The Ecological and Hydrological 

Significance of Ephemeral and 

Intermittent Streams in 

the Arid and Semi-arid 

American Southwest 

R E S E A R C H A N D D E V E L O P M E N T
 

i

EPA/600/R-08/134 

ARS/233046 

November 2008 

www.epa.gov 

The Ecological and Hydrological 

Significance of Ephemeral and 

Intermittent Streams in the Arid and 

Semi-arid American Southwest 

by
 

Lainie R. Levick, David C. Goodrich, Mariano Hernandez 

USDA-ARS 

Southwest Watershed Research Center 

Tucson, Arizona 

Julia Fonseca 

Pima County 

Office of Conservation Science and Environmental Policy
 

Tucson, Arizona 

Darius J. Semmens 

USGS – Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center 

Denver, Colorado 

Juliet Stromberg, Melanie Tluczek 

Arizona State University
 

Tempe, Arizona 

Robert A. Leidy, Melissa Scianni 

USEPA, Office of Water, Region IX
 

San Francisco, California 

D. Phillip Guertin 

University of Arizona 

Tucson, Arizona 

William G. Kepner 

USEPA, ORD, NERL 

Las Vegas, Nevada 

The information in this report has been funded wholly by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under an 

interagency assistance agreement (DW12922094) to the USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Southwest Watershed 

Research Center. It has been subjected to both agencies peer and administrative review processes and has been 

approved for publication. Although this work was reviewed by EPA and approved for publication, it may not necessarily 

reflect official Agency policy. Mention of trade names and commercial products does not constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

Washington, DC 20460
 5765leb08 
Acknowledgements 

We gratefully acknowledge the following people for their valuable comments and review that 

significantly improved the quality, value, and accuracy of this document: Dave Bertelsen 

(University of Arizona Herbarium), Trevor Hare (Sky Island Alliance), Jim Leenhouts (USGS), 

Kathleen Lohse (University of Arizona), Waite Osterkamp (USGS), Sam Rector (Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality), Phil Rosen (University of Arizona), Marty Tuegel (U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service), Dale Turner (The Nature Conservancy), and Wilson Yee (USEPA). 

Unless noted otherwise, all photographs are © Lainie Levick. 

Suggested citation: 

Levick, L., J. Fonseca, D. Goodrich, M. Hernandez, D. Semmens, J. Stromberg, R. Leidy, M. 

Scianni, D. P. Guertin, M. Tluczek, and W. Kepner. 2008. The Ecological and Hydrological 

Significance of Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams in the Arid and Semi-arid American 

Southwest. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and USDA/ARS Southwest Watershed 

Research Center, EPA/600/R-08/134, ARS/233046, 116 pp. 

ii 
Abstract 

This report represents a state-of-the-art synthesis of current knowledge of the ecology and 

hydrology of ephemeral (dry washes) and intermittent streams in the American Southwest, and 

may have important bearing on establishing nexus to traditional navigable waters (TNW) and 

defining connectivity relative to the Clean Water Act. Ephemeral and intermittent streams make 

up approximately 59% of all streams in the United States (excluding Alaska), and over 81% in 

the arid and semi-arid Southwest (Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and 

California) according to the U.S. Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset. They are 

often the headwaters or major tributaries of perennial streams in the Southwest. This 

comprehensive review of the present scientific understanding of the ecology and hydrology of 

ephemeral and intermittent streams will help place them in a watershed context, thereby 

highlighting their importance in maintaining water quality, overall watershed function or health, 

and provisioning of the essential human and biological requirements of clean water. Ephemeral 

and intermittent streams provide the same ecological and hydrological functions as perennial 

streams by moving water, nutrients, and sediment throughout the watershed. When functioning 

properly, these streams provide landscape hydrologic connections; stream energy dissipation 

during high-water flows to reduce erosion and improve water quality; surface and subsurface 

water storage and exchange; ground-water recharge and discharge; sediment transport, storage, 

and deposition to aid in floodplain maintenance and development; nutrient storage and cycling; 

wildlife habitat and migration corridors; support for vegetation communities to help stabilize 

stream banks and provide wildlife services; and water supply and water-quality filtering. They 

provide a wide array of ecological functions including forage, cover, nesting, and movement 

corridors for wildlife. Because of the relatively higher moisture content in arid and semi-arid 

region streams, vegetation and wildlife abundance and diversity in and near them is 

proportionally higher than in the surrounding uplands. In the rapidly developing southwest, land 

management decisions must employ a watershed-scale approach that addresses overall watershed 

function and water quality. Ephemeral and intermittent stream systems comprise a large portion 

of southwestern watersheds, and contribute to the hydrological, biogeochemical, and ecological 

health of a watershed. Given their importance and vast extent, it is concluded that an individual 

ephemeral or intermittent stream segment should not be examined in isolation. Consideration of 

the cumulative impacts from anthropogenic uses on these streams is critical in watershed-based 

assessments and land management decisions to maintain overall watershed health and water 

quality. 

iii 
iv
 
Table of Contents 

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................ii 

Abstract......................................................................................................................................iii 

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................v 

List of Tables............................................................................................................................vii 

List of Figures..........................................................................................................................viii 

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

2. Location of Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams...................................................................2 

3. Definitions..............................................................................................................................6 

4. The Watershed Context ..........................................................................................................7 

5. Characteristics, Functions, and Ecosystem Significance .......................................................9 

a. Hydrologic Features .........................................................................................................13 

i. Variability of arid and semi-arid region flows and floods ............................................15 

ii. Types of arid and semi-arid region floods....................................................................17 

iii. Transmission losses.....................................................................................................18
 

iv. Ground-water recharge................................................................................................22 

v. Landscape and hydrologic connections........................................................................24 

vi. Energy dissipation .......................................................................................................26
 

vii. Sediment mobilization, storage, transport, and deposition ........................................26 

b. Geomorphic Characteristics.............................................................................................28 

i. Channel-forming processes...........................................................................................31 

ii. Geomorphic response to land management..................................................................34 

iii. Map scale in determining channel network and stream order.....................................35 

c. Biogeochemical Functions ...............................................................................................36 

i. Cycling of elements and compounds.............................................................................36 

ii. Detention of imported elements and compounds.........................................................37 

iii. Particulate detention....................................................................................................38 

iv. Organic carbon export .................................................................................................39 

d. Plant Community Support................................................................................................40 

i. Physiognomy, density, and species composition. .........................................................41 

ii. Primary productivity and plant water sources..............................................................43 

iii. Temporal and spatial patterns of species diversity......................................................44 

iv. Influences of vegetation on ecosystem processes. ......................................................45 

v. Vegetation and channel morphology............................................................................46 

vi. Vegetation and geochemical cycles.............................................................................47 

e. Faunal Support and Habitat ..............................................................................................47 

v 
i. Spatial structure, connectivity, and corridors in wildlife habitat...................................48 

ii. Physical habitat features...............................................................................................49 

iii. Vegetative habitat features..........................................................................................50 

iv. Hydrological habitat features ......................................................................................52 

v. Faunal abundance and distribution...............................................................................52 

f. Synthesis of Functions ......................................................................................................64 

6. Anthropogenic Impacts on Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams and Riparian Areas.........65 

a. Land Development ...........................................................................................................66 

b. Land Uses.........................................................................................................................69 

c. Water Resources Impacts .................................................................................................70 

d. Climate Change ................................................................................................................71 

7. Discussion.............................................................................................................................71 

a. Clean Water Act Context..................................................................................................71 

b. Ecosystem Goods and Services........................................................................................72 

c. Management Principles ....................................................................................................74 

d. Research Recommendations.............................................................................................75 

8. Conclusions ..........................................................................................................................76 

9. Literature Cited.....................................................................................................................77 

vi 
List of Tables 

Table 1. List of wildlife species that use riverine soil exposures in Pima County, Arizona 

(source: Julia Fonseca, Pima County Office of Conservation Science and Environmental 

Policy, 2008).....................................................................................................................50 

vii 
List of Figures 

Figure 1. Illustration of the locations of present day drylands and their categories. 

(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005a).....................................................................3 

Figure 2. Map showing the San Pedro River Watershed’s current and historical perennial 

reaches (courtesy of The Nature Conservancy, Arizona)...................................................4 

Figure 3. Map of the Southwestern U.S. showing the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) 

intermittent/ephemeral (red) and perennial (blue) streams.................................................5 

Figure 4. Diagram of the four interacting zones of a desert stream ecosystem: the surface 

stream, hyporheic, parafluvial and riparian zones (from Holmes et al. 1994). ..................7 

Figure 5. Diagram showing connectivity of landscape-level processes and attributes important 

for ecosystem monitoring (from Miller, 2005)...................................................................9 

Figure 6. Photograph showing ground-water dependent cottonwood trees (Populus fremontii) 

lining an intermittent stream.............................................................................................10 

Figure 7. Map of the conterminous U.S. showing Bailey’s Ecoregions with the dry domain 

outlined in red...................................................................................................................12 

Figure 8. Map of the conterminous U.S. with EPA Level II Ecoregions showing most of 

Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico in the North American Deserts classification.
 

..........................................................................................................................................12 

Figure 9. Photographs of an ephemeral stream, same location with flow (left), and dry (right), 

Tucson, Arizona................................................................................................................13 

Figure 10. Maps showing average annual precipitation amounts, 1961-1990 (left), and 

locations of ephemeral/intermittent (red) and perennial (blue) streams (right)................14 

Figure 11. Maps showing percent of average annual precipitation, July and August (left) and 

percent of average annual precipitation, October through March (right), for comparison, 

Western Regional Climate Center, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/precip.html. ......................15 

Figure 12. Photograph of a flash flood in an ephemeral channel, Southern Arizona...............18 

Figure 13. Example hydrograph showing typical rapid rise to peak discharge and long 

recession curve of a flash flood. .......................................................................................18 

Figure 14. Map of the Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed (WGEW), Tombstone, 

Arizona, showing major stream network, flumes and sub-watershed boundaries. ..........19 

Figure 15. Hydrograph, location map, and photograph of rainfall-runoff event August 27, 

1982, illustrating ephemeral stream channel transmission losses as measured within the 

WGEW (Goodrich et al., 1997)........................................................................................21 

Figure 16. Photographs of Flume 1 at WGEW, dry (left) and with flow (right)......................21 

Figure 17. Diagrams of well levels and flow depths at the WGEW. .......................................23 

viii 
Figure 18. Photograph of ephemeral and intermittent stream channels connecting to a 

perennial reach of Cienega Creek, southeast of Tucson, Arizona. (Photograph: Lainie 

Levick/Aerial flight courtesy of Lighthawk, www.lighthawk.org)..................................25 

Figure 19. Photographs of an ephemeral stream, same location during flow (left), and dry 

(right), Tucson, Arizona. ..................................................................................................26 

Figure 20. Photographs from an unusually large flood event in an ephemeral stream that 

damaged roads and bridges, and flooded nearby homes, Tucson, Arizona, July 31, 2006.
 

..........................................................................................................................................27 

Figure 21. Photograph of sediment-laden floodwaters in an ephemeral stream, Walnut Gulch, 

Arizona. (Photograph: USDA-ARS/SWRC)....................................................................28 

Figure 22. Photograph showing an ephemeral braided stream system, Yuma Wash, southwest 

Arizona. (Photograph: Susan Howe, Colorado State University). ...................................29 

Figure 23. Relation of bankfull channel width to drainage area for different climatic 

environments (after Wolman and Gerson, 1978). ............................................................30 

Figure 24. Photograph of a typical wide, flat, and sandy ephemeral stream channel, Martinez 

Wash, Arizona. (Photograph: William Kepner, USEPA/ORD).......................................31 

Figure 25. Photograph of a small arroyo or incised channel, southern Colorado. ...................33 

Figure 26. Diagram of digitized stream channels on a subwatershed at WGEW (from Miller et 

al., 1999a). ........................................................................................................................35 

Figure 27. Photograph showing dense corridor of vegetation lining an ephemeral wash, Agua 

Fria River, north of Phoenix, AZ. (Photograph: William Kepner, USEPA/ORD). .........40 

Figure 28. Photograph showing riparian vegetation along a desert stream, western Arizona. 42 

Figure 29. Photograph of native palms (Washingtonia filifera) in Castle Creek, AZ. 

(Photograph: William Kepner, USEPA/ORD).................................................................43 

Figure 30. Photograph of annual plant species in an ephemeral streambed following spring 

rains, southern Arizona.....................................................................................................45 

Figure 31. Photograph of vegetation growing in an ephemeral channel bed, Arizona. 

(Photograph: Lainie Levick/Aerial flight courtesy of Lighthawk, www.lighthawk.org). 46 

Figure 32. Photograph of diverse riparian vegetation, Badger Springs Wash, Arizona. .........51 

Figure 33. Graph of herpetofauna species by taxonomic group and by habitat type, from BLM 

surveys in Arizona, 1977-1981 (Jones, 1988). .................................................................54 

Figure 34. Graph of lizard abundance by habitat type at Organ Pipe Cactus National 

Monument, Arizona, 1989-1990 (from Rosen and Lowe, 1996). ....................................55 

Figure 35. Photographs of amphibians that inhabit and breed in ephemeral and intermittent
 

streams (clockwise from top left): Canyon tree frog (Hyla arenicolor), lowland leopard 

frog (Rana yavapaiensis), red spotted toad (Bufo punctatus), Sonoran desert toad (Bufo 

alvarius, photograph: Shea Burns, USDA-ARS), Egg strand of Sonoran desert toad 

(photograph: Shea Burns, USDA-ARS)...........................................................................56 

Figure 36. Photograph of a desert mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), Arizona.......................59 

ix 
Figure 37. Illustrations of caddisfly larva (www.scientificillustrator.com) (left), and caddisfly 

adult (www.nps.gov) (right). ............................................................................................61 

Figure 38. Diagram of a conceptual model of the delivery of invertebrates, sloughed algae and 

detritus from headwater streams, intermittent and permanent first-order fishless streams 

to larger fish-bearing streams, illustrating the dependence of downstream reaches on 

upstream processes (from Cummins and Wilzbach, 2005). .............................................63 

Figure 39. Photographs of the Rillito River, Tucson, Arizona, dry (left) and with flow (right).
 

..........................................................................................................................................65 

Figure 40. Aerial photograph showing ephemeral tributaries to Cienega Creek, a perennial 

stream, flowing through the small community of Vail, southeast of Tucson, Arizona....67 

Figure 41. Photograph of the Santa Cruz River, Tucson, Arizona, during summer monsoon 

flows. (Photograph: unknown). ........................................................................................74 

x 
1. Introduction 

This report addresses the hydrological and ecological significance of ephemeral and 

intermittent streams in the arid and semi-arid Southwestern United States (U.S.) for the 

purpose of illustrating their connection and value to perennial stream systems and other 

“waters of the United States” as protected under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 

otherwise known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA was established to “restore and 

maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Its goal is to 

prevent pollution of waters of the U.S., and to ensure that our citizens have safe, clean water. 

Although originally enacted in 1948, the act was revised and expanded in 1972, with nearly 

annual amendments since then. 

In recent years, there have been numerous discussions as to whether ephemeral and 

intermittent streams are “waters of the United States” under the Act, and if the act applies to 

those streams. From 33CFR, Part 328.3, the definition of “waters of the United States,” as it 

applies to the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the Corps of Engineers under the CWA, 

includes (in part): 

(1) All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be 

susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are 

subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; 

(2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; 

(3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent 

streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, 

playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could 

affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: 

(i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or 

other purposes; or 

(ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or 

foreign commerce; or 

(iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in 

interstate commerce; 

(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States 

under this definition; 

(5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraph (s) (1) through (4) of this section 

(from http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/33cfr328.htm). 

1 
This definition specifically includes intermittent streams (paragraph 3), and tributaries of any 

waters identified in the definition (paragraph 5). From these definitions ephemeral and 

intermittent streams appear to qualify for protection under the CWA; however, there have 

been some recent court cases that have complicated interpretation of this law. Nadeau and 

Rains (2007) discussed the Supreme Court decisions of June 2006, concerning the 

determination of jurisdiction under the CWA, and the implication that non-navigable, 

isolated, intrastate waters need a “significant nexus” to navigable waters to be jurisdictional 

under the CWA (see also Leibowitz et al., 2008). Although “significant nexus” has not been 

defined, the goal of the CWA is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” (33 U.S.C. 1251). Nadeau and Rains (2007) 

therefore, consider a “significant nexus” to exist if a headwater stream contributes to the 

chemical, physical, or biological integrity of navigable water. 

Ephemeral and intermittent streams are the defining characteristic of many watersheds in dry, 

arid and semi-arid regions, and serve a critical role in the protection and maintenance of water 

resources, human health, and the environment. This report is a compilation of information 

that describes the significance of ephemeral and intermittent streams to the hydrology, 

biogeochemistry, flora and fauna of arid and semi-arid region watersheds. This 

comprehensive review of the present scientific understanding of the ecology and hydrology of 

ephemeral and intermittent streams will help place them in a watershed context, thereby 

highlighting their importance in maintaining water quality, overall watershed health, and 

provisioning of the essential human and biological requirements of clean water. Individual 

ephemeral or intermittent stream segments should not be examined in isolation. Given their 

vast extent and the accumulation of impacts to them over large areas in the rapidly developing 

southwest, a landscape or watershed-scale approach should be employed that considers the 

cumulative effects on overall watershed function. 

The geographic scope of this report is the arid and semi-arid regions of the conterminous U.S. 

as defined by the Bailey’s and EPA/Omernik ecoregion classifications (see Figures 7 and 8), 

but focuses on the states of California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado. 

The application of this report is for the EPA Region 9 states of Arizona, California and 

Nevada. This report does not address management, policy, or regulatory issues. 

2. Location of Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams 

Ephemeral and intermittent streams are found across the Earth’s land surface in arid and semiarid regions that are commonly referred to as “drylands.” Approximately one-third of the 

Earth’s land surfaces are classified as arid or semi-arid (Whitford, 2002; Millennium 

Ecosystem Assessment, 2005a), including most of the Western U.S. (Figure 1). 

These lands are characterized by low and highly variable annual precipitation, where 

evapotranspiration exceeds precipitation. It is because of these dry conditions, which result in 

great contrast between the moist riparian areas and adjacent dry upland communities, that arid 

and semi-arid region streams are so important. Riparian ecosystems occupy very small 

portions of the landscape in arid and semi-arid regions, yet they exert substantial influence on 

2 
hydrologic, geomorphic, and ecological processes (Shaw and Cooper, 2008), and typically 

support the great majority of biodiversity in these regions. 

Figure 1. Illustration of the locations of present day drylands and their categories. 

(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005a) 

Some southwestern landscapes confound typical notions of where water is to be found. The 

recent CWA discussions generally assume that perennial streams receive water from 

ephemeral tributaries. But, a person dying of thirst in the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife 

Refuge in southwestern Arizona will find surface water in the mountains, not in the valley 

floor streams. In the San Pedro Valley of southeastern Arizona, perennial and intermittent 

stream reaches commonly are found in the tributaries, as well as along the main stem San 

Pedro River (Figure 2). In the Mojave Desert of southern California, some mountain streams 

are physically isolated from downstream hydrologic systems. Water from these mountain 

streams takes hundreds or thousands of years to move into and through the regional aquifer 

and discharge into valley floor streams, springs and wetlands (Izbicki, 2007). 

3 
Figure 2. Map showing the San Pedro River Watershed’s current and historical 

perennial reaches (courtesy of The Nature Conservancy, Arizona). 

4 
 

The U.S. EPA, using the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (USGS, 2006), has estimated 

that 59 percent of the streams in the U.S. (excluding Alaska) are ephemeral or intermittent 

(U.S. EPA, 2005). The NHD combines ephemeral and intermittent streams in its mapping, 

and identifies them as streams, which contain water for only part of the year. The NHD also 

identifies start reaches as those that have no other streams flowing into them (at the 1:100,000 

scale). These reaches can thus be considered headwater or first-order streams (Nadeau and 

Rains, 2007). 

Among the six states being addressed in this report, Arizona has the greatest percentage, 94 

percent, of ephemeral and intermittent streams, whereas California has the least, 66 percent. 

However, it is not just states in the arid Southwest that contain high percentages of nonperennial streams. For example, 86 percent of South Dakota’s streams are ephemeral or 

intermittent, 81 percent in Kansas, and 84 percent in North Dakota. The percentages of 

ephemeral/intermittent streams from the NHD for the six Southwestern states that are the 

subjects of this report are tabulated in Figure 3, and are illustrated using the NHD stream map 

(National Hydrography Dataset, http://nhd.usgs.gov/). 

Arizona 94% 

Nevada 89% 

New Mexico 88% 

Utah 79% 

Colorado 68% 

California 66% 

Figure 3. Map of the Southwestern U.S. showing the National Hydrography Dataset 

(NHD) intermittent/ephemeral (red) and perennial (blue) streams. 

It should be noted that the NHD may not accurately reflect the total extent of ephemeral or 

intermittent streams; it does not include stream segments less than one mile in length, 

combines intermittent and ephemeral streams, and is based on 1:100,000 scale topographic 

maps. Washes (dry streambeds that contain water only during or after a local rainstorm or 

heavy snowmelt) in the arid Southwest are not consistently demarcated. The NHD dataset 

contains information on naturally occurring and constructed bodies of water, paths through 

which water flows, and related entities (USGS, 2006), and calculates the percent of streams 

that are ephemeral or intermittent relative to total stream length using total kilometers of 

linear streams in watersheds that are totally or partially contained within each state boundary. 

Watersheds are at the 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) level (U.S. EPA, 2005). 

5 
3. Definitions 

In humid parts of the world, where precipitation exceeds evapotranspiration, water is 

plentiful, and rivers will typically flow ceaselessly except in times of exceptional drought or 

human diversion. In arid and semi-arid regions, flows have a beginning and an ending in time 

and space, and there are various classification systems for categorizing the permanency of 

stream flows, or hydrologic continuum. 

For this report, we classify streams by the following definitions: 

Ephemeral: A stream or portion of a stream which flows briefly in direct response to 

precipitation in the immediate vicinity, and whose channel is at all times above the groundwater reservoir. 

Intermittent: A stream where portions flow continuously only at certain times of the 

year, for example when it receives water from a spring, ground-water source or from a surface 

source, such as melting snow (i.e. seasonal). At low flow there may be dry segments 

alternating with flowing segments. 

Perennial: A stream or portion of a stream that flows year-round, is considered a 

permanent stream, and for which baseflow is maintained by ground-water discharge to the 

streambed due to the ground-water elevation adjacent to the stream typically being higher 

than the elevation of the streambed. 

Headwater: The low order, small stream at the top of a watershed, when viewed at the 

1:100,000 map or image scale; may be perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral (Nadeau and 

Rains, 2007). 

In addition, for this report we clarify the definition of Riparian area or riparian zone as: the 

strip of vegetation along an ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial stream, which is of distinct 

composition and density from the surrounding uplands (see Section 5.d.i Plant physiognomy, 

density and species composition for further discussion). 

Many seemingly perennial reaches of a stream are separated by ephemeral or intermittent 

segments of flow, as a result of differences in geology along the river. This variation of flow 

is common enough in the Southwest that hydrologists use the terms interrupted or spatially 

intermittent to describe the spatial segmentation of a river into reaches that are ephemeral, 

intermittent, or perennial. 

The active channel of a desert stream is defined by the hyporheic zone, the zone between the 

surface stream and alluvial ground water, and the parafluvial zone, the part of the active 

channel without surface water (Figure 4). A desert stream ecosystem is composed of four 

interacting subsystems: the riparian zone, the surface stream, the hyporheic and the 

parafluvial zones (Holmes et al., 1994). Stream ecologists are becoming increasingly aware 

of the importance of what happens below the channel bed (Boulton et al., 1998) and in these 

interacting zones (Holmes et al. 1994). 

6 
Figure 4. Diagram of the four interacting zones of a desert stream ecosystem: the surface 

stream, hyporheic, parafluvial and riparian zones (from Holmes et al. 1994). 

The hyporheic zone is important to the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the 

above-ground portion of the stream. A stream reach that lacks water at all times on the 

surface may continue to have a thriving hyporheic zone. Water in the hyporheic zone may be 

discharged into perennial or intermittent reaches of flow downstream. During hyporheic 

flow, ground water and stream water mix in the beds and banks of ephemeral, intermittent, 

and perennial streams and sometimes in a larger region surrounding the stream channel. In 

these zones, there is substantial biogeochemical cycling of nutrients and trace elements that 

are essential to aquatic life (Valett et al., 1994; Boulton et al., 1998; Hibbs, 2008). The 

parafluvial zone can be extensive in some systems, and the potential for surface-subsurface 

exchange is high; however, less is known about these processes than in the hyporheic zone 

(Holmes et al., 1994). 

4. The Watershed Context 

Watersheds gradually are becoming regarded as the most appropriate spatial unit for land 

management, and especially for water-resource management. Managing from a watershed 

context is more effective than focusing on a specific site, such as an individual ephemeral or 

intermittent stream segment, because actions by humans, wildlife, and nature can have 

widespread effects, crossing political boundaries and impacting downstream water quality and 

ecosystem health. The accumulation of impacts over large areas in the rapidly developing 

southwest suggests a landscape or watershed-scale approach that considers the cumulative 

effects on overall watershed function. 

Ephemeral and intermittent stream channels are often but not always the smallest channels in 

the watershed, and often represent the headwaters of a stream. Given their large extent, these 

streams are important sources of sediment, water, nutrients, seeds, and organic matter for 

7 
downstream systems and provide habitat for many species (Gomi et al., 2002) and their 

inclusion is important in watershed-based assessments (Gandolfi and Bischetti, 1997; Miller 

et al., 1999b). 

An understanding of the key ecological and hydrological functions that watersheds perform is 

required for effective land and water quality management. These watershed functions, 

outlined by Black (1997), include: 

(1) the collection of water from rainfall, snowmelt, and storage that becomes runoff, 

(2) the storage of various amounts of water and sediment, 

(3) the discharge of water as runoff, and the transport of sediment, 

(4) providing diverse sites and pathways along which chemical reactions take place, 

and 

(5) providing habitat for flora and fauna. 

The two integrative watershed responses to these five functions are hydrologic energy 

attenuation, and the regulated movement or flushing of water through the system which 

controls the movement of chemicals. Depending on the flow regime, the movement of water 

affects the concentration or load of materials in suspension or solution in the aquatic 

environment. Black (1997) referred to this link between hydrology and water quality to 

demonstrate the importance of considering the entire watershed in the protection of water 

resources. 

Miller (2005) discussed the connectivity of ecosystems in a landscape, and the importance of 

managing at that scale, noting how the condition of one part of a landscape can affect other 

portions. Figure 5 illustrates how ecosystem processes, organisms, resources, and 

disturbances interact across a landscape. In arid and semi-arid regions, ephemeral and 

intermittent streams provide much of the ecological and hydrological connectivity in a 

landscape. Although lacking perennial flow, they may constitute a large percentage of the 

stream network in a watershed, and are connected to the larger stream system. 

The disturbance or loss of ephemeral and intermittent streams has dramatic physical, 

biological, and chemical impacts, which are evident from the uplands to the riparian areas and 

stream courses of the watershed. Barnett et al. (2002) noted that the condition of upland areas 

is integral to hydrologic function. The amount of precipitation which immediately runs off 

the land surface, and that which infiltrates into the soil to either be used for plant growth or to 

recharge ground water, is dependent on this critical interface. For example, when 

precipitation falls on the land its fate is affected by the soil and vegetation, which in turn are 

affected by land uses, both historical and current. 

8 
Figure 5. Diagram showing connectivity of landscape-level processes and attributes 

important for ecosystem monitoring (from Miller, 2005). In box A, landscape units are 

functionally connected by flows of soil and water resources, organisms, disturbances, 

and stressors. In box B, degraded conditions in Unit 1 are shown to cause resource 

enrichment in Unit 2, illustrating the importance of landscape context. In box C, 

degraded conditions in Unit 1 are propagated to Unit 3 due to increased size of Unit 1 

and decreased size of Unit 2. 

5. Characteristics, Functions, and Ecosystem Significance 

Ephemeral and intermittent streams in arid and semi-arid regions have distinctly different 

characteristics from perennial streams that are in wetter, more humid (mesic to hydric) 

environments. These complex systems have developed in a climatic regime of wide 

fluctuations of precipitation, ranging from drought to flood. Anthropogenic uses, such as 

urbanization, superimposed on that climatic regime can exacerbate or ameliorate their effects 

on soils and vegetation, and may affect hydrologic and ecological functions throughout the 

watershed. Stability and resiliency to disturbance are important for ecological integrity, but 

because of the deficiency of water, terrestrial arid and semi-arid region ecosystems do not 

recover quickly from human-imposed disturbance, although desert streams recover more 

quickly than the uplands. 

9 
While hydrologists generally reject the popular concept of an “underground river,” the 

sediment below the channel does convey water. For some streams, in current climatic 

regimes, there may not be a perennial or intermittent reach, but water may always be present 

below the ground and accessible to a rich assemblage of plant and animal life. This is 

illustrated in Figure 6, the San Pedro River, Arizona, an intermittent stream, bordered by a 

ground-water-dependent cottonwood forest. 

Figure 6. Photograph showing ground-water dependent cottonwood trees (Populus 

fremontii) lining an intermittent stream. 

Ephemeral or intermittent stream reaches can be headwater reaches or the main stem. Some 

watersheds consist of only ephemeral or intermittent streams. Generally, these systems occur 

in arid and semi-arid regions, and their locations can be described using climatic factors, 

latitude, continental position, and elevation. These features combine to form the world’s 

ecoclimatic zones, which are referred to as an ecosystem region or ecoregion. 

The classification of ecoregions provides a method of characterizing the ecological areas of 

the U.S., and allows for the rich mosaic of environmental conditions to be placed in context 

with one another, enabling their connections to be better understood. Ecoregion 

classifications indicate areas of similar environmental characteristics, which can serve as a 

spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems 

and ecosystem components, and can help us to understand the ecosystems in which ephemeral 

and intermittent streams occur. This is useful for proper understanding and management of 

our environmental resources, including water (Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 

1997). 

Both Bailey’s Ecoregions (Bailey, 1976) and the EPA Ecological Regions of North America 

(Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 1997), based on Omernik and others, place the 

10 
Southwestern states mainly in dry, desert, or semi-arid classifications. The essential feature 

of these classifications is that annual losses of water through evaporation at the earth's surface 

exceed annual water gains from precipitation. 

Bailey’s Ecoregion classification is based largely on forest and climatic factors. This 

classification system designates four domains: polar, humid temperate, humid tropical, and 

dry. The first three are based on humidity and thermal characteristics; however, the fourth, 

the dry domain, is based solely on moisture, and is defined as those locations where annual 

losses of water through evaporation at the earth’s surface exceed annual water gains from 

precipitation. Five of the six states considered in this report lie wholly within the dry domain: 

Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico. The deserts of Southern California are 

also within the dry domain, whereas the rest of the state is within the humid temperate domain 

(Figure 7). The dry domain includes the arid desert and the semi-arid steppe, and represents 

seven Divisions encompassing a wide diversity in terrain, vegetation structure and 

composition, climatic regime, hydrologic regime, and ecosystem function. However, the 

dominant characteristics are variable rainfall and high evapotranspiration. 

The EPA Ecological Regions Classification is based on Omernik, who was one of the first to 

take a more holistic approach by including physical and biotic characteristics (Commission 

for Environmental Cooperation, 1997). This classification defines four levels of ecological 

regions that represent increasingly detailed local characteristics. Level II, which is most 

similar to Bailey’s Divisions, is illustrated in Figure 8. Most of the Southwestern states fall 

into the warm or cold desert ecoregion, the southern semi-arid highlands, or temperate sierras. 

These areas are described as having an arid to semi-arid climate, with marked seasonal 

temperature extremes. This aridity is the result of the rain shadows of the Sierra Nevada, 

Cascade Mountains and Sierra Madre ranges as they intercept the wet winter air masses 

brought by the westerly and easterly winds. 

Both the Bailey’s and EPA Ecoregion classifications illustrate the extent of arid and semi-arid 

regions in the Southwestern U.S. and provide a framework for understanding the unique 

conditions found in this region where most watersheds are dominated by ephemeral and 

intermittent streams. 

11 
Figure 7. Map of the conterminous U.S. showing Bailey’s Ecoregions with the dry 

domain outlined in red. 

Figure 8. Map of the conterminous U.S. with EPA Level II Ecoregions showing most of 

Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico in the North American Deserts classification. 

12 
a. Hydrologic Features 

Ephemeral streams are unique in that they lack permanent flow except in response to rainfall 

events. Intermittent streams flow continuously only in places where it receives water from a 

ground-water source or from seasonal runoff. Nevertheless, they perform the same critical 

hydrologic functions as perennial streams: they move water, sediment, nutrients, and debris 

through the stream network and provide connectivity within the watershed. These streams 

experience extreme and rapid variations in flood regime (Figure 9), and as a consequence 

rarely reach process-form equilibrium where flow conditions change too rapidly for bedforms 

to develop a form matching that flow, so sedimentary structures can give a misleading picture 

of the flow that occurred (North, 2005). 

Although arid and semi-arid region streams perform the same functions as perennial streams, 

their hydrology and sediment transport characteristics cannot be reliably predicted by 

extrapolation from humid regions (Scott, 2006; McMahon, 1979). This is due to a much 

higher degree of spatial and temporal variability in hydrologic processes and also in the 

resulting erosion and sedimentation processes than in humid regions. Desert environments 

typically produce more runoff and erosion per unit area than in temperate regions for a given 

intensity of rainfall due to sparse vegetation cover and poorly developed soils with little 

organic matter (Thornes, 1994). 

Figure 9. Photographs of an ephemeral stream, same location with flow (left), and dry 

(right), Tucson, Arizona. 

The variability of flood magnitudes is much greater for ephemeral stream channel flows as 

compared to that of perennial stream systems. For example, Graf (1988) reported that in a 

humid region in Pennsylvania, the 50-year return flood event is roughly 2.5 times the mean 

annual flow, whereas the 50-year return flow for the Gila River in Arizona is about 280 times 

the mean annual flow. Although this may also be a function of differences in base-flow, the 

difference is still significant. Some studies have noted that many of our watersheds in the 

Western States (up to 90 percent in Arizona, for example) yield less than 12.7 mm of runoff 

13 
per unit area, per year, but the vast extent of these arid and semi-arid watersheds makes their 

total runoff production significant, and their proper management important (Renard, 1970). 

Osterkamp and Friedman (2000) compared runoff and extreme rainfalls of semi-arid areas 

with those of other climatic areas in the conterminous U.S. They found that the magnitudes 

of intense precipitation in semi-arid areas are generally less than in humid areas, but peaks of 

infrequent floods are typically larger, with many of the greatest recorded unit flood flows 

occurring in drainage basins of less than 1,000 km2

. 

Most of the Southwest receives less than 500 mm of rainfall per year, and a correlation can be 

seen between locations with low average annual rainfall amounts and locations with 

ephemeral or intermittent stream flow. Figure 10 shows maps of the average annual 

precipitation for the Western U.S. for 1961-1990, and the locations of perennial and 

ephemeral/intermittent streams from the NHD dataset for comparison. Because of the low 

rainfall amounts, most stream reaches in the Southwest are ephemeral or intermittent. 

Figure 10. Maps showing average annual precipitation amounts, 1961-1990 (left), and 

locations of ephemeral/intermittent (red) and perennial (blue) streams (right). 

(Western Regional Climate Center, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/precip.html, and National 

Hydrography Dataset (NHD), http://nhd.usgs.gov/. For NHD see also “Concepts and 

Contents” at http://nhd.usgs.gov/chapter1/chp1_data_users_guide.pdf). 

Rainfall patterns in arid and semi-arid regions influence when streamflow is most likely. The 

Great Basin and Mojave Deserts have wet winters and relatively dry summers with sporadic 

thunderstorms. The Chihuahuan Desert receives rainfall primarily during the summer. The 

Sonoran Desert receives rainfall in both winter and summer (England and Laudenslayer, 

1995). Most streamflow events in a large portion of the Sonoran and Chihuahuan Deserts 

(southern Arizona and New Mexico) occur during the summer monsoon (July through 

September) from high-intensity, short-duration rainfall events which typically occur as airmass thunderstorms resulting from convective heating of moisture-laden air masses (Gochis et 

14 
Figure 11. Maps showing percent of average annual precipitation, July and August (left) 

and percent of average annual precipitation, October through March (right), for 

comparison, Western Regional Climate Center, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/precip.html. 

al., 2006). This warm-season monsoonal rainfall results from a seasonal reversal of 

atmospheric circulation that transports moisture from the Gulf of Mexico and/or the Gulf of 

California (Hereford et al., 2002). Longer duration rainfall events with embedded highintensity thunderstorms are often the result of dissipating tropical depressions that are 

common in the fall and sometimes in the winter (Webb and Betancourt, 1992; Gochis et al., 

2006), while the lower-intensity events are typical of cool-season precipitation caused by 

frontal systems originating in the eastern North Pacific Ocean (Hereford et al., 2003). 

Significant streamflow events in ephemeral stream channels occur infrequently from lowintensity cool-season precipitation unless there has been regular rainfall for several months 

and the soil is saturated. Still less frequently (for example, approximately 3 to 5 percent of 

the annual rainfall in southern Arizona, on average), runoff and streamflow occurs from the 

remnants of hurricanes and tropical depressions which track north from lower latitudes. The 

influence of both the summer monsoon and increases in precipitation from tropical 

depressions decreases northward. 

Most of New Mexico and large portions of Arizona and Colorado receive between 30 to 50 

percent of their annual precipitation during just two months, July and August, when the 

monsoon thunderstorms occur. Figure 11 shows maps of the percent of average annual 

precipitation occurring during the summer season (July and August), and during the 6 months 

of the cool season (October through March) for a comparison. 

i. Variability of arid and semi-arid region flows and floods 

Many aspects of arid and semi-arid region floods are highly distinctive. The low annual 

precipitation in these regions inevitably means low annual runoff, with interannual variability 

of runoff increasing as annual totals decrease (McMahon, 1979; Rodier, 1985). In North 

American arid lands, the variability of mean annual runoff is about double that for the 

15 
continental area as a whole (McMahon, 1979). In addition, given the spatially variable 

patterns of precipitation and runoff in arid and semi-arid regions, for any given watershed size 

there is a large range in annual runoff totals (Reid and Frostick, 1997), and basin response can 

only be extrapolated to a very limited extent (De Boer, 1992). This implies that watershed 

area usually cannot be used as a reliable surrogate measure of runoff in arid and semi-arid 

regions. Goodrich et al. (1997) found that watershed rainfall-runoff response becomes more 

non-linear with increasing watershed size due to the increasing importance of ephemeral 

stream channel transmission losses and partial area storm coverage. 

With the exception of perennial, mainly allogenic rivers (those that originate and are fed from 

outside of the area, where precipitation and runoff are sufficient to generate flow), most arid 

and semi-arid region rivers are characterized by long periods without flow. For example, in 

the Negev Desert in Israel, Reid et al. (1998) conducted flow duration analysis and found that 

ephemeral stream channels are hydrologically active only 2 percent of the time, or about 

seven days per year, and that overbank flow can be expected for only 0.03 percent of the time 

– about three hours per year. Because of infrequent flows, process studies in arid and semiarid region channels are dominated by the analysis of flood events (Graf, 1988). In the 

general fluvial literature, a flood is usually defined in relation to a humid region event (i.e., 

the near or complete exceedance of bankfull). Nevertheless, several authors (e.g. Leopold and 

Miller, 1956; Schumm and Lichty, 1963; Hedman and Osterkamp, 1982; Bourke and Pickup, 

1999) have referred to the variable size of floods, as this can be important for processes of 

sediment transport and channel change. 

Floods caused by distinctly different climatic processes commonly have distinctly different 

magnitude and frequency relations. Many studies have examined the nature of these 

differences by separating flood data for a station into two or more populations on the basis of 

the climatic causes of the floods (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1958; Elliott et al., 1982; 

Jarrett and Costa, 1982; Waylen and Woo, 1982; Hirschboeck, 1987). Results of these studies 

for different regions have indicated that floods caused only by snowmelt, by rain on snow, 

and only by rain, form distinct populations; floods caused by rain on snow or only by rain 

tend to have larger magnitudes than do floods caused only by snowmelt. In parts of the arid 

Southwest, floods caused by precipitation from frontal passages in the winter tend to be larger 

than floods caused by precipitation from convectional storms in the summer. In the 

Southwest and Northeast, floods caused by precipitation from tropical cyclones tend to have 

greater magnitudes than do floods caused by precipitation from storms other than tropical 

cyclones. Floods caused by precipitation from tropical cyclones commonly include the peak 

flow of record (USGS, 1997). 

Variability of flow is a natural continuum in arid and semi-arid regions, and is affected by 

climatic and ecological conditions. For example, the peak water demands of a dense riparian 

forest for transpiration in dry regions can deplete a stream channel of its flow for several 

hours during a hot summer day. A stream can run continuously for several years, and then go 

dry, making it difficult to classify the stream as perennial or ephemeral. Increasingly accurate 

and precise methods of monitoring and measurement, which may now detect these natural 

phenomena, might change a stream classification, without the river itself changing. Stanley et 

al. (1997) noted that desert streams are “spatially dynamic ecosystems that undergo cycles of 

expansion, contraction, and fragmentation; that conventionally hydrologic measurements of 

16 
water velocity or volume passing a fixed point represent only one aspect of hydrologic 

dynamism...” 

ii. Types of arid and semi-arid region floods 

As well as varying in size, floods in arid and semi-arid regions vary from entirely channeled, 

to largely unchanneled (Olsen, 1987). In the American Southwest, for example, partly 

channeled floods occur during major events when river banks are overtopped and flood waters 

diffuse across vast, low-gradient plains (Hedman and Osterkamp, 1982). Graf (1988) 

described numerous instances of sheet floods from piedmont settings as examples of 

unchanneled floods. 

Channeled floods in arid and semi-arid region rivers may occur as flash floods, single-peak 

events, multiple-peak events and seasonal floods (Graf, 1988). The highly variable stream 

flow in ephemeral and intermittent systems most often occurs as a flash flood, lasting only 

minutes or hours, or persisting for days or weeks depending on the climatic regime and the 

nature of the watershed contributing area. Flash floods may occur any time of the year in 

response to a short-duration high-intensity precipitation event, and after the watershed has 

received enough precipitation to generate runoff (Figure 12). 

Most commentaries on arid and semi-arid region river floods refer to the characteristics of 

flash flood hydrographs (charts showing change in flow over time), which are typically 

produced by convectional precipitation in small (< 100 km2

) watersheds. Due to high runoff 

coefficients and the dominance of Hortonian overland flow in runoff generation, these 

hydrographs are characterized by steep rising and receding limbs and a short time base (Reid, 

1994; Dick et al., 1997). For a simple individual flow event generated by a discrete storm, the 

rapid rise to peak discharge (almost instantaneous) is followed by the recession portion of the 

hydrograph. The duration of recession is generally much longer than the time required to 

reach peak flow, and the resulting flood wave shape is such that almost the entire hydrograph 

is the recession curve (Figure 13). The recession curve of an ephemeral stream hydrograph 

has two properties of interest: (1) flow ceases after some period of time, causing the flow to 

be of finite duration, and (2) the shape of the curve can be compared to an exponential decay 

reference curve (Chow et al., 1988). 

17 
Figure 12. Photograph of a flash flood in an ephemeral channel, Southern Arizona. 

(Photograph: USDA-ARS/SWRC) 

Less well documented are the single and multiple-peak floods generated by tropical storms or 

frontal systems, or the floods associated with seasonal snowmelt or rainfall. Knighton and 

Nanson (1997) considered that in moving from single-peak to multiple-peak to seasonal 

floods there is a corresponding reduction in the steepness of the rising limb of the hydrograph 

and a broadening of the time base of the floods. 

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Time (min) 

Figure 13. Example hydrograph showing typical rapid rise to peak discharge and long 

recession curve of a flash flood. 

iii. Transmission losses 

In a spatial as well as a temporal sense, streamflow in arid and semi-arid region rivers exhibit 

unique characteristics. Regardless of the source of water, flows in arid and semi-arid region 

rivers are generally influent, or subject to downstream volume decreases. These decreasing 

flow volumes principally are due to transmission losses resulting from infiltration of Discharge (cms) 

0 50 100 150 200 250

18 
streamflow into the unconsolidated alluvium forming channel boundaries, losses resulting 

from overbank flooding, and evaporation of floodwaters (Babcock and Cushing, 1942; Keppel 

and Renard, 1962; Sharp and Saxton, 1962; Lane, 1983; Goodrich et al. 1997; Cataldo et al., 

2004). Transmission losses are also an important source of water for ground-water recharge 

(see next section). 

Downstream volume decreases are sometimes negligible along small, alluvial or bedrock 

channels, but for larger alluvial channels they can be of great importance, with many flows 

failing to travel the full length of the channel (Keppel and Renard, 1962; Aldridge, 1970), 

leaving the lower parts of the watershed dry. 

The nature of the rainfall event can affect downstream reductions in flow. When precipitation 

is widespread, tributary contributions can increase downstream flows even while losses are 

still large. For spatially localized events, however, in combination with hydrograph 

attenuation, and in the absence of appreciable tributary inflows in the lower parts of the 

watershed, transmission losses can produce significant downstream decreases in total flow 

volume, flood peak, and flow frequencies (Keppel and Renard, 1962; Lane, 1983; Goodrich et 

al., 1997; Knighton and Nanson, 1997). 

A great deal of research on semi-arid region hydrology has been conducted at the USDA-ARS 

Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed (WGEW) near Tombstone, Arizona (Figure 14). The 

WGEW is one of the most intensively instrumented semi-arid experimental watersheds in the 

world with nearly 100 years of abiotic and biotic data (Moran et al., 2008). The network of 

over 125 gauging stations has been continuously collecting precipitation and runoff data for 

over 50 years. 

Figure 14. Map of the Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed (WGEW), Tombstone, 

Arizona, showing major stream network, flumes and sub-watershed boundaries. 

19 
An example of the magnitude of transmission losses within the WGEW is presented in Figure 

15. This figure shows the August 27, 1982, storm event that was isolated in Sub-watershed 6 

and recorded at Raingage 56 on the upper 95 km2 of the watershed (although not all of that 

precipitation produced runoff). The spatial pattern of total storm precipitation depth depicted 

by the isolines in Figure 15 is interpolated from the WGEW rain gauge network. The 

temporal distribution of rainfall intensity observed at Raingage 56 is illustrated in the upper 

right portion of the figure. The runoff measured at Flume 6 was 246,000 m3, with a peak 

discharge of 107 m3/s. Runoff traversing the 10.86 km of dry streambed from Flume 6 to 

Flume 1 experienced significant infiltration losses. As a result, 90,800 m3

 of water was 

absorbed in the channel alluvium, and total peak discharge was reduced by 52 m3

/s. 

Photographs of Flume 1 with and without flow are shown in Figure 16. 

The magnitudes and rates of transmission losses for streamflow or flood events in a given arid 

and semi-arid region river are often highly variable, as both depend on a complex of 

interrelated factors, including the characteristics of the storm (e.g., size, position of the storm 

track, location in relation to the drainage network), the hydrograph (e.g., flow volume and 

duration), and the channel (e.g., width of the wetted perimeter, porosity and initial moisture 

content of the channel bed, stratigraphy of the channel fill) (Knighton and Nanson, 1997; Reid 

and Frostick, 1997; Lekach et al., 1998). Cataldo et al. (2004) reviewed about three dozen 

approaches for predicting transmission losses in ephemeral streams in the U.S., and concluded 

that approaches that combine differential equations and regression analyses that consider 

physical processes and statistical methods have the most promise. 

20 
 

Figure 15. Hydrograph, location map, and photograph of rainfall-runoff event August 

27, 1982, illustrating ephemeral stream channel transmission losses as measured within 

the WGEW (Goodrich et al., 1997). 

Figure 16. Photographs of Flume 1 at WGEW, dry (left) and with flow (right). 

(Photographs: USDA/ARS-Southwest Watershed Research Center, Tucson, Arizona) 

21 
iv. Ground-water recharge 

Ground-water recharge in arid and semi-arid regions has generally been viewed as the sum of 

several different distinct pathways including mountain-block recharge, mountain-front 

recharge, spatially distributed recharge, and ephemeral stream channel recharge. Recent 

research has expanded this view to include the mediating role of vegetation (i.e. water use by 

vegetation), and the greater role of ephemeral stream channel recharge in basin floors. 

“Mountain-front recharge” refers to the contribution from mountain precipitation to recharge 

of aquifers in adjacent basins. It includes recharge from the mountain block system and 

stream channels, and is considered to be the most significant form of ground-water recharge 

in arid and semi-arid regions, with ephemeral stream channel recharge providing a significant 

portion in these climates (Goodrich et al., 2004; Coes and Pool, 2005). Basin floor or 

spatially distributed recharge in arid and semi-arid regions plays a lesser role in the overall 

recharge volume due to high evaporation rates, low rainfall, and high water use by desert 

vegetation (Coes and Pool, 2005). 

Advances such as environmental tracers and geographic information systems (GIS) based 

ground-water models have improved our understanding of recharge processes (Phillips et al., 

2004; Hogan et al, 2004). However, an accurate representation of ground-water recharge is 

difficult since it cannot be measured directly on a basin scale, in addition to other reasons, 

including the extremely small recharge rates and recharge mechanisms that vary greatly in 

time and space throughout a watershed. The methods used in humid regions, such as a water 

balance approach, are not applicable in arid and semi-arid regions because these extremely 

small amounts of recharge are within the measurement error, and potential evapotranspiration 

exceeds precipitation (Hogan et al., 2004; Phillips et al., 2004). Also, channel transmission 

losses are more significant in most ephemeral and intermittent channels than in humid region 

perennial streams, as noted in the previous section. Therefore, methods for calculating 

recharge are indirect, and subject to cumulative measurement errors. In addition, the annual 

variability of precipitation in arid and semi-arid regions makes it difficult to apply recharge 

models, which simulate the direct recharge to the aquifer from infiltration of precipitation. 

Goodrich et al. (2004) noted that ephemeral stream channel transmission losses play an 

important role in ground-water surface-water dynamics in numerous arid and semi-arid 

regions and are potentially significant sources of recharge at the basin scale. However, 

identification of the processes driving these dynamics is difficult. Specifically, it is difficult 

to obtain data on the proportion of transmission losses that become deep ground-water 

recharge instead of being lost to near-channel evapotranspiration (ET) and wetted channel 

evaporation. 

This issue was addressed via coordinated field research and modeling within the WGEW. A 

variety of methods were used to estimate ephemeral stream channel recharge, including 

ground water, surface water, chemical, isotopic, tree sap flux, micrometeorological 

techniques, and changes in microgravity. Changes in microgravity reflect the gravitational 

pull of the Earth and indicate the presence of subsurface density variations such as those 

produced by voids or cavities. A cavity usually has a lower density than the surrounding 

22 
materials and may be filled with water or sediment, resulting in a very small reduction in the 

pull of the Earth’s gravity (Styles et al., 2006). 

Figure 17 illustrates the changes in deep ground-water levels due to multiple runoff events 

during the 1999 and 2000 monsoon as well as associated microgravity changes. During the 

relatively wet 1999 and 2000 monsoon seasons the channel recharge estimated from these 

methods differed by a factor of about 2.9. A rough scaling of these rates to the entire basin 

shows that these estimates would constitute roughly 15 percent at the low end of the range 

and 40 percent at the high end, respectively, of all water recharged annually into the regional 

aquifer as derived from a calibrated ground-water model estimate (Goodrich et al., 2004). 

However, in 2001 and 2002 no discernable ephemeral stream channel recharge in the 

intensely studied reach was detected due to weak monsoon seasons, illustrating that groundwater recharge in ephemeral stream channels can be significant in some years and negligible 

in others. 

Figure 17. Diagrams of well levels and flow depths at the WGEW. Diagram (a) at top 

left shows Flume 2 well level changes (m) and flow depths (m), diagram (b) at bottom 

shows Flume 1 well level changes (m), flow depths (m) and gravity measurements, and 

diagram (c) on upper right shows a cross section of well transect above Flume 1 (from 

Goodrich et al., 2004). 

Other studies have also noted the importance of locally recharged monsoon floodwater 

derived from ephemeral stream channels for maintaining river flow. Using a suite of 

geochemical tracers and a two end-member mixing model, Baillie et al. (2007) found that 

locally recharged monsoon floodwaters is one of the dominant water sources in the main stem 

23 
of the spatially intermittent San Pedro River, with these waters comprising 60 to 85 percent of 

riparian ground water in losing reaches of the main stem and 10 to 40 percent in gaining 

reaches. Baseflows in the perennial reaches also contained a significant component of 

monsoon floodwater: 80 percent at the upstream segment, decreasing to 55 percent after 

several gaining reaches (Baillie et al., 2007). Various other methods of tracers are described 

in Cook and Herczeg (1999). Coes and Pool (2005) looked at recharge in the same basin and 

found that ephemeral stream channel recharge occurs during both summer and winter 

streamflow events. 

v. Landscape and hydrologic connections 

Watersheds and their surrounding ecosystems are linked by the flow of water. In a watershed 

context, landscape hydrologic connectivity refers to the maintenance of natural hydraulic 

connections of surface and subsurface flow between source, headwater, or contributing areas 

and downstream/down gradient receiving waters. Nadeau and Rains (2007) defined it as “the 

hydrologically mediated transfer of mass, momentum, energy, or organisms within or 

between compartments of the hydrologic cycle.” In arid land streams, this hydrologic 

connection occurs episodically during flood pulses, yet still provides a substantial amount of 

the mass, momentum, energy and organisms delivered to downstream perennial waters, as 

well as to ground-water recharge. 

Freeman et al. (2007) stated that, “The hydrologic connectivity of small headwater streams to 

navigable waters is clear and unambiguous to ecologists. Every important aspect of the river 

ecosystem, the river geomorphic system, and the river chemical system begins in headwater 

streams.” Kennedy (1977) discussed the interactions of stream-riparian-vegetation-energynutrients-water production-aquatic life and terrestrial life, noting that the key to wise 

management of aquatic ecosystems is wise management of the watershed. 

As headwater streams occur upstream from, and may ultimately discharge into higher order 

perennial streams, they connect landscape processes through their influence on the supply, 

transport, and fate of water and solutes in the watershed (Alexander et al., 2007; Leibowitz et 

al., 2008). 

Shaw and Cooper (2008) noted that biotic patterns within ephemeral stream networks are 

controlled directly by interactions of hydrologic and geomorphic regimes, and indirectly by 

watershed and stream-network properties. In their study of riparian vegetation and watershed 

linkages in ephemeral stream systems, they classified channels into three types based on 

physical properties and plant community types. Their classification system described 

functional linkages among watersheds, stream reaches, and riparian plant ecology, indicating 

a strong landscape connection between processes in the upper watershed and the lower 

watershed. For example, they found that streamflow and ground water regimes in regional 

flood plain rivers were driven by climatic patterns from distant portions of the upper 

watershed and were relatively insensitive to local rainfall. 

24 
Figure 18. Photograph of ephemeral and intermittent stream channels connecting to a 

perennial reach of Cienega Creek, southeast of Tucson, Arizona. (Photograph: Lainie 

Levick/Aerial flight courtesy of Lighthawk, www.lighthawk.org) 

Delivery of water to a stream is dependent largely on the timing, duration, and amount of 

water that falls on the surface and subsequently runs off, which is dependent on soil type, and 

condition of the watershed and buffer. The importance of hydrologic connectivity in arid 

environments relates closely to the delivery of water, sediment, nutrients, compounds, etc. to 

downstream areas. Small tributaries generally have land-dominated hydrographs as opposed 

to stream-flow dominated, because they mainly drain adjacent land surfaces. Numerous 

observed runoff events originating in the uplands of ephemeral tributaries at the WGEW have 

reached the San Pedro River as evidenced by corresponding hydrograph observations at the 

USGS Tombstone gaging station just downstream of the confluence of Walnut Gulch and the 

San Pedro River. Instrumenting additional watersheds would add to the understanding of 

these arid and semi-arid systems. 

Although observed runoff events are more meaningful than simulated results, nevertheless, 

models are useful in understanding a hydrologic system. In a hydrologic modeling study of 

ephemeral tributaries to the San Pedro River, Levick et al. (2006) determined that simulated 

flows from the uplands would reach the San Pedro. Using the AGWA/KINEROS model, they 

looked at runoff and sediment yield using three design storms: 2-year 1-hour, 5-year 1-hour, 

and 10-year 1-hour. They determined that under predevelopment conditions, even the 2-year1-hour design storm event (18.47 mm) was enough to fill the void spaces in channel-bed 

sediment, overcome transmission losses, and cause a small but measurable flow at the 

watershed outlet, demonstrating a hydrologic connection from the ephemeral tributaries to the 

San Pedro River, nearly ten miles downstream. The simulations showed that larger storm 

events yielded more flow, as did post-development simulations where impermeable surfaces 

in the watershed increased. For more information on the AGWA/KINEROS model, go to 

http://www.tucson.ars.ag.gov/agwa. 

25 
Figure 19. Photographs of an ephemeral stream, same location during flow (left), and 

dry (right), Tucson, Arizona. 

vi. Energy dissipation 

Energy dissipation refers to the transformation and/or reduction in the amount of kinetic 

energy of flowing water, which is a function of channel roughness, channel morphology, and 

buffer and landscape vegetation. Stream energy dissipation is important for the prevention of 

channel erosion and scour, and increased sediment loads that can degrade water quality. 

Water flowing in stream channels is subject to two key forces: (1) gravity that moves the 

water downslope and (2) friction between the water and channel boundaries that resists the 

downslope movement. These two forces determine, to a large degree, the ability of the water 

to modify the channel geometry and transport debris. In addition, channel roughness, slope, 

and depth determine the velocity of the flowing water (Leopold et al., 1964; Wakelin-King 

and Webb, 2007). Channel slopes in the Southwest are often large so when flows do occur 

they have high velocities and consequently significant energy and stream power. 

Dissipation of energy in channels can occur due to vegetation, curvature (stream sinuosity), 

obstructions (rocks, debris, dams), and the size, character and configuration of material in the 

bed and banks. Flow hydraulics and roughness coefficients in some arid and semi-arid 

channels are strongly influenced by vegetation, which frequently grows on the normally dry 

channel beds to exploit moisture contained in subsurface sediment. 

vii. Sediment mobilization, storage, transport, and deposition 

As noted previously, although ephemeral streams do not flow at all times, they still perform 

the major functions of a stream: the transportation of water, nutrients, and sediment. Unlike 

perennial streams that continuously move sediment through the watershed, sediment 

movement in non-perennial stream channels generally occurs as a pulse in response to runoff 

generated by the short duration, high intensity thunderstorms that are typical of arid and semiarid regions. These thunderstorms can result in flash floods and yield rapidly rising runoff 

26 
 

hydrographs. The associated high velocity turbulent flash flows contain heavy sediment loads 

and push large amounts of coarse sediment through the system. In addition, sediment is 

moved from the uplands and hillslopes into the channels from overland flow. Figure 20 

shows photographs from an unusually large flood event in Tucson, Arizona, that moved large 

quantities of rock and debris through the channel. The rock and debris plugged up the bridge, 

causing the floodwaters to leave the channel, damaging the roadway and flooding nearby 

homes. 

Figure 20. Photographs from an unusually large flood event in an ephemeral stream that 

damaged roads and bridges, and flooded nearby homes, Tucson, Arizona, July 31, 2006. 

Channels in arid and semi-arid regions tend to have deep sediments that are mostly sands and 

gravels, with widely scattered shrubs that are resistant to violent flood waters. However, the 

unconsolidated alluvium can easily be mobilized during flows, unlike the clay bedded or 

armored channels in more humid regions. These deep sediments cause large transmission 

losses in the downstream direction, resulting in reductions in both flow volume and velocity 

over the length of the stream, and subsequent deposition of bed load materials and coarser 

suspended sediments in the downstream segments (Whitford, 2002). 

Storm water is often completely absorbed in the channel network before reaching the outlet. 

Transmission losses and decreasing discharge in the downstream direction thus promote the 

stepwise movement, deposition and storage of sediment within ephemeral stream networks 

(Renard, 1975). The effect is a pulsing style of sediment movement that doesn’t always reach 

the watershed outlet, but is instead remobilized during the next flow and redistributed within 

the watershed’s channel network (Leopold et al., 1964; Thornes, 1977; DeBano et al., 1995). 

Ephemeral and intermittent channels contain a wide range of sediment size, with the larger 

material remaining essentially at rest although a significant portion is available for transport 

(Renard and Laursen, 1975). These channels are typically transport-limited systems as 

opposed to detachment limited. The large flows that can move great quantities of sediment 

are relatively infrequent in arid and semi-arid regions; however the sediment moved by the 

smaller more frequent flows can add up to a considerable amount (Nichols, 2006). 

As a result of decreased flow rates in the downstream direction, more silts and fines are 

deposited in the channel, which can be advantageous to biotic communities. A study of 

27 
ephemeral rivers in the Namib Desert (Jacobson et al., 2000a) found that “Organic carbon, 

nitrogen and phosphorous were correlated with silt content, and silt deposition patterns 

influence patters of moisture availability and plant rooting, creating and maintaining microhabitats for various organisms.” Jacobson concluded that “...alluviation patterns associated 

with the hydrologic regime strongly influence the structure, productivity, and spatial 

distribution of biotic communities in ephemeral river ecosystems.” 

Because the small, uppermost channels of a drainage network are important in determining 

the amount of sediment transported downstream during storm events, their removal will 

increase sedimentation rates in downstream channels (Meyer and Wallace, 2000). This 

increased sediment load can have negative effects on channel stability, fish, invertebrates, and 

overall stream productivity. However, when small or headwater streams are replaced with 

paved or lined floodways during land development, sediment production may decrease, 

causing an increase in downstream erosion as sediment starved waters move through the 

watershed. Figure 21 is a photograph of sediment-laden floodwaters. 

Figure 21. Photograph of sediment-laden floodwaters in an ephemeral stream, Walnut 

Gulch, Arizona. (Photograph: USDA-ARS/SWRC) 

Sediment deposition can have varying effects. For example, sediment deposited during flow 

events can encourage plant germination (i.e. Cottonwood, Populus fremontii ) by providing 

seed beds and scarifying seeds, but it also can inhibit the growth of seedlings or some types of 

vegetation, such as non-native saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima). This can be beneficial in 

some instances where stream restoration efforts are occurring. However, some aquatic 

species can be adversely affected by excessive sediment, which can interfere with 

reproduction and feeding. 

b. Geomorphic Characteristics 

The variability in time and space of fluvial processes is particularly characteristic of arid and 

semi-arid area rivers (Tooth, 2000a), yet the role of rivers in shaping desert landscapes has 

28 
 

generally been underestimated by geomorphologists. As a result, there is inadequate 

information on geomorphic processes and forms in arid and semi-arid regions. This is 

important because fluvial processes are a cause of so many problems in desert areas (Reid and 

Frostick, 1989), and also because the geomorphology and hydraulic-geometry relationships of 

ephemeral and intermittent streams are very different from humid area perennial streams 

(Graf, 1988; Reid and Frostick, 1989; Thornes, 1994; Tooth, 2000a; Bull and Kirkby, 2002). 

Although one of the most universally recognized traits of arid and semi-arid ephemeral stream 

channels is their enormous variability in form, several broad generalizations have been used 

to characterize them: 

• They are often closely spaced, resulting in a high drainage density. 

• They have high width-to-depth ratios. 

• They are likely to be braided (Figure 22). 

• They have low sinuosity relative to their humid counterparts. 

Closely spaced channels and a high drainage density are generally due to high erosion rates 

and limited runoff, which produce high sediment concentrations in arid and semi-arid region 

channelized flows (Reid and Frostick, 1997; Bull and Kirkby, 2002). In headwater areas, this 

may lead to gullying and/or badland development until such time as shrinking contributing 

area, stabilizing vegetation, and/or surface armoring moderate erosion from rain splash and 

surface flows. High width-to-depth ratios, braided channels and low sinuosity are often the 

result of high sediment concentrations and coarse grain sizes (Bull and Kirkby, 2002). 

Figure 22. Photograph showing an ephemeral braided stream system, Yuma Wash, 

southwest Arizona. (Photograph: Susan Howe, Colorado State University) 

29 
In most arid and semi-arid river cross sections, depth increases with discharge somewhat 

faster than does width (Leopold and Maddock, 1953). The width of channels increases much 

more rapidly in the downstream direction (Breschta and Platts, 1986) than is observed in 

humid regions, resulting in wide channels in the lower reaches. Wolman and Gerson (1978) 

compiled data from different arid and semi-arid regions and found that channel widths 

increased rapidly up to a drainage area of about 50 km2

 (Figure 23). As drainage area 

increased beyond about 50 km2, channel widths asymptotically approached a value between 

100 and 200 m. It is likely that this stabilization of channel width for larger drainage areas is 

due to the fact that transmission losses from flows with such a high wetted perimeter 

compensate for any addition of tributary water (Reid and Frostick, 1997). In ephemeral 

stream channels with no significant tributary inputs, transmission losses can result in 

decreasing channel width and capacity in the downstream direction with some ultimately 

becoming unchannelized alluvial surfaces termed “floodouts” (Dunkerley, 1992; Tooth, 

2000b). 

Figure 23. Relation of bankfull channel width to drainage area for different climatic 

environments (after Wolman and Gerson, 1978). 

An oscillating pattern of narrow, incised reaches and wide, shallow reaches has also been 

observed in ephemeral stream channels (Schumm and Hadley, 1957; Bull, 1997; Pelletier and 

DeLong, 2004). The wavelength of these oscillations ranges from 15 m to over 10 km (Bull, 

1997) and has been successfully modeled as a function of channel slope, width, and depth 

(Pelletier and DeLong, 2004). Alternating erosional and depositional reaches migrate 

progressively upstream, resulting in repeated episodes of incision and aggradation at any 

given point along the channel. Perturbation of these systems by natural or anthropogenic 

causes can result in the development of continuous incised channels, or arroyos, as described 

in the next section. 

In addition to their pronounced widths, the lower reaches of ephemeral streams are noted for 

having particularly flat bed topography; the beds of single-thread streams are often near 

horizontal and planar (Reid and Frostick, 1997) (Figure 24). Channel bars, where present, are 

also often flat-topped and rise only 10-20 cm above the thalweg (Leopold et al., 1966; 

Frostick and Reid, 1977, 1979). Bed flatness and channel width are likely related through 

30 
 

flow depth; wide, shallow flows suppress the secondary current cells that encourage the 

development of bars (Reid and Frostick, 1997). Rapidly receding flows can destroy or 

modify bedforms such as ripples, dunes, and antidunes that may develop at greater flow 

depths. Bedforms in streams are created when water currents carry loose grains across the 

horizontal surface of unconsolidated sediments. The size and shape of bedforms are 

determined by the flow velocity, direction, and consistency. 

Figure 24. Photograph of a typical wide, flat, and sandy ephemeral stream channel, 

Martinez Wash, Arizona. (Photograph: William Kepner, USEPA/ORD) 

i. Channel-forming processes 

Fluvial processes are significant agents of erosion and deposition in arid and semi-arid regions 

and thus, over time, desert rivers can be active land-forming agents (Frostick and Reid, 1987; 

Reid and Frostick, 1997). Low rainfall in desert regions results in weathering processes 

dominated by mechanical rather than chemical means. Clay production is thus inhibited and 

silt-sized fractions are predominant in the soils. The lack of bank-stabilizing clay in arid and 

semi-arid region ephemeral stream channels may partially explain why these channels 

typically have wide, shallow, low sinuosity geometries (Schumm, 1961; Scott, 2006). The 

sparseness of vegetation along some stream banks in arid areas can also contribute to channel 

widening tendencies (Miller, 1995; Reid and Frostick, 1997). Furthermore, channel-bed 

armoring is uncommon in desert streams because of the high supply of all sediment sizes, 

rapid recession of flash flood hydrographs, and extended periods of no flow (Reid and 

Laronne, 1995). 

As event size increases sediment can be moved further downstream, but only the largest, least 

frequent events are capable of flushing sediment completely through the system and opening 

up (widening or incising) channels that have become progressively choked with vegetation 

and sediment. Indeed, Lekach et al. (1992) observed that more than 90 percent of the bed 

31 
load yield in an arid-region watershed originated from the mid-catchment channels during 

larger runoff events. High-magnitude, low-frequency floods thus control channel 

development, and their effects tend to be modified very slowly by smaller events. The result 

is a tapestry of highly varied, transient channel forms that are a reflection of the recent flood 

history rather than an equilibrium state. In addition, the variable flows in combination with 

sediment characteristics will influence the character of the flood plain (Nanson and Croke, 

1992). 

The morphology of ephemeral stream channels, in combination with transmission losses, is 

the result of cyclical patterns of infill and erosion. For example, the smaller, more frequent 

flows that transport sediment into the channel network can, over time, result in the infilling of 

channels and decreasing of channel width (e.g., Burkham, 1972), often in association with the 

growth of riparian vegetation (see section 5.d). In contrast, periods of low (base) flow in 

perennial steams are characterized by low sediment loads and can cause channel narrowing by 

cutting into deposits left during larger flows when ephemeral tributaries are active (e.g., 

Friedman et al.,1996). Dunkerley and Brown (1999) determined that smaller flows are 

disproportionately impacted by transmission losses than bank-full flows because flatbottomed channels result in proportionately larger wetted perimeter for a given flow volume. 

In addition, a steep increase in transmission losses occurs as flows overtop their banks and 

spread out onto the flood plain, which further limits the potential work that can be 

accomplished by intermediate floods (Graf, 1983; Lange, 2005). Together these relationships 

encourage aggradation within the channel network. Over time, however, the threshold flow 

required to cause a major erosive event is reduced as fine sediment retards infiltration 

capacity (e.g., Dunkerley, 2008), channel width narrows and the growth of flood plain 

vegetation encourages the concentration of flow within the main channel. Both channel 

widening (e.g., Burkham, 1972; Friedman and Lee, 2002) and incision (e.g., Merritt and 

Wohl, 2003) have been observed when this threshold has inevitably been reached. 

In the late 19th century, ephemeral stream channels throughout the American Southwest 

began to incise into alluvial valleys, creating deep continuous channels that are collectively 

referred to as arroyos. This arroyo formation episode was one of several periods of channel 

incision that are evidenced in the Holocene stratigraphic record, and separated by extended 

periods of aggradation (Cooke and Reeves, 1976). Arroyos are defined by Elliot et al. (1999) 

as large-scale, continuous, and persistent erosional features created when stream channels 

incise into their alluvial valleys (Figure 25). The term arroyo is usually used to refer to 

incised ephemeral stream channels in the American Southwest, but it is important to note that 

incised channels have also been formed on intermittent streams and have been observed in 

many regions throughout the world. 

Arroyo development is commonly thought to result from a combination of three factors: 

anthropogenic disturbance, changing climatic conditions, and/or intrinsic geomorphic 

conditions. Land-use change associated with overgrazing, farming, and timber harvesting 

was one of the first explanations for arroyo development (e.g., Thornwaite et al., 1942; 

Antevs, 1952; Cooke and Reeves, 1976; Fanning, 1999). Reduced vegetation and infiltration 

rates associated with these anthropogenic activities were widespread in the late 1800s, and 

likely increased both runoff and erosion. 

32 
 

Figure 25. Photograph of a small arroyo or incised channel, southern Colorado. 

A factor that is mentioned less frequently in the literature on cyclic incision episodes is the 

reason why it is observed primarily in ephemeral stream channels. Aside from obvious 

differences in their discharge regime, the fundamental difference between ephemeral and 

perennial streams is that ephemeral stream channels are characterized by sizeable 

transmission losses when they flow. Numerous authors have documented substantial 

transmission losses in ephemeral streams, frequently to such an extent that flows infiltrate 

completely before reaching the watershed outlet (Keppel and Renard, 1962; Aldridge, 1970). 

Schumm and Hadley (1957) suggested that deposition as a result of seepage-induced 

discharge reductions in the downstream direction eventually causes dismemberment of the 

drainage system by the sealing off of tributary channels. Resulting increased valley gradients 

cause the formation of discontinuous gullies and reintegration of the system by arroyo cutting 

in the fills. Successive episodes of erosion and deposition are then thus the logical course of 

events as gradients adjust to differential filling along the profile. This explanation is 

consistent with observations of alternative erosion and aggradation following a flood event in 

Yuma Wash, a tributary to the Colorado River in southwestern Arizona (Merritt and Wohl, 

2003). 

Combining these observations under conditions characterized by high transmission losses and 

decreasing downstream stream power, aggradation will prevail. These conditions are altered 

during the highest flows when transmission losses are less significant, and increased stream 

gradients from prior deposition allow streams to cut into the valley fill. Subsequent smaller 

flows will be contained within the enlarged channel area and subject to reduced transmission 

loss and increasing stream power in the downstream direction. As a result they will continue 

to widen and deepen the channel until such time as the downstream distribution of stream 

power is again decreasing. Whether it is one flood event or a series of events closely spaced 

33 
in time that is needed to upset aggraded conditions has still not been resolved, and is likely to 

vary depending on a suite of other site-specific hydrologic conditions. 

ii. Geomorphic response to land management 

It is difficult to assess the stability of stream systems that are widely characterized as being in 

a perpetual state of flux. A single cycle of incision and deposition can last decades to 

centuries, and numerous cycles would have to be analyzed before it could be decisively 

concluded that any persistent change was taking place. Despite this, however, enough is 

known about the functioning of hydrologic and geomorphic systems to make very broad 

generalizations about the downstream effects of climatic and/or management changes. For 

instance, if upland surfaces are armored with impervious pavement due to development then it 

is known that there will be increased runoff (particularly from smaller storms), but less 

sediment delivered to the channels. Over time it can be expected with some confidence that 

increased erosion will occur in channels downstream of the developed area, as numerous 

studies have shown (e.g., Booth, 1990; Chin and Gregory, 2001; Semmens, 2004). 

The management of arid and semi-arid lands drained by ephemeral stream channels has a 

direct impact on the hydrology and geomorphology of the drainage network. Indeed 

ephemeral streams may be more sensitive to anthropogenic disturbance than perennial streams 

(Bull, 1997). Impervious surfaces increase the frequency and magnitude of flooding. Storm 

sewers and lined drainages increase the rate at which these waters are delivered to the channel 

network, and thus further increase peak flows (Center for Watershed Protection, 2003). The 

primary geomorphic consequence of these hydrologic changes is the erosional entrenchment 

of adjacent channels and associated transportation of the excavated sediment further 

downstream. Ultimately, as headwater streams equilibrate to the new flow regime and their 

importance as a sediment source declines, channel entrenchment will likely shift further and 

further downstream. 

The cumulative effect of many entrenching channels is a significant increase in sediment load 

in downstream waters, which may partly explain why many TMDLs in the Southwest are 

written for sediment. TMDL stands for “Total Maximum Daily Load,” and is a written, 

quantitative plan and analysis to determine the daily maximum amount of a pollutant that a 

waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and includes an allocation of 

that amount to the pollutant's sources (http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/intro.html). In EPA 

Region 9, twenty out of twenty-six TMDLs that have recently been completed include 

sediment as one of the pollutants (http://www.epa.gov/region09/water/tmdl/final.html). 

In addition to changes in channel form and sediment yield, the geomorphic response to 

anthropogenic disturbance can also have significant consequences for riparian ecosystems and 

water supplies. As streams become entrenched, formerly rich biological communities on the 

flood plain can become hydrologically disconnected from ephemeral streamflow and 

transform into dry terraces. Additionally, as channels become narrower and unconsolidated 

alluvial bed material is removed, there is less capacity to absorb passing flows and for 

vegetation to establish. 

34 
Figure 26. Diagram of digitized stream channels on a subwatershed at WGEW (from 

Miller et al., 1999a). 

iii. Map scale in determining channel network and stream order 

Map scale can influence the identification of a stream channel network, which is often the 

basis for watershed, basin and regional scale assessments of hydrologic systems and surface 

processes. As mentioned earlier, ephemeral stream channels are oftentimes the smallest 

channels in a watershed, or headwater streams, and make up a significant portion of the total 

stream network, making them important in watershed-based assessments. However, because 

of map scale, they frequently will not be represented on a map. 

In conducting a watershed assessment, map scale will influence the level of detail of the 

drainage network (Miller et al., 1999a). The most common source of drainage network data is 

from 1:24,000-scale U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps (i.e. blue-line 

streams) and studies have found that USGS 1:24,000-scale maps may grossly underestimate 

the number and length of drainage networks (Schneider, 1961; Leopold et al., 1964; Mark, 

1983; Heine et al., 2004). 

Heine et al. (2004) reported that USGS 1:24,000-scale maps under-represented drainage 

networks by 64.6 percent in a study in Kansas. Mark (1983) found in a study in Kentucky on 

twenty-nine small watersheds that USGS 1:24,000-scale maps under-represented the number 

of source channels with an average of 2.15 channels per watershed. 

Miller et al. (1999a) compared drainage density of digitized stream channels using different 

resolution aerial photographs and USGS maps, and found that drainage density decreased 

with decreasing scale while the underlying structure of the drainage pattern was retained 

(Figure 26). 

In a striking study of importance to arid and semi-arid environments, Leopold et al. (1964) 

examined the Arroyo de los Frijoles watershed near Santa Fe, New Mexico. Based on USGS 

1:24,000-scale maps, the Arroyo de los Frijoles watershed had no identified stream channels; 

35 
however, after an examination of the contour patterns, the investigators found a potential 

drainage network with 258 first-order channels. A field study of one of the first-order 

channels revealed that its watershed actually contained 86 first-order ephemeral stream 

channels. The study by Leopold et al. (1964) illustrated that in arid and semi-arid 

environments even detailed examination of terrain data (i.e. contours or DEM) may still 

under-represent the number and length of ephemeral stream channels, making the use of 

“stream order” problematic. 

c. Biogeochemical Functions 

The biogeochemical functions of ephemeral and intermittent streams include cycling of 

elements and compounds, removal of imported elements and compounds, particulate 

detention, and organic matter transport. These functions influence water quality, sediment 

deposition, nutrient availability, and biotic functions. Biogeochemical features are affected 

directly and indirectly by land-use and land-cover change. Hydrologic modifications such as 

direct alteration of flow regime and hydrologic flow paths, and indirect alterations such as 

increased impervious cover in contributing areas of the watershed can cause biogeochemical 

changes. Elimination of the surface-water ground-water connection or disruption of the 

connection between a stream and its watershed by large-scale changes such as urban and 

suburban development also influence biogeochemical functions (Grimm et. al., 2004). 

The spatial and temporal variability of rainfall in the arid Southwest affects the 

biogeochemical functions of ephemeral and intermittent streams. These systems are driven by 

pulse inputs of water, sediment, organic matter, and other materials during rain events. 

Periodic flows in ephemeral or intermittent channels have a strong influence on 

biogeochemistry by providing a connection between the channel and other landscape elements 

(Valett et al., 2005). This episodic connection can be very important for transmitting a 

substantial amount of material into downstream perennial waters (Nadeau and Rains, 2007) 

where it is an important component of perennial food webs (Jacobson et al., 2000b). 

i. Cycling of elements and compounds 

Cycling of elements and compounds refers to biotic and abiotic processes that cycle elements 

and convert compounds from one form to another (Lee et al., 2001, 2004) and is an essential 

ecosystem function performed by ephemeral and intermittent streams. Biotic processes 

include net primary production wherein plants and algae take up nutrients from the soil and 

water, and detritus turnover from which nutrients are released back into the ecosystem by 

microbial activity (Brinson et al., 1995). 

Biogeochemical cycling primarily occurs through chemical transformation in response to 

redox potentials. These reduction and oxidation reactions are affected by the soil profile, 

wind inputs, and hydrologic input (Brinson et al., 1995). The recycling of elements and 

compounds is critical to maintaining their low concentrations in flowing water. As uptake 

and removal processes primarily occur at the water-sediment interface, physical 

characteristics such as channel depth and water velocity will affect nutrient recycling 

(Peterson et al., 2001). In addition, the amount of soil organic matter, coarse and fine woody 

36 
debris, and litter within the channel and soil profile will largely determine the ability of 

ephemeral and intermittent streams to perform certain biogeochemical functions (Lee et al., 

2004). In hyporheic zones, there is substantial biogeochemical cycling of nutrients and trace 

elements, which are essential to aquatic life (Hibbs, 2008). Holmes et al. (1994) found that 

the parafluvial zone represents a significant source of nitrate to a nitrogen-limited stream 

ecosystem, which might be expected to contribute to ecosystem resilience following 

disturbance. 

Alteration of channel characteristics (e.g., channel shape and depth) and organic matter input 

will affect the ability of streams to cycle materials. Because small streams have high surfacearea to volume ratios, they are often able to take up and process nutrients at higher rates than 

larger perennial streams (Pinay et al., 2002), and are important for maintaining downstream 

water quality. 

Water limitation in arid environments results in patchy, sparse vascular plant cover. As a 

result, algal and soil microbial activity is important for nutrient cycling in these environments 

(Belnap et al., 2005). Some dominant plant species such as mesquite (Prosopis sp.) living 

along ephemeral streams have nitrogen fixing bacteria associated with their roots, which can 

be an important influence on local nitrogen availability (Virginia et al., 1992). 

Biological soil crusts, or cryptobiotic crusts, are a mixture of mosses, algae, microfungi, 

lichen and cyanobacteria that live on and just below desert soil surfaces. They are usually 

found in open, undisturbed areas where vegetation is sparse, for example in upland areas 

adjacent to ephemeral streams. These organic complexes help to stabilize desert soils, hold in 

soil moisture, fix carbon and nitrogen, and can stimulate plant growth (Belnap, 2003). In 

some soil types, biological soil crusts can increase infiltration rates. Biological soil crusts can 

determine the amount, location, and timing of water infiltration into desert soils, which, in 

turn, determines the type and size of microbial response. Nutrients resulting from this pulse 

then create a positive feedback as increases in microbial and plant biomass enhance future 

resource capture or, alternatively, may be lost to the atmosphere, deeper soils, or downslope 

patches (Belnap et al., 2005). 

ii. Detention of imported elements and compounds 

Headwater streams and wetlands are in a unique position to intercept nutrients and 

contaminants from upland environments before they reach larger perennial streams (Brinson, 

1988). As water moves through small, shallow channels and comes in contact with sediment, 

vegetation, coarse and fine woody debris and soil organic matter, elements and compounds 

are removed from the water, either by direct uptake or by conversion into inactive forms. 

Important variables in assessing the capacity of ephemeral and intermittent streams to perform 

this function include the amount of vegetative cover and soil organic matter (Lee et al., 2004). 

Nutrient uptake and removal occurs more rapidly in the small, uppermost channels in a 

watershed than in larger, downstream channels (Peterson et al., 2001). During intermediate 

storms, small headwater channels may serve as collection points for organic matter. Material 

accumulated during drier periods can be released downstream during large, infrequent storm 

37 
events (Fisher et al., 2001). In an Arizona watershed, Fisher and Grimm (1985) found that 

ephemeral streams retained between 50 percent and 90 percent of the nitrogen and 

phosphorous entering the stream during intermediate storm events. Several authors have 

hypothesized that headwater streams contribute significantly to downstream productivity 

(Freeman et al., 2007; Cummins and Wilzbach, 2005; Wipfli, 2005). 

The temporally and spatially variable rainfall in the arid Southwest influences nitrogen 

processing and retention in small streams. Nitrogen cycling is dependent on soil moisture as 

some processes (e.g., nitrification) only occur in aerobic conditions while others (e.g., 

denitrification) only occur in anaerobic conditions (Pinay et al., 2002). Therefore, the degree 

of soil moisture will affect the end products of nitrogen processing, which will affect 

downstream waters. During high moisture condition (such as after a storm event), ephemeral 

streams may experience elevated rates of denitrification (Fisher et al., 2001; Rassam et al., 

2006). Denitrification converts nitrogen to gaseous forms that can be lost to the air, thereby 

completely removing it from the system, which can be important in areas that receive excess 

nutrients from the watershed. Westerhoff and Anning (2000) found that ephemeral streams 

had higher total organic carbon (TOC) levels than perennial streams, suggesting that 

ephemeral streams are important for storing and processing organic material between large 

storm events. Because large amounts of material are only moved into larger streams during 

extreme rainfall events, much of the nutrient cycling may occur in the smaller streams. 

iii. Particulate detention 

Factors important in assessing the capacity of ephemeral and intermittent streams to retain 

particulates include floodway cross-sectional area, channel roughness, and sediment supply 

(Lee et al., 2004). Because headwater, ephemeral and intermittent streams comprise a large 

percentage of the total watershed channel distance, in combination they may have the capacity 

to store large amounts of sediment and particulates. When studying the seasonal dynamics of 

physical and chemical variables in perennial, intermittent and ephemeral streams, Dieterich 

and Anderson (1998) found that ephemeral streams were very effective in removing and 

storing suspended sediment from the water column. This stored particulate matter (e.g., 

sediment, plant fragments) can be released to downstream ecosystems during large storm 

events. 

The amount of particulate retention will depend on the timing, duration, and amount of water 

received, as well as the characteristics of the stream channel and the integrity of the vegetative 

community around the stream (Brinson et al., 1995; Powell et al., 2007). Powell et al. (2007) 

found little net change in the removal and deposition of sediments in an Arizona ephemeral 

stream over a three-year period. However, individual storm events resulted in scour or fill 

depending on storm severity suggesting that ephemeral stream channels may undergo cycles 

of infill and erosion. 

In the southwestern deserts, large amounts of sediment and other particulates are washed into 

small streams during storms due to compacted soils with low infiltration rates and sparse 

vegetation in the upland environment (Fisher and Minckley, 1978). Flow events that do not 

fully connect small streams to downstream waters will result in particulate matter accretion 

38 
and storage in the small stream. Sediment deposition in small streams can affect retention of 

organic material, for example by burying leaf litter (Brinson et al., 1995). Buried organic 

matter is processed and transformed in the stream sediments, thereby making it available for 

biological uptake (Richardson et al., 2005). 

iv. Organic carbon export 

Dissolved and particulate organic matter may be exported throughout the watershed through 

mechanisms such as erosion, flushing, displacement, and/or leaching (Lee et al., 2004). 

Organic carbon is the primary source of energy for microbial food webs and its export is 

critical to the productivity of down-gradient receiving waters (Allan, 1995; Wetzel, 2006). 

Variables involved in determining the capacity of ephemeral and intermittent streams to 

export carbon include the condition of the hydrologic connection to downstream reaches, 

shallow subsurface substrate permeability and porosity, soil organic matter content, shrub and 

herbaceous canopy coverage, amount and stage of decay of course litter, and coarse and fine 

woody debris (Lee et al., 2004). 

Thoms et al. (2005) found that anabranch channels (channels that branch off the main river 

and rejoin it downstream) in Australia were important sources of organic carbon for main 

channels despite being connected only during flood events. Freeman et al. (2007) noted that 

headwater streams, which can make up most of the length in a river system, are the primary 

collectors and processors of terrestrially derived organic matter. For example, one study on 

the San Pedro River found that approximately 98 percent of nutrients came into the river 

during the summer monsoon thunderstorms from ephemeral tributaries, and that almost 60 

percent of that input occurred as a flux of particulate matter (Brooks et al., 2007). 

Organic material brought into and stored in small headwater streams, can be broken down and 

transformed into forms more readily available for use by biota in larger perennial streams 

(Richardson et al., 2005). This organic matter may originate from terrestrial sources or from 

algal growth within the stream channels. In arid and semi-arid environments, algae growth in 

the channel may be a more important source of organic carbon than terrestrial plants due to 

the low upland plant cover (Jones et al., 1996; Jacobson et al., 2000b). This was also 

confirmed by Brooks and Lemon (2007) who concluded that in the San Pedro River, high 

concentrations of organic matter, and especially high concentrations of nitrogen occurred with 

the inflow of monsoon runoff from lateral ephemeral tributaries. 

The degree to which material will be transported out of streams depends on channel integrity 

and the condition of the downstream hydrologic connection. Organic matter may be 

transported in multiple ways including leaching, displacement, and flushing (Brinson et al. 

1995). Surface runoff into headwater streams brings nutrients that may be stored and 

transferred to ground-water reserves (Fisher and Grimm, 1985; Belnap et al., 2005). The 

ground water containing nutrients may reemerge downstream in perennial waters or springs 

where they can be an important source of nutrients to plants and wildlife (Fisher and Grimm, 

1985). Ephemeral and intermittent streams can contribute water and nutrients to perennial 

streams even in the absence of direct above ground flow. 

39 
d. Plant Community Support 

Desert washes are easily recognizable by their dense corridor of vegetation that is in strong 

contrast to the more sparsely vegetated uplands (Figure 27). This corridor contributes to the 

disproportionately high biological diversity of desert environments relative to their total area 

(Warren and Anderson, 1985). 

Vegetative communities along ephemeral and intermittent streams provide structural elements 

of food, cover, nesting and breeding habitat, and movement/migration corridors for wildlife 

that are not as available in the adjacent uplands. Functional services of these communities 

include moderating soil and air temperatures, stabilizing channel banks and interfluves, seed 

banking and trapping of silt and fine sediment favorable to the establishment of diverse floral 

and faunal species, and dissipating stream energy which aids in flood control (Howe et al., 

2008). 

In arid and semi-arid regions, plants have adapted to limited water, high temperatures, and 

high evaporation rates. These stresses are only partly alleviated in locations that concentrate 

water, whether they are perennial, ephemeral, or intermittent stream networks. Such areas are 

also subject to periodic disturbance from flood flows. Limited water and flood disturbance 

thus are key factors that structure the vegetation of ephemeral streams (Nilsen et al., 1984; 

Friedman and Lee, 2002). 

Figure 27. Photograph showing dense corridor of vegetation lining an ephemeral wash, 

Agua Fria River, north of Phoenix, AZ. (Photograph: William Kepner, USEPA/ORD) 

The factors affecting riparian vegetation in arid and semi-arid regions are not as well 

understood as in humid regions with perennial rivers. In turn, the influence of vegetation on 

ephemeral or intermittent stream systems is not well studied. It is, however, understood that 

the vegetative structure of desert landscapes reflects the effects of low rainfall. Regardless of 

low rainfall, even in the driest of deserts, there are productive patches (Whitford, 2002). 

40 
i. Physiognomy, density, and species composition 

In ephemeral and intermittent streams, the structure and composition of the vegetation is 

related to the size of the stream and patterns of flow, although most of the diversity is 

comprised of herbaceous species (Bagstad et al., 2005). In their study of vegetation along the 

San Pedro River, Stromberg et al. (1996) found that depth to ground water and bottomland 

elevation and inundation frequency exerted the greatest influence on species composition, 

followed by soil texture, soil moisture holding capacity, light availability and site elevation. 

In another study along the San Pedro River, all annuals showed strong increases in richness 

and cover in the year following a large fall flood, while hydric perennials had a small net 

increase in richness, indicating that both disturbance and increased moisture conditions 

caused by floods, as well as moisture from seasonal rains, contribute to increased richness and 

cover of herbaceous plants in the bottomlands of the San Pedro River, a spatially intermittent 

desert river (Bagstad et al., 2005). 

In regions with seasonal precipitation, depth to ground water is particularly important since 

ground water is closely coupled with stream flow to maintain water supply to riparian 

vegetation (Groeneveld and Griepentrog, 1985). As the hydrologic regime shifts from 

perennial to ephemeral, vegetation composition shifts towards more drought-tolerant species, 

vegetation cover declines, riparian woodlands give way to riparian shrublands, and canopy 

height and upper canopy vegetation volume decline (Leenhouts et al., 2006; Stromberg et al., 

2007). 

The composition of riparian vegetation along desert streams reflects the vegetation 

composition of its watershed. The plants growing along large ephemeral or intermittent 

stream channels or smaller ones below about 5,000 feet elevation include species that are 

obligately associated with riparian environments and ones that typify the surrounding desert 

uplands (Figure 28). The species composition of ephemeral and intermittent streams within 

the arid and semi-arid Southwestern U.S. thus varies widely depending on species 

composition of the watershed and floristic province, as well as with drainage size, climatic 

regime, latitude, longitude, elevation, aspect, and soil characteristics. 

41 
 

Figure 28. Photograph showing riparian vegetation along a desert stream, western 

Arizona. 

Along small desert washes, vegetation composition and structure overlap considerably with 

those of the surrounding desert uplands (Bloss and Brotherson, 1979; Warren and Anderson, 

1985) and consist primarily of small, xerophytic shrubs and trees. Stem and leaf succulents 

and perennial grasses often are present, and annual grasses and forbs become seasonally 

abundant during wet periods. Collectively, the drought-tolerant vegetation that borders 

ephemeral streams is referred to as xeroriparian vegetation (Johnson et al., 1984). 

As water availability increases, the vegetation becomes increasingly distinct from the upland 

vegetation with respect to physiognomy and species composition. The vegetation becomes 

taller (Shreve and Wiggins, 1964) and tree canopy cover can increase (Sponseller and Fisher, 

2006). Xeroriparian species are still present, but mesoriparian and hydroriparian species 

increase in abundance. Ephemeral streams with intermediate water availability support 

drought-tolerant shrubs such as wolfberry (Lycium spp.) or brickellbush (Brickellia spp.) and 

small-leaved trees such as acacia (Acacia greggii), blue palo verde (Parkinsonia floridum), or 

velvet mesquite (Prosopis velutina) (Hardy et al., 2004). Along intermittent and perennial 

streams, riparian scrublands include seepwillow or batamote (Baccharis glutinosa), broom 

(Baccharis sarothroides or B. emoryi), arroweed (Pluchea sericea), and tamarisk (Tamarix 

chinensis) (Brown et al., 1977). Broad-leaved trees with relatively high water needs (e.g., the 

mesoriparian species Arizona walnut (Juglans major), and the hydroriparian species Fremont 

cottonwood (Populus fremontii)) are typically sustained on large washes by floodwater stored 

in perched ground-water reservoirs. 

The additional water availability in the bottomland and riparian zone of a perennial to 

intermittent stream in the Sonoran Desert results in greater plant diversity than the arid 

upland, as measured at temporal scales that capture seasonal variance in resource and 

disturbance pulses, and at spatial scales that capture the environmental heterogeneity of 

bottomlands. Although periodically limited by intense flood disturbance, diversity remains 

42 
high in bottomlands because of the combination of moderate resource levels (ground water, 

seasonal flood water) and persistent effects of flood disturbance (high spatial heterogeneity, 

absence of competitive exclusion), in concert with the same climatic factors that produce 

seasonally high diversity in the region (temporally variable pulses of rainfall) (Stromberg, 

2006). For example, native palms (Washingtonia filifera) occur in only two locations in 

Arizona, both of which are washes (Figure 29). 

Figure 29. Photograph of native palms (Washingtonia filifera) in Castle Creek, AZ. 

(Photograph: William Kepner, USEPA/ORD) 

Vegetation structure also shifts as watershed size and flood intensity increase. On large, dry 

ephemeral streams with intense flood scour, species composition shifts towards pioneer 

species. For example, in Sonoran Desert washes, desert broom (Baccharis sarothroides), a 

pioneer xeroriparian shrub that produces prolific numbers of wind-dispersed seeds, was more 

abundant in washes as watershed size increased (Warren and Anderson, 1985). Other pioneer 

species include burrobush (Ambrosia salsola), a xeroriparian shrub that is adapted to 

disturbance through capacity for clonal growth, and desert willow (Chilopsis linearis), a 

drought-tolerant tree that produces wind-dispersed seeds. Zonation can occur between fluvial 

surfaces within an ephemeral-stream bottomland, with the pioneer species sometimes being 

more abundant in the active channel bed than on the stream banks or flood plain (Bloss and 

Brotherson, 1979). 

ii. Primary productivity and plant water sources 

Plant productivity in arid and semi-arid regions is often low for much of the year, punctuated 

by bursts of activity following rain and runoff events. For example, Smith et al. (1995) found 

that burrobush (Ambrosia salsola) is typically dormant (not actively transpiring) for most of 

the year in a desert wash setting. 

Patterns of primary productivity and evapotranspiration vary depending on whether the main 

water source for the vegetation is direct precipitation, channel flow, or stored water 

43 
(Leenhouts et al., 2006; de Soyza et al., 2004). When stored water is accessible, productivity 

and evapotranspiration of plant species can be high for much of the growing season (Atchley 

et al., 1999). De Soyza et al. (2004) found that plants along an ephemeral stream channel 

responded more to channel flow than direct precipitation, indicating the importance of 

maintaining intact channel networks throughout a watershed. 

Productivity patterns also vary seasonally depending on phenology, morphology, and 

physiological adaptations of the plant species. Some of the perennial plants that grow along 

desert washes are evergreen (e.g., creosote (Larrea tridentata)), and can maintain some level 

of productivity year-round. Others are summer drought-deciduous (e.g., desert lavender 

(Hyptis emoryi)), or winter cold-deciduous (e.g., desert ironwood (Olneya tesota)) (Nilsen et 

al., 1984). 

iii. Temporal and spatial patterns of species diversity 

Non-perennial streams with active flood regimes contain a high diversity of plant species that 

varies depending on the location within the watershed. The complex longitudinal gradients 

encompassing changes in flood intensity, climate, and water availability result in a wide range 

of biological conditions along the stream length (Lite et al., 2005; Shaw and Cooper, 2008). 

During seasonal dry periods, plant species diversity levels along ephemeral stream channels 

typically are low, with values much lower than along perennial streams and also often lower 

than in adjacent uplands (Leitner, 1987). During seasonal wet periods, however, diversity 

levels along some ephemeral stream channels can equal that along perennial stream channels 

(Stromberg et al., in press). 

Species type and composition are affected by flow regime. Stromberg et al. (2006) found that 

in the San Pedro River there is a sharp decline in the riverine marsh type as perennial flows 

become intermittent. As flows become more ephemeral, and the stream channel loses 

vegetation cover and widens, hydromesic pioneer forests (cottonwood-willow (Populus 

fremontii-Salix gooddingii)) give way to mesic pioneer shrublands (dominated by saltcedar 

(Tamarix ramosissima), an introduced species) as tolerance levels for survivorship relative to 

ground-water depth and fluctuation are exceeded. 

Species diversity varies with seasonal rain and stream flow patterns, and also varies on longer 

temporal scales. Following infrequent large winter floods, stream flow can be sustained for 

several months in ephemeral stream reaches of large rivers that drain humid mountains. 

During this period of sustained runoff, the ephemeral stream washes can support a high 

density and diversity of wetland (hydroriparian) plant species (Stromberg et al., in press). 

These “ephemeral wetland” communities develop with a recurrence interval of perhaps once 

per decade or more, depending on the flow regime of the particular stream. 

Water from rainfall and flood flows can trigger a pulse of germination of annual and perennial 

plant species in ephemeral streambeds (Figure 30). Because the dry-season cover of the 

woody vegetation is low, and cover of bare soil is fairly high, the seasonal resource pulses can 

44 
result in very high diversity levels in comparison to those of the more densely vegetated 

perennial streams. 

Figure 30. Photograph of annual plant species in an ephemeral streambed following 

spring rains, southern Arizona. 

Ephemeral reaches of spatially intermittent rivers maintain diverse soil seed banks (Stromberg 

et al., in press). Many of the plant species that establish along ephemeral stream channels 

during water pulses arise from soil seed banks. Along a spatially intermittent stream in 

central Arizona, the soil seed banks of ephemeral stream reaches included a mixture of 

species adapted to xeric, mesic, and hydric conditions (Stromberg et al., in press). For 

example, viable seeds of the wetland taxa Juncus (rushes) were found in ephemeral stream 

reaches. In contrast, wetland species were not found in the soil seed bank of a smaller 

tributary that was ephemeral over its entire length. 

iv. Influences of vegetation on ecosystem processes 

Miller (2005: p. 18) noted that “the most important functions in dryland ecosystems are those 

that control the retention of water and nutrient resources because productivity and diversity 

cannot be sustained in systems that fail to retain these resources.” Vegetation in ephemeral 

stream channels plays a key role in resource retention by protecting soils from wind and water 

erosion, slowing floodwater velocity, and moderating temperatures. Ephemeral stream 

vegetation also influences biogeochemical cycles by providing leaf litter, and food and cover 

for wildlife. In some cases, vegetation can intercept rainfall, preventing it from infiltrating 

into the soil, and influencing the local water balance and ecosystem processes (Owens et al., 

2006; Miller, 2005). Vegetation structure and diversity determine wildlife species diversity 

and abundance, and if a portion of habitat on which a species depends is damaged or 

destroyed, the breeding population of that species could be lost (Anderson and Ohmart, 1977), 

45 
Changes in the abundance or composition of the plant community thus affect an array of 

ecosystem functions and processes. Plants that have the greatest effects on the structure and 

functioning of dryland ecosystems are small trees, shrubs, sub-shrubs and perennial grasses 

(Whitford, 2002). 

v. Vegetation and channel morphology 

Vegetation in arid and semi-arid regions is largely controlled by the availability of water, with 

flood disturbance and edaphic conditions further shaping plant distribution patterns. 

Depending on attributes of the particular stream, the highest density of vegetation may occur 

along the stream bank or within the channel bed (Figure 31). By providing channel and 

stream bank roughness through standing or downed material, vegetation can influence flow 

velocities, flow depths, bank and flood plain erosion, and sediment transport and deposition, 

and can be a major factor contributing both to channel stability and to channel instability (e.g., 

Heede, 1985). Vegetation along the stream bank stabilizes the soil through the reinforcing 

nature of their roots, and prevents erosion (Groeneveld and Griepentrog, 1985). 

In ephemeral stream channels, vegetation may establish on sand bars, and subsequently 

initiate the formation of various depositional features such as small current shadows, bars, 

benches, ridges, or islands (Tooth and Nanson, 2000). Spatially extensive assemblages of any 

plant species have the potential to alter geomorphology and geomorphic processes through 

bioturbation, alteration of nutrient or fire cycles, and patterns of succession (Lovich, 1996). 

Figure 31. Photograph of vegetation growing in an ephemeral channel bed, Arizona. 

(Photograph: Lainie Levick/Aerial flight courtesy of Lighthawk, www.lighthawk.org) 

In humid climates, the spatial distribution of riparian vegetation is related through the flow 

and associated disturbance regimes to fluvial landforms that create establishment sites or 

stress the persistence of established vegetation (Hupp and Osterkamp, 1996). “In semi-arid 

46 
and arid areas, bare sites are relatively abundant but water-availability, particularly in the 

seedling establishment phase, is especially limiting. Thus, in dry climates, patterns of 

establishment may be strongly influenced by surface flow (floods), whereas ground-water 

levels my greatly influence persistence” (Hupp and Osterkamp, 1996, p. 293). 

vi. Vegetation and geochemical cycles 

The dominant plant species of many ephemeral streams are leguminous trees that harbor 

nitrogen-fixing bacterial symbionts. These trees influence geochemical cycles and local pools 

of nitrogen (Virginia et al., 1992). The levels of nitrogen-fixation are related in part to plant 

productivity, and vary temporally and spatially along gradients of water availability. 

The trees and shrubs that grow along ephemeral streams vary in the degree to which they 

resorb nutrients in senescing leaves. The nitrogen-fixing honey mesquite (Prosopis 

glandulosa) had the greatest resorption in one multi-species study (Killingbeck and Whitford, 

2001). 

e. Faunal Support and Habitat 

The riparian environments created by ephemeral and intermittent streams in the arid and semiarid Southwest provide and maintain important habitat for wildlife, and are responsible for 

much of the biotic diversity, yet the scientific literature on this topic is limited. The following 

sections present the current understanding of the contribution of ephemeral and intermittent 

streams to the biotic integrity of southwestern watersheds. 

Riparian systems are one of the rarest habitat types in North America. In the arid Southwest, 

about 80 percent of all animals use riparian resources and habitats at some life stage, and 

more than 50 percent of breeding bird species nest chiefly in riparian habitats (Krueper 1993). 

It has been estimated that over half of all wildlife species in Arizona depend on riparian areas 

(Arizona Riparian Council, 2004). Riparian habitat is the area between the stream channel 

and the upland terrestrial ecosystems. The strongest contrasts between these areas are found 

in arid and semi-arid lands where water is a limiting resource (e.g., Ceballos, 1985). 

Because ephemeral and intermittent stream channels have a higher moisture content and more 

abundant vegetation than the surrounding areas, they are very important to wildlife. 

Frequently, these streams may retain the only available water in the area, with perennial 

segments or permanent pools interposed wherever hydrogeological conditions allow. These 

isolated perennial waters can support fauna not found in an otherwise ephemeral system. 

The microclimates created in and around ephemeral and intermittent streams are utilized 

extensively by wildlife, and especially by less mobile species that cannot avoid the harsh 

desert environment by moving to more favorable microclimates. As a result, these areas 

generally support the greatest concentrations of wildlife, providing the primary habitat, 

predator protection, breeding and nesting sites, shade, movement corridors, migration 

stopover sites, and food sources. 

47 
The importance of streamside or riparian vegetation communities to wildlife is well 

recognized (Carothers, 1977), and is heightened in the arid and semi-arid Southwestern U.S. 

due to the high ambient temperatures and intense aridity outside of the riparian community. 

i. Spatial structure, connectivity, and corridors in wildlife habitat 

The spatial structure of wildlife habitat is described by patch size, number of patches, density 

and distribution, in addition to the geometric complexity of the patches (Johnson and Lowe, 

1985). The term “connectivity” has been used to describe how spatial arrangement and 

quality of elements in the landscape affect movement of organisms among habitat patches. 

The term “corridor” refers to a connecting feature in the landscape, and “habitat corridor” 

generally refers to a linear strip of vegetated land that provides a continuous or near 

continuous pathway between two larger habitat blocks (Bennett, 1999). One of the key 

functions of intact and functional migration corridors is to link patches in the landscape. 

Ephemeral and intermittent stream channels provide important wildlife movement corridors in 

arid and semi-arid regions because they contain continuous chains of vegetation that wildlife 

can utilize for cover and food. In addition, during the summer monsoon season small floods 

create a more-or-less continuous corridor of water that allows dispersal of herpetofauna such 

as garter snakes and amphibians, which are active during the summer. Winter rains do not 

serve the same function, since the cold temperatures prevent much activity in amphibians or 

reptiles. This dispersal mechanism allows genetic interchange between subpopulations that 

are isolated for most of the year, and allows recolonization of sites where subpopulations may 

be lost due to drought or disturbance. 

Various authors (e.g. Meyer et al., 2007) have recognized the importance of small stream and 

headwater habitats, including those of ephemeral and intermittent streams, as vital parts of the 

biological integrity of U.S. waterways. The degradation of these habitats and loss of their 

connections to larger streams have negative consequences not only to the inhabitants of these 

streams, but also for the diversity of downstream and riparian ecosystems, and the biological 

integrity of the entire river network. 

Habitat fragmentation caused by human activities can jeopardize the survival of wildlife 

species by diminishing their ability to access the resources they need, retain genetic diversity, 

and maintain reproductive capacity within a population; however, conservation biologists 

have debated these concepts because of lack of detailed information (Hilty et al., 2006). 

Recent studies are attempting to clarify this issue. For example, in their study of predator use 

of corridors in the northern California wine-growing region, Hilty et al. (2006) found that 

mammalian predator detection rates were 11 times higher in riparian areas than in vineyard 

locations. More research into this topic is needed. 

As previously mentioned, nearly 81 percent of all streams in the six Southwestern states are 

ephemeral or intermittent (USGS, 2006) and in many watersheds most stream channel reaches 

are ephemeral or intermittent. From a strictly numerical standpoint, then, the degradation of 

ephemeral or intermittent streams diminishes ecosystem functions in most southwestern 

watersheds. 

48 
The structural components of wildlife habitat are considered below in terms of the physical, 

vegetative, and hydrological contributions that ephemeral and intermittent streams provide to 

the landscape. Habitat needs vary according to species, but this overview treats larger 

taxonomic groups more generally. 

ii. Physical habitat features 

The habitat provided by desert streams contracts and expands dramatically in size due to the 

extreme variations in flow, which can range from high-discharge floods to periods when 

surface flow is absent. This spatial variation in habitat or ecosystem size is a fundamental, 

defining feature of these streams (Stanley et al., 1997). 

Regardless of whether it is perennial, a stream affects the substrate it flows upon, creating 

habitat for various species of wildlife. Some physical features of wildlife habitat along 

ephemeral and intermittent streams include the deposits of river material (sediment and 

debris), the exposure of rock and subsurface soil layers by erosion, the provision of shade 

through topographic relief, the creation of microclimatic zones, and the sequestration of 

moisture and nutrients in alluvium. 

River bank material provides shelter for numerous species of wildlife in the arid Southwest, 

including reptiles, amphibians, birds, mammals and invertebrates. Bank shelters are created 

through the action of water, wind, and gravity, independent of whether the river contains 

water year-round. In fact, dry wash embankments are notoriously full of small caves and 

crevices critical in the life of desert animals such as the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) 

(Van Devender, 2002). These shelters not only provide refuge from predators, but also 

critical protection from extreme heat and aridity. Table 1 lists species observed to use 

riverine soil exposures in the Pima County, Arizona, area, and includes bats, birds, snakes, 

lizards, mammals, insects and amphibians. 

Stream alluvium is often looser than the soils or colluvium of surrounding uplands, which 

enhances the potential for exploitation by specialized sand-burrowing species of wildlife. 

Woody debris swept in from the watershed collects in the flood plain and stream channel as 

flood wrack (brush piles), creating additional complex, high-value shelters. If the stream 

incision is deep enough, it may create a cooler canyon environment in which heat and 

moisture loss are retarded. 

49 
Table 1. List of wildlife species that use riverine soil exposures in Pima County, Arizona 

(source: Julia Fonseca, Pima County Office of Conservation Science and Environmental 

Policy, 2008). 

Species Soil exposure use 

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Roost, maternity roost 

Western Pipestrelle Year-round roost 

Pallid Bat Night roost 

Myotis species Roost, maternity roost 

Mexican Long-tongued Bat Roost, maternity roost 

Lesser Long-nosed Bat Roost 

Burrowing Owl Roost, nest 

Barn Owl Roost, nest 

Great-horned Owl Roost, nest 

Common Raven Nest 

Rough-winged Swallow Nest 

Cliff Swallow Nest 

Black Phoebe Nest 

Say’s Phoebe Nest 

Rock Wren Nest 

Green Kingfisher Roost 

Belted Kingfisher Roost, nest 

Western Diamondback Rattlesnake Shelter, foraging 

Mojave Rattlesnake Shelter 

Sonoran Desert Toad Shelter 

White-throated Woodrat Nest 

Rock Squirrel Den 

Desert Tortoise Shelter, den 

Desert Spiny Lizard Shelter 

Clark’s Spiny Lizard Shelter 

Coyote Den 

Kit Fox Den 

Mud-dauber Wasp Hive 

Ringtail Cat Den 

Striped and Hog-nosed Skunks Den 

Kissing Bugs Foraging 

Javelina Day camp 

Raccoons Foraging, shelter 

iii. Vegetative habitat features 

The abundance and diversity of riparian vegetation, as compared to uplands, is a critical 

wildlife habitat feature of arid and semi-arid region streams (Figure 32). Each of the plant 

50 
communities found along these streams offers distinct and notable habitat features to wildlife, 

summarized in Brown (2004). 

Major washes with shallow ground-water zones are typically lined with phreatophytic trees 

including Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Arizona sycamore (Platanus wrightii), 

Arizona ash (Fraxinus velutina), distinctive shrubs such as willow (Salix ssp), seepwillow 

(Baccharis ssp), burrobrush (Ambrosia monogyra), and saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima), or 

dense grass stands of sacaton (Sporobolus ssp). A special case is presented by those 

southwestern ephemeral streams carrying discharge of treated municipal sewage or other 

effluent. 

Figure 32. Photograph of diverse riparian vegetation, Badger Springs Wash, Arizona. 

Ephemeral and intermittent streams which lack a shallow ground-water system or effluent 

discharge nonetheless give rise to a distinctive vegetative habitat from the surrounding 

uplands, often referred to as xeroriparian habitat. Tree canopy of ephemeral streams generally 

includes subtropical legumes such as mesquite (Prosopis ssp), catclaw acacia (Acacia 

greggii), ironwood (Olneya tesota), and blue palo verde (Cercidium floridum). Netleaf 

hackberry (Celtis reticulatata) and Arizona sycamore (Platanus wrightii) have been identified 

as providing exceptional cover for nesting birds on intermittent streams (Powell and Steidl, 

2002), and mesquite has been identified as the key provisioner of food for many migrating 

birds (Van Riper and Cole, 2004). 

Krausman et al. (1985) found that xeroriparian vegetation provides forage, thermal cover, and 

travel zones. For example, deer in their Arizona study sites were much more dependent on 

xeroriparian systems than were deer in west Texas. In arid parts of western Arizona, many 

birds such as red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), and Gila woodpeckers (Melanerpes 

uropygialis), can become dependent on ephemeral streams for nesting sites, as this is where 

large trees occur due to the increased moisture (Johnson and Lowe, 1985). 

51 
iv. Hydrological habitat features 

Channel flow is a visually prominent aspect of the hydrological character of a stream, but it is 

seldom the only hydrological habitat feature of biological significance. A stream may also 

possess moist banks fed by capillary flow from ground water, which offer sites for turtle or 

insect reproduction. A hyporheic (subsurface) zone of flow with a distinct invertebrate fauna 

may underlie a dry streambed. Flooding, erosion, or man-made excavations can give rise to 

in-channel or off-channel pools where amphibians breed. Springs, which may exist within the 

stream channel or in the flood plain, can offer distinct chemical compositions or thermal 

refugia from the main stream. Stream diversion and irrigation systems may spread the river’s 

flow into fields via irrigation canals lined with cottonwoods and willows, altering habitat 

conditions in both the aquatic and riparian communities. Together, these natural or man-made 

hydrological features provide a wide variety of important habitat conditions for aquatic and 

terrestrial organisms. 

Stream corridors naturally guide the movement of wildlife. Movement is essential to wildlife 

survival, whether it be the day-to-day movements of individuals seeking food, shelter, or 

mates, dispersal of offspring (e.g., seeds, fledglings) to new areas, gene flow, migration to 

avoid seasonally unfavorable conditions, recolonization of unoccupied habitat after 

environmental disturbances, or shifting of a species’ geographic range in response to global 

climate change (Beier et al., 2006). 

v. Faunal abundance and distribution 

Fauna using ephemeral or intermittent waters include fish, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, 

birds, and invertebrates. Most desert species have developed adaptations to the water-limited 

conditions of arid and semi-arid regions, allowing them to survive under adverse 

environmental conditions (Ward and Associates, 1973; Louw and Seely, 1982; Williams, 

2006). The natural flow regime in arid lands is a key factor favoring native species over 

exotics that are adapted to lake and pond conditions (Minckley and Meffe, 1987; Poff et al., 

1997). However, the variability of climate and flow regime, which influences species’ 

abundance and diversity, makes evaluation difficult unless surveys are conducted over a 

period of years in different community types (Anderson et al., 1977; Boulton and Lake, 

1992). 

Habitat studies seldom partition the various microhabitats that water creates for wildlife, and 

do not often attempt to separate the natural continuum of flow conditions that exist in a given 

area into perennial and non-perennial components, particularly since such conditions may 

exist along the same stream at the same time. The following sections describe in greater 

detail wildlife uses and benefits of ephemeral and intermittent streams in arid and semi-arid 

lands, including the collective contributions that water itself makes to faunal composition of 

southwestern streams. Since habitat values differ among taxonomic groups, the discussion is 

grouped taxonomically. 

52 
Reptiles and Amphibians 

Reptiles and amphibians are diverse and abundant in arid and semi-arid regions, and have a 

variety of physiological and behavioral adaptations that enable them to conserve energy and 

moisture during harsh conditions of high temperature or low humidity and survive in dry 

environments. These adaptations include behavioral heat avoidance involving going 

underground, becoming nocturnal or subterranean, reducing activity levels, developing 

resistance to dehydration, developing the ability to absorb water through their skin, 

developing the ability to use temporary waters for breeding, and having rapid larval and egg 

development. In addition, most arid and semi-arid region reptiles can withstand high levels of 

electrolyte levels in their body fluids, and have relatively impervious skin which reduces 

water loss (Stebbins, 1995). 

Many researchers have noted that the high diversity of plants and the associated microhabitats 

in desert riparian systems provides preferred habitat for herpetofauna. Some herpetofauna 

prefer desert washes to other types of desert habitats, and have the highest number of habitat 

specific species than other desert habitat types (Jakle and Gatz, 1985). However, the data 

have been limited until recently. For example, at the Symposium on the Management of 

Amphibians, Reptiles, and Small Mammals in North America (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 1988), many of the presenters noted the lack of data on amphibians, reptiles and 

small mammals, possibly due to the difficulty in surveying them because of their small size 

and secretive habits, or because they have historically not been considered important. 

Many, indeed most species of snakes and lizards preferentially utilize xeroriparian habitat 

because of the dense cover provided by the shrub, vine and groundcover layers of annual and 

perennial plants. Jones (1988) reported on an extensive survey by the BLM from 1977 

through 1981 on Arizona’s herpetofauna. This was one of the most comprehensive 

inventories of herpetological communities ever conducted in North America with 27,885 

array-nights in 16 habitat types over a five-year period, on approximately 3,441.296 ha (8.5 

million acres) of public land. It was also an important effort to associate herpetofauna with 

ecosystems. For the Mixed Riparian Scrub (also called xeroriparian) habitat type, the results 

indicated a high number of species and species diversity for snakes, amphibians, and lizards 

relative to the other habitat types. Figure 33 is a graph of the number of species (turtles, 

amphibians, snakes, and lizards) for each habitat type. Mixed Riparian Scrub (xeroriparian) is 

represented by the “MR” habitat type. 

In their study of the herpetofauna at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona, Rosen 

and Lowe (1996) also found that xeroriparian habitat was preferred by lizard species and 

certain snake species and hypothesized that it was due to higher prey abundance, higher 

relative humidity, and the presence of denser vegetation for cover. During drought peaks, 

almost every non-riparian-dependent snake species used the xeroriparian habitat as refugia, 

although those that normally used that habitat type had a higher survival rate. They also 

found that lizard species were most abundant in mesquite woodland or bosque and 

xeroriparian habitats (see Figure 34). At Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, mesquite 

53 
woodland is restricted to ephemeral and intermittent streams, and therefore constitutes a 

special type of xeroriparian habitat. 

Figure 33. Graph of herpetofauna species by taxonomic group and by habitat type, from 

BLM surveys in Arizona, 1977-1981 (Jones, 1988). “MR” represents Mixed Riparian 

Scrub (xeroriparian) habitat type. 

Rosen (2005), in his review of the herpetofauna of the 126-mile San Pedro River looked at the 

riparian herpetofauna assemblages in three reaches of the river from the Mexican border to 

the confluence with the Gila River. He looked at historic and current records and found a 

large number of species that occurred in the lower (mainly ephemeral) reach of the river that 

were not found in other reaches, although many species occurred in all reaches. 

Baxter (1988) noted that in the Mojave Desert, washes are important habitat for the desert 

tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) although their burrows tended to be in the uplands. Because 

desert washes contain a highly diverse plant community, they were probably important 

foraging locations. McArthur and Sanderson (1992) studied plant associations in arroyos and 

uplands in southeastern Utah in relation to use by desert tortoise. They found that the arroyos 

with more shrubs and a rougher topography were good den sites and provided more succulent 

forage than uplands. In Arizona Upland Sonoran desertscrub, the desert tortoise is absent 

from the valleys, and occurs only along major upper and middle bajada washes and on rock 

slopes (Van Devender, 2002). 

54 
Figure 34. Graph of lizard abundance by habitat type at Organ Pipe Cactus National 

Monument, Arizona, 1989-1990 (from Rosen and Lowe, 1996). MAXPEAK is maximum 

peak value observed for all runs of transects within a habitat type at a site. SEP is the 

Sensitive Ecosystems Program. 

Lowe (1985) discussed the obligate riparian turtle, snake, and amphibian species in riparian 

ecosystems in southern Arizona and adjacent Sonora, Mexico, and their local population 

extinctions. Many reptiles and amphibians depend on permanent springs, seeps, and 

ephemeral streams for their survival. Although these species are widely distributed 

throughout the region, their narrow ecological distributions and low densities make them 

extremely vulnerable to habitat degradation. Impacts to water quality and quantity, such as 

acid rain, ground-water pumping, and pollution, are the main threats. 

Amphibians are not physiologically well adapted to dry desert conditions; however, they have 

developed several behavioral adaptations that allow them to survive there, including the 

ability to avoid the heat and dryness by burrowing underground for extended periods. Species 

that do not require permanent water may emerge from underground only after rainfall events 

(e.g., Couch’s spadefoot (Scaphiopus couchi)). Some amphibians are also very tolerant of 

dehydration and can survive a water loss equivalent to about 40 percent of their body weight. 

They handle dehydration by decreasing the rate of urinary water loss and increasing the rate 

of water absorption through the skin. For example, some amphibians can extract water from 

moist soil (Mayhew, 1995). 

The vast majority of amphibians spend at least part of their life cycle in water, but frequently 

only for breeding. At the Rincon Mountain Unit of Saguaro National Park near Tucson, 

Arizona, lowland leopard frogs (Rana yavapaiensis) depend on bedrock pools in ephemeral 

streams that retain water year round for breeding habitat (Parker, 2006). Other amphibian 

55 
 

 

species, such as the red spotted toad (Bufo punctatus), are found only in arid ecosystems 

(Mayhew, 1995). The canyon tree frog (Hyla arenicolor) is found along temporary, 

intermittent, and permanent streams, springs, and tinajas in rocky desert canyons in much of 

the Southwest, and uses the temporary pools during summer rains for breeding (ArizonaSonora Desert Museum, 2007; Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2002). Photographs of 

some of these species are shown in Figure 35. 

In a study of all known occurrences of the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) 

in the Central Valley of California (n=143), approximately 64 percent were found in 

intermittent streams as opposed to perennial streams (Hayes and Jennings, 1988). Six 

amphibian taxa were captured on ephemeral streams in three southwestern sites by URS 

Corporation, an environmental consulting firm (2006), including salamanders, frogs, and 

toads. Tadpoles were commonly observed in longer-lived ephemeral pools. 

Figure 35. Photographs of amphibians that inhabit and breed in ephemeral and 

intermittent streams (clockwise from top left): Canyon tree frog (Hyla arenicolor), 

lowland leopard frog (Rana yavapaiensis), red spotted toad (Bufo punctatus), Sonoran 

desert toad (Bufo alvarius, photograph: Shea Burns, USDA-ARS), Egg strand of 

Sonoran desert toad (photograph: Shea Burns, USDA-ARS). 

Rosen and Lowe (1996) in their study of herpetofauna at Organ Pipe Cactus National 

Monument noted that anurans (toads and frogs) are closely tied to permanent or temporary 

56 
surface water that lasts long enough to allow their eggs to hatch and produce tadpoles. They 

found that anurans bred successfully in temporary pools in major washes and ephemeral 

springs. As little as 7.5 days may be required for the Couch’s spadefoot (Scaphiopus couchi) 

to go from egg to toadlet, with a longer period required for the true toads (genus Bufo). 

Upland desertscrub offers essentially no breeding habitat to the diverse array of summerbreeding toads and frogs characteristic of southwestern deserts and grasslands. The key 

natural environments for their breeding are the riparian flats along major valley washes, 

where scour holes in the silts and clays hold floodwaters long enough for tadpole 

development. 

Birds 

Birds, more than any other animal group, are highly dependent upon riparian and xeroriparian 

vegetation in arid and semi-arid lands even though they have the ability to migrate seasonally 

to find favorable climates. This is thought to be due to the vegetative structure, diversity and 

productivity of riparian areas as compared to surrounding uplands (Johnson et al., 1977; 

Ohmart and Anderson, 1982; Johnson and Haight, 1985; England and Laudenslayer, 1995; 

Kirkpatrick et al., 2007). In the Lower Colorado River Valley subdivision of the Sonoran 

Desert, dry washes occupy less than 5 percent of the area, but support 90 percent of its bird 

life (Dimmitt, 2000). 

Some birds are particularly adapted to the hot, dry conditions found in deserts: they excrete 

waste in the form of a semi-solid, requiring one-tenth the water used by mammals; some have 

a nasal salt gland to excrete excess salts; they have higher body temperatures than most 

mammals and can tolerate a wide range of body temperatures; and they can store body heat 

during the day to be released in the cooler evening hours (England and Laudenslayer, 1995). 

Kirkpatrick et al. (2007) looked at seventeen sites in southern Arizona (5 sites that had 

perennial flowing surface water, 9 sites that had intermittent surface water, and 3 sites that 

had ephemeral surface water) for avian abundance and species richness along riparian areas as 

compared to uplands. He found that avian species richness and abundance were substantially 

higher than in the surrounding uplands, even for the dry, ephemeral sites. This was attributed 

to the riparian vegetation. No association was evident between species richness and 

abundance in association with surface water at the community level; however, there was a 

positive association with the volume of velvet mesquite, which provides food sources (high 

densities of insects and other arthropods). 

A study by Stevens et al. (1977) on seven paired sites (riparian and adjacent upland) in 

Arizona found that the importance of riparian habitat to migrant passerines is substantial. 

They found that the parameters influencing the use of riparian habitats included: specific 

habitat preferences of the bird (stop-over habitat selection); floral components (niche diversity 

and vegetation species composition); location of habitat (island situations and accessibility); 

and quality of the adjacent habitat (including the amount of grazing and other forms of 

impact). 

57 
Higher bird species richness was found in dry wash systems according to a study of bird use 

of desert habitats by the California BLM on sixty-six study plots. They found approximately 

1.5 times as many breeding species (Kubik and Remsen, 1977; Tomoff, 1977; Daniels and 

Boyd, 1979a, 1979b) and about twice as many wintering species (Daniels, 1979a, 1979b; 

Henderson, 1979; Remsen et al., 1976; Tomoff, 1979a, 1979b, 1979c) in the dry washes. 

This demonstrated that these systems supported a greater diversity of species than did the 

more common desert scrub possessing overstory vegetation structure. 

Skagen et al. (1998) compared migrating birds use of riparian corridors versus isolated oases 

in the San Pedro River and found that “Small, isolated oases [riverine vegetation isolated from 

similar vegetation patches] hosted more avian species than the corridor sites, and the relative 

abundance of most migrating birds did not differ between sites relative to size-connectivity.” 

They concluded that the protection of both the small patches and the more extensive riparian 

corridors that link these patches is imperative, given the overall habitat limitation in western 

landscapes. They noted that these areas are critical in providing migration stopover areas, and 

therefore affect the breeding success of northern bird populations. 

Ohmart and Zisner (1993) conducted an extensive literature review of riparian habitat in 

Arizona, which included perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams. They found that 

nearly every species of bird in Arizona was found in riparian habitats either for breeding, 

foraging, migration or wintering. This included fifty-seven ducks, geese, and waterfowl; 

twelve hawks, falcons, and eagles; forty-two shorebirds (breeding habitat); one quail; and 

seventy-eight songbirds and other birds. 

Few studies attempt to separate the effects of water from vegetation on species diversity. In 

their survey of southwestern streams, Kirkpatrick et al. (2007) found a relationship between 

the abundance of four bird species (Black Phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), Wilson’s warbler 

(Wilsonia pusilla), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), and song sparrow (Melospiza 

melodia)), and presence and extent of surface water. They were unable to determine whether 

the association with surface water might be caused by other factors, such as a higher 

arthropod biomass along “wet” streams (which included intermittent and perennial sites). The 

majority of bird richness or abundance was not explained by the presence of water, but was 

positively correlated with mesquite volume. 

A study conducted by the Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO, 2007) during conditions of 

extreme drought identified 120 bird species using dry washes in western Arizona, including 

twenty-five breeding species. Skagen et al. (2005) looked at the geography of spring bird 

migration through riparian habitats in the Southwest and found that all riparian habitat types 

were used to some degree. 

Mammals 

A wide variety of mammals inhabits the arid and semi-arid Southwest. Most have adapted to 

the harsh conditions and lack of water in one or more of the following ways: heat evasion 

(daily or seasonal estivation, diurnal or nocturnal behavior, or seasonal migration), water 

conservation, water storage, dehydration tolerance, heat tolerance, and heat dissipation (open58 
mouthed gaping, or long appendages such as long ears). Many mammals burrow underground during the hottest part of the day to avoid the heat and increase water conservation. 

Nearly all mammals must be able to find free water, making them dependent upon riparian 

areas to some degree where they can utilize temporary and permanent pools found in 

ephemeral or intermittent streams. However, some small mammals in desert environments, 

such as the heteromyid rodents, utilize riparian areas but never drink free water, having 

evolved to meet their water requirements through the metabolism of carbohydrates, an 

efficient renal system that concentrates urine, lack of sweat glands, and nocturnal habits 

(Kepner, 1978; Frank, 1988). 

Mammals utilize dry washes in many ways. Krausman et al. (1985) determined that 

xeroriparian washes and their associated vegetation were an important component of desert 

mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) habitat in Arizona (Figure 36). They noted that the greater 

plant densities and diversity in washes allowed deer to find the forage and cover they require. 

They also found that in central Arizona deer used washes 42 percent of the time in winter, 

increasing to 83 percent in summer. In the arid and hot King Valley, Arizona, desert mule 

deer used washes 99 percent of the time. Deer in these areas used washes for forage, cover, 

travel lanes, and birth sites. 

Figure 36. Photograph of a desert mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), Arizona. 

Bellantoni and Krausman (1991), and Ragotzkie and Bailey (1991) found that female mule 

deer especially used xeroriparian or dry wash habitat for foraging during early summer. They 

suggested that in the Southwest, xeroriparian areas provide thermal cover, forage, and travel 

corridors for mule deer, and that these areas are most important during the hot, dry period of 

early summer. In addition, the increased stresses on female mule deer during pregnancy 

could increase this habitat selection. Other large ungulates, such as Desert bighorn sheep 

(Ovis Canadensis) utilize scattered isolated pools in desert washes (Jones, 1986). 

59 
Various authors have noted that collared peccaries (Tayassu tajacu) in Arizona used dry 

washes during certain times of the year for loafing and resting (Bigler, 1974; Bellantoni and 

Krausman, 1993), or as bedding sites and corridors (Ticer et al., 1998). Bellantoni and 

Krausman (1991) found that both mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and peccaries used dry 

washes for bedding. 

When evaluating potential jaguar (Panthera onca) habitat, Hatten et al. (2003) found that 

riparian areas and major wash complexes, mountain ranges, and associated canyons are 

potentially suitable geographic features. Jaguars occupy a wide range of altitudes as long as 

food, water, and cover are available. Perennial and intermittent water sources within 20 km 

were considered important to dispersing jaguars in an arid environment. They noted that any 

sources of water, even ephemeral ones, may be important because they are usually associated 

with well-defined channels that serve as travel corridors, and contain riparian vegetation, a 

cooler microclimate, and higher prey abundance. Beier (1995) looked at juvenile cougar 

dispersal from their maternal home range in three corridors, including a desert arroyo, in 

southern California. The study found that the cougar used all three corridors even though few 

drainages had perennial water; however, seeps and springs were distributed throughout the 

area. 

A variety of other small mammals utilize dry wash habitats and xeroriparian areas, including 

the Mesquite mouse (Peromyscus merriami) (Kingsley, 2006) and a wide variety of other 

rodents (Jorgensen et al., 1995; Kepner, 1978). Duncan (1990) found that spotted ground 

squirrels (Spermophilus spilosoma) often use dry, sandy washes for their burrows. Jorgensen 

et al. (1995) studied an arroyo in New Mexico to determine rodent use of the wash area 

(sandy bottom), terraces, and shoulders (stream banks). They found that the terraces and 

shoulders were used much more than the wash, and that most animals traveled parallel to the 

arroyo as opposed to perpendicular to it. This behavior may be due to the high vegetation 

density along arroyos that offers predator protection. 

In Ohmart and Zisner’s (1993) extensive literature review of wildlife usage of riparian areas 

in Arizona, they compiled a list of fifty-five mammals that use riparian areas in any way for 

breeding, foraging, cover or migration. They noted the importance of riparian areas to birds, 

bats and large mammals such as elk and deer for migration corridors, and that continuity of 

these areas was important for population expansion and genetic diversity in small vertebrates. 

They found that only a few mammals in Arizona, such as the river otter, beaver, muskrat, or 

water shrew, were truly tied to aquatic habitats. These species were unlikely to be found on 

non-perennial streams, with the exception of effluent-dependent ephemeral streams. For 

instance, beaver have reoccupied part of the Salt and Gila River systems near the 91st Avenue 

waste water treatment plant in Phoenix, Arizona. 

Invertebrates 

The abundant invertebrates associated with ephemeral, intermittent, and headwater tributaries 

are important contributions to the biological integrity of river networks. Invertebrates 

constitute a major portion of the faunal diversity of the earth, and the emergence of aquatic 

invertebrates from streams is a significant part of the food chain. For instance, Fisher (1991) 

60 
 Figure 37. Illustrations of caddisfly larva (www.scientificillustrator.com) (left), and 

caddisfly adult (www.nps.gov) (right). 

reported that flycatchers used a large portion of the insect biomass emerging from Sycamore 

Creek, Arizona, an intermittent stream. 

Ephemeral streams contain rich assemblages of both invertebrates and macroinvertebrates. 

Kingsley (1998) conducted an extensive survey of the invertebrates at Organ Pipe Cactus 

National Monument, Arizona, and found a very high species richness in the wash habitats in 

the Ajo Mountains and Aguajita Wash. He noted that this was to be expected due to the 

diversity of microhabitats. This study described each of the nearly 1,000 taxa surveyed. 

Many invertebrates require a hydrologic connection for their spatial dispersal, even if the 

connection is ephemeral or intermittent (Nadeau and Rains, 2007). Whiles and Goldowitz 

(2005) looked at macroinvertebrates in wetlands across a hydrologic gradient from ephemeral 

to perennial. Although this study was conducted in Nebraska, the results were interesting in 

that they showed the highest taxon richness and diversity at the intermittent sites. In northern 

California, Del Rosario and Resh (2000) compared invertebrates in the hyporheic zones of 

intermittent and perennial streams, and found that intermittent streams had lower densities, 

similar richness, but higher species diversity than perennial streams. 

Intermittent streams in the Southwest provide food sources for the high numbers of 

macroinvertebrates found there. Disturbances caused by intermittent flows may actually 

facilitate high food quality and consequently high levels of insect production in warmtemperate desert streams (Fisher and Gray, 1983; Jackson and Fisher, 1986; Grimm and 

Fisher, 1989; Huryn and Wallace, 2000). For example, in Arizona, macroinvertebrate 

biomass in Sycamore Creek tends to decline following extended periods without disturbance 

(e.g., more than 60 to 80 days) because of reduced food quality resulting from cyclical 

coprophagy (the consumption of feces) (Grimm and Fisher, 1989; Huryn and Wallace, 2000). 

Many invertebrates require standing water for part of their life cycle. For example, the 

caddisfly (Limnophilus sp.) requires water only for the egg, larva, and pupae stages of its life 

cycle; the adult is terrestrial (Erman and Nagano, 1992) (Figure 37). Other species live in 

sediment, either in encysted form, or within the hyporheic zone. Graham (2002) studied 

temporary pools in watercourses in Wupatki National Monument, Arizona. He found 22 taxa 

of aquatic macroinvertebrates and two taxa of amphibians. Ward and Associates (1973) noted 

that the life cycles of these species are triggered by specific temperature and/or water 

conditions, and they may remain dormant or aestivate during unfavorable or stress periods. 

Invertebrate species using ephemeral streams are generally good dispersers, either being 

swept in from the upland, moving in from the air, or colonizing from hydrologically separate 

perennial sources, including backwaters, pools, and off-channel ponds (URS Corporation, 

2006). 

61 
Some crustaceans (Phylum Arthropoda, Class Crustacea, e.g., tadpole and fairy shrimp) are 

able to survive in temporary waters in ephemeral stream channels. Fairy shrimp can complete 

its life cycle, going from egg to egg, in seven days during summer, and two weeks during 

winter. As cysts, these creatures are able to dry with the mud and rehydrate later when water 

returns, hatching 24 to 36 hours after hydration (Carpelan, 1995). 

URS Corporation (2006) sampled several ephemeral streams in Arizona, Colorado, and New 

Mexico during July and August of 2006. Most microinvertebrates were terrestrial, but eightysix aquatic taxa, including copepods, ostracods, and cladocerans were detected. Seventyseven aquatic macroinvertebrate taxa occurred in streams with known or likely upstream 

sources of colonizers, and thirty-five taxa occurred in those without. Macroinvertebrate taxa 

had a high degree of dissimilarity, either between study watersheds or within them (URS 

Corporation, 2006). 

However, in general it is difficult to understand the dynamics of these communities in 

intermittent or ephemeral streams due to the irregular nature of the hydrologic regime and 

their high sensitivity to climatic fluctuations. Boulton and Lake (1992) suggested studying a 

number of sites over a period spanning several complete cycles of flow to assess adequately 

these complex interactions. Adams (2000) found that he was able to develop baseline 

biological conditions for water-quality assessment prior to urban development by sampling 

macroinvertebrates in ephemeral streams during periods of flow. 

A typical conceptual model of the movement of invertebrates through a stream network is 

exemplified by Cummins and Wilzbach (2005), with headwater intermittent stream reaches 

responsible for delivery of invertebrates, sloughed algae, and detritus to the downstream 

perennial stream reaches (Figure 38). Although their research looked at whether fish were 

present as a criterion for inclusion in management plans, they noted that downstream reaches 

are always highly dependent on upstream processes, and that successful stream management 

should include the entire watershed. 

62 
Figure 38. Diagram of a conceptual model of the delivery of invertebrates, sloughed 

algae and detritus from headwater streams, intermittent and permanent first-order 

fishless streams to larger fish-bearing streams, illustrating the dependence of 

downstream reaches on upstream processes (from Cummins and Wilzbach, 2005). 

Fish 

Native and non-native fish are abundant in perennial streams in the Southwest deserts. For 

example, seventy-five native fish species have been recorded in Arizona and New Mexico, 

many of them listed as endangered, although some have been lost due to habitat loss 

(Hubbard, 1977). Surprisingly, many species of fish, both native and non-native, can be 

found in isolated perennial pools in otherwise ephemeral or intermittent streams. For 

example, four fish taxa were collected during a one year study on ephemeral streams in 

southern Arizona by URS Corporation (2006), including two native species and two nonnative species. 

Native desert fish are adapted to the harsh and variable conditions of the desert. Pupfish 

(Cyprinodon sp.) can withstand the high temperatures, alkalinity, and salinity of small desert 

pools (Pister, 1995). Lema (2008) looked at environmental factors influencing phenotypic 

development of the seven species of pupfish inhabiting the fresh water pools, saline marshes, 

and small streams in the Death Valley system. 

Although pupfish require permanent water, a few of the hardiest desert fish species can 

survive in areas that periodically go nearly dry, such as in intermittent streams. Longfin dace 

63 
(Agosia chrysogaster), for example, survive relatively high water temperatures and low water 

quality and quantity, and have been found alive in moist algal mats where there was not 

enough water to swim (Hulen, 2007; Rinne and Minckley, 1991). Longfin dace have the most 

widespread distribution of any native fish in the Southwest, and can disperse rapidly once 

flow returns (Rinne and Minckley, 1991). The Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis 

occidentalis) also withstands low flows, high temperatures and poor water quality of 

intermittent desert streams (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2001). 

Although ephemeral streams only temporarily support fish, they indirectly support fish 

populations by helping to deliver required nutrients and other materials to the perennial 

segments. Cummins and Wilzbach (2005) noted that ephemeral and intermittent streams are 

important suppliers of invertebrates and detritus to permanently flowing, receiving streams 

that support juvenile salmonids. They also acknowledged the connection between headwater 

streams and downstream perennial waters by noting that it is critical to maintain riparian 

cover in the headwater systems to prevent increased temperatures of the downstream delivery 

of water that would interfere with juvenile salmonids. 

Intermittent streams are important to some fish species. Erman and Hawthorne (1976) found 

that trout production in California was dependent on intermittent streams. Over a four-year 

period, 39-47 percent of rainbow trout recruits in Sagehen Creek, California, came from an 

intermittent tributary that flowed only four months each year. Loggins et al. (1996) found that 

five native migratory cyprinid fishes were spawning in intermittent tributaries of the 

Sacramento River: Sacramento pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus grandis), hardhead 

(Mylopharodon conocephalus), hitch (Lavinia exilicauda), speckled dace (Rhinichthys 

osculus) and Sacramento sucker (Catostomus occidentalis). 

Populations of native desert fishes are rapidly dwindling due to destruction of aquatic habitats 

from urbanization, channelization, land-use change, over grazing, ground-water pumping, 

dams, water diversions, and pollution (Rinne and Minckley, 1991). 

f. Synthesis of Functions 

Ephemeral and intermittent streams and tributaries provide a wide range of functions that are 

critical to the health and stability of arid and semi-arid watersheds and ecosystems in the 

American Southwest. Most importantly, they provide hydrologic connectivity within a basin, 

linking ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial stream segments, thereby facilitating the 

movement of water, sediment, nutrients, debris, fish, wildlife, and plant propagules 

throughout the watershed. They provide wildlife habitat and connectivity to perennial reaches 

by providing a relatively more vegetated and moister environment than do the surrounding 

uplands. The processes that occur during ephemeral and intermittent stream flow include 

dissipation of energy as part of natural fluvial adjustment, and the movement of sediment and 

debris. 

Ephemeral and intermittent streams are responsible for a large portion of basin ground-water 

recharge in arid and semi-arid regions through channel infiltration and transmission losses. 

These stream systems contribute to the biogeochemical functions of the watershed by storing, 

64 
 

cycling, transforming, and transporting elements and compounds. Ephemeral and intermittent 

streams support a wide diversity of plant species, and serve as seed banks for these species. 

Because vegetation is more dense than in surrounding uplands, ephemeral and intermittent 

streams provide habitat, migration pathways, stop-over places, breeding locations, nesting 

sites, food, cover, water, and resting areas for mammals, birds, invertebrates, fish, reptiles and 

amphibians. In arid and semi-arid regions, the variability of the hydrological regime is the 

key determinant of both plant community structure in time and space and the types of plants 

and wildlife present. 

Figure 39. Photographs of the Rillito River, Tucson, Arizona, dry (left) and with flow 

(right). 

6. Anthropogenic Impacts on Ephemeral and Intermittent streams and 

Riparian Areas 

Anthropogenic uses and activities on the landscape can have significant impacts – both good 

and bad – on water quality and the health of a watershed. Human-related disturbances are 

numerous and include livestock grazing, land clearing, mining, timber harvesting, groundwater withdrawal, stream flow diversion, channelization, urbanization, agriculture, roads and 

road construction, off-road vehicle use, camping, hiking, and vegetation conversion. 

Biological stressors include habitat loss, alteration, effluent discharge, and degradation from 

decline in water quality, and changes in channel and flow characteristics (Pima County, 

2000). 

The CWA has regulated many of these uses, but recent changes to the act have weakened or 

eliminated that enforcement. While many land owners voluntarily employ best management 

practices for water quality protection, not all do. However, in arid and semi-arid areas, where 

water is limited and systems do not recover quickly, it is especially important to employ best 

management practices for water quality protection whenever possible. 

As noted earlier, ephemeral and intermittent streams and the adjacent riparian areas perform 

many of the same functions in a watershed as perennial streams. Especially in arid regions of 

the country, riparian areas support the vast majority of wildlife species, are the predominant 

65 
sites of woody vegetation including trees, and surround what are often the only available 

surface water sources. These features have made riparian areas attractive for human 

development, leading to their alteration on a scale similar to that of wetlands degradation 

nationally (National Research Council, 2002). This is especially true in arid and semi-arid 

regions because riparian areas are typically greener and cooler than other places. However, 

riparian areas in arid and semi-arid regions are more sensitive to development impacts than in 

wetter areas because of their limited geographical extent, drier hydrologic characteristics, and 

fragile nature (e.g., erodible soils). 

In general, human-induced changes to natural hydrological regimes in desert streams reduce 

temporal and spatial heterogeneity of plant habitats, resulting in the loss of biodiversity and 

homogenization of plant community composition and structure. Given the ecological 

importance of plant communities in desert rivers (e.g., for channel bank stabilization and 

wildlife habitat), there may be significant secondary impacts as well. There is some evidence 

to suggest that restoration of natural hydrological regimes in ephemeral streams may be partly 

sufficient to reverse such deleterious changes in plant communities (see for example, 

Stromberg, 2001). 

In the past, riparian habitats represented about 1 percent of the landscape in the West, and it 

has been estimated that within the past one hundred years, 95 percent of this habitat has been 

destroyed due to a wide variety of land use practices such as river channelization, unmanaged 

livestock utilization, agricultural clearing, water impoundments and urbanization (Krueper, 

1995). Given the vast extent of ephemeral and intermittent streams and the accumulation of 

impacts to them over large areas in the rapidly developing southwest, a landscape or 

watershed-scale approach should be employed that considers the cumulative effects on overall 

watershed function. This section presents some of the types of human caused impacts on 

ephemeral and intermittent streams and their associated riparian areas. 

a. Land Development 

The ecological and hydrological value of ephemeral and intermittent streams has been under 

appreciated, especially with respect to land conversion and development. Land development 

includes urban, suburban and exurban development, but is referred to here as urban 

development. 

The Southwest is one of the fastest growing regions of the U.S., having an increase in 

population of approximately 1,500 percent over the last ninety years. In contrast, the 

population of the country as a whole has grown by just 225 percent. Arizona and Nevada 

have grown the most with population increases of 2,880 percent and 2,840 percent, 

respectively. Most of the growth in Nevada has been in Las Vegas, with Clark County having 

a 90-year growth rate of 22,480 percent, growing from 3,284 people in 1900 to 741,459 

people in 1990. Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona, had a one hundred year growth rate of 

10,275 percent, with most of that growth occurring between 1960 and 1990 (Chourre and 

Wright, 1997). 

66 
Assuming that the significant trend in population growth in the Southwestern U.S. over the 

last ninety years continues, it is necessary to develop plans to manage and protect streams and 

riparian areas that consider cumulative impacts across a watershed. Water and natural 

resources need to be managed to accommodate future growth, and economies need to be 

examined to ensure a healthy environment (Chourre and Wright, 1997). 

Urban development has the potential to change significantly the hydrologic characteristics of 

a watershed by covering uplands with impervious surfaces, and removal, channelization or 

armoring of small or headwater streams. Disruption of the natural stream network interferes 

with or destroys natural flow patterns and sediment-transport functions, resulting in 

downstream flooding and changes to the clarity and chemistry of the downstream flows. This 

can damage wildlife habitat and downstream water supplies for humans (National Wildlife 

Federation, 2007). Many land-preservation efforts have focused on upland areas, allowing the 

lowland bottomlands to continue being developed and degraded, although these areas support 

a rich biota (Rosen et al. 2005). In other areas, the bottomlands are protected from 

degradation, but not the uplands. Figure 40 shows a network of ephemeral streams that flows 

through a small community southeast of Tucson, Arizona, to Cienega Creek, a protected 

perennial stream. 

Figure 40. Aerial photograph showing ephemeral tributaries to Cienega Creek, a 

perennial stream, flowing through the small community of Vail, southeast of Tucson, 

Arizona. (Photograph: Lainie Levick/Aerial flight courtesy of Lighthawk, 

www.lighthawk.org) 

The influence of impermeable surfaces associated with urbanization increases as the 

percentage of impermeable surface increases. Various studies have shown that semi-arid 

stream systems become irreparably impaired once the impervious surfaces within the 

watershed exceed about 10 percent, and experience dramatic morphological changes once that 

67 
 

percentage exceeds about 20 percent (Coleman et al., 2005; Miltner et al., 2003; Schueler, 

1994). 

As the amount of impervious surface increases, runoff increases and infiltration decreases, 

starting a chain of events that includes flooding, erosion, stream channel alteration, increases 

in man-made pollutants, and ecological damage. Floods will become more severe and more 

frequent, and peak flows will be many times greater than in natural basins. The greater 

volume and intensity of flooding will cause increased erosion and sedimentation downstream. 

To facilitate the increased flow and sediment load, streams in urbanized areas tend to become 

deeper and straighter over time. The resulting bank erosion destroys valuable streamside or 

riparian habitat and tree cover, leading to higher temperatures, sedimentation, and disruption 

of habitat. Ground-water recharge will also be reduced as rainfall runoff leaves the watershed 

more rapidly than before (University of Connecticut, 1994). 

Storm sewers and lined drainages increase the rate at which water is delivered to the channel 

network, and thus further increases peak flows and erosion. Sedimentation is increased 

during construction and road building for new urban areas. Improperly constructed and 

maintained roads, especially dirt roads, can cause alterations to hillslope drainage, and alter 

baseflow and precipitation-runoff relationships, resulting in erosion and sedimentation into 

the streams (USDA, 2002). The primary geomorphic consequence of these hydrologic 

changes is the erosional entrenchment of adjacent channels and associated transportation of 

the excavated sediment downstream, causing a significant increase in sediment load. Urban 

areas require storm water management plans both during and after construction to control 

polluted runoff. 

Water-quality impacts from urbanization include nonpoint source pollution, considered to be 

the single largest water quality threat in the U.S. Pollutants include pathogens, nutrients, 

toxic contaminants, sediment, and debris. Sediment is of particular concern because many 

other pollutants tend to adhere to eroded soil particles. These changes to a stream system’s 

form and function result in degraded systems no longer capable of providing good drainage, 

healthy habitat, or natural pollutant processing (University of Connecticut, 1994). 

Stream channelization is often applied in urbanizing areas to protect private property and 

control stream bank erosion. However, channelization straightens and steepens the stream, 

resulting in increased flow velocity and sediment movement. It also reduces moisture content 

along the stream banks by reducing out of bank flows which disrupts water, sediment, organic 

matter and nutrient enrichment of the flood plain (National Research Council, 2002). In 

addition, removal of vegetation as part of the channelization process degrades wildlife habitat. 

Many authors have noted that habitat fragmentation is one of the consequences of 

urbanization (University of Connecticut, 1999; Aurambout, 2003; Hilty et al., 2006). New 

developments can alter large areas of land, removing natural drainage systems and wildlife 

habitat, and replacing them with houses and roads. Altering, bisecting, or channelizing 

streams can effectively eliminate the main biological functions of the stream channel by 

disrupting vegetation communities and hydrologic function. Habitat fragmentation reduces 

wildlife diversity and abundance, and may cause sensitive species to disappear (University of 

68 
Connecticut, 1999). A study by the California BLM that inventoried sixty-six study plots for 

bird use of desert habitats noted the heavy recreational uses of washes, and the related 

disturbance to wildlife and habitat degradation (England and Laudenslayer, 1995). 

b. Land Uses 

Besides urbanization, agriculture (livestock and crops) and mining are other major land uses 

in the desert southwest. Livestock grazing is one of the more common uses of rural land in 

the Southwest, and has historically been a large part of the economy. It occurs primarily on 

state or federal land, but also on private land. In many areas livestock are provided with 

watering sources, but frequently they must depend on the streams for water. Livestock 

management plans attempt to avoid overuse of an area, but because water is scarce in arid 

environments, cattle and wildlife tend to linger near water sources. When they are not 

properly managed, and remain too long in a riparian area, cattle can trample stream banks, eat 

the riparian vegetation to the ground, contaminate the water with wastes, and compact the 

soil. In addition, livestock grazing can introduce exotic plant species from hay or feed 

brought in from outside the area. Non-native plants may out-compete native species, causing 

disruption of natural ecosystem functions. (Pima County, 2000). 

It has been estimated that by the late 1800’s over one and one half million cattle were in 

Arizona, with another two million in New Mexico. Around that time the Southwest was 

experiencing its typical climatic pattern of drought and unpredictable rainfall patterns. The 

resulting desiccation of the uplands drove cattle to the riparian areas, which were heavily 

damaged as a result. When the rains returned to the denuded landscape, erosive processes 

took over and down cutting began, forming deep arroyos and lowering the ground-water 

reservoir. Marshes and riparian vegetation disappeared (Rinne and Minckley, 1991; Krueper, 

1995). 

A study by Siekert et al. (1985) on grazing impacts on ephemeral streams in Wyoming found 

that seasonal grazing had an impact on channel morphology. Specifically, spring grazing had 

no effect, but summer and fall grazing resulted in increased channel cross sections. These 

impacts in and along a stream channel can cause reduced stream bank stability, decreased 

ground-water recharge, water quality degradation, increased erosion and sedimentation, 

removal of vegetation, increased flood risk due to reduced vegetation cover, and dispersal of 

exotic plants. Many sources have stressed that the cumulative impacts of unmanaged 

livestock in southwestern riparian ecosystems for the past several hundred years has probably 

been the single most important factor in riparian ecosystem degradation (e.g., Krueper, 1995; 

Wagner, 1978; Ohmart, 1995). 

Reducing damage to riparian vegetation from over-grazing by livestock is important in arid 

and semi-arid regions. Riparian vegetation helps stabilize stream banks, reduce water 

temperatures and evaporation through shading, and provides food and habitat for wildlife. 

Although in the past it was thought that removal of stream bank vegetation would increase 

stream flow, recent studies have shown that in some places open water has higher annual 

water losses from evaporation than riparian trees from evapotranspiration (Leenhouts et al., 

2006). 

69 
Mining is another activity that historically has had a large place in the economy and land use 

in the American Southwest. Some of the largest copper and gold mines in the world are 

found here, and some cover many thousands of hectares. However, mining can cause major 

impacts on riparian areas both adjacent and downstream by altering the local hydrology. 

Mining not only dewaters the area, it removes vegetation and soil and changes the 

topography, severely impacting the watershed. Instream and flood plain gravel mining can 

cause alteration to the channel dimensions and increase sediment yield. Mining can also 

decrease water quality by leaching heavy metals and toxic chemicals into the surface and 

ground water (Ecosystem Restoration Web site, accessed Sept. 12, 2008, 

http://ecorestoration.montana.edu/mineland/guide/problem/impacts/default.htm) 

Agriculture has had a long history in the southwestern deserts, and areas such as the Central 

Valley in California provide much of the country’s food supply. However, most crops must 

be irrigated due to the low annual rainfall. Impacts to local hydrology from agricultural 

activities include: 

o	 Increased salinity caused by clearing of native vegetation which raises the groundwater reservoir; 

o	 Reduced flows from ground-water pumping or stream diversions for irrigation; 

o	 Increased nutrients and turbidity from the use of fertilizers that run off into the 

streams across the land surface or through the soil, causing excessive algae growth; 

o	 Fish, aquatic invertebrate and bird kills from pesticides that run off into the streams 

or leach into the ground water. 

(from South Australia Environmental Protection Authority Web site, 

http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/water_impact.html, accessed August 7, 2008) 

c. Water Resources Impacts 

The Southwest has experienced rapid growth over the past several decades, straining the 

already limited water resources. Lack of surface water flows has placed increased reliance on 

ground water for domestic, industrial, and agricultural uses. Ground-water pumping creates a 

chain reaction of events that impact the local and regional ecology. 

Ground-water pumping lowers the ground-water reservoir killing near-channel vegetation 

whose roots no longer reach the aquifer, or desiccates the subsurface to the point that flow 

frequently is reduced (Stromberg et al., 1996). As riparian vegetation dies, stream banks 

become unstable due to the loss of the reinforcing nature of the plant roots, resulting in bank 

erosion (Groeneveld and Griepentrog, 1985). Lowering of the ground-water reservoir helps 

the invasion of exotic and drought tolerant species. Alteration and degradation of riparian 

vegetation can adversely affect wildlife species and human uses of those areas. 

Dams and retention or detention basins are frequently used in the Southwest to store water or 

as flood-control devices. They disrupt natural surface flow and sediment transport, interfere 

with natural geomorphic processes, alter water temperatures, and fragment the natural stream 

systems both upstream and downstream of the structure. Upstream locations may experience 

70 
flooding, whereas downstream locations may be dewatered and become sediment starved. As 

a result, both vegetation and wildlife communities are altered. 

Ephemeral and intermittent streams in the Southwest are often the recipients of effluent from 

waste water treatment plants. Depending on the level of treatment, effluent can have various 

effects on the stream ecosystem. For example, Walker et al. (2005) compared four effluent 

dominated waters in Arizona and found that aquatic macroinvertebrates were most affected by 

the levels of nitrogenous species, especially un-ionized ammonia, and mean diel dissolved 

oxygen. Specifically, diversity decreased with increasing levels of nitrogen. 

As human population in the desert Southwest continues to grow, water resources will become 

even more stressed. Ground-water pumping has long been an important source of water in 

these areas; however, ground-water depletion, ground surface subsidence and impacts to 

riparian areas are becoming more common. Further research and understanding of the 

surface-water ground-water interactions is needed for better management of these resources 

(Phillips et al., 2004; Newman et al., 2006). 

d. Climate Change 

Most climate models predict severe changes for the southwest U.S., including increased 

warming and drying, intensification of droughts, and increased variability of precipitation. 

These changes will result in less runoff, reduced snow packs, changes in streamflow patterns, 

longer and hotter growing seasons, shifts in vegetation growth patterns, and changes in 

wildfire regimes (CIRMOUNT Committee, 2006; Betancourt, 2007). The Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) model simulations suggest that the hydrologic cycle will 

become more vigorous, with the possibility of greater droughts and/or floods in some regions 

and reduced occurrences of these phenomena in other areas (Thompson, 1997). Most of these 

impacts are already occurring to varying degrees, but acceleration over the next century will 

make management of land and water resources more complex. 

7. Discussion 

a. Clean Water Act Context 

The goal of the CWA is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological 

integrity of the Nation’s waters,” and to prevent pollution of those waters. Historically, desert 

washes have been considered to be jurisdictional under the CWA (for example, 408 F.3d 1113 

Save Our Sonoran, Inc. v. Flowers). However, as a result of the Supreme Court decision in 

the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States (“Rapanos,” 

2004), the definition of the Nation’s waters or waters of the United States jurisdictional under 

the CWA has required additional clarification, specifically with respect to tributaries that are 

“not relatively permanent” (i.e. ephemeral or intermittent streams). Recent guidance from the 

U.S. EPA and Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007) 

requires that a “significant nexus” exist between a non-relatively permanent tributary and a 

traditional navigable water of the United States for the tributary to be jurisdictional under the 

71 
CWA. This significant nexus evaluation must consider flow characteristics and functions of 

the tributary to determine if it has a significant effect on the chemical, physical, and biological 

integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters. 

We believe that the information presented in this report shows that ephemeral and intermittent 

streams in the arid and semi-arid Southwestern U.S. are ecologically and hydrologically 

connected to downstream waters, and have a significant effect on the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of those waters. 

Connectivity in non-perennial streams, however, can be difficult to demonstrate owing to a 

lack of data. Stream gages and water quality monitoring sites tend to be in perennial reaches, 

for example. Most ecological studies on wildlife or vegetation have been conducted in wetter 

environments or in the uplands. Nevertheless, hydrologic models suggest that in arid and 

semi-arid region watersheds flow in small tributaries does reach the perennial stream courses 

(see for example Levick et al., 2006). Other studies have shown that non-perennial streams 

contribute nutrients, seed sources, or spawning areas necessary for biological and aquatic 

health in downstream perennial waters (see for example Erman and Hawthorne, 1976; Howe 

et al., 2008). 

b. Ecosystem Goods and Services 

Many sources recognize that the ecosystem goods and services provided by natural systems 

are critical to the healthy functioning of the natural environment. They also recognize the 

significant contribution of these goods and services to human welfare and well-being, both 

directly and indirectly, and therefore the contribution to the overall social and economic value 

of the natural environment. 

Ephemeral and intermittent streams are integral parts of a watershed, and their condition 

affects the health of the entire ecosystem. Healthy ecosystems perform a diverse array of 

functions that provide goods and services to society. In this context, “goods” refers to 

materials that can be sold (e.g., drinking water, tourism, or timber), whereas “services” 

provide value but cannot be sold (biodiversity, wildlife habitat, or nutrient cycling) (Whiting, 

2000; Wilson et al., 2004) 

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005b) reviewed the consequences of ecosystem 

change on human well-being. Their multi-year study, published in 2005, presents a state-ofthe-art scientific appraisal of the condition and trends in the world’s ecosystems and the 

services they provide, as well as the scientific basis for action to conserve and use them 

wisely. The report defines well-being as including “the basic material needs for a good life, 

the experience of freedom, health, personal security, and good social relations, which 

together, provide the conditions for physical, social, psychological, and spiritual fulfillment.” 

From the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005b): 

Human well-being is supported by ecosystem services, which refers to the benefits 

received by people from an ecosystem. These may include: 

72 
 

 

 

• provisioning services such as food, water, timber, fiber, and genetic resources; 

• regulating services such as the regulation of climate, floods, disease, and water 

quality; 

• cultural services such as recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits; and 

• supporting services such as soil formation, pollination, and nutrient cycling. 

Ecosystems also have value for human well-being through the cultural services they 

provide, through, for example, totemic species, sacred groves, trees, scenic 

landscapes, geological formations, or rivers and lakes. These attributes and 

functions of ecosystems influence the aesthetic, recreational, educational, cultural, 

and spiritual aspects of human experience. Many changes to these ecosystems, 

through processes of disruption, contamination, depletion, and extinction, therefore 

have negative impacts on cultural life and human experience. 

In most cultures and regions, people generally prefer the aesthetics of natural 

environments over built-up or urban ones. For example, real estate values tend to be 

higher near protected open space, and reflect the willingness of people to pay for this 

amenity (Wilson et. al., 2004). The benefits provided by nature have inspired art, 

music and clothing throughout human history. Development and degradation of 

natural areas have reduced these benefits. The use of natural areas for recreation and 

tourism is growing as populations increase. Nature travel continues to increase, as 

does nature tourism, or eco-tourism. 

The previous sections of this report demonstrate that ephemeral and intermittent streams 

provide all of these ecosystem services, and therefore support overall human well being in the 

arid and semi-arid Southwest. One of the strongest points made in the Millennium Ecosystem 

Assessment was the powerful impact of ecosystem degradation on people with lower 

incomes, especially in developing countries. Lower income people depend more on natural 

areas for well-being than more affluent people because they are less able to replace the 

ecosystem services with purchased goods. 

Although the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report (2005b) did not address specific 

ecosystems, such as ephemeral and intermittent stream systems, it did make a strong case for 

the value of local ecosystems to the cultural diversity and cultural identity of a society. 

People have historically identified with their environment for their sense of culture and value 

systems. This is especially true in arid and semi-arid areas where water is a major concern 

that receives significant attention and focus. Areas where water concentrates are cherished 

and valued, whether or not permanent water is present. Desert cultures have traditionally 

based their lives around water, rainy seasons and the times when the rivers flowed. This is 

still true in the desert today: whenever it rains enough to cause the ephemeral streams to flow, 

people flock to the rivers to watch the water (Figure 41). 

73 
 

Figure 41. Photograph of the Santa Cruz River, Tucson, Arizona, during summer 

monsoon flows. (Photograph: unknown) 

c. Management Principles 

Ecologically responsible land management attempts to meet economic and social objectives 

while maintaining environmental health. It requires a landscape or watershed-scale approach 

that considers cumulative impacts to ensure that all physical, biological, and chemical 

components function together. For example, both the upland areas of a watershed and the 

riparian or stream course areas must be in a healthy functioning condition for the entire 

watershed to be healthy and to supply clean water for human and ecosystem use, and in many 

cases, food and fiber production. 

Landscape or watershed health can be described as a measure of the balance of anthropogenic 

uses and ecological function or integrity (Jones et al., 2002). Ecological integrity is the 

condition in which the productivity of resources and ecological values, including diversity, 

are resilient to disturbance and maintained for the long term (Reynolds, 1995). It involves 

maintaining biodiversity, biological productivity, and ecosystem processes. Important aspects 

of ecosystem integrity include energy flow through the food web, water and nutrient cycles, 

disturbance/recovery cycles, biotic diversity, evolutionary processes, and human influences. 

These characteristics and processes function at various rates and across multiple scales. 

Maintaining ecosystems requires maintaining these processes; it is not sufficient to only 

preserve the individual pieces (Institute for River Ecosystems, 1997). 

The management of arid and semi-arid lands has a direct impact on the hydrology and 

geomorphology of the drainage network, in addition to wildlife habitat. Bull (1977) noted 

that ephemeral streams are much more sensitive to climate or anthropogenic disturbance than 

are perennial streams. Nadeau and Rains (2007) discussed a management approach that 

considers how hydrological and ecological systems function at various temporal and spatial 

74 
scales. They described a watershed management approach that uses an integrated set of tools 

(federal, state, tribal, local) and programs (voluntary and regulatory), includes all 

stakeholders, and applies an iterative planning or adaptive management process to address 

strategically priority water resource goals. 

In arid and semi-arid regions, the functions of ephemeral and intermittent streams must be 

recognized and appreciated to protect and manage them properly; they must not be relegated 

to second-class status as compared to wetter systems elsewhere in the U.S. Ephemeral and 

intermittent streams should not be considered in isolation from the entire watershed. Given 

their vast extent and the accumulation of impacts to them over large areas in the rapidly 

developing southwest, a landscape or watershed-scale approach should be employed that 

considers the cumulative effects on overall watershed function. Ecosystem protection would 

be meaningless and ineffective if these supporting waterways were significantly degraded. 

d. Research Recommendations 

Many of the underlying physical, ecological, and biological processes and linkages in arid and 

semi-arid region systems are not well understood or documented. This general lack of 

information specific to ephemeral and intermittent streams in the arid and semi-arid 

Southwest leaves a wide range of research opportunities. For example, linking knowledge of 

past hydrological and channel changes to present-day changes in arid and semi-arid region 

streams should be a key research priority (Tooth, 2000a). 

Nadeau and Rains (2007) noted the need for long term, large-scale monitoring and research 

that are integrated across spatial and temporal scales to help provide the theoretical and 

empirical foundations necessary to identify problems and problem sources. For example, 

more research is needed to determine and classify the suites of flora and faunal species 

dependent on ephemeral and intermittent streams, and their preferred habitat types. 

Instrumenting more arid and semi-arid region watersheds with precipitation and stream flow 

gages would greatly advance the understanding of these systems. 

The protection of intact sites and the establishment of “representative” sites would provide 

reference areas for future studies and comparisons with impacted areas. Predictive models are 

needed to understand the consequences of alternative management actions on hydrological, 

ecological, economic and social systems. 

Regarding wildlife, a better understanding of the species that inhabit these systems will aid in 

our understanding of the significance of arid and semi-arid region streams to wildlife. For 

example, baseline inventories are needed to determine species composition, abundance, and 

distribution as compared to adjacent upland or perennial areas. Specific ecological 

information is needed for critical target species, such as habitat requirements and current 

population numbers and distribution. 

Much still needs to be learned about the ecological and hydrological interactions on 

ephemeral and intermittent streams due to variability and the often highly episodic occurrence 

of extreme events in these systems. There are unique challenges for work on these desert 

75 
rivers. Sometimes the environments are inhospitable, but arguably the greatest challenge is 

trying to use short-term projects to understand arid and semi-arid region streams whose 

variable behavior sometimes demands years of data more than are needed on a mesic river. 

As noted, ephemeral and intermittent streams constitute the vast majority of drainage ways in 

the Southwest and they play an integral role in overall watershed function. Future research is 

needed for both the long-term monitoring of these systems over a range of conditions, and on 

developing modeling tools that can be applied to large temporal and spatial scales. 

8. Conclusions 

When functioning properly, arid and semi-arid region streams provide many of the same 

services as perennial streams that affect water quality and ecosystem health. These services 

include landscape hydrologic connections; surface and subsurface water storage and 

exchange; ground-water recharge and discharge; sediment transport, storage, and deposition; 

flood plain development; nutrient cycling; wildlife habitat including movement and migration 

corridors; support for vegetation communities that help stabilize stream banks and provide 

wildlife services; water supply and water quality filtering or cleansing; and stream energy 

dissipation associated with high-water flows that reduces erosion and improves water quality 

(USFWS, 1993; BLM, 1998). In addition, riparian areas associated with ephemeral and 

intermittent streams help mitigate and control water pollution by removing pollutants and 

sediment from surface runoff (Sonoran Institute, 2007). Thus, these streams play a significant 

role in the physical, biological, and chemical integrity of an ecosystem and must be afforded 

the same importance as other wetter systems in the U.S. in land management decisions. 

Effective management of water resources in arid and semi-arid environments requires 

awareness of the interdependencies of hydrologic, biogeochemical and ecological processes, 

and collaboration between ecologists and hydrologists. Stream channel characteristics are 

based on upland watershed and channel conditions, and physical characteristics such as the 

hydrology of the system-driven biological values. Non-perennial streams with active flood 

regimes contain a high diversity of plant species that varies depending on the location within 

the watershed. The complex longitudinal gradients along arid and semi-arid region streams 

encompassing changes in flood intensity, climate, and water availability, result in a wide 

range of biological conditions along its length. Therefore, to protect water quality and 

riparian habitat, a watershed-based approach to land management must be taken, involving all 

stakeholders and applying best management practices. Newman et al. (2006) suggest 

establishing a monitoring network in water-limited environments to facilitate this 

collaboration, from the experimental design phase, through interpretation and modeling. 

In the rapidly developing southwest, land management decisions must employ a watershedscale approach that addresses overall watershed function and water quality. As shown in this 

report, ephemeral and intermittent stream systems comprise a large portion of southwestern 

watersheds, and contribute to the hydrological, biogeochemical, and ecological health of a 

watershed. Given their importance and vast extent, consideration of the cumulative impacts 

from anthropogenic uses on these streams is critical in watershed-based assessments and land 

management decisions to maintain overall watershed health and water quality. 

76 
9. Literature Cited 

Adams, J.W. 2000. Macroinvertebrate Monitoring of Redmond and Blakely Ridge 

Ephemeral Streams. The Xerces Society, Portland, OR 97215. 

Aldridge, B.N. 1970. Floods of November 1965 to January 1966 in the Gila River Basin, 

Arizona and New Mexico, and adjacent basins in Arizona; US Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 1850-C, 176 p. 

Alexander, R.B., E.W. Boyer, R.A. Smith, G.E. Schwarz, and R.B. Moore. 2007. The Role 

of Headwater Streams in Downstream Water Quality. Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association. 43(1): 41-59. 

Allan, J.D. 1995. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters. Chapman & 

Hall. London. 388 p. 

Anderson, B.W., J. Drake, R.D. Ohmart. 1977. Population Fluctuations in Nocturnal 

Rodents in the Lower Colorado River Valley. In: Importance, Preservation and 

Management of Riparian Habitat: A Symposium, July 9, 1977. U.S. Forest Service 

General Technical Report RM-43, p. 183-192. 

Anderson, B.W., and R.D. Ohmart. 1977. Vegetation Structure and Bird Use in the Lower 

Colorado River Valley. In: Importance, Preservation and Management of Riparian 

Habitat: A Symposium, July 9, 1977. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report 

RM-43, p. 23-34. 

Antevs, E. 1952. Arroyo cutting and filling. Journal of Geology, v. 670, p. 375-378. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2001. Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis. 

Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, 

Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 5 p. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2002. Hyla arenicolor. Unpublished abstract compiled 

and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Phoenix, AZ. 

Arizona Riparian Council (ARC). 2004. Fact Sheet #2: Riparian Functions and Values. 

Tempe, Arizona. 

Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. 2007. Canyon Tree Frog. Retrieved from Web site Nov. 

30, 2007. http://www.desertmuseum.org/books/nhsd_canyon_treefrog.php 

Atchley, M.C., A.G. de Soyza, W.G. Whitford. 1999. Arroyo water storage and soil nutrients 

and their effects on gas-exchange of shrub species in the northern Chihuahuan Desert. 

Journal of Arid Environments 43 (1): 21-33. 

77 
Aurambout, J.P. 2003. A spatial model to estimate habitat fragmentation and its 

consequences of long-term survival of animal populations. Department of Natural 

Resources and Environmental Sciences University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. 

Babcock, H.M. and E.M. Cushing. 1942. Recharge to groundwater from floods in a typical 

desert wash, Pinal County, Arizona. Transaction of the American Geophysical Union 

23, p. 49-55. 

Bagstad, K.J., J.C. Stromberg and S.J. Lite. 2005. Response of Herbaceous Riparian Plants 

to Rain and Flooding on the San Pedro River, Arizona, USA. Wetlands, Vol. 25, No. 

1, March 2005, p. 210–223. 

Bailey, R.G. 1976. “Ecoregions of the United States” map, Aug. 17, 2001, unnumbered 

publication. Intermountain Region, USDA Forest Service, Ogden, Utah. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/land/ecosysmgmt/ecoreg1_home.html 

Baillie, M.N., J.F. Hogan, B. Ekwurzel, A.K. Wahi, and C.J. Eastoe. 2007. Quantifying 

water sources to a semiarid riparian ecosystem, San Pedro River, Arizona, J. 

Geophysical Res., 112, GO3S02, doi:10.1029/2006JG000263. 

Barnett, L.O., R.H. Hawkins, and D.P Guertin. 2002. Reconnaissance Watershed and 

Hydrologic Analysis on the Upper Agua Fria Watershed. School of Renewable 

Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. 

Baxter, R.J. 1988. Spatial Distribution of Desert Tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) at 

Twentynine Palms, California: Implications for Relocations. In: Management of 

Amphibians, Reptiles, and Small Mammals in North America. Proceedings of the 

Symposium, July 19-21, 1988. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-166. 

p. 180-189. 

Beier, P. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 59(2):228-237. 

Beier, P., D. Majka, and T. Bayless. 2006. Arizona Missing Linkages: Rincon-Santa RitaWhetstone Linkage Design. Report to Arizona Game and Fish Department. School of 

Forestry, Northern Arizona University. 

Bellantoni, E.S., and Krausman, P.R. 1991. Habitat use by desert mule deer and collared 

peccary in an urban environment. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona. 

Cooperative National Parks Resources Study Unit. Technical Report no. 42. 

Bellantoni, E.S., and P.R. Krausman. 1993. Habitat use by collared peccaries in an urban 

environment. Southwestern Naturalist, 38(4):345-351. 

78 
Belnap, J. 2003. The world at your feet: desert biological soil crusts. Frontiers in Ecology 

and the Environment: 2003: 1(5): 181–189. Ecological Society of America, 

publishers. 

Belnap, J., J.R. Welter, N.B. Grimm, N. Barger, and J.A. Ludwig. 2005. Linkages between 

microbial and hydrologic processes in arid and semiarid watersheds. Ecology, 86(2): 

298-307. 

Bennett, A.F. 1999. Linkages in the Landscape: The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in 

Wildlife Conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 254 p. 

Betancourt, J. 2007. Climate Variability and change in the Southwest. SERDP Workshop: 

Southwest Region Threatened, Endangered, and At-Risk Species Workshop: 

Managing with Highly Variable Environments Tucson, Arizona, Oct. 22, 2007. 

Bigler, W.J. 1974. Seasonal Movements and Activity Patterns of the Collared Peccary. 

Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 55, no. 4, p. 851-855. 

Black, P.E. 1997. Watershed Functions. Journal of the American Water Resources 

Association, 33(1):1-11. 

Bloss, D.A. and J.D. Brotherson. 1979. Vegetation response to a moisture gradient on an 

ephemeral stream in central Arizona. Great Basin Naturalist 39:161-176. 

Booth, D.B. 1990. Stream-channel incision following drainage-basin urbanization. Water 

Resources Bulletin, v. 26, n. 3, p. 407-417. 

Boulton, A.J. and P.S. Lake. 1992. The ecology of two intermittent streams in Victoria, 

Australia. II. Comparisons of faunal composition between habitats, rivers and years. 

Freshwater Biology, v. 27, p. 99-121. 

Boulton, A.J., S. Findlay, P. Marmonier, E.H. Stanley, and H.M. Valett. 1998. The 

Functional Significance of the Hyporheic Zone in Streams and Rivers. Annu. Rev. 

Ecol. Syst. 1998. 29:59–81. 

Bourke, M.C., and G. Pickup. 1999. Fluvial form variability in arid central Australia. In: 

A.J. Miller, and A. Gupta (Eds.), Varieties of Fluvial Form, Wiley, Chichester, p. 249-

271. 

Breschta, R.L. and W.S. Platts. 1986. Morphological Features of Small Streams: 

Significance and Function. Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 22, No. 3, p. 369 – 379. 

Brinson, M.M, F.R. Hauer, L.C. Lee, W.L. Nutter, R.D. Rheinhardt, R.D. Smith, and D. 

Whigham. 1995. A guidebook for application of hydrogeomorphic assessments to 

riverine wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Wetlands Research Program 

Technical Report WRP-DE-11. p. 42-68. 

79 
Brinson, M.M. 1988. Strategies of assessing the cumulative effects of wetland alteration on 

water quality. Environmental Management, 12(5):655-662. 

Brooks, P.D., P.A. Haas, and A.K. Huth. 2007. Seasonal variability in the concentration and 

flux of organic matter and inorganic nitrogen in a semiarid catchment, San Pedro 

River, Arizona. Journal of Geophysical Research 112, G03S04, 

doi:10.1029/2006JG000275. 

Brooks, P.D. and M.M. Lemon. 2007. Spatial variability in dissolved organic matter and 

inorganic nitrogen concentrations in a semiarid stream, San Pedro River, Arizona, J. 

Geophysical Res., 112, G03S05, doi:10.1029/2006JG000262. 

Brown, D.E., C.H. Lowe, and J.F. Hausler. 1977. Southwestern Riparian Communities: 

Their Biotic Importance and Management in Arizona. In: Importance, Preservation 

and Management of Riparian Habitat: A Symposium, July 9, 1977. U.S. Forest 

Service General Technical Report RM-43, p. 201-211. 

Brown, D.E. ed. 2004. Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern 

Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 

Bull, W.B. 1997. Discontinuous Ephemeral Streams. Geomorphology, 19 (1997), p. 227-

276. 

Bull, L.J., and M.J. Kirkby. 2002. Dryland river characteristics and concepts. In: Dryland 

Rivers: Hydrology and Geomorphology of Semi-Arid Channels. L.J. Bull and M.J. 

Kirkby, eds., John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, p. 3-15. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1998. Riparian Area Management: Process for 

Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. Technical Reference 1737-9. 

Burkham, D.E. 1972. Channel changes of the Gila River in Safford Valley, Arizona, 1846-

1970. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 655G. 

Carothers, S.W. 1977. Importance, Preservation, and Management of Riparian Habitats: An 

Overview. In: Importance, Preservation and Management of Riparian Habitat: A 

Symposium, July 9, 1977. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-43, p. 2-

4. 

Carpelan, L.H. 1995. Invertebrates of the California Desert. In: The California Desert: An 

Introduction to Natural Resources and Man’s Impact. Vol. II. Latting, J. and 

Rowlands, P.G., eds. Riverside, California: June Latting Books. 2 vols. p. 275-283. 

Cataldo, J., C. Behr, F. Montalto, and R.J. Pierce. 2004. A Summary of Published Reports of 

Transmission Losses in Ephemeral Streams in the U.S. A Report to the National 

Center for Housing and the Environment. 

80 
Ceballos, G. 1985. The Importance of Riparian Habitats for the Conservation of Endangered 

Mammals in Mexico. In: Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling 

Conflicting Uses. First North American Riparian Conference, April 16-18, 1985. 

U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-120, p. 96-100. 

Center for Watershed Protection. 2003. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems. 

Watershed Protection Research Monograph No. 1. www.cwp.org, 

www.stormwatercenter.net 

Chin, A., and K.J. Gregory. 2001. Urbanization and adjustment of ephemeral stream 

channels. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, v. 91, n. 4, p. 595-

608. 

Chourre, W. and S. Wright. 1997. Population Growth of the Southwest United States, 1900-

1990. USGS Web Conference: Impacts of Climate Change and Land Use on the 

Southwestern United States, July 7 - 25, 1997. Accessed from Web site: 

http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/changes/anthropogenic/population/, May 9, 2008. 

Chow, V.T., D.R. Maidment, and L.W. Mays. 1988. Applied Hydrology. New York; 

McGraw Hill. 572 p. 

CIRMOUNT Committee. 2006. Mapping New Terrain: Climate Change and America’s 

West. Report of the Consortium for Integrated Climate Research in Western 

Mountains (CIRMOUNT), Misc. Pub., PSW-MISC-77, Albany, CA, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 29 p. 

Coes, A.L. and D.R. Pool. 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. 

Coleman, D., C. MacRae, E.D. Stein. 2005. Effect of Increases in Peak Flows and 

Imperviousness on the Morphology of Southern California Streams. Southern 

California Coastal Water Research Project, Westminster, CA. Technical Report #450. 

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). 1997. Ecological Regions of North 

America: Toward a Common Perspective. Montreal (Quebec), Canada. 

http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/na_eco.htm#CEC1997. 

Cook, P.G. and A.L. Herczeg (eds.). 1999. Environmental Tracers in Subsurface Hydrology. 

Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 529 p. 

Cooke, R.U. and R.W. Reeves. 1976. Arroyos and Environmental Change in the American 

Southwest. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 

Cummins, K.W. and M.A. Wilzbach. 2005. The inadequacy of the fish bearing criterion for 

stream management. Aquatic Sciences 67(4):486 491. 

81 
 

 

 

Daniels, B.E. 1979a. Thirty-first winter bird-population study. No. 81. Paloverde desert 

wash. Amer. Birds 22(1):42. 

Daniels, B.E. 1979b. Thirty-first winter bird-population study. No. 82. Ironwood-smoketree 

desert wash. Amer. Birds 22(1):42. 

Daniels, B.E. and J. Boyd. 1979a. Forty-second breeding bird census. No. 142. Ironwoodsmoketree desert wash. Amer. Birds 33(1):92-93. 

Daniels, B.E. and J. Boyd. 1979b. Forty-second breeding bird census. No. 150. Paloverde 

desert wash. Amer. Birds 33(1):94. 

De Boer, D.H. 1992. Constraints on Spatial Transference of Rainfall-Runoff Relationships in 

Semiarid Basins Drained by Ephemeral Streams. Hydrological Sciences Journal 

HSJODN, Vol. 37, No. 5, p. 491-504, October 1992. 

de Soyza, A.G., K.T. Killingbeck, and W.G. Whitford. 2004. Plant water relations and 

photosynthesis during and after drought in a Chihuahuan desert arroyo. Journal of 

Arid Environments 59 (2004), p. 27–39. 

DeBano, L.F., P.F. Ffolliott, and K.N. Brooks. 1995. Flow of water and sediments through 

Southwestern riparian systems. In: Desired future conditions for Southwestern 

riparian ecosystems: Bringing interests and concerns together. D.W. Shaw, and D.M. 

Finch, tech cords. Sept. 18-22, 1995; Albuquerque, NM. General Technical Report 

RM-GTR-272. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 359 p. 

Del Rosario, R.B. and V.H. Resh. 2000. Invertebrates in Intermittent and Perennial Streams: 

Is the Hyporheic Zone a Refuge from Drying? Journal of the North American 

Benthological Society, Vol. 19, No. 4. p. 680-696. 

Dick, G.S., R.S. Anderson and D.E. Sampson. 1997. Controls on flash flood magnitude and 

hydrograph shape, Upper Blue Hills badlands, Utah. Geology 25, p. 45-48. 

Dieterich, M., and N.H. Anderson. 1998. Dynamics of abiotic parameters, solute removal 

and sediment retention in summer-dry headwater streams of western Oregon. 

Hydrobiologia 379:1–15. 

Dimmitt, M.A. 2000. Biomes & Communities of the Sonoran Desert Region. In: A Natural 

History of the Sonoran Desert. S.J. Phillips and P.W. Comus, eds. Arizona-Sonora 

Desert Museum Press and University of California Press. 

Duncan, D. 1990. Small mammal inventory of Chiricahua National Monument, Cochise 

County, Arizona. Technical Report No. 30, Cooperative National Park Studies Unit, 

University of Arizona, National Park Service. 

82 
Dunkerley, D.L. 1992. Channel geometry, bed material, and inferred flow conditions in 

ephemeral stream systems, Barrier Range, Western N.S.W., Australia. Hydrological 

Processes, v. 6, p. 417-433. 

Dunkerly, D.L. 2008. Bank permeability in an Australian ephemeral dry-land stream: 

variation with stage resulting from mud deposition and sediment clogging. Earth 

Surface Processes and Landforms, 33:226-243. 

Dunkerley, D. and K. Brown. 1999. Flow behavior, suspended sediment transport and 

transmission losses in a small (sub-bank-full) flow event in an Australian desert 

stream; Hydrological Processes, v. 13, n. 11, p. 1577-1588. 

Elliot, J.G., R.D. Jarrett, and J.L. Ebling. 1982. Annual snowmelt and rainfall peak-flow data 

on selected foothills region streams, South Platte River, Arkansas River, and Colorado 

River basins, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 82-426, 88 p. 

Elliott, J.G., A.C. Gellis, and S.B. Aby. 1999. Evolution of arroyos: incised channels of the 

southwestern United States. In: Incised River Channels, S.E. Darby and A. Simon, 

eds., John Wiley and Sons, New York, p. 153-185. 

England A.S. and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr. 1995. Birds of the California Desert. In: The 

California Desert: An Introduction to Natural Resources and Man’s Impact. Vol. II. 

Latting, J. and Rowlands, P.G. eds. Riverside, California: June Latting Books. 2 vols. 

Erman, D.C. and V.M. Hawthorne. 1976. The quantitative importance of an intermittent 

stream in the spawning of rainbow trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 105:675-681. 

Erman, N.A. and C.D. Nagano. 1992. A review of the California caddisflies (Trichoptera) 

listed as candidate species on the 1989 Federal “Endangered and threatened wildlife 

and plants-animal notice of review. California Fish and Game 78:45-56. 

Fanning, P.C. 1999. Recent landscape history in arid Western New South Wales, Australia: a 

model for regional change. Geomorphology, 29:191-209. 

Fisher, S.G. and W.L. Minckley. 1978. Chemical characteristics of a desert stream in flash 

flood. Journal of Arid Environments, 1:25-33. 

Fisher, S.G. and Gray, L.J. 1983. Secondary production and organic matter processing by 

collector macroinvertebrates in a desert stream. Ecology 64:1217–24. 

Fisher, S.G. and N.B. Grimm. 1985. Hydrologic and material budgets for a small Sonoran 

Desert watershed during three consecutive cloudburst floods. Journal of Arid 

Environments, 9:105-118. 

83 
Fisher, S.G. 1991. Presidential address: Emerging global issues in freshwater ecology. Bull. 

N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 8:235–45. 

Fisher, S.G., J. Welter, J. Schade, and J. Henery. 2001. Landscape challenges to ecosystem 

thinking: Creative flood and drought in the American Southwest. Scientia Marina, 

65(suppl. 2): 181-192. 

Frank, C.L. 1988. Diet Selection by a Heteromyid Rodent: Role of Net Metabolic Water 

Production. Ecology, Vol. 69, No. 6, (Dec., 1988), p. 1943-1951. 

Freeman, M.C., C.M. Pringle, and C.R. Jackson. 2007. Hydrologic Connectivity and the 

Contribution of Steam Headwaters to Ecological Integrity at Regional Scales. Journal 

of the American Water Resources Association, 43(1):5-14. 

Friedman, J.M. and V.J. Lee. 2002. Extreme floods, channel change and riparian forests 

along ephemeral streams. Ecological Applications 72:409-425. 

Friedman, J.M., W.R. Osterkamp, and W.M. Lewis, Jr. 1996. The role of vegetation and 

bed-level fluctuations in the process of channel narrowing. Geomorphology, 14:341-

351. 

Frostick, L.E., and I. Reid. 1977. The origin of horizontal laminae in ephemeral stream 

channel-fill; Sedimentology, v. 24, p. 1-9. 

Frostick, L.E., and I. Reid. 1979. Drainage-net control of sedimentary parameters in sandbed ephemeral streams. In: A.F. Pitty, (ed.), Geographical Approaches to Fluvial 

Processes. Geoabstracts, Norwich, p. 173-201. 

Gandolfi, C. and G.B. Bischetti. 1997. Influence of the drainage network identification 

method on geomorphological properties and hydrological response. Hydrological 

Processes 11(4): 353-375. 

Gochis, D.J., L. Brito-Castillo, and W.J. Shuttleworth. 2006. Hydroclimatology of the North 

American Monsoon region in Northwest Mexico. Journal of Hydrology 316:53-70. 

Gomi, T., R.C. Sidle, and J.S. Richardson. 2002. Understanding Processes and Downstream 

Linkages of Headwater Systems. Bioscience; Vol. 52, no. 10, p. 905-916. 

Goodrich, D.C., L.J. Lane, R.M. Shillito, S.N. Miller, K.H. Syed, and D.A. Woolhiser. 1997. 

Linearity of basin response as a function of scale in a semiarid watershed. Water 

Resour. Research, 33(12):2951-2965. 

Goodrich, D.C., D.G. Williams, C.L. Unkrich, J.F. Hogan, R.L. Scott, K.R. Hultine, D. Pool, 

A.L. Coes, and S. Miller. 2004. Comparison of methods to estimate ephemeral 

channel recharge, Walnut Gulch, San Pedro River Basin, Arizona. In: Groundwater 

Recharge in a Desert Environment: The Southwestern United States. eds. J.F. Hogan, 

84 
F.M. Phillips, and B.R. Scanlon, Water Science and Applications Series, Vol. 9, 

American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., p. 77-99. 

Graf, W.L. 1983. Flood-related change in an arid region river. Earth Surface Processes and 

Landforms, v. 8, p. 125-139. 

Graf, W.L. 1988. Fluvial Processes in Dryland Rivers. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 

Graham, T.B. 2002. Survey of aquatic macroinvertebrates and amphibians at Wupatki 

National Monument, Arizona, USA: An evaluation of selected factors affecting 

species richness in ephemeral pools. Hydrobiologia 486:215-224. 

Grimm, N.B. and S.G. Fisher. 1989. Stability of periphyton and macroinvertebrates to 

disturbance by flash floods in a desert stream. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 8:293–307. 

Grimm, N.B., J.R. Arrowsmith, C. Eisinger, J. Heffernan, D.B. Lewis, A. MacLeod, L. 

Prashad, W.J. Roach, T. Rychener, and R.W. Scheibley. 2004. Effects of 

urbanization on nutrient biogeochemistry of arid land streams. In: R. DeFries, G.P. 

Asner, and R. Houghton, eds., Ecosystem interactions with land use change. American 

Geophysical Union, p. 129-146. 

Groeneveld, D.P., and T.E. Griepentrog. 1985. Interdependence of Groundwater, Riparian 

Vegetation and Streambank Stability: A Case Study. In: Riparian Ecosystems and 

Their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses. First North American Riparian 

Conference, April 16-18, 1985. U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical Report 

RM-120, p. 44-48. 

Hardy, P.C., D.J. Griffin, K.A. Juenzi, and M.L. Morrison. 2004. Occurrence and habitat use 

of passage neotropical migrants in the Sonoran Desert. Western North American 

Naturalist 64:59-71. 

Hatten, J.R., L. Averill-Murray and B. Van Pelt. 2003. Characterizing and mapping potential 

jaguar habitat in Arizona. AGFD, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program 

Technical Report 203, Phoenix, AZ. 32 p. 

Hayes, M.P. and M.R. Jennings. 1988. Habitat Correlates of Distribution of the California 

Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog 

(Rana boylii): Implications for Management. In: Management of Amphibians, 

Reptiles, and Small Mammals in North America. Proceedings of the Symposium, July 

19-21, 1988. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-166. p. 144-158. 

Hedman, E.R. and W.R. Osterkamp. 1982. Streamflow characteristics related to channel 

geometry of stream in western United States. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply 

Paper 2193. 

85 
Heede, B.H. 1985. Interactions Between Streamside Vegetation and Stream Dynamics. In: 

Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses. First 

North American Riparian Conference, April 16-18, 1985. U.S.D.A. Forest Service 

General Technical Report RM-120, p. 54-58. 

Heine, R.A., C.L. Lant, and R.R. Sengupta. 2004. Development and comparison of 

approaches for automated mapping of stream channel networks. Annals of the 

Association of American Geographers 94(3):477-490. 

Henderson, R.P. 1979. thirty-first winter bird population study. No. 39. Paloverde 

woodland. Amer. Birds 33(1):29. 

Hereford, R., R.H. Webb, and S. Graham. 2002. Precipitation history of the Colorado 

Plateau region, 1900-2000. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 119-02, 4 p. 

Hereford, R., R.H. Webb, and C.I. Longpre. 2003. Precipitation history of the Mojave Desert 

region, 1893-2001. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 117-03, 4 p. 

Hibbs, B.J. 2008. Forward: Ground Water in Arid Zones. Ground Water, Vol. 46. No. 3. 

Hilty, J.A., W.Z. Lidicker, Jr., and A.M. Merenlender. 2006. Corridor Ecology: The Science 

and Practice of Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation. Island Press, 

Wash. D.C., 323 p. 

Hirschboeck, K.K. 1987. Hydroclimatically defined mixed distributions in partial duration 

flood series, In: Singh, V.P., ed., Hydrologic frequency modeling: Boston, Mass., D. 

Reidel, p. 192-205. 

Hogan, J.F., F.M. Philips, and B.R. Scanlon (eds.). 2004. Groundwater Recharge in a Desert 

Environment: The Southwestern United States. Water Science and Applications 

Series, Vol. 9, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC. 294 p. 

Holmes, R.M., S.G. Fisher and N.B. Grimm. 1994. Parafluvial nitrogen dynamics in a desert 

stream ecosystem. J. North American Benthological Society, 13(4):468-478. 

Howe, S., L.R. Levick, A. Hautzinger. 2008. Hydrology and Ecology of Southwestern 

Intermittent Streams, Dry Washes, and Adjacent Riparian Zones. In: Proceedings 

from the Southwest Region Threatened, Endangered, and At-Risk Species Workshop, 

22-25 October 2007, Tucson, Arizona. Prepared for the Legacy Resource Management 

Program, Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, and 

Environmental Security Technology Certification Program by HydroGeoLogic, Inc., 

Reston, Virginia. 

Hubbard, J.P. 1977. Importance of Riparian Ecosystems: Biotic Considerations. In: 

Importance, Preservation and Management of Riparian Habitat: A Symposium, July 9, 

1977. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-43, p.14-18. 

86 
Hulen, T. 2007. Cave Creek: Refuge for Desert Fish. Retrieved from Web site 11/28/07. 

http://www.dflt.org/awareness/desert-fish.htm 

Hupp, C.R., and W.R. Osterkamp, 1996. Riparian vegetation and fluvial geomorphic 

processes. Geomorphology 14:277-295. 

Huryn, A.D. and J.B. Wallace. 2000. Life History and Production of Stream Insects. Annu. 

Rev. Entomol. 45:83–110. 

Institute for River Ecosystems. 1997. Smith River Fisheries and Ecosystem Report. 

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/3771/index.html Accessed Aug. 1, 2008. 

Izbicki, J.A. 2007. Physical and temporal isolation of mountain headwater streams in the 

western Mojave Desert, southern California. Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association, Vol. 43, No. 1. 

Jackson, J.K. and S.G. Fisher. 1986. Secondary production, emergence, and export of 

aquatic insects of a Sonoran Desert stream. Ecology, 67:629–38. 

Jacobson, P.J., K.M. Jacobson, P.L. Angermeier and D.S. Cherry. 2000a. Hydrologic 

influences on soil properties along ephemeral rivers in the Namib Desert. Journal of 

Arid Environments, 45:21-34. 

Jacobson, P.J., K.M. Jacobson, P.L. Angermeier, and D.S. Cherry. 2000b. Variation in 

material transport and water chemistry along a large ephemeral river in Namib Desert. 

Freshwater Biology, 44(3):481-491. 

Jakle, M.D. and T.A. Gatz. 1985. Herpetofaunal Use of Four Habitats in the Middle Gila 

River Drainage, Arizona. In: Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management: 

Reconciling Conflicting Uses. First North American Riparian Conference, April 16-

18, 1985. U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-120, p. 355-358. 

Jarrett, R.D., and J.E. Costa. 1982. Multidisciplinary approach to the flood hydrology of 

foothills streams in Colorado, In: Johnson, A.J., and Clark, R.A., eds., International 

Symposium on Hydrometeorology, Denver, Colo., 1982, Proceedings: American 

Water Resources Association, p. 565-569. 

Johnson, R.R., L.T. Haight, and J.M. Simpson. 1977. Endangered species vs. endangered 

habitats: A concept. In: R.R. Johnson and D.A. Jones, eds. Importance, preservation, 

and management of riparian habitat: A symposium. General Technical Report RM166. U.S. Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. p. 68-79. 

Johnson, R.R., S.W. Carothers, J.M. Simpson. 1984. A riparian classification system. pp 

375-382, In: R.E. Warner and K.M. Hendrix, eds., California Riparian Systems: 

Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management. University of California Press, 

Berkeley. 

87 
Johnson, R.R. and L.T. Haight. 1985. Avian Use of Xeroriparian Ecosystems in the North 

American Warm Deserts. In: Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management: 

Reconciling Conflicting Uses. First North American Riparian Conference, April 16-

18, 1985. U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-120, p. 156-160. 

Johnson, R.R. and C.H. Lowe. 1985. On the development of riparian ecology. In: Riparian 

Ecosystems and their management: First North American Riparian Conference. 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report 

RM-120. 

Jones, C., R.M. Palmer, S. Motkaluk, and M. Walter. 2002. Watershed Health Monitoring, 

Emerging Technologies. CRC Press LLC, Florida. 

Jones, Jr., J.B., S.G. Fisher, and N.B. Grimm. 1996. A long-term perspective of dissolved 

organic carbon transport in Sycamore Creek, Arizona, USA. Hydrobiologia, 317:183-

188. 

Jones, K.B. 1986. Deserts. In: Inventory and Monitoring of Wildlife Habitat. A.Y. 

Cooperrider, R.J. Boyd, and H.R. Stuart, eds. U.S. Dept. Inter., Bureau of Land 

Management. Service Center, Denver, CO. p. 123-147. 

Jones, K.B. 1988. Distribution and Habitat Associations of Herpetofauna in Arizona: 

Comparisons by Habitat Type. In: Management of Amphibians, Reptiles, and Small 

Mammals in North America. Proceedings of the Symposium, July 19-21, 1988. U.S. 

Forest Service General Technical Report RM-166. p. 109-128. 

Jorgensen, E.E., S. Demarais and S. Neff. 1995. Rodent Use of Microhabitat Patches in 

Desert Arroyos. American Midland Naturalist, 134(1):193-199. 

Kennedy, C.E. 1977. Wildlife Conflicts in Riparian Management: Water. In: Importance, 

Preservation and Management of Riparian Habitat: A Symposium, July 9, 1977. U.S. 

Forest Service General Technical Report RM-43, p. 52-58. 

Kepner, W.G. 1978. Small mammals of the Black Canyon and Skull Valley Planning Units, 

Maricopa and Yavapai Counties, Arizona. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 

Phoenix District Office. Technical Note 350. 

Keppel, R.V. and K.G. Renard. 1962. Transmission losses in ephemeral stream beds. 

Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, v. 8, n. HY3, p. 59-68. 

Killingbeck, K.T. and W.G. Whitford. 2001. Nutrient resorption in shrubs growing by 

design, and by default in Chihuahuan Desert Arroyos. Oecologia 128:351-359. 

Kingsley, K.J. 1998. Invertebrates of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona. 

U.S.G.S. Cooperative Studies Unit, University of Arizona, and National Park Service. 

Technical Report No. 60, 193 p. 

88 
 

Kingsley, K.J. 2006. Evaluation of Mesquite Mouse (Peromyscus Merriami) Status in Pima 

County, Arizona. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Tucson, AZ. Prepared for Pima 

County Regional Flood Control District, Tucson, AZ. 

Kirkpatrick, C., C.J. Conway and D. LaRoche. 2007. Quantifying impacts of groundwater 

withdrawal on avian communities in desert riparian woodlands of the southwestern 

U.S. USGS Arizona Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Department of 

Defense, Legacy Resource Management Program, Project 06-290. 

Knighton, A.D. and G.C. Nanson. 1997. Distinctiveness, diversity and uniqueness in arid 

zone river systems. In: Thomas, D. S. G. (ed.), Arid Zone Geomorphology: processes, 

form and change in drylands, 2nd edition Wiley, Chichester, p. 185-203. 

Krausman, P.R., K.R. Rautenstrauch and B.D. Leopold. 1985. Xeroriparian Systems Used 

by Desert Mule Deer in Texas and Arizona. In: Riparian Ecosystems and Their 

Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses. First North American Riparian 

Conference, April 16-18, 1985. U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical Report 

RM-120, p. 144-149. 

Krueper, D.J. 1995. Effects of Livestock Management on Southwestern riparian ecosystems. 

In: Desired future conditions for Southwestern riparian ecosystems: Bringing interests 

and concerns together. D.W. Shaw, and D.M. Finch, tech cords. Sept. 18-22, 1995; 

Albuquerque, NM. General Technical Report RM-GTR-272. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, 359 p. 

Krueper, D.J. 1993. Conservation priorities in naturally fragmented and human-altered 

riparian habitats of the arid West. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report 

RM-43. Available online: www.birds.cornell.edu/pifcapemay/krueper.htm. 

Kubik, M.R., Jr., and J.V. Remsen, Jr. 1977. Fortieth breeding bird census. No. 125. 

Catclaw-rabbitbrush desert wash. Amer. Birds. 31(1):75-76. 

Lane, L.J. 1983. Transmission Losses. In: National Engineering Handbook. IV. Hydrology. 

Washington, D.C., USDA, Soil Conservation Service, 21 p. 

Lange, J. 2005. Dynamics of transmission losses in a large arid stream channel. Journal of 

Hydrology, 306:112-126. 

Lee, L.C., P.L. Fiedler, S.R. Stewart, R.R. Curry, D.J. Partridge, J.A. Mason, E.M. Inlander, 

R.B. Almy, D.L. Aston, and M.E. Spencer. 2001. Draft Guidebook for Reference 

Based assessment of the Functions of Riverine Waters/Wetlands Ecosystems in the 

South Coast Region of Santa Barbara County, California. Santa Barbara County 

Water Agency, Santa Barbara, CA. 

89 
Lee, L.C., P.L. Fiedler, S.R. Stewart, D.J. Partridge, J.A. Mason, E.M. Inlander, and M.C. 

Rains. 2004. Draft Operational Guidebook for Assessment of the Functions of 

Riverine Waters/Wetlands in the Santa Margarita Watershed, Riverside & San Diego 

Counties, California. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, Technical 

Publication. San Diego, CA. 

Leenhouts, J.M., J.C. Stromberg, R.L. Scott, eds. 2006. Hydrologic requirements of and 

consumptive ground-water use by riparian vegetation along the San Pedro River, 

Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5163, 154 p. 

Leibowitz, S.G., P.J. Wigington, Jr., M.C. Rains, and D.M. Downing. 2008. Non-navigable 

streams and adjacent wetlands: addressing science needs following the Supreme 

Court’s Rapanos decision. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2008; 6, 

doi:10.1890/070068. Downloaded from Frontiers e-View. 

Leitner, L.A. 1987. Plant communities of a large arroyo at Punto Cirio, Sonora. 

Southwestern Naturalist, 32:21-28. 

Lekach, J., A.P. Shick, and A. Schlesinger. 1992. Bedload yield and in-channel provenance 

in a flash-flood fluvial system. In: P. Billi, R.D. Hey, C.R. Thorne, and P. Tacconi 

(Eds.), Dynamics of Gravel-bed Rivers, John Wiley & sons Ltd, p. 537-554. 

Lekach, J., R. Amit, T. Grodeck, and A.P. Schick. 1998. Fluvio-pedogenic processes in an 

ephemeral stream channel, Nahal Yael, Southern Negev, Israel. Geomorphology 23, 

p. 353-369. 

Lema, S.C. 2008. The Phenotypic Plasticity of Death Valley's Pupfish. American Scientist, 

January-February 2008. Accessed Sept. 11, 2008 from 

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2008/1/the-phenotypic-plasticity-ofdeath-valleys-pupfish/1 

Leopold, L.B. and M. Maddock Jr. 1953. The Hydraulic Geometry of Stream Channels and 

Some Physiographic Implications. U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 252. 

Leopold, L.B. and J.P. Miller. 1956. Ephemeral Streams – Hydraulic Factor and their 

Relation to the Drainage Net. Geological Survey Professional Paper 282-A. 

Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman and J.P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. 

W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 504 p. 

Leopold, L.B., W.W. Emmet, and R.M. Myrick. 1966. Channel and hillslope processes in a 

semi-arid area, New Mexico. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 352-G. 

Levick, L.R., D.J. Semmens, D.C. Goodrich, W. Kepner, J. Brush, R.A. Leidy, E. Goldmann. 

2006. Simulated Changes in Runoff and Sediment in Developing Areas Near Benson, 

Arizona (in press). 

90 
 

Lite, S.J., K.J. Bagstad, and J.C. Stromberg. 2005. Riparian plant species richness along 

lateral and longitudinal gradients of water stress and flood disturbance, San Pedro 

River, Arizona, USA. Journal of Arid Environments 63 (2005) 785–813. 

Loggins, R.E., P. Maslin, D. Efseaff, K. Nelson, W. McKinney and T. Moore. 1996. 

Cyprinoid Usage of Intermittent Streams in the Sacramento River Basin. 

http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~loggins/cyprin.html 

Louw, G. and M. Seely. 1982. Ecology of desert organisms. Longman Group Limited, New 

York. 194 p. 

Lovich, J.E. 1996. A Brief Review of the Impacts of Tamarisk, or Saltcedar on Biodiversity 

in the New World. In: Proceedings: Saltcedar Management and Riparian Restoration 

Workshop. Las Vegas, Nevada, September 17 - 18, 1996 

Lowe, C.H. 1985. Amphibians and Reptiles in Southwest Riparian Ecosystems. In: Riparian 

Ecosystems and their Management: Reconciling conflicting uses. First North 

American Riparian Conference, April 16-18, 1985. U.S. Forest Service General 

Technical Report RM-120. 

Mark, D.M. 1983. Relations between field-surveyed channel networks and map-based 

geomorphometric measures, Inez, Kentucky. Annals of the Association of American 

Geographers 73(3): 358-372. 

Mayhew, W.W. 1995. Amphibians of the California Desert. In: The California Desert: An 

Introduction to Natural Resources and Man’s Impact. Vol. II. Latting, J. and 

Rowlands, P.G. eds. Riverside, California: June Latting Books. 2 vols. 

McArthur, E.D. and S.C. Sanderson. 1992. A Comparison between xeroriparian and upland 

vegetation of Beaver Dam Slope, Utah, as Desert Tortoise habitat. In: Proceedings – 

Symposium on Ecology and Management of Riparian Shrub Communities. U.S. 

Dept. of Agriculture, General Technical Report INT-289, p. 25-31. 

McMahon, T. A. 1979. Hydrological characteristics of arid zones. Hydrology of areas of 

low precipitation, Proceedings of the Canberra Symposium. IAHS-AISH Publication 

No. 128, p. 105-123. 

Merritt, D.M., and E.E. Wohl. 2003. Downstream hydraulic geometry and channel 

adjustment during a flood along an ephemeral arid-region drainage. Geomorphology, 

v. 52, p. 165-180. 

Meyer, J.L. and J.B. Wallace. 2000. Lost linkages and lotic ecology: rediscovering small 

streams. Proceedings of the 41st Symposium of the British Ecological Society, p. 295-

317. 

91 
Meyer, J.L., D.L. Strayer, J.B. Wallace, S.L. Eggert, G.S. Helfman, and N.E. Leonard. 2007. 

The contribution of headwater streams to biodiversity in river networks. Journal of 

the American Water Resources Association, 43(1):86-103. 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005a. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: 

Desertification Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, 

http://www.millenniumassessment.org/ documents/document.355.aspx.pdf) 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005b. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. 

World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, 

http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf). 

Miller, M.E. 2005. The Structure and Functioning of Dryland Ecosystems – Conceptual 

Models to Inform Long-Term Ecological Monitoring. U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5197, 73 p. 

Miller, Scott. 1995. An Analysis of Channel Morphology at Walnut Gulch - Linking Field 

Research with GIS Applications. M.S. Thesis, University of Arizona. 

Miller, S.N., D.P. Guertin, and L.R. Levick. 1999a. Influences of map scale on drainage 

network representation. Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the 

Southwest, Office of Arid Land Studies, Univ. of Ariz., 29:7-15. 

Miller, S.N., D.P. Guertin, K.H. Syed and D.C. Goodrich. 1999b. Using high resolution 

synthetic aperture radar for terrain mapping: Influences on hydrologic and geomorphic 

investigations. In: D.S. Olsen and L.P. Potyondy (Editors). 1999. Wildland 

Hydrology. American Water Association, Herndon, Virginia, TPS-99-3. p. 219-228. 

Miltner, R.J., D. White, and C. Yoder. 2003. The biotic integrity of streams in urban and 

suburbanizing landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning Vol. 69, p. 87-100. 

Minckley, W.L. and G.K. Meffe. 1987. Differential selection by flooding in stream fish 

communities of the arid American Southwest. Pages 93-104, In: W.J. Matthews and 

D.C. Heins, eds. Community and Evolutionary Ecology of North American Stream 

Fishes. Norman (OK): University of Oklahoma Press. 

Moran, M.S., W.E. Emmerich, D.C. Goodrich, P. Heilman, C. Holifield Collins, T.O. Keefer, 

M.A. Nearing, M.H. Nichols, K.G. Renard, R.L. Scott, J.R. Smith, J.J. Stone, C.L. 

Unkrich, J.K. Wong. 2008. Preface to special section on Fifty Years of Research and 

Data Collection: U.S. Department of Agriculture Walnut Gulch Experimental 

Watershed. Water Resources Research, Vol. 44, W05S01, 

doi:10.1029/2007WR006083. 

Nadeau, T.L. and M.C. Rains. 2007. Hydrological connectivity between headwater streams 

and downstream waters: How science can inform policy. Journal of the American 

Water Resources Association, 43(1):118-133. 

92 
Nanson, G.C. and J.C. Croke. 1992. A genetic classification of floodplains. Geomorphology, 

4 (1992) 459-486. 

National Research Council. 2002. Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management. 

National Academy of Science, Committee on Riparian Zone Functioning and 

Strategies for Management, Water Science and Technology Board, Board on 

Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National 

Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

National Wildlife Federation (NWF). 2007. Streams. Online fact sheet, 

http://www.nwf.org/wildlife/pdfs/Streams.pdf, accessed May 22, 2007. 

Newman, B.D., E.R. Vivoni, and A.R. Groffman. 2006. Surface water-groundwater 

interactions in semiarid drainages of the American southwest. Hydrologic Processes: 

v 20, p. 3371-3394. 

Nichols, M.H. 2006. Stream Processes in Riparian Areas, Chapter 4 In: Understanding 

Arizona’s Riparian Areas. University of Arizona Cooperative Extension. 

Nilsen, E.T., M.R. Sharifi, and P.W. Rundel. 1984. Comparative Water Relations of 

Phreatophytes in the Sonoran Desert of California. Ecology 65:767-778. 

North, C. 2005. Drylands Rivers Research, Web site (last updated Feb. 16, 2005). 

University of Aberdeen, Scotland. http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~gmi196/DrylandRivers/ 

Ohmart, R.D., and B.W. Anderson. 1982. North American desert riparian ecosystems. In: 

G.L. Bender, ed., Reference handbook on the deserts of North America, Greenwood 

Press, Westport, CT. p. 433-479. 

Ohmart, R.D., and C.D. Zisner. 1993. Functions and Values of Riparian Habitat to Wildlife 

in Arizona, A Literature Review. Center for Environmental Studies, Arizona State 

University, Tempe, AZ. Submitted to Arizona Game and Fish Department, Contract 

Number G300-25B. 

Ohmart, R.D. 1995. Historical and present impacts of livestock grazing on fish and wildlife 

resources in western riparian habitats. Pp 245-279, In: P.R. Krausman (ed.). 

Rangeland wildlife. The Society for Range Management, Denver, CO. 440 p. 

Olsen, H. 1987. Ancient ephemeral stream deposits: a local terminal fan model from the 

Bunter Sandstone Formation. In: L.E. Frostick, and I. Reid (eds.), Desert Sediments. 

Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, p. 69-86. 

Owens, M.K., R.K. Lyons and C.L. Alejandro. 2006. Rainfall partitioning within semiarid 

juniper communities: effects of event size and canopy cover. Hydrol. Process. 20. 

93 
Parker, J.T.C. 2006. Post-Wildfire Sedimentation in Saguaro National Park, Rincon 

Mountain District, and Effects on Lowland Leopard Frog Habitat. U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5235, 35 pp. 

Pelletier, J.D., and DeLong, S. 2004. Oscillations in arid alluvial-channel geometry. 

Geology, 32:8, p. 713-716. 

Peterson, B.J., W.M. Wollheim, P.J. Mulholland, J.R. Webster, J.L. Meyer, J.L Tank, E. 

Marti, W.B. Bowden, H.M. Valett, A.E. Hershey, W.H McDowell, W.K. Dodds, S.K. 

Hamilton, S. Gregory, and D.D. Morrall. 2001. Control of nitrogen export from 

watersheds by headwater streams. Science, 292:86-90. 

Phillips, F.M., J.F. Hogan and B.R. Scanlon. 2004. Introduction and Overview. In: 

Groundwater Recharge in a Desert Environment: The Southwestern United States. 

Hogan, J.F., F.M. Phillips, and B.R. Scanlon (eds.). Water Science and Applications 

Series, Vol. 9, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC. 294 p. 

Pima County. 2000. Biological Stress Assessment, An Overview Discussion of Issues and 

Concerns. Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan Web site, Reports. 

http://www.co.pima.az.us/cmo/sdcp/reports/d9/008BIO.PDF 

Pinay, G., J.C. Clement, and R.J. Naiman. 2002. Basic principles and ecological 

consequences of changing water regimes on nitrogen cycling fluvial systems. 

Environmental Management, 30(4): 481-491. 

Pister, E. P. 1995. Fishes of the California Desert Conservation Area. In: The California 

Desert: An Introduction to Natural Resources and Man’s Impact. Vol. II. Latting, J. 

and Rowlands, P.G. eds. Riverside, California: June Latting Books. 2 vols. 

Poff, N.L, J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, B.D. Richter, .R.E. Sparks, and 

J.C. Stromberg. 1997. The Natural Flow Regime: A paradigm for river conservation 

and restoration. Bioscience, Vol. 47, No. 11. 

PRBO (Point Reyes Bird Observatory). 2007. Final Report: Potential Off-road Vehicle 

impacts on bird populations of Sonoran Desert Xeroriparian Habitats of Western 

Arizona. Point Reyes Bird Observatory Conservation Science. 

Powell, B.F., and R.J. Steidl. 2002. Habitat selection by riparian songbirds breeding in 

southern Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 66(4):1096-1102. 

Powell, D.M., R. Brazier, A. Parsons, J. Wainwright, and M. Nichols. 2007. Sediment 

transfer and storage in dryland headwater streams. Geomorphology, 88:152-166. 

Ragotzkie, K.E. and J.A. Bailey. 1991. Desert mule deer use of grazed and ungrazed 

habitats. Journal of Range Management, 44(5), p. 487-490. 

94 
Rassam, D.W., C.S. Fellow, R. De Hayr, H. Hunter, and P. Bloesch. 2006. The hydrology of 

riparian buffer zones; two case studies in an ephemeral and a perennial stream. 

Journal of Hydrology, 325(1-4):308-324. 

Reid, I. and L.E. Frostick. 1989. Channel form, flows and sediments in deserts. Chapter 6 

In: Arid Zone Geomorphology, D.S.G. Thomas (ed.), Belhaven Press, London. p. 

117-135. 

Reid, I. 1994. River landforms and sediment: evidence of climatic change. In: A.D. 

Abrahams and A.J. Parsons (Eds.), Geomorphology of Desert Environments. 

Chapman & Hall, London, p. 571 592. 

Reid, I. and J.B. Laronne. 1995. Bed load sediment transport in an ephemeral stream and a 

comparison with seasonal and perennial counterparts. Water Resources Research, v. 

31, n. 3, p. 773-782. 

Reid, I. and L.E. Frostick. 1997. Channel form, flows and sediments in deserts. In: Arid 

Zone Geomorphology: Process, Form, and Change in Drylands, D.S.G. Thomas (ed.), 

Wiley, Chichester, p. 205-229. 

Reid, I., J.B. Laronne, and D.M. Powell. 1998. Flash-flood and bedload dynamics of desert 

gravel-bed streams. Hydrological Processes, (12):543-557. 

Remsen, J.V., Jr., K.H. Berry and E. Wessman. 1976. Twenty-ninth winter bird population 

study. No. 51. Joshua tree woodland II. Amer. Birds 30(6):1060-1061. 

Renard, K.G. 1970. The hydrology of semi-arid rangeland watersheds. U.S. Dept. of 

Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. Pub. #ARS 41-162. 

Renard, K.G. and E.M. Laursen. 1975. Dynamic Behavior Model of Ephemeral Stream. 

Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 101, No. HY5, Journal 

of the Hydraulics Division, May 1975. 

Reynolds, Keith M. 1995. Definition of forest ecosystem health. Protection of Forest Health 

and Productivity Program. http://www.fsl.orst.edu/home/usfs/fhealth/helthdef.htm. 

Corvallis, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experimental Station, Oregon 

State University. 

Richardson, J.S., R.E. Bilby and C.A. Bondar. 2005. Organic matter dynamics in small 

streams of the Pacific Northwest. Journal of the Association 41(4): 921-934. 

Rinne, J.N. and W.L. Minckley. 1991. Native Fishes of Arid Lands; A Dwindling Resource 

of the Desert Southwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-206. Ft. Collins, CO. U.S.D.A. Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 45 p. 

95 
Rodier, J.A. 1985. Aspects of arid zone hydrology. In: Facets of Hydrology, Volume ii, J.C. 

Rodda. Wiley, Chichester, p. 205-247. 

Rosen, P.C. and Lowe, C.H. 1996. Ecology of the Amphibians and Reptiles at Organ Pipe 

Cactus National Monument, Arizona. Tech. Report #53. Cooperative Park Studies 

Unit, The University of Arizona, Tucson. 

Rosen, P.C. 2005. Lowland Riparian Herpetofaunas: The San Pedro River in Southeastern 

Arizona. In: Connecting Mountain Islands and Desert Seas: Biodiversity and 

management of the Madrean Archipelago II, May 11-15, 2004, Tucson, Arizona. 

USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-36. 

Rosen, P.C., W.R. Radke, and D.J. Caldwell. 2005. Herpetofauna of Lowland Bottomlands 

of Southeastern Arizona: A Comparison of Sites. In: Connecting Mountain Islands 

and Desert Seas: Biodiversity and management of the Madrean Archipelago II, May 

11-15, 2004, Tucson, Arizona. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-36. 

Schneider, W.J. 1961. A note on the accuracy of drainage densities computed from 

topographic maps. Journal of Geophysical Research 66:3617-18. 

Schueler, T. 1994. The importance of Imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques 1 

(3):100-111. 

Schumm, S.A. and R. F. Hadley. 1957. Arroyos and the Semiarid Cycle of Erosion. 

American Journal of Science, Vol. 255, p. 161-174. 

Schumm, S.A. 1961. Effect of sediment characteristics on erosion and deposition in 

ephemeral stream channels. US Geological Survey, Professional Paper 598. 

Schumm, S. A. and R.W. Lichty. 1963. Channel widening and floodplain construction along 

Cimarron River in southwestern Kansas. United States Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 352-D, p. 71-88 

Scott, S.H. 2006. Predicting sediment transport dynamics in ephemeral channels: A review 

of literature. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Coastal 

Hydraulics Lab, Report Number: ERDC/CHL-CHETN-VII-6, 9 p. 

Semmens, D.J. 2004. Geomorphic modeling and routing improvements for GIS-based 

watershed assessment in arid regions. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arizona, 

218 p. 

Sharp, A. L. and K.E. Saxton. 1962. Transmission losses in a mature stream valley. Journal 

of the Hydraulic Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 

88, p. 121-142. 

96 
Shaw, J.R. and D.J. Cooper. 2008. Linkages among watersheds, stream reaches, and riparian 

vegetation in dryland ephemeral stream networks. Journal of Hydrology (2008) 350, 

p. 68 – 82. 

Shreve, F. and I.L. Wiggins. 1964. Vegetation and flora of the Sonoran Desert. Vol. 1. 

Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, Calif. 

Siekert, R.R., Q.D. Skinner, M.A. Smith, J.L Dodd, and J.D. Rodgers. 1985. Channel 

Response of an Ephemeral Stream in Wyoming to Selected Grazing Treatments. In: 

Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses. First 

North American Riparian Conference, April 16-18, 1985. U.S.D.A. Forest Service 

General Technical Report RM-120, p. 276-278. 

Skagen, S.K., C.P. Melcher, W.H. Howe, and F.L. Knopf. 1998. Comparative Use of 

Riparian Corridors and Oases by Migrating Birds in Southeastern Arizona. 

Conservation Biology 12:896-909 

Skagen, S.K., J.F. Kelly, C. Van Riper, R.L. Hutto, D.M. Finch, D.J. Krueper, C.P. Melcher. 

2005. Geography of Spring Landbird Migration through Riparian Habitats in 

Southwestern North America. The Condor 107:212–227. 

Smith, S.D., C.A. Herr, K.L. Leary, and J.M. Piorkowski. 1995. Soil-plant water relations in 

a Mojave Desert mixed shrub community - a comparison of three geomorphic 

surfaces. Journal of Arid Environments 29 (3):339-351. 

Sonoran Institute. 2007. Sustainable Water Management: Guidelines for Meeting the Needs 

of People and Nature in the Arid West. 

http://sonoran.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=174&Itemid=204 

Sponseller, R.A. and S.G. Fisher. 2006. Drainage size, stream intermittency, and ecosystem 

function in a Sonoran Desert landscape. Ecosystems 9:344-356. 

Stanley, E.H., S.G. Fisher and N.B. Grimm. 1997. Ecosystem Expansion and Contraction in 

Streams. Bioscience, Vol. 47, No. 7. 

Stebbins, R.C. 1995. Desert Reptiles. In: The California Desert: An Introduction to Natural 

Resources and Man’s Impact. Vol. II. Latting, J. and Rowlands, P.G., eds. Riverside, 

California: June Latting Books. 2 vols. 

Stevens, L.E., B.T. Brown, J.M. Simpson and R.R. Johnson. 1977. In: Importance, 

Preservation and Management of Riparian Habitat: A Symposium, July 9, 1977. U.S. 

Forest Service General Technical Report RM-43, p. 156-164. 

Stromberg J.C., A.F. Hazelton, M.S. White, J.M. White and R.A. Fischer. Ephemeral 

wetlands on ephemeral reaches: temporal patterns of vegetation development along a 

spatially intermittent river. Wetlands (in press). 

97 
Stromberg, J.C., R. Tiller and B. Richter. 1996. Effects of Groundwater Decline on Riparian 

Vegetation of Semiarid Regions: The San Pedro, Arizona. Ecological Applications, 

Vol. 6, No. 1. (Feb., 1996), p. 113-131. 

Stromberg, J.C. 2001. Restoration of riparian vegetation in the south-western USA: 

importance of flow regimes and fluvial dynamism. Journal of Arid Environments, 

49:17-34. 

Stromberg, J.C. 2006. Seasonal reversals of upland-riparian diversity gradients in the 

Sonoran Desert. Diversity and Distributions, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State 

University, Box 874501, Tempe, AZ 85287-4501, USA. 

Stromberg, J.C., S.J. Lite, T.J. Rychener, L.R. Levick, M.D. Dixon and J.M. Watts. 2006. 

Status of the Riparian Ecosystem in the Upper San Pedro River, Arizona: Application 

of an Assessment Model. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (2006) 

115:145–173. 

Stromberg, J.C., V.B. Beauchamp, M.D. Dixon, S.J. Lite and C. Paradzick. 2007. 

Importance of low-flow and high-flow characteristics to restoration of riparian 

vegetation along rivers in arid south-western United States. Freshwater Biology 

(2007) 52, p. 651–679. 

Styles, P., S. Toon, E. Thomas and M. Skittrall. 2006. Microgravity as a tool for the 

detection, characterization and prediction of geohazard posed by abandoned mining 

cavities. First Break, Vol. 24. 

(http://www.firstbreak.org/files/Technart3_micro.pdf?PHPSESSID=53627986abd04a 

1f703c54896d1159d9). 

Thompson, R.S. 1997. Global Climate Change: The 1995 Report by Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. USGS Web Conference: Impacts of Climate Change and 

Land Use on the Southwestern United States, July 7 - 25, 1997. Accessed from Web 

site: http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/changes/anthropogenic/population/, May 9, 

2008. 

Thoms, M.C., M. Southwell and H.M. McGinness. 2005. Floodplain-river ecosystems: 

fragmentation and water resources development. Geomorphology 71(1-2):126-138. 

Thornes, J.B. 1977. Channel Changes in Ephemeral Streams: Observations, Problems, and 

Models. In: River Channel Changes. K.J. Gregory, ed. John Wiley & Sons. 

Thornes, J.B. 1994. Catchment and channel hydrology. In: A.D. Abrahams and A.J. Parsons 

(Eds.) Geomorphology of Desert Environments. Chapman and Hall, London, p. 257-

287. 

98 
Thornwaite, C.W., C.F.S. Sharpe, and E.F. Dosch. 1942. Climate and accelerated erosion in 

the arid and semiarid Southwest, with special reference to the Polacca Wash drainage 

basin, Arizona. U.S. Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 808. 

Ticer, L.L., R.A. Okenfels, and J.C. Devos, Jr. 1998. Habitat use and activity patterns of 

urban-dwelling javelina. Urban Ecosystems, 2:141-151. 

Tomoff, C.S. 1977. The spring avifauna of the Colorado Desert of southeastern California. 

U.S. Dep’t. Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Calif. Desert Plan Program, 

Riverside, Calif. Rept. Contr. No. CA-060-CT7-987. 

Tomoff, C.S. 1979a. Thirty-first winter bird population study. No. 58. Blue paloverdeironwood-smoketree desert riparian woodland I. Amer. Birds 33(1):35-36. 

Tomoff, C.S. 1979b. Thirty-first winter bird population study. No. 59. Blue paloverdeironwood-mixed shrub and succulent desert wash. Amer. Birds 33(1):41. 

Tomoff, C.S. 1979c. Thirty-first winter bird population study. No. 77. Blue paloverdeironwood-smoketree desert riparian woodland II. Amer. Birds 33(1):36. 

Tooth, S. 2000a. Process, form and change in dryland rivers: a review of recent research. 

Earth-Science Reviews, 51 (2000), p. 67–107. 

Tooth, S. 2000b. Downstream changes in dryland river channels: the Northern Plains of arid 

central Australia. Geomorphology, 34:33-54. 

Tooth, S. and G.C. Nanson. 2000. The role of vegetation in the formation of anabranching 

channels in an ephemeral river, Northern plains, arid central Australia. Hydrological 

Processes, 14, p. 3099-3117. 

URS Corporation. 2006. Aquatic Communities of Ephemeral Stream Ecosystems. Arid 

West Water Quality Research Project. Prepared for Pima County Wastewater 

Management Department, with funding by EPA Region IX, Assistance Agreement X97952101. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1958. Frequency of New England floods: Sacramento 

District, Research Note 1, 4 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1988. Management of Amphibians, 

Reptiles, and Small Mammals in North America. Proceedings of the Symposium, July 

19-21, 1988. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-166. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2002. Management and 

Techniques for Riparian Restoration, Roads Field Guide, Vol. 1. General Technical 

Report RMRS-GTR-1-2, Vol. 1. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

99 
 

 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2007. 

Guidance on Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 

Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/RapanosGuidance6507.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. Letter from Benjamin H. Grumbles, 

Assistant Administrator, EPA, to Ms. Jeanne Christie, Executive Director, Association 

of State Wetland Managers, dated Jan. 9, 2005. 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services (USFWS). 1993. Riparian Issue Paper: Lack of Federal 

Section 404 Clean Water Act Protection of Riparian Areas in the Arid and Semi-Arid 

Southwest. Arizona Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1997. Some perspectives on Comate and Floods in the 

Southwestern U.S. USGS Web Conference: Impacts of Climate Change and Land 

Use on the Southwestern United States, July 7 - 25, 1997. Accessed from Web site: 

http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/changes/anthropogenic/population/, May 9, 2008. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2006. National Hydrography Dataset Web site, 

http://nhd.usgs.gov/index.html. 

University of Connecticut. 1994. Impacts of Development on Waterways, NEMO Program 

Fact Sheet #3. University of Connecticut, Cooperative Extension System. 

http://nemo.uconn.edu/tools/publications/fact_sheets/nemo_fact_sheet_3_s.pdf 

University of Connecticut. 1999. Carving up the Landscape, NEMO Program Fact Sheet 

#10. University of Connecticut, Cooperative Extension System. 

http://nemo.uconn.edu/tools/publications/fact_sheets/nemo_fact_sheet_10_s.pdf 

Valett, H.M., S.G. fisher, N.B. Grimm and P. Camill. 1994. Vertical hydrologic exchange 

and ecological stability of a desert stream ecosystem. Ecology, Vol. 75, No. 2, p. 548-

560. 

Valett, H.M., M.A. Baker, J.A. Morrice, C.S. Crawford, M.C. Molles, Jr., C.N. Dahn, D.L. 

Moyer, J.R. Thibault, and L.M. Ellis. 2005. Biogeochemical and metabolic responses 

to the flood pulse in a semiarid floodplain. Ecology, 86(1), p. 220-234. 

Van Devender, T.R. 2002. The Sonoran Desert Tortoise. Natural History, Biology, and 

Conservation. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Van Riper, III, C. and K.L. Cole. 2004. The Colorado Plateau: Cultural, Biological, and 

Physical Research, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 279 p. 

Virginia, R.A., W.M. Jarrell, W.G. Whitford, and D.W. Freckman. 1992. Soil biota and soil 

properties associated with the surface rooting zone of mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) 

in historical and recently desertified habitats. Biology and Fertility of Soils 14:90-98. 

100 
 

Wagner, F.H. 1978. Livestock grazing and the livestock industry. Pp. 121-145, In: H.P. 

Brokaw (ed.) Wildlife and America. Council on Environmental Quality, U.S. Gov. 

Print. Office. 532 p. 

Wakelin-King, G.A. and J.A. Webb. 2007. Threshold-dominated fluvial styles in an aridzone mud-aggregate river: The uplands of Fowlers Creek, Australia. Geomorphology 

85 (2007) p. 114–127. 

Walker, D., C. Goforth and S. Rector. 2005. An exploration of Nutrient and Community 

Variables in Effluent Dependent Streams in Arizona. EPA Grant Number X-828014-

01-01, awaiting publication. 

Ward, J.S. and Associates. 1973. Environmental Protection Study, Pantano Wash, South 

Tucson and Canada del Oro Areas, Tucson, Arizona. For the Pima Association of 

Governments. 119 p. 

Warren, P.L. and L.S. Anderson. 1985. Gradient analysis of a Sonoran Desert wash. In: 

Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses. First 

North American Riparian Conference, April 16-18, 1985. U.S.D.A. Forest Service 

General Technical Report RM-120, p. 150-155. 

Waylen, P. and M. Woo. 1982. Prediction of annual floods generated by mixed processes: 

Water Resources Research, v. 18, no. 4, p. 1283-1286. 

Webb, R.H. and J.L. Betancourt. 1992. Climatic variability and flood frequency of the Santa 

Cruz River, Pima County, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper, 

2379, 40 p. 

Westerhoff, P. and D. Anning. 2000. Concentrations and characteristics of organic carbon in 

surface water in Arizona: influence of urbanization. Journal of Hydrology, 236(3-

4):202-222. 

Wetzel, R.G. 2006. Wetland Ecosystem Processes, pp. 285-312, In: D. P. Batzer and R. R. 

Sharitz, eds. Ecology of Freshwater and Estuarine Wetlands. University of California 

Press, Berkeley. 

Whiles, M.R. and B.S. Goldowitz. 2005. Macroinvertebrate communities in central Platte 

River wetlands: patterns across a hydrologic gradient. Wetlands, 25(2), p. 462–472. 

Whitford, W.G. 2002. Ecology of Desert Systems. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 343 p. 

Whiting, L.R. 2000. The Ecological Paradigm. Retrieved from the Ohio State University 

Web site: http://ohioline.osu.edu/paradigm/index.html 

Williams, D.D. 2006. The Biology of Temporary Waters. Oxford University Press, UK. 337 

p. 

101 
Wilson, M.A., R. Costanza, and A. Troy. 2004. The EcoValue Project. Retrieved from the 

University of Vermont EcoValue Web site: http://ecovalue.uvm.edu 

Wipfli, M.S. 2005. Trophic Linkages Between Headwater Forests and downstream Fish 

Habitats: Implications for Forest and fish Management. Landscape and Urban 

Planning, 72:205-213. 

Wolman, M.G. and R. Gerson. 1978. Relative scales of time and effectiveness of climate in 

watershed geomorphology. Earth Surface Processes, v. 3, p. 189-208. 

102 
103
104

Please make all necessary changes on the below label, 

detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper 

left-hand corner. 

If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERE □; 

detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the 

upper left-hand corner. 

PRESORTED STANDARD 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

EPA 

PERMIT No. G-35 

Office of Research 

and Development (8101R) 

Washington, DC 20460 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use

$300 

EPA/600/R-08/134

ARS/233046

November 2008 

www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable 

vPrinted with vegetable-based ink on 

paper that contains a minimum of 

50% post-consumer fiber content 

processed chlorine free