Printed on recycled paper

Spine. Width varies. Prin

determine final width and adjust s
Inside Front Cover

BLANK
Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral 

Streams of the Sierra Vista Subwatershed 

of the Upper San Pedro Basin, Cochise 

County, Southeastern Arizona

By Bruce Gungle

Prepared in cooperation with the

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5190

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Gungle, Bruce, 2006, Timing and duration of flow in ephemeral streams of the Sierra Vista Subwatershed of the 

Upper San Pedro Basin, Cochise County, southeastern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2005–5190, 47 p.

V. 2, revised February, 27, 2007.
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

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

Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................3

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................3

Description of the Study Area ............................................................................................................3

Vegetation and Climate........................................................................................................................4

Methods of Investigation..............................................................................................................................5

Theory ....................................................................................................................................................5

Application of Theory...........................................................................................................................6

Installation of Temperature Loggers................................................................................................12

Monitoring Sites...........................................................................................................................................13

Precipitation Patterns During the Monitoring Period............................................................................14

Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams..............................................................................14

Spatial Streamflow Patterns.............................................................................................................14

Temporal Streamflow Patterns.........................................................................................................34

Frequency of Streamflow in Three Representative Channels ....................................................35

Garden Canyon Wash ...............................................................................................................36

Ramsey Canyon Wash ..............................................................................................................37

Greenbush Draw........................................................................................................................37

Variability of Streamflow in Three Representative Channels......................................................38

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................39

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................39

Appendix........................................................................................................................................................43
iv

Figures

1. Map showing locations of the study area, drainage basins, temperature 

 loggers, streamflow-gaging stations, precipitation gages, and stage recorder 

 in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro Basin, Arizona.......................2

2. Graphs showing precipitation at three stations in the Sierra Vista 

 Subwatershed, Arizona, 2000, 2001, and 2002.........................................................................4

3. Stratigraphic column of geologic units in the Sierra Vista 

 Subwatershed, Arizona ..............................................................................................................7

4. Thermograph and streamflow record from Greenbush Draw, Sierra Vista

 Subwatershed, Arizona ..............................................................................................................8

5. Photograph showing temperature-method calibration site, Greenbush Draw 

 at State Route 92..........................................................................................................................9

6. Graph showing sensitivity of temperature loggers to streamflow at three 

 depths, Greenbush Draw at State Route 92..........................................................................10

7. Original and adjusted natural log fits for DTcrit versus standard deviation 

 of temperature from Greenbush Draw at State Route 92, monsoon 2003, 

 for logger burial depths of 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 centimeters below 

 streambed surface ....................................................................................................................12

8. Photograph showing typical field deployment of temperature logger in a 

 polyvinyl chloride housing tethered to a small tree trunk with airplane cable...............13

9–16. Maps showing:

9. Duration of ephemeral streamflow at temperature-logger sites in the

 Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Arizona, west side, for the entire period

 of study, December 1, 2000, to May 31, 2002 ............................................................ 16

10. Duration of ephemeral streamflow at temperature-logger sites and at

 selected streamflow-gaging stations in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed,

 Arizona, east side, for the entire period of study, December 1, 2000, to 

 May 31, 2002................................................................................................................... 17

11. Duration of ephemeral streamflow at temperature-logger sites in the

 Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Arizona, west side, 2000–2001 nonmonsoon

 (December 1, 2000, to May 31, 2001).......................................................................... 20

12. Duration of ephemeral streamflow at temperature-logger sites

 and at selected streamflow-gaging stations in the Sierra Vista 

 Subwatershed, Arizona, east side, 2000–2001 nonmonsoon 

 (December 1, 2000, to May 31, 2001).......................................................................... 21

13. Duration of ephemeral streamflow at temperature-logger sites in 

 the Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Arizona, west side, 2001 monsoon

 (June 1, 2001, to September 19, 2001)........................................................................ 24

14. Duration of ephemeral streamflow at temperature-logger sites and at 

 selected streamflow-gaging stations in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed, 

 Arizona, east side, 2001 monsoon (June 1, 2001, to September 19, 2001) ........... 25

15. Duration of ephemeral streamflow at temperature-logger sites 

 in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Arizona, west side, 2001–2002 

 nonmonsoon (September 20, 2001, to May 31, 2002) .............................................. 28

16. Duration of ephemeral streamflow at temperature-logger sites 

 and at selected streamflow-gaging stations in the Sierra Vista 

 Subwatershed, Arizona, east side, 2001–2002 nonmonsoon 

 (September 20, 2001, to May 31, 20002...................................................................... 29
v

Tables

1. Temperature-logger streamflow detection compared to streamflow 

 detection at Greenbush Draw gaging station for the period 

 June 1, 2002, to September 19, 2002.......................................................................................11

2. Approximate distances between ephemeral-stream monitoring sites 

 and mountain fronts ..................................................................................................................15

3. Dates and times of streamflows in Garden Canyon, December 1, 2000, to 

 May 31, 2002 ...............................................................................................................................36

4. Dates and times of streamflows in Ramsey Canyon, December 1, 2000, to 

 May 31, 2002 ...............................................................................................................................37

5. Dates and times of streamflows in Greenbush Draw, December 1, 2000, to 

 May 31, 2002 ...............................................................................................................................38

Figures—Continued

17–21. Graphs showing:

17. Total normalized streamflow duration, mean streamflow duration, 

 and normalized number of streamflows, Sierra Vista Subwatershed, 

 Arizona, west side, for all periods of the study........................................................ 32

18. Total normalized streamflow duration, mean streamflow duration, 

 and normalized number of streamflows, Sierra Vista Subwatershed, 

 Arizona, east side, for all periods of the study......................................................... 33

19. Comparison of normalized rural and urban streamflows in the 

 Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Arizona, during 2000–2001 

 nonmonsoon, 2001 monsoon, and 2001–2002 nonmonsoon .................................. 34

20. Comparison of all normalized streamflows across the Sierra Vista 

 Subwatershed, Arizona, by period............................................................................. 35

21. Comparison of normalized streamflows in the Sierra Vista 

 Subwatershed, Arizona, west side and east side, by period ................................ 35
vi

Conversion Factors and Datums

Multiply By To obtain

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

square kilometer (km2) 0.3861 square mile (mi2)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 

(NGVD 29).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27).

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.
Abstract

Frequency, timing, and duration of streamflow were 

monitored in 20 ephemeral-stream channels across the 

Sierra Vista Subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro Basin, 

southeastern Arizona, during an 18-month period. One 

channel (Walnut Gulch) had Agricultural Research Service 

streamflow-gaging stations in place. The sediments of the 

remaining 19 ephemeral-stream channels were instrumented 

with multiple temperature loggers along the channel lengths. 

A hermograph-interpretation technique was developed in order 

to determine frequency, timing, and duration of streamflow 

in these channels. Streamflow onset was characterized 

by exceedance of a critical minimum drop in temperature 

within the channel sediments during any 15-minute interval, 

whereas streamflow cessation was identified by the local 

temperature minimum that immediately followed the critical 

temperature drop. All data for the 18-month period from 

December 1, 2000, to May 31, 2002, were analyzed in terms 

of monsoon (June 1 to September 19) and nonmonsoon 

(September 20 to May 31) periods. Nonmonsoon precipitation 

during the 2000–2002 study period (excludes October and 

November 2000) was 82 percent and 39 percent of the 30-year 

average, respectively, whereas monsoon precipitation during 

2001 was 99 percent of the 30-year average. Ephemeral 

streamflow was detected at least once during the monitoring 

period at 87 percent of the monitoring sites (45 of the 52 sites 

that returned useful data; includes 4 streamflow-gaging 

stations). The summer monsoon period accounted for 82 

percent of all streamflow events by number and 71 percent 

of all events by total streamflow duration. Nonmonsoon 

streamflow events peaked in number, total streamflow 

duration, and mean streamflow duration midway between 

the Huachuca Mountains and the San Pedro River on the 

west side of the subwatershed. These three streamflow 

parameters dropped off sharply about 10 kilometers from the 

mountain front. The number and total duration of nonmonsoon 

streamflows on the east side of the subwatershed trended 

downward with increased distance from the mountain fronts. 

Monsoon streamflow events were more evenly distributed 

across the subwatershed than nonmonsoon events, and the 

number and duration of streamflows generally trended upward 

with distance from the mountain fronts. Additional years 

of data are needed to determine whether these patterns are 

consistent year to year, or were due to randomness in the 

spatial distribution of precipitation. Streamflows in three 

ephemeral-stream channels were analyzed in detail. More than 

two-thirds of the streamflow events detected in each of these 

channels occurred at no more than one monitoring site along 

the channel length. In only one of the three channels—Garden 

Canyon—was a streamflow event detected at all logger sites 

along its length. Five temperature loggers provided data from 

urbanized areas, and these loggers detected streamflow more 

than 50 percent more often and of a duration nearly three 

times greater than did temperature loggers across the rural 

parts of the subwatershed. Because historical records do 

not indicate that more precipitation occurs in the urbanized 

area than in the rural areas, the increased frequency of flow 

detection in the urban area is attributed to an increase in runoff 

from the impervious surfaces throughout the urbanized area.

Introduction

To better define recharge distributions in the Sierra Vista 

Subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro Basin in southeastern 

Arizona (fig. 1), an investigation of ephemeral-stream channel 

flow was begun by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in 

cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management. This 

investigation was to partly address water-resource concerns 

identified by the Upper San Pedro Partnership. The partnership 

comprises 20 agencies and organizations that are working 

together to meet the water needs of the people living in the 

Upper San Pedro Basin while protecting the San Pedro River.

Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams of the 

Sierra Vista Subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro Basin, 

Cochise County, Southeastern Arizona

By Bruce Gungle
110°30’ 110°15’ 110°

31°45’

31°30’

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

digital elevation model data,

Universal Transverse Mercator 

Projection, Zone 12. Datum: NAD 27

San Pedro

Government

Walnut

Gulch

Greenbush

Draw

River

River

Draw

Yuma

Gila

Salt

Gila

Tucson

River

River

Colorado

River

River

Little

Phoenix

Flagstaff Colorado

A R I Z O N A

River

92

92

82

90

Bisbee

MEXICO SONORA

ARIZONA

MUSTANG MOUNTAINS

Coronado National 

Memorial Headquarters

Tombstone

WALNUT GULCH

GARDEN

HUNTER

CANYON

CANYON

CANYON

CANYON

GRAVEYARD 

GULCH

RAMSEY CANYON

SOLDIER CREEK

BROWN CANYON

STUMP CANYON

SPRING WASH

BANNING CREEK

ASH CANYON

WOODCUTTERS WASH

WASH 20 

HUACHUCA

CREEK

GREENBUSH DRAW

WASH 1 GOVERNMENT

DRAW

WHETSTONE MOUNTAINS

Naco

Palominas

Tombstone

Fort

Huachuca

GD1

GD3 GD2

GD4

GC2

GC3

TOMBSTONE HILLS

STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATION—

 Agricultural Research Service

PRECIPITATION GAGE

STAGE RECORDER

EXPLANATION

STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATION—

 U.S. Geological Survey

TEMPERATURE LOGGER

DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY 

Sierra Vista

Bisbee

Benson

Winkelman

Tombstone

San 

Pedro

River

STUDY AREA

 

09471310

Flume 11

Flume 11

Flume 6 Flume 1

 

09471310

80

80

80

90

GD5

RC2

GC1

GC4

Hereford Road

RC1

UNITED STATES

Huachuca

City

MULE MOUNTAINS

DRAGOON MOUNTAINS

0

0

12 KILOMETERS

12 MILES

CARR

RC4

RC3

Nicksville

Y Lightning 

Ranch

MILLER

HUACHUCA MOUNTAINS

GD6

GDG

Babocomari

COYOTE

WASH 92

90

Sierra 

Vista

 

09470800

09470520

 

09470700

 

09470750

Colorado River

UNITED STATES

MEXICO 32o

114o 112o 110o

34o

36o

Figure 1. Locations of the study area, drainage basins, temperature loggers, streamflow-gaging stations, precipitation gages, and 

stage recorder in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro Basin, Arizona.

2 Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams, Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Southeastern Arizona
Streamflow duration is one of many parameters that 

influence streamflow infiltration and recharge in ephemeralstream channels. This investigation primarily used temperature 

loggers buried in the sediments of stream channels to provide 

data that would indicate the onset, duration, cessation, and 

location of flow in ephemeral-stream channels across the 

Sierra Vista Subwatershed. Comparisons of normalized 

streamflow data then determined the primary locations of 

streamflow and recharge across the subwatershed.

Acknowledgments

The temperature-logger network was conceived of and 

initiated by Alissa Coes and Don Pool of the USGS who have 

also provided constructive feedback on the thermograph–

interpretation techniques. Discussions with Kyle Blasch, 

USGS, regarding thermograph interpretation and statistical 

analyses of thermographs were also beneficial. The author 

would like to thank Jack Ladd of Ladd Ranch and Tom Cox 

of Cox Ranch for permission to install temperature loggers 

on their respective properties, and the staff at Coronado 

National Memorial, National Park Service, for its support of a 

temperature-logger site within the boundaries of the memorial.

Purpose and Scope

This report provides the time and estimated duration 

of streamflow for the 18 months from December 1, 2000, 

through May 31, 2002, for 20 ephemeral-stream channels 

in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro 

Basin. With the exception of two stream channels, ephemeral 

streamflow was estimated using a subsurface-temperature 

method. Streamflow-gaging stations were used for three sites 

on Walnut Gulch. On Greenbush Draw one gaging station was 

used in addition to four temperature-logger sites.

The monitored drainages extended from Greenbush 

Draw in the south, 1 km north of the international boundary 

with Mexico, to Walnut Gulch near Tombstone in the north, 

about 45 km north of the international boundary. Temperature 

loggers were installed in 20 channels from the eastern 

foot of the Huachuca Mountains on the west side of the 

subwatershed, to the western foot of the Mule Mountains on 

the east side (fig. 1). At least two temperature loggers were 

installed in each of the channels. Fourteen of the channels 

are west of the San Pedro River, originating in either the 

Huachuca Mountains or the alluvial surface above the river. 

The remaining six tributary channels are on the east side of 

the subwatershed and originate in the south or west side of the 

Mule Mountains, the Tombstone Hills, or the southern part of 

the Dragoon Mountains.

Description of the Study Area

Elevations across the Sierra Vista Subwatershed range 

from 1,163 m at the State Route 82 crossing of the San Pedro 

River at Fairbank to 2,879 m at Miller Peak in the Huachuca 

Mountains. The subwatershed is bounded on the west by the 

Huachuca Mountains (about 1,500 to 2,900 m altitude) and 

the Mustang Mountains (about 1,200 to 2,000 m altitude) 

and on the east by the Mule Mountains, the Tombstone 

Hills, and the southern end of the Dragoon Mountains (about 

1,500 to 2,250 m altitude). Much of the subwatershed from 

the river terraces to the foot of the mountains lies between 

1,200 and 1,500 m altitude. The subwatershed is drained by 

the San Pedro River, an intermittent stream that enters the 

subwatershed at the international boundary with Mexico and 

exits about 45 km to the north near State Route 82 (fig. 1). 

With the exception of the intermittent Babocomari River near 

the northern (downstream) boundary of the subwatershed, 

all the tributary streams across the floor of the subwatershed 

are ephemeral.

Tributary streams along the west side of the subwatershed 

generally flow east-northeastwardly, from the northeast-facing 

Huachuca Mountains to the San Pedro River. Tributaries 

draining the mountains on the east side of the subwatershed 

trend westward, or west-northwestward. Greenbush Draw, 

the major southern tributary, drains the southern extent of 

the Mule Mountains and the north side of Sierra San Jose, in 

Mexico, then turns northwestward and joins the San Pedro 

River north of Palominas. Two channels included in the study 

(Soldier Creek and Huachuca Canyon) are tributaries of the 

Babocomari River (fig. 1).

Predevelopment water-table altitudes across the Sierra 

Vista Subwatershed varied as a function of distance from 

the mountain fronts and the San Pedro River. Correll and 

others’ (1996; in Arizona Department of Water Resources, 

2005) 1940 ground-water altitude map, which represents 

predevelopment conditions, shows water levels dropping 

off steeply eastward from the eastern edge of the Huachuca 

Mountains, where the regional aquifer is thin, toward the 

San Pedro River, where the aquifer is thicker. Although 

water levels across much of the subwatershed have fallen 

since 1940, particularly near urbanized areas, water levels 

near the mountain fronts and along the San Pedro River have 

remained largely unchanged (Arizona Department of Water 

Resources, 2005).

Urbanized areas on the west side of the Sierra Vista 

Subwatershed include the city of Sierra Vista and nearby 

Fort Huachuca at the foot of the Huachuca Mountains, and 

the town of Huachuca City north of the fort on the Babocomari 

River drainage. Residential development has been rapid in 

an unincorporated area southeast of Sierra Vista, from State 

Route 92 to the San Pedro River, for at least the last 10 yr, 

but the development generally is low in density and includes 

little infrastructure such as sewer lines, paved streets, or a 

large water distribution system (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). 

At the northeastern end of the subwatershed is the city of 

Tombstone in the Tombstone Hills, and at the southeastern 

end is the city of Bisbee in the Mule Mountains. The 

unincorporated border community of Naco, about 12 km south 

of Bisbee, sits adjacent to Greenbush Draw (fig. 1).

Introduction 3
Vegetation and Climate

Vegetation across the Sierra Vista Subwatershed includes 

cottonwood-willow galleries and velvet mesquite bosques 

close to the San Pedro and Babocomari Rivers, tamarisk in 

places along the San Pedro River, scattered to dense mesquite 

along the river terraces and in the ephemeral tributaries, and 

grasslands and desert scrub across much of the basin floor. 

Oak woodlands occur on the lower mountain slopes and 

grade into pinyon-juniper forests with increasing altitude. 

Mixed conifer forests occur at higher altitudes on the basin 

perimeter (Hereford, 1993; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2005).

Precipitation generally is a function of altitude across 

the subwatershed, with greater amounts occurring at the 

higher elevations. The Huachuca Mountains receive the most 

precipitation in the Upper San Pedro Basin (Pool and Coes, 

1999). Annual precipitation in the basin is bimodal, with 

about half coming in the summer rainy season, June through 

September (the North American monsoon). About a third of 

the nonmonsoon precipitation occurs during the winter months 

from November to February (fig. 2).

Summer monsoon precipitation is produced principally 

by air mass thunderstorms with a dominant moisture source in 

the tropical eastern Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of California 

(Adams and Comrie, 1999). As a result, summer rainfall 

events are commonly intense and highly localized: 2 cm 

of rain falling within 30 min can be expected every 2 yr, 

as can 3 cm of rain falling within 60 min (Dunne and Leopold, 

1978). Such events would be expected to generate similarly 

intense, flashy streamflows in ephemeral-stream channels. 

Winter rains are more typically broad-scale stratiform events, 

although convective showers, generally of lower intensity 

than summer thunderstorms, are not uncommon. Winter 

storms originate in the Pacific Ocean from the subtropics 

in the south to the Gulf of Alaska in the north, although 

the southern source is more common during El Niño years. 

In general, winter rains are more likely to soak into the ground 

than to run off in flashy discharge events.

Annual precipitation across the subwatershed 

averaged 41.4 cm from 1956 to 2002 on the basis of 

data from three stations: Coronado National Memorial 

Headquarters (southwestern part of subwatershed in 

Huachuca Mountains, 1,598 m altitude), Tombstone 

(northeastern part of subwatershed, 1,405 m altitude), and 

Y Lightning Ranch (west side of subwatershed, 1,399 m 

altitude; fig. 1). Only the Tombstone record extends back 

into the 19th century; precipitation at the Tombstone station 

averaged 35.1 cm from 1897 to 2002. The slight decreasing 

trend in summer precipitation at Tombstone during this 

period is not statistically significant (p=0.12)1. Winter and 

spring precipitation showed variability but no overall trend 

1

 The p-value indicates the likelihood that a value will occur at random 

given a normal distribution of random samples from the parent population. 

Statistical significance in this case was set at p < 0.05.

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES

13

CORONADO NATIONAL MEMORIAL HEADQUARTERS

Y LIGHTNING RANCH

TOMBSTONE

3-STATION, 3-YEAR AVERAGE

2000

2001

2002

1971 TO 2000 AVERAGE

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

JAN.

FEB.

MAR.

AUG.

SEPT.

APR.

MAY

OCT.

NOV.

DEC.

JUNE

JULY

JAN.

FEB.

MAR.

AUG.

SEPT.

APR.

MAY

OCT.

NOV.

DEC.

JUNE

JULY

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

B. Y Lightning Ranch

PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES

C. Tombstone

A. Coronado National Memorial Headquarters

D. 30-Year, 3-Station, Standard Deviations

Figure 2. Monthly precipitation at three stations in the Sierra 

Vista Subwatershed, Arizona, 2000, 2001, and 2002. A, Coronado 

National Memorial Headquarters; B, Tombstone; C, Y Lightning 

Ranch; D, 30-year standard deviations for the three stations.

4 Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams, Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Southeastern Arizona
at Tombstone from 1897 to 2002, including below average 

amounts during the mid-century drought (mid-1940s to the 

mid-1970s). 

Precipitation during October does not fit into either the 

monsoon or winter-spring precipitation periods, and is variable 

(fig. 2D). In some years, significant precipitation can occur in 

October when troughs traversing the region from west to east 

draw tropical storms into the region. In other years October 

can be dry. On the basis of the Tombstone record, October 

precipitation may have an increasing trend, although this trend 

also lacks statistical significance (p=0.051).

Methods of Investigation

Theory

The energy exchanged between objects due to a 

difference in temperature is defined as heat (Serway, 1996). 

Conduction (kinetic energy transfer at the molecular level in 

non-moving solids and fluids) in a deep, uniform solid was 

first described by Carslaw and Jaeger (1959), and can be 

found in a number of more recent texts [for example, Jury and 

others (1991) and Hillel (1998)]. In a dry stream channel, heat 

moves downward into the sediments by conduction during the 

day. At night, radiational cooling at the surface reverses the 

direction of conductive heat flow, and the result is a quasisinusoidal temperature waveform at and just below the surface, 

and is approximated by

T z t Tave o A e t z D z D ( , ) sin( / ) ( / ) = + [ - ] - w , (1)

where 

T = the temperature (°C) at depth z (m) and t (s),

Tave = the average temperature of the sediments 

(assumed same for all depths),

Ao = the amplitude of the thermal wave at the 

surface (oC), and

D = the damping depth (m).

The damping depth is related to the thermal properties of 

the soil and the frequency of the temperature fluctuations. At 

the damping depth, the thermal wave amplitude has decreased 

to 1/e of the surface amplitude, or approximately 0.37 times. 

The term in brackets is the phase shift term where ω is the 

radial frequency (in radians); the phase shift at a given depth 

will be equivalent to the travel time of the temperature peak to 

that depth. For diurnal forcing where the period is one day,

w p = = - 2 1 86 400 7 27 10 5 ( / , )s x . /s . (2)

The term preceding the brackets in equation 1 describes 

the amplitude of the thermal wave at depth:

A Ae z o

z D = ( / - )

, (3)

where 

Az = the amplitude of the thermal wave (oC) at depth z. 

The presence of -z in the numerator of the exponential term 

in equations 1 and 3 indicates that the amplitude of the 

temperature wave decreases with increasing depth.

The maximum rate of temperature change by conduction 

at depth z will occur at the time of the inflection point of the 

thermal wave (t

ip), which can be found by setting the second 

derivative of equation 1 equal to 0:

d T dr A eo t z D 2 2 z D / sin / 0 ( / ) = -w × - ( ) w = , (4)

which becomes

sin(w - = z D/ ) 0 , (5)

or

w p t z - = /D , (6a)

wt z - = / 2 D p . (6b)

Solving for t in the case where temperature is decreasing 

(equation 6a) gives

t z ip = + ( ) D - p w / 1 . (7)

The typical interval for ephemeral-streamflow 

temperature logging is either 15 or 30 min. The largest 

decrease in temperature over a 15-min logging interval can 

thus be found by inserting t

ip - 7.5 min and tip + 7.5 min into 

equation 1 for t, solving for T in each case, and taking the 

difference.

At the advent of streamflow in an ephemeral-stream 

channel, advection dominates the heat transport process. 

The temperature peak moving down through the sediment is 

described by Taniguchi and Sharma (1990):

V V T w = C C w s q / , (8)

where 

VT = the velocity of the temperature peak,

Vw = the mean macroscopic water velocity,

θ = the volume fraction of water (volume of water per 

bulk volume, including water),

Cw = the volumetric heat capacity of water, and

Cs = the volumetric heat capacity of the bulk sediment 

(including water).

Methods of Investigation 5
In cases where streamflow continues for several days, 

conduction again becomes significant (Constantz, Tyler, and 

Kwicklis, 2003), and both advection and conduction must be 

taken into account. In addition, the specific heat capacity of 

water is several times greater than that of dry sediments, and 

the heat capacity of the bulk sediment thus rises (linearly) 

with increasing water content. As a result, the amplitude of the 

diurnal temperature signal will be damped during periods of 

multiday streamflow.

Application of Theory

Rorabaugh (1954) first proposed the use of temperature 

methods as a means for estimating stream loss. At that time, 

such measurements were impractical owing to equipment 

limitations. Development of inexpensive temperature 

probes coupled with the wide availability of computer data 

storage and increased computational power have since 

made it possible to put these theoretical concepts into 

practice (Constantz and Stonestrom, 2003). In addition to 

determination of streamflow timing and duration—the primary 

focus of this report—temperature methods have been used 

since the late 1980s to characterize surface water/ground water 

interactions and streambed infiltration rates in Massachusetts, 

New Jersey, Arizona, Indiana, Nevada, Colorado, California, 

New Mexico, and Washington (Lapham, 1989; Jaynes, 1990; 

Silliman and Booth, 1993; Constantz and others, 1994; 

Constantz, 1998; Ronan and others, 1998; Allander, 2003; 

Bartolino, 2003; Conlon and others, 2003; Constantz, Cox, 

and others, 2003; Hoffmann and others, 2003); to estimate 

depth, duration, timing, and rates of percolation in ephemeral 

streams in New Mexico, California, Nevada, and Arizona 

(Constantz and Thomas, 1996; Constantz and others, 2002; 

Constantz, Tyler, and Kwicklis, 2003); to estimate seepage 

losses into alluvium from an intermittent stream in Nevada 

(Prudic and others, 2003); and to estimate streamflow beneath 

an ephemeral stream in Nevada (Ronan and others, 1998). 

Constantz and Thomas (1996, 1997) and Constantz and 

others (2001) were the first to use temperature methods to 

document streamflow timing in intermittent- and ephemeralstream channels. Visual inspection of thermographs revealed 

series of days in which the amplitude of the temperature 

signal was damped; these periods were interpreted as 

having streamflow (Constantz and others, 2001). Prudic and 

others (2003) used a similar method to estimate the onset 

of streamflow on an intermittent creek in northern Nevada, 

as did Stewart (2003) in two ephemeral-stream channels in 

New Mexico and a third in Nevada. 

Blasch and others (2004) used a moving standarddeviation window method to estimate the onset and cessation 

of streamflow in Rillito Creek in Tucson, Arizona. Points at 

which the standard deviation increased beyond some threshold 

value were interpreted as depicting the onset and cessation of 

streamflow. Five parameters were required to design a moving 

standard-deviation filter that minimized false negatives and 

false positives. Blasch and others (2004) note that near the 

surface the conductive thermal amplitude is larger than the 

advective thermal amplitude, whereas at depth the converse 

is true. They conclude that under some conditions, deeper 

(0.75–1.00 m) temperature measurements may be optimal for 

estimating streamflow timing. Lawler (2002) used the method 

of Blasch and others to evaluate the extent of perennial, 

intermittent, and ephemeral reaches of the San Pedro River.

Spatial and temporal patterns of ephemeral streamflow 

in tributary streams of the San Pedro River in the Sierra Vista 

Subwatershed are variable: flow duration in these streams 

rarely exceeds 24 h and can be as brief as 15 min (or less). 

Channel widths range from less than a meter to about 12 m. 

Surface sediments in the stream channels include recent 

fluvial deposits and (or) Pleistocene-Holocene terrace deposits 

that vary from fine- to coarse-grained alluvium to gravels 

and cobbles, and range in depth from zero to at least 10 m 

(James Callegary, hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, written 

commun., 2005). The underlying basin-fill deposits are as 

much as 230 m thick and form the primary aquifer in the 

Upper San Pedro Basin (fig. 3; Brown and others, 1966; Pool 

and Coes, 1999).

Ephemeral-streamflow identification using the 

temperature methods of Constantz and others (2001) 

or Blasch and others (2004) was not appropriate for the 

Sierra Vista Subwatershed. As Blasch and others (2004) note, 

ephemeral streamflows of less than 24 h require a temporal 

resolution greater than that available using the visualinspection method of Constantz and others (2001) in order 

for estimates of streamflow duration to be of value. Because 

the quasi-sinusoidal temperature signal is not damped for a 

full 24-h cycle in short ephemeral streamflows, streamflow 

may not be readily detected using visual-inspection criteria 

focused on changes in multiday thermograph amplitudes. 

While Constantz and others (2001) do not offer an analysis 

of the temporal resolution of their method, it can be inferred 

that the onset of streamflow occurs somewhere during the 

approximately 12-h period between the temperature minimum 

and maximum (or maximum and minimum) when the 

thermograph amplitude first decreases, and that streamflow 

ends days later during a 12-h period when the amplitude 

increases (although commonly, the amplitude slowly increases 

over several days). In the ephemeral-stream channels of the 

Sierra Vista Subwatershed, streamflow can occur for 15 min 

or less, and so it was advantageous to develop a streamflowdetection method having a higher temporal resolution than the 

visual-inspection method of Constantz and others (2001).

6 Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams, Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Southeastern Arizona
The setting of the Blasch and others (2004) study was a 

single site on Rillito Creek with a surficial bed of 90 percent 

fine- to coarse-grained alluvium approximately 10 m thick 

and that is accessible by heavy equipment. The setting of 

most of the ephemeral-stream channels in the Sierra Vista 

Subwatershed is different from that of Rillito Creek. 

Where highly permeable sediments exist in the subwatershed, 

they are quite shallow and frequently underlain by clays at 

depths less than the 0.75- to 1.0-m depth considered optimal 

by Blasch and others (2004) for estimating streamflow timing. 

Although the method of Blasch and others (2004) would 

provide the temporal resolution required for the short-duration 

streamflows of the Sierra Vista Subwatershed, the number (48) 

and commonly remote locations of the temperature sites made 

it cost prohibitive to use heavy equipment for temperaturelogger installation, and the clays and cobbles would have 

made it exceptionally labor intensive if not infeasible to 

install and then periodically download data from all 48 loggers 

at depths greater than 0.75 m using pick and shovel. 

In addition, the determination of 5 parameters at each site to 

design the site-specific moving standard deviation window 

would be time consuming for 48 separate locations. 

Blasch and others (2002) found that the use of electricalresistance sensors, constructed from the same TidbiT 

temperature loggers used in this study, required only shallow 

burial, were more accurate at estimating streamflow timing, 

and required less time for data interpretation than did available 

temperature-based methods. Data analysis in this study was 

well under way, however, before the conclusions of Blasch and 

others (2002) became available.

A new thermograph-interpretation technique that utilized 

a relatively shallow deployment of temperature loggers 

(15–25 cm below streambed surface) was developed for this 

investigation. This method uses the thermal signature of the 

transition from a dry stream channel, dominated by conductive 

heat transport, to a saturated stream channel, dominated by 

advective heat transport to identify streamflow onset, and 

the thermal signature of the transition back to conductive 

heat transport to identify streamflow cessation. Because 

streamflow in ephemeral streams of the Desert Southwest 

is almost always colder than the preexisting streambed 

temperature, the signature of streamflow onset is a sharp drop 

in temperature. To be readily recognizable, however, the sharp 

drop in temperature must exceed the maximum drop found at 

the inflection point of the thermograph of the dry streambed.

,

POSTENTRENCHMENT

ALLUVIUM

PRE-ENTRENCHMENT

ALLUVIUM

Less than 20

feet

Less than 400

feet

20 feet

50 -100 feet

0-110 years

0-8,000 years

150 -350 feet

Not applicable

Greater than

3,000 feet

0-700,000

years

700,000-

3,000,000 years

UPPER

BASIN FILL

LITHOLOGIC

DESCRIPTION THICKNESS

PLEISTOCENEHOLOCENE PLIOCENE- PLEISTOCENE MIOCENE- PLIOCENE MIOCENE PRE- MIOCENE

LOWER

BASIN FILL

PANTANO FORMATION

STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT GEOLOGIC AGE

TERRACE DEPOSITS

HOLOCENE

CONSOLIDATED ROCKS

Sand and

gravel

Clay, silt, and

fine sand

Clay, silt,

sand, and gravel

Clay, silt,

sand, and gravel

Clay, siltstone, silt,

sand, and gravel

Siltstone and

conglomerate

Granite, limestone,

mudstone, quartzite,

conglomerate, and

volcanic rocks

Figure 3. Stratigraphic column of geologic units in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed, 

Arizona (modified from Pool and Coes, 1999).

Methods of Investigation 7
For the case2

 where D=0.10 m, z=0.30 m, and Ao=17oC, 

the time of the inflection point (the most rapid drop in 

temperature, t

ip) can be determined from equation 7 as 

19.63 hr (at the surface the decreasing temperature-inflection 

point occurs at 12.00 h, midway between dusk and dawn; the 

sun is at the zenith at 00.00 h, the increasing temperatureinflection point). Inserting the time of the inflection point, plus 

and then minus 7.5 min, into equation 1, the maximum rate 

of temperature change in the dry sediment can be calculated 

for the 15-min period centered on the point of maximum 

conductive temperature change: 0.06oC over 15 min. For 

the thermal signature of the transition to advective heat 

transport to be detectable in the thermograph, the change in 

the temperature of the bulk sediment, ∆Ts, must exceed this 

critical temperature drop, ∆Tcrit:

D D T T s c > ®rit ephemeral streamflow . (9)

Note that equation 3 indicates that at shallower depths, 

the amplitude of the thermograph will be larger, and because 

ω is constant, at shallower depths ∆Tcrit must also increase. 

Because the diurnal temperature signal is not truly sinusoidal 

and nor are the channel sediments a homogeneous solid, ∆Tcrit

will vary somewhat from the theoretical values.

When streamflow ends, the sediments drain and dry much 

more slowly than they were initially wetted. For example, 

Hoffmann and others (2003) found that initial infiltration 

2

Hillel (1998) indicates that D commonly is within the top 10 cm of a dry 

sediment.

rates in sandy Rillito Creek in Tucson, Arizona, were as high 

as 3.5 mm per second (equivalent to a sustained rate of about 

300 m per day), whereas drainage rates after the cessation 

of streamflow were 0.46 m per day. As the sediments drain, 

the primary stream-channel heat transport mechanism shifts 

back from advection to conduction, and this shift is likewise 

slower than it was from conduction to advection. As a result, 

the thermal signature of the transition back to dry sediments 

from streamflow is more subtle than was the reverse and is 

complicated by the convection of latent heat away from the 

sediments (evaporative cooling). Evaporative cooling of the 

sediments begins when streamflow ends and thus in the right 

conditions can further cool the bed sediments and provide a 

low-temperature marker of streamflow cessation (fig. 4).

Evaporative cooling, however, is not always sufficient 

to lead to a temperature minimum in the bed sediments. 

In this report, streamflow cessation is nevertheless identified 

by the local temperature minimum (Tmin) that immediately 

follows the sharp temperature drop, as this likely provides 

the best mean estimate of streamflow cessation. When 

streamflows occur during the evening and early nighttime 

hours and dew points are relatively low, evaporative cooling 

will be high and Tmin will provide a fairly accurate estimate 

of the time of streamflow cessation. During shallow daytime 

streamflows when solar radiation can result in a significant 

warming of the water, sediments can rapidly rewarm, and Tmin

can be earlier than the true time of streamflow cessation. 

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1800

AUGUST 7,

2002

1800

AUGUST 8,

2002

1800

AUGUST 9,

2002

1800

AUGUST 10,

2002

1800

AUGUST 11,

2002

1800

AUGUST 12,

2002

0

50

100

150

200

250

TEMPERATURE, IN DEGREES CELSIUS

STREAMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

Streamflow

event

Local temperature minimum

TEMPERATURE

STREAMFLOW

Rapid

temperature

drop

Figure 4. Thermograph and streamflow record from Greenbush Draw, Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Arizona.

8 Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams, Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Southeastern Arizona
During the late-night to predawn hours when cooling of the 

atmospheric boundary layer can continue to cool the sediments 

and delay the time of the temperature minimum, Tmin can be 

later than the true time of streamflow cessation.

To test the method of short term ephemeral-streamflow 

detection outlined in the previous paragraphs, and to determine 

at what depth streamflow was most readily determined by 

using this method, three TidbiT temperature loggers were 

buried 0.3, 0.7, and 1.0 m below the channel surface in 

Greenbush Draw, 10 m downstream from USGS streamflowgaging station 09470520 (GDG, fig. 1). According to the 

manufacturer, TidbiT loggers have a range of -5oC to 37oC, 

a quantization error of 0.085oC, and an interchangeability 

of 0.1oC. Fifteen to twenty centimeters of coarse sand and 

cobbles overlies a clay layer of greater than 1 m depth at this 

location (fig. 5). The timing and duration of streamflows at 

the gaging station were used as controls and compared to the 

thermograph for points where ∆Ts > ∆Tcrit.

Various ∆Tcrit values were used to estimate the time of 

temperature drop, time of the following local temperature 

minimum, and elapsed time between the two, and these values 

are compared to onset of streamflow, cessation of streamflow, 

and duration of streamflow, respectively, as detected at 

the Greenbush Draw gaging station from June 1 through 

September 19, 2002 (table 1). 

In order to most accurately detect streamflow, ∆Tcrit

must be set to a value that (1) maximizes correct streamflow 

detections while minimizing false negative and false positive 

streamflow detections, and (2) minimizes the time between 

predicted and actual streamflow onset and cessation. 

Using ∆Tcrit values of 0.20oC, 0.25oC, and 0.30oC, 11 of 

the 13 streamflows (85 percent) were correctly identified. 

Use of 0.20oC for ∆Tcrit resulted in 69 percent false positive 

detections. This decreased to 8 percent for both the 0.25oC and 

the 0.30oC values. Thus, for purposes of streamflow detection, 

∆Tcrit equal to 0.25oC and 0.30oC proved optimum.

On the basis of the 0.25oC and the 0.30oC optimum ∆Tcrit

values, the mean difference between the time of streamflow 

onset at the gaging station and the time at which ∆Ts first 

exceeded ∆Tcrit was small (37 min) as was the standard 

deviation (< 2 h). The mean difference between the time 

of streamflow cessation and the time of the temperature 

minimum following the initial temperature drop was very 

small (4 min), but the standard deviation was large (nearly 

4 h). Overall, the gaging station detected 13 events that 

flowed a total of 4,110 min (68 h, 30 min), whereas the 

temperature method detected 12 streamflows that flowed a 

total of 5,310 min (88 h, 30 min). The temperature method 

thus overestimated streamflow duration by about 30 percent. 

This included one streamflow that was detected by the 

temperature method but not by the gaging station and therefore 

is considered a false positive. A sharp drop indicative of 

streamflow onset will not occur in an otherwise dry streambed; 

it is possible that a short duration, low-volume streamflow 

could miss the gaging station orifice but then flow over the 

temperature logger 10 m downstream. It is also possible that 

one or both of the false negatives were a result of the reverse 

situation: a low-volume streamflow recorded at the gaging 

station missing the temperature logger site downstream.

In practice, there will be variability in the mean thermalwave amplitude and therefore in ∆Tcrit between and within 

thermographs, primarily due to variations in burial depth 

and subsequent scour or deposition. Seasonal differences 

in the diurnal variation of air temperature as well as length 

of daylight will also have an effect. Therefore, the relation 

between a range of diurnal thermal-wave amplitudes and 

the optimum ∆Tcrit for those amplitudes was determined. 

This was achieved by installing six TidbiT temperature 

loggers at 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 cm below the surface 

of the streambed in Greenbush Draw. Six streamflows were 

subsequently recorded at the gaging station during the 2003 

summer monsoon. The optimum ∆Tcrit was determined for 

each of the six loggers as with the three earlier loggers. 

1

2

Figure 5. Temperature-method calibration site, Greenbush 

Draw at State Route 92. The temperature logger site (1) is in the 

foreground and the U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging 

station (2) is in the background.

Streamflow occurred 13 times during the summer 

monsoon of 2002, and the logger at 0.3 m depth provided the 

most readily interpretable data of the three logger depths—it 

provided the largest difference between dry sediment 

temperature and saturated (streamflow) sediment temperature, 

was thus most sensitive to all streamflows, including 

short repeat interval streamflows, and provided the closest 

approximation of Tmin to cessation of streamflow at the gaging 

station (fig. 6).

Methods of Investigation 9
10

0000

AUGUST 3,

2002

0000

AUGUST 4,

2002

0000

AUGUST 5,

2002

0000

AUGUST 6,

2002

0000

AUGUST 7,

2002

0

50

100

150

200

250

TEMPERATURE, IN DEGREES CELSIUS

STREAMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

TEMPERATURE

STREAMFLOW

10

15

20

25

30

35

0

50

100

150

200

250

TEMPERATURE, IN DEGREES CELSIUS

STREAMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

Streamflow

event

TEMPERATURE LOGGER DEPTH

 0.3 meter below surface

 0.7 meter below surface

 1.0 meter below surface

STREAMFLOW

Figure 6. Sensitivity of temperature loggers to streamflow at three depths, Greenbush Draw at State Route 92. The 

temperature logger at 0.3 meter was sensitive to a streamflow event (white oval) not evident in the thermographs from 

greater depths.

10 Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams, Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Southeastern Arizona
Table 1. Temperature-logger streamflow detection compared to streamflow detection at Greenbush Draw gaging station for the period June 1, 2002

[The temperature sensor is 10 meters downstream from the gaging station and 30-33 centimeters below the surface. Values in bold are for the overall optimal temperature drop fo(after Gungle, 2003); N, Number; %, percent; Std. dev., standard deviation]

Streamflow detection

DTcrit (degrees Celsius):

0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 

Temperature-logger streamflow detection

Flows correctly identified

(of 13 possible)

N: 11 11 11 9 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 

%: 85 85 85 69 62 62 62 54 54 54 54 46 46 46 46 

False negative flow identification 

(flows missed ÷ total actual flows × 100)

%: 15 15 15 31 38 38 38 46 46 46 46 54 54 54 54 

False positive flow identification 

(false flow identifications ÷ total flows identified × 100)

%: 69 8 8 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Time of flow onset minus time of 

temperature drop (minutes)

Mean: 37 37 37 33 6 6 2 -4 -4 -4 -4 -7 -7 -12 -15 

Std. dev.: 110 110 110 78 40 40 44 45 45 45 45 48 48 46 44 

Time of flow cessation minus time of local 

minimum temperature (minutes)

Mean: 4 4 4 2 -34 -34 -34 11 11 11 10.7 -32 -32 -32 -32 

Std. dev.: 232 232 232 251 243 243 243 224 224 224 224 212 212 212 212 

Streamflow detection at Greenbush Draw gaging station

Duration of flow minus time from 

temperature drop to local minimum temperature (minutes)

Mean: -33 -33 -33 -32 -39 -39 -36 15 15 15 15 -25 -25 -20 -18 Std. dev.: 231 231 231 204 222 222 220 185 185 185 185 166 166 170 169 
The standard deviation, σ, a commonly used and easily 

calculated measure of the spread of a data set, was used as 

a surrogate for the amplitude of the conductive temperature 

signal. The relation between ∆Tcrit and σ should be of a form 

similar to equation 3:

s s = 0 1 eDT C crit / , (10)

where 

σo = the value of the standard deviation at the surface.

Solving for the unknown ∆Tcrit,

DT C crit = 1 ( )+C2 ln s , (11)

where 

C1 and C2 are constants. 

Once these two constants are determined, equation 11 can be 

used to determine ∆Tcrit for any thermograph σ.

Because the standard deviation is strongly affected by 

extreme data points (used to advantage by Blasch and others, 

2004, as the indicator of streamflow), a period of days when 

the conductive temperature signal is relatively even and 

uninterrupted is required for the determination of σ. For the 

summer monsoon of 2003 at Greenbush Draw, this period was 

from September 4 to September 22, 2003. Consistent with 

equations 1 and 3, the amplitude of the temperature signal in 

the more shallow temperature loggers was higher (as indicated 

by an increase in temperature variability characterized by a 

larger value for σ) and ∆Tcrit was likewise larger. The σ versus 

∆Tcrit data were then plotted, and a natural log curve consistent 

with equation 11 was fitted to the data (fig. 7; C1=0.40, 

C2=0.47). Values from the curve were then used to create 

a look-up table for thermograph data analysis. Once σ was 

determined for a thermograph (or thermograph subset), the 

look-up table provided the ∆Tcrit required to detect streamflow.

Thermograph data from the temperature loggers installed 

throughout the Sierra Vista Subwatershed were then analyzed 

using the following procedure: 

Thermograph data from a given location were separated 

into periods of similar streambed-temperature amplitudes. 

Typically, annual data were broken into three periods, 

October to January, February to May, and June to 

September.

A subperiod of no less than a full week of relatively 

constant mean temperature and amplitude was then 

selected and the subperiod standard deviation, σ,

determined.

The critical temperature change, ∆Tcrit, corresponding to 

σ, was determined from the look-up table developed using 

equation 11.

The data were matched against the ∆Tcrit determined in 3 

and any change in the temperature of the bulk sediment, 

∆Ts, over a 15-min period that exceeded ∆Tcrit was 

interpreted as streamflow onset, whereas the subsequent 

temperature minimum was interpreted as the time of 

streamflow cessation.

Early in the study, some loggers were set to log every 

30 min. The 30-min data required larger ∆Tcrit values in a 

separate look-up table in order to be correctly interpreted 

(C1=0.36 and C2=0.51). By the end of the first 9 months of 

data collection, nearly all loggers had been reset to log every 

15 min.

Because a diurnal temperature minimum will occur 

within about 24 h of any streamflow, the use of Tmin as a 

method to determine streamflow cessation is limited to 

streamflows that last no more than 1 day. This method is 

also less effective at identifying individual streamflows that 

occur in rapid succession (within 24 h or less) than it is at 

identifying more widely separated streamflows when the 

streambed sediments have been able to dry and rewarm to 

near prestreamflow temperatures. For both of these reasons, 

streamflows that occurred during the frequent and heavy rains 

of October and November 2000 were difficult to interpret 

and are not included in this report. In addition, much of 

the temperature logger network was not yet operational at 

that time.

Installation of Temperature Loggers

Data stored in the Tidbit temperature loggers used in this 

study are downloaded using an optical interface that accesses 

the data through two small plastic nipples on the face of the 

logger. To protect these interface nipples from detritus carried 

along in ephemeral streamflows, each logger was housed in 

a 10- to 15-cm-long piece of 4- or 5-cm-diameter polyvinyl 

chloride (PVC) pipe. These in turn were tethered with 1 to 3 m 

of cable to either a 1-m metal T-post installed in the channel 

bottom, or to an in situ anchor such as a tree root, a small tree 

trunk, or an existing fence post. Loggers were then buried in 

the channel sediments (fig. 8).

1.

2.

3.

4.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

y = 0.35ln(x) + 0.46

R 2 = 0.89

y = 0.40ln(x) + 0.47

R 2 = 1 0.7

0.8

0.9

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

ORIGINAL DATA

ADJUSTED DATA

ORIGINAL NATURAL LOG FIT

ADJUSTED NATURAL LOG FIT

3.00

STANDARD DEVIATION, IN DEGREES CELSIUS

, IN DEGREES CELSIUS ∆Tcrit

Figure 7. Original and adjusted natural log fits for ∆TcritDTcrit versus 

standard deviation of temperature from Greenbush Draw at State 

Route 92, monsoon 2003, for logger burial depths of 10, 15, 20, 25, 

30, and 35 centimeters below streambed surface.

12 Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams, Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Southeastern Arizona
Figure 8. Typical field deployment of temperature logger in a 

polyvinyl chloride (PVC) housing tethered to a small tree trunk 

with airplane cable.

After early streamflows drew many loggers to the 

surface, loggers were reburied and this time anchored in 

place with weights. Sensors buried < 10 cm deep produced 

excessively noisy data owing to the limited attenuation of the 

conductive signal through the shallow sediment. This was 

exacerbated in areas where tree branches, streambanks, or 

physical structures produced periodic shading of the surface 

above the logger. The resulting thermographs were generally 

uninterpretable. Loggers were then reburied to depths of 

15 to 25 cm. Although a uniform burial depth will not remove 

all interthermograph amplitude and ∆Tcrit variation, it will limit 

the amount of variation to be expected from one location to the 

next, and makes data processing more efficient. For the same 

reason, it is best to install loggers where intermittent shading 

from trees or structures will not occur.

A final concern was that in channels downstream from 

impermeable surfaces, such as road crossings and parking 

lots, runoff from modest precipitation events can be focused 

and result in streamflows limited in linear extent and volume. 

Although such events are localized—not system wide—in 

nature, loggers installed downstream from such surfaces will 

nevertheless indicate streamflow, which can be misleading in 

terms of streamflow extent. For example, two loggers that both 

record streamflow downstream from road crossings separated 

by 4 km of channel will imply that streamflow occurred over 

the entire 4-km segment of channel, when in fact, streamflow 

only occurred over a few tens to hundreds of meters. Because 

these events represent small magnitude runoff from street 

drainage rather than large magnitude streamflow events, they 

give an inaccurate representation of what is occurring along 

the length of the channel. This problem is resolved by moving 

loggers upstream from areas of localized drainage.

Monitoring Sites

Temperature loggers were installed in 19 ephemeralstream channels across the subwatershed. Three gaging 

stations in Walnut Gulch, operated by the Agricultural 

Research Service, provided data for the 20th channel and are 

included in the data set, as are data from the USGS gaging 

station on Greenbush Draw at State Route 92. Although the 

data are not used in this report, three USGS gaging stations 

in the Huachuca Mountains and one USGS gaging station in 

the Mule Mountains monitored streamflow from mountains 

(fig. 1). 

A greater number of large ephemeral-stream channel 

systems occur on the west side of the subwatershed than on the 

east. This is reflected in the distribution of temperature loggers 

across the subwatershed; 14 ephemeral-stream channels 

were monitored on the west side of the river, whereas 6 were 

monitored on the east. Similarly, 37 loggers were deployed 

on the west side and 16 on the east, amounting to 53 total 

temperature loggers (fig. 1) of which 48 returned useful data. 

In addition, all 4 gaging stations on ephemeral streams were 

operational throughout most of the monitoring period for 

a total of 52 monitoring sites across the subwatershed that 

provided useful ephemeral-streamflow data.

Each ephemeral-stream channel reported on here 

contained a minimum of two data points along the channel 

length. In five channels, however, one logger did not provide 

any useable data throughout the entire monitoring period (all 

on the west side, 3 rural, 2 urban: Brown Wash south of State 

Route 92, Ash Canyon Wash at Stone Ridge Road, Soldier 

Creek at Irwin Road, Huachuca Canyon Wash at Backer Road, 

and Coyote Wash at State Route 92). In the cases of Brown 

Wash, Ash Canyon Wash, Soldier Creek, and Huachuca 

Canyon Wash, where just two loggers were deployed, there 

was thus only one useful data point, whereas in Coyote Wash, 

two useful data points remained. Three loggers were deployed 

in Coyote, Miller Canyon, and Woodcutters Washes, Wash 1, 

Graveyard Gulch, and Government Draw; four loggers were 

deployed in Garden and Ramsey Washes; and six loggers were 

deployed along Greenbush Draw. 

Monitoring Sites 13
Seven loggers were deployed in or immediately 

downstream from urbanized areas (Huachuca Canyon Wash 

at Backer Road, Soldier Creek at State Route 90 Bypass, 

Woodcutters Wash at Seventh Street, Woodcutters Wash 

at State Route 90 Bypass, Coyote Wash at State Route 92, 

Garden Canyon Wash at State Route 92, and Miller Canyon 

Wash at State Route 92) of which five provided useful 

data. Six loggers were deployed within 1 km of the foot of 

the Huachuca Mountains, and two loggers were deployed 

within 1 km of the foot of the Mule Mountains. Four loggers 

were within about 1 km of the San Pedro River (three west, 

one east), and seven were within about 3 km of the river 

(three west, four east; table 2).

Precipitation Patterns During the 

Monitoring Period

Following the dry winter of 1999–2000, when 

precipitation in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed was 15 percent 

of the 30-yr average, annual precipitation was well above 

average for 2000, owing in part to a wet summer season 

(around 135 percent of average) but more importantly to a 

series of large storms in October and early November of that 

year (fig. 2). For the study period beginning December 2000, 

nonmonsoon precipitation in 2000–2001 and 2001–2002 was 

82 percent and 39 percent of the 30-yr average, respectively. 

Monsoon precipitation during the study period (summer 2001) 

was 99 percent of the 30-yr average.

Timing and Duration of Flow in 

Ephemeral Streams

The duration and frequency of streamflow were expected 

to vary as functions of distance from the mountains, and 

thus logger data were separated into bins on the basis of the 

distance of the logger site from the mountain front on either 

side of the basin. In this report, “mountain front” refers to the 

point along the foot of the mountains where basin sediments 

contact the mountain block, and can be identified by a sharp 

change in slope. On the west side of the subwatershed, the 

Huachuca Mountain front approximates a straight line and 

ephemeral-stream channels are relatively straight and parallel. 

On the east side, the mountain front is highly irregular and 

thus “distance from mountain front” refers to the approximate 

stream distance from where a given stream exits the region of 

steeper slope. 

Data from the west side were entered into bins having 

3-km widths beginning at the mountain front and ending at the 

river. Data from the east side were entered into bins having 

5-km widths beginning at the mountain front. The larger bin 

width was needed for the east side because of the greater 

length of some east side streams. Because the number of sites 

within the bins varied, the data were normalized relative to the 

largest number of data sites, NL, found in any one of the bins 

for the given period being analyzed. NL can thus be considered 

the virtual number of logger sites for each of the bins being 

compared. The normalized values of the number and duration 

of streamflows, VN, is thus calculated:

DT N N L = N VA A ( / ) , (12)

where 

NA = the actual number of data sites in the given 

bin, and

VA = the actual value (number or duration of 

streamflows) in the given bin.

Data thus normalized for the purposes of comparison 

should not be mistaken for absolute values. The absolute 

number and duration of streamflows occurring at each 

monitoring site are listed in the appendix of this report.

Spatial Streamflow Patterns

Results of the thermograph data analysis indicate that 

streamflow commonly occurs along much of the length of the 

ephemeral-stream channels of the Sierra Vista Subwatershed 

at some time in all but the driest years (figs. 9–16). This is 

not to say that streamflow occurred along the entire length 

of a channel during any one event or even any one season. 

Rather, in the course of a year, streamflow occurs at most 

points along most channels. During the 18-month monitoring 

period, streamflow was detected at least once at all but 6 of 

the 52 functional monitoring sites (88 percent), although 4 of 

the 6 no-streamflow sites were not functioning during the 

2001 monsoon. Streamflow occurred at at least 1 site in each 

of the 20 channels during the study period; streamflow also 

occurred at least once at every site along 16 of the 20 channels 

(80 percent), although only rarely did streamflow occur at 

more than one site in a given channel as a result of the same 

precipitation event. Locations with more than 40 percent 

uninterpretable or missing data over a given time period were 

not included in the analysis of streamflow patterns.

During the 2000–2001 and 2001–2002 nonmonsoon 

periods, streamflows peaked in number, total streamflow 

duration, and mean streamflow duration (mean streamflow 

duration = total streamflow duration/number of streamflows) 

midway between the mountains and river on the west side of 

the subwatershed, with the greatest number and duration of 

streamflows occurring between 6 and 9 km from the Huachuca 

Mountain front (figs. 11, 15, 17A, B). All three streamflow 

parameters dropped off rapidly beyond 12 km from the 

Huachuca Mountain front, with no streamflows observed 

from 12 to 15 km during the 2000–2001 nonmonsoon period 

(fig. 17A). 

14 Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams, Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Southeastern Arizona
West-side monitoring sites—Continued

Location

Distance 

east of 

Mountains

(kilometers)

(U)rbanized/

(N)onurbanized 

location

Wash 1, north arm 14.5 N

Miller Canyon Wash at the SPRNCA 14.5 N

Ramsey Canyon Wash at the SPRNCA (RC4) 15.0 N

Coyote Wash at Moson Rd. 16.0 N

Garden Canyon Wash at the SPRNCA (GC4) 16.5 N

Woodcutters Canyon Wash at Moson Rd. 

extension

17.0 N

East-side monitoring sites

Location

Distance 

west of 

Mountains 

(kilometers) Mountain front

Banning Creek gaging station 0.0 C Mule Mtns.

Banning Creek at State Route 80 0.0 C Mule Mtns.

Wash 20 at State Route 80 4.0 NE Mule Mtns.

Spring Wash at Foudy Rd. 4.0 C Mule Mtns.

Banning Creek at Misty Ray Rd. 6.0 C Mule Mtns.

Greenbush Draw at Naco Highway (GD1) 8.5 S Mule Mtns.

Wash 20 at High Knoll Rd. (south) 9.0 NE Mule Mtns.

Wash 20 at High Knoll Rd. (north) 9.0 NE Mule Mtns.

Spring Wash at railroad bridge north of 

Hereford Rd.

9.5 C Mule Mtns.

Greenbush Draw east Ladd Ranch (GD2) 11.5 S Mule Mtns.

Walnut Gulch, flume 6 16.5 Dragoon Mtns.

Government Draw at State Route 80 16.5 Tombstone Hills/

NE Mule Mtns.

Greenbush Draw at railroad tracks (GD4) 17.5 S Mule Mtns.

Government Draw on Cox Ranch 19.5 Tombstone Hills/

NE Mule Mtns.

Greenbush Draw at State Route 92 gaging 

station (GDG)

23.0 S Mule Mtns.

Walnut Gulch, flume 1 24.0 Dragoon Mtns.

Government Draw at High Knoll Rd. 

extension

24.0 Tombstone Hills/

NE Mule Mtns.

Greenbush Draw at Fox Hollow Rd. (GD6) 25.0 S Mule Mtns.

Greenbush Draw tributary at Foudy Rd. (GD5) NA S Mule Mtns.

Walnut Gulch, flume 11 (tributary) NA Dragoon Mtns.

Greenbush Dray tributary at Sand Wash (GD3) NA S Mule Mtns.

West-side monitoring sites

Location

Distance 

east of 

Mountains

(kilometers)

(U)rbanized/

(N)onurbanized 

location

Garden Canyon gaging station 0.0 N

Huachuca Canyon gaging station 0.0 N

Huachuca Canyon Wash at Backer Rd. 0.0 U

Hunter Canyon Wash at State Route 92 0.0 N

Ramsey Canyon gaging station 0.0 N

Stump Canyon at State Route 92 0.0 N

Ash Canyon at Stone Ridge Rd. 0.0 N

Brown Canyon Wash at Coronado Memorial Rd. 0.0 N

Ramsey Canyon Wash at Ramsey Rd. (RC1) 1.0 N

Ash Canyon Wash at Coronado Memorial Rd. 1.0 N

Miller Canyon Wash at State Route 92 1.5 U

Carr Canyon Wash at State Route 92 2.0 N

Soldier Creek Wash at Irwin Rd. 2.5 N

Garden Canyon Wash at Fort Huachuca south 

perimeter (GC1)

2.5 N

Huachuca Canyon Wash at Monitor Site Rd., 

Fort Huachuca

3.5 N

Ramsey Canyon Wash at State Route 92 (RC2) 3.5 N

Brown Canyon Wash at Hutchinson Rd. 4.0 N

Stump Canyon Wash at Deer Canyon Trail 4.0 N

Woodcutters Canyon Wash at 7th St. 4.5 U

Hunter Canyon Wash at Hereford Rd. 5.0 N

Garden Canyon Wash at State Route 92 (GC2) 5.5 U

Soldier Creek Wash at State Route 90 Bypass 6.0 U

Miller Canyon Wash at Moson Rd. 7.5 N

Coyote Wash at State Route 92 8.0 U

Carr Canyon Wash at Moson Rd. 9.0 N

Woodcutters Canyon Wash at State Route 90 

Bypass

9.5 U

Ramsey Canyon Wash at La Donna Rd. (RC3) 10.0 N

Graveyard Gulch, middle arm 11.0 N

Graveyard Gulch, south arm 11.0 N

Garden Canyon Wash at Moson Rd. (GC3) 11.0 N

Graveyard Gulch, north arm 13.0 N

Coyote Wash at Dake Rd. 13.5 N

Wash 1, south arm 13.5 N

Wash 1, middle arm 14.5 N

Table 2. Approximate distances between ephemeral-stream monitoring sites and mountain fronts

[SPRNCA, San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area; C, central; Mtns., Mountains; NE, northeastern; S, southern]

Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams 15
Base from U.S. Geological Survey

digital elevation model data,

Universal Transverse Mercator 

Projection, Zone 12. Datum: NAD 27

110°15’

31°45’

31°30’

San Pedro

Babocomari

River

River

92

82

90

MEXICO

GARDEN

MILLER

HUNTER

CANYON

CANYON

CANYON

CANYON

GRAVEYARD 

GULCH

RAMSEY CANYON

BROWN CANYON

STUMP CANYON

ASH CANYON

WOODCUTTERS

WASH

HUACHUCA

CREEK

WASH 1 

Palominas

TOMBSTONE

HILLS

Nicksville

Hereford Road

UNITED STATES

Huachuca

City

0

0

5 KILOMETERS

5 MILES

CARR

HUACHUCA MOUNTAINS

2

3

4

5

6

10

11

13

14

17

20

19

30

31

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

29

32

33

34

37

18

15

16

12

8

9

1

35

36

COYOTE

WASH 

92

7

SOLDIER CREEK

90

Fort

Huachuca

90

28 Sierra Vista

 

09471310

 

09470800

 

09470750

Figure 9. Duration of ephemeral streamflow at temperature-logger sites in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed, 

Arizona, west side, for the entire period of study, December 1, 2000, to May 31, 2002. For name, total-duration data, 

and number of flows for each site, see explanation on page 18.

16 Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams, Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Southeastern Arizona
San Pedro

Government

Walnut

Gulch

Greenbush

Draw

River

Draw

Bisbee Hereford Road

WALNUT GULCH

SPRING

WASH

WASH 20 

GREENBUSH DRAW

GOVERNMENT

DRAW

110°15’ 110°

31°45’

31°30’

92

92

82

Palominas

Naco

Tombstone

Nicksville

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

digital elevation model data,

Universal Transverse Mercator 

Projection, Zone 12. Datum: NAD 27 0

0

5 KILOMETERS

5 MILES

41

57

55

42

39

44

43

45 46

47

48

50

49

51

54

52

53

40

38

Sierra 

Vista

80

80 TOMBSTONE HILLS

BANNING CREEK

90

56

MULE MOUNTAINS

Babocomari

River

Figure 10. Duration of ephemeral streamflow at temperature logger sites and a streamflow-gaging station in the Sierra

Vista subwatershed, east side, for the entire period of study, December 1, 2000, to May 31, 2002. For name, total-duration

data, and number of flows for each site, see explanation on page __. 

 

09470700

Flume 1 Flume 6

Flume 11

09470520

Figure 10. Duration of ephemeral streamflow at temperature-logger sites and at selected streamflow-gaging 

stations in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Arizona, east side, for the entire period of study, December 1, 2000, to 

May 31, 2002. For name, total-duration data, and number of flows for each site, see explanation on page 18.

Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams 17
NUMBERED LIST OF TEMPERATURE-LOGGER SITES AND STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATION WITH SELECTED FLOW DATA

1. Ash Canyon at Stone Ridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Ash Canyon at Coronado Memorial Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,125 4

3. Brown Canyon at Coronado Memorial Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Brown Canyon south of Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. Carr Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,800 4

6. Carr Canyon at Moson Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,125 6

7. Coyote Wash at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. Coyote Wash at Dake Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,760 8

9. Coyote Wash at Moson Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1

10. Garden Canyon at Fort Huachuca perimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 5

11. Garden Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,905 11

12. Garden Canyon at Moson Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 6

13. Garden Canyon at the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area . . 675 7 

14. Graveyard Gulch, Middle Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 4

15. Graveyard Gulch, South Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16. Graveyard Gulch, North Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

17. Huachuca Creek at Backer Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18. Huachuca Creek at gravity station “field”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930 10 

19. Hunter Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 1

20. Hunter Canyon at Hereford Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,205 12

21. Miller Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990 3

22. Miller Canyon at Moson Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,110 6

23. Miller Canyon at the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area . . . 450 3

24. Ramsey Canyon at Ramsey Canyon Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735 3

25. Ramsey Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,200 8

26. Ramsey Canyon at La Donna Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,045 10

27. Ramsey Canyon at the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area . . 1,380 5

28. Soldier Creek at Irwin Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29. Soldier Creek at Arizona Route 90 Bypass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 3

30. Stump Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

31. Stump Canyon at Deer Canyon Trail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 2

SLOPE WEST OF SAN PEDRO RIVER

Duration

of Flow

in Minutes

Number

of Flows SLOPE EAST OF SAN PEDRO RIVER

32. Wash 1, South Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 

33. Wash 1, Middle Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

34. Wash 1 North Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

35. Woodcutters Wash at 7th Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,290 17

36. Woodcutters Wash at Arizona Route 90 Bypass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,025 8

37. Woodcutters Wash at Moson Road (extension) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,100 8

38. Banning Creek at U.S. Route 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 2

39. Banning Creek at Misty Ray Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990 3

40. Government Draw at U.S. Route 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495 4

41. Government Draw at Cox Ranch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 3

42. Government Draw at High Knoll Road

 (extension). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,310 9

43. Greenbush Draw at Naco Highway . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44. Greenbush Draw east of Ladds’ house . . . . . . . . . . 3,450 11

45. Greenbush Draw tributary, Sand Wash . . . . . . . . . . 1,035 3

46. Greenbush Draw at railroad bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

47. Greenbush Draw streamflow-gaging 

 station (0947052). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1

48. Greenbush Draw tributary at Foudy Road . . . . . . . . 

49. Greenbush Draw at Fox Hollow Road . . . . . . . . . . . 2,400 4

50. Spring Wash at Foudy Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420 6

51. Spring Wash at Hereford Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900 1

52. Walnut Gulch Flume 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

53. Walnut Gulch Flume 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,478 6

54. Walnut Gulch Flume 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615 5

55. Wash 20 at U.S. Route 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,470 4 

56. Wash 20 at High Knoll Road, North Arm . . . . . . . . . . 

57. Wash 20 at High Knoll Road, South Arm . . . . . . . . . 2,280 6

Duration

of Flow

in Minutes

Number

of Flows

EXPLANATION FOR FIGURES 9 AND 10 (entire period of study)

55

52

28

STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATION

 

TEMPERATURE LOGGER SITE OR STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATION WITH NO FLOW—

 Number identifies name of site location in list below

TEMPERATURE LOGGER SITE WITH BAD OR MISSING DATA—Number identifies name of site location in list below

TEMPERATURE LOGGER SITE—Height of cylinder indicates relative duration of ephemeral streamflow.

 Actual minutes can be found in list below. Number identifies name of site location in list below

DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY 

 

09471310

18 Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams, Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Southeastern Arizona
This page left blank intentionally.
Base from U.S. Geological Survey

digital elevation model data,

Universal Transverse Mercator 

Projection, Zone 12. Datum: NAD 27

110°15’

31°45’

31°30’

San Pedro

Babocomari

River

River

92

82

90

MEXICO

GARDEN

MILLER

HUNTER

CANYON

CANYON

CANYON

CANYON

GRAVEYARD 

GULCH

RAMSEY CANYON

BROWN CANYON

STUMP CANYON

ASH CANYON

WOODCUTTERS

WASH

HUACHUCA

CREEK

WASH 1 

Palominas

TOMBSTONE

HILLS

Nicksville

Hereford Road

UNITED STATES

Huachuca

City

0

0

5 KILOMETERS

5 MILES

CARR

HUACHUCA MOUNTAINS

2

3

4

5

6

10

11

13

14

17

20

19

30

31

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

29

32

33

34

18 37

15

16

12

8

9

1

35

36

COYOTE

WASH 

92

7

SOLDIER CREEK

90

Fort

Huachuca

90 28

Sierra Vista

 

09471310

 

09470800

 

09470750

Figure 11. Duration of ephemeral streamflow at temperature-logger sites in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed, 

Arizona, west side, 2000–2001 nonmonsoon (December 1, 2000, to May 31, 2001). For name, total-duration data, and 

number of flows for each site, see explanation on page 22.

20 Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams, Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Southeastern Arizona
San Pedro

Government

Walnut Gulch

Greenbush

Draw

River

Draw

Bisbee Hereford Road

WALNUT GULCH

SPRING

WASH

WASH 20 

GREENBUSH DRAW

GOVERNMENT

DRAW

110°15’ 110°

31°45’

31°30’

92

92

82

Palominas

Naco

Tombstone

Nicksville

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

digital elevation model data,

Universal Transverse Mercator 

Projection, Zone 12. Datum: NAD 27 0

0

5 KILOMETERS

5 MILES

41

57

55

42

39

44

43

45 46

47

48

50

49

51

54

52

53

40

38

Sierra 

Vista

80

80 TOMBSTONE HILLS

BANNING CREEK

90

56

MULE MOUNTAINS

Babocomari

River

 

09470700

Flume 1

Flume 6

Flume 11

09470520

Figure 12. Duration of ephemeral streamflow at temperature-logger sites and at selected streamflow-gaging 

stations in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Arizona, east side, 2000–2001 nonmonsoon (December 1, 2000, to May 

31, 2001). For name, total-duration data, and number of flows for each site, see explanation on page 22.

Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams 21
1. Ash Canyon at Stone Ridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Ash Canyon at Coronado Memorial Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 2

3. Brown Canyon at Coronado Memorial Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600 1

4. Brown Canyon south of Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. Carr Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6. Carr Canyon at Moson Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. Coyote Wash at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. Coyote Wash at Dake Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

9. Coyote Wash at Moson Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

10. Garden Canyon at Fort Huachuca perimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11. Garden Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900 1

12. Garden Canyon at Moson Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

13. Garden Canyon at the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area . . 180 1

14. Graveyard Gulch, Middle Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 1

15. Graveyard Gulch, South Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

16. Graveyard Gulch, North Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

17. Huachuca Creek at Backer Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18. Huachuca Creek at gravity station “field” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600 1

19. Hunter Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

20. Hunter Canyon at Hereford Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 2

21. Miller Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22. Miller Canyon at Moson Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360 1

23. Miller Canyon at the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area . . . 0 0

24. Ramsey Canyon at Ramsey Canyon Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25. Ramsey Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26. Ramsey Canyon at La Donna Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,080 3

27. Ramsey Canyon at the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area . . 0 0

28. Soldier Creek at Irwin Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29. Soldier Creek at Arizona Route 90 Bypass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30. Stump Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31. Stump Canyon at Deer Canyon Trail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

SLOPE WEST OF SAN PEDRO RIVER

Duration

of Flow

in Minutes

Number

of Flows SLOPE EAST OF SAN PEDRO RIVER

32. Wash 1, South Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

33. Wash 1, Middle Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

34. Wash 1 North Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

35. Woodcutters Wash at 7th Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 1

36. Woodcutters Wash at Arizona Route 90 Bypass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 780 1

37. Woodcutters Wash at Moson Road (extension) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 1

38. Banning Creek at U.S. Route 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39. Banning Creek at Misty Ray Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40. Government Draw at U.S. Route 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 1

41. Government Draw at Cox Ranch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

42. Government Draw at High Knoll Road

 (extension) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 1

43. Greenbush Draw at Naco Highway . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510 2

44. Greenbush Draw east of Ladds’ house . . . . . . . . . .

45. Greenbush Draw tributary, Sand Wash . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

46. Greenbush Draw at railroad bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47. Greenbush Draw streamflow-gaging

 station (0947052). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

48. Greenbush Draw tributary at Foudy Road . . . . . . . . 

49. Greenbush Draw at Fox Hollow Road . . . . . . . . . . .

50. Spring Wash at Foudy Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

51. Spring Wash at Hereford Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

52. Walnut Gulch Flume 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

53. Walnut Gulch Flume 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,232 2

54. Walnut Gulch Flume 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 1

55. Wash 20 at U.S. Route 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,380 2 

56. Wash 20 at High Knoll Road, North Arm . . . . . . . . . . 270 1

57. Wash 20 at High Knoll Road, South Arm . . . . . . . . . 420 3

Duration

of Flow

in Minutes

Number

of Flows

NUMBERED LIST OF TEMPERATURE-LOGGER SITES AND STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATION WITH SELECTED FLOW DATA

EXPLANATION FOR FIGURES 11 AND 12 (December 1, 2000, to May 31, 2001)

52

28

STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATION

 

TEMPERATURE LOGGER SITE OR STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATION WITH NO FLOW—

 Number identifies name of site location in list below

TEMPERATURE LOGGER SITE WITH BAD OR MISSING DATA—Number identifies name of site location in list below

DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY 

 

09471310

11

TEMPERATURE LOGGER SITE—Height of cylinder indicates relative duration of ephemeral streamflow.

 Actual minutes can be found in list below. Number identifies name of site location in list below

22 Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams, Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Southeastern Arizona
This page left blank intentionally.
Base from U.S. Geological Survey

digital elevation model data,

Universal Transverse Mercator 

Projection, Zone 12. Datum: NAD 27

110°15’

31°45’

31°30’

San Pedro

Babocomari

River

River

92

82

90

MEXICO

GARDEN

MILLER

HUNTER

CANYON

CANYON

CANYON

CANYON

GRAVEYARD 

GULCH

RAMSEY CANYON

BROWN CANYON

STUMP CANYON

ASH CANYON

WOODCUTTERS

WASH

HUACHUCA

CREEK

WASH 1 

Palominas

TOMBSTONE

HILLS

Nicksville

Hereford Road

UNITED STATES

Huachuca

City

0

0

5 KILOMETERS

5 MILES

CARR

HUACHUCA MOUNTAINS

2

3

4

5

6

10

11

13

14

17

20

19

30

31

21

22

23

24

25 26

27

29

32

33

34

37

18

15

16

12

8

9

1

35

36

COYOTE

WASH 

92

7

SOLDIER CREEK

90

Fort

Huachuca

90

28 Sierra Vista

 

09471310

 

09470800

 

09470750

Figure 13. Duration of ephemeral streamflow at temperature-logger sites in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed, 

Arizona, west side, 2001 monsoon (June 1, 2001, to September 19, 2001). For name, total-duration data, and number 

of flows for each site, see explanation on page 26.

24 Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams, Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Southeastern Arizona
San Pedro

Government

Walnut

Gulch

Greenbush

Draw

River

Draw

Bisbee Hereford Road

WALNUT GULCH

SPRING

WASH

WASH 20 

GREENBUSH DRAW

GOVERNMENT

DRAW

110°15’ 110°

31°45’

31°30’

92

92

82

Palominas

Naco

Tombstone

Nicksville

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

digital elevation model data,

Universal Transverse Mercator 

Projection, Zone 12. Datum: NAD 27 0

0

5 KILOMETERS

5 MILES

41

57

55

42

39

44

43

45 46

47

48

50

49

51

54

52

53

40

38

Sierra 

Vista

80

80 TOMBSTONE HILLS

BANNING CREEK

90

56

MULE MOUNTAINS

Babocomari

River

09470700

Flume 1

Flume 6

Flume 11

09470700

Figure 14. Duration of ephemeral streamflow at temperature-logger sites and at selected streamflow-gaging 

stations in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Arizona, east side, 2001 monsoon (June 1, 2001, to September 19, 2001). 

For name, total-duration data, and number of flows for each site, see explanation on page 26.

Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams 25
1. Ash Canyon at Stone Ridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Ash Canyon at Coronado Memorial Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,035 2

3. Brown Canyon at Coronado Memorial Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 1

4. Brown Canyon south of Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. Carr Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,665 3

6. Carr Canyon at Moson Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 5

7. Coyote Wash at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. Coyote Wash at Dake Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,760 8

9. Coyote Wash at Moson Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10. Garden Canyon at Fort Huachuca perimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 5

11. Garden Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,195 8

12. Garden Canyon at Moson Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 6

13. Garden Canyon at the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area . . 495 6 

14. Graveyard Gulch, Middle Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 3

15. Graveyard Gulch, South Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16. Graveyard Gulch, North Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17. Huachuca Creek at Backer Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18. Huachuca Creek at gravity station “field” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330 9 

19. Hunter Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 1

20. Hunter Canyon at Hereford Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,905 10

21. Miller Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990 3

22. Miller Canyon at Moson Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 750 5

23. Miller Canyon at the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area . . . 450 3

24. Ramsey Canyon at Ramsey Canyon Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735 3

25. Ramsey Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,200 8

26. Ramsey Canyon at La Donna Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,605 6

27. Ramsey Canyon at the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area . . 1,260 4

28. Soldier Creek at Irwin Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29. Soldier Creek at Arizona Route 90 Bypass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 3

30. Stump Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31. Stump Canyon at Deer Canyon Trail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 2

SLOPE WEST OF SAN PEDRO RIVER

Duration

of Flow

in Minutes

Number

of Flows SLOPE EAST OF SAN PEDRO RIVER

32. Wash 1, South Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

33. Wash 1, Middle Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34. Wash 1 North Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35. Woodcutters Wash at 7th Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,260 16

36. Woodcutters Wash at Arizona Route 90 Bypass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,200 6

37. Woodcutters Wash at Moson Road (extension) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,920 7

38. Banning Creek at U.S. Route 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 2

39. Banning Creek at Misty Ray Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 750 2

40. Government Draw at U.S. Route 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405 3

41. Government Draw at Cox Ranch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 3

42. Government Draw at High Knoll Road

 (extension) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,250 8

43. Greenbush Draw at Naco Highway . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44. Greenbush Draw east of Ladds’ house . . . . . . . . . . 3,450 11

45. Greenbush Draw tributary, Sand Wash . . . . . . . . . . 1,035 3

46. Greenbush Draw at railroad bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

47. Greenbush Draw streamflow-gaging 

 station (0947052). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1

48. Greenbush Draw tributary at Foudy Road . . . . . . . . 1,845 6

49. Greenbush Draw at Fox Hollow Road . . . . . . . . . . . 2,400 4

50. Spring Wash at Foudy Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420 6

51. Spring Wash at Hereford Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900 1

52. Walnut Gulch Flume 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

53. Walnut Gulch Flume 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 4

54. Walnut Gulch Flume 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570 4

55. Wash 20 at U.S. Route 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

56. Wash 20 at High Knoll Road, North Arm . . . . . . . . . .

57. Wash 20 at High Knoll Road, South Arm . . . . . . . . . 1,860 3

Duration

of Flow

in Minutes

Number

of Flows

36

34

NUMBERED LIST OF TEMPERATURE-LOGGER SITES AND STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATION WITH SELECTED FLOW DATA

EXPLANATION FOR FIGURES 13 AND 14 (June 1, 2001, to September 19, 2001)

52

STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATION

 

TEMPERATURE LOGGER SITE OR STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATION WITH NO FLOW—

 Number identifies name of site location in list below

TEMPERATURE LOGGER SITE WITH BAD OR MISSING DATA—Number identifies name of site location in list below

DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY 

 

09471310

TEMPERATURE LOGGER SITE—Height of cylinder indicates relative duration of ephemeral streamflow.

 Actual minutes can be found in list below. Number identifies name of site location in list below

26 Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams, Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Southeastern Arizona
This page left blank intentionally.
Base from U.S. Geological Survey

digital elevation model data,

Universal Transverse Mercator 

Projection, Zone 12. Datum: NAD 27

110°15’

31°45’

31°30’

San Pedro

Babocomari

River

River

92

82

90

MEXICO

GARDEN

MILLER

HUNTER

CANYON

CANYON

CANYON

CANYON

GRAVEYARD 

GULCH

RAMSEY CANYON

BROWN CANYON

STUMP CANYON

ASH CANYON

WOODCUTTERS

WASH

HUACHUCA

CREEK

WASH 1 

Palominas

TOMBSTONE

HILLS

Nicksville

Hereford Road

UNITED STATES

Huachuca

City

0

0

5 KILOMETERS

5 MILES

CARR

HUACHUCA MOUNTAINS

2

3

4

5

6

10

11

13

14

17

20

19

30

31

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

29

32

33

34

37 18

15

16

12

8

9

1

35

36

COYOTE

WASH 

92

7

SOLDIER CREEK

90

Fort

Huachuca

90 28

Sierra Vista

 

09471310

 

09470800

 

09470750

Figure 15. Duration of ephemeral streamflow at temperature-logger sites in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed, 

Arizona, west side, 2001–2002 nonmonsoon (September 20, 2001, to May 31, 2002). For name, total-duration data, 

and number of flows for each site, see explanation on page 30.

28 Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams, Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Southeastern Arizona
San Pedro

Government

Walnut Gulch

Greenbush

Draw

River

Draw

Bisbee Hereford Road

WALNUT GULCH

SPRING

WASH

WASH 20 

GREENBUSH DRAW

GOVERNMENT

DRAW

110°15’ 110°

31°45’

31°30’

92

92

82

Palominas

Naco

Tombstone

Nicksville

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

digital elevation model data,

Universal Transverse Mercator 

Projection, Zone 12. Datum: NAD 27 0

0

5 KILOMETERS

5 MILES

41

57

55

42

39

44

43

45 46

47

48

50

49

51

54

52

53

40

38

Sierra 

Vista

80

80 TOMBSTONE HILLS

BANNING CREEK

90

56

MULE MOUNTAINS

Babocomari

River

09470700

Flume 1 Flume 6

Flume 11

09470520

Figure 16. Duration of ephemeral streamflow at temperature-logger sites and at selected streamflow-gaging 

stations in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Arizona, east side, 2001–2002 nonmonsoon (September 20, 2001, to May 

31, 2002). For name, total-duration data, and number of flows for each site, see explanation on page 30.

Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams 29
1. Ash Canyon at Stone Ridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Ash Canyon at Coronado Memorial Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

3. Brown Canyon at Coronado Memorial Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Brown Canyon south of Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. Carr Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 1

6. Carr Canyon at Moson Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825 1

7. Coyote Wash at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. Coyote Wash at Dake Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

9. Coyote Wash at Moson Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

10. Garden Canyon at Fort Huachuca perimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

11. Garden Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810 2

12. Garden Canyon at Moson Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

13. Garden Canyon at the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area . . 0 0

14. Graveyard Gulch, Middle Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

15. Graveyard Gulch, South Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16. Graveyard Gulch, North Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

17. Huachuca Creek at Backer Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18. Huachuca Creek at gravity station “field” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

19. Hunter Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

20. Hunter Canyon at Hereford Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

21. Miller Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

22. Miller Canyon at Moson Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

23. Miller Canyon at the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area . . . 150 1

24. Ramsey Canyon at Ramsey Canyon Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

25. Ramsey Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

26. Ramsey Canyon at La Donna Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360 1

27. Ramsey Canyon at the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area . . 120 1

28. Soldier Creek at Irwin Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29. Soldier Creek at Arizona Route 90 Bypass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

30. Stump Canyon at Arizona Route 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 1

31. Stump Canyon at Deer Canyon Trail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 

SLOPE WEST OF SAN PEDRO RIVER

Duration

of Flow

in Minutes

Number

of Flows SLOPE EAST OF SAN PEDRO RIVER

32. Wash 1, South Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

33. Wash 1, Middle Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

34. Wash 1 North Arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

35. Woodcutters Wash at 7th Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

36. Woodcutters Wash at Arizona Route 90 Bypass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 1

37. Woodcutters Wash at Moson Road (extension) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1

38. Banning Creek at U.S. Route 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

39. Banning Creek at Misty Ray Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 1

40. Government Draw at U.S. Route 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

41. Government Draw at Cox Ranch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

42. Government Draw at High Knoll Road

 (extension) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

43. Greenbush Draw at Naco Highway . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44. Greenbush Draw east of Ladds’ house . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

45. Greenbush Draw tributary, Sand Wash . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

46. Greenbush Draw at railroad bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

47. Greenbush Draw streamflow-gaging

 station (0947052) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

48. Greenbush Draw tributary at Foudy Road . . . . . . . . 

49. Greenbush Draw at Fox Hollow Road . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

50. Spring Wash at Foudy Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

51. Spring Wash at Hereford Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

52. Walnut Gulch Flume 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

53. Walnut Gulch Flume 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

54. Walnut Gulch Flume 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

55. Wash 20 at U.S. Route 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

56. Wash 20 at High Knoll Road, North Arm . . . . . . . . . . 

57. Wash 20 at High Knoll Road, South Arm . . . . . . . . . 0 0

Duration

of Flow

in Minutes

Number

of Flows

NUMBERED LIST OF TEMPERATURE-LOGGER SITES AND STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATION WITH SELECTED FLOW DATA

EXPLANATION FOR FIGURES 15 AND 16 (September 20, 2001, to May 31, 2002)

52

28

STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATION

 

TEMPERATURE LOGGER SITE OR STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATION WITH NO FLOW—

 Number identifies name of site location in list below

TEMPERATURE LOGGER SITE WITH BAD OR MISSING DATA—Number identifies name of site location in list below

DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY 

 

09471310

6

TEMPERATURE LOGGER SITE—Height of cylinder indicates relative duration of ephemeral streamflow.

 Actual minutes can be found in list below. Number identifies name of site location in list below

30 Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams, Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Southeastern Arizona
This page left blank intentionally.
Figure 17. Total normalized streamflow duration, mean streamflow duration, and normalized number of streamflows, 

Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Arizona, west side, for all periods of the study. A, 2000–2001 nonmonsoon period 

(December 1, 2000, to May 31, 2001), B, 2001–2002 nonmonsoon period (September 20, 2001, to May 31, 2002), and 

C, 2001 monsoon period (June 1, 2001, to September 20, 2001). 

3,000

1,000

0

0–3 3–6 6–9 9–12 12–15 15–18

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

44

48

52

56

60

64

2,000

4,000

5,000

STREAMFLOW DURATION, IN MINUTES

NORMALIZED NUMBER OF STREAMFLOWS

DISTANCE EAST FROM HUACHUCA MOUNTAIN FRONT, IN KILOMETERS

6,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

15,000

16,000

3,000

1,000

0

(7)

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

2,000

4,000

5,000

(7) (2) (4) (5)

(3)

6,000

3,000

1,000

0

(3)

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

2,000

4,000

5,000

(4)

(1) (5)

(7)

(3)

TOTAL NORMALIZED STREAMFLOW DURATION

NORMALIZED NUMBER OF STREAMFLOWS

MEAN STREAMFLOW DURATION

Numbers in parentheses (10) are the number of stations in each data 

bin. Data bins are normalized by the maximum number of stations.

A. 2000–2001 nonmonsoon period

B. 2001–2002 nonmonsoon period

C. 2001 monsoon period

(7)

(7)

(2)

(4)

(3)

(2)

32 Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams, Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Southeastern Arizona
3,000

1,000

0 0

4

8

12

2,000

(2)

(2)

(4) (4) (5)

3,000

1,000

0 0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

44

48

2,000

4,000

5,000

STREAMFLOW DURATION, IN MINUTES

NORMALIZED NUMBER OF STREAMFLOWS

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

B. 2001–2002 nonmonsoon period

C. 2001 monsoon period

(2)

(2)

(4)

(4)

(5)

3,000

1,000

0 0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

2,000

4,000

5,000

0–5 5–10 10–15 15–20 20–25

DISTANCE WEST FROM NEAREST MOUNTAIN FRONT, IN KILOMETERS

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

TOTAL NORMALIZED STREAMFLOW DURATION

NORMALIZED NUMBER OF STREAMFLOWS

MEAN STREAMFLOW DURATION

(2) (2)

(3) (4)

(4)

A. 2000–2001 nonmonsoon period

Numbers in parentheses (5) are the number of stations in each data 

bin. Data bins are normalized by the maximum number of stations.

Figure 18. Total normalized streamflow duration, mean streamflow duration, and normalized number of streamflows, 

Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Arizona, east side, for all periods of the study. A, 2000–2001 nonmonsoon period (December 1, 

2000, to May 31, 2001), B, 2001–2002 nonmonsoon period (September 20, 2001, to May 31, 2002), and C, 2001 monsoon period 

(June 1, 2001, to September 20, 2001). 

East of the river, nonmonsoon ephemeral-streamflow 

trended downward in both number and duration of streamflows 

from the mountains to the river (figs. 12, 16, 18A, B). A large 

total streamflow duration value of 7,232 min (120 h, 32 min) 

recorded at Walnut Gulch Flume 11 (site number 53) is 

responsible for the bulk of the anomalous streamflow duration 

10 to 15 km from the mountain front during the 2000–2001 

nonmonsoon period (figs. 12 and 18A). Low-permeability 

surface bedrock in this vicinity could be responsible for 

the extended streamflow duration that resulted from two 

January 2001 precipitation events. During the 2001–2002 

nonmonsoon period, streamflow did not occur east of the 

river except for a single event on October 3, 2001, in Banning 

Creek, about 6 km southwest of the Mule Mountains (figs. 16 

and 18B). The nonmonsoon streamflow distribution could be a 

function of precipitation distribution across the subwatershed 

during these relatively dry nonmonsoon periods rather than a 

reflection of the long term trend in subwatershed ephemeralstreamflow frequencies.

Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams 33
20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

10,000

0

B. Duration of streamflows

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2000–2001

NONMONSOON

2001 MONSOON 2001–2002

NONMONSOON

STREAMFLOW DURATION, IN MINUTES

RURAL STREAMFLOW

URBAN STREAMFLOW

2000–2001

NONMONSOON

2001 MONSOON 2001–2002

NONMONSOON

NUMBER OF STREAMFLOWS 

A. Number of streamflows

Figure 19. Comparison of normalized rural and urban 

streamflows in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Arizona, 

during 2000–2001 nonmonsoon, 2001 monsoon, and 2001–2002 

nonmonsoon. A, Number of streamflows; B, Duration of 

streamflows.

Streamflows during the 2001 summer monsoon (June 1 

to September 19, 2001) were more evenly distributed across 

the subwatershed than were nonmonsoon streamflows, with 

only two active sites not experiencing streamflow, both on 

the east side. The duration of streamflow on both sides of 

the river generally trended higher with greater distance from 

the mountain fronts with the exception of one bin on each 

side. The number of streamflows was more variable than 

streamflow duration with distance from the mountain fronts 

on both sides of the subwatershed (figs. 13–14, 17C, 18C). 

As with the nonmonsoon period, the monsoon streamflowduration trends likely reflect the distribution of monsoon 

precipitation in 2001.

The channels monitored in urbanized areas are on the 

west side of the subwatershed, and therefore rural drainages 

used for comparison were also restricted to those found on the 

west side. Note that the loggers at Huachuca Canyon Wash at 

Backer Road and Coyote Wash at State Route 92 provided no 

usable data, and thus there were five active urban data points. 

The five urban loggers were from about 1.5 to 9.5 km from the 

Huachuca Mountain front, and averaged about 6.0 km distant. 

The rural loggers across the western part of the Sierra Vista 

Subwatershed ranged from 0.0 to 17.0 km from the Huachuca 

Mountain front and averaged about 7.5 km distant.

The total normalized streamflow duration and number 

of streamflows in urbanized areas were consistently greater 

than what occurred in rural areas across the west side of the 

subwatershed during the study period. Urban streamflows 

occurred more than 50 percent more often and were of a 

total streamflow duration nearly three times that of rural 

streamflows (fig. 19). The mean duration of rural streamflows 

was roughly one-half of the mean duration of urbanized 

streamflows during the 2000–2001 nonmonsoon and 2001 

monsoon periods, and essentially the same as that for 

urbanized streamflows during the 2001–2002 nonmonsoon 

period. Precipitation in the Sierra Vista urbanized area as 

characterized by the Sierra Vista 30-yr average of 35.6 cm, 

was less than at more rural sites. For example, the 30-yr 

average at Tombstone is 35.8 cm, at Y-Lightning Ranch it 

is 38.8 cm, and at Coronado Memorial Headquarters it is 

53.8 cm (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

2004). The greater number and duration of urban streamflows 

were thus more likely a result of the large amount of 

impermeable surfaces in the urbanized area rather than 

functions of precipitation patterns.

Temporal Streamflow Patterns

To facilitate analysis of temporal streamflow patterns, 

streamflow data were normalized to the largest number 

of sites, NL, found in any of the three bins (fig. 20). Data 

were not normalized to length of period; the 2000–2001 

nonmonsoon period was 6 months, the 2001 monsoon period 

was 3.7 months, and the 2001–2002 nonmonsoon period was 

8.3 months. As would be expected for two dry winter seasons, 

streamflows during the monsoon greatly exceeded streamflows 

during the rest of the year, accounting for 82 percent of 

the streamflows and 71 percent of the total streamflow 

duration during the entire study period. As previously noted, 

streamflow was detected at least once at every active logger 

site on the west side of the subwatershed during the 2001 

monsoon, and at all but two of the active sites on the east side.

The normalized data indicate that in comparison to 

streamflows on the west side of the subwatershed, streamflows 

on the east side were (1) 50 percent more common and more 

than three times greater in total duration during the 2000–2001 

nonmonsoon period, (2) slightly less common and shorter 

in total duration during the 2001 monsoon, and (3) about 

half as common and nearly an order of magnitude shorter in 

duration during the 2001–2002 nonmonsoon period (fig. 21). 

Although the total number of normalized streamflows in the 

west side of the subwatershed is only slightly greater than in 

the east side, the larger number of major ephemeral streams 

on the west side results in a larger volume of streamflow and 

potential recharge there. The better developed drainage system 

on the west side also indicates that precipitation has been more 

common on the west side than on the east throughout recent 

geologic history.

34 Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams, Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Southeastern Arizona
All streamflows detected across the entire 

subwatershed during the 2000–2001 nonmonsoon period 

were from a January and (or) April precipitation event 

(figs. 15 and 20), and all streamflows detected during the 

2001–2002 nonmonsoon period were from an October and 

(or) February event (figs. 16 and 21). Streamflows detected 

during the 2001 monsoon were much more varied in time 

and space than during the nonmonsoon periods owing to 

the localized and intense nature of precipitation from air 

mass thunderstorms typical during the summer (figs. 13 and 

14; appendix).

Frequency of Streamflow in Three 

Representative Channels

To provide a sense of typical streamflow frequency 

along the length of a single wash, two examples from 

the west side of the subwatershed—Garden and Ramsey 

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

10,000

0

B. Duration

of streamflows

2000–2001

NONMONSOON

2001

MONSOON

2001–2002

NONMONSOON

2000–2001

NONMONSOON

2001

MONSOON

2001–2002

NONMONSOON

STREAMFLOW DURATION, IN MINUTES

250

150

200

100

50

0

NUMBER OF STREAMFLOWS 

A. Number of streamflows

Figure 20. Comparison of all normalized streamflows across 

the Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Arizona, by period. A, Number of 

streamflows; B, Duration of streamflows.

WEST SIDE

EAST SIDE

20,000

30,000

40,000

10,000

0

B. Duration

of streamflows

2000–2001

NONMONSOON

2001

MONSOON

2001–2002

NONMONSOON

2000–2001

NONMONSOON

2001

MONSOON

2001–2002

NONMONSOON

STREAMFLOW DURATION, IN MINUTES

150

100

50

0

NUMBER OF STREAMFLOWS 

A. Number

of streamflows

Figure 21. Comparison of normalized streamflows in the Sierra 

Vista Subwatershed, Arizona, west side and east side, by period. 

A, Number of sreamflows; B, Duration of streamflows.

Canyon Washes—and one from the east side—Greenbush 

Draw—are discussed below. The three washes were more 

densely instrumented with temperature loggers than other 

washes in the subwatershed because there was other existing 

instrumentation along their reaches, including gaging stations 

on all three washes, gravity stations used to measure total 

storage change (Garden and Ramsey Canyons), and boreholes 

used to estimate rates of infiltration on the basis of the 

location of chloride fronts (Greenbush Draw; Coes and Pool, 

2005). Four temperature loggers and a streamflow-gaging 

station upstream from the base of the Huachuca Mountains 

monitored streamflow in Garden Canyon Wash and likewise 

in Ramsey Canyon Wash. Greenbush Draw monitoring 

included four temperature loggers in Greenbush Draw, two 

loggers in separate tributary channels, and the Greenbush 

Draw streamflow-gaging station at State Route 92.

Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams 35
Garden Canyon Wash

The Garden Canyon Wash gaging station (09470800) 

is in the Huachuca Mountains about 3.5 km southwest of the 

mountain front. Temperature loggers in downstream order 

included GC1, about 2.5 km east of the Huachuca Mountain 

front at the southern boundary of Fort Huachuca; GC2, about 

5.5 km east of the mountain front at State Route 92; GC3, 

about 11 km from the mountain front at Moson Road; and 

GC4, about 16.5 km from the mountain front in the San Pedro 

Riparian National Conservation Area (SPRNCA) near 

the river.

At the Garden Canyon Wash gaging station, 

streamflow was recorded consistently throughout the entire 

December 1, 2000, to May 31, 2002, monitoring period. 

At GC1, significant data were missing during the 2000–2001 

nonmonsoon period (table 3). At GC2 and GC4, streamflow 

was detected once during the 2000–2001 nonmonsoon 

period, but no streamflow was detected at GC3 during this 

period. During the 2001 monsoon period, June 1, 2001, to 

September 19, 2001, streamflow was detected five times at 

GC1, eight times at GC2, and six times at GC3 and GC4. 

During the 2001–2002 nonmonsoon period, streamflow was 

detected twice at GC1. Streamflow was not detected at GC2, 

GC3, nor GC4.

Table 3. Dates and times of streamflows in Garden Canyon, December 1, 2000, to May 31, 2002

[Flows occurring at two or more locations are indicated by bold type. GC1, Garden Canyon at Fort Huachuca South Range; GC2, Garden Canyon at 

State Route 92; GC3, Garden Canyon at Moson Road; GC4, Garden Canyon near the San Pedro River. Asterisk (*) denotes time on the following day]

Period 1 (12/01/00–05/31/01) Period 2 (06/01/01–09/19/01)

1/9/2001 4/5/2001 6/19/2001 6/25/2001 7/6/2001 7/7/2001 7/7/2001 7/16/2001

GC1 1630–1730

GC2 2025–1125* 1830–1945 1245–1400 0045–0115 1645–1800

GC3 1248–1318

GC4 1115–1415 1415–1515 1645–1800

Period 2 (06/01/01–09/19/01)—Continued

7/24/2001 7/25/2001 7/28/2001 8/5/2001 8/11/2001 8/13/2001 8/14/2001 8/15/2001

GC1 1600–1645 1615–1630

2215–2315

0245–0300

GC2 1630–0730* 2315–0715*

GC3 1448–1518 1848–2018

GC4 2230–0000* 1815–2045 1845–1945 1530–1630

Period 2 (06/01/01–09/19/01)—Continued Period 3 (09/20/01–05/31/02)

8/17/2001 8/20/2001 8/31/2001 9/12/2001 10/1/2001 2/3/2002

GC1

GC2 1845–0745* 2230–1130* 0000–0630 0245–0945

GC3 1618–1648 1418–1518 0018*–0118*

GC4

36 Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams, Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Southeastern Arizona
Ramsey Canyon Wash

The Ramsey Canyon Wash gaging station (09470750) is 

also in the Huachuca Mountains, 2 km west of the mountain 

front. Temperature loggers in downstream order included 

RC1, at the Ramsey Road crossing of the wash and about 

1 km east of the mountain front; RC2, about 3.5 km east of 

the mountain front at State Route 92; RC3, about 0.5 km east 

of Moson Road and 10 km east of the mountain front; and 

RC4, in the SPRNCA, near the river, about 15 km east of the 

mountain front.

Streamflow occurred consistently throughout 

the December 1, 2000, to May 31, 2002, period at the 

Ramsey Canyon Wash gaging station. At RC1 and 

RC3, significant amounts of data were either missing or 

uninterpretable during the 2000–2001 nonmonsoon period 

(table 4). Three streamflows were detected at RC2 and no 

streamflows were detected at RC4 during this period. During 

the 2001 monsoon period, two streamflows were detected 

at RC1, eight at RC2, six at RC3, and four at RC4. Like 

streamflows in Garden Canyon Wash, streamflows in Ramsey 

Canyon Wash were rare during the 2001–2002 nonmonsoon 

period—no streamflows were detected at RC1 nor RC2, and 

just one streamflow was detected at RC3 and RC4.

Greenbush Draw

Temperature loggers in downstream order along 

Greenbush Draw included GD1 at Naco Highway, about 

8.5 km from the Mule Mountain front; GD2, 11.5 km from 

the mountain front; GD4, about 17.5 km from the mountain 

front; and GD6, east of Fox Hollow Road, north of State Route 

92 and about 25 km from the mountain front. The Greenbush 

Draw gaging station (09470520; GDG) is at State Route 92, 

about 23 km from the Mule Mountains between GD4 and 

GD6. Two additional loggers are in tributary streams in the 

Greenbush Draw watershed. GD3, in Sand Wash, is about 

0.5 km upstream from the mouth of Sand Wash between GD2 

and GD4. GD5, in a tributary drainage at Foudy Road, is north 

of State Route 92 and about 5.0 km from the mouth of the 

tributary, about 0.5 km downstream of GD6 and about 3 km 

east from the San Pedro River.

The only Greenbush Draw site for which data were 

available during the 2000–2001 nonmonsoon period was GD1; 

two flows occurred during this time (table 5). During the 

2001 monsoon and the 2001–2002 nonmonsoon, GD1 did 

not record interpretable data. GD2 detected streamflow 

11 times during the 2001 monsoon, GD4 did not detect any 

streamflow, the gaging station (GDG) detected 1 streamflow, 

and GD6 detected four streamflows. No site in the Greenbush 

Draw drainage detected streamflow during the 2001–2002 

nonmonsoon. GD4 did not detect any streamflow during 

any of the three time periods; it is possible that ranch 

improvements observed in this area had re-routed the main 

drainage so that any streamflows that did occur bypassed 

GD4. The two loggers on Greenbush Draw tributary washes, 

GD3 and GD5, were not functioning during the 2000–2001 

nonmonsoon and did not record any streamflow during the 

2001–2002 nonmonsoon. During the 2001 monsoon, GD3 

recorded three streamflows and GD5 recorded six.

Table 4. Dates and times of streamflows in Ramsey Canyon, December 1, 2000, to May 31, 2002

[Flows occurring at two or more locations are in bold. RC1, Ramsey Canyon at Ramsey Road; RC2, Ramsey Canyon at State Route 92; RC3, Ramsey Canyon 

east of Moson Road; RC4, Ramsey Canyon near the San Pedro River. Asterisk (*) denotes time on the following day]

Period 1 (12/01/00–05/31/01) Period 2 (6/01/01–09/19/01)

1/8/2001 1/9/2001 4/6/2001 6/20/2001 6/25/2001 7/7/2001 7/8/2001 7/25/2001 7/28/2001

RC1 missing data missing data missing data 1615–1645 2200–0800*

RC2 bad data bad data bad data 1700–1800 1615–1645

1730–1745

2200–2345

RC3 2358–0058* 1728–0828* 0128–0328 1245–1345 1330–1500

RC4 2000–0815*

Period 2 (6/01/01–09/19/01)­—Continued Period 3 (9/20/01–05/31/02)

8/5/2001 8/13/2001 8/16/2001 8/17/2001 8/20/2001 9/12/2001 9/13/2001 10/3/2001

RC1 2200–2215

RC2 1800–1945 1900–0915* 1245–1300 2330–0145*

RC3 1745–2045 0445–0800 1630–0815* 1830–0030*

RC4 1800–2045 0415–0900 2215–2330 1815–2015

Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams 37
These drainage-specific data follow the overall 

subwatershed patterns of frequency and duration for both 

the nonmonsoon and monsoon periods as discussed in the 

section titled “Spatial Flow Patterns.” In the two cases for the 

west part of the subwatershed, streamflow is most frequent 

midway between the mountains and the river during the 

nonmonsoon periods and close to the mountains and the river 

during the 2001 monsoon. During the monsoon, streamflows 

in Greenbush Draw followed the same pattern as streamflows 

in the western washes. Owing to limited data during the 

2000–2001 nonmonsoon and the lack of streamflows in the 

2001–2002 nonmonsoon, however, streamflow data during 

nonmonsoon periods was inconclusive. The channel-specific 

data also highlight the fact that streamflow occurs at least once 

a year along most reaches of the ephemeral-stream channels in 

the Sierra Vista Subwatershed, and that during the 18-month 

monitoring period, most instances of streamflow occurred 

during the summer monsoon.

Variability of Streamflow in Three 

Representative Channels

Of the 23 events detected along Garden Canyon Wash, 

19 were detected at only 1 of the 4 sites (83 percent), 3 were 

detected at 2 sites (13 percent), and only 1, on July 25, 2001, 

was detected at all 4 temperature logger sites (4 percent; 

table 3). The Ramsey Canyon Wash data (table 4) are 

similar to the Garden Canyon Wash data. Of 18 streamflows 

detected at the 4 logger sites, 12 were detected at only 1 site 

(67 percent), 5 were detected at 2 sites (28 percent) and 

only 1, on August 5, 2001, was detected at 3 sites (6 percent). 

No single streamflow was detected at all 4 sites.

On the east side of the subwatershed, the data from 

Greenbush Draw were even more variable (table 5). 

Seventeen events were detected by the 4 temperature loggers 

and the 1 gaging station installed along the drainage. 

Sixteen of the 17 events were detected at only 1 of 

the 5 sites (94 percent). The remaining event, on July 21, 2001, 

was detected at 2 sites (6 percent), GD2 and GD5. These were 

the farthest upstream and downstream sites, respectively, that 

were functioning at this time. Streamflow was not recorded 

at the intervening sites, GD4 and GDG, which indicates that 

these were temporally coincident yet isolated streamflow 

events. Likewise, whereas 6 of the 9 streamflows that occurred 

at the Greenbush Draw tributary sites (GD3 and GD5) 

were coincident with other Greenbush Draw streamflows, 

none were coincident with streamflows recorded at loggers 

downstream from the mouth of either tributary. Thus, these too 

were isolated streamflow events.

Streamflow distribution in the ephemeral-stream channels 

of the Sierra Vista Subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro 

Basin was much less consistent than might be expected. 

The majority of streamflows were recorded at a single 

location along the channel, and only one of the three channels 

reviewed in detail—Garden Canyon—had a streamflow that 

was detected along its entire length. In general, it appears 

that rather than originating in the mountains and continuing 

Table 5. Dates and times of streamflows in Greenbush Draw, December 1, 2000, to May 31, 2002.

[Flows occuring at two or more locations are in bold. GD1, Greenbush Draw at Naco Highway; GD2, Greenbush Draw at Ladd Ranch, further east; GD4, 

Greenbush Draw near railroad; GDG–Greenbush Draw gaging station at State Route 92 (09470520); GD5, Greenbush Draw west of Fox Hollow Road. Asterisk 

(*) denotes time on the following day]

Period 1 (12/01/00–05/31/01) Period 2 (06/01/01–09/19/01)

1/9/2001 4/6/2001 7/9/2001 7/10/2001 7/13/2001 7/18/2001 7/21/2001 7/24/2001 7/25/2001

GD1 1106–1206 0206–0936 bad data bad data bad data bad data bad data bad data bad data

GD2 missing data missing data 2130–2330

0400–0645

1500–1515 2100–2130 1815–0700* 2000–2215 0015–0615

GD4 missing data missing data

GDG

GD5 missing data missing data 1500–1730 2000–0115*

Period 2 (06/01/01–09/19/01)—Continued Period 3 (09/20/01–05/31/02)

7/28/2001 8/5/2001 8/11/2001 8/12/2001 8/14/2001 9/12/2001 9/14/2001 3/1/2002

GD1 bad data bad data bad data bad data bad data bad data bad data bad data (6/21/01–05/03/02)

GD2 1730–0900* 2100–0015* 0215–0730 0130–0830

GD4

GDG 0830–0845 1515–1530 (false positive)

GD5 1630–0845* 1700–0900*

38 Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams, Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Southeastern Arizona
out some distance into the basin, ephemeral streamflow in 

the subwatershed is localized in origin in all but the heaviest 

and (or) widespread precipitation events. Ephemeral-stream 

channels of the Sierra Vista Subwatershed thus appear to serve 

more frequently as focal points for local runoff—and thus 

recharge—than as a means of riverward conveyance.

Summary and Conclusions

Investigation of the duration and frequency of ephemeral 

streamflows of less than 24-h duration in the Sierra Vista 

Subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro Basin indicates 

that ephemeral streamflow is well distributed across the 

subwatershed, with most sites having at least one incidence of 

streamflow every year. Streamflows during the nonmonsoon 

period on the west side of the subwatershed were most 

common midway between the river and the mountains. On 

the east side, nonmonsoon streamflows were somewhat 

more common closer to the mountain front; during the 2001 

summer monsoon, the pattern of streamflow frequency and 

duration across the subwatershed generally increased farther 

from, rather than closer to, the mountain fronts. Streamflow 

distribution thus appears to be a function of the distribution 

of precipitation. The exception is where streamflow occurs 

in urbanized areas: streamflows were over 50 percent more 

frequent and nearly three times longer in overall duration in 

urbanized areas of the subwatershed than they were in rural 

areas. Washes on the east side of the subwatershed appear to 

flow about as often as those on the west. Because there are 

fewer major washes on the east side of the subwatershed, 

however, the volume of precipitation available for channel 

infiltration is likely much lower on the east side than on the 

west.

Monsoon streamflows are much more varied in time 

and space than are nonmonsoon streamflows, a result of the 

localized and intense nature of precipitation from the air mass 

thunderstorms typical during the summer. All nonmonsoon 

streamflows during the study period were due to just four 

precipitation events, whereas during the single monsoon 

period, over 30 individual streamflow events occurred in just 

the Garden Canyon, Ramsey Canyon, and Greenbush Draw 

channels alone.

Most streamflows in any one channel of the subwatershed 

at any time of the year are localized events, beginning and 

ending within a limited reach of the stream channel; it is 

uncommon for streamflows of less than 24-h duration that 

begin in the mountains to reach the river as streamflow. 

Ephemeral-stream channels of the Sierra Vista Subwatershed 

appear to serve more commonly as focal points for local 

runoff than as a means of conveyance of drainage basin runoff 

to the San Pedro River. Thus, the location of recharge in most 

years is driven by the location of localized precipitation events 

across the subwatershed and possibly could be approximated 

using a precipitation-gage network.

A second and longer multiyear study using the electrical 

resistance sensors pioneered by Blasch and others (2002) 

would help to refine many of the conclusions found in this 

report. In particular, such a study would determine whether the 

spatial streamflow patterns observed in the ephemeral-stream 

channels of this study are consistent from year to year, or vary 

owing to the vagaries of precipitation or other factors. A more 

comprehensive network of loggers immediately downstream 

from urbanized areas would provide a more precise value for 

the amount of enhanced discharge (and potential recharge) that 

occurs owing to the large areas of impervious surface found in 

the urbanized Sierra Vista area. The addition of even a modest 

subwatershed-wide precipitation-gage network would be of 

much value in establishing a correlation between precipitation 

events and localized streamflow events. A longer study would 

also be more likely to include a nonmonsoon period of average 

or above average precipitation, which was not available for 

this study. 

References Cited

Adams, D., and Comrie, A.C. 1999, The North American 

Monsoon: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 

v. 78, p. 2197–2213.

Allander, K.K., 2003, Trout Creek—evaluating ground-water 

and surface water exchange along an alpine stream, Lake 

Tahoe, California, in Stonestrom, D.A and Constantz, J., 

eds., Heat as a tool for studying the movement of ground 

water near streams: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1260, 

p. 35–45.

Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2005, Upper San 

Pedro Basin active management area review report, v.p.

Bartolino, J.R., 2003, The Rio Grande—competing demands 

for a desert river, in Stonestrom, D.A and Constantz, J., 

eds., Heat as a tool for studying the movement of ground 

water near streams: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1260, 

p. 8–16.

Blasch, K.W., Ferré, T.P.A., Christensen, A.H. and Hoffmann, 

J.P., 2002, New field method to determine streamflow 

timing using electrical resistance sensors: Vadose Zone 

Journal, v. 1, p. 289–299.

Blasch, K. W., Ferré, T.P.A., and Hoffmann, J. P., 2004, 

A statistical technique for interpreting streamflow timing 

using streambed sediment thermographs: Vadose Zone 

Journal, v. 3, p. 936–946.

Brown, S.G., Davidson, E.S., Kister, L.R., and Thomsen, 

B.W., 1966, Water resources of Fort Huachuca Military 

Reservation, southeastern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 1819-D, p. D1–D57.

References Cited 39
Carslaw, H.S., and Jaeger, J.C., 1959, Conduction of Heat in 

Solids (2nd ed.): New York, Oxford University Press, 510 p.

Coes, A. and Pool, D.R., 2005, Ephemeral-Stream channel 

and basin-floor infiltration and recharge in the Sierra 

Vista Subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro Basin, 

Southeastern Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2005–1023, 63 p.

Conlon, T., Lee, K., and Risley, J, 2003, Heat tracing in 

streams in the central Willamette Basin, Oregon, in

Stonestrom, D.A. and Constantz, J., eds., Heat as a tool 

for studying the movement of ground water near streams: 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1260, p. 29–34.

Constantz, J., 1998, Interaction between stream temperature, 

streamflow, and groundwater exchanges in alpine streams: 

Water Resources Research, v. 34, p. 1609–1615.

Constantz, J., Cox, M. H., Sarma, L., and Mendez, G., 

2003, The Santa Clara River—the last natural river of 

Los Angeles, in Stonestrom, D.A. and Constantz, J., eds., 

Heat as a tool for studying the movement of ground water 

near streams: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1260, 

p. 17–27.

Constantz, J., Stewart, A.E., Niswonger, R., and Sarma, L., 

2002, Analysis of temperature profiles for investigating 

stream losses beneath ephemeral channels: Water Resources 

Research, v. 38, p. 52-1 through 52-13.

Constantz, J. and Stonestrom, D., 2003, Heat as a tracer of 

water movement near streams, in Stonestrom, D.A. and 

Constantz, J., eds., Heat as a tool for studying the movement 

of ground water near streams: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1260, p. 1–6.

Constantz, J., Stonestrom, D., Stewart, A.E., Niswonger, R., 

and Smith, T.R., 2001, Analysis of streambed temperatures 

in ephemeral-stream channels to determine streamflow 

frequency and duration: Water Resources Research, v. 37, 

p. 329–340.

Constantz, J., and Thomas, C.L., 1996, The use of streambed 

temperature profiles to estimate depth, duration, and rate 

of percolation beneath arroyos: Water Resources Research, 

v. 32, p. 3597–3602.

Constantz, J., and Thomas, C.L., 1997, Streambed temperature 

profiles as indicators of percolation characteristics beneath 

arroyos in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, USA: Hydrologic 

Processes v. 11, p. 1621–1634.

Constantz, J., Thomas, C.L., and Zellweger, G., 1994, 

The influence of diurnal stream temperature variations on 

streamflow and recharge: Water Resources Research,v. 30, 

p. 3253–3264.

Constantz, J., Tyler, S.W., and Kwicklis, E., 2003, 

Temperature-profile methods for estimating percolation 

rates in arid environments: Vadose Zone Journal, v. 2, 

p. 12–24.

Dunne, T. and Leopold, L. B., 1978, Precipitation, chap. 2 

of Water in Environmental Planning: W. H. Freeman and 

Company, New York, p. 35–82.

Gungle, B., 2003, Estimation of ephemeral streamflow 

duration using temperature methods in the Upper San Pedro 

Basin, Arizona, in Proceedings of First Interagency 

Conference on Research in Watersheds, October 27–30, 

2003, Benson, Arizona, p. 146–151.

Hereford, R., 1993, Entrenchment and widening of the Upper 

San Pedro River, Arizona: Geologic Society of America, 

Special Paper 282, 46 p.

Hillel, D., 1998, Soil temperature and heat flow, chap. 12 of 

Environmental Soil Physics, (2nd ed.): Academic Press, 

San Diego, CA, p. 309–339.

Hoffmann, J.P., Blasch, K.W., Ferré, P.A., 2003, Combined 

use of heat and soil-water content to determine stream/

ground-water exchanges, Rillito Creek, Tucson, Arizona, 

in Stonestrom, D.A and Constantz, J., eds., Heat as a tool 

for studying the movement of ground water near streams: 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1260, p. 47–55. 

Jaynes, D.B., 1990, Temperature variation effects on field 

measured infiltration: Soil Science Society of America 

Journal, v. 54, p. 305–312.

Jury, W.A., Gardner, W.R., and Gardner, W.H., 1991, 

The soil thermal regime, chap. 5 of Soil Physics (5th ed.): 

John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, p. 159–195.

Lapham, W.W., 1989, Use of temperature profiles beneath 

streams to determine rates of vertical ground-water flow 

and vertical hydraulic conductivity: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 2337, 34 p.

Lawler, D., 2002, Using streambed temperature sensors to 

monitor flow events in the San PedroRiver, southeastern 

Arizona and north-central Sonora, Mexico: Tucson, Ariz., 

University of Arizona, unpublished M.S. thesis, 68 p.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2004, 

National Climate Data Center, U.S. Climate Normals, 

accessed March 5, 2004, at http://www5.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgibin/climatenormals/climatenormals.pl?directive=prod_

select2&prodtype =CLIM20&subrnum=

Pool, D.R., and Coes, A. L., 1999, Hydrogeologic 

investigations of the Sierra Vista subwatershed of the Upper 

San Pedro Basin, Cochise County, southeastern Arizona: 

U. S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 99–4197, 41 p.

40 Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams, Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Southeastern Arizona
Prudic, D.E., Niswonger, R.G., Wood, J.L., and Henkelman, 

K.K, 2003, Trout Creek—estimating flow duration and 

seepage losses along an intermittent stream tributary to the 

Humboldt River, Lander and Humboldt Counties, Nevada, 

in Stonestrom, D.A and Constantz, J., eds., Heat as a tool 

for studying the movement of ground water near streams: 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1260, p. 57–71. 

Ronan, A.D., Prudic D.E., Thodal, C.E., and Constantz, J., 

1998, Field study and simulation of diurnal temperature 

effects on infiltration and variably saturated flow beneath 

an ephemeral stream: Water Resources Research, v. 34, 

p. 2137–2153.

Rorabaugh, M. I., 1954, Streambed percolation in 

development of water supplies: U.S. Geological Survey 

Groundwater Notes on Hydraulics No. 25, 13 p.

Serway, R.A., 1996, Thermodynamics, Part III of Physics 

for scientists and engineers: Saunders College Publishing, 

San Francisco.

Silliman, S.E., and Booth, D.F., 1993, Analysis of time-series 

measurements of sediments temperature for identification of 

gaining vs. losing portions of Juday Creek, Indiana: Journal 

of Hydrology, v. 146, p. 131–148.

Stewart, A.E., 2003, Temperature based estimates of 

streamflow patterns and seepage losses in ephemeral-stream 

channels: Palo Alto, Cal., Stanford University, unpublished 

Ph.D dissertation, 248 p.

Taniguchi, M. and Sharma, M.L., 1990, Solute and heat 

transport experiments for estimating recharge rate: Journal 

of Hydrology, v. 119, p. 57–69.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2004, Geographic Comparison Table, 

GCT-PH1, Population, Housing Units, Area and Density: 

2000, Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent 

Data, accessed April 2, 2004 at http://factfinder.census.

gov/servlet/MetadataBrowserServlet?type=dataset&id=DE

C_2000_SF1_U&_lang=en

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, Upper 

San Pedro Watershed Geodata, accessed June 1, 2005, at 

http://www.epa.gov/nerlesd1/land-sci/san_ pedro/ geodata/

land_cover_1997.html

References Cited 41
This page left blank intentionally.
Appendix
Appendix—Temperature-logger data, by location and period

[When over 40 percent of the data at a given location are bad or missing, the data are not included in the data set used for analysis for that period and the values are shown in redvide any useful data throughout the entire monitoring period; UTM-E: Universal Transverse Mercator, East, Zone 12; UTM-N: Universal Transverse Mercator, North, Zone 12; National Conservation Area]

Logger serial 

number or 

gaging-station 

number

Distance to 

mountain front 

(kilometers)

December 1, 2000, to May 31, 2002 

Total time (minutes): 

Temperature logger location UTM-E UTM-N

Subwatershed 

side

Number 

of flows

Flow duration 

(minutes)

Bad or missing 

(minutes

Ash at Coronado Memorial Road 374907 575468 3471417 W 1.0 4 1125 0 Ash at Stone Ridge Road 377819 573786 3472174 W 0.0 0 0 787635 Brown south of State Route 92 374964 587143 3510923 W 4.0 4 975 715020 Brown at Coronado Memorial Road 377790 575457 3470074 W 0.0 2 630 363315 Carr at Moson Road 377810 577045 3482620 W 9.0 6 1125 173295 Carr at State Route 92 374875 570646 3479835 W 2.0 4 1800 262065 Coyote at Dake Road 377791 575363 3492599 W 13.5 8 2760 0 Coyote at Moson Road 375014 576974 3495068 W 16.0 1 15 122580 Coyote at State Route 92 375008 570600 3489810 W 8.0 0 0 787635 Garden at fort perimeter 375011 567973 3484602 W 2.5 5 195 257955 Garden at Moson Road 377823 577019 3486848 W 11.0 6 300 0 Garden at State Route 92 377805 570649 3486091 W 5.5 11 4905 0 Garden at the SPRNCA 374913 581599 3489438 W 16.5 7 675 0 Graveyard: middle arm 374929 570531 3495223 W 11.0 4 345 0 Graveyard: north arm 377812 571973 3497533 W 13.0 0 0 216405 Graveyard: south arm 374917 571185 3494485 W 11.0 0 0 434430 Huachuca at Backer1 377826 560026 3491136 W 0.0 15 14310 103125 Huachuca Ft. Huachuca west range 375005 560875 3495497 W 3.5 10 930 0 Hunter at Hereford Road 377811 575562 3478262 W 5.0 12 2205 0 Hunter at State Route 92 374860 572147 3474619 W 0.0 1 285 0 Miller at Moson Road 377797 577051 3480770 W 7.5 6 1110 0 Miller at State Route 92 377806 572217 3477133 W 1.5 3 990 196208 Miller at the SPRNCA 374919 582624 3484892 W 14.5 4 600 0 Ramsey at La Donna Road 375006 577432 3484132 W 10.0 10 3045 0 Ramsey at Ramsey Canyon Road 377809 568382 3481436 W 1.0 3 735 252495 Ramsey at State Route 92 377814 570623 3482449 W 3.5 8 1200 252614 Ramsey at the SPRNCA 377824 582146 3485966 W 15.0 5 1380 0 Soldier at Irwin Road 395921 563822 3490323 W 2.5 0 0 683175 Soldier at State Route 90 Bypass 375012 566151 3492758 W 6.0 3 165 242565 Stump at Deer Canyon Trail 377794 576688 3474742 W 4.0 2 225 154635 Stump at State Route 92 374934 572350 3473913 W 0.0 6 2640 331140 
Temperature-logger data, by location and period—Continued

Logger serial 

number or 

gaging-station 

number

Distance to 

mountain front 

(kilometers)

December 1, 2000, to May 31, 2002 

Total time (minutes): 

Temperature logger location UTM-E UTM-N

Subwatershed 

side

Number 

of flows

Flow duration 

(minutes)

Bad or missing 

(minutes

Wash 1: middle arm 374905 571513 3498773 W 14.5 3 330 411030 Wash 1: north arm 374926 570445 3501312 W 14.5 0 0 547515 Wash 1: south arm 374904 571156 3499849 W 13.5 0 0 216240 Woodcutters at 7th Street 375010 567145 3489464 W 4.5 17 7290 0 Woodcutters at Moson Road extension 377788 576871 3496422 W 17.0 8 2100 0 Woodcutters at State Route 90 Bypass 377793 570592 3492064 W 9.5 8 2025 24510 Banning at Misty Ray Road 377796 587010 3485981 E 6.0 3 990 262065 Banning at State Route 80 377822 593387 3486458 E 0.0 2 165 115170 Government at Cox Ranch 374910 587476 3495798 E 19.5 3 225 0 Government at High Knoll Road 374877 583559 3494870 E 24.0 9 5310 0 Government at State Route 80 377799 590175 3497342 E 16.5 4 495 0 Greenbush at Fox Hollow Road 377820 586866 3473143 E 25.0 4 2400 298785 Greenbush at Naco Highway 377815 601336 3467873 E 8.5 6 510 455295 Greenbush at railroad 377825 583335 3497578 E 17.5 0 0 298950 Greenbush east of Ladd’s house 375015 597680 3468580 E 11.5 11 3450 298860 Greenbush at Foudy Road (tributary) 374866 591544 3475585 E NA 6 1845 477840 Greenbush-Sand Wash (tributary) 377818 595612 3469331 E NA 3 1035 298890 Greenbush Draw gaging station 9470520 588246 3472150 E 23.0 1 15 0 

Spring at Foudy Road 374854 591543 3476262 E 4.0 6 420 0 

Spring at Hereford Road 374925 586069 3477241 E 9.5 1 900 0 Wash 20 at High Knoll Road: north 374923 583516 3492363 E 9.0 2 405 360255 

Wash 20 at High Knoll Road: south 374927 583731 3491601 E 9.0 6 2280 0 Wash 20 at State Route 80 374868 592387 3492999 E 4.0 4 1470 291090 

Walnut Gulch flume 1 1 580271 3510740 E 24.0 5 615 0 

Walnut Gulch flume 11 (tributary) 11 595258 3512230 E NA 6 7478 0 Walnut Gulch flume 6 6 589524 3510221 E 16.5 0 0 0 

Babocomari (lower) gaging station 9471400 573309 3507475 W NA 3 699810 0 Babocomari (upper) gaging station 9471380 556701 3499814 W NA 3 699810 0 

Garden Canyon gaging station 9470800 562009 3482184 W 0.0 3 699810 0 

Huachuca Canyon gaging station 9471310 558181 3487180 W 0.0 3 650578 49232 Ramsey Canyon gaging station 9470500 565932 3479375 W 0.0 3 699810 0 

Banning Creek gaging station 9470500 594450 3485829 E 0.0 3 235170 99960 
Temperature-logger data, by location and period—Continued

December 1, 2000, to May 31, 2001 

(2000-2001 nonmonsoon) 

Total time (minutes): 262065

June 1, 2001, to September 19, 2001 

(2001 monsoon) 

Total time (minutes): 159825

September 20

(2001-20

Total time 

Temperature logger location

Number of 

flows

Flow 

duration 

(minutes)

Bad or 

missing 

data 

(minutes)

No-flow 

duration 

(minutes)

Number of 

flows

Flow 

duration 

(minutes)

Bad or 

missing 

data 

(minutes)

No-flow 

duration 

(minutes)

Number of 

flows

Flow 

duratio

(minute

Ash at Coronado Mem. Rd. 2 90 0 261975 2 1035 0 158790 0 0 Ash at Stone Ridge 0 0 262065 0 0 0 159825 0 0 0 Brown south of Sttate Route 92 0 0 262065 0 4 975 98235 60615 0 0 Brown at Coronado Memorial Road 1 600 0 261465 1 30 49890 109905 0 0 Carr at Moson Rd. 0 0 146851 115214 5 300 26444 133081 1 825 Carr at State Route 92 0 0 262065 0 3 1665 0 158160 1 135 Coyote at Dake Road 0 0 0 262065 8 2760 0 157065 0 0 Coyote at Moson Road 0 0 0 262065 1 15 106995 52815 0 0 Coyote at State Route 92 0 0 262065 0 0 0 159825 0 0 0 Garden at fort perimeter 0 0 247090 14975 5 195 10865 148765 0 0 Garden at Moson Rd. 0 0 0 262065 6 300 0 159525 0 0 Garden at State Route 92 1 900 0 261165 8 3195 0 156630 2 810 Garden at the SPRNCA 1 180 0 261885 6 495 0 159330 0 0 Graveyard: middle arm 1 30 0 262035 3 315 0 159510 0 0 Graveyard: north arm 0 0 23490 238575 0 0 159825 0 0 0 Graveyard: south arm 0 0 0 262065 0 0 107190 52635 0 0 Huachuca at Backer1 NA NA 0 262065 6 600 103125 56100 9 13710 Huachuca at GS Field 1 600 0 261465 9 330 0 159495 0 0 Hunter at Hereford Rd. 2 300 0 261765 10 1905 0 157920 0 0 Hunter at State Route 92 0 0 0 262065 1 285 0 159540 0 0 Miller at Moson Rd. 1 360 0 261705 5 750 0 159075 0 0 Miller at State Route 92 0 0 188475 73590 3 990 7733 151102 0 0 Miller at the SPRNCA 0 0 0 262065 3 450 0 159375 1 150 Ramsey at La Donna Rd. 3 1080 0 260985 6 1605 0 158220 1 360 Ramsey at Ramsey Canyon Rd. 0 0 252495 9570 3 735 0 159090 0 0 Ramsey at State Route 92 0 0 252614 9451 8 1200 0 158625 0 0 Ramsey at the SPRNCA 0 0 0 262065 4 1260 0 158565 1 120 Soldier at Irwin Rd. 0 0 262065 0 0 0 159810 15 0 0 Soldier at State Route 90 Bypass 0 0 214530 47535 3 165 28035 131625 0 0 Stump at Deer Canyon Tr. 0 0 146852 115213 2 225 7783 151817 0 0 Stump at State Route 92 0 0 262065 0 5 2490 69075 88260 1 150 Wash 1: middle arm 0 0 0 262065 3 330 106545 52950 0 0 Wash 1: north arm 0 0 23385 238680 0 0 159825 0 0 0 
Temperature-logger data, by location and period—Continued

December 1, 2000, to May 31, 2001 

(2000-2001 nonmonsoon) 

Total time (minutes): 262065

June 1, 2001, to September 19, 2001 

(2001 monsoon) 

Total time (minutes): 159825

September 20

(2001-20

Total time 

Temperature logger location

Number of 

flows

Flow 

duration 

(minutes)

Bad or 

missing 

data 

(minutes)

No-flow 

duration 

(minutes)

Number of 

flows

Flow 

duration 

(minutes)

Bad or 

missing 

data 

(minutes)

No-flow 

duration 

(minutes)

Number of 

flows

Flow 

duratio

(minute

Wash 1: south arm 0 0 23415 238650 0 0 159825 0 0 0 Woodcutters at 7th St. 1 30 0 262035 16 7260 0 152565 0 0 Woodcutters at Moson Rd. (ext.) 1 180 0 261885 7 1920 0 157905 0 0 Woodcutters at State Route 90 Bypass 1 780 0 261285 6 1200 24510 134115 1 45 Banning at Misty Ray Rd. 0 0 262065 0 2 750 0 159075 1 240 Banning at State Route 80 NA NA 115170 146895 2 165 0 159660 0 0 Government at Cox Ranch 0 0 0 262065 3 225 0 159600 0 0 Government at High Knoll Rd. 1 60 0 262005 8 5250 0 154575 0 0 Government at State Route 80 1 90 0 261975 3 405 0 159420 0 0 Greenbush at Fox Hollow Rd. 0 0 262065 0 4 2400 36720 120705 0 0 Greenbush at Naco Highway 2 510 0 261555 4 0 130425 29400 0 0 Greenbush at railroad tracks 0 0 262065 0 0 0 36885 122940 0 0 Greenbush east of Ladds house 0 0 262065 0 11 3450 36795 119580 0 0 Greenbush tributary at Foudy Rd. 0 0 252645 9420 6 1845 0 157980 0 0 Greenbush tributary: Sand Wash 0 0 262065 0 3 1035 36825 121965 0 0 Greenbush gaging station 0 0 0 262065 1 15 0 159810 20 02 Spring at Foudy Rd. 0 0 0 262065 6 420 0 159405 0 0 Spring at Hereford Rd. 0 0 0 262065 1 900 0 158925 0 0 Wash 20 at High Knoll Rd: north 1 270 49695 212100 1 135 109755 49935 0 0 Wash 20 at High Knoll Rd: south 3 420 0 261645 3 1860 0 157965 0 0 Wash 20 at State Route 80 2 1380 0 260685 2 90 91320 68415 0 0 Walnut Gulch flume 1 1 45 0 262020 4 570 0 159255 0 0 Walnut Gulch flume 11 2 7232 0 254833 4 246 0 159579 0 0 Walnut Gulch flume 6 0 0 0 262065 0 0 0 159825 0 0 Lower Babo gaging station 1 262065 0 0 1 159825 0 0 1 277920 Upper Babo gaging station 1 262065 0 0 1 159825 0 0 1 277920 Garden Canyon gaging station 1 262065 0 0 1 159825 0 0 1 277920 Huachuca Canyon gaging station 1 257235 4830 0 1 115423 44402 0 1 277920 Ramsey Canyon gaging station 1 262065 0 0 1 159825 0 0 1 277920 Banning Creek gaging station 1 134100 99960 28005 1 95715 0 64110 1 5355 

1Construction at the Huachuca Canyon at Backer Road site caused anomalous temperature data (human caused flow); no data from this site were used for analysis.2On the basis of weather records, a 15-min flow recorded at Greenbush Draw gaging station on March 1, 2002, is considered a false positive.
Manuscript approved for publication, August 25, 2005.

Prepared by the Reports Section, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Tucson, Arizona.

USGS Publishing staff

Steve A. Longsworth, Supervisory Hydrologist

Tracey L. Suzuki, Technical Editor

John Callahan, Illustrator

Sid Alwin, Illustrator

Aaron Fortner, Publications Assistant

For more information concerning the research in this report, contact 

the Arizona Water Science Center Director,

U.S. Geological Survey, 520 N. Park Ave., Suite 221

Tucson, AZ 85719

http://az.water.usgs.gov
Spine. Width varies. Prin

determine final width and adjust s