS-978. Washington, DC: Stream Systems Technology Center.

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2011b. USDA Forest Service Watershed 

Condition Classification Dataset. Accessed November, 2011 

http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/interactivemap/USDAFS-WCF-2010.html

Haney, Jeanmarie A; Dale S. Turner; Abe E. Springer; Juliet C. Stromberg; Lawrence E. Stevens; 

Philip A. Pearthree and Vashti Supplee. 2008. Ecological implications of Verde River flows. A 

report by the Arizona Water Institute, The Nature Conservancy, and the Verde River Basin 

Partnership. viii + 114 pp.

Levick, Lainie; David Goodrich; Mariano Hernandez; Darius Semmens; Juliet Stromberg; Rob 

Leidy; Melissa Apodaca; D. Philip Guertin; Melanie Tluczek; William Kepner. 2007.

Hydrology and ecology of intermittent stream and dry wash ecosystems. EPA/600/R-07/142.

Presented at the Southwest Region Threatened, Endangered, and At-Risk Species Workshop: 

Managing Within Highly Variable Environments. October 22, 2007. Tucson, Arizona. 20 pp.

Naiman, Robert J. and Henri Decamps. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annual 

Reviews Ecological Systems. 28:621–658.

Neary, Daniel G.; Buschmann, Silke; Ffolliott, Peter F. 2010. Function of riparian vegetation in 

retaining sediment in watersheds. Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the 

Southwest. 40:31-44.

Stromberg, J.C.; V.B. Beauchamp; M.D. Dixon; S.J. Lite and C. Paradzick. 2007. Importance of 

low-flow and high-flow characteristics to restoration of riparian vegetation along rivers in arid 

south-western United States. Freshwater Biology (2007) 52:651–679.

Towne, Douglas C. and Maureen C. Freark. 2000. Ambient groundwater quality of the Prescott 

Active Management Area: a 199701118 baseline study. Open File Report 2000-01. Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division. Phoenix, AZ.

US Army Corps of Engineers. 2001. Final summary report: Guidelines for jurisdictional 

determinations for waters of the United States in the arid southwest. San Francisco, CA. 17 pp.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Letter to Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality confirming the waterbodies and pollutants added to Arizona’s 2006-2008 Section 

303(d) list. Dated November 3, 2009. San Francisco, CA.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Watershed boundaries for the 2002 impaired waters 

baseline national geospatial dataset. Fact Sheet # EPA841-F-09-009. Washington, D.C. 2 pp.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Arizona's Total Maximum Daily Load program -

history and current status as of 10/5/10.
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 49

Vander Lee, Bruce; Ruth Smith and Joanna Bate. 2006. Ecological and Biological Diversity of 

National Forests in Region 3. The Nature Conservancy. 129 pp.

Wildeman, Gerry and John H. Brock. 2000. Grazing in the southwest: history of land use and 

grazing since 1540. Pages 1-25 in Jemison, Roy and Carol Raish, editors. Livestock 

Management in the American Southwest: Ecology, Society, and Economics. Amsterdam, The 

Netherlands. Elsevier Science B.V.

Wirt, Laurie and H.W. Hjalmarson. 2000. Sources of springs supplying base flow to the Verde 

River headwaters, Yavapai County, Arizona. Preliminary report to USDI Geological Survey.

Open-File Report 99-0378.

Zaimes, George, ed. 2007. Understanding Arizona’s riparian areas. AZ 1432. University of 

Arizona College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Tucson, AZ.
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 50

Appendix A - 5

th level HUC Watershed Map

Figure 2. 5th level HUC Watersheds on the Prescott NF
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 51

Appendix B – Watershed Condition Framework Assessment*

Table 16. HUC-12 conditions

 

*

Information in both tables is from the Watershed Condition Classification dataset: http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/interactivemap/USDAFS-WCF-2010.html

Code Sub-watershed 6th code

Condition 

Class

1. Water Quality2. Water Quantity3. Aquatic Habitat4. Aquatic Biota5. Riparian Vegetation6. Roads & Trails7. Soils8. Fire Regime9. Forest Cover10. Rangeland Vegetation11. Invasive Species12. Forest Health

150302010203 Buck Tank 2 Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Good Poor Fair Good Good

150302020202 Pine Creek 2 Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Good Fair Good Good

150302020301 Upper Boulder Creek 2 Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Good Fair Good Good

150302030101 Tonto Wash 2 Good Fair Fair Good Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150302030102 Woolsey Wash 1 Good Good Fair Good Good Poor Good Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150302030103 Upper Skull Valley Wash 2 Fair Good Poor Fair Good Poor Fair Fair Good Fair Good Good

150302030108 Lower Skull Valley Wash 2 Fair Good Poor Good Poor Poor Fair Fair Good Fair Good Good

150302030112 Cottonwood CanyonKirkland Creek 1 Good Good Fair Good Good Poor Poor Fair Poor Fair Good Good

150302030201 Weed Canyon 2 Good Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Fair Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150302030202 Smith Canyon 1 Good Good Good Good Good Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150302030203 Tank Creek 2 Good Fair Good Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150302030204 Upper Sycamore Creek 2 Good Good Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150302030205 Cottonwood Canyon 2 Good Good Poor Good Poor Poor Poor Fair Good Poor Good Good

150302030206 Loco Creek 2 Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150602010604 Road Canyon 2 Good Good Fair Fair Good Poor Fair Fair Poor Fair Good Good

150602010605 Upper Turkey Canyon 2 Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Good Poor Good Good

150602010606 Lower Turkey Canyon 2 Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Poor Fair Good Good

150602010608 Maverick Tank-Big Chino 

Wash 2 Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Poor Fair Good Good

150602010701 Humphrey Wash 2 Good Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Fair Good Poor Good Good

150602010702 Pine Creek 2 Good Fair Fair Good Poor Poor Poor Fair Good Fair Good Good

150602010703 Horse Wash 2 Good Fair Good Fair Good Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Good
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 52

150602010704 Strickland Wash 2 Good Fair Fair Good Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150602010705 Long Canyon 2 Good Good Poor Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Fair Good Good

150602010706 Hitt Wash 2 Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair Good Fair Good Good

150602010707 Mint Wash 2 Good Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good Good

150602010708 Upper Williamson Valley 

Wash 2 Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150602010709 Mud Tank Wash 2 Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150602010801 Big Dam Tank 2 Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Poor Fair Good Good

150602010802 Limestone Tank-Big Chino 

Wash 2 Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Poor Fair Good Good

150602010803 Pine Creek 1 Good Good Good Good Good Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good Good

150602010804 South Butte-Big Chino 

Wash 1 Good Good Good Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150602010805 Upper Walnut Creek 2 Good Fair Fair Good Good Poor Poor Fair Good Poor Good Good

150602010806 Lower Walnut Creek 2 Good Poor Fair Good Good Poor Poor Fair Good Fair Good Good

150602010807 Red Hat Tank-Big Chino 

Wash 2 Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150602010809 Telephone Tank-Big Chino 

Wash 2 Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150602020101 Willow Creek-Willow Creek 

Reservoir 2 Good Poor Fair Good Fair Poor Good Fair Good Fair Good Good

150602020102 Upper Granite CreekWatson Lake 1 Fair Fair Good Good Good Poor Good Poor Fair Poor Good Good

150602020103 Upper Lonesome Valley 2 Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Good Poor Good Good

150602020104 Lower Lonesome Valley 2 Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Good Poor Good Good

150602020108 Muldoon Canyon-Verde 

River 2 Good Good Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150602020201 Manzanita Tank 2 Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150602020205 Limestone Canyon 2 Good Good Poor Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150602020206 Rattlesnake Wash 2 Good Good Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Fair Poor Fair Good Good

150602020207 Wagon Tire Wash 2 Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150602020210 Grindstone Wash 2 Fair Good Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Fair Poor Fair Good Good

150602020211 Lower Hell Canyon 2 Good Good Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150602020313 Cedar Creek 2 Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Good Poor Good Good

150602020314 Lower Sycamore Creek 2 Good Good Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Poor Poor Good Good

150602020401 Bull Basin Canyon-Verde 

River 2 Good Good Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Good
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 53

150602020402 Government Canyon 2 Good Good Poor Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150602020403 Munds Draw 2 Good Good Poor Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Good Fair Good Good

150602020404 Wildcat Draw-Verde River 2 Good Good Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Fair Good Good

150602020405 Railroad Draw 2 Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150602020406 Horseshoe Canyon-Verde 

River 2 Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150602020701 Bitter Creek 2 Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150602020702 Mescal Gulch-Verde River 2 Poor Poor Good Poor Good Poor Poor Fair Good Poor Good Good

150602020703 Black Canyon 2 Good Good Poor Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair Good Poor Good Good

150602020704 Oak Wash-Verde River 3 Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair Poor Fair Fair Good Poor Good Good

150602020705 Cherry Creek 2 Fair Poor Good Good Good Poor Fair Fair Good Poor Good Good

150602020706 Hayfield Draw-Verde River 3 Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150602020707 Grief Hill Wash-Verde 

River 2 Fair Poor Poor Poor Fair Poor Fair Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150602030301 Copper Canyon-Verde 

River 2 Fair Poor Fair Poor Fair Poor Fair Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150602030303 Chasm Creek-Verde River 2 Fair Poor Good Poor Good Poor Fair Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150701020101 Cienega Creek 2 Good Fair Good Fair Good Poor Fair Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150701020102 Upper Ash Creek 2 Fair Fair Good Good Fair Poor Fair Fair Good Fair Good Good

150701020103 Osbourne Spring Wash 2 Good Fair Good Good Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150701020104 Dry Creek 2 Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150701020105 Little Ash Creek 1 Good Good Good Fair Good Poor Poor Fair Poor Fair Good Good

150701020106 Lower Ash Creek 2 Good Fair Good Good Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150701020201 Coyote Wash 1 Good Good Good Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Good Good

150701020202 Yaeger Canyon 2 Good Good Good Fair Good Poor Fair Poor Good Poor Good Good

150701020203 Grapevine Gulch 2 Good Good Good Fair Fair Poor Good Good Good Poor Good Good

150701020205 Lynx Creek 2 Fair Poor Fair Fair Good Poor Fair Fair Good Poor Good Good

150701020206 Chaparral Gulch-Agua Fria 

River 2 Fair Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Good Poor Good Good

150701020207 Yarber Wash 2 Good Poor Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150701020301 Bear Creek 2 Fair Good Poor Fair Poor Poor Fair Fair Good Poor Good Good

150701020302 Wolf Creek 2 Fair Good Good Fair Fair Poor Good Fair Good Poor Good Good

150701020303 Upper Turkey Creek 2 Poor Fair Good Good Good Poor Fair Fair Good Fair Good Good

150701020304 Cedar Creek 2 Fair Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Poor Poor Good Good
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 54

150701020305 Poland Creek 2 Fair Fair Good Good Good Poor Fair Fair Fair Poor Good Good

150701020306 Lower Turkey Creek 2 Poor Good Good Good Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150701020308 Black Canyon Creek

(Local Drainage) 1 Fair Good Good Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Poor Good Good

150701020401 Little Sycamore Creek 2 Good Good Good Fair Good Poor Poor Fair Poor Fair Good Good

150701020402 Sycamore Creek 2 Good Good Good Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Good Fair Good Good

150701020403 Big Bug Creek 2 Fair Poor Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair Good Fair Good Good

150701020404 Indian Creek 1 Good Fair Good Good Good Poor Poor Fair Poor Fair Good Good

150701020503 Boulder Creek 1 Good Good Good Good Good Poor Good Fair Good Poor Good Good

150701020506 Humbug Creek 2 Fair Good Poor Good Poor Poor Fair Fair Fair Poor Good Good

150701030101 Groom Creek-Hassayampa 

River 2 Poor Poor Good Good Good Poor Fair Poor Good Good Good Good

150701030102 Buzzard Roost WashHassayampa River 2 Good Good Poor Good Poor Poor Poor Fair Good Fair Good Good

150701030103 Crooks Canyon 2 Fair Fair Good Fair Good Poor Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good

150701030105 Milk Creek 2 Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Poor Fair Fair Good Fair Good Good

150701030106 Blind Indian Creek 1 Good Good Good Good Good Fair Poor Fair Good Poor Good Good

150701030107 Minnehaha Creek 2 Fair Good Poor Good Poor Fair Fair Fair Good Poor Good Good

150701030111 Cherry Creek 2 Good Good Poor Fair Poor Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Good

150701030112 Moores SpringHassayampa River 2 Good Good Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Fair Poor Fair Good Good

150701030301 Oak Creek 2 Good Good Poor Good Poor Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Good Good
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 55

Table 17. Select condition indicators aggregated at the HUC-10 scale

5. Riparian Vegetation 6. Roads & Trails 7. Soils 8. Fire Regime 9. Forest Cover 10. Rangeland Vegetation 12. Forest 

Health

Watershed 

5th code

Total 

Acres

Good

Fair

Poor

Good

Fair

Poor

Good

Fair

Poor

Good

Fair

Poor

Good

Fair

Poor

Good

Fair

Poor

Good

Upper Hassayampa River 122,866 60,099 21,919 40,849 47,683 75,184 64,194 58,672 103,608 19,258 99,518 11,368 11,981 30,626 44,557 47,683 122,866

Grindstone Wash 116,943 116,943 18,454 98,490 116,943 116,943 18,454 98,490 38,612 78,332 116,943

Ash Creek / Sycamore 

Creek 113,544 57,779 55,765 113,544 55,619 57,925 113,544 26,568 86,975 55,296 58,247 113,544

Williamson Valley Wash 107,535 30,102 53,363 24,070 12,738 94,797 12,738 94,797 107,535 54,468 53,067 54,095 53,440 107,535

Black Canyon Creek 101,144 42,609 46,991 11,544 15,535 85,608 12,547 77,728 10,869 101,144 55,451 26,783 18,909 15,826 85,318 101,144

Sycamore Creek 

(Santa Maria Sub-basin)

97,360 25,791 9,501 62,067 4,920 92,440 21,878 75,482 97,360 32,491 64,869 97,360 97,360

Cherry Creek 96,615 29,998 49,558 17,059 96,615 49,130 47,485 96,615 60,460 36,155 96,615 96,615

Lower Big Chino 86,942 55,983 30,960 17,171 69,772 48,130 38,812 86,942 51,527 35,416 41,235 45,708 86,942

Hell Canyon 77,618 50,412 27,206 77,618 77,618 77,618 77,618 27,206 50,412 77,618

Bishop Creek 60,434 19,533 40,901 60,434 24,922 35,512 60,434 40,901 19,533 60,434 60,434

Kirkland Creek 45,671 15,820 18,391 11,459 45,671 2,112 22,894 20,664 45,671 22,894 22,776 25,167 20,504 45,671

Granite Creek 43,423 11,657 18,785 12,981 43,423 17,798 12,644 12,981 31,766 11,657 18,785 11,657 12,981 6,141 37,282 43,423

Big Bug Creek 40,575 22,476 18,099 5,340 35,235 5,171 30,785 4,619 5,171 29,186 6,218 35,235 5,340 721 39,854 40,575

Fossil Creek 39,937 24,192 15,745 39,937 39,937 39,937 39,937 39,937 39,937
Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report – Prescott National Forest 56

5. Riparian Vegetation 6. Roads & Trails 7. Soils 8. Fire Regime 9. Forest Cover 10. Rangeland Vegetation 12. Forest 

Health

Watershed 

5th code

Total 

Acres

Good

Fair

Poor

Good

Fair

Poor

Good

Fair

Poor

Good

Fair

Poor

Good

Fair

Poor

Good

Fair

Poor

Good

Sycamore Creek 

(Upper Verde Sub-basin)

35,668 35,668 35,668 6,635 29,033 29,033 6,635 6,635 29,033 35,668 35,668

Middle Big Chino Wash 23,890 4,754 19,136 23,890 23,890 23,890 12,145 11,745 11,745 12,145 23,890

Agua Fria River-Lake 

Pleasant 15,389 4,526 10,863 15,389 4,526 10,863 15,389 4,526 10,863 15,389 15,389

Muddy Creek 10,539 10,539 10,539 10,539 10,539 10,539 10,539 10,539

Boulder Creek 10,124 10,124 10,124 10,124 10,124 10,124 10,124 10,124

Upper Burro Creek 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470 8,470

Middle Hassayampa River 1,811 1,811 1,811 1,811 1,811 1,811 1,811 1,811

Total Area 405,318 631,270 219,909 123,651 1,132,846 42,154 532,932 681,411 44,744 1,174,621 37,133 558,651 60,672 637,174 30,626 411,979 813,892 1,256,497

Percent 32% 50% 18% 10% 90% 3% 42% 54% 4% 93% 3% 44% 5% 51% 2% 33% 65% 100%