Water Resources Development Commission Final Report Volume II Committee Reports October 1, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Environmental Committee Report 1 Population Committee Report 301 Supply and Demand Committee Report 334 Finance Committee Report 581 Legislative Recommendations Committee Report 679 Water Resources Development Commission Water Resources Development Commission Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources Working Group Chairs: Brenda Burman, The Nature Conservancy Warren Tenney, Metro Water District Presented to the Water Resources Development Commission June 17, 2011 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Overview Objective & Scope of the Inventory Content of the Inventory Quantifying Water Flow for Water-Dependent Natural Resources Arizona & Water-Dependent Natural Resources Economics of Water-Dependent Natural Resources Potential Risks to Water-Dependent Natural Resources 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 7 RECOMMENDATIONS 7 MEMBERS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 8 WATER-DEPENDENT NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX 10 BASIN SUMMARIES 11 REFERENCES  Summary of Findings  Basin Tables, Basin Maps and County Maps Basin Summaries 114 114 117 120 METHODS AND RESOURCES Introduction and Purpose Hydrologic Components Vegetation / Riparian Wildlife Administrative Designations and Boundaries Water-Dependent Natural Resource Index Estimates of Flow Volumes Currently Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources 126 127 128 133 135 142 145 147 BASIN TABLES 158 BASIN MAPS 209 COUNTY MAPS 261 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Table of Contents i Water Resources Development Commission SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Overview The Inventory of Arizona’s Water-Dependent Natural Resources provides the Water Resources Development Commission (WRDC) with a significant new tool to evaluate the relationship between the state’s waters and the environmental resources those waters support. Developed by the Environmental Working Group of the WRDC in 2011, the Inventory catalogs a wide-range of existing data and research on natural resources associated with rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes and springs throughout Arizona. It builds upon the Arizona Department of Water Resources’ (ADWR) Arizona Water Atlas by focusing on the state’s riparian and aquatic habitats, the fish, wildlife and natural communities these habitats support, and the conditions currently supporting these resources. Organized by groundwater basin, the Inventory includes this Summary of Findings, a written overview of this effort along with recommendations based on these findings, and the following: Tables – tables for each of Arizona’s 51 groundwater basins present information on the sub-basins, watersheds, counties, water features, riparian and aquatic-dependent wildlife, and flow volumes supporting these resources associated with each basin. Maps – groundwater basin and county maps visually represent the water-dependent natural resources characterized in the tables as well as other features. Basin Summaries – written summaries for each groundwater basin provide additional information in narrative form. Methodology – written explanation of the methodology and sources used to create the tables, maps, and summaries. References – a record of the studies and research used to complete this Inventory. To best understand the water-dependent natural resource information included in this Inventory, the tables, maps, and summaries for each basin should be used conjunctively. The Inventory of Arizona’s Water-Dependent Natural Resources clearly documents the diversity of natural resources that exist in the State of Arizona. Arizona’s water and environmental resources both enhance the economy and provide citizens a high quality of life. The inventory denotes some of the following findings about Arizona: • • • • • • Arizona’s 51 groundwater basins are environmentally unique and diverse. More than 5,000 miles of perennial flow are estimated (ADEQ & USGS, 2007). Upwards of one million acres of riparian areas exist (AGFD, 1994). More than $1.7 billion is generated from wildlife-based recreation activities (Silberman, 2001; Southwick Associates, 2002 & 2003). Another $1.7 billion is produced from bird watching activities (Silberman, 2001; Southwick Associates, 2002 & 2003). 181 sensitive wildlife species tracked by the Arizona Heritage Data Management System (HDMS) are supported by water-dependent natural resources (AGFD, 2011). Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Summary of Findings / June 2011 1 Water Resources Development Commission The Inventory is a significant accomplishment that provides a better understanding of Arizona’s waterdependent natural resources as we look at how to meet statewide water demands in the next 25, 50, and 100 years. The Inventory also demonstrates that additional data, quantification, and research are needed to ensure we continue to increase our understanding of water-dependent natural resources and anticipate and minimize risks to these resources as we move into the future. Objective & Scope of the Inventory The Environmental Working Group was formed under the work plan developed by ADWR for the WRDC. The Environmental Working Group was tasked to 1) identify current water-dependent natural resources; 2) identify conditions necessary to support them; and 3) prepare a summary of findings and recommendations including needed studies and research. Using available scientific data and methods to complete these objectives, the Environmental Working Group compiled an inventory that identifies the state’s primary water-dependent natural resources and characterizes, where possible, the physical conditions of the water that supports those natural resources, which includes the state’s rivers, lakes, streams, springs, wetlands, riparian and aquatic habitats, and the flora and animals, birds, fish and other wildlife. More than 50 professionals from nearly 30 agencies, institutions, non-governmental organizations, tribes, and private sector firms stepped forward to participate in and contribute to the Environmental Working Group. Committee members reviewed and discussed over 100 studies and met at least 25 times to develop and prioritize tasks, gather data, prepare and compile the Inventory, and coordinate with other WRDC Committees. An early decision of the Environmental Working Group was to assess only water currently in use by natural resources based on existing data. The Inventory is a catalog of current conditions; a snapshot in time. The work plan for the WRDC assigned the Environmental Working Group to determine if current and future water supplies are sufficient to meet current and additional demand. Compiling extensive amounts of research and data into one usable inventory that catalogs water-dependent natural resources was a significant challenge considering the time frame given to the Environmental Working Group. The Environmental Working Group did quantify current flow supporting water-dependent natural resources for 12 of the state’s 51 basins for which data was available. Data was not available to identify current flow for the remainder of the basins with perennial flow as well as flow volumes needed to support water-dependent natural resources in the future. Developing the information necessary to satisfy these needs would be a lengthy scientific endeavor requiring additional information on perennial stream flow and an assessment of future cultural uses, effects of changing climate, and how these factors will affect riparian and aquatic habitats and the wildlife they support. Content of the Inventory The Environmental Working Group cataloged the diverse and unique water-dependent natural resources of Arizona by displaying the information as tables, maps and basin summaries. In addition, maps were created for each of Arizona’s 15 counties to show this information at the county level. These materials identify groundwater sub-basins, watersheds, and counties associated with each groundwater basin. A vast array of water-dependent natural resource data is clearly presented, including: • • • 2 The number and type of riparian, aquatic and/or marshland habitat dependent species (e.g. amphibians, birds, fish, etc.) Identification of species that are listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act Areas of Critical Habitat designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Summary of Findings / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Identification of major perennial streams and tributaries and their cumulative miles of flow Quantification of baseflow, evapotranspiration, and total flow supporting water-dependent natural resources for perennial streams in 12 groundwater basins where data was available Identification of perennial streams with flood flow components Streams classified as Outstanding Arizona Waters pursuant to A.A.C. §R18-11-112 ADWR information related to instream flow water rights Important water resources within federal or state designated conservation and recreation lands such as national and state parks, wilderness areas, national conservation areas and others Important Bird Areas identified by the Arizona Audubon Society Identification of water courses that may be supported by effluent or other water discharges and the associated volumes Identification of Effluent-Dependent Waters pursuant to A.A.C. §R18-11-113 The number, flow range and cumulative discharge volumes of major and minor springs The number of large and small reservoirs and the associated storage volumes The number of stockponds and wildlife catchments Water-based recreational values Federally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers pursuant to the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act Information related to some categories of water-dependent natural resources as well as important information about legal and institutional characteristics of particular water resources was not included. For example, intermittent and ephemeral streams, which have ecological and hydrological significance (Levick et al., 2008) are not characterized or mapped here. Also, some water in a stream may be the subject of a water right under state or federal law. Some of these rights are well-settled and others have not been quantified and/or adjudicated. While this type of information has an important bearing on water resource planning, it was beyond the scope and capacity of the Working Group to catalog this information. Quantifying Water Flow for Water-Dependent Natural Resources While each table contains a significant amount of information, the Environmental Working Group wanted to be able to show the quantifiable current water flow supporting water-dependent natural resources. After evaluating available data and consulting with members of the scientific community (see Methodology Section), the Working Group concluded that it was feasible to develop a set of quantitative estimates of flow volumes for a subset of the state's rivers, which includes 12 of Arizona’s 51 groundwater basins (Agua Fria, Aravaipa Canyon, Bill Williams, Cienega Creek, Lower San Pedro, Safford, Salt River, Santa Cruz AMA, Tonto Creek, Tucson AMA, Upper San Pedro, and the Verde River). The tables for the other groundwater basins do not include estimated flow volumes because the comprehensive data and research to access and then quantify a specific water flow is lacking. The Environmental Working Group recognized there are different methods and data available for estimating flow volumes and that results may vary depending upon which methods and data are used. Rather than select one technique and rely on one set of estimates, two sets of estimates were developed. This approach provides some advantages. First, given the goal was to develop a first approximation rather than a precise set of flow estimates, a range of flow estimates for watersheds is more appropriate. Second, generating a range of estimates enables the members of the WRDC, Environmental Working Group, and scientific community to better understand sources of variation in the different methods and data, which will lead to future refinements in methodologies and the overall certainty of results. To develop a general estimate of current flow volumes supporting water-dependent natural resources, the Working Group started by identifying the components of flow that support these resources. Based on studies of water budgets and discussions with experts in hydrology, two components were identified: Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Summary of Findings / June 2011 3 Water Resources Development Commission Baseflow is the part of stream flow originating from groundwater discharge and that sustains year-round flow. Evapotranspiration (ET) refers to the combined amount of water evaporated from riparian soil, open water surfaces, and transpired by riparian vegetation. The Environmental Working Group did not include two other components, groundwater underflow and flood flow, in the calculations. Ideally, each of these components would be used to calculate water flow estimates but available data were limited. For example, estimates of groundwater underflow, which is subsurface water that flows out of a basin into the next down-gradient basin, are derived through modeling rather than direct measurement. Similarly, flood flows are difficult to incorporate into a quantitative flow estimate. A practical method for integrating these parameters into a quantitative flow estimate was unavailable, and therefore, they were omitted from the estimate. The omission of the groundwater underflow and the flood flow does not minimize their significant role in the formation and functioning of riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Flood flows, including snowmelt runoff, play a vital role in the transport of sediment, recharge of floodplain and alluvium, recruitment and dispersal of riparian plant species and, among other things, trigger breeding in some aquatic species. In addition to the annual total volume of flood flows, factors such as flood frequency, timing, and duration are also important components that affect a groundwater basin. Therefore, in the 12 groundwater basins where it was feasible, the Environmental Working Group estimated the flow volume as a sum of the baseflow and riparian evapotranspiration. As stated in the recommendations, it would be useful to have more complete information about the other 39 groundwater basins. The baseflow and ET estimates developed by the Environmental Working Group provides a first approximation of the flow volumes currently supporting water-dependent natural resources, such as aquatic and riparian habitat for fish and wildlife. Presented in the same units of measure as the information developed by the Supply and Demand Working Group, the flow estimates for the 12 basins provide an important baseline that can be used to assess opportunities to maintain or enhance these resources as well as potential impacts to natural resources from future water developments. Arizona & Water-Dependent Natural Resources The tables, maps, and summaries for the 51 groundwater basins comprising this Inventory demonstrate the uniqueness and diversity of the state’s natural resources. These natural resources are integral to Arizona’s overall environment and character as well as to the state’s economy. Water in the environment serves important and obvious functions such as drinking water for terrestrial species, water for plants, and aquatic habitat for fish and other species. It supports riparian vegetation that provides cover, food, shade, and sites for wildlife nesting and foraging. Flows of water in the environment also serve plants and animals in less obvious ways such as modulating temperatures, triggering reproduction or other life-cycle changes, contributing to nutrient and waste cycles, and maintaining the form and function of river channels in a manner that affects the functioning of the larger ecosystem. Indeed, freshwater ecosystems are complex systems in which flowing water is a central component (Annear et al., 2002; Nadeau & Megdal, 2011; Silk & Ciruna, 2004). On the whole, riparian areas are among the most biologically diverse, abundant, and productive in North America and are especially important in semi-arid areas (Briggs, 1996). Sensitive wildlife species occurrences are tracked by Arizona Game and Fish Department through the Heritage Data Management System (HDMS). According to HDMS, 78 obligate aquatic species (those that can only live in water) including 35 native fish 4 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Summary of Findings / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission have been documented. Additionally, HDMS tracks 68 riparian species (those that can only live in riparian areas), which include birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates. There are also 20 species of insects and 62 plant species dependent on aquatic and riparian systems. Most wildlife relies on water in the environment (Poff et al., 1997). Eighty percent of all vertebrates spend some portion of their life cycle in riparian areas, and the majority of Arizona’s threatened and endangered vertebrates depend on riparian habitat (Zaimes, 2007). The connectivity of these habitats is important as well; streams and riparian areas serve as corridors for wildlife movement and as key flyways for migratory birds (Kirkpatrick & Conway, 2007). Ecosystems throughout Arizona depend not only on the existence of a certain quantity of water but also on the magnitude, frequency, duration, timing, and rate of flow. Each is important and may affect such factors as water quality, energy sources, physical habitat, and biotic interactions. Changes in any of these aspects of a flow can affect the ecological integrity of a water dependent area (Nadeau & Megdal, 2011). Location of a particular flow also matters. Water for natural resources needs to be understood within the context of occurring along a particular segment of stream as well as in relation to a larger system. The health of Arizona’s waters can be affected by actions taken throughout a watershed. For example, higher elevation forested watersheds provide much of the surface water and groundwater recharge in the state. It has been estimated that forested watersheds of Arizona contribute nearly 90% of the total streamflow in the state (Ffolliott & Thorud, 1975) and serve as important recharge areas for large regional aquifers (Pool, Blasch, Callegary, Leake, & Graser, 2011). Changes to land and watershed management may change the timing and rates of recharge to these aquifers (National Research Council [NRC], 2008). The contributions that water in the environment makes to human life are ubiquitous that they may be overlooked amid the complexities of ecosystem and human social activity. Finding a consistent and appropriate way to assess their value may provide valuable information to decision makers in natural resource management. The concept of “ecosystem services” was developed as a framework to assess these values. Water-dependent natural resources throughout Arizona provide important ecosystem services that may include clean water (by supporting water quality), clean air, flood control and erosion control (by supporting healthy riparian areas), a variety of recreational opportunities, and sustainable water supplies (by contributing to groundwater recharge). The 51 tables and maps of the groundwater basins demonstrate the importance of water to sustain the natural resources of Arizona. These natural resources are not only important to plants and animals. Rivers, springs, and other water resources are also culturally important to local communities, including Arizona’s Native American tribes, and sustain places and provide materials that are culturally important to tribes and other communities. Water in rivers, lakes and streams is also important to Arizonans and those who visit Arizona who care about natural beauty, outdoor recreation, open space, and wilderness values, or just that such water dependent natural resources continue to exist for their children or grandchildren to experience. (Southwick Associates, 2002) “Water in the desert” is a quintessential characteristic of the Arizona landscape and an important part of the state’s heritage. Economics of Water-Dependent Natural Resources Arizona’s water-dependent natural resources offer notable economic opportunities because they attract large numbers of tourists, anglers, hunters, and other outdoor recreationists, while enhancing local property values and business revenues. Fishing, hunting and wildlife watching recreation activities alone generate billions of dollars in retail sales each year. Economic studies for the state of Arizona, conducted by Southwick Associates Inc. (2003) and Arizona State University (Silberman, 2001), identified the economic benefits from hunting, fishing and wildlife watching. Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Summary of Findings / June 2011 5 Water Resources Development Commission The studies show these wildlife-based recreation activities generated a total economic impact of $2.8 billion in 2001, which includes retail sales and their overall ripple effect through the economy. The table below illustrates the total expenditures from retail sales alone for wildlife-based recreation activities in 2001. County 2001 Hunting/Fishing Total (Millions)* 2001 Non-Consumptive Total (Millions)* Totals (Millions) Apache $62.8 $24.8 $87.6 Cochise $12.7 $13.7 $26.4 Coconino $101.2 $46.6 $147.8 Gila $39.4 $11.5 $50.9 Graham $7.3 $7.0 $14.3 Greenlee $2.5 NA $2.5 La Paz $17.8 $1.8 $19.6 Maricopa $409.1 $368.3 $777.4 Mohave $79.9 $30.9 $110.8 Navaho $33.3 $24.4 $57.7 Pima $84.5 $173.5 $258.0 Pinal $20.0 $50.8 $70.8 Santa Cruz $13.9 $11.9 $25.8 Yavapai $40.0 $38.9 $78.9 Yuma $34.2 $12.3 $46.5 Statewide $959 $816 Figure 1. Wildlife-Based Recreation Retail Sales in 2001 $1.7 Billion For a more localized example, in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area the natural landscape attracts enough visitors to bring in $17.0 to $28.3 million to the local economy (Orr & Colby, 2002). Southeastern Arizona was identified as the number one birding site in a study evaluating birding economics and demographics in the United States (Kerlinger, 1993). Of the U.S. total birdwatching economic output ($84 billion), over $1.5 billion may be attributed to Arizona in 2001. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2003), approximately 22% of Arizona residents participate in bird watching activities. With the national bird watching population estimated at 50 million people, there is clearly a large pool of U.S. citizens who could be and have been enticed to visit Arizona for birding. This means the Arizona birding industry may have the potential to expand, attract more visitors, and become an even greater economic benefit to the state (Orr & Colby, 2002). Another water-related component to Arizona’s economic success is the value added by riparian areas, wetlands, and natural waterways near private property. This added value has been explored by researchers in the Santa Cruz River Basin more than any other area in the state. Studies conducted in Tucson and the surrounding metropolitan areas all agreed that “homebuyers…place considerable value on those sections of the riparian corridor that support …riparian species” (Bark-Hodgins, Osgood, Colby, Katz, & Stromberg, 2009). Specifically, Bourne (2007) showed that homes closer to riparian areas carry a “premium” that can increase the home’s value by 5.8%. Colby and Wishart (2002) support this estimate of additive home value and also state 6 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Summary of Findings / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission that vacant land may carry an increase of 10-27% depending on its proximity to riparian areas. Finally, another study showed that an increase in general “greenness” contributes to increased property values (Bark-Hodgins, Osgood, & Colby, 2006). In summary, wildlife related recreation, outdoor recreation activities, and close proximity to riparian areas all produce notable economic benefits for individuals and businesses across Arizona. Many watchable wildlife dollars are often spent at retailers, manufacturers, and support services in rural or lightly populated areas and constitute a larger contribution to those economies than for more urban and highly populated areas. Thus, the economic contributions of water-dependent outdoor recreation activities are particularly important to Arizona’s rural economic base. Potential Risks to Water-Dependent Natural Resources The Environmental Working Group did not attempt to assess potential risks to the state’s water-dependent natural resources, trends affecting these resources, or the level of legal or other protection afforded to water supporting these resources. Risks to particular resources may exist; human activities and natural events have caused substantial alterations to riparian areas (Zaimes, 2007). The risk to a particular resource will depend on a variety of circumstances that deserve consideration in the future. RECOMMENDATIONS This Inventory is a unique accomplishment in cataloging a wide range of research and data into one place, thus providing a snapshot of Arizona’s water-dependent natural resources that we enjoy. From the various work involved in compiling this Inventory, the Environmental Working Group proposes the following recommendations: 1. The Working Group recommends that the Inventory be a standalone document that could be used to inform local, regional and statewide decision makers and water resource planners when it comes to issues involving Arizona’s water-dependent natural resources. 2. The Inventory demonstrates that additional data and research is needed. Additional knowledge of the condition and trend of resources that depend on water, particularly those that comprise the riparian and aquatic communities, are needed to guide future land and water resource planning. Various data and research projects can be identified but the following are four key examples of such further data and research: a. A comprehensive, spatially-explicit inventory of the state’s riparian habitat is needed to better plan for the management of the riparian resource. b. A complete and current field assessment of the extent of perennial and intermittent surface water would enable a better understanding of how to manage surface water in the future. c. Water planning efforts have benefitted from development of detailed modeling data on the relationship between groundwater and surface water. Additional work is needed to characterize this connection in other basins to aid communities in efforts to manage water sustainably for both people and the environment. d. The Inventory was able to quantify the current flow supporting water-dependent natural resources in portions of 12 of the 51 groundwater basins. Additional work is needed to identify and quantify such flow in all of Arizona’s groundwater basins. 3. Evaluation of future water supply options should include consideration of the potential impacts on and risks to water-dependent natural resources. MEMBERS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Summary of Findings / June 2011 7 Water Resources Development Commission 8 Name Affiliation Bas Aja Cynthia Aragon Jason Baran Phil Bashaw Celia Barotz Bill Brandau Katja Brundiers Brenda Burman, Co-chair Tom Buschatzke Jean Calhoun Jorge Canaca Cliff Cauthen Aaron Citron Peter Culp Rebecca Davidson Val Danos Christine Dawe Nicole Eiden Mike Fulton Santiago Garcia Jocelyn Gibbon Simone Hall James Jayne Dee Korich Lucius Kyyitan Doug Kupel Rob Marshall Brad Martin Sharon Masek-Lopez Sharon Morris Joanna Nadeau Karen Nally Wade Noble Christine Nunez Steve Olson Bill Plummer John Rasmussen Jim Renthal Janet Regner Dave Roberts Dennis Rule Ron Solomon Linda Stitzer Name Arizona Cattle Feeder’s Association Arizona State Legislative Liaison Arizona Municipal Water Users Association Arizona Farm Bureau City of Flagstaff Water Resources Research Center Arizona State University The Nature Conservancy City of Phoenix Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Game & Fish Department Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District Arizona Land and Water Trust Squire, Sanders & Dempsey Salt River Project Arizona Municipal Water Users Association U.S. Forest Service Arizona Game & Fish Department Arizona Department of Environmental Quality U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Environmental Defense Fund The Nature Conservancy Navajo Nation City of Tucson Gila River Indian Community City of Phoenix The Nature Conservancy Montgomery & Interpreter, PLC Northern Arizona University Arizona Department of Water Resources Water Resources Research Center for Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District and Central Arizona Irrigation & Drainage District Noble Law Office City of Surprise Arizona Municipal Water Users Association Agri-Business Council of AZ Yavapai County Bureau of Land Management Husk Partners Salt River Project Central Arizona Project Town of Taylor Western Water Resource Advocates Affiliation Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Summary of Findings / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Warren Tenney, Co-chair Dean Trammel Chris Udall Diane Vosick Robert Wagner Summer Waters Dave Weedman Bill Wells Wally Wilson Metro Water District City of Tucson Agri-Business Council of AZ Northern Arizona University Yavapai Regional Capital University of Arizona, Cooperative Extension, Maricopa County Arizona Game & Fish Department Bureau of Land Management City of Tucson Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Summary of Findings / June 2011 9 Water Resources Development Commission TABLE 1. WATER-DEPENDENT NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX In Ba sin BASINS AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BILL WILLIAMS BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DETRITAL VALLEY DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HARQUAHALA INA HUALAPAI VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU LOWER GILA LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PARKER PEACH SPRINGS PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK TUCSON AMA UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX YUMA Pe re nn ia l W at er ( In st at clu e) de sC M ol aj or or ad Sp o rin Ri gs ve r W at er si n Fe de Cu ra rre l/ St nt at GW e Co -S ns W Ef er flu Co va en nn tio tD ec n tio ep La n* en nd ES de s A n Cr tS iti t re ca am lH ab Re ES ita ac A h tD Sp ec es ie i gn sO at bs ed In er st re ve am d Flo w Au Ce du rti fic bo at n e Im po W r t at an er tB Ba ird se Ar d ea R AD ec re EQ at Ou io n ts Op ta n po di Fe rtu n de g ni Ar ra ty lW izo na ild W an at d er Sc en ic De sig na tio n Water-Dependent Natural Resource Index for the Water Resource Development Commission Hatched cells represent perennial streams within groundwater basins where current flow volumes that support water-dependent natural resources have been estimated. This table depicts major water-dependent natural resources cataloged by the Environmental Workgroup of the WRDC. It is not meant to be a comprehensive assessment of all important water-dependent natural resources, and some potentially important features are not represented here. Rather, this information is meant to be used as a starting point for identifying important waterdependent natural resources in Arizona’s counties and groundwater basins. For a more detailed description of known resources in each groundwater basin, please review the Maps, Basin Descriptions and Environmental Conditions Table. For a description of the *Brown DE, Carmony NB, Turner RM. 1981. Drainage map of Arizona showing perennial streams and some important wetlands. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. *Anning, D.W. and Konieczki, A.D. 2005. Classification of hydrogeologic areas and hydrogeologic flow systems in the Basin and Range Physiographic Province, Southwestern United States. USGS Professional Paper 1702. 37 pp. 10 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Natural Resource Index / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission BASIN SUMMARIES AGUA FRIA The Agua Fria Basin located predominantly in Yavapai County is characterized by mid-elevation mountain ranges and high mesa semi-desert grasslands. The Agua Fria River flows intermittently from east of Prescott to the Gila River west of Phoenix. Vegetation types include Arizona upland Sonoran desertscrub, semidesert grassland, interior chaparral, montane conifer forests and Great Basin conifer woodland. Riparian vegetation is found along the Agua Fria River including mixed broadleaf and Cottonwood/Willow assemblages. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The Agua Fria River and its tributaries support the riparian system, and drain into Lake Pleasant—a popular recreation area for boating and fishing. The river cuts through Agua Fria National Monument and is fed along the way by several major and minor tributaries including, Big Bug, Ash, Sycamore, and Yellow Jacket Creeks. These ribbons of valuable riparian forests contribute to an outstanding biological resource. Riparian vegetation is primarily mixed broadleaf and cottonwood-willow systems. Common species include: Fremont Cottonwood, various willow such as Narrowleaf, Goodding, and Bebb, Arizona Sycamore, Velvet and Green Ashes, Arizona Alder, Arizona Walnut, and Box Elder. Many important aquatic and riparian wildlife species occur within the riparian forests and along the shores of Lake Pleasant. Lowland Leopard Frog, Arizona Toad, Peregrine Falcon, Bald Eagle, Belted Kingfisher, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, and Zone-tailed Hawk have all been observed. The endangered Desert Pupfish and Gila Topminnow were historically found within the stream system and were recently reintroduced to isolated springs in the Agua Fria Basin. Other aquatic and wetland species include Longfin Dace, Speckled Dace, and Great Blue Heron. Mule Deer, Javelina, Mountain Lion and Black Bear also visit the canyons and riparian areas. Other State Wildlife Species of concern observed in the basin include the Belted Kingfisher, Common BlackHawk and Western Red Bat. Important Conservation Lands • The Agua Fria National Monument, BLM • Riparian Corridors within the Agua Fria National Monument, BLM have been identified by the Arizona Audubon Society as Important Bird Areas. Over 28 species of birds have been observed including, Common Black-Hawk, Golden Eagle, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Lucy’s Warbler, Bell’s Vireo, and Gray Vireo. • Agua Fria Wildlife Preserve at Lake Pleasant Regional Park is also identified as a birding area by the Maricopa Audubon Society, Maricopa County, BOR • Castle Creek Wilderness, USFS • Hells Canyon Wilderness, BLM • Cedar Bench Wilderness, USFS • Pine Mountain Wilderness, USFS • Horseshoe Ranch Wildlife Area was recently acquired by the AGFD in 2011. Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 11 Water Resources Development Commission Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical habitat is designated for the Gila Chub and Mexican Spotted Owl. Federally protected species observed in the basin include: • Endangered- Gila Chub, Desert Pupfish, Gila Topminnow, and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher • Threatened- Mexican Spotted Owl and the Bald Eagle • Candidate- Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Western U.S. DPS), Roundtail Chub, and Northern Mexican Gartersnake The Endangered Gila Trout was recently introduced to Grapevine Creek in the Big Bug Creek watershed. Economic Values The economics of outdoor recreation is significant in Arizona, especially when associated with water bodies, streams, and other riparian and aquatic habitats. In 2001, a total of 520,744 Angler Use Days were documented in the Agua Fria Basin, equating to over $81 million in economic revenue generated by angler activity within the basin. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/CentralHighlands/documents/Volume_5_ AGF_final.pdf 12 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission ARAVAIPA CANYON The Aravaipa Canyon Basin is located in Graham and Pinal Counties. The basin is characterized by mediumelevation mountain ranges, canyons and valleys. Aravaipa Creek emerges from the Pinaleno, Santa Teresa, and Galiuro Mountains at an elevation of about 3,000 feet. It then flows westward and enters a narrow canyon with pronounced gradient. Vegetation within the basin is primarily Semidesert Grassland with smaller areas of Great Basin Conifer Woodland, madrean Evergreen Woodland, Interior Chaparral and Arizona Uplands Sonoran Desertscrub. Riparian vegetation includes Cottonwood/Willow, Mesquite and mixed broadleaf. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources Aravaipa Creek’s 18-mile-long perennial reach supports the best remaining assemblage of native desert fish in Arizona including, the Roundtail Chub, Speckled Dace, Desert Sucker, Sonoran Sucker, and the Federally listed (threatened) Loach Minnow and Spikedace. Reptiles and amphibians include the Canyon Tree Frog, Lowland Leopard Frog, Red-spotted Toad, Black-necked Gartersnake, and a variety of rattlesnakes. Water resources in the basin provide habitat that was suitable for the reintroduction of Federally endangered Gila Topminnow and Desert Pupfish. Aravaipa is famed as a birder’s paradise, with nearly every type of desert songbird and more than 150 species documented in the wilderness. Birds of prey include Peregrine Falcon, Common Black-Hawk, Zone-tailed Hawk, and Elf Owl. Migratory songbirds include Vermilion Flycatcher, Black Phoebe, Canyon and Rock Wrens, White-throated Swift, Yellow Warbler, and Bell’s Vireo. Healthy populations of Desert Bighorn Sheep roam the area, along with 44 other mammals such as Black Bears, Bobcats, Coyotes, and Mountain Lions. Aravaipa Creek also provides important habitat for at least nine species of bats. Other State Wildlife Species of concern observed in the basin include the Northern Gray Hawk, Western Red Bat and Western Yellow Bat. Flows in the upper reaches of Aravaipa Creek are intermittent. Within The Nature Conservancy Preserve and Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness the flow becomes perennial, fed by springs, seeps, and tributary streams. The Nature Conservancy and the BLM have instream-flow rights that are used to maintain base flows for conservation purposes. Important Conservation Lands • Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness, BLM • Aravaipa Canyon Preserve, The Nature Conservancy • Aravaipa Canyon State Conservation Wildlife Area, AGFD • Aravaipa Native Fish Barriers, installed by CAP, to protect and conserve native fish in the canyon; at the confluence of Aravaipa Canyon and the San Pedro River in the Lower San Pedro Basin. • Aravaipa Creek is designated an Outstanding Arizona Water, ADEQ • Aravaipa Creek, State Watchable Wildlife Area • Aravaipa Creek has been identified by Arizona Audubon Society as an Important Bird Area • Galiuro Wilderness, USFS • Santa Teresa Wilderness, USFS Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 13 Water Resources Development Commission The Nature Conservancy has established an active management program to ensure the long-term protection of the stream system and its mixed broadleaf riparian forest composed of cottonwood, willow, walnut, alder, and sycamore trees. This program includes fish monitoring, controlled burning, and removal of non-native species. Their goals also include restoration of grasslands in the upper watershed. BLM management of the wilderness area supports most of these same conservation goals. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical Habitat is designated for the Mexican Spotted Owl in higher elevations of the basin and for Spikedace and Loach Minnow in Aravaipa Creek. Candidate Roundtail Chub are present in the creek along with Threatened Loach Minnow and Spikedace. Endangered Gila Topminnow and Desert Pupfish have been reintroduced into tributary and spring habitats in the groundwater basin. Candidate Yellow-billed Cuckoo has also been observed in the canyon. Other federally protected species observed in the basin include the Threatened Chiricahua Leopard Frog and Mexican Spotted Owl. Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/SEArizona/documents/Volume_3_ARA_final. pdf 14 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission BIG SANDY Big Sandy Basin within Mohave and Yavapai Counties is characterized by large valleys and mid-elevation mountain ranges and plateaus. Vegetation types include Arizona upland Sonoran desertscrub, plains and Great Basin and semidesert grasslands, interior chaparral, Rocky Mountain and madrean montane forest and Great Basin conifer woodland. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources Knight Creek and Trout Creek drain the northern part of the basin, converging 15 miles north of Wikieup to form the Big Sandy River. The Big Sandy River floodplain, upstream from Wikieup, supports dense riparian vegetation including, cottonwood-willow, mesquite and tamarisk. Sections of Trout Creek support mesquite, cottonwood-willow and mixed broadleaf communities. The Big Sandy River flows approximately ten miles southward, exiting the groundwater basin, eventually converging with the Santa Maria River just above Alamo Lake in the Bill Williams Basin. Meadow Lake is the perennial headwaters of Fort Rock Creek, a tributary of Trout Creek. Native fish species documented in this basin include Desert Sucker, Longfin Dace, Roundtail Chub, Sonora Sucker, and Speckled Dace. Other species associated with riparian habitats include Lowland and Northern Leopard Frog, Common Black-Hawk, Zone-tailed Hawk, and the federally listed Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, and Yuma Clapper Rail. Important Conservation Lands • Wabayuma Peak Wilderness, BLM • Juniper Mesa Wilderness, BLM • Hualapai Mountain County Park Hualapai Mountain County Park supports great wildlife viewing opportunities. The habitat is mainly pinion pine forest with many natural springs. It supports bear, elk, Mule Deer, Mountain Lion, Javelina and several other species. Higher elevations are home to Mule Deer, elk, Mountain Lions, foxes and a wide variety of birds. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical Habitat has been designated for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Federally listed species occurring within the basin include, the Listed Endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Yuma Clapper Rail and Hualapai Mexican Vole. Other federally protected species in the basin include the Listed Threatened Mexican Spotted Owl, and Candidate Yellow-billed Cuckoo and Roundtail Chub. Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/UpperColoradoRiver/documents/Volume_4_ BIS_final.pdf Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 15 Water Resources Development Commission BILL WILLIAMS The Bill Williams Basin, within Mohave, La Paz and Yavapai counties, is characterized by hilly terrain in much of the basin and by several major river drainages. The basin ranges from high elevation forested mountains along the western margin of the central highlands province, to low lying, rugged desert mountains and intervening alluvial valleys in the basin and range province. There is also a range of vegetation types including Arizona upland and Lower Colorado River Sonoran desertscrub, Mohave desertscrub, semidesert grassland, interior chaparral, Great Basin conifer woodland and montane conifer forest. Riparian vegetation is found along streams including cottonwood/willow, mesquite and tamarisk along Bill Williams, Big Sandy and Santa Maria Rivers and mesquite, cottonwood/willow and mixed broadleaf along sections of Burro Creek. The Bill Williams River originates at the confluence of the Big Sandy and the Santa Maria rivers and is impounded by Alamo Dam that forms Alamo Lake. Prior to the construction of Alamo Dam, the river’s flow was perennial. Today, much of the drainage flows only during rainstorms. During times of heavy runoff releases from Alamo Dam may reach as much as 7,000 cubic feet per second (CFS), they are generally less than 40 CFS. These water releases are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Flood flow plays a vital role in the function of river systems and its importance has been studied and described within the Bill Williams Basin. Studies indicate that flood intensity and frequency affect productivity of aquatic, riparian and flood plain vegetation and habitats (see Additional References). Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The Bill Williams River (BWR) ecosystem contains lush riparian vegetation that grows in many locations within its valley, a striking contrast to the adjacent, sparsely vegetated uplands. The BWR supports the largest stand of cottonwood-willow forest remaining along the Lower Colorado River. Riparian vegetation along the BWR is dominated by several woody species common to low elevation southwestern riparian ecosystems, including Fremont Cottonwood, Goodding Willow, Tamarisk, Seep Willow, and mesquite. Herbaceous vegetation tends to be quite sparse, except adjacent to areas where water and light availability are high. The herbaceous flora comprises the greatest plant diversity along the river. Riparian forests along the BWR provide habitat that is valuable to a great diversity of animal species. Riparian vegetation is found along other streams and rivers in this basin including Big Sandy River, Santa Maria River, Burro Creek, Boulder Creek, Bridle Creek, Date Creek, Francis Creek, Mountain Spring Wash, Sycamore and Wilder Creek. Vegetation patterns are also influenced by local geomorphology, flood flows and the availability of groundwater. There is a mix of canyon and valley reaches along the BWR. The canyon reaches tend to have narrower floodplains, less complex arrangements of channels, and shallower groundwater tables. The valley reaches may have multiple channels, a broader floodplain, and lower groundwater tables—especially at the upstream end. More than 300 bird species have been sighted along the BWR, including resident, wintering, and summer breeding and migratory taxa. The BWR attracts bird watchers from around the world and has been designated an Important Bird Area by the Audubon Society and a Globally Important Bird Area by the American Bird Conservancy. The Sonoran Yellow Warbler, Bell’s Vireo, Summer Tanager, Yellow-breasted Chat, Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, Gambel’s Quail and Mourning Dove are found along the BWR as well Mule Deer, Desert Bighorn Sheep, and Javelina. Beaver are prevalent and have built dozens of dams along the river in between floods, 16 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission influencing the river geomorphology, surface and groundwater dynamics, riparian vegetation and the animals using these habitats. At least 14 bat species occur along the BWR, many of which specialize in consuming the night-flying, nocturnal insects of the riparian zones. Mammalian predators within the BWR include Mountain Lions, Bobcats, Ringtail Cats and Grey and Kit Foxes. Waterfowl and shorebirds frequent the Alamo Wildlife Area and Alamo Lake, including breeding populations of American White Pelican and Western Grebe. Bald Eagles nest in the wildlife area, as does the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Black-chinned Hummingbird, Gila and Ladderbacked Woodpeckers, Vermilion, Ash-throated and Brown-crested Flycatchers, Bell’s Vireo, Crissal Thrasher, Phainopepla, Lucy’s and Yellow Warblers, Yellow-breasted Chat, summer Tanager, Blue Grosbeak, Abert’s Towhee, Bullock’s Oriole, and Lesser Goldfinch. Common reptiles and amphibians that may be encountered by visitors include Common Kingsnake, Long-nosed Snake, Sonoran Mud Turtle, Desert Spiny and Ornate tree Lizards, and Red-spotted and Great Plains Toads. Other State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the basin include; Lowland Leopard Frog, California Black Rail, Clark’s Grebe, Common Black-Hawk, Western Red Bat and Western Yellow Bat. Important Conservation Lands • Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS, also a recognized Arizona Audubon Important Bird Area and a Watchable Wildlife Viewing Area • Aubrey Peak Wilderness, BLM • Arrastra Mountains Wilderness, BLM • Granite Mountain Wilderness, • Rawhide Mountains Wilderness, BLM • Swansea Wilderness Area, BLM • Harcuvar Mountains Wilderness, BLM • Upper Burro Creek Wilderness, BLM • Tres Alamos Wilderness, BLM • Aubrey Peak Wilderness, BLM • Alamo Lake Wildlife Area, AGFD – Arizona Audubon Important Bird Area • Alamo Lake State Park, AZ State Parks • Francis Creek, Burro Creek and People’s Canyon Creek are designed as Outstanding Arizona Waters, ADEQ Flow releases from Alamo Dam are being adjusted to meet a variety of natural resource objectives, including the enhancement of cottonwood-willow riparian areas and flood control. There is also an evaluation of management efforts that encourages making necessary adjustments to better achieve a sound balance between various management objectives above and below Alamo Dam. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical Habitat has been designated for Endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher along the Big Sandy Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 17 Water Resources Development Commission River and for Mexican Spotted Owl in the upland. Critical Habitat is also designated for the Endangered Bonytail Chub at the confluence of the BWR and the Colorado River. Gila Topminnow and Desert Pupfish have been reintroduced in small populations within tributary springs and wetlands. Other federally listed species include the Endangered Yuma Clapper Rail, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Bonytail, Desert Pupfish, Gila Topminnow, and Razorback Sucker. Candidate Roundtail Chub and Yellowbilled Cuckoo have also been observed. The Mexican Spotted Owl is listed as threatened, as is the desert population of the Bald Eagle under the Endangered Species Act. The BWR and Alamo Lake provide habitat and food sources for these birds of prey. Economic Values The economics of outdoor recreation is significant in Arizona, especially when associated with water bodies, streams, and other riparian and aquatic habitats. In 2001, a total of 167,458 Angler Use Days were documented in the Bill Williams Basin, equating to over $26 million in economic revenue generated by angler activity within the basin. Web Sources http://billwilliamsriver.org/default.htm http://www.wildlifeviewingareas.com/wv-app/ParkDetail.aspx?ParkID=82 http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/UpperColoradoRiver/documents/Volume_4_ BWM_final.pdf Additional References Andersen. (2006). Streamflow-Biota Relations: Mammals, Reptiles, Amphibians, and Floodplain Invertebrates. In P. Shafroth, & V. Beauchamp, (eds.), Defining Ecosystem Flow Requirements for the Bill Williams River, Arizona (pp. 59-65). Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. BWRC Technical Committee. (1994). Bill Williams River Water Management Plan. Arizona. Hautzinger, A., Warner, A., Hickey, J., & Beauchamp, V. (2006). Summary of Unified Ecosystem Flow Requirements for the Bill Williams River Corridor. In P. Shafroth, & V. Beauchamp, (eds.), Defining Ecosystem Flow Requirements for the Bill Williams River, Arizona (pp. 71-90). Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. Shafroth, P., Wilcox, A., Lytle, D., Hickey, J., Andersen, D., Beauchamp, V., Hautzinger, A., McMullen, L., & Warner, A. (2010). Ecosystem effects of environmental flows: modeling and experimental floods in a dryland river. Freshwater Biology, 68-85. van Riper & Paradzick. (2006). Streamflow-Biota Relations: Birds. In P. Shafroth, & V. Beauchamp, (eds.), Defining Ecosystem Flow Requirements for the Bill Williams River, Arizona (pp. 41-50). Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. Shafroth & Beauchamp. (2006). Streamflow-Biota Relations: Riparian Vegetation. In P. Shafroth, & V. Beauchamp, (eds.), Defining Ecosystem Flow Requirements for the Bill Williams River, Arizona (pp. 31-40). Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. 18 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission BONITA CREEK Bonita Creek Basin is located in Graham County and is characterized by medium-high elevation plains and mountain ranges. The vast majority of lands within the basin are located on the San Carlos Indian Reservation. Vegetation is primarily Plains and Great Basin grassland with smaller areas of Great Basin conifer forest, interior chaparral, Chihuahuan desertscrub, semidesert grassland and Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub. Riparian vegetation includes mixed broadleaf, strand and mesquite on Bonita Creek. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources A 14 mile perennial stretch of Bonita Creek flows roughly from the northwest to the southeast in a tight steepwalled canyon with scattered stands of large Cottonwood, Sycamore, Walnut, Ash and Mesquite trees. In this stretch of Bonita Creek over 140 species of birds have been recorded, including the Common Black Hawk, Zone-tailed Hawk, and Yellow-billed Cuckoo. More than 70 species nest along the creek. Bonita Creek is also a haven for native fish and frogs. Black bears and javelina are commonly seen. Bonita Creek is popular for bird watching, hiking, and picnicking, and lined with large Cottonwoods, Sycamores, and Willows. Other State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the basin include; Lowland Leopard Frog and American Peregrine Falcon. Important Conservation Lands • Bonita Creek identified as an Outstanding Arizona Water, ADEQ • Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area, BLM • Fishhooks Wilderness, USFS Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats There is no designated critical habitat in this basin. Federally protected species observed in the basin include the Listed Endangered Gila Chub and the Listed Threatened Chiricahua Leopard Frog. Candidate Yellow-billed Cuckoo and Northern Mexican Gartersnake have also been observed. Bonita Creek is a candidate for native fish reintroductions as well as a proposed fish barrier to prevent non-native fish from the Gila River to move into Bonita Creek. Sensitive species in Bonita Creek consist of Longfin Dace and Speckled Dace, Sonora Sucker as well as the Lowland Leopard Frog. Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/SEArizona/documents/Volume_3_BON_final. pdf http://visitgrahamcounty.com/birdbrochure2 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 19 Water Resources Development Commission BUTLER VALLEY The Butler Valley Basin is located in the eastern part of La Paz County. The basin is characterized by a valley bordered by two mountain ranges; Harcuvar and Buckskin Mountains. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River and Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub and a small amount of interior chaparral on the eastern basin boundary. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources There are no perennial streams and no identified springs in the Butler Valley Basin. Cunningham Wash runs northeast to southwest in the northern portion of the basin. Although no observations of wildlife species of concern have been documented within this basin, Cunningham Wash may offer important habitat and movement corridors for reptiles, birds, and mammals. Important Conservation Lands • Rawhide Mountains Wilderness, BLM • Harcuvar Mountains Wilderness, BLM Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats There is no designated critical habitat in this basin. No additional species of concern have been observed in this basin. Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/LowerColoradoRiver/documents/Volume_7_ BUT_final.pdf 20 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission CIENEGA CREEK Cienega Creek Basin is located in Pima, Santa Cruz and Cochise counties and is characterized by a series of mid- to high-elevation mountain ranges, grasslands and woodlands. Vegetation includes Plains and Great Basin and semidesert grasslands, Chihuahuan desertscrub, madrean evergreen woodland and small portion of Rocky Mountain and montane madrean conifer forest. Riparian vegetation includes mixed broadleaf and strand on Red Rock Canyon and mixed broadleaf, mesquite and strand on Sonoita and Cienega Creeks. Cienega Creek originates in the Canelo Hills and continues roughly 50 miles toward the northwest where it becomes Pantano Wash. From its origin in the Canelo Hills, Cienega Creek flows northwesterly through the upper Cienega basin, a wide alluvial valley separating the Northern Santa Rita and Empire Mountains to the west and Whetstone Mountains to the east. Cienega Creek continues northward through the lower alluvial basin until it bends west/northwest in the vicinity of Anderson and Wakefield Canyons. After crossing I-10, Cienega Creek again becomes perennial. In these stretches groundwater is forced upward through faults in the bedrock from aquifers near the surface. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The Cienega Creek Basin contains approximately 46 miles of perennial flow in Cienega Creek, Mattie Canyon, Alum Gulch, Harshaw Creek, Redrock Canyon Creek, and Sonoita Creek lined with a mature cottonwoodwillow gallery. Cienega Creek flows through some of the last remaining oak grasslands in southeastern Arizona. Cienega Creek supports outstanding examples of cottonwood-willow gallery forest and mesquite bosque. The rare marshland and perennial aquatic habitat provides a home for a wide variety of amphibians, birds, invertebrates, and riparian plants. Amphibian species include Chiricahua Leopard Frog, Lowland Leopard Frog, Tarahumara Frog, and Western Barking Frog. Diverse migratory and native birds rely on the riparian vegetation around Cienega Creek, including, Elegant Trogon, Mexican Spotted Owl, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, American Peregrine Falcon, and Tropical Kingbird. Cienega Creek is one of the few remaining streams in southern Arizona that has not been invaded by non-native fish. The Las Cienegas National Conservation Area supports the largest natural population of the federally endangered Gila Topminnow in the United States, as well as a healthy population of endangered Gila Chub and the Longfin Dace. Some of the last remaining known communities of the endangered Huachuca Water Umbel can be found in Cienega Creek. Other State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the basin include; Black-bellied Whistling Duck, Common Black-Hawk, Northern Buff-breasted Flycatcher, Northern Gray Hawk, Thick-billed Kingbird, Violet-crowned Hummingbird, and the Western Red Bat. Important Conservation Lands Much of upper Cienega Creek flows through the Las Cienegas Natural Conservation Area (NCA), managed by the BLM. In 1986, the Pima County Board of Supervisors established the Cienega Creek Natural Preserve, which protects over 12 miles of the lower creek. The creek’s flow is perennial through roughly half of this preserve. • Las Cienegas National Conservation Area, BLM • Cienega Creek Natural Preserve, Pima County • Patagonia-Sonoita Creek Preserve, TNC, also a recognized Arizona Audubon Important Bird Area • Santa Cruz River and Tributaries, Arizona Audubon Important Bird Areas Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 21 Water Resources Development Commission • Rincon Mountain Wilderness, USFS • Mount Wrightson Wilderness, USFS • Saguaro National Monument, NPS • Cienega Creek identified as an Outstanding Arizona Water, ADEQ Fish monitoring, grazing management and other conservation management activities on the Las Cienegas NCA are directed toward ensuring the long-term protection of the cienega system and associated riparian forest. Instream flow permits in the Cienega Creek Preserve, along with ongoing monitoring and restoration activities are also intended to protect one of the last remaining reaches of perennial flow. Pima County monitors groundwater levels in the Preserve on a quarterly basis. Between 2002 and 2005, lower than average rainfall dropped water levels in most of the Preserve’s monitoring wells by 10 to 20 feet. Groundwater levels throughout the Preserve rose during the fall of 2006, but remain at or below levels measured in 2000. In general, stream lengths have been decreasing over the last five years, with a drop of approximately 3.7 miles since the spring of 2002. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical Habitat has been designated for Mexican Spotted Owl, Gila Chub, and Huachuca Water Umbel. The Mexican Gartersnake, identified as a Candidate for listing, has declined throughout its range in the United States, but retains a strong population in Cienega Creek. The federally Threatened Chiricahua Leopard Frog occurs only in the upper reaches of the creek. Other federally protected species observed in the basin include the Endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Gila Chub and Gila Topminnow. Threatened Mexican Spotted Owl and Yellow-billed Cuckoo and Huachuca Springsnail have also been observed. Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/SEArizona/documents/Volume_3_CCK_final. pdf 22 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission COCONINO PLATEAU The Coconino Plateau Basin is located in Coconino County and a small portion of Mohave County. The basin is characterized by rolling high plateaus, deeply-incised canyons, and rounded volcanic mountains. Vegetation types include Mohave and Great Basin desertscrub, Plains and Great Basin grasslands, Great Basin conifer woodland and Rocky Mountain and madrean montane conifer forest. There are small areas of subalpine conifer forest and alpine tundra in the San Francisco Mountains in the southeast corner of the basin. Flood flow plays a vital role in the function of river systems and its importance has been studied and described within the Coconino Plateau Basin. Studies indicate that flood intensity and frequency affect productivity of aquatic, riparian and flood plain vegetation and habitats (see Additional References). Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The most significant aquatic and riparian resources in the basin are the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon, the lower Little Colorado River, Havasu Creek and the lakes around Williams. A large part of the groundwater moves northward and is discharged from springs along the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers and Havasu Creek. The largest of these springs includes Blue Springs on the Little Colorado River where perennial flow begins in the stream, and Havasu Springs on Havasu Creek which begins the perennial flow of Havasu Creek. The two springs discharge more than 100,000 gallons per minute and 29,000 gallons per minute, respectively. Havasu Falls is located on the Havasupai Indian Reservation in Grand Canyon and stands 120 feet high. Havasu Springs have a high mineral content and calcium carbonate which precipitates to form the cascading falls, pools and natural travertine dams. The basin is also home to numerous constructed reservoirs that provide water for the communities around Williams, as well as for recreational opportunity. They include Dogtown, City, Santa Fe, Cataract and Kaibab reservoirs in the headwaters of Cataract Canyon near Williams. State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the basin include; Northern Leopard Frog, American Peregrine Falcon, Golden Eagle, Bald Eagle, Osprey, Navajo Mexican Vole, and Western Red Bat. Important Conservation Lands • Kendrick Mountain Wilderness, USFS • Kachina Peaks Wilderness, USFS • Grand Canyon National Park, NPS • Grand Canyon National Game Preserve, NPS • Arizona Audubon Important Bird Areas - Marble Canyon, Grand Canyon (Lipan & Yaki Points) Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical Habitat has been designated for Humpback Chub, (translocations have occurred), Mexican Spotted Owl, San Francisco Peaks Groundsel, and Razorback Sucker. Federally protected species observed in the basin include the Endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Humpback Chub, Kanab Ambersnail, and Hualapai Mexican Vole. The Listed Threatened Mexican Spotted Owl has also been observed. Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 23 Water Resources Development Commission Economic Values The economics of outdoor recreation is significant in Arizona, especially when associated with water bodies, streams, and other riparian and aquatic habitats. In 2001, a total of 62,866 Angler Use Days were documented in the Coconino Basin, equating to over $9 million in economic revenue generated by angler activity within the basin. This basin contains portions of AGFD Game management Units 7W, 7E, 9 and 10. Combined, these Game Management Units provide hunting opportunities for mule deer, whitetail deer, elk, pronghorn antelope, mountain lion, turkey, bighorn sheep and black bear. All big game species rely on surface water for maintaining healthy and abundant populations. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/WesternPlateau/documents/Volume_6_COP_ final.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havasupai#Havasu_Falls Additional Reference Melis, T., Topping, D., Grams, P., Rubin, D. Wright, S., Draut, A., Hazel, J., Ralston, B., Kennedy, T., RosiMarshall, E., Korman, J., Hilwig, K., & Schmit, L. (2010). 2008 High-flow experiment at Glen Canyon Dam benefits Colorado River Resources in Grand Canyon National Park. U.S. U.S. Geological Survey. Kearsley, M. & Ayers, T. (2009). Riparian vegetation responses: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and vice versa. In R. Webb, J. Schmidt, R. Valdez, (eds.), The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon (pp. 309-327). Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. Korman, J., Kaplinski, M., & Melis, T. (2010). Effects of high-flow experiments from Glen Canyon Dam on abundance, growth, and survival rates of early life stages of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry Reach of the Colorado River. U.S. Geological Survey Ralston, B. (2010). Riparian vegetation response to the March 2008 short-duration high-flow experimentImplications of timing and frequency of flood disturbance on nonnative plant established along the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. Rosi-Marshall, E., Kennedy, T., Kincaid, D., Cross, W., Kelly, H., Behn, K., White, T. Hall Jr., R., & Baxter, C. (2010). Short-term effects of the 2008 high-flow experiment on macroinvertebrates in Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey. Valdez, R., Shannon, J., & Blinn. D. (1999). Biological implications of the 1996 Controlled Flood. In R. Webb, J. Schmidt, R. Valdez, (eds.), The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon (pp. 343-350). Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. 24 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission DETRITAL VALLEY The Detrital Valley Basin, located in Mohave County, is characterized by a wide north-south trending valley and mountains on the east and west basin margins. Lake Mead forms the northern boundary of the basin. Vegetation is almost exclusively Mohave desertscrub with small areas of semidesert grassland, interior chaparral, Great Basin conifer woodland and montane conifer forest. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources Ephemeral Detrital Wash, the basin’s main hydrological feature, runs north-south through the basin, emptying into Lake Mead at the basin’s lowest elevation (1,100 feet) at Bonelli Bay. The Detrital Valley Basin has no additional major lakes or reservoirs and no perennial or intermittent streams or rivers. Streamflow in the Detrital Valley Basin is essentially ephemeral, generated by precipitation in the surrounding mountains. Surface flow rarely reaches the central parts of the valley because of evapotranspiration and infiltration on alluvial fans—areas which provide most of the groundwater recharge. The American Peregrine Falcon is a State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the basin. Other species observed include Western Red-tailed Skink and Kingman Springsnail. Important Conservation Lands • The Mt. Wilson Wilderness Area, BLM • Mt. Tipton Wilderness Area, BLM • Lake Mead National Recreation Area, NPS Detrital Valley’s northern boundary follows the shore of Lake Mead. The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a coordinated, comprehensive, long-term multi-agency effort to conserve and work towards the recovery of endangered species, and protect and maintain wildlife habitat on the Lower Colorado River. The MSCP’s purposes are to protect the lower Colorado River environment while ensuring the certainty of existing river water and power operations, address the needs of threatened and endangered wildlife under the Endangered Species Act, and reduce the likelihood of listing additional species along the lower Colorado River. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical Habitat has been designated for Razorback Sucker along the Colorado River in the northern portion of the basin. Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/UpperColoradoRiver/documents/Volume_4_ DET_final.pdf Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 25 Water Resources Development Commission DONNELLY WASH The Donnelly Wash Basin is located in the eastern part of Pinal County. A segment of the Gila River flows east to west through the upper half of the basin, entering just west of Kelvin, through Cochran and exiting the basin at Price. The Gila River is regulated through this portion of the Donnelly Wash Basin. A portion of Box Canyon has perennial flow. The basin is characterized by low elevation hills, washes and canyons. Vegetation is primarily Arizona Sonoran desert scrub with a smaller area of semi-desert grassland. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the basin include the American Peregrine Falcon, Lowland Leopard Frog and Common Black-Hawk. Other native aquatic species observed include Desert Sucker, Longfin Dace, and Sonora Sucker. Important Conservation Lands • White Canyon Wilderness, BLM. White Canyon Wilderness includes the southeast portion of the Mineral Mountains. The canyon itself is narrow with walls rising as much as 800 feet almost straight up. Throughout the area are numerous side canyons. The canyon is reported to have perennial flow. Mountain lion and black bear have been observed. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical habitat has been designated for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Spikedace. Federally protected species observed in the basin include the Endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Threatened Spikedace, and Candidate Yellow-billed Cuckoo. Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/SEArizona/documents/Volume_3_DON_final. pdf http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/wildareas/whitecanyon.html http://www.sangres.com/arizona/blm/whitecanyon.htm 26 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission DOUGLAS The Douglas Basin, located in Cochise County, is geographically influenced by the surrounding mountain ranges that include the Swisshelm, Pedrogosa, Perilla, Mule and Dragoon Mountain ranges. The basin is characterized by a large valley, grasslands and desertscrub vegetation. Vegetation is primarily semi-desert grassland with smaller areas of Chihuahuan desertscrub. Riparian vegetation includes cottonwood and willow along Leslie Creek. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources Vegetation and wildlife in the Douglas Basin varies greatly because of the diversity of the landscape. An area of the Coronado National Forest contained in the Basin is the Douglas Ranger District which is primarily used for grazing, timber, and recreational activities. The Douglas Basin is also notable for the wildlife in the Whitewater Draw Wildlife Area and Leslie Canyon NWR. Whitewater Draw and agricultural lands in the area provide habitat and forage for large numbers of Sandhill Cranes and other migratory birds that winter in the area. Other animals commonly observed and range from bats to mountain lions and the Mojave green rattlesnake to the Sonoran box turtle. The Violet-crowned Hummingbird is a State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the basin. Watercourses are generally ephemeral in the basin; Whitewater Draw is the largest drainage and flows south into Mexico. Leslie Creek in Leslie Canyon NWR is the only perennial connection in the Basin and in managed by USFWS to protect the endangered Yaqui topminnow and Yaqui chub. Important Conservation Lands • Whitewater Draw Wildlife Area, AGFD • Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats There is no designated critical habitat in this basin. Federally protected species observed in this basin include the Endangered Yaqui-Chub, Yaqui Topminnow, and Huachuca Water-umbel. Threatened Chiricahua Leopard Frog has also been observed in this basin. Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources http://www.adwr.state.az.us/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/SEArizona/Hydrology/DouglasBasin.htm http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado/forest/conditions/conditions.shtml http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/ncarea/sprnca.html http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=22524 http://www.adwr.state.az.us/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/SEArizona/Hydrology/DouglasBasin.htm http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=22524 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 27 Water Resources Development Commission http://www.adwr.state.az.us/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/RuralPrograms/OutsideAMAs_PDFs_for_web/ Southeastern_Arizona_Planning_Area/Douglas_Basin.pdf http://www.azgfd.gov/outdoor_recreation/wildlife_area_whitewater.shtml http://www.azheritagewaters.nau.edu/loc_yaqui_river.html http://www.adwr.state.az.us/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/SEArizona/documents/Volume_3_DOU_ final.pdf http://www.adwr.state.az.us/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/SEArizona/Hydrology/DouglasBasin.htm http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/SEArizona/documents/Volume_3_DOU_final. pdf 28 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH The Dripping Springs Wash Basin, located in Pinal, Gila and Graham counties is characterized by a midelevation mountain range and Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub, interior chaparral, semidesert grassland and madrean evergreen woodland vegetation. Riparian vegetation includes strand and mesquite on the Gila River and cottonwood, willow, strand and mixed broadleaf on Mescal Creek. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The Gila River is regulated through the Dripping Springs Wash Basin and considered perennial for three miles. The Gila River creates the boundary between Pinal and Gila counties. The basin is named for Dripping Springs Wash northwest of the community of Christmas, a tributary of the Gila River which has perennial flows for three miles through the basin until its confluence with the Gila. Other noted tributaries are Deer Creek and Ash Creek running roughly parallel to one another southeast of Christmas, and Mescal Creek. Mescal Creek has one mile of perennial flow in the basin. A noted feature located just outside the Basin is Coolidge Dam on the Gila River, just upstream and out of the basin. Coolidge Dam forms San Carlos Reservoir on the Gila and is located in the Safford Basin. State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the basin include; Lowland Leopard Frog, American Peregrine Falcon, Common Black-Hawk and Osprey. Important Conservation Lands • Needles Eye Wilderness Area, BLM The Mescal Mountains cut across the middle of Needles Eye Wilderness, their southwestern flank forming a spectacular striped slope of Paleozoic limestone that rises more than 2,500 feet high. The Gila River flows across the wilderness and forms its southern border. The river threads through a section of steep-walled canyon so narrow it’s earned the name Needle’s Eye. Several small slickrock side canyons wind down to the Gila, bisecting the area. The narrow river channel is dense with riparian growth. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical habitat has been designated for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Mexican Spotted Owl, and Razorback Chub. Federally protected species of concern observed in the basin include the Endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Gila Topminnow. The Bald Eagle is also listed as Threatened. Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/SEArizona/documents/Volume_3_DSW_final. pdf http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=wildView&WID=403 http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/wildareas/needles.html Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 29 Water Resources Development Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_of_Critical_Environmental_Concern http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/rna/ http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/az/pdfs/nepa/library/resource_management/safford.Par.29271. File.dat/appendices.pdf http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Redbook/Southwestern%20Willow%20Flycatcher%20 RB.pdf http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Arizona/Documents/CountyLists/Gila.pdf http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Arizona/Documents/CountyLists/Pinal.pdf http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2004_register&docid=fr31au04-14 30 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission DUNCAN VALLEY Duncan Valley Basin, located predominantly in Greenlee County and a small section of Cochise County is characterized by mid-elevation mountain ranges and Chihuahuan desertscrub, semidesert grassland and madrean evergreen woodland vegetation. Riparian vegetation includes mesquite and tamarisk on the Gila River. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The Gila River flows north from New Mexico in the vicinity of Duncan and exits the basin west of Guthrie for over 20 miles. These areas support native fish including Desert Sucker, Longfin Dace, Sonora Sucker and Razorback Sucker. The 23,000-acre Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area (NCA) falls partially within the Duncan Valley Basin. The NCA has four perennial waterways - the Gila and San Francisco Rivers and Bonita and Eagle Creeks. The Gila River canyon section, known as the Gila Box, is composed of patchy mesquite woodlands, mature cottonwoods, sandy beaches, and buff-colored cliffs. Several raptors can be found in the NCA including, Zone-tailed Hawks and Common Blackhawks. The perennial creek and riparian vegetation make this a cool year-round desert oasis. Duncan Valley Basin also contains the following perennial waters: Cold Creek, Linden Creek, Apache Creek and Bitter Creek, all of which are located northeast of Duncan, Arizona. Lowland Leopard Frog and Common Black-Hawk are both State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the basin Important Conservation Lands • Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area, BLM • Peloncillo Mountains Wilderness, BLM A portion of the Gila Box Riparian national Conservation Area, one of only two Riparian national Conservation Areas in the nation, is located in the Duncan Valley Basin. It was established in 1990 to conserve, protect and enhance the riparian and associated values of the area. While it contains four perennial waters, only the Gila River flows in the Duncan Valley Basin. Desert Bighorn Sheep have been reintroduced into the Peloncillo Mountains Wilderness. Deer and Peregrine Falcon also inhabit that canyons and uplands. Vegetation ranges from desert shrub grasslands in the surrounding flatlands to oak juniper woodlands in the higher reaches. One of the more scenic parts of the Wilderness is Little Doubtful Canyon with an extensive forest of Emory and Arizona white oak along the bottom. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical habitat has been designated for the Endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Razorback Sucker. Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 31 Water Resources Development Commission http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/ncarea/gbox.html http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/SEArizona/documents/Volume_3_DUN_final. pdf http://www.sangres.com/arizona/blm/peloncillomountains.htm http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/wildareas/peloncillo.html http://www.aziba.org/az_ibas.htm http://wildlifeviewingareas.com/default.asp http://www.azheritagewaters.nau.edu/designated_w.html http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas.html http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/ncarea/gbox.html http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/map/state_list.shtml#Arizona http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/documents/Volume_3_final.pdf http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/hdms_status_definitions.shtml http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E054 32 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission GILA BEND The Gila Bend Basin in Maricopa County is characterized by washes and a series of small mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub. The principal geographic feature of the basin is the Gila River which runs east to west through the basin. Painted Rock Dam and Reservoir are located in the basin. The dam impounds flood flows from the Gila River. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resource Within the Gila Bend Basin, most of the Gila River is ephemeral and flows only in response to precipitation events or water releases from upstream dams. Historically, the river would flow in the spring due to winter rains and melting snow, and in summer following monsoon rains. Today, these flows are controlled by dams. Important Conservation Land • Sonoran Desert National Monument, BLM • North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, BLM • South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, BLM • Woolsey Peak Wilderness, BLM • Buckeye Hills Regional Park, Maricopa County Park • Painted Rock Wildlife Area, AGFD Depending on the quantity of water in Painted Rock Reservoir after floods, many birds may be present. An exceptionally large, shallow lake can be created by flood flows which serves as a temporary habitat. The Sonoran Desert National Monument was created in 2001; its purpose is to protect the historic sites, Indian relics, native habitats, vegetation and wildlife. Within the National Monument are the North and South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness areas. These wilderness areas are characterized by two major vegetation communities: Paloverde-Mixed Cacti, which includes the dense “forests” of Saguaro Cactus, Paloverde, and Ironwood Trees that represent the classic popular image of the Sonoran Desert, and the Creosote-Bursage community that covers low elevation valley floors in seemingly unbroken expanses. Woolsey Peak Wilderness is located in the Gila Bend Basin on the north side of the Gila River. Desert Mesquite, Paloverde, and Ironwood grow in the washes throughout this rugged and expansive desert wilderness. Desert Bighorn Sheep, Mule Deer, Bobcats, Mountain Lions, hawks, and owls might be found in the more remote areas of this wilderness. A Portion of the Gila Bend Basin is federally owned and managed by the US military as the Barry Goldwater Air Force Range. There are five species of concern on the Goldwater Range, three of which are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. These include the Sonoran Pronghorn Antelope, Lesser Long-nosed Bat, and the Peirson’s Milkvetch. The Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy Owl was once listed as endangered but was delisted in 2006. It is not known if these species are found on that portion of the range located within the Gila Bend Basin. There is a small portion of Maricopa County’s Buckeye Hills Regional Park located in the north portion of the Gila River Basin. The primary use of this park is for recreation, although a portion of it overlooks the Robins Butte Wildlife Area along the Gila River outside the basin boundary. Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 33 Water Resources Development Commission Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats There are no critical habitats designated in the Gila Bend Basin. The endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and the Yuma Clapper Rail have been observed in this basin. According to the 2001 report “Biological Resources of the Sonoran Desert National Monument, Arizona,” special status species known to be present in the Sonoran Desert National Monument include the Desert Tortoise, Swainson’s Thrush, the Lesser Long-nosed Bat, the Sonoran Pronghorn, and the Acuña Cactus. Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources http://www.adwr.state.az.us/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/RuralPrograms/OutsideAMAs_PDUSFS_for_web/ Lower_Colorado_River_Planning_Area/Lower_Gila_River_Watershed.pdf http://www.arizonensis.org/sonoran/places/paintedrock.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_Rock_Dam http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=wildView&WID=564 (South Maricopa); http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=wildView&WID=421 (North Maricopa). http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=wildView&WID=659 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_M._Goldwater_Air_Force_Range http://www.ecr.gov/pdf/bgrange.pdf http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/ LowerColoradoRiver/documents/Volume_7_GIL_final.pdf http://aznps.com/Floras/sdnm.pdf 34 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission GRAND WASH The Grand Wash Basin, within Mohave County, is part of the Arizona Strip and is located on the western edge of the Colorado Plateau region in the northwest portion of the state. It is a remote, undeveloped area, characterized by cliffs and washes. The terrain is highly faulted with colorful sedimentary and volcanic rock formations. There are incised canyons and high desert plateaus, which offer breathtaking scenery. Vegetation is primarily Mohave desertscrub and Great Basin conifer woodland with small areas of Great Basin desertscrub, interior chaparral and Plains and Great Basin grassland. Flood flow plays a vital role in the function of river systems and its importance has been studied and described within the Grand Wash Basin. Studies indicate that flood intensity and frequency affect productivity of aquatic, riparian and flood plain vegetation and habitats (see Additional References). Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The Colorado River is the only perennial stream in the basin. There are several springs, with Tassi Spring discharging up to 75 gallons per minute and smaller springs discharging at a much lower rate of 2 gallons per minute. The wildlife in the Grand Wash Basin is diverse. Big game species include bobcat, Desert Bighorn Sheep, and Desert Mule Deer. This area is also inhabited by Gila Monsters, Arizona Toad, Baja California Tree Frog, and Relict Leopard Frog. Bird species include American Peregrine Falcon, Black-Crowned Night-Heron, and Yellow-billed Cuckoo. During the summer, Neotropical song bird species visit the area. Dove and Gamble Quail can be found year round. Important Conservation Lands The majority of the land in the Grand Wash Basin is within the BLM Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. Other conservation lands include Grand Canyon National Park, NPS; Grand Wash Cliffs Wilderness, Paiute Wilderness, and Mt. Logan Wilderness, BLM. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats The Grand Wash Basin has designated a critical habitat for Mohave Desert Tortoise and Razorback Suckers. Other federally protected species known to occur in the basin include California Condor, and the Grand Wash Springsnail. Candidate Relict Leopard Frog and Yellow-billed Cuckoo have also been observed. Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/WesternPlateau/documents/Volume_6_GWA_ final.pdf Additional References Kearsley, M. & Ayers, T. (2009). Riparian vegetation responses: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and vice versa. In R. Webb, J. Schmidt, R. Valdez, (eds.), The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon (pp. 309-327). Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 35 Water Resources Development Commission Ralston, B. (2010). Riparian vegetation response to the March 2008 short-duration high-flow experimentImplications of timing and frequency of flood disturbance on nonnative plant established along the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. Valdez, R., Shannon, J., & Blinn. D. (1999). Biological implications of the 1996 Controlled Flood. In R. Webb, J. Schmidt, R. Valdez, (eds.), The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon (pp. 343-350). Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. 36 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission HARQUAHALA INA The Harquahala Basin is located in Maricopa and La Paz Counties. The basin is characterized by a plain bordered by mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub and a small amount of interior chaparral on the northern basin boundary. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources There are no perennial waters or major springs within the Harquahala Basin. Centennial Wash, a large ephemeral wash, runs through the center of the basin. Wildlife species observed in the Harquahala INA Basin include Lowland Leopard Frog and Western Red-tailed Skink. Important Conservation Lands • Big Horn Mountains Wilderness, BLM • Eagletail Mountains Wilderness, BLM • Harquahala Mountains Wilderness, BLM • Hummingbird Springs Wilderness, BLM Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Harquahala Basin contains no designated critical habitat and no documented occurrences of federally listed species. Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/LowerColoradoRiver/documents/Volume_7_ HAR_final.pdf Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 37 Water Resources Development Commission HUALAPAI VALLEY Hualapai Valley Basin, located in Mohave County is characterized by a wide north-south trending valley, mountains along the west basin margins and cliffs and plateau on the eastern basin boundary. Vegetation types include Mohave desertscrub, semi-desert grassland, interior chaparral, conifer woodlands and conifer forest. There are no riparian areas within this basin. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The Colorado River is the only perennial river in the basin. There are three identified major springs. The southern portion of the basin is drained by an ephemeral watercourse, Truxton Wash, which drains north, and after heavy precipitation flows into the normally dry Red Lake Playa, underneath which exists a large salt body. The other major ephemeral watercourse, Hualapai Wash, runs north from Red Lake Playa after heavy precipitation and flows into Lake Mead. The Colorado River, impounded in Lake Mead, forms the northern boundary of the basin. American Peregrine Falcon and the Bald Eagle are both State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the basin Important Conservation Lands • Lake Mead National Recreation Area, NPS • Mt. Tipton Wilderness, BLM The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a coordinated, comprehensive, long-term multi-agency effort to conserve and work towards the recovery of endangered species, and protect and maintain wildlife habitat on the Lower Colorado River. The MSCP’s purposes are to protect the lower Colorado River environment while ensuring the certainty of existing river water and power operations, address the needs of threatened and endangered wildlife under the Endangered Species Act, and reduce the likelihood of listing additional species along the lower Colorado River. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical habitat has been designated for the Endangered Razorback Sucker. Hualapai Mexican Vole, listed as Endangered, has also been observed in this basin. Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/UpperColoradoRiver/documents/Volume_4_ HUA_final.pdf www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/assessment/download/hualapai_fact.pdf www.adwr.state.az.us/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/RuralPrograms/OutsideAMAs http://www.adwr.state.az.us/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/UpperColoradoRiver/default.htm http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/ 38 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission KANAB PLATEAU The Kanab Plateau Basin, located in Mohave and Coconino Counties, is characterized by plateaus and canyons. Vegetation types include Mohave and Great Basin desertscrub, Plains and Great Basin grassland, Great Basin conifer woodland, Great Basin subalpine conifer forest and Rocky Mountain and madrean montane conifer forest. There are small areas of subalpine grassland on the Kaibab Plateau south of Jacob Lake. Flood flow plays a vital role in the function of river systems and its importance has been studied and described within the Kanab Plateau Basin. Studies indicate that flood intensity and frequency affect productivity of aquatic, riparian and flood plain vegetation and habitats (see Additional References). Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The Kanab Plateau is the largest tributary canyon system leading into the Grand Canyon and contains Kanab Creek, the Paria River and North Canyon Creek. Scattered riparian areas contain cottonwoods and singleleaf ash. These areas provide winter range for Mule Deer and the introduced Chukar Partridge. Kanab Creek contains several native fish such as the Bluehead Sucker, Humpback Chub and Speckled Dace. The Paria River contains the Flannelmouth Sucker and Speckled Dace. The North Canyon area provides habitat for reintroduced Apache Trout, one of two native species of trout, as well as providing habitat for turkeys, the Kaibab Squirrel, and the introduced bison. State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the basin include the Northern Leopard Frog, American Peregrine Falcon, and Western Red Bat. Important Conservation Lands • Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, BLM • Vermilion Cliffs National Monument, BLM • Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness, BLM • Cottonwood Point Wilderness, BLM • Paria Canyon Wilderness, BLM • Kanab Creek Wilderness, BLM • Mount Logan Wilderness, BLM • Mount Trumbull Wilderness, BLM • Saddle Mountain Wilderness, BLM • Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, NPS • House Rock Wildlife Area, AGFD • Ryan Cabin Site State Conservation Land, AGFD • Grand Canyon National Game Preserve, NPS • Arizona Audubon Important Bird Areas; Marble Canyon, Grand Canyon Lipan and Yaki Points. Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 39 Water Resources Development Commission Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitat Critical Habitat is designated for Threatened Mexican Spotted Owl, Endangered Razorback Sucker, and Endangered Humpback Chub. Other Endangered species found in the basin include the California Condor, Kanab Amber Snail, and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. The Kanab Amber Snail is critically endangered and can be found in marshes of seeps and springs at the base of sandstone cliffs. Also observed in the area are the Threatened Bald Eagle and Apache Trout. Economic Values The economics of outdoor recreation is significant in Arizona, especially when associated with water bodies, streams, and other riparian and aquatic habitats. In 2001, a total of 127 Angler Use Days were documented in the Kanab Plateau Basin, equating to over $19,000 in economic revenue generated by angler activity within the basin. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/WesternPlateau/documents/Volume_6_KAN_ final.pdf Additional References Melis, T., Topping, D., Grams, P., Rubin, D. Wright, S., Draut, A., Hazel, J., Ralston, B., Kennedy, T., RosiMarshall, E., Korman, J., Hilwig, K., & Schmit, L. (2010). 2008 High-flow experiment at Glen Canyon Dam benefits Colorado River Resources in Grand Canyon National Park. U.S.. U.S. Geological Survey Kearsley, M. & Ayers, T. (2009). Riparian vegetation responses: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and vice versa. In R. Webb, J. Schmidt, R. Valdez, (eds.), The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon (pp. 309-327). Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. Korman, J., Kaplinski, M., & Melis, T. (2010). Effects of high-flow experiments from Glen Canyon Dam on abundance, growth, and survival rates of early life stages of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry Reach of the Colorado River. U.S. Geological Survey Ralston, B. (2010). Riparian vegetation response to the March 2008 short-duration high-flow experimentImplications of timing and frequency of flood disturbance on nonnative plant established along the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. Rosi-Marshall, E., Kennedy, T., Kincaid, D., Cross, W., Kelly, H., Behn, K., White, T. Hall Jr., R., & Baxter, C. (2010). Short-term effects of the 2008 high-flow experiment on macroinvertebrates in Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey. Valdez, R., Shannon, J., & Blinn. D. (1999). Biological implications of the 1996 Controlled Flood. In R. Webb, J. Schmidt, R. Valdez, (eds.), The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon (pp. 343-350). Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. 40 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission LAKE HAVASU The Lake Havasu Basin, located in Mohave County, is characterized by a valley adjacent to the Colorado River and Lake Havasu, which form the western boundary of the basin, and by lower elevation mountains along the north and eastern basin boundary. Vegetation types include lower Colorado River and Arizona upland Sonoran desertscrub and Mohave desertscrub. Riparian vegetation includes tamarisk and marsh along sections of the Colorado River. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The majority of perennial water in the basin is the 38 mile shoreline along the lake. There are no known springs in the basin. Havasu Wildlife Refuge offers marsh and upland farm field habitats for waterfowl, migrating songbirds, shorebirds, and other wildlife. Clark’s Grebe and American Peregrine Falcon are State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the basin. Important Conservation Lands • Havasu National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS • Havasu Refuge Wilderness, BLM • Cattail Cove, Arizona State Park • Lake Havasu State Park, Arizona State Park The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a coordinated, comprehensive, long-term multi-agency effort to conserve and work towards the recovery of endangered species, and protect and maintain wildlife habitat on the Lower Colorado River. The MSCP’s purposes are to protect the lower Colorado River environment while ensuring the certainty of existing river water and power operations, address the needs of threatened and endangered wildlife under the Endangered Species Act, and reduce the likelihood of listing additional species along the lower Colorado River. As part of the MSCP, land and water agreements with USFWS wildlife refuges were formed to implement conservation actions on those refuges. Havasu National Wildlife Refuge is one of three refuges that have a land and water agreement in place. The land and water agreements allow the MSCP to use refuge lands and a portion of that refuge’s Colorado River surface water allocations (the refuges do not have groundwater rights; any wells are considered to be pumping Colorado River water from the alluvium) to develop conservation areas. The MSCP pays for the development and maintenance activities of the conservation areas, as well as any monitoring associated with the projects. The partnership with the MSCP allows the refuges to gain improved wildlife habitats on their lands supporting the mission of the refuge without having to pay for the development of that habitat. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical Habitat has been designated for Bonytail Chub. Twenty-six threatened, endangered, or rare species are covered by the Lower Colorado River Multi-species Conservation Plan including the endangered Razorback Sucker, Bonytail Chub, Humpback Chub, Southwestern Willow flycatcher, Yuma \Clapper Rail, Desert Pupfish, and the Desert Tortoise. The Plan includes the Colorado River located along the western boundary of the basin. Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 41 Water Resources Development Commission Species observed in the basin include the Endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Yuma Clapper Rail, Bonytail Chub and Desert Pupfish. Economic Values The economy of the basin is heavily dependent on water based recreation centered on Lake Havasu and the Colorado River, while the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge offers important wildlife and bird watching opportunities. The economics of outdoor recreation is significant in Arizona, especially when associated with water bodies, streams, and other riparian and aquatic habitats. In 2001, a total of 248,620 Angler Use Days were documented in the Lake Havasu Basin, equating to over $38 million in economic revenue generated by angler activity within the basin. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/UpperColoradoRiver/documents/Volume_4_ LKH_final.pdf 42 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission LAKE MOHAVE Lake Mohave Basin, located in Mohave County is characterized by a broad valley along the Colorado River in the southern part of the basin and by mountains in the northern part of the basin. The Colorado River, Lake Mohave and Lake Mead define the western and northern basin boundary. Vegetation is primarily Mohave desertscrub with a small area of lower Colorado River Sonoran desertscrub and tamarisk and marsh vegetation along sections of the Colorado River. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The basin’s main hydrological feature is the Colorado River and impounded Lake Mead at the northern tip, Lake Mohave along the western edge of the basin and Topock Marsh at the southern tip of the basin. This feature forms 122 miles of the basins western edge. Stream flow outside of the Colorado River in the Lake Mohave groundwater basin is essentially ephemeral, generated by precipitation in the surrounding mountains. Seasonal precipitation and surface flow provide most of the groundwater recharge in the basin. The American Peregrine Falcon and Clark’s Grebe are listed as State Wildlife birds of concern observed in the basin. Important Conservation Lands • Mount Nutt Wilderness, BLM • Mount Wilson Wilderness, BLM • Warm Springs Wilderness, BLM • Lake Mead National Recreation Area, NPS • Havasu National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS • Colorado River Nature Center Wildlife Area, AGFD • Topock Marsh State Conservation Land, AGFD Several wilderness areas most notably support populations of Desert Bighorn Sheep. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manage the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge at the southern edge of the basin. From Desert Bighorn Sheep to the Endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Yuma Clapper Rail, birds and other animals at Havasu National Wildlife Refuge rely on the waters of the Lower Colorado River. The refuge protects 30 river miles - 300 miles of shoreline - from Needles, California, to Lake Havasu City, Arizona. One of the last remaining natural stretches of the lower Colorado River flows through the 20-mile-long Topock Gorge. The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a coordinated, comprehensive, long-term multi-agency effort to conserve and work towards the recovery of endangered species, and protect and maintain wildlife habitat on the Lower Colorado River. The MSCP’s purposes are to protect the lower Colorado River environment while ensuring the certainty of existing river water and power operations, address the needs of threatened and endangered wildlife under the Endangered Species Act, and reduce the likelihood of listing additional species along the lower Colorado River. As part of the MSCP, land and water agreements with USFWS wildlife refuges were formed to implement conservation actions on those refuges. Havasu National Wildlife Refuge is one of three refuges that have a land and water agreement in place. The land and water agreements allow the MSCP to use refuge lands and a Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 43 Water Resources Development Commission portion of that refuge’s Colorado River surface water allocations (the refuges do not have groundwater rights; any wells are considered to be pumping Colorado River water from the alluvium) to develop conservation areas. The MSCP pays for the development and maintenance activities of the conservation areas, as well as any monitoring associated with the projects. The partnership with the MSCP allows the refuges to gain improved wildlife habitats on their lands supporting the mission of the refuge without having to pay for the development of that habitat. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical Habitat has been designated for Razorback Sucker, Bonytail Chub, Mexican Spotted Owl, and Little Colorado Spinedace. Federally listed species that are dependent on riparian or other water related habitats occur within the basin including the Threatened Bald Eagle and Candidate Relict Leopard Frog and Yellow-billed Cuckoo have been observed in the basin. Economic Values The economics of outdoor recreation is significant in Arizona, especially when associated with water bodies, streams, and other riparian and aquatic habitats. In 2001, a total of 110,714 Angler Use Days were documented in the Lake Mohave Basin, equating to over $17 million in economic revenue generated by angler activity within the basin. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/UpperColoradoRiver/documents/Volume_4_ MHV_final.pdf 44 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU The Little Colorado River Plateau Basin, located in Coconino, Navajo and Apache Counties is characterized by relatively high elevation, semi-arid mesas and several high elevation mountain ranges. Elevations generally increase from north to south. Vegetation types are primarily Great Basin conifer woodland, plains and Great Basin grasslands and Great Basin desertscrub. At higher elevations vegetation types include subalpine grassland, Rocky Mountain subalpine conifer forest and Rocky Mountain and madrean montane conifer forests. Riparian vegetation is found along streams including: conifer oak, wet meadow, mixed broadleaf, and Russian olive along Tsalie Creek, Kinlechee Creek and Canyon de Chelly; tamarisk on Chinle Creek and Silver Creek; and mixed broadleaf, wet meadow and conifer oak on the Little Colorado River east of Springerville. Flood flow plays a vital role in the function of river systems and its importance has been studied and described within the Little Colorado River Plateau Basin. Studies indicate that flood intensity and frequency affect productivity of aquatic, riparian and flood plain vegetation and habitats (see Additional References). Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources Common riparian native trees and shrubs, depending on location and elevation, include Narrowleaf Cottonwood, Box Elder, Aspen, New Mexico Locust, and Willows. At higher elevations, streams pass through the upland montane forests of mixed-conifer and ponderosa pine communities. The riparian zones themselves are usually narrow, often following relatively steep stream channels in restricted valleys. This basin also counts a number of high elevation wetlands and cienegas that host cattail, Bulrush, sedges, waterweed, Spike rushes, Quaking Aspen, and Colorado Blue Spruce. Principal waterfowl species that utilize the high mountain wetlands include Mallard, Pintail, Cinnamon Teal, Ruddy Duck, and Redhead. Taller emergent plants such as bulrush provide nesting sites for American Bittern, Yellow and Red-headed Blackbirds, and Marsh Wren. Birds of prey include the Peregrine Falcon, Zone-tailed Hawk, Osprey, and the Bald Eagle. Migratory songbirds include Vermilion Flycatcher, Black Phoebe, Canyon and Rock Wrens, White-throated Swift, Yellow Warbler, and Bell’s Vireo. Birds identified as State Wildlife Species of Concern are; Belted Kingfisher, Black-billed Magpie, Bobolink, and Veery. The Little Colorado River Basin contains much of the remaining native fish habitat for species such as the Apache Trout, Little Colorado Spinedace, Desert Sucker, Little Colorado Sucker and the Roundtail Chub. Reptiles and amphibians include the Arizona Toad, Northern Leopard Frog, Mogollon Rim Treefrog Narrowheaded Gartersnake, and a variety of rattlesnakes. Other mammals observed as State Wildlife Species of concern are the American Water Shrew and Navajo Mexican Vole. Important Conservation Lands • Allen Severson Memorial Wildlife Area, AGFD • Bear Springs, AGFD • Becker Lake Wildlife Area, AGFD • Chevelon Canyon Ranch Wildlife Area, AGFD • Concho Lake, AGFD • Jacques Marsh Wildlife Area, AGFD • Lamar Haines Wildlife Area, AGFD Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 45 Water Resources Development Commission • Lee Valley Lake, AGFD • Nelson Reservoir, AGFD • Raymond Ranch, AGFD • Rainbow Lake Lands, AGFD • Silver Springs Hatchery, AGFD • Sipe White Mountain Wildlife Area, AGFD • Wenima Wildlife Area, AGFD • White Mountains Grasslands Wildlife Area, AGFD • Fool Hollow Lake Recreation Area, Arizona State Park • Homolovi Ruins State Park, Arizona State Park • Lyman lake State Park, Arizona State Park • Riordan Mansion State Historic Park, Arizona State Park • Little Colorado River East Fork, Phelps Cabin Research Natural Area, USFS • Escudilla Wilderness, USFS • Mount Baldy Wilderness, USFS • Kachina Peaks Wilderness, USFS • Mount Baldy Wilderness, USFS • Petrified Forest Wilderness, USFS • Strawberry Crater Wilderness, USFS • Canyon De Chelly National Monument, NPS • Lee Valley Creek and Little Colorado River West Fork are designated as Outstanding Arizona Waters, ADEQ • Arizona Audubon Important Bird Areas; Marble Canyon, Upper Little Colorado River Watershed, Mogollon Rim Snowmelt Draws, Anderson Mesa Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical habitat has been designated for Mexican Spotted Owl, Little Colorado Spinedace, Navajo Sedge, San Francisco Peaks Groundsel, and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Native fish reintroductions have occurred in several streams. The basin contains 30 miles of occupied native habitat, montane aquatic systems, for the federally threatened Apache Trout, all in streams reclaimed for recovery of Apache trout, including Little Colorado River West Fork, Little Colorado River East fork, Little Colorado River South Fork, Lee Valley Creek, Coyote Creek, Mamie Creek, and Mineral Creek. The basin also 46 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission contains all populations and habitat for the federally threatened Little Colorado Spinedace, which is endemic to the basin. Federally protected species observed in the basin also include: • Listed Endangered- Southwestern Willow Flycatcher • Listed Threatened- Chiricahua Leopard Frog, Mexican Spotted Owl, and Little Colorado Spinedace • Candidate- Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Roundtail Chub, Zuni Bluehead Sucker, New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, and Northern Mexican Gartersnake. Economic Values The economics of outdoor recreation is significant in Arizona, especially when associated with water bodies, streams, and other riparian and aquatic habitats. In 2001, a total of 863,297 Angler Use Days were documented in the Little Colorado River Plateau Groundwater Basin, equating to over $134 million in economic revenue generated by angler activity within the basin. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/EasternPlateau/documents/Volume_2_final_ LCR.pdf Additional References Melis, T., Topping, D., Grams, P., Rubin, D. Wright, S., Draut, A., Hazel, J., Ralston, B., Kennedy, T., RosiMarshall, E., Korman, J., Hilwig, K., & Schmit, L. (2010). 2008 High-flow experiment at Glen Canyon Dam benefits Colorado River Resources in Grand Canyon National Park. U.S.. U.S. Geological Survey. Kearsley, M. & Ayers, T. (2009). Riparian vegetation responses: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and vice versa. In R. Webb, J. Schmidt, R. Valdez, (eds.), The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon (pp. 309-327). Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. Korman, J., Kaplinski, M., & Melis, T. (2010). Effects of high-flow experiments from Glen Canyon Dam on abundance, growth, and survival rates of early life stages of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry Reach of the Colorado River. U.S. Geological Survey. Ralston, B. (2010). Riparian vegetation response to the March 2008 short-duration high-flow experimentImplications of timing and frequency of flood disturbance on nonnative plant established along the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. Valdez, R., Shannon, J., & Blinn. D. (1999). Biological implications of the 1996 Controlled Flood. In R. Webb, J. Schmidt, R. Valdez, (eds.), The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon (pp. 343-350). Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. Merritt, D. & Poff, N. (2010). Shifting dominance of riparian Populus and Tamarix along gradients of flow alteration in western North American rivers. Ecological Applications, 135-152. Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 47 Water Resources Development Commission LOWER GILA The Lower Gila Basin is located in Yuma, Pima, La Paz and Maricopa Counties and is characterized by plains and valleys surrounded by low elevation mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona uplands sonorant desertscrub. Riparian vegetation includes tamarisk along the Colorado River and Gila River. The principal geographic feature of the basin is the Gila River which runs east to west through the entire basin, exiting on the west boundary of the basin before it reaches its confluence with the Colorado River. A short stretch (11 miles) of the Colorado River forms the western boundary of the basin in the vicinity of Fishers Landing. Beyond the river floodplains and valleys, the basin is surrounded by small mountain ranges. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources Within the Lower Gila Basin, most of the Gila River is ephemeral and flows only in response to precipitation events or water releases from upstream dams. Historically, the river would flow in the spring due to winter rains and melting snow, and in summer following monsoon rains. Today, these flows are controlled by dams. Painted Rock Dam was constructed in 1959 at the eastern edge of the basin to control infrequent flood flows. A small lake occasionally forms at the base of Painted Rock Dam, but is frequently dry. Along the Colorado River, flows are constant. The Colorado is highly regulated by upstream dams, although floods occasionally occur. When the Imperial Dam was completed in 1935, Martinez Lake was formed as part of the Imperial Reservoir. The Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation District returns surplus irrigation water to the Gila River channel near Dome, Arizona. This influx of water supports flow from Dome a short distance to the boundary of the basin and then to the confluence with the Colorado River. There are several State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in this basin including, Lowland Leopard Frog, California Black Rail, Peregrine Falcon, Bald Eagle, Great Egret, Least Bittern, Snowy Egret, and Western Yellow Bat. Important Conservation Lands 48 • Arizona Audubon Important Bird Areas; Imperial Reservoir, Lower Gila River, Quigley Wildlife Area, Sonoran Desert Borderlands • Quigley Wildlife Area, AGFD • Texas Hill Lands State Conservation, AGFD • Kofa National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS • Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS • Imperial Reservoir National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS • Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, NPS • Eagletail Mountains Wilderness, BLM • Muggins Mountains Wilderness, BLM Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission • Signal Mountain Wilderness, BLM • Woolsey Peak Wilderness, BLM • Organ Pipe Wilderness, NPS The Quigley Wildlife Area encloses a remnant slough of the Gila River. The area provides magnificent views across the Gila River floodplain to the Castle Dome, Palomas and other mountain ranges. Several rare and endangered species including the Yuma Clapper Rail and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher are recorded here as well as large concentrations of wintering waterfowl and shorebirds can be seen, along with significant numbers of neotropical migrants. Visitors may see mourning and White-winged Doves, Snow Geese, and Osprey. The Arizona Game and Fish Department reports that the marsh habitat at Quigley has in the past supported at least 4-6 pairs of the endangered Yuma Clapper Rail, and that “appropriate habitat” exists at Quigley for the endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (although nesting has not been documented). The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a coordinated, comprehensive, long-term multi-agency effort to conserve and work towards the recovery of endangered species, and protect and maintain wildlife habitat on the Lower Colorado River. The MSCP’s purposes are to protect the lower Colorado River environment while ensuring the certainty of existing river water and power operations, address the needs of threatened and endangered wildlife under the Endangered Species Act, and reduce the likelihood of listing additional species along the lower Colorado River. As part of the MSCP, land and water agreements with USFWS wildlife refuges were formed to implement conservation actions on those refuges. Imperial National Wildlife Refuge is one of three refuges that have a land and water agreement in place. Imperial National Wildlife Refuge protects wildlife habitat along 30 miles of the lower Colorado River in Arizona and California, including the last un-channelized section before the river enters Mexico. The land and water agreements allow the MSCP to use refuge lands and a portion of that refuge’s Colorado River surface water allocations (the refuges do not have groundwater rights; any wells are considered to be pumping Colorado River water from the alluvium) to develop conservation areas. The MSCP pays for the development and maintenance activities of the conservation areas, as well as any monitoring associated with the projects. The partnership with the MSCP allows the refuges to gain improved wildlife habitats on their lands supporting the mission of the refuge without having to pay for the development of that habitat. The Kofa National Wildlife Refuge provides essential habitat for Desert Bighorn Sheep, the California Fan Palm, and other wildlife and plants. By enlarging natural water holes, shading them to reduce evaporation, and blasting artificial basins in areas previously without a water supply, refuge managers have greatly increased the availability and reliability of water for Desert Bighorn Sheep and other wildlife. The Refuge also supports a number of amphibians and reptiles, including the desert tortoise. Other species include the Rosy Boa, Coachwhip, Gophersnake, Western Shovel-nosed Snake, Common Kingsnake, five species of rattlesnakes, Western Banded Gecko, Zebra-tailed Lizard, Eastern Collared Lizard, Desert Horned Lizard, Common Chuckwalla, Desert Iguana, Desert Spiny Lizard, Sonoran Desert Toad, and the Red-spotted Toad. Birds include Red-tailed Hawk, Golden Eagle, Ash-throated Flycatcher, Loggerhead Shrike, Cactus and Canyon Wrens, Phainopepla, Scott’s Oriole, and Curve-billed Thrasher. Isolated nesting populations of Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, Canyon Towhee, and Black-chinned and Rufous-crowned Sparrows can be found. Parts of the Basin are within the Sonoran Desert Borderlands are listed as Important Bird Area (IBA), a program administered Arizona Audubon primarily because of the Lower Colorado Desert Microphyll Woodland Major Wash Complex habitat. This largely intact, undeveloped, and un-fragmented IBA encompasses Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (in its entirety), Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (in its entirety), and Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 49 Water Resources Development Commission the Barry Goldwater Range East and West Units (pending military acceptance). The Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge is the third largest refuge in the nation and nearly all is a designated wilderness. Common vegetation includes Creosote bush flats, bursage on the bajadas, Mesquite, Paloverde, Ironwood, and an abundance of cacti, including Ocotillo, Cholla, and Saguaro. Also present are the endangered Sonoran Pronghorn and Lesser Long-nosed Bats, as well as desert bighorns, lizards, rattlesnakes, Desert Tortoises, Elf Owls, and Gila Woodpecker. Refuge staff brings water to artificial catchments and guzzlers throughout Cabeza Prieta NWR for wildlife. The refuge also takes the lead role in Sonoran pronghorn recovery. This endangered species with international significance ranges across the Sonoran desert in small, scattered bands. Parts of the Barry Goldwater Air Force Range are located in the Basin and used for pilots to practice basic airto-surface weapons deployment. There are five species of concern on the Goldwater Range, three of which are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. These include the Sonoran Pronghorn Antelope, Lesser Long-nosed Bat, and the Peirson’s Milkvetch. The Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, an International Biosphere Reserve, exhibits an extraordinary collection of plants and animals of the Sonoran Desert. Twenty-six species of cactus are found, as well as numerous species of birds, mammals, reptiles and fish. Every summer Organ Pipe Cactus NM hosts a “maternal” colony of 20,000 endangered Lesser Long-nosed Bats. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical habitat has been designated for the Razorback Sucker. Federally protected species observed in this basin include the Endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Yuma Clapper Rail, Desert Pupfish, Sonoran Pronghorn Antelope, and Razorback Sucker. The CandidateYellow-billed Cuckoo is also found here. Economic Values The economics of outdoor recreation is significant in Arizona, especially when associated with water bodies, streams, and other riparian and aquatic habitats. In 2001, a total of 45,970 Angler Use Days were documented in the Lower Gila Basin, equating to over $7 million in economic revenue generated by angler activity within the basin. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/LowerColoradoRiver/documents/Volume_7_ LGB_final.pdf http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=CRBSCP+-+Desalting+Complex+Unit++Title+I#Group544440 http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-07/uoa-swq072406.php http://iba.audubon.org/iba/viewSiteProfile.do?siteId=900&navSite=state http://www.wildlifeviewingareas.com/wv-app/ParkDetail.aspx?ParkID=85 http://www.azgfd.gov/outdoor_recreation/wildlife_area_quigley.shtml http://www.wildlifeviewingareas.com/wv-app/ParkDetail.aspx?ParkID=78 50 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission http://iba.audubon.org/iba/profileReport.do?siteId=2202 http://iba.audubon.org/iba/viewSiteProfile.do?siteId=2202&navSite=state http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=wildView&WID=169 http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=wildView&WID=401 http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=wildView&WID=553 http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=wildView&WID=659 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_of_Critical_Environmental_Concern http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/az/pdUSFS/nepa/library/resource_management.Par.29336.File. dat/Lower-Gila-Amendment-decision-record.pdf http://setonresourcecenter.com/register/2010/jan/29/2010-1726.pdf http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=22570 http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=22571 http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=22560 http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=wildView&WID=257 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuma_Proving_Ground http://www.yuma.army.mil/images/EAIEDTE.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_M._Goldwater_Air_Force_Range http://www.ecr.gov/pdf/bgrange.pdf http://www.nps.gov/orpi/index.htm http://organpipecactus.areaparks.com/parkinfo.html?pid=22938 http://www.snwa.com/html/env_razorback_sucker.html http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Arizona/Documents/CountyLists/Yuma.pdf http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/salton/CoachellaReqAttachB.html Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 51 Water Resources Development Commission LOWER SAN PEDRO The Lower San Pedro Basin is split between Cochise, Pima, Graham, Pinal and Gila Counties. The Basin is characterized by high-elevation mountain ranges and washes. Vegetation is primarily Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub and semidesert grassland with smaller areas of Chihuahuan desertscrub, madrean evergreen woodland, Rocky Mountain and montane conifer forest and interior chaparral. Riparian vegetation includes strand and mesquite on the San Pedro River and Aravaipa Creek. Flood flow plays a vital role in the function of river systems and its importance has been studied and described within the San Pedro River watershed. Studies indicate that flood intensity and frequency affect productivity of aquatic, riparian and flood plain vegetation and habitats (see Additional References). Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources This basin contains a portion of the San Pedro River – one of the last remaining free flowing desert rivers in the world. The Lower San Pedro Basin contains approximately 75 miles of perennial flows in Aravaipa Creek, Bass Canyon, Buehman Canyon, Copper Creek, Devils Canyon, Mill Creek, Mineral Creek, Hot Springs Canyon, Redfield Canyon Creek, and Swamp Springs Canyon Creek. Some reaches of the Lower San Pedro River itself are also perennial. The Lower San Pedro Basin supports high quality cottonwood-willow riparian gallery forest and adjacent mesquite bosque. The basin provides a lush wildlife movement corridor between the Santa Catalina and Galiuro Mountains. The middle and lower portions of the San Pedro River have been designated by Arizona Audubon as a Priority Important Bird Area (IBA) due to the large number of birds of concern that rely on the riparian habitat of the basin. The Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Gray Hawk, Thick-billed Kingbird, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Northern Beardless-Tyrannulet, and Tropical Kingbird can all be found here. The Lower San Pedro and its tributaries also provide habitat for Chiricahua Leopard Frog, Lowland Leopard Frog, Gila Chub, Spikedace, Loach Minnow, Sonoran Sucker, and is one of the last remaining known locations of the Huachuca Water Umbel. Additional State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the basin include; Lowland Leopard Frog, Peregrine Falcon, Black-bellied Whistling Duck, Common Black-Hawk, Mississippi Kite, Northern Buffbreasted Flycatcher, and Western Red Bat. Important Conservation Lands 52 • Swamp Springs/Hot Springs Watershed Area of Critical Environmental Concern, BLM • Redfield Canyon Wilderness Area, BLM • Rincon Mountain Wilderness Area, USFS • Galiuro Wilderness Area, USFS • Oracle State Park, Arizona State Park • Saguaro National Park, NPS • Audubon Arizona Important Bird Area; Lower San Pedro River • Middle/Lower San Pedro River, Pima County Preserves Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission • 3 Links Farm, BOR Conservation Easement and The Nature Conservancy Preserve • Buehman Canyon Preserve/Conservation Easements, The Nature Conservancy • Muleshoe Ranch Preserve, The Nature Conservancy • Lower San Pedro River Preserve, The Nature Conservancy • Buehman Canyon is identified as an Outstanding Arizona Water, ADEQ The Nature Conservancy is conducting restoration activities to re-vegetate old pasture lands with native vegetation. Their activities have reduced water consumption along the main stem Lower San Pedro. The conservation easements ensure the permanent protection of some of the most important sections of the basin. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical Habitat is designated for Mexican Spotted Owl, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Razorback Sucker, Gila Chub, Spikedace, and Loach Minnow. Federally protected species observed in the basin also include: • Listed Endangered- Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Gila Chub, and Huachuca Water Umbel • Listed Threatened- Chiricahua Leopard Frog, Bald Eagle, Mexican Spotted Owl, Loach Minnow, and Spikedace • Candidate- Yellow-billed Cuckoo and Roundtail Chub Economic Values Studies have been conducted that describe the economic contribution of riparian bird habitat, and surveys conducted to identify economic value of wildlife watching in the San Pedro River (Pima County, 2009; Leenhouts et al., 2006). Pima County. 2009b. City of Tucson and Pima County Water for the Environment Technical Paper. Leenhouts, J. M., Stromberg, J. C., and Scott, R. L. 2006. Hydrologic requirements of and consumptive groundwater use by riparian vegetation along the San Pedro River, Arizona. Vol. Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5163. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/SEArizona/documents/Vol_3_LSP_final.pdf Additional References Bagstad, K., Stromberg, J., & Lite, S. (2005). Response of herbaceous riparian plants to rain and flooding on the San Pedro River, Arizona, USA. Wetlands, 210-223. Stromberg, J., Bagstad, K., Leenhouts, J., Lite, S. & Makings, E. (2005). Effects of stream flow intermittency on riparian vegetation of a semiarid region river (San Pedro River, Arizona). River Research and Applications, 925-938. Leenhouts, J., Stromberg, J., & Scott, R. (2006). Hydrologic Requirements of and Consumptive Ground-water Use by Riparian Vegetation along the San Pedro River, Arizona. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 53 Water Resources Development Commission Brand, L., Cerasale, D., Rich, T. (2009). Breeding and Migratory Birds: Patterns and Processes. In Stromberg, J. & Tellman, B., Ecology and Conservation of the San Pedro River (pp. 153-174). Tucson, Arizona: The University of Arizona Press. Stromberg, J., Lite, S., & Beauchamp, V. (2003). Managing stream flow regimes for riparian ecosystem restoration. 2003 Tamarisk Symposium Grand Junction, Colorado. 54 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission MCMULLEN VALLEY The McMullen Valley Basin is located in La Paz, Yavapai and Maricopa Counties. The basin is characterized by two valleys; the McMullen Valley and the Aguila Valley, which are bordered by the Harcuvar mountain range to the north and the Harquahala mountain range to the south. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona uplands, Sonoran desertscrub with small amounts of interior chaparral and semidesert grassland. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The main riparian feature is the Centennial Wash which runs east to west through the basin. Centennial Wash is a large, normally dry ephemeral stream which runs through the town of Wenden. It has been known to collect such large amounts of rainfall funneled from surrounding mountains that it overflows and causes serious flooding and the impact of the flow regime is an issue of concern for the local community. Local flows along Centennial Wash have resulted in heavy vegetation growth of Ironwood, Mesquite, and Paloverde trees which serves as habitat for many bird and animal species. Quail are common in the Centennial Wash area between Salome and Aguila. Lowland Leopard Frogs are listed as State Wildlife Species of Concern in the basin. White-tailed Kite and Western Red-tailed Skink have also been observed in the basin. Important Conservation Lands • Harquahala Mountains Wilderness, BLM • Harcuvar Mountains Wilderness, BLM Harquahala means “running water high up” in the language of one early native tribe. The Harquahala Mountains Wilderness was so named for its numerous perennial seeps and springs that support rare habitat with exceptional diversity among Sonoran Desert mountains. Rare cacti are found in relict “islands” of chaparral and desert grasslands as well as the endangered Desert Tortoise, the largest Mule Deer herd in western Arizona, a sizable raptor population, and one of the few increasing Desert Bighorn Sheep herds. The Harcuvar Mountains Wilderness includes plant and animal communities and diverse landforms, including a 3,500-acre “island” of interior chaparral habitat that supports a few species of wildlife cut off from their parent populations: Rosy Boas, Gilbert’s Skinks, and Desert Night Lizards. Desert Bighorn Sheep, Mountain Lions, Desert Tortoises, Golden Eagles, and several species of hawks are also found in the basin. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats No Critical Habitat Designated. Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/LowerColoradoRiver/documents/Volume_7_ MMU_final.pdf Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 55 Water Resources Development Commission MEADVIEW Meadview Basin is located in Mohave County and is characterized by a south to north trending wash, a mesa in the western portion of the basin, cliffs along the eastern basin boundary and Lake Mead on the north. Vegetation includes Mohave desertscrub and Great Basin conifer woodland. Flood flow plays a vital role in the function of river systems and its importance has been studied and described within the Meadview Basin. Studies indicate that flood intensity and frequency affect productivity of aquatic, riparian and flood plain vegetation and habitats (see Additional References). Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The only perennial flow in the basin is about 7 miles of the Colorado River, essentially Lake Mead. There are numerous springs of varying discharge located primarily in the southern part of the basin. The American Peregrine Falcon is a State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the basin. A native fish, Speckled Dace is also known to occur in the basin. Important Conservation Lands • Lake Mead National Recreation Area, NPS • Grand Canyon National Park, NPS Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical Habitat has been designated for Razorback Sucker. Federally protected species observed in the basin include the Endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Razorback sucker and the Candidate Relict Leopard Frog. Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/UpperColoradoRiver/documents/Volume_4_ MEA_final.pdf Additional References Kearsley, M. & Ayers, T. (2009). Riparian vegetation responses: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and vice versa. In R. Webb, J. Schmidt, R. Valdez, (eds.), The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon (pp. 309-327). Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. Ralston, B. (2010). Riparian vegetation response to the March 2008 short-duration high-flow experimentImplications of timing and frequency of flood disturbance on nonnative plant established along the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. Valdez, R., Shannon, J., & Blinn. D. (1999). Biological implications of the 1996 Controlled Flood. In R. Webb, J. Schmidt, R. Valdez, (eds.), The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon (pp. 343-350). Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. 56 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission MORENCI The Morenci Basin is located mostly in Greenlee County, Graham County and the southern part of Apache County. The basin is characterized by high-elevation mountain ranges and a diversity of biotic communities including Rocky Mountain and montane conifer forest, Great Basin conifer, madrean evergreen woodland, plains and Great Basin grassland, interior chaparral, Chihuahuan desertscrub and semidesert grassland vegetation. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources Riparian vegetation ranges from wet meadow and mountain scrub on the San Francisco River near Alpine at the higher elevations to mixed broadleaf and cottonwood/willow on the Campbell Blue Creek; cottonwood/willow, mixed broadleaf and mesquite on the Blue River; mixed broadleaf on Cienega and Willow Creeks; and at the lower elevations, mesquite and mixed broadleaf on Eagle Creek and the San Francisco River near Clifton. Perennial streams are located throughout the basin including San Francisco River, Blue River, Grant Creek, Strayhorse Creek, KP Creek, Willow Creek, Cienega Creek and Eagle Creek. The San Francisco River is declared an Impaired Water by ADEQ for sediment, while KP Creek has been designated an Outstanding Arizona Water by ADEQ. There are over 450 miles of streams; five species of trout can be found in these waters. Luna Lake State Wildlife Area is home to a variety of wildlife, including the Bald Eagle and migrating waterfowl, as well as a managed sportfishery. The forested area is home to most big game animals such as antelope, elk, deer, bighorn sheep and turkey. Black Bear, Mountain Lion and Mexican Gray Wolf are even spotted on occasion. There is a large variety of songbirds, waterfowl, small mammals, fish, amphibians and reptiles. State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the basin include Peregrine Falcon, Bald Eagle, Lowland Leopard Frog, and Narrow-headed Gartersnake. Important Conservation Lands • Escudilla Wilderness, USFS • Blue Range Primitive Area, USFS • Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area (at the southernmost portion), BLM • Luna Lake State Conservation Land, AGFD • Arizona Audubon Important Bird Area; Blue River Complex • KP Creek is identified as an Outstanding Arizona Water, ADEQ • US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program • US Department of the Interior, proposed Native Fish Restoration Project, Lower Blue River Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical Habitat has been designated for Mexican Spotted Owl, Razorback Sucker, Gila Chub and Loach Minnow. Apache and Gila Trout have been the focus of conservation efforts in this basin. Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 57 Water Resources Development Commission Federally protected species observed in the basin include: • Listed Endangered- Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Gila Chub, and Razorback Sucker • Listed Threatened- Chiricahua Leopard Frog, Mexican Spotted Owl, Apache Trout, Gila Trout, Loach Minnow, and Spikedace • Candidate- Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Roundtail Chub, New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, and Northern Mexican Gartersnake Economic Values The economics of outdoor recreation is significant in Arizona, especially when associated with water bodies, streams, and other riparian and aquatic habitats. In 2001, a total of 27,335 Angler Use Days were documented in the Morenci Basin, equating to over $4 million in economic revenue generated by angler activity within the basin. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/SEArizona/documents/Vol_3_MOR_final.pdf Bureau of Land Management (BLM) United States Forest Service (USFS, Prescott Forest) United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) Wildlife Linkages (NAU) 58 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission PARIA The Paria Basin in northern Coconino County is characterized by a plateau and canyons. Vegetation types include Great Basin desertscrub and Great Basin conifer woodland. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The Paria River originates in southern Utah, draining high plateaus. Near the Arizona border the river enters a narrow canyon of towering sandstone walls streaked with desert varnish, winding past amphitheater formations, natural arches, wooded terraces and hanging gardens. Emerging from the Vermilion Cliffs, the Paria River meets the Colorado River at Lees Ferry. Although a fairly small perennial stream, the Paria River is capable of generating massive flash floods that deliver huge sediment loads into Grand Canyon. In September 1998, a flood of 6,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) delivered about 800,000 tons of sand to the Colorado River. The vegetation of the lower Paria River consists of sparse desert riparian grass, forbs and shrubs, dominated by fescue and arrowweed, with relatively low plant cover and diversity. Extensive stands of non-native tamarisk have replaced much of the native vegetation. The only other trees along the Paria River are Fremont cottonwood, and those are sparse with low recruitment. Some evidence suggests that more extensive stands of cottonwood previously occupied the area, but were removed for fuel and construction by early settlers. Bald Eagles, Golden Eagles, Red-tailed Hawk, Great Horned Owl, Cooper’s Hawk, and Peregrine Falcon utilize the riparian habitat along the river, as do flycatchers, swallows, swifts, wrens, hummingbirds, and herons. Bobcats, foxes, Mountain Lions, porcupines, beavers, and Coyotes are found throughout the rugged terrain in the Paria Basin. Prior to construction of Glen Canyon Dam, the Paria River provided important habitat for several species of fish, now federally endangered. Humpback Chub, Razorback Sucker and possibly, Bonytail Chub spawned in the mouth of the Paria River. Colorado Pikeminnow, another endangered fish, spent time in the mouth of the river as they migrated through Grand Canyon. Formerly a top predator in the Colorado River basin, this large fish would sometimes grow to nearly six feet long and weigh up to 80 pounds. Important Conservation Lands • Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness Areas, BLM • Vermilion Cliffs National Monument, BLM • Arizona Audubon Important Bird Area; Marble Canyon • Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, NPS Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical Habitat has not been designated in the Paria Basin. Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 59 Water Resources Development Commission http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/WesternPlateau/documents/Volume_6_PAR_ final.pdf 60 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission PARKER The Parker Basin is located in La Paz and Yuma Counties. This basin is characterized by plains and valleys and low elevation mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona Uplands Sonoran desertscrub. Riparian vegetation includes tamarisk, marsh and mesquite along the Colorado River. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The Parker Basin is characterized by an extremely arid environment with an average annual precipitation of 4.5 inches. The Colorado River is the basin’s main hydrological feature and runs north-south along the western edge of the basin for about 144 miles; Twelve Mile Slough is the only other identified perennial water outside the river channel. The basin begins at Parker Dam and the western edge runs along the Colorado River to the Imperial National Wildlife Refuge. Numerous backwaters along the Colorado River provide the majority of aquatic features and wildlife habitat. Much of the western basin contains abundant farmland. The central and eastern portion of the basin is made up of low lying mountain ranges. There are about a dozen small springs in the basin. Several State Wildlife Species of Concern have been observed in the basin including, the Bald Eagle, California Black Rail, Great Egret, Least Bittern, and Western Yellow Bat. Other wading birds observed in the basin include Great Egret, California Black Rail, Great Blue Heron, Least Bittern, marsh Wren and White-faced Ibis. The Western Yellow Bat has also been observed. Important Conservation Lands • Buckskin Mountain State Park, Arizona State Park • East Cactus Plain Wilderness, BLM • Cactus Plain Wilderness Study Area, BLM • Gibraltar Wilderness, BLM • New Water Mountains Wilderness, BLM • Trigo Mountains Wilderness, BLM • Cibola National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS • Imperial Reservoir National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS • Kofa National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a coordinated, comprehensive, long-term multi-agency effort to conserve and work towards the recovery of endangered species, and protect and maintain wildlife habitat on the Lower Colorado River. The MSCP’s purposes are to protect the lower Colorado River environment while ensuring the certainty of existing river water and power operations, address the needs of threatened and endangered wildlife under the Endangered Species Act, and reduce the likelihood of listing additional species along the lower Colorado River. As part of the MSCP, land and water agreements with USFWS wildlife refuges were formed to implement conservation actions on those refuges. Cibola and Imperial National Wildlife Refuges are two of three Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 61 Water Resources Development Commission refuges that have a land and water agreement in place. The land and water agreements allow the MSCP to use refuge lands and a portion of that refuge’s Colorado River surface water allocations (the refuges do not have groundwater rights; any wells are considered to be pumping Colorado River water from the alluvium) to develop conservation areas. The MSCP pays for the development and maintenance activities of the conservation areas, as well as any monitoring associated with the projects. The partnership with the MSCP allows the refuges to gain improved wildlife habitats on their lands supporting the mission of the refuge without having to pay for the development of that habitat. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats The Parker Basin contains about 12,000 acres of federal critical habitat for the Endangered Razorback Sucker along 144 miles of the Colorado River. Aquatic and riparian habitats associated with the Colorado River provide suitable habitat for numerous other federally listed or sensitive species. Federally protected species observed in the basin include the Endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Yuma Clapper Rail, Bonytail Chub, and Razorback Sucker. Candidate Yellow-billed Cuckoo has also been observed. Economic Values The Parker Strip, below Parker Dam is a heavily utilized waterway for watercraft recreation, fishing and other outdoor and wildlife related recreational activities, especially at the Imperial National Wildlife Refuge. There is one area stocked by the AGFD for fishing, located at La Paz County Park. The lagoon and one off-channel pond are used for fishing clinics each year. The Colorado River and associated backwaters and ponds are also used for waterfowl hunting and fishing activities. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/LowerColoradoRiver/documents/Volume_7_ PKB_final.pdf 62 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission PEACH SPRINGS Peach Springs Basin is located at the intersection of Mohave, Yavapai, and Coconino Counties. The basin is characterized by a relatively high elevation plateau area, steep canyons and relatively small valleys. The Colorado River defines the northwestern basin boundary. Vegetation types include Great Basin conifer woodland, plains and Great Basin grassland, Great Basin and Mohave desertscrub and a small area of mountain conifer forest. Flood flow plays a vital role in the function of river systems and its importance has been studied and described within the Shivwits Plateau Basin. Studies indicate that flood intensity and frequency affect productivity of aquatic, riparian and flood plain vegetation and habitats (see Additional References). Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources Native species observed in the basin include the Arizona toad, Northern Leopard Frog, American Peregrine Falcon, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Flannelmouth Sucker, Speckled Dace, and Hualapai Mexican Vole. The Northern Leopard Frog and Peregrine Falcon are both State Species of Concern observed in the basin. Perennial waters include the Colorado River and a short segment of Diamond Creek. There are also a number of major and minor springs. Important Conservation Lands • Grand Canyon National Park, NPS The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a coordinated, comprehensive, long-term multi-agency effort to conserve and work towards the recovery of endangered species, and protect and maintain wildlife habitat on the Lower Colorado River. The MSCP’s purposes are to protect the lower Colorado River environment while ensuring the certainty of existing river water and power operations, address the needs of threatened and endangered wildlife under the Endangered Species Act, and reduce the likelihood of listing additional species along the lower Colorado River. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical Habitat has been designated for the Razorback Sucker. Federally protected species observed in the basin include the Endangered Hualapai Mexican Vole and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Candidate Yellow-billed Cuckoo. Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/UpperColoradoRiver/documents/Volume_4_ PSC_final.pdf http://www.adwr.state.az.us/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/RuralPrograms/OutsideAMAs_PDFs_for_web/Upper_ Colorado_River_Planning_Area/Peach_Springs_Basin.pdf Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 63 Water Resources Development Commission Additional References Kearsley, M. & Ayers, T. (2009). Riparian vegetation responses: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and vice versa. In R. Webb, J. Schmidt, R. Valdez, (eds.), The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon (pp. 309-327). Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. Ralston, B. (2010). Riparian vegetation response to the March 2008 short-duration high-flow experimentImplications of timing and frequency of flood disturbance on nonnative plant established along the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. Valdez, R., Shannon, J., & Blinn. D. (1999). Biological implications of the 1996 Controlled Flood. In R. Webb, J. Schmidt, R. Valdez, (eds.), The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon (pp. 343-350). Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. 64 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission PHOENIX AMA The Phoenix Active Management Area (AMA) located predominantly in Maricopa County and in Pinal and Yavapai counties. It is one of five AMA’s created by the Arizona Groundwater Code. The AMA includes all of the urban Phoenix metro area and many undeveloped areas. It stretches out to include Anthem, to Sacaton, and east/west from Superior to Tonopah. The basin is characterized by valleys surrounded by mid-elevation mountain ranges. Vegetation types are predominantly Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona Uplands Sonoran desertscrub with a small area of southwestern interior chaparral in the northeastern portion of the AMA. Riparian vegetation, primarily tamarisk, is found extensively along the Gila River below the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources Major surface water sources include the Salt, Verde, Aqua Fria, and Hassayampa Rivers, all of which drain into the Gila River. The Colorado River provides an additional surface water source to the Phoenix AMA and is delivered via the Central Arizona Project (CAP). The Salt and Verde Rivers are the major water sources for the Phoenix AMA, and these rivers sustain riparian habitat, primarily outside the developed metro area. There are also important riparian areas along the Gila River. While the CAP contributes significant water supplies for Phoenix metro cities, it has little impact on wildlife or riparian vegetation. It is fenced to keep all but the smallest animals out and is subject to routine vegetation control. Arnett Creek, Camp Creek, New River, Queen Creek, Seven Springs Wash, and Skunk Creek have perennial reaches within the AMA. The Agua Fria River is also intermittent with perennial stretches. A small portion of perennial flow along the Hassayampa River is also found in the Phoenix AMA. These perennial reaches are typically lined with cottonwood and willow trees, and rushes and sedges in the wetter areas. There are also sycamore, mesquite and invasive tamarisk trees. Riparian areas, even those within developed landscapes are important habitats for many fish, birds, and other wildlife. In addition, there are also extensive riparian areas and wetlands on the west side of Phoenix where the Salt, Gila, and Agua Fria rivers converge with treated effluent water released from the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant. In this vicinity, the Arizona Game and Fish Department manages the Base and Meridian, Robbins Butte and Arlington Wildlife Areas and the City of Phoenix manages the Tres Rios wetlands. The mesquite bosques and reedy marshes of the Tres Rios area are of particular importance to birds. Plentiful food and nesting resources attract hundreds of species of breeding and migratory birds. Some species, Whitewinged and Mourning Doves in particular, arrive in flocks that number in the thousands. Robbins Butte Wildlife Area is home to more than 115 species of winter-resident birds and is the center of the National Audubon Society’s annual Gila River Christmas Bird Count. Many raptors, including the White-tailed Kite and Bald Eagle, are included in this list. Arizona Audubon has identified several Important Bird Areas in this basin including Boyce Thompson Arboretum, Arnett-Queen Creeks, Salt-Verde and Salt-Gila ecosystems and the Gilbert Riparian Preserve. Wetlands along the Gila River and throughout the Tres Rios area are home to a diverse group of reptiles, a minimum of 19 species, as well as deer, Ring-tail Cats, and other mammals. Northern Leopard Frog, Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo, and the Sonoran Desert Tortoise are also a few of species identified as Wildlife of Special Concern by the Arizona Game and Fish Department that occur in the basin. Seven species of native fish live within the AMA, including Roundtail Chub, Speckled Dace, Desert Sucker, Sonoran Sucker, Loach Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 65 Water Resources Development Commission Minnow, Gila Topminnow, and Desert Pupfish. Other basin species include Lowland Leopard Frog and Narrow Headed Gartersnake, Peregrine Falcon, Blackbellied Whistling-Duck, Common Black-Hawk, Least Bittern, Mississippi Kite, Osprey, Western Red and Yellow Bat, and Arizona Skink. Important Conservation Lands The Phoenix AMA, although significantly urban and developed, includes several BLM or Forest Service wilderness areas in the surrounding upland and desert landscape. • Sonoran Desert National Monument, BLM • Big Horn Mountain Wilderness, BLM • Hell’s Canyon Wilderness, BLM • Hummingbird Springs Wilderness, BLM • Sierra Estrella Wilderness, BLM • Signal Mountain Wilderness, BLM • South Maricopa Mountain Wilderness, BLM • North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, BLM • White Canyon Wilderness, BLM • Woolsey Peak Wilderness, BLM • Superstition Wilderness, USFS • Arlington Wildlife Area, AGFD • Base and Meridian Wildlife Area, AGFD • Powers Butte Wildlife Area, AGFD • Robbins Butte Wildlife Area, AGFD • Gila River State Conservation Lands, AGFD • Hohokam Pima National Monument, NPS • Arizona Audubon Important Bird Areas; Boyce Thompson Arboretum, Arnett-Queen Creeks, Salt and Verde Ecosystem, Salt and Lower Gila Ecosystem, Gilbert Riparian Preserve • Boyce Thompson Arboretum State Park, Arizona State Park • Lost Dutchman State Park, Arizona State Park In Phoenix, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the city government plan to expand the Tres Rios demonstration wetlands along a 7-mile stretch of the Salt and Gila Rivers. Originally built by Reclamation, the demonstration wetlands treats thousands of gallons of wastewater and provides habitat to a wide variety of 66 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission waterfowl and aquatic life, and supports cottonwoods, seep willows and dense stands of cattail. Tres Rios also serves as a laboratory for biologists and hydrologists looking to better understand the interface between urban settlement and native ecosystems. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats No Critical Habitat has been designated within the Phoenix AMA Basin. The Yuma Clapper Rail, Lesser Long-nosed Bat, Gila Topminnow, Desert Pupfish, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Sonoran Pronghorn Antelope are classified as endangered and may be found within the AMA. The Sonoran Desert bald Eagle also nests within the AMA and is classified as threatened. The Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Roundtail Chub, and Desert Tortoise are classified as candidates for the Federal endangered species list. Economic Values The economics of outdoor recreation is significant in Arizona, especially when associated with water bodies, streams, and other riparian and aquatic habitats. In 2001, a total of 38,664 Angler Use Days were documented in the Phoenix AMA Basin, equating to over $6 million in economic revenue generated by angler activity within the basin. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/ActiveManagementAreas/documents/Volume_8_ PHX_final.pdf Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 67 Water Resources Development Commission PINAL AMA The Pinal Active Management Area (AMA) is located in Pinal, Maricopa and Pima Counties, and is the second largest of the five AMAs designated by the 1980 Arizona Groundwater Management Act. It is characterized by broad, alluvial Sonoran desert valleys and mid-elevation north to northwest trending fault-block mountains. The Gila River flows east to west in the northern part of the basin while the Santa Cruz River enters the basin from the southeast, flowing toward the northwest. Neither of these rivers have perennial flows in the basin. Elevations range from about 1,000 feet where the Gila River and Santa Cruz River exit the basin in the northwest to over 6,800 feet at Kitt Peak at the southern basin boundary. Vegetation types are predominantly Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona Uplands Sonoran desertscrub with a small area of semidesert grassland in the western portion of the AMA. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources There are three large reservoirs in the Pinal AMA Basin: Saint Clair, Reach 11 Detention Dike 3, and Picacho Reservoir. Picacho Reservoir is located 11 miles south of Coolidge. Over the years, siltation and vegetation have reduced the capacity and surface area, so that much of the reservoir is a shallow marsh with extensive stands of cattails and rushes. Water level is highly variable, and the lake is completely dry in some years. Water is diverted from the Gila River at Ashurst-Hayden Diversion Dam twelve miles east of Florence for the San Carlos Irrigation Project (SCIP). This dam serves as a diversion dam only and is not a storage or flood control facility. There are several State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in this basin including, Lowland Burrowing Treefrog, Western Barking Frog, Western Narrow-mouthed Toad, Great Egret, Least Bittern, and Western Yellow Bat. Other native species observed in the basin include Sonora Sucker, Longfin Dace, Arizona Mud Turtle, Sonoran Green Toad, Great Blue Heron, Great Egret, and Least Bittern. Important Conservation Lands 68 • Ironwood Forest National Monument, BLM • Sonoran Desert National Monuments, BLM • Coyote Mountains Wilderness, BLM • Sierra Estrella Wilderness, BLM • South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, BLM • Tabletop Wilderness, BLM • Casa Grande National Monument, NPS • McFarland/Picacho Reservoir State Conservation Land, AGFD • Santa Rosa Wash Cooperative Agreement State Conservation Land, AGFD • McFarland State Historic Park, Arizona State Park • Picacho Peak State Park, Arizona State Park Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Coyote Mountains Wilderness is a detached mountain adjacent to the Baboquivari Mountain Range. The vegetation includes paloverde, saguaro, chaparral, and oak woodlands. Wildlife includes mountain lion, javelina and bobcat. Sierra Estrella Wilderness contains an elevation range that supports diverse plant communities: saguaro, cholla, ocotillo, paloverde, and elephant bush lower down, shrub live oak and junipers higher up. A remnant herd of Desert Bighorn Sheep, Gila Monster, Giant Spotted Whiptail Lizard, Desert Tortoise, Mountain Lion, Mule Deer, Coyote, Javelina, Golden Eagle, Prairie Falcon, and Cooper’s Hawk are found. The South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness is characterized by two major vegetation communities -- PaloverdeMixed Cacti, which includes the dense “forests” of saguaro cactus, paloverde, and ironwood trees, and the Creosote-Bursage community that covers low elevation valley floors. In 2001 the South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness was incorporated into the Sonoran Desert National Monument. The Table Top Wilderness is dominated by Table Top Mountain (4,373-feet in elevation), which abruptly rises above the nearly level Vekol Valley. The wilderness is characterized by two major vegetation communities -Paloverde-Mixed Cacti, and the Creosote-Bursage community that covers low elevation valley floors. At the summit of Table Top Mountain is a small, 40-acre area of Sonoran Desert Grassland. In 2001 the Table Top Wilderness was incorporated into the Sonoran Desert National Monument. The Sonoran Desert National Monument contains more than 487,000 acres of Sonoran Desert landscape including extensive saguaro cactus forest. A small portion of the Monument is located within the Pinal AMA Basin. The Sonoran Desert is the most biologically diverse of the North American deserts. The monument contains three distinct mountain ranges, the Maricopa, Sand Tank and Table Top Mountains, as well as the Booth and White Hills, all separated by wide valleys. The portion of the monument within the Pinal AMA basin is home to the congressionally designated Table Top wilderness area, as well as many significant archaeological and historic sites, and remnants of several important historic trails. The Ironwood Forest National Monument is partially located in the Pinal AMA Basin. A significant concentration of Ironwood is found in the monument, along with two federally recognized endangered animal and plant species. An array of flora is present in the Ironwood Forest National Monument. The higher elevations contain Pinyon-juniper woodland plant community while the lower elevations are in the Sonoran Desert ecoregion. One of the notable trees native here is the Elephant tree, Bursera microphylla. Small populations of the endangered Nichols Turk’s Head Cactus, although not found among Ironwood trees, occur in localized limestone-rich areas within the Monument. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical Habitat has been designated for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Spikedace along the Gila River, which minimally intersects the eastern edge of the Pinal AMA Basin. Federally protected species observed in the basin include the Endangered Yuma Clapper Rail and Desert Pupfish and Candidate Yellow-billed Cuckoo. Economic Values The economics of outdoor recreation is significant in Arizona, especially when associated with water bodies, streams, and other riparian and aquatic habitats. In 2001, a total of 1,702 Angler Use Days were documented in the Pinal AMA Basin, equating to over $265,000 in economic revenue generated by angler activity within the basin. Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 69 Water Resources Development Commission Web Sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_of_Critical_Environmental_Concern http://www.pr.state.az.us/ohv/ downloads/OHV_Sonoran_Desert_NM.pdf http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/az/pdfs/planning/ironwood/deis.Par.77638.File.pdf/Appendix_H. pdf http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/az/pdfs/planning/ironwood.Par.75215.File.dat/DRMP_DEIS.pdf http://protectedplanet.net/sites/Ironwood_Forest_National_Monument_Blm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_M._Goldwater_Air_Force_Range http://www.ecr.gov/pdf/bgrange.pdf http://www.nps.gov/cagr/index.htm http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Redbook/Southwestern%20Willow%20Flycatcher%20 RB.pdf http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2005_register&docid=fr19oc05-12 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2007_register&docid=fr21mr07-12 http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Arizona/Documents/CountyLists/Pinal.pdf 70 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission PRESCOTT AMA The Prescott Active Management Area (AMA) located in Yavapai County is characterized by rolling hills and broad valleys. It was designated as an AMA by the 1980 Arizona Groundwater Management Act, the smallest of five such areas established. Vegetation types include plains and Great Basin grassland, southwestern interior chaparral, Great Basin conifer woodland and petran montane conifer forest. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The basin has some significant surface water resources, including the headwaters of the Agua Fria River. The Agua Fria is the longest perennial stream in the basin, and flows perennially for 3.6 miles before it exits the basin south of Dewey-Humboldt. Granite Creek, which also has its headwaters in the basin, flows south to north with 0.90 miles listed as perennial. Flows from Granite Creek, Willow Creek, and Del Rio Springs in the basin contribute significantly to the flow of the Verde River whose headwaters is located just outside the boundary of the basin at Sullivan Lake. Much of the Verde’s base flow is dependent on these creeks and springs, fed by interconnected aquifers in the basin. Watson and Willow Lakes are listed as Important Bird Areas (IBA), a program administered Arizona Audubon. The Granite Dells/upland habitat is a provisionally listed IBA. The Watson and Willow Lakes areas were designated an IBA including: Wood Duck, Lucy’s Warbler, and Sonoran Yellow Warbler (breeding); and Bald Eagle and Belted Kingfisher (wintering). From 2005 to 2010 bird surveys here identified nearly 180 separate species. Watson and Willow Lakes are contained in Watson Lake Park and Heritage Park, City of Prescott facilities that are listed as Wildlife Viewing areas by Watchable Wildlife, Inc. A variety of birds, especially migratory and wintering waterfowl, can be seen along the lake and in the cottonwood gallery forest, which is home to an active Great Blue Heron Rookery and many pairs of Wood Ducks. Bald Eagles and Osprey seasonally appear. Mule Deer, Javelina, and Pronghorn can also be found here. A variety of reptiles and amphibians inhabit the lake and its shores, including, Clark’s Spiny Lizard, Plateau Lizard, Eastern Collared Lizard, Terrestrial Gartersnake, Woodhouse’s Toad, and Red-spotted Toad. Other species observed include Peregrine Falcon, Belted Kingfisher, and Arizona Skink. Important Conservation Lands • Upper Verde, Granite Creek Wildlife Area, AGFD • Arizona Audubon Important Bird Area; Watson/Willow Ecosystems • Woodchute Wilderness, USFS Portions of the Prescott National Forest are contained along the eastern and southern boundaries of the Prescott AMA basin. At the lowest elevation, the primary vegetation is of the Sonoran Desert type. As the elevation rises, chaparral becomes common, followed by piñon pine and juniper. Above that, Ponderosa pine dominates the landscape. A portion of the Woodchute National Wilderness Area extends into the Prescott AMA basin. The high elevation of this area provides for growth of Ponderosa pine forests. With the dramatic elevation changes from the bottom to the top of this wilderness, wildlife populations are diverse and include Black Bear, Elk, Mule and Whitetail Deer, Mountain Lions, Golden and Bald Eagles. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 71 Water Resources Development Commission Critical Habitat has been designated within the Prescott AMA for Mexican Spotted Owl. Federally protected species observed in the basin include: • Listed Endangered- Razorback Sucker and Hualapai Mexican Vole • Listed Threatened- Sonoran Desert Bald Eagle and Mexican Spotted Owl • Candidate- Yellow-billed Cuckoo and Northern Mexican Gartersnake. Economic Values The economics of outdoor recreation is significant in Arizona, especially when associated with water bodies, streams, and other riparian and aquatic habitats. In 2001, a total of 39,660 Angler Use Days were documented in the Prescott AMA Basin, equating to over $6 million in economic revenue generated by angler activity within the basin. 72 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission RANEGRAS PLAIN The Ranegras Plain Basin is in La Paz County and a small part of Yuma County in southwestern Arizona. The basin is characterized by a plain bordered by mountain ranges. The center of the basin is bordered by the Plomosa, New Water and Little Horn Mountains in the west and the Granite Wash and Little Harquahala Mountains in the east. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources Ranegras Plain Basin contains no large or small reservoirs, perennial or intermittent streams, or major or minor springs, and contains just 16 registered stock ponds. Bouse Wash is large dry wash that drains to the Colorado River through the northern portion of the groundwater basin. Average annual rainfall is as high as 14 inches along the eastern basin boundary north of Vicksburg to a low 4 inches in the north central portion of the basin. Important Conservation Lands • Eagletail Mountains Wilderness, BLM • New Water Mountains Wilderness Area, BLM • Kofa National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS The New Water Mountains Wilderness area contains important desert bighorn sheep habitat, including the New Water and Dripping Springs lambing areas. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Ranegras Plain Basin contains no designated critical habitat and no documented occurrences of federally listed species. Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/LowerColoradoRiver/documents/Volume_7_ RAN_final.pdf Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 73 Water Resources Development Commission SACRAMENTO VALLEY The Sacramento Valley Basin in Mohave County is characterized by broad valleys and mountains along the eastern and western basin boundaries. The basin trends in a north-south direction and is bounded on the west by the Black Mountains, on the southwest by the Mohave Mountains, and on the east by the Cerbat and Hualapai Mountains. Sacramento Wash, a major ephemeral wash, drains into the Colorado River. A small segment of the Colorado River defines the westernmost basin boundary. Vegetation is primarily semidesert grassland with smaller areas Arizona upland and lower Colorado River Sonoran desertscrub, semidesert grassland, Great Basin conifer woodland, interior chaparral and montane conifer forest. A small riparian area consisting of marsh and mesquite occurs along the Colorado River. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources There is one perennial stream, the Colorado River, located along the northeastern basin boundary, spanning almost five miles. The Clark’s Grebe is a State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in this basin. Other native species observed include Flannelmouth Sucker, Baja California Treefrog, Marsh Wren, Zone-tailed Hawk, Kingman Springsnail, and Western Red-tailed Skink. Important Conservation Lands • Aubrey Peak Wilderness, BLM • Mount Nutt Wilderness, BLM • Warm Springs Wilderness, BLM • Wabayuma Peak Wilderness, BLM • Havasu National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS Several areas in this basin have been identified by the BLM as special management lands for Desert Tortoise and Bighorn Sheep. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical Habitat has been designated for Bonytail Chub. The Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Yuma Clapper Rail and Hualapai Mexican Vole are all endangered federally protected species observed in the basin. The Candidate Yellow-billed Cuckoo is also found there. Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/UpperColoradoRiver/documents/Volume_4_ SAC_final.pdf 74 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission SAFFORD The Safford Basin is within Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Pinal and Cochise Counties. The basin is characterized by valleys, high-elevation mountain ranges and a variety of vegetation types including Arizona uplands, Sonoran and Chihuahuan desertscrub, semidesert grassland, Rocky Mountain and montane conifer forest, Great Basin conifer woodland, madrean evergreen woodland and a small portion of Rocky Mountain subalpine forest atop Mt. Graham. Riparian vegetation includes mesquite and tamarisk on the Gila River; conifer oak, mixed broadleaf and mesquite on Ash Creek; conifer oak and mesquite on Fry Canyon; and conifer oak and mixed broadleaf on Deadman Canyon and Cave Creek and its tributaries. Important Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland Resources Riparian areas include the Gila River, Cave and Turkey Creeks, and San Carlos River. Native Apache Trout have been reintroduced to Cave Creek and Gould’s Turkey has been reintroduced into several of the mountain and riparian habitats. The 23,000-acre Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area (NCA) falls primarily within the Safford Basin. The NCA has four perennial waterways - the Gila and San Francisco Rivers and Bonita and Eagle Creeks. The Gila River canyon section, known as the Gila Box, is composed of patchy mesquite woodlands, mature cottonwoods, sandy beaches, and grand buff-colored cliffs. Several raptors can be found in the NCA including, Zone-tailed Hawks and Common Blackhawks. The perennial creek and riparian vegetation make this a cool year-round desert oasis. There are several State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in this basin; Lowland Leopard Frog, Peregrine Falcon, Northern Buff-breasted Flycatcher, Sonora Sucker, Speckled Dace, Arizona Shrew, Western Red Bat, and Western Yellow Bat. Other native species observed in the basin include Yellow Mud Turtle, Arizona Toad, Plains Spadefoot, Western Green Toad, Zone-tailed Hawk, Desert Sucker, Longfin Dace, Sonora Sucker, and Speckled Dace. Important Conservation Lands • Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area, BLM • Arizona Audubon Important Bird Area; Chiricahua Mountains • Chiricahua Wilderness Area, USFS • Fishhooks Wilderness Area, USFS • Dos Cabezas Mountains, USFS • North Santa Teresa Wilderness, USFS • Peloncillo Mountains, USFS • Mt. Graham Wilderness Study Area, USFS • Santa Teresa Wilderness, USFS • Chiricahua National Monument, NPS • Clarence May Memorial State Conservation Land, AGFD Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 75 Water Resources Development Commission • Cluff Ranch Wildlife Area, AGFD • Roper Lake, AGFD • Roper Lake State Park, Arizona State Park • Manhattan Claims State Conservation Land, AGFD • Cave Creek and Cave Creek South Fork are identified as Outstanding Arizona Waters, ADEQ The Chiricahua wilderness is a unique intersection between the Chihuahuan and Sonoran Deserts, and the Rocky Mountains and Mexico’s Sierra Madres, covering the upper slopes and inner canyons of the largest mountain range in the ‘Sky Island’ region. There are over 70 species of mammals, 46 species of reptiles, 8 amphibians, and over 170 species of birds documented in the Chiricahuas. The varied habitats and southern location bring a variety of Mexican bird species across the border, such as the Elegant Trogon, Whiskered Screech-owl, Arizona Woodpecker, and the Magnificent Hummingbird. In all, 13 hummingbird species are known to occur here. Common birds in the area include Mexican Jay, Black-headed Grosbeak, Acorn Woodpecker, Yellow-eyed Junco, Painted Redstart, Grace’s Warbler, and Spotted Towhee. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitat Critical Habitat has been designated for Mexican Spotted Owl, Mt. Graham Red Squirrel, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Razorback Sucker, and Loach Minnow. Federally protected species observed in the basin include: • Listed Endangered- Gila Topminnow, Gila Chub, Desert Pupfish, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, • Listed Threatened- Loach Minnow, Mexican Spotted Owl, Sonoran Bald Eagle, Chiricahua Leopard Frog • Candidate- Headwater Chub, Northern Mexican Gartersnake, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Economic Values The economics of outdoor recreation is significant in Arizona, especially when associated with water bodies, streams, and other riparian and aquatic habitats. In 2001, a total of 9,597 Angler Use Days were documented in the Safford Basin, equating to over $1 million in economic revenue generated by angler activity within the basin. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/SEArizona/documents/Volume_3_SAF_final. pdf 76 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission SALT RIVER The Salt River Basin intersects Navajo, Gila, Maricopa, Pinal, Greenlee, Graham, and Apache Counties. This basin is characterized by mid- to high-elevation mountain ranges, plateaus and canyons. Vegetation types include: Arizona upland Sonoran desertscrub; semidesert, plains and Great Basin and subalpine grasslands; interior chaparral; madrean evergreen woodland; Great Basin conifer woodland; and montane and Rocky Mountain subalpine conifer forests. Riparian vegetation includes Mesquite, mixed broadleaf and Tamarisk along the Salt River and mixed broadleaf along the Black River. Over half of this basin is managed by Native American tribes, principally the Fort Apache and San Carlos Indian reservations. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The Salt River, a popular whitewater rafting destination, runs east to west through the southern part of the basin from the confluence of the White and Black Rivers. There are numerous perennial streams located throughout the basin, particularly in the high elevation eastern portion, and include the Salt River, Black River, East Fork Black River, West Fork Black River, White River, East Fork White River, North Fork White River, Big Bonito Creek, Carrizo Creek, Cibecue Creek, Canyon Creek and Cherry Creek. Perennial waters also flow through many of the wilderness areas within the basin; Bear Wallow Creek, Campaign, Pinto and Tortilla Creeks, Cherry and Coon Creeks, Devils Chasm Creek, and Rock Creek. Bear Wallow Creek flows year-round through the wilderness area, shaded by green riparian hardwoods. The creek provides a habitat for the threatened Apache Trout. Theodore Roosevelt Lake is located in the western portion of the basin and Apache Lake, Canyon Lake and Saguaro Lake are in the vicinity of Tortilla Flat. Hawley Lake, Sunrise Lake, Crescent Lake and Big Lake are found in the high-elevation northeastern portion of the basin. The most common use of the large reservoirs is recreation; boating, fishing, camping, and other water sports. Portions of perennial flow in Pinal Creek are supported by effluent discharge. State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the basin include; Lowland Leopard Frog, Northern Leopard Frog, Western Barking Frog, Peregrine Falcon, Belted Kingfisher, Common Black-Hawk, Northern Gray Hawk, Osprey, American Water Shrew, Western Red Bat, and Narrow-headed Gartersnake. Other native species observed Mogollon Rim Treefrog, Zone-tailed Hawk, Sonora Sucker, Speckled Dace, and Arizona Montane Vole. Important Conservation Lands • Roosevelt Lake Wildlife Area, AGFD • Three Bar Wildlife Area, AGFD • Black River and Cunningham State Conservation Lands, AGFD • Arizona Audubon Important Bird Area; Upper Little Colorado River Watershed, Mogollon Rim Snowmelt Draws, Blue River Complex • Bear Wallow Wilderness Area, USFS • Four Peaks Wilderness Area, USFS • Salome Wilderness Area, USFS Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 77 Water Resources Development Commission • Salt River Canyon Wilderness Area, USFS • Sierra Ancha Wilderness Area, USFS • Superstition Wilderness Area, USFS • Tonto National Monument, NPS • Bear Wallow Creek, Bear Wallow Creek North Fork, and Bear Wallow Creek South Fork are identified as Outstanding Arizona Waters, ADEQ • Hay Creek, Snake Creek, and Stinky Creek are identified as Outstanding Arizona Waters, ADEQ Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical habitat has been designated for the Mexican Spotted Owl, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Razorback Sucker, and Loach Minnow. The Apache Trout is one of only two trout native to Arizona. It is officially designated as Arizona’s state fish, and was historically found only in the headwaters of the White, Black and Little Colorado Rivers. Once nearing extinction, the Apache trout had been reduced to 13 relict populations, all located in headwater streams that flow into the White and Black rivers within the Salt River basin. A recovery program has restored Apache trout to much of their historic range in the White Mountains on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation (FAIR) and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (ASNF). Apache Trout offer anglers a unique fishing opportunity, providing a recreational and economic asset to the state. Apache Trout are stocked in several waters in eastern Arizona including the East Fork of the Black River, lower West Fork of the Black, the Little Colorado River in Greer, the West Fork of the LCR, and upper Silver Creek. The state also stocks some lakes, of which Lee Valley Lake is most notable. Recovery actions for Apache Trout include stream restoration, fencing, stabilizing stream banks, managing erosion, fish barrier construction, and establishing new populations. New populations that have been or are in the process of being restored in the Salt River basin include: 78 • Bear Wallow Creek, including North and South Forks (ASNF) • Conklin Creek (ASNF) • Fish Creek, including Double Cienega and Corduroy creeks and Ackre Lake (ASNF) • Hayground Creek (ASNF) • Home Creek (ASNF) • Stinky Creek (ASNF) • West Fork Black River, including Thompson and Burro creeks (ASNF and FAIR) • Wildcat Creek (ASNF) • Paradise Creek (FAIR) • Squaw Creek (FAIR) • Wohlenberg Draw (FAIR) Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Federally protected species observed in the basin include: • Listed Endangered- Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Yuma Clapper Rail, Desert Pupfish, Gila Topminnow, and Razorback Sucker • Listed Threatened- Chiricahua Leopard Frog, Sonoran Desert Bald Eagle, Mexican Spotted Owl, Apache Trout, and Loach Minnow, • Candidate- Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Roundtail Chub, Three Forks Springsnail, New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, and Northern Mexican Gartersnake Economic Values The economics of outdoor recreation is significant in Arizona, especially when associated with water bodies, streams, and other riparian and aquatic habitats. In 2001, a total of 1,259,065 Angler Use Days were documented in the Salt River Basin, equating to over $196 million in economic revenue generated by angler activity within the basin. Additionally, while no calculated economic value could be identified, the Salt River Canyon provides one of only a few opportunities for white water rafting, kayaking and canoeing available in Arizona. Reservoirs in this groundwater basin provide some of the best watercraft recreation related opportunities, as well (Roosevelt, Apache, Canyon and Saguaro lakes). Water resources, primarily springs, and small streams, provide needed watering sites for an abundance of back-country wilderness experiences for back-packers and horseback riders. The water resources of the basin also provide needed water for abundant big and small game species that provide recreation opportunity for, and economic benefit from, thousands of hunters each year. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/CentralHighlands/documents/volume_5_ SRB_final.pdf Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 79 Water Resources Development Commission SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY San Bernardino Valley is in the extreme southeast part of the state in Cochise County. This basin is characterized by a valley flanked by two mountain ranges; Peloncillo Mountains to the east and Pedregosa Mountains on the northwest basin boundary. Vegetation is primarily semidesert grassland with smaller areas of madrean evergreen woodland and Chihuahuan desertscrub. Riparian vegetation includes Mesquite and Cottonwood and Willow along Black Draw. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources More than 280 species of birds are drawn to the aquatic habitats in the San Bernardino Valley. The San Bernardino Cienega was historically the most extensive wetland in the region, forming an important migratory link between Mexico and North America. The San Bernardino Valley is dissected by ephemeral streams that flow only during rain events. However, in the central valley just north of the International Boundary, discharge from artesian wells and springs flow into Black Draw, a perennial stream on the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge and the largest drainage in the valley. The wetlands and riparian habitats support a wide diversity of birds including ducks, woodpeckers, cranes, hummingbirds, and raptors. Coyote, bobcat and the occasional mountain lion inhabit the refuge along with Mule Deer, Whitetail Deer, Badger, and Javelina. The basin is located in the northernmost part of the Yaqui River drainage that extends far into Mexico. Eight species of fish are native to the Yaqui River drainage, including federally endangered Yaqui Chub and Yaqui Topminnow. Yaqui Catfish and Yaqui Beautiful Shiner, both threatened species, were once extirpated in the United States but were successfully reintroduced from Mexican populations. Other fish, native to the drainage, are the Mexican Stoneroller, Longfin Dace, Roundtail Chub, and Yaqui Sucker. State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the basin include; Lowland Leopard Frog, Thick-billed Kingbird, Tropical Kingbird, Violet-crowned Hummingbird, Mexican Stoneroller, and Western and Yellow Bat. Important Conservation Lands • San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS • San Bernardino Wilderness Area, USFS Extensive watershed renovations on lower Whitewater Draw and upper Black Draw within the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge are resulting in a rising water table and the recovery of riparian vegetation. The refuge is internationally significant, playing a critical role in supporting populations of native fish by restoring and maintaining aquatic and riparian habitat in the United States and Mexico. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical habitat has been designated for Beautiful Shiner, Yaqui Catfish, and Yaqui Chub. Federally protected species observed in the basin include: 80 • Listed Endangered- Yaqui Chub, Yaqui Topminnow, and Huachuca Water Umbel • Listed Threatened- Chiricahua Leopard Frog, Beautiful Shiner, and Yaqui Catfish Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission • Candidate- Yellow-billed Cuckoo, San Bernardino Springsnail, and Northern Mexican Gartersnake Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/SEArizona/documents/Volume_3_SBV_final. pdf http://www.azheritagewaters.nau.edu/loc_yaqui_river.html Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 81 Water Resources Development Commission SAN RAFAEL The San Rafael Basin is bisected by Cochise and Santa Cruz Counties. The sparsely populated basin is characterized by a high-elevation mountain range, the Huachuca Mountains, and a valley and Great Basin grassland and madrean evergreen woodland vegetation. Riparian vegetation includes Cottonwood and Willow and strand along the Santa Cruz River. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The San Rafael Basin contains the headwaters of the Santa Cruz River. There are over 10 miles of perennial flow in the basin along the Santa Cruz River and Ramsey Canyon. The Upper Santa Cruz River flows through rolling oak grassland hills and supports cottonwood-willow gallery forests. The San Rafael Valley is one of the best remaining examples in Arizona of intact native grasslands. The native grasslands and riparian areas support a wide range of important species. The endangered Huachuca Water Umbel grows in the river area and Chiricahua Leopard Frog, Lowland Leopard Frog, Western Barking Frog, and Sonora Tiger Salamander also depend on the riparian area. Surface flows support Gila Chub, Gila Longfin Dace, Gila Topminnow, Desert Sucker and Sonora Sucker. Mexican Spotted Owl, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Elegant Trogon, Bald Eagle, Zone Tailed Hawk, and Northern Buff-breasted Flycatcher can also be found in the basin. Important Conservation Lands • San Rafael Ranch State Natural Area, Arizona State Park • Miller Peak Wilderness Area, USFS • Coronado National Monument, NPS • Bog Hole Wildlife Area, AGFD • Arizona Audubon Important Bird Area; Huachuca Mountains Arizona State Parks acquired the San Rafael State Natural Area from The Nature Conservancy and it remains under a conservation easement along with 17,000 acres of deed-lands. The State Natural Area is managed to preserve the native grasslands as well as the historic San Rafael Ranch buildings. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical Habitat has been designated for Mexican Spotted Owl and Huachuca Water Umbel. Federally protected species observed in the basin include: • Listed Endangered- Sonora Tiger Salamander, Gila Chub, Gila Topminnow, Madrean Ladies’-tresses • Listed Threatened- Chiricahua Leopard Frog and Mexican Spotted Owl • Candidate- Arizona Tree Frog, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Huachuca Springsnail, and Northern Mexican Gartersnake Economic Values See Report Discussion. 82 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/SEArizona/documents/Volume_3_SRF_final. pdf Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 83 Water Resources Development Commission SAN SIMON WASH The San Simon Wash Basin in Pima County is characterized by plains and valleys bordered by mountain ranges including the Baboquivari Mountains on the southeastern basin boundary. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub, semidesert grassland and madrean evergreen woodland along the eastern basin boundary. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources There are no perennial or intermittent streams in the basin. San Simon Wash is the major basin drainage, flowing ephemerally into Mexico. There is one large reservoir in the southeastern corner of the basin, a dozen small reservoirs and a number of small springs. State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the basin include; Lowland Burrowing Treefrog, Western Narrow-mouthed Toad. Other native species observed in the basin include Sonoran Green Toad and Arizona Mud Turtle. Important Conservation Lands Approximately 99 percent of lands within the San Simon Wash Basin are Tohono O’odham lands. Very small portions of other conservation lands intersect this basin, including: • Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and Wilderness, NPS • Baboquivari Peak Wilderness, USFS • Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats No Critical Habitat has been designated within the basin. Federally protected species observed in the basin include Candidate species Yellow-billed Cuckoo and Northern Mexican Gartersnake Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/LowerColoradoRiver/documents/Volume_7_ SSW_final.pdf 84 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission SANTA CRUZ AMA The Santa Cruz Active Management Area (AMA) in Pima County and Santa Cruz counties is characterized by mid to high elevation mountains surrounding the Santa Cruz River Valley. Vegetation types include southwestern grassland, madrean evergreen woodland and riparian species, principally found along the Santa Cruz River and Sonoita Creek. From its headwaters in the San Rafael Valley, the river flows southward approximately 9 miles and enters Mexico. During its 35 mile course through Mexico, the river continues its southward flow for a short distance and then bends northward and enters Arizona five miles east of Nogales. Within the United States, the Santa Cruz River continues northward for 65 miles from Nogales to Tucson, where it continues beyond to the confluence of the Gila River. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The Santa Cruz Valley contains several stretches of natural river flow, important riparian and grassland habitats, unfragmented wildlife migration corridors, and diverse plant and animal communities, including numerous endangered species. Wastewater is discharged from Nogales and Rio Rico into the river drainage of the Santa Cruz supporting the riparian habitats. The river is perennial through much of the upper valley in the San Rafael Valley and Sonora, supporting many native and migratory species. The ephemeral reaches support woody riparian vegetation of mostly cottonwood and willow; density and diversity increase as the river progresses southward toward the perennial section. A large number of bird species inhabit the Santa Cruz Valley, and waterfowl migrate through in the spring and fall. The Northern Goshawk, a rare woodland raptor, occasionally hunts for birds and rodents in the foothills. Sonoita Creek provides a unique array of species from endangered fish to butterflies and birds. The lush riparian area provides habitat for over 200 species of birds including Gray Hawks which nest in the large Fremont Cottonwoods, Zone-tailed Hawks, Common Black Hawks, Thick-bill Kingbirds and Northern Beardless Tyrannulets can also be found along Sonoita Creek. The TNC Sonoita Creek Preserve protects a Fremont Cottonwood, Goodding Willow riparian forest. Arizona Black Walnut, Velvet Nesquite, Velvet Ash, Netleaf Hackberry, and various willows are also found in slightly different habitats throughout the preserve. Cienega wetlands, a once common feature of the Sonoita Creek floodplain are now rare in Arizona. A significant number of rare and sensitive plant species are found in the Sonoita Creek watershed including, Huachuca Water Umbel, Santa Cruz Striped Agave, and the Santa Cruz Beehive Cactus. State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the basin include; Lowland Leopard Frog, Western Barking Frog, Western Narrow-mouthed Toad, Peregrine Falcon, Bald Eagle, Black-bellied Whistling-Duck, Elegant Trogon, Osprey, Tropical Kingbird, Violet-crowned Hummingbird, Gila Topminnow, and Brown Vinesnake. Important Conservation Lands • Sonoita Creek State Natural Area, Arizona State Park • Patagonia Lake State Park, Arizona State Park • Sonoita Creek Preserve, The Nature Conservancy • Coal Mine Spring Wildlife Area, AGFD Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 85 Water Resources Development Commission • Arizona Audubon Important Bird Area; Sonoita Creek State Natural Area, Patagonia Lake State Park, Santa Rita Mountains • Mt. Wrightson Wilderness, USFS • Pajarito Wilderness, USFS • Tumacacori National Monument, NPS Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical Habitat has been designated for Mexican Spotted Owl. The Santa Cruz Valley harbors two federally endangered plants, Huachuca Water Umbel and Madrean Ladies’-tresses, as well as the rare Wilcox Fishhook Cactus. The endangered Gila Topminnow, thought once to be one of the most common fish in southern Arizona and the Gila Chub, a federal candidate species, survive in the perennial segments of the Santa Cruz river, as do several sensitive species of frogs and reptiles. Other federally protected species observed in the basin include: • Listed Endangered- Southwestern Willow Flycatcher • Listed Threatened- Mexican Spotted Owl and Chiricahua Leopard Frog • Candidate- Northern Mexican Gartersnake and Yellow-billed Cuckoo Economic Values The economics of outdoor recreation is significant in Arizona, especially when associated with water bodies, streams, and other riparian and aquatic habitats. In 2001, a total of 88,811 Angler Use Days were documented in the Santa Cruz AMA Basin, equating to over $17 million in economic revenue generated by angler activity within the basin. Additional studies have been conducted that describe the economic value of quality riparian habitat in close proximity to home developments, increasing real estate values (Bark et al., 2009; Bourne, 2007; Bark-Hodgins et al., 2006; Colby & Wishart, 2002). Bark, R. H., et al. 2009. Habitat preservation and restoration: Do homebuyers have preferences for quality habitat? Ecological Economics 68, no. 5:1465-1475. Bark-Hodgins, R. H., Osgood, D. E., and Colby, B. G. 2006. Remotely sensed proxies for environmental amenities in hedonic analysis: What does green mean? In Environmental valuation: Interregional and intraregional perspectives, edited by J. I. Carruthers and B. Mundy. Vermont: Ashgate. Bourne, K. L. 2007. The effect of the Santa Cruz River riparian corridor on single family home prices using the hedonic pricing method. Tucson, AZ: UA. Colby, B. G., and Wishart, S. 2002. Riparian Areas Generate Property Value Premium for Landowners. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/ActiveManagementAreas/documents/Volume_8_ SAN_final.pdf 86 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission http://www.azheritagewaters.nau.edu/loc_Sonoita.html Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 87 Water Resources Development Commission SHIVWITS PLATEAU Shivwits Plateau Basin in Mohave County is characterized by plateaus, canyons and cliffs. Vegetation is primarily Great Basin conifer woodland, Great Basin and Mohave desertscrub and Plains and Great Basin grassland with small areas of Rocky Mountain and madrean montane forest and interior chaparral. Flood flow plays a vital role in the function of river systems and its importance has been studied and described within the Shivwits Plateau Basin. Studies indicate that flood intensity and frequency affect productivity of aquatic, riparian and flood plain vegetation and habitats (see Additional References). Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources Water resources in the Shivwits Plateau Basin consist of three perennial streams: Boulder Wash; Colorado River, Spring Canyon and Diamond Creek. There are as many as 56 springs. Spring Canyon is the major spring and has a discharge rate of 331 gallons per minute. With an elevation of 4000 to 6000 feet, and the highest point reaching 7072 feet at Mount Dellenbaugh, the vegetation in the Shivwits Plateau Basin is diverse. In the higher elevations Rocky Mountain and madrean montane conifer forest can be found along with juniper trees. The lower elevations consist of giant Mojave Yucca, Great Basin conifer woodland, Great Basin and Mohave Desert scrub, Great Plains and Great Basin grassland, and small areas of interior chaparral. Shrubs at the lower elevation include sagebrush and blackbrush. Mountain Star-lily and Red Alum Root are a few of the flowering plants that grow in the basin. Perennial grasses in the Shivwits Plateau region include Bottlebrush Squirreltail, and Blue Grama. Wildlife that inhabits the Shivwits Plateau Basin includes Desert Mule Deer, Desert Bighorn Sheep, Kaibab Squirrel, and Mountain Lion. Birds of prey include American Peregrine Falcon, Turkey Vulture, and Red-tailed Hawk. Some of the types of fish that can be found in this area include Flannelmouth Sucker, Humpback Chub, and Speckled Dace. Other species observed in the basin include the Great Basin Spadefoot Toad, Western Mastiff Bat, and Wild Turkey. Important Conservation Lands Land in the Shivwits Plateau Basin is primarily owned by the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service. • Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, BLM • Grand Canyon National Park, NPS • Mount Logan Wilderness, BLM • Grand Wash Cliffs Wilderness, BLM Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical Habitat has been designated along the Colorado River for endangered Razorback Sucker. There are several other endangered species known to occur in the Shivwits Plateau Basin. These include the California Condor, Mexican Spotted Owl, and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. The Humpback Chub is another federally protected species found in this basin. Economic Values 88 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission See Report Discussion. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/WesternPlateau/documents/Volume_6_SHV_ final.pdf Additional References Kearsley, M. & Ayers, T. (2009). Riparian vegetation responses: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and vice versa. In R. Webb, J. Schmidt, R. Valdez, (eds.), The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon (pp. 309-327). Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. Rosi-Marshall, E., Kennedy, T., Kincaid, D., Cross, W., Kelly, H., Behn, K., White, T. Hall Jr., R., & Baxter, C. (2010). Short-term effects of the 2008 high-flow experiment on macroinvertebrates in Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey. Valdez, R., Shannon, J., & Blinn. D. (1999). Biological implications of the 1996 Controlled Flood. In R. Webb, J. Schmidt, R. Valdez, (eds.), The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon (pp. 343-350). Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. Ralston, B. (2010). Riparian vegetation response to the March 2008 short-duration high-flow experimentImplications of timing and frequency of flood disturbance on nonnative plant established along the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 89 Water Resources Development Commission TIGER WASH Tiger Wash Basin, located in Maricopa County is characterized by a valley bordered by mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub and a small amount of southwestern interior chaparral near the northwestern basin boundary. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources Tiger Wash contains no perennial waters or major springs. Tiger Wash, an ephemeral drainage is in the center of the basin. Important Conservation Lands • Harquahala Mountains Wilderness, BLM • Hummingbird Springs Wilderness, BLM Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Tiger Wash Basin contains no designated critical habitat and no documented occurrences of federally listed species. Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/LowerColoradoRiver/documents/Volume_7_ TIG_final.pdf 90 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission TONTO CREEK Tonto Creek in Gila and Coconino counties is characterized by mid-elevation mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub, semidesert grassland, interior chaparral, Great Basin conifer and madrean evergreen woodlands and montane conifer forests. Riparian vegetation is found along streams including mixed broadleaf, tamarisk and mesquite along Tonto Creek. The basin is bound on the north by the Mogollon Rim, on the east by the Sierra Ancha Mountains, and on the west by the Mazatzal Mountains. Elevations range from 7,800 feet above mean sea level in the Mazatzal Mountains to 2,200 feet above mean sea level at Roosevelt Lake where Tonto Creek terminates. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The unique geographic character of the Mogollon Rim provides a wide diversity of vegetation types and ecosystems. The Tonto Creek Basin contains diverse vegetation types such as the Madrean evergreen woodland, which occurs in small areas in the eastern part of the Tonto Creek at elevations of about 5,000 to 6,000 feet. Semidesert grasslands occur in valleys between the desert and woodlands or chaparral at elevations between 3,500 and 5,000 feet and are found south of Payson in the Tonto Creek Basin. Arizona upland Sonoran desertscrub covers parts of the basin below about 3,500 feet. Along the riparian areas in the basin there is a combination of mixed broadleaf, Cottonwood and Willow, strand and Mesquite vegetation. Canyon habitat consists of Cottonwood, Willow, Arizona Walnut, Sycamore, and Maple. Perennial streams in this basin include Tonto Creek, Haigler Creek, Spring Creek, Dell Shay Creek, Houston Creek, Christopher Creek, Greenback Creek, Gordon Canyon Creek, Marsh Creek, Rye Creek, Lambing Creek, Horton Creek, East Fork Horton Creek and Dick Williams Creek—equaling approximately 129 stream miles. Because of the high elevations and associated higher rainfall and snowfall, this area is included in the state’s most important water producing watersheds, the Salt and Verde Rivers. These watersheds contain the greatest concentration of perennial streams found in the state, which in turn support extensive riparian habitat. A wide range of riparian-dependent birds occur in the basin including, Heron, Belted Kingfisher, Osprey and American Dipper. Riparian breeding birds include Common Black-Hawk, Peregrine Falcon, Rufous, Blackchinned, and Broad-tailed Hummingbird, Black Phoebe, Warbling Vireo, American Robin, Bridled Titmouse, Virginia’s and MacGillivray’s Warblers, Black-headed Grosbeak, and occasionally Indigo Bunting. Merriam’s Turkey, Band-tailed Pigeon, Acorn Woodpecker, Nuthatches, Towhees, and a variety of other woodland birds. The Tonto Creek fish hatchery raises Arizona’s state fish, the Apache Trout, as well as Rainbow, Brook and Cutthroat Trout. White-tailed Deer, Elk, Black Bear, Abert’s Squirrel, Arizona Gray Squirrel, Rock Squirrel, and Mantled Ground Squirrel are also found in the area. Reptiles and amphibians inhabiting the hatchery grounds and Tonto Creek include Mexican Gartersnake, Terrestrial Gartersnake, Sonoran Mountain Kingsnake, Arizona Black-tailed Rattlesnake, Clark’s Spiny Lizard, Madrean Alligator Lizard, Greater Shorthorned Lizard, Plateau Lizard, Many-lined Skink, Canyon and Arizona Treefrog, Lowland Leopard Frog, and Arizona Toad. Other native fish observed in the basin include Desert Sucker, Longfin Dace, Sonora Sucker, and Speckled Dace. Important Conservation Lands • Mazatzal Wilderness, USFS • Hellsgate Wilderness, USFS Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 91 Water Resources Development Commission • Salome Wilderness, USFS • Arizona Audubon Important Bird Area; Mogollon Snowmelt Draws • Tonto Creek Fish Hatchery, AGFD - Management goals of the hatchery are to provide for the continued operation of fish culture activities, to protect and enhance the wildlife habitat of the property, and to provide public outdoor recreation opportunities like wildlife watching and educational interpretation. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical Habitat is designated for the Mexican Spotted Owl and for Southwestern Willow Flycatcher along the Tonto Creek as it flows into Roosevelt Lake. Critical habitat is also being proposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service for spikedace in this basin. Other Federally protected species that are known to occur in the basin are the threatened Bald Eagle, and the endangered Lesser Long-nosed Bat, Arizona Hedgehog cactus, Chiricahua Leopard Frog, and Yuma Clapper Rail. Other federally protected species observed in the basin include: • Listed Endangered- Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Gila Topminnow • Listed Threatened- Bald Eagle , Mexican Spotted Owl • Candidate- Northern Mexican Gartersnake, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Headwater Chub Economic Values The economics of outdoor recreation is significant in Arizona, especially when associated with water bodies, streams, and other riparian and aquatic habitats. In 2001, a total of 12,928 Angler Use Days were documented in the Tonto Basin, equating to over $2 million in economic revenue generated by angler activity within the basin. Water resources, primarily springs, and small streams, provide needed watering sites for an abundance of back-country wilderness experiences for back-packers and horseback riders. The water resources of the basin also provide needed water for abundant big and small game species that provide recreation opportunity for and economic benefit from, thousands of hunters each year. Web Sources http://www.wildlifeviewingareas.com/wv-app/ParkDetail.aspx?ParkID=82 http://www.azgfd.gov/outdoor_recreation/wildlife_area_tonto_creek.shtml http://www.americansouthwest.net/arizona/tonto_creek/canyon.html http://www.adwr.state.az.us/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/RuralPrograms/OutsideAMAs_PDUSFS_for_web/ CentralHighlands/tonto_creek.pdf http://www.adwr.state.az.us/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/CentralHighlands/Streams/TontoCreek.htm http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/CentralHighlands/documents/Volume_5_ TON_final.pdf 92 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission TUCSON AMA The Tucson Active Management Area (AMA) in Pima, Santa Cruz and Pinal counties is characterized by mid to high elevation mountains and broad alluvial basins. The Tucson AMA includes the Tucson municipal area and encompasses the Avra and Altar Valleys. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River and Sonoran upland desertscrub, southwestern grassland, interior chaparral, madrean evergreen woodland and small areas of petran montane conifer forest. Riparian vegetation is found along some watercourses, notably Sabino, Cienega and Romero Creeks, along effluent dependent reaches of the Santa Cruz River and at Arivaca Cienega. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The Tucson AMA contains over 40 miles of perennial flow along Arivaca Creek, Cienega Creek, Madera Canyon Creek, Romero Canyon Creek, Sabino Creek, Santa Cruz River, Sycamore Canyon, Sutherland Wash and an unnamed tributary to Madera Canyon. The Tucson AMA supports a wide diversity of Sonoran Desert and Sky Island habitats. Aquatic species such as the Chiricahua Leopard Frog, Western Narrow-mouthed Toad, Desert Pupfish, Gila Chub, Gila Topminnow, Arizona Mud Turtle, Huachuca Water Umbel, and Arizona Giant Sedge can be found in the Tucson AMA. The Santa Cruz River and other riparian habitats provide a critical winter stopover for migratory and native birds such as the Black-bellied Whistling-Duck, Great Blue Heron, Mexican Spotted Owl, Osprey, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, and Tropical Kingbird. Western Yellow Bat, Arizona Shrew, Huachuca Water Umbel, Goodding Onion, Fallen Ladies’-tresses and Northern Mexican Gartersnakes, among many others, can also be found in the Tucson AMA. Other State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the basin include; Lowland Leopard Frog, Western Barking Frog, Peregrine Falcon, Elegant Trogon, Northern Buff-breasted Flycatcher, Northern Gray Hawk, Thick-billed Kingbird, Violet-crowned Hummingbird, Arizona Shrew, and Brown Vinesnake. Important Conservation Lands • Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS • Pusch Ridge Wilderness Area, USFS • Pajarita Wilderness Area, USFS • Mount Wrightson Wilderness Area, USFS • Rincon Mountain Wilderness Area, USFS • Arizona Audubon Important Bird Area; Sabino and Bear Creeks, Sycamore Canyon, Pajarita Mountains, Santa Rita Mountains, Arivaca Cienega, Arivaca Creek, California Gulch • Saguaro National Park, NPS • Saguaro Wilderness Area, NPS • Tucson Mountain State Conservation Land, AGFD • Arivaca Lake, AGFD • Coyote Mountain Wilderness Area, BLM Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 93 Water Resources Development Commission • Baboquivari Creek Wilderness Area, BLM • Ironwood Forest National Monument, BLM • Altar Valley Ranch, Pima County Preserve • Canoa Ranch, Pima County Preserve • Tucson Mountain Park, Pima County • Tortolita Mountain Park, Marana/Pima County • Pima County Sonoran Desert Habitat Conservation Plan, Pima County • Arthur Pack Regional Park, Pima County • Catalina State Park, Arizona State Park The Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) was created to comply with the “take” provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Incidental take of a listed species, as the result of carrying out an otherwise lawful activity, is not allowed without a permit from the USFWS. The permit will provide mitigation to impacts on 49 species and approximately 36,000 acres. For the 36,000 impacted acres, Pima County proposes to acquire and protect about 125,000 acres of land by the end of the permit period. By 2009, the county had acquired over 71,000 acres of fee lands and was managing over 130,000 acres of State Trust Lands. The Pima County MSCP is part of a larger planning effort known as the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP), which covers 5.9 million acres in Pima County and is focused on six elements: habitat, corridors, cultural resources, mountain parks, ranch conservation and riparian protection. The SDCP planning process began in 1998 as a way to create a science-based conservation plan, update the county’s comprehensive land use plan, and comply with the ESA. The plan directs growth to areas with the least natural, historic, and cultural resource values as well as sets aside sensitive habitat through land acquisitions. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical Habitat designated for Mexican Spotted Owl, Gila Chub, and Sonora Chub. Federally protected species observed in the basin include: • Listed Endangered- Huachuca Water-umbel, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Desert Pupfish, Gila Chub, and Gila Topminnow • Listed Threatened- Mexican Spotted Owl, Chiricahua Leopard Frog, and Sonora Chub • Candidate- Northern Mexican Gartersnake and Yellow-billed Cuckoo Economic Values The economics of outdoor recreation is significant in Arizona, especially when associated with water bodies, streams, and other riparian and aquatic habitats. In 2001, a total of 29,208 Angler Use Days were documented in the Tucson AMA Basin, equating to over $4 million in economic revenue generated by angler activity within the basin. Web Sources 94 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/ActiveManagementAreas/documents/Volume_8_ TUC_final.pdf Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 95 Water Resources Development Commission UPPER HASSAYAMPA The Upper Hassayampa basin is located in Yavapai and Maricopa counties, south of Skull Valley located on the northerly limit of the basin. The southerly limit is in northern Maricopa County and just south of Wickenburg. The basin is characterized by mid-elevation mountains and valleys. Vegetation types include Arizona upland Sonoran and Mohave desertscrub, semidesert grassland, interior chaparral and small areas of montane conifer forest. Riparian vegetation including Mesquite and Cottonwood and Willow is found along the perennial portions of Hassayampa River. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The Hassayampa River is the primary surface drainage through the basin. It runs north to south through the center and is fed by drainage from the Bradshaw, Weaver and Date Creek Mountains. French Gulch, Ash Creek, Weaver Creek, Minnehaha Creek, Lion Creek, Martinez Wash and Antelope Creek also supply surface runoff into the Hassayampa River. Much of the southern portion of this basin is identified as an important wildlife linkage for the Bighorn Sheep, Badger, Mountain Lion, Mule Deer, Black-tailed Jackrabbit, Desert Tortoise, Gila Monster, hawks and several fish species. State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the basin include the Common Black-Hawk, Peregrine Falcon, Snowy Egret, and Western Yellow Bat. Other native species known to occur in the basin include Arizona Toad, Zone-tailed Hawk, Desert Sucker, Longfin Dace, and Western Red-tailed Skink. Important Conservation Lands • Hassayampa River Canyon Wilderness, BLM • TNC Hassayampa River Preserve Hassayampa River Canyon Wilderness includes several miles of free-flowing Hassayampa River and its associated riparian habitat. Mexican Garter Snake, Desert Tortoise, Desert Sucker and Longfin Dace are special status species known to occur or potentially occur within this wilderness. The side canyons and the uplands support Chaparral, Paloverde and Saguaro Plant Communities. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical Habitat has been designated for the Mexican Spotted Owl. Other Federally protected species observed in the basin include: • Listed Endangered- Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Desert Pupfish, Gila Topminnow • Listed Threatened- Mexican Spotted Owl • Candidate- Yellow-billed Cuckoo Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 96 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission United States Forest Service (USUSFS, Prescott Forest) United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) Wildlife Linkages (NAU) http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/CentralHighlands/documents/Volume_5_ UHA_final.pdf http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/arizona/placesweprotect/hassayampariver-preserve.xml Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 97 Water Resources Development Commission UPPER SAN PEDRO The Upper San Pedro Basin located in Cochise, Santa Cruz and Pima counties is characterized by a large valley flanked by a series of mountain ranges. Vegetation is primarily semidesert grassland and Chihuahuan desertscrub with smaller areas of madrean evergreen woodland, plains and Great Basin desertscrub and Rocky Mountain and montane conifer forest. Riparian vegetation includes Cottonwood, Willow, Mesquite and Tamarisk along the San Pedro River and conifer oak and mixed broadleaf along Gardner, Ramsey and Miller Canyons. Flood flow plays a vital role in the function of river systems and its importance has been studied and described within the San Pedro River watershed. Studies indicate that flood intensity and frequency affect productivity of aquatic, riparian and flood plain vegetation and habitats (see Additional References). Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The Upper San Pedro Basin contains a portion of the San Pedro River – one of the last remaining free flowing desert rivers in the world. The Upper San Pedro Basin contains over 100 miles of perennial flows through much of the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (SPRNCA), the Babocomari River, Bass Canyon, Carr Canyon, Double R Canyon Creek, Miller Canyon, Ramsey Canyon, Garden Canyon Creek, and Turkey Creek. The SPRNCA provides habitat for over 375 species of birds including, Elegant Trogon, Great Blue Heron, Green Kingfisher, Mexican Duck, Mexican Spotted Owl, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Tropical Kingbird, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Zone-tailed Hawk, and Violet-crowned Hummingbird. Amphibians such as Arizona Treefrog, Chiricahua Leopard Frog, Western Barking Frog, Western Green Toad, and Lowland Leopard Frog also depend on the riparian corridors. Many important native fish occur including Gila Chub, Speckled Dace, Gila Longfin Dace, Desert Pupfish, Gila Topminnow, and Sonoran Sucker. The Huachuca Water Umbel, Madrean Ladies’-tresses, Thurber’s Bog Orchid and many other unique plants thrive in this riparian area, adjacent mesquite bosque, and dense Sacaton grasslands. Other State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the basin include; Peregrine Falcon, Black-bellied Whistling-Duck, Common Black-Hawk, Mississippi Kite, Northern Buff-breasted Flycatcher, Northern Gray Hawk, Arizona Shrew, Western Red Bat and Western Yellow Bat. Important Conservation Lands 98 • San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, BLM • TNC Conservation Easements – Upper San Pedro River • Miller Peak Wilderness, USFS • Coronado National Memorial, NPS • Ramsey Canyon Preserve, The Nature Conservancy • Appleton-Whittell Audubon Research Ranch • Arizona Audubon Important Bird Area; Huachuca Mountains, San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, Audubon Research Ranch • Kartchner Caverns, Arizona State Park Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission The BLM SPRNCA contains nearly 57,000 acres of protected land in Cochise County. The Nature Conservancy and Arizona Land and Water Trust also protect large acreages under conservation easement along the Babocomari River. The BLM continues to manage the SPRNCA for scientific study and is involved in ongoing restoration efforts to the river and watershed. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical Habitat designated for Mexican Spotted Owl, Huachuca Water Umbel, and Gila Chub. Federally protected species observed in the basin include: • Listed Endangered- Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Desert Pupfish, Gila Topminnow, Gila Chub, Sonora Tiger Salamander, Huachuca Water-umbel, and Madrean Ladies’-tresses • Listed Threatened- Mexican Spotted Owl and Chiricahua Leopard Frog • Candidate- Arizona Treefrog, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Huachuca Springsnail, and Northern Mexican Gartersnake Economic Values The economics of outdoor recreation is significant in Arizona, especially when associated with water bodies, streams, and other riparian and aquatic habitats. In 2001, a total of 28,584 Angler Use Days were documented in the Upper San Pedro Basin, equating to over $4 million in economic revenue generated by angler activity within the basin. Additional studies have been conducted that describe the economic contribution of visitors to natural areas, the value of streamflow and riparian bird habitat, and surveys conducted to identify economic value of wildlife watching in the San Pedro River (Pima County 2009, Leenhouts et al. 2006, and Orr and Colby 2002). Orr, P., and Colby, B. G. 2002. Expenditures by nature-oriented visitors and their economic implications in the Upper San Pedro River Valley. Tucson, Arizona: Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Arizona. Pima County. 2009b. City of Tucson and Pima County Water for the Environment Technical Paper. Leenhouts, J. M., Stromberg, J. C., and Scott, R. L. 2006. Hydrologic requirements of and consumptive groundwater use by riparian vegetation along the San Pedro River, Arizona. Vol. Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5163. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/SEArizona/documents/Volume_3_USP_final. pdf Additional References Bagstad, K., Stromberg, J., & Lite, S. (2005). Response of herbaceous riparian plants to rain and flooding on the San Pedro River, Arizona, USA. Wetlands, 210-223. Stromberg, J., Bagstad, K., Leenhouts, J., Lite, S. & Makings, E. (2005). Effects of stream flow intermittency on riparian vegetation of a semiarid region river (San Pedro River, Arizona). River Research and Applications, 925-938. Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 99 Water Resources Development Commission Brand, L., Cerasale, D., Rich, T. (2009). Breeding and Migratory Birds: Patterns and Processes. In Stromberg, J. & Tellman, B., Ecology and Conservation of the San Pedro River (pp. 153-174). Tucson, Arizona: The University of Arizona Press. Stromberg, J., Lite, S., & Beauchamp, V. (2003). Managing stream flow regimes for riparian ecosystem restoration. 2003 Tamarisk Symposium Grand Junction, Colorado. 100 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission VERDE RIVER The Verde River Basin is within Yavapai, Maricopa, Gila and Coconino Counties. It is characterized by midelevation mountain ranges and valleys with high elevation areas along its north central boundary. Vegetation types include Arizona upland Sonoran desertscrub, semidesert and plains and Great Basin grasslands, interior chaparral, Great Basin conifer woodland, montane conifer forests and a very small area of Rocky Mountain subalpine conifer forest in the vicinity of Humphreys Peak. Riparian vegetation is found along streams including mixed broadleaf and mesquite along the Verde River and mixed broadleaf along other streams such as West Clear Creek, Wet Beaver Creek and Oak Creek. Flood flow plays a vital role in the function of river systems and its importance has been studied and described within the Verde River Basin. Studies indicate that flood intensity and frequency affect productivity of aquatic, riparian and flood plain vegetation and habitats (see Additional References). Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The Verde River Basin contains the Verde River, one of Arizona’s largest perennial waters. The 170-mile long Verde River drains much of central and northern Arizona, generally flowing south to its confluence with the Salt River. Perennial flow on the Verde River originates from springs located just below Sullivan Lake Dam, an artificial reservoir at the confluence of Little Chino Creek, and the Big Chino and Williamson Valley Washes. From below Sullivan Lake, the Verde flows freely for 125 miles before reaching Horseshoe Reservoir. Perennial tributaries, including Oak Creek, Wet Beaver Creek, and West Clear Creek, as well as ephemeral washes, supply base flow to the Verde River. The Verde River and associated riparian vegetation provide high-quality wildlife and fish habitat. Until the 1890s, the riparian zone was over a mile wide in places, creating a series of marshes and sloughs that provided habitat for a variety of plants and animals. Common riparian vegetation consists of strand, mixed broadleaf and cottonwood willow communities, wet meadows and emerging marshlands. Important species include Cattail, Bulrush, Freemont Cottonwood, Gooding Willow, Arizona Sycamore, and Arizona Alder. The ecologically important Verde River provides extensive woody riparian and wetland vegetation, and contains critical habitat for a diversity of native aquatic and riparian-dependent species. Thirty-one native and sport fisheries occur in the Verde River. Many aquatic, terrestrial, arboreal and aerial animal species depend directly or indirectly upon the river and its tributaries. Included within the Verde River’s flora and fauna are plants and animals listed as threatened or endangered by Arizona or the federal government. The Verde River riparian zone is a critical flyway for migratory birds and supports a high density of breeding birds; over 200 resident and neo-tropical migratory bird species have been recorded. Species such as the federally endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and the Yellow-billed Cuckoo depend on the river’s woody riparian forests of cottonwood, willow and ash. Other species include the Peregrine Falcon, Desert Bald Eagle, Summer Tanager, Osprey, Vermillion Flycatcher, Blue-throated Hummingbirds, and Great Blue Herons. The Verde River supports the largest number of Bald Eagle nesting sites of any river in the state. Native fish populations in the upper Verde River are among the most diverse in Arizona. Historically the Verde River supported sixteen native fish species; only ten remain including the federally endangered Razorback Sucker and Colorado Pikeminnow, as well as the threatened Spikedace and Gila Chub. Additionally, the Verde River is one of three Arizonan rivers that sustain populations of River Otter. Other State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the Verde Basin include the following: Lowland Leopard Frog, Northern Leopard Frog, Peregrine Falcon, Common Black-Hawk, Bobolink, Belted Kingfisher, Navajo Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 101 Water Resources Development Commission Mexican Vole, Western Red Bat, and Narrow-headed Gartersnake. Page Springs State Fish Hatchery is located along the banks of Oak Creek and is the state’s largest coldwater fish hatchery, producing nearly 700,000 trout annually. Located nearby is Bubbling Ponds Fish Hatchery which produces not only sportfish, but also native fish species (razorback suckers and Colorado pikeminnow) used for native fish conservation and recovery efforts. The Audubon Society designated the riparian habitat near the hatcheries and along Oak Creek as an Important Bird Area. The Page springsnail is found only at the Page Springs spring complex, from which several main springs and other minor springs arise. The West Fork of Oak Creek, a tributary of Oak Creek, is another perennial stream in the Verde Basin that provides fish and wildlife habitat. Oak Creek Canyon and its perennial streams are a popular destination, second only to the Grand Canyon. Wet Beaver Creek is a perennial stream with one major tributary, Dry Beaver Creek. Wet Beaver Creek flows through secluded canyons and the Wet Beaver Wilderness Area before flowing through Montezuma Well and Montezuma Castle, eventually reaching the Verde River near Camp Verde. Wet Beaver Creek provides habitat for stocked trout as well as dense riparian vegetation for numerous species of songbirds. The perennial waters in the Wet Beaver Wilderness attract large numbers of wildlife, including elk, deer, bear, mountain lion, and a variety of smaller mammals, reptiles, and birds. West Clear Creek is another important perennial stream with headwaters originating from Willow and Clover Creeks. West Clear Creek flows through the 13,600 acre West Clear Creek Wilderness Area and provides extensive riparian habitat along canyon bottoms. Dominant vegetation includes cottonwood, sycamore, and alder along with some ash, willow, walnut and wild grape along the riparian zone. The creek attracts anglers with its stocked populations of trout and smallmouth bass. Fossil Creek is a unique warm-water perennial stream that supports one of the most diverse riparian areas in Arizona. Fossil Creek flows from a complex of springs that supply a constant 20,000 gallons per minute of 72 degree Fahrenheit water. Over thirty species of trees and shrubs and over a hundred species of birds have been observed along Fossil Creek’s riparian area. In 2004, federal and state agencies completed an extensive restoration of Fossil Creek to remove invasive fish species and have since successfully reintroduced native fish species. In March 2009 Fossil Creek became the second Arizona stream to receive federal designation as a Wild and Scenic River. Important Conservation Lands 102 • Apache Creek Wilderness, USFS • Arizona Audubon Important Bird Area; Lower Oak Creek, Tuzigoot NPS • Cedarbench Wilderness, USFS • Dead Horse Ranch State Park, Arizona State Park • East Verde River Wild and Scenic River, USFS • Fossil Creek Wild and Scenic River: In 2009 Congress designated a portion of Fossil Creek as a federal Wild and Scenic River. Fossil Creek is a major tributary of the Verde River with outstanding and remarkable scenic, fish and wildlife, historic and cultural values. Fossil Creek flows through two congressionally designated wilderness areas (Fossil Springs and Mazatzal Wilderness Areas) and underwent an extensive successful multi-agency restoration in 2005, USFS   Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission • Fossil Creek Wilderness, USFS • Fossil Springs Wilderness, USFS • Four Peaks Wilderness, USFS • Gap Creek Wild and Scenic River, USFS • Gibson Wildlife Area, AGFD • Granite Mountain Wilderness, USFS • Houston Creek Wild and Scenic River, USFS • Juniper Mesa Wilderness, USFS • Mazatzal Wilderness, USFS • Munds Mountain Wilderness, USFS • Oak Creek and West Fork Oak Creek are identified as Outstanding Arizona Waters, ADEQ • Page Springs Hatchery, AGFD • Pine Mountain Wilderness, USFS • Red Rock Secret Mountain Wilderness, USFS • Red Rock State Park, Arizona State Park • Slide Rock State Park, Arizona State Park • Sunflower Flat State Conservation Land, AGFD • Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, USFS • Montezuma Castle, NPS • Tavasci Marsh, NPS: Situated in the backwaters of the upper Verde River, Tavasci Marsh is one of the largest marshes in Arizona. Designated an Important Bird Area by the National Audubon Society, the marsh supports one of the most diverse bird gatherings in Arizona. Cattails and other wetland vegetation provide nesting and habitat for hundreds of bird species including the notable Red-winged Blackbird and the threatened Bell’s Vireo. Herons, egrets, finches, wrens and flycatchers flourish in the dense marsh vegetation. Frogs and turtles are abundant in the marsh. River Otter and beaver are also present; beaver activity supplemented restoration efforts. • Tonto Natural Bridge State Park, Arizona State Park • Tuzigoot National Monument, NPS • Upper Verde River Wildlife Area (796 acres), AGFD: A 796-acre property located along the Upper Verde River and lower Granite Creek managed for riparian habitat and to maintain native fish diversity. • Verde River Greenway State Natural Area, Arizona State Parks: Designated in 1987, this six mile, 700-acre stretch of Verde River was identified by state officials as a critical natural resource that needed Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 103 Water Resources Development Commission protection and management. This reach, located between Clarkdale and the Bridgeport State Route 89A Bridge, is part of the Arizona State Parks system. • Verde Wild and Scenic River: In 1984, Congress designated a forty mile stretch of the Verde River as a Wild and Scenic River for its outstanding remarkable scenic, fish and wildlife, historic and cultural values. The Wild and Scenic Verde River flows through the Mazatzal Wilderness Area. • West Clear Creek Wilderness, USFS • Wet Beaver Creek Wilderness, USFS • Woodchute Wilderness, USFS Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical habitat has been designated for the Mexican Spotted Owl, San Francisco Peaks Groundsel, Gila Chub, Razorback Sucker, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Spikedace. Federally protected species observed in the basin include: • Listed Endangered- Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Gila Topminnow, Gila Chub, Yuma clapper Rail, Colorado Pikeminnow, Razorback Sucker, and Hualapai Mexican Vole • Listed Threatened- Mexican Spotted Owl, Chiricahua Leopard Frog, Bald Eagle, Apache Trout, and Spikedace • Candidate- Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Page Springsnail, Northern Mexican Gartersnake, Headwater Chub, and Roundtail Chub, Renovation (chemical treatment) of Stillman Lake in the Upper Verde River was undertaken to remove nonnative aquatic predators and prepare the habitat for reintroduction of Razorback Suckers. Candidate Roundtail Chub have already been reintroduced into Stillman Lake. Economic Values The economics of outdoor recreation is significant in Arizona, especially when associated with water bodies, streams, and other riparian and aquatic habitats. In 2001, a total of 388,652 Angler Use Days were documented in the Verde River Basin, equating to over $60 million in economic revenue generated by angler activity within the basin. An additional study was conducted in the Verde River Basin that reports on the social valuation of the Verde River (West et al. 2009). West, P., Smith, D. H., and Auberle, W. 2009. Valuing the Verde River Watershed - An Assessment. Scottsdale, Arizona ed. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/CentralHighlands/documents/volume_5_ VRB_final.pdf http://www.azheritagewaters.nau.edu/loc_verderiver.html Additional References 104 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Beauchamp, V., & Stromberg, J. (2007). Flow regulation of the Verde River, Arizona encourages Tamarix recruitment but has minimal effect on Populus and Salix stand density. Wetlands, 381-389. Stromberg, J. (1993). Instream flow models for mixed deciduous riparian vegetation within a semiarid region. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management Stromberg, J., Lite, S., & Beauchamp, V. (2003). Managing stream flow regimes for riparian ecosystem restoration. 2003 Tamarisk Symposium Grand Junction, Colorado. Stromberg, J. (2001). Influence of stream flow regime and temperature on growth rate of the riparian tree, Platanus wrightii, in Arizona. Freshwater Biology, 227-239. Merritt, D. & Poff, N. (2010). Shifting dominance of riparian Populus and Tamarix along gradients of flow alteration in western North American rivers. Ecological Applications, 135-152. Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 105 Water Resources Development Commission VIRGIN RIVER The Virgin River Basin in Mohave County is characterized by the Virgin Mountains on the south, the Virgin and Beaver Dam Mountains on the east, the Utah state line on the north, and the Nevada state line on the west. The primary surface hydrologic features are the Virgin River, which flows from the northeast corner to the Arizona-Nevada state line on the west and the Beaver Dam Wash. Vegetation is primarily Mohave desertscrub with smaller areas of Great Basin desertscrub, Great Basin conifer woodland, interior chaparral and a small area of Rocky Mountain and madrean montane conifer forest. Riparian vegetation along the Virgin River is predominantly tamarisk. The Virgin River flows through Arizona from the Utah border downstream over 30 miles to the Nevada border. After a winding route through the Beaver Dam Mountains the river enters the Virgin River Gorge. The river emerges abruptly from the gorge and flows into the broad Virgin River Valley. A few miles farther downstream it is joined by the short perennial reach of Beaver Dam Wash just before it passes Littlefield, a small town, but the largest in the basin. The river flows another dozen miles through Mohave desertscrub and riparian vegetation dominated by salt cedar to the Nevada border, the lowest point in the basin (1600 feet). Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The Virgin River and the short reach of Beaver Dam Wash flowing into the Virgin from the north just above Littlefield are the only significant surface water resources in the basin. The mean annual flow of the Virgin River at Littlefield is about 175,000 acre-feet. The highest flow recorded at Littlefield was nearly 600,000 acrefeet in 2005. Most of the annual flow comes as spring snow melt runoff and contributions from the springs in the gorge. The canyon riparian areas are relatively narrow from the Utah border through the gorge, but widen after the river emerges from the gorge. The vegetation includes Willow and riparian brush, but for its entire length in Arizona, riparian areas are completely dominated by Tamarisk. Although the diversity of the riparian habitat is limited, the endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and other species occupy this habitat. The Virgin River and Beaver Dam Wash supports several native fish species, including two federally listed endangered species, the Woundfin and the Virgin River Chub. The Virgin River is also habitat for additional state Wildlife Species of Concern including Flannelmouth Sucker, the Virgin Spinedace, and the Speckled Dace. Lowland Leopard Frog, Peregrine Falcon, Common Black-Hawk and Virgin Spinedace are all State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in this basin. Important Conservation Lands The Bureau of Land Management manages nearly 92 percent of the land in basin. The remaining acreage is divided between state trust land and private ownership. BLM-managed land includes two wilderness areas, The Beaver Dam Mountain Wilderness on the north side of the Virgin River Gorge, and the Piute Wilderness on the south side of the gorge. BLM also manages three “Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in the basin:” the Beaver Dam Slope, the Virgin River Corridor, and the Virgin Slope. These are areas where special management is needed to protect important historical, cultural, scenic, and natural areas, or to identify areas hazardous to human life and property. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats The entire length of the Virgin River, including within Arizona, has been designated as Critical Habitat for two federally listed endangered species, the Woundfin and the Virgin River Chub. Sections of Virgin River riparian 106 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission areas, mostly above the Virgin River Gorge, have also been designated as Critical Habitat for the federally listed Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Substantial areas of the Virgin River Basin below the gorge have also been designated critical habitat for the Mohave Desert Tortoise. Federally protected species found in the basin include the Endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Virgin River Chub, and Woundfin. Candidate Yellow-billed Cuckoo is also found here. Economic Values Although data on economic contribution of water-dependent activities is not available for the Virgin River, some recreational activity does occur. A recreation area is maintained by BLM on the river above the gorge. Also, some rafting does occur during spring high flows. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/WesternPlateau/documents/Volume_6_VRG_ final.pdf Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 107 Water Resources Development Commission WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE The Western Mexican Drainage Basin is split by Yuma and Pima Counties. It is characterized by desert valleys and low elevation mountain ranges. Vegetation types include Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources Located along the southwest border with Mexico, there are no perennial flows in the Western Mexican Drainage Basin. There is one major spring, the Quitobaquito, and not more than half a dozen total springs. Most of the basin is within the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. The Quitobaquito springs supports a population of the Quitobaquito Pupfish, while the refuge is home to the Sonoran pronghorn, both of which are endangered species. In both cases, there are numerous species of birds and wildlife that are associated with both of these areas. Other State Wildlife Species of Concern observed in the basin include the Western Narrow-mouthed Toad and Tropical Kingbird. Important Conservation Lands • Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS • Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, NPS Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical habitat has been designated for the Quitobaquito Pupfish. The Endangered Yuma Clapper Rail and Quitobaquito Pupfish, and Candidate Sonoyta Mud Turtle are federally protected species observed in this basin. Economic Values See Report Discussion. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/LowerColoradoRiver/documents/Volume_7_ WMD_final.pdf 108 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission WILLCOX The Willcox Basin located in Cochise and Graham Counties is characterized by a series of medium-high to high-elevation mountain ranges. Vegetation is primarily semidesert grassland with smaller areas madrean evergreen woodland and Rocky Mountain and montane conifer forest. Riparian vegetation includes conifer oak and mixed broadleaf on Turkey Creek and conifer oak on Rucker Canyon. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources Willcox Playa is a sparsely vegetated desert grassland, strongly dominated by alkalai Sacaton and Saltgrass, with some cover of Little Bluestem and other grasses. Shrub cover increases towards the periphery, with saltbushes, mesquites and non-native tamarisk. Scattered Fremont cottonwood and Goodding’s willow grow in or along the network of ditches that have been built to drain sections of the playa over the past century. The playa also supports a population of a rare plant species, the Chiricahua Mountain tansy-aster. Willcox Playa is best known to the public for its wintering population of Sandhill Cranes that migrate to the playa in large numbers, particularly in wet winters. It is not unusual to see several thousand cranes in winter at the power plant ponds viewing area on the southwest side of the playa, or at the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s 600-acre Wildlife Area on the southeast side. The cranes feed and court, migrating after February to their summer breeding grounds in the northern Great Plains. Willcox Playa also supports other large water birds, including White-faced Ibis, as well as many raptors, including several wintering hawks. Red-tailed Hawks, Northern Harriers, Harris’s Hawks, Prairie Falcons, Bald and Golden Eagles, Caracaras, Great Horned Owls, and Burrowing Owls all utilize the habitat. The shrubs and trees on the periphery of the playa support migrating Northern Flickers, White-necked Ravens, and many songbird species. Sometimes more than 10,000 birds will congregate at the playa. An array of other vertebrates also lives on and around Willcox Playa including several distinctive amphibian and reptile species, including Chiricahua and Plains Leopard Frogs as well as Texas Horned Lizards. Mammals include Desert Cottontails, Black-tailed Jackrabbits, Kangaroo Rats, other desert herbivorous rodents, and Collared Peccaries. Less well known is the extraordinary diversity of tiger beetles found at Willcox Playa, one of the highest concentrations in a single small area in the United States. Several endemic species exist there, including the Willcox Nevada tiger beetle and the Sulphur Springs Williston’s tiger beetle. The Willcox Basin is a closed basin that drains into Willcox Playa. The Willcox Basin contains over 30 miles of perennial flows through Big Bend Creek, Big Creek, Grant Creek, Leslie Creek, Post Creek, Rucker Canyon, Soldier Creek, Turkey Creek, and Ward Canyon. The Willcox Basin, especially the western slopes of the Chiricahuas, contains a broad diversity of wildlife. American Avocet, American Peregrine Falcon, Black-necked Stilt, Elegant Trogon, Mexican Spotted Owl, White-faced Ibis, Yellow-billed Cuckoo and Zone-tailed Hawk all occur in the Basin. The Basin’s streams provide aquatic habitat for Apache Trout, Mexican Stoneroller, Yaqui Chub, Yaqui Longfin Dace, Chiricahua Leopard Frog, Plains Leopard Frog and Western Green Toad. Arizona Shrew, Cockrum’s Desert Shrew, White-bellied Long-tailed Vole and Western Red Bat all live in this diverse region along with a diversity of plant species that mingle on this intersection between the Sonoran Desert and Chihuahuan Desert. Other State Wildlife Species of Concern include the Bald Eagle, Gray Catbird, Northern Buff-breasted Flycatcher, and Violet-crowned Hummingbird. Important Conservation Lands Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 109 Water Resources Development Commission • Chiricahua National Monument, NPS • Mt. Graham Wilderness Study Area, USFS • Chiricahua Wilderness, USFS • Dos Cabezas Mountains Wilderness, USFS • Chiricahua National Monument, NPS • Arizona Audubon Important Bird Area; Willcox Playa, Chiricahua Mountains • Willcox Playa Wildlife Area, AGFD • Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS • Galiuro Wilderness Area, USFS The Willcox Playa IBA and Wildlife Area are managed to optimize waterfowl habitat for migratory birds that winter at the playa. Willcox Playa is managed for multiple purposes. The Arizona Game and Fish Department Wildlife Area is managed to support wildlife habitat in perpetuity, and to maintain opportunities for public hunting and other forms of wildlife-oriented recreation. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats Critical Habitat designated for Mexican Spotted Owl and Mt Graham Red Squirrel. Federally protected species observed in this basin include the Endangered Yaqui Chub, Threatened Apache Trout, Mexican Spotted Owl and Chiricahua Leopard Frog, and Candidate Yellow-billed Cuckoo. Economic Values The economics of outdoor recreation is significant in Arizona, especially when associated with water bodies, streams, and other riparian and aquatic habitats. In 2001, a total of 9,712 Angler Use Days were documented in the Willcox Basin, equating to over $1 million in economic revenue generated by angler activity within the basin. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/SEArizona/documents/Volume_3_WIL_final. pdf http://www.azheritagewaters.nau.edu/loc_wilcox_playa.html 110 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission YUMA The Yuma basin in Yuma County is characterized by desert valleys and mountain ranges. Vegetation type is Lower Colorado River Valley Sonoran desertscrub. The Gila and Colorado River confluence is located in this basin. Important Riparian, Aquatic, and Wetland Resources The Colorado River is the major source and drain for the region. The Gila River joins the Colorado within the basin, but it is regulated and managed upstream such that there is no downstream flow, except during flood events. However, the many agricultural returns to the river channel maintain abundant surface flow and a diverse riparian gallery along the lower Gila valley. There are no additional perennial streams in the area. Colorado River flow into the basin is determined by outflow from Imperial Dam. Colorado River outflow from the basin into Mexico is defined by treaty and strictly managed. Game fish species in the Colorado River are Channel Catfish, Flathead Catfish, Largemouth Bass, Smallmouth Bass, Striped Bass, Rainbow Trout, Carp, Crappie, Bluegill, Sunfish, and Tilapia. Fortuna Pond, constructed within the lower Gila River floodplain also provides angler opportunities for similar species. Mittry Lake, north of Yuma, is operated jointly by BOR, BLM, and Arizona Game and Fish Department. Mittry Lake has about 600 acres of open water surface, significant marshlands with cattails and bulrushes, and is part of a 2,400 acre wildlife habitat. The primary purpose of Mittry Lake is for hunting and fishing. The most common fish caught in Mittry Lake are Largemouth Bass, crappie, Channel and Flathead Catfish, tilapia, Bluegills, and carp. There are also bullfrogs, Bullhead Catfish, Redear and Green Sunfish. Hunting is for waterfowl, dove, quail, and rabbit. The larger mammals in the area are Javelina, Coyotes, Bobcat, and Mule Deer. There are Desert Bighorn Sheep in limited locations. There is a large, diverse bird population along the river and at Mittry Lake, including the Cattle-Egret. The Great Blue Heron, Least Bittern, California Black Rail, Great Egret, Snowy Egret, Western Yellow Bat, and Lowland Leopard Frog are species of concern to the state of Arizona. Important Conservation Lands • Mittry Lake Wildlife Area, AGFD • Audubon Important Bird Area; Lower Colorado River Gadsen Riparian Area, Mittry Lake Wildlife Area Constructed wetlands in the Yuma Basin provide habitat for many rare and endangered birds along the Colorado River. The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a coordinated, comprehensive, long-term multi-agency effort to conserve and work towards the recovery of endangered species, and protect and maintain wildlife habitat on the Lower Colorado River. The MSCP’s purposes are to protect the lower Colorado River environment while ensuring the certainty of existing river water and power operations, address the needs of threatened and endangered wildlife under the Endangered Species Act, and reduce the likelihood of listing additional species along the lower Colorado River. Federally Protected Species and Critical Habitats There are no critical habitat areas within the basin. Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 111 Water Resources Development Commission Endangered birds known to occur in the basin are the Yuma Clapper Rail, and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. The Yellow-billed Cuckoo is classified as a candidate on the federal list. Economic Values The economics of outdoor recreation is significant in Arizona, especially when associated with water bodies, streams, and other riparian and aquatic habitats. In 2001, a total of 83,999 Angler Use Days were documented in the Yuma Basin, equating to over $13 million in economic revenue generated by angler activity within the basin. Web Sources http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/LowerColoradoRiver/documents/Volume_7_ YUM_final.pdf 112 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission CONTRIBUTORS We would like to thank the following people who committed their time to write, compile and develop the Basin Summaries: Christine Brehm Vicki Bever Brenda Burman Bill Burger Jean Calhoun Brittany Lynn Choate Aaron Citron Val Danos Rebecca Davidson Christine Dawe Nicole Eiden Doug Kupel Mike Lopez Pat O’Malley Sharon Morris Joanna Nadeau Karen Nally Jim Renthal Alison Romero Linda Stitzer Kathleen Tucker Summer Waters Dave Weedman Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Summaries / June 2011 113 Water Resources Development Commission REFERENCES Summary of Findings Annear, T., Chisholm, I., Beecher, H., Locke, A., Aarrestad, P., Burkardt, N., . . . Wentworth, R. (2002). Instream flows for riverine resource stewardship. Cheyenne, WY: The Instream Flow Council. Arizona Department of Water Resources. (2009-2010). Arizona Water Atlas (Vols. 2-8). Phoenix, AZ: Author. Available from http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/statewideplanning/wateratlas Arizona Department of Water Resources. (2010). Arizona Water Atlas, Executive Summary (Vol. 1). Phoenix, AZ: Author. Available from http://www.azwater.gov/adwr/statewideplanning/wateratlas Arizona Game and Fish Department. (1994). Riparian Vegetation [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.land. state.az.us/alris/layers.html Arizona Game and Fish Departent (Producer). (2010, November 19). Economic impact of wildlife [Video file]. Retrieved February 25, 2011, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jnv0ZIEc02Q&feature=playe r_embedded Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2011). Arizona’s Natural Heritage Program: Heritage Data Management System (HDMS) [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.azgfd.com/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml Bark-Hodgins, R. H., Osgood, D. E., & Colby, B. G. (2006). Remotely sensed proxies for environmental amenities in hedonic analysis: What does green mean?. In J. I. Carruthers & B. Mundy (Eds.), Environmental valuation: Interregional and intraregional perspectives (pp. 191-210). Aldershot, England: Ashgate. Bark-Hodgins, R.H., Osgood, D.E., Colby, B.G., Katz, G., & Stromberg, J. (2009). Habitat preservation and restoration: Do homebuyers have preferences for quality habitat? Ecological Economics 68 (5), 1465-1475. Briggs, M.K. (1996). Riparian ecosystem recovery in arid lands. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Bourne, K.L. (2007). The effect of the Santa Cruz Riparian Corridor on single family home prices using the hedonic pricing method (Master’s thesis, University of Arizona). Tucson, AZ. Brauman, K.A., Daily, G.C., Duarte, T.K., & Mooney, H.A. (2007). The nature and value of ecosystems services: An overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 32, 67-98. Colby, B., & Wishart, S. (2002). Riparian areas generate property value premium for landowners. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Retrieved from http:// ag.arizona.edu/arec/pubs/riparianreportweb.pdf Duffield, J.W., Neher, C.J., & Patterson, D.A. (2010). Economic values for national park system resources within the Colorado River Watershed. In T.S. Melis, J.F. Hamill, G.E. Bennett, L.G. Coggins Jr., P.E. Grams, T.A. Kennedy, . . . B.E. Ralston (Eds.), Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, November 18–20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona (pp. 123-131) (USGS SIR 2010-5135). Retrieved from http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5135/pdf/sir2010-5135_low_res.pdf Ecological Society of America. (2000). Ecosystem Services. Retrieved from http://www.esa.org/education_ diversity/pdfDocs/ecosystemservices.pdf 114 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / References / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Ffolliott, P.F., & Thorud, D.B. (1975). Water yield improvement by vegetation management: Focus on Arizona (NTIS: PB-246 055). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service. Gillilan, D.M., & Brown, T.C. (1997). Instream flow protection: Seeking a balance in western water use. Washington, DC and Covelo, CA: Island Press. Groffman, P.M., Driscoll, C.T., Likens, G.E., Fahey, T.J., Holmes, R.T., Eager, C. & Aber, J.D. (2004). Nor gloom of night: A new conceptual model for the Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study. BioScience, 54 (2), 139-148. Haney, J.A., Turner, D.S., Springer, A.E., Stromberg, J.C., Stevens, L.E., Pearthree, P.A., & Supplee, V. (2008). Ecological implications of Verde River flows: A report by The Nature Conservancy, Verde River Basin Partnership, and Arizona Water Institute. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center. Karahalil, U., Keles, S., Baskent, E.Z., & Köse, S. (2009). Integrating soil conservation, water production and timber production values in forest management planning using linear programming. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 4 (11), 1241-1250. Karimzadegan, H., Rahmatian, M., Dehghani, M., Salmasi, Jalali, R. & Shahkarami, A. (2007). Valuing forests and rangelands: Ecosystem services. International Journal of Environmental Research, 1 (4), 368-377. Kerlinger, P. (1993). Birding economics and birder demographics studies as conservation tools. In D. Finch and P. Stangel (Eds.), Status and management of Neotropical migratory birds (pp. 32-38) (USDA Forest Service Tech. Rpt. RM-229). Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr229/rm_ gtr229_032_038.pdf Kerlinger, P. (1999). Economics of open space conservation. In R. Bonney, D.N. Pashley, R.J. Cooper, & L. Niles (Eds.), Strategies for Bird Conservation: The Partners in Flight Planning Process. Retrieved from Cornell University Lab of Ornithology http://birds.cornell.edu/pifcapemay Kirkpatrick, C., & Conway, C.J. (2007). Quantifying impacts of groundwater withdrawal on avian communities in desert riparian woodlands of the southwestern U.S. Poster session at the U.S. Department of Defense Sustaining Military Readiness Conference, Orlando, FL. Retrieved from http://www.denix.osd.mil/nr/ upload/DOD-20Riparian-20Bird-20Project-20Poster-20-2.pdf Kosoy, N., Martinez-Tuna, M., Muradian, R., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2007). Payments for environmental services in watersheds: Insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America. Ecological Economics, 61 (2-3), 446-455. Leenhouts, J. M., Stromberg, J. C., & Scott, R. L. (2006). Hydrologic requirements of and consumptive groundwater use by riparian vegetation along the San Pedro River, Arizona (USGS SIR 2005–5163). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Levick, L., Fonseca, J., Goodrich, D., Hernandez, M., Semmens, D., Stromberg, J., . . . Kepner, W. (2008). The ecological and hydrological significance of ephemeral and intermittent streams in the arid and semi-arid American Southwest (EPA/600/R-08/134). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. Retrieved from http://azriparian.org/docs/arc/ publications/EphemeralStreamsReport.pdf Nadeau, J. B., & Megdal, S. B. (2011). Arizona environmental water needs assessment. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center. Available from http://ag.arizona.edu/azwater/pdfs/ Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / References / August 2011 115 Water Resources Development Commission AZEWNA_Assessment-Mar8-flat.pdf National Park Service Public Use Statistics Office. (2011). Grand Canyon National Park: Annual park visitation [Data file]. Retrieved April 20, 2011, from http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/viewReport.cfm National Research Council. (2008). Hydrologic effects of a changing forest landscape. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Orr, P., & Colby, B. (2002). Nature-oriented visitors and their expenditures: Upper San Pedro River Basin. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Poff, N. L, Allan, J. D., Bain, M. B., Karr, J. R., Prestegaard, K. L., Richter, B. D., . . . Stromberg, J. C. (1997). The Natural Flow Regime. Bioscience, 47 (11), 769-784. Pool, D.R., Blasch, K.W., Callegary, J.B., Leake, S.A., & Graser, L.F. (2011) Regional groundwater-flow model of the Redwall-Muav, Coconino, and alluvial basin aquifer systems of northern and central Arizona (USGS SIR 2010-5180, v. 1.1). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Recreational Marine Research Center at Michigan State University. (2008, April). Economic significance of recreational boating [Data set]. Prepared for the National Marine Manufacturers Association. Retrieved February 25, 2011, from http://www.nmma.org/government/issues/state.aspx?id=AZ Silberman, J. (2001). The economic importance of fishing and hunting: Economic data on fishing and hunting for the State of Arizona and for each Arizona County. Prepared for the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University School of Management. Retrieved from http://www. azgfd.gov/pdfs/w_c/FISHING_HUNTING%20Report.pdf Silk, N. & Ciruna, K. (Eds). (2004). A Practitioner’s Guide to Freshwater Biodiversity Conservation (1st ed.). Boulder, CO: The Nature Conservancy. Southwick Associates. (2002). The 2001 economic benefits of watchable wildlife recreation in Arizona. Prepared for the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Fernandina Beach, FL: Author. Southwick Associates. (2003). Economic impact analysis of nonconsumptive wildlife-related recreation in Arizona. Prepared for the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Fernandina Beach, FL: Author. Available from http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/w_c/AZ%20County%20Impacts%20-%20Southwick.pdf U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2008). Final environmental assessment experimental releases from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, 2008 through 2012. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, UT: Author. U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). 2001 National Survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation [Data file]. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http:// www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/fishing.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2003, August). Birding in the United States: A demographic and economic analysis, Addendum to the 2001 National Survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation (Report 2001-1). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/outdoors/naturewatch/ start/economics/Economic-Analysis-for-Birding.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, & U.S. Census Bureau. (2007, October). 2006 National Survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www. 116 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / References / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-nat.pdf Zaimes, G. (2007). Understanding Arizona’s riparian areas. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Cooperative Extension. Basin Tables, Basin Maps and County Maps Anning, D.W., Parker, J.T.C. (2009). Predictive models of the hydrological regime of unregulated streams in Arizona (USGS OFR 2009-1269). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Available from http://pubs.usgs. gov/of/2009/1269 Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C). (2008), Title 18, Chapter 11, Article 1, §Section R18-11-112. Outstanding Arizona Waters, amended 31 January 2009. Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C). (2008), Title 18, Chapter 11, Article 1, §Section R18-11-113. EffluentDependent Waters, amended 31 January 2009. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. (2009). Outstanding Arizona Waters (2008) [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: Author. Available from http://agic.az.gov/portal/main.do Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. (2010). Flow Regimes [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: Unpublished Arizona Department of Water Resources. (1982). surfaceWatershedADWR [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: Author. Available from http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/GIS Arizona Department of Water Resources. (1984a). groundwaterBasinADWR [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: Author. Available from http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/GIS/ Arizona Department of Water Resources. (1984b). groundwaterSubbasinADWR [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: Author. Available from http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/GIS/ Arizona Department of Water Resources. (2005). AZNID (Inspected non-jurisdictional dams) [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: Unpublished. Arizona Department of Water Resources. (2007). adwr_gagestream [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: Unpublished Arizona Department of Water Resources. (2008). ADWR_FinalSpringsTblAtlas_2008 [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: Unpublished. Arizona Department of Water Resources. (2009-2010). Arizona Water Atlas (Vols. 2-8). Phoenix, AZ: Author. Available from http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/statewideplanning/wateratlas Arizona Department of Water Resources. (2010a). Arizona Water Atlas, Executive Summary (Vol. 1). Phoenix, AZ: Author. Available from http://www.azwater.gov/adwr/statewideplanning/wateratlas Arizona Department of Water Resources. (2010b). Instream Flow Applications (06/27/1976 to 06/15/2010) [Data file]. Available from the Arizona Department of Water Resource’s Surface Water Rights Database Arizona Game and Fish Department. (1982). Arizona Lakes Classification Study. Phoenix, AZ: Author. Arizona Game and Fish Department. (1994). Riparian Vegetation [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.land. state.az.us/alris/layers.html Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2010). Wildlife Water Catchments developed by the Arizona Game and Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / References / August 2011 117 Water Resources Development Commission Fish Department [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: Author. Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2011a). Arizona’s Natural Heritage Program: Heritage Data Management System (HDMS) [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.azgfd.com/w_c/edits/species_ concern.shtml Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2011b). Arizona’s State Wildlife Action Plan: 2011-2021. Phoenix, AZ: Unpublished. Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2011c). Lands owned or managed by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: Unpublished. Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2011d). Properties owned by the Arizona Game and Fish Department [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: Unpublished. Arizona Game and Fish Department. (2011e). USFS_WildScenicRivers [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: Unpublished. Arizona Land Resources Information System. (1988). County Boundaries [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Land Department. Available from http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/layers.html Arizona Land Resources Information System. (1990). Wilderness Areas [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Land Department. Available from http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/layers.html Arizona Land Resources Information System. (1993). Streams [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Land Department. Available from http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/layers.html Arizona Land Resource Information System. (2005). Water features [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Land Department. Retrieved from http://land.state.az.us/alris/index.html Arizona Land Resource Information System. (2006). Arizona Cities (points) [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Land Department. Available from http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/layers.html Arizona Land Resource Information System. (2011). Public Land Ownership [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Land Department. Available from http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/layers.html Arizona State Parks. (2010). Arizona State Parks [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: Author. Blasch, K. W., Hoffmann, J.P., Graser, L.F., Bryson, J.R., & Flint, A.L. (2006). Hydrogeology of the upper and middle Verde River watersheds, central Arizona (USGS SIR 2005-5198, 102 p., 3 plates). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Boykin, K. G., B. C. Thompson, R. A. Deitner, D. Schrupp, D. Bradford, L. O’Brien, … Z. Schwenke. (2007). Predicted animal habitat distributions and species richness. In J.S. Prior-Magee, et al., (Eds.) Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Final Report (Chapter 3). Moscow, ID: U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program. Corell, S.W., Corkhill, F., Lovvik, D., & Putman, F. (1996). A groundwater flow model of the Sierra Vista Subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro Basin, southeastern Arizona (Modeling Report No. 10). Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of Water Resources, Hydrology Division. Corman, T.E., & Wise-Gervais, C. (Eds.). (2005). Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884. 118 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / References / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Fisk, G.G., Duet, N.R., McGuire, E.H., Roberts, W.P., Castillo, N.K., & Smith, C.F. (2006). Water Resources Data Arizona Water Year 2005 (USGS WDR AZ-05-1). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Available from http://pubs.usgs.gov/wdr/2005/wdr-az-05-1/pdf/wdr051.pdf Lowry, J. H, Jr., Ramsey, R. D., Thomas, K. A., Schrupp, D., Kepner, W., Sajwaj, T., . . . Thompson, B. (2007). Land cover classification and mapping. In J.S. Prior-Magee, et al., (Eds.) Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Final Report (Chapter 2). Moscow, ID: U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program. Marshall, R.M., Robles, M., Majka, D., & Haney, J.A. (2010). Sustainable Water Management in the Southwestern United States: Reality or Rhetoric? PLoS ONE 5(7): e11687. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0011687. Nagler, P.L., Morino, K., Murray, R.S., Osterberg, J., Glenn, E.P. (2009). An empirical algorithm for estimating agricultural and riparian evapotranspiration using MODIS Enhanced Vegetation Index and Ground Measurements. I. Description of method. Remote Sensing, 1 (4), 1273-1297. Nagler, P.L., Scott, R.L., Westenburg, C., Cleverly, J.R., Glenn, E.P., Huete, A.R. (2005). Evapotranspiration on western U.S. rivers estimated using the Enhanced Vegetation Index from MODIS and data from eddy covariance and Bowen ratio flux towers. Remote Sensing of Environment 97(3): 337-351. National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Public Law 90-542; 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq. Non-point Education for Municipal Officials. (2009). [Information regarding Effluent Dependent Stream reaches in Arizona] [Data file]. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. Unpublished. Prior-Magee, J.S., Boykin, K.G., Bradford, D.F., Kepner, W.G., Lowry, J.H., Schrupp, D.L., . . . Thompson, B.C. (Eds.). (2007). Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project Final Report. Moscow, ID: U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program. Silberman, J. (2001). The economic importance of fishing and hunting: Economic data on fishing and hunting for the State of Arizona and for each Arizona County. Prepared for the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University School of Management. Retrieved from http://www. azgfd.gov/pdfs/w_c/FISHING_HUNTING%20Report.pdf Tillman, F.D., Cordova, J.T., Leake, S.A., Thomas, B.E., & Callegary, B. (In review). Water Availability and Use Pilot: Methods Development for a Regional Assessment of Groundwater Availability, Southwest Alluvial Basins, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report. University of Montana. (2010). Federal Designated Wilderness Areas in Arizona [Data file]. Missoula, MT: Wilderness Institute, College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2004 & 2005). National Inventory of Dams – Arizona. Accessed November 2004 to April 2005 from http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nidpubic/webpages/nid.cfm U.S. Bureau of Land Management. (1992). Congressionally designated wilderness in Arizona managed by the Bureau of Land Management (az_wilder83) [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office. Available from http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/maps/gis_files. html U.S. Bureau of Land Management. (1999). Arizona BLM National Conservation Areas (aznca83) [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office. Available from http://www.blm. Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / References / August 2011 119 Water Resources Development Commission gov/az/st/en/prog/maps/gis_files.html U.S. Bureau of Land Management. (2001). National Monuments in Arizona managed by the Bureau of Land Management (az_mnmnts) [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office. Available from http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/maps/gis_files.html U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). County Boundaries [Data file]. Washington, DC: Author. Available from http:// www.land.state.az.us/alris/layers.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011a). United States Fish and Wildlife Service Cadastral Geodatabase – simplified Wildlife Refuge Boundaries (FWS_Refuge_Boundaries) [Data file]. Arlington, VA: Author. Available from http://www.fws.gov/GIS/data/CadastralDB/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011b). [information regarding Threatened and Endangered Species final Critical Habitat designation in Arizona] [Data file]. Albuquerque, NM: Author. Available from http:// criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/ U.S. Forest Service. (2004). Special Designation Areas on Forest Service Lands in Arizona [Data file]. Salt Lake City, UT: USDA Forest Service, Geospatial Service and Technology Center (GSTC). U.S. Forest Service. (2007). Wild_and_Scenic_Rivers [Data file]. Phoenix, AZ: USDA Forest Service, Tonto National Forest. U.S. Geological Survey. (2008). National Hydrography Dataset [Data file]. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Division. Available from ftp://nhdftp.usgs.gov/DataSets/Staged/States/ Valencia, R. A., Wennerlund, J. A., Winstead, R. A., Woods, S., Riley, L., Swanson, E. & Olson, S. (1993). Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department. Whittier, J.B., C.P. Paukert, and K. Gido. (2006). Development of an aquatic GAP for the Lower Colorado River Basin (Gap Analysis Bulletin No. 14 USGS/BRD/Gap Analysis Program). Moscow, ID: U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program. Wild & Scenic Rivers Council. (2009). National Wild and Scenic River System (Master_Conus_WSR2009_ Oct20) [Data file]. Available from http://www.rivers.gov Basin Summaries Andersen. (2006). Streamflow-Biota Relations: Mammals, Reptiles, Amphibians, and Floodplain Invertebrates. In P. Shafroth, & V. Beauchamp, (eds.), Defining Ecosystem Flow Requirements for the Bill Williams River, Arizona (pp. 59-65). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Arizona Department of Water Resources. (2009-2010). Arizona Water Atlas (Vols. 2-8). Phoenix, AZ: Author. Available from http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/statewideplanning/wateratlas Arizona Department of Water Resources. (2010). Arizona Water Atlas, Executive Summary (Vol. 1). Phoenix, AZ: Author. Available from http://www.azwater.gov/adwr/statewideplanning/wateratlas Bagstad, K., Stromberg, J., & Lite, S. (2005). Response of herbaceous riparian plants to rain and flooding on the San Pedro River, Arizona, USA. Wetlands, 210-223. Beauchamp, V., & Stromberg, J. (2007). Flow regulation of the Verde River, Arizona encourages Tamarix recruitment but has minimal effect on Populus and Salix stand density. Wetlands, 381-389. 120 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / References / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Brand, L., Cerasale, D., Rich, T. (2009). Breeding and Migratory Birds: Patterns and Processes. In J. Stromberg & B. Tellman (Eds.), Ecology and Conservation of the San Pedro River (pp. 153-174). Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press. BWRC Technical Committee (1994). Bill Williams River Water Management Plan. Arizona. Hautzinger, A., Warner, A., Hickey, J., & Beauchamp, V. (2006). Summary of Unified Ecosystem Flow Requirements for the Bill Williams River Corridor. In P. Shafroth, & V. Beauchamp (Eds.), Defining Ecosystem Flow Requirements for the Bill Williams River, Arizona (pp. 71-90). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Kearsley, M. & Ayers, T. (2009). Riparian vegetation responses: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and vice versa. In R. Webb, J. Schmidt, R. Valdez, (Eds.), The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon (pp. 309-327). Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union. Korman, J., Kaplinski, M., & Melis, T. (2010). Effects of high-flow experiments from Glen Canyon Dam on abundance, growth, and survival rates of early life stages of rainbow trout in the Lees Ferry Reach of the Colorado River. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Leenhouts, J. M., Stromberg, J. C., and Scott, R. L. (2006). Hydrologic requirements of and consumptive ground-water use by riparian vegetation along the San Pedro River, Arizona (USGS SIR 2005–5163). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Melis, T., Topping, D., Grams, P., Rubin, D. Wright, S., Draut, A., Hazel, J., Ralston, B., Kennedy, T., RosiMarshall, E., Korman, J., Hilwig, K., & Schmit, L. (2010). 2008 High-flow experiment at Glen Canyon Dam benefits Colorado River Resources in Grand Canyon National Park U.S. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Merritt, D. & Poff, N. (2010). Shifting dominance of riparian Populus and Tamarix along gradients of flow alteration in western North American rivers. Ecological Applications, 135-152. Orr, P., & Colby, B. G. (2002). Expenditures by nature-oriented visitors and their economic implications in the Upper San Pedro River Valley. Tucson, AZ: Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Arizona. Pima County. (2009b). City of Tucson and Pima County Water for the Environment Technical Paper. Ralston, B. (2010). Riparian vegetation response to the March 2008 short-duration high-flow experimentImplications of timing and frequency of flood disturbance on nonnative plant established along the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Rosi-Marshall, E., Kennedy, T., Kincaid, D., Cross, W., Kelly, H., Behn, K., White, T. Hall Jr., R., & Baxter, C. (2010). Short-term effects of the 2008 high-flow experiment on macroinvertebrates in Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Shafroth, P., & Beauchamp, V. (2006). Streamflow-Biota Relations: Riparian Vegetation. In P. Shafroth, & V. Beauchamp, (Eds.), Defining Ecosystem Flow Requirements for the Bill Williams River, Arizona (pp. 31-40). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Shafroth, P., Wilcox, A., Lytle, D., Hickey, J., Andersen, D., Beauchamp, V., Hautzinger, A., McMullen, L., & Warner, A. (2010). Ecosystem effects of environmental flows: modeling and experimental floods in a dryland river. Freshwater Biology, 68-85. Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / References / August 2011 121 Water Resources Development Commission Stromberg, J. (1993). Instream flow models for mixed deciduous riparian vegetation within a semiarid region. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management. Stromberg, J. (2001). Influence of stream flow regime and temperature on growth rate of the riparian tree, Platanus wrightii, in Arizona. Freshwater Biology, 227-239. Stromberg, J., Bagstad, K., Leenhouts, J., Lite, S. & Makings, E. (2005). Effects of stream flow intermittency on riparian vegetation of a semiarid region river (San Pedro River, Arizona). River Research and Applications, 925-938. Stromberg, J., Lite, S., & Beauchamp, V. (2003). Managing stream flow regimes for riparian ecosystem restoration. 2003 Tamarisk Symposium Grand Junction, CO. Valdez, R., Shannon, J., & Blinn. D. (1999). Biological implications of the 1996 Controlled Flood. In R. Webb, J. Schmidt, R. Valdez, (Eds.), The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon (pp. 343-350). Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union. van Riper & Paradzick (2006). Streamflow-Biota Relations: Birds. In P. Shafroth, & V. Beauchamp, (Eds.), Defining Ecosystem Flow Requirements for the Bill Williams River, Arizona (pp. 41-50). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. West, P., Smith, D. H., & Auberle, W. (2009). Valuing the Verde River Watershed - An Assessment. Scottsdale, AZ ed. Websites: http://aznps.com/Floras/sdnm.pdf http://billwilliamsriver.org/default.htm http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/ http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E054 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_of_Critical_Environmental_Concern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_M._Goldwater_Air_Force_Range http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havasupai#Havasu_Falls http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_Rock_Dam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuma_Proving_Ground http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2004_register&docid=fr31au04-14 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2005_register&docid=fr19oc05-12 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2007_register&docid=fr21mr07-12 http://iba.audubon.org/iba/profileReport.do?siteId=2202 http://iba.audubon.org/iba/viewSiteProfile.do?siteId=2202&navSite=state http://iba.audubon.org/iba/viewSiteProfile.do?siteId=900&navSite=state 122 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / References / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission http://organpipecactus.areaparks.com/parkinfo.html?pid=22938 http://protectedplanet.net/sites/Ironwood_Forest_National_Monument_Blm http://setonresourcecenter.com/register/2010/jan/29/2010-1726.pdf http://visitgrahamcounty.com/birdbrochure2 http://wildlifeviewingareas.com/default.asp http://www.adwr.state.az.us/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/RuralPrograms/OutsideAMAs_PDFs_for_web/ Southeastern_Arizona_Planning_Area/Douglas_Basin.pdf http://www.adwr.state.az.us/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/RuralPrograms/OutsideAMAs_PDFs_for_web/Upper_ Colorado_River_Planning_Area/Peach_Springs_Basin.pdf http://www.adwr.state.az.us/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/RuralPrograms/OutsideAMAs_PDUSFS_for_web/ CentralHighlands/tonto_creek.pdf http://www.adwr.state.az.us/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/RuralPrograms/OutsideAMAs_PDUSFS_for_web/ Lower_Colorado_River_Planning_Area/Lower_Gila_River_Watershed.pdf http://www.americansouthwest.net/arizona/tonto_creek/canyon.html http://www.arizonensis.org/sonoran/places/paintedrock.html http://www.azgfd.gov/outdoor_recreation/wildlife_area_quigley.shtml http://www.azgfd.gov/outdoor_recreation/wildlife_area_tonto_creek.shtml http://www.azgfd.gov/outdoor_recreation/wildlife_area_whitewater.shtml http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/hdms_status_definitions.shtml http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml http://www.azheritagewaters.nau.edu/designated_w.html http://www.azheritagewaters.nau.edu/loc_Sonoita.html http://www.azheritagewaters.nau.edu/loc_yaqui_river.html http://www.aziba.org/az_ibas.htm http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas.html http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/ncarea/gbox.html http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/ncarea/sprnca.html http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/wildareas/needles.html http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/wildareas/peloncillo.html http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/wildareas/whitecanyon.html Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / References / August 2011 123 Water Resources Development Commission http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/az/pdfs/nepa/library/resource_management/safford.Par.29271. File.dat/appendices.pdf http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/az/pdfs/planning/ironwood.Par.75215.File.dat/DRMP_DEIS. pdf http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/az/pdfs/planning/ironwood/deis.Par.77638.File.pdf/ Appendix_H.pdf http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/az/pdUSFS/nepa/library/resource_management.Par.29336.File. dat/Lower-Gila-Amendment-decision-record.pdf http://www.ecr.gov/pdf/bgrange.pdf http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-07/uoa-swq072406.php http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/rna/ http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado/forest/conditions/conditions.shtml http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/map/state_list.shtml#Arizona http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=22524 http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=22560 http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=22570 http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=22571 http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Arizona/Documents/CountyLists/Gila.pdf http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Arizona/Documents/CountyLists/Pinal.pdf http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Arizona/Documents/CountyLists/Yuma.pdf http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Redbook/Southwestern%20Willow%20Flycatcher%20 RB.pdf http://www.nps.gov/cagr/index.htm http://www.nps.gov/orpi/index.htm http://www.pr.state.az.us/ohv/downloads/OHV_Sonoran_Desert_NM.pdf http://www.sangres.com/arizona/blm/peloncillomountains.htm http://www.sangres.com/arizona/blm/whitecanyon.htm http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/salton/CoachellaReqAttachB.html http://www.snwa.com/html/env_razorback_sucker.html http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=CRBSCP+-+Desalting+Complex+Unit++Title+I#Group544440 124 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / References / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=wildView&WID=169 http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=wildView&WID=257 http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=wildView&WID=401 http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=wildView&WID=403 http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=wildView&WID=421 (North Maricopa) http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=wildView&WID=553 http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=wildView&WID=564 (South Maricopa) http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=wildView&WID=659 http://www.wildlifeviewingareas.com/wv-app/ParkDetail.aspx?ParkID=78 http://www.wildlifeviewingareas.com/wv-app/ParkDetail.aspx?ParkID=82 www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/assessment/download/hualapai_fact.pdf Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / References / August 2011 125 Water Resources Development Commission METHODS AND RESOURCES By: (Listed in alphabetical order) Lynn Bredimus, SRP Rebecca Davidson, SRP Santiago Garcia, USBR Rob Marshall, TNC Sharon Morris, ADWR Linda Stitzer, WRA Dave Weedman, AZGF August 1, 2011 126 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The Environmental Working Group was formed under the work plan of the Water Resource Development Commission (WRDC). The Environmental Working Group was tasked to 1) identify current water-dependent natural resources; 2) identify conditions necessary to support these resources; and 3) prepare a summary of findings and make recommendations regarding the need for further research and studies. Available scientific data was used to identify the state’s primary water-dependent natural resources. The physical conditions currently supporting these natural resources were also identified and characterized, where possible. This information presents clear evidence about the diversity and unique conditions provided by the state’s rivers, lakes, streams, springs, wetlands, and riparian and aquatic habitats, but also that the existing information is incomplete and more research is needed. A summary of the Environmental Working Group’s findings, entitled Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources, includes a compilation of natural-resource data. This data is presented in a variety of formats including narrative summaries, data tables and maps for each groundwater basin and county. This document provides a description of the data sources and methodologies used to develop Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources. Note on Mapping Efforts: To maintain clarity at the given scale and preserve the purpose of the maps, symbols representing certain features were slightly exaggerated. These features include critical habitat for fish and other species constrained to river and stream courses, surface water filings in-stream, riparian habitat and effluent dependent streams. Amplification of features is an accepted part of the cartographic process, and enhancement of the symbols was not meant to exaggerate their meaning, but only to improve legibility and accommodate the associated symbology. Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 127 Water Resources Development Commission HYDROLOGIC COMPONENTS Groundwater basins (ADWR, 1984a) Water-dependent natural resources are identified for each of Arizona’s 51 groundwater basins. According to ARS 45-402(13) “Groundwater basin” means an area which, as nearly as known facts permit as determined by the director pursuant to this chapter, may be designated so as to enclose a relatively hydrologically distinct body or related bodies of groundwater, which shall be described horizontally by surface description. ADWR Groundwater Basins include the five Active Management Areas (AMAs). Presented In: Summaries, Tables & Maps Groundwater sub-basins (ADWR, 1984b) According to ARS 45-402(34) “Subbasin” means an area which, as nearly as known facts permit as determined by the director pursuant to this chapter, may be designated so as to enclose a relatively hydrologically distinct body of groundwater within a groundwater basin, which shall be described horizontally by surface description. Presented In: Tables Watersheds (ADWR, 1982; USGS, 2008)) A watershed is an elevation or a divide separating a catchment area, or drainage basin, of one river system or group of river systems from another system or group of systems. The term is synonymous with drainage basin (8-digit HUC (hydrologic unit code) level). Data available from the USGS (2008) and ADWR (1982) were used to identify watersheds in relation to each groundwater basin. Presented In: Tables Springs (ADWR, 2008; 2009-2010; & 2010a) Basin tables list the number of major (discharge >10 gpm) and minor (discharge <10 gpm) springs, the annual range of spring discharge in gallons per minute, and the combined spring discharge rate in acre-feet per year. The combined annual discharge rate was calculated using data from the Arizona Water Atlas Volumes 2-8 (ADWR, 2009-2010), which lists discharge rates for each major and minor spring. This calculation assumes that the spring discharge at the time of measurement is constant throughout the year. Original data sources include the USGS, universities, and other government agencies including the USFS, NPS and BLM. These datasets were compiled into a database by ADWR (ADWR, 2008). A detailed description of the methods used to compile information on springs is provided in the Arizona Water Atlas, Volume 1 (ADWR, 2010a). Major and minor springs are also identified in the basin and county maps. Two GIS layers were used to represent these springs. The statewide springs dataset provided by ADWR was supplemented by the Pima County springs dataset (ADWR, 2009-2010). Major and 128 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission minor springs were identified by filtering an attribute field containing gallons per minute information. Springs from both layers were symbolized identically. Presented In: Tables & Maps Streams (ALRIS, 1993) Streams classified as major, minor were identified using the ALRIS stream dataset by filtering the attribute field for cartographic order (CO). Major streams have a cartographic order of 1 through 3, while minor streams are limited to a cartographic order 4. Cartographic orders 1 through 3 include Arizona’s major rivers, the main stem of each drainage basin and all Reach File 1 streams. Minor stream orders include all Reach File 2 streams and streams with names. Presented In: Maps Perennial Streams (Anning & Parker, 2009; ADEQ, 2010) Perennial stream reaches are identified in the basin tables and maps. The perennial stream reach length within each basin was calculated and the information is presented in the basin tables. Several datasets depicting perennial flow were initially evaluated by the Environmental Workgroup. ADEQ (2010) appeared to be most complete and up-to-date. However, there are some limitations with the dataset that users of this information should be aware of. In certain cases the dataset may not depict ALL perennial stream reaches in Arizona, and because of the changing nature of the environment, users should re-evaluate areas of interest to identify where perennial waters exist. In addition, the length of the perennial stream reach may differ from other datasets. Limitations of the ADEQ dataset are identified by Anning and Parker (2009). They explain that, “In general, a significant objective of developing regional-scale models is to apply them and obtain predictions throughout the study area. A clear limitation to the models developed in this study is the requirement of having discharge measurements to obtain hydrologic regime predictions.” According to Arizona Game and Fish Department staff, based on relational analysis of the ADEQ dataset and statewide fish records, “When I map 33,382 fish collection records within the state, 22,696 of them fall within 100 m of the Perennial ADEQ layers. That means that 10,686 fish records are found in systems other than perennial streams classified by that ADEQ layer. Many of those are likely reservoir collections, isolated sites etc. When I remove from that about 10,000 sites that have “spring, lake, tank, pond, reservoir, drain or canal” in the ‘sitename’ of the fish record, there are about 4,722 fish records left that fall on sites that were not identified as perennial by the ADEQ layer. That’s not too bad.” (AZGFD, pers. comm.) Presented In: Summaries, Tables & Maps Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 129 Water Resources Development Commission Perennial stream reaches and springs located in federal/state designated conservation areas (Anning & Parker, 2009; ADEQ, 2010; ADWR, 2008, 2009-2010, & 2010a) Information pertaining to perennial stream reaches and springs located within federal and state conservation lands is presented in the basin summaries, tables and maps. The Environmental Workgroup decided to enumerate perennial stream reaches and springs located within federal and state conservation lands because they represent a subset of waters that had additional conservation values due to their inclusion on lands with specific conservation measures. Working with data sets from multiple agencies presented problems for GIS analysis. Because of overlapping jurisdictions (see Figure 1), there was the potential for double counting perennial waters. To avoid duplicate counts and accurately identify what perennial waters exist within conservation lands, it was necessary to first build a composite layer of like boundaries before performing any GIS analysis (see Figure 2). Separate composite layers were made for federal and state designated conservation lands. The process was as follows: 1) Merge all like lands (ex. state managed conservation land) into one feature 2) Dissolve internal boundaries 3) Clip the perennial stream reaches to the boundaries of protected areas 4) Query for perennial stream name and number of stream miles These same composite layers were later used to identify major springs located in federal or state designated conservation lands. Figure 1: Overlapping jurisdictions Figure 2: Composite of overlapping jurisdictions Presented In: Summaries, Tables & Maps 130 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Stream gages (ADWR, 2007; Fisk et al., 2006; Marshall et al., 2010) A stream gage or streamgage is a device used to measure specific characteristics of a stream. These characteristics typically include the stream’s surface elevation (“stage”) and/or volumetric discharge (flow). Stream gages are an invaluable tool used to assess the condition of Arizona’s rivers and streams. These devices are installed, maintained and monitored by many government and private agencies for the benefit of water management decisions, recreation activities, and wastewater treatment plant operations. Stream gage networks are also used to monitor and protect populated areas from potential natural disasters such as flood flows and drought conditions. As part of Arizona’s Flood Warning System, federal, state and local agencies cooperatively maintain and monitor stream gage data across the state (available at http://data.afws.org). As part of the National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP), real-time streamgage data collected by numerous entities is made available via the USGS National Water Information System (available at http:// waterdata.usgs.gov/az/nwis/rt). According to the USGS, for the purposes of the NSIP, (unless otherwise stated) a “streamgage” is an active, continuously functioning measuring device in the field for which a mean daily streamflow is computed or estimated and quality assured for at least 355 days of a water year or a complete set of unit values are computed or estimated and quality assured for at least 355 days of a water year. The Environmental Working Group identified and presented stream gage locations on each of the basin maps (where applicable). A subset of stream gages were also identified on the basin maps (in yellow) within certain basins where streamflow measurements were evaluated to calculate baseflow volumes (Marshall et al., 2010). Baseflow estimates were enumerated for 12 groundwater basins, and included in the basin tables (Section 6 of this document describes the methodology for enumerating baseflow). Presented In: Tables & Maps Stockponds (ADWR, 2009-2010; 2010a) The total number of registered stockponds is listed in each of the basin tables. Information available from ADWR’s registry of surface water rights and adjudication claims was used to identify stockponds with a capacity of 15 acre-feet or less as presented in, and obtained from, the Arizona Water Atlas Volumes 2-8 (ADWR, 2009 & 2010). A detailed description of the methods used to compile information on stockponds is provided in the Arizona Water Atlas, Volume 1 (ADWR, 2010a). Presented In: Tables Reservoirs (ADWR, 2009-2010) Information on surface-water reservoirs is presented in the basin tables and maps. Reservoirs include natural water bodies such as dry and intermittent lakes and man-made reservoirs. Basin tables display the total number of large and small reservoirs in the basin and their combined maximum storage capacity or surface acres. Large reservoirs are water bodies with a maximum storage capacity of 500 acre-feet or greater or a maximum surface area of 50 acres or greater. Small reservoirs are water bodies with a capacity of greater than 15 acre-feet but less than 500 acre-feet or a maximum surface area of between 5 and 50 acres. The combined annual large and small reservoir capacity was calculated using data from the Arizona Water Atlas Volumes 2-8 (ADWR, 2009 & 2010), which provides information for each large reservoir and Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 131 Water Resources Development Commission an aggregate total for small reservoirs. A detailed description of the methods used to compile information on reservoirs is provided in the Arizona Water Atlas, Volume 1 (ADWR, 2010). Large and small reservoirs are displayed on the county and basin maps using unique symbology for each. The volume and capacity values used to classify a reservoir as large or small are the same as those used in the basin tables. Four distinct GIS layers were used to display reservoirs on the maps. Within Active Management Areas (AMA), reservoir data layers available from the USGS (USGS_Reservoirs) and the National Inventory of Dams (NID_Reservoirs) were used. Large reservoirs in the USGS layer were defined as values >50 in the “ACRES” attribute field; likewise, small reservoirs were defined as values <50. In the NID layer, large reservoirs were defined as values >500 (acre-feet) and small reservoirs were defined as values < 500 (acre-feet) in the “Max_ storag” attribute field. To display reservoirs located outside of an AMA, data from the Arizona Water Atlas (2009-2010) was used (ADWR_Reservoirs, and smallReservoirs). To avoid any potential overlaps with the layers used for the AMAs, the attributes of both GIS layers were filtered using the following criteria: NOT “BASIN_NAME” LIKE ‘%AMA’. Small and large reservoirs were defined in the ADWR_Reservoirs layer using the “WaterAtlas” field. The smallReservoirs layer only includes small reservoirs, so no additional filters were needed. Presented In: Tables & Maps Effluent-Dependent Waters (A.A.C., 2008; ADWR, 2009-2010 & 2010a; NEMO, 2009) Effluent-Dependent Waters (EDW), as classified by ADEQ pursuant to A.A.C. R18-11-113, are identified in the basin tables and maps. In general, Effluent-Dependent Waters are characterized as streams or stream reaches that are naturally ephemeral, but have surface flow in response to the discharge of treated wastewater. A compilation of two datasets (ADWR, 2009-2010 & 2010a; & NEMO, 2009) were used to identify and illustrate EDW. Using GIS software, the two datasets were merged and manually edited to create a new unique feature that is used within the Environmental Working Group’s report. Within each groundwater basin, the EDW stream segments were identified and their reach lengths were calculated for inclusion in the basin tables. Presented In: Tables & Maps 132 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission VEGETATION/RIPARIAN Arizona Riparian Inventory and Mapping Project (AGFD, 1994; Valencia et al., 1993) This dataset was developed at the Arizona Game & Fish Department (AGFD) in 1993 – 1994 and discussed by Valencia, et al. (1993). It identifies riparian vegetation associated with perennial waters mapped in response to the requirements of the Waters - Riparian Protection Program (Laws 1992, CH. 298). The AGFD created maps using two major sources of imagery - Landsat Thematic Mapper digital satellite data and Multiple Resolution Aerial Videography. Riparian imagery was ground-truthed in the field. The dataset was distributed in June 1994. Limitations: While working with the AGFD 1993-94 data, limitations were encountered. First, the dataset is fairly dated. Second, the dataset includes several non-riparian classes and several others for which we don’t have data on evapotranspiration. Non-riparian classes were removed from the dataset for the Environmental Working Group’s mapping purposes and for estimating ET rates. Lastly, the 1993-94 dataset was not a comprehensive statewide approach, and several areas of the state were not mapped. Habitats excluded and rationale: • Areas not Ground Verified (not able to verify if vegetation was present; total acres = 428) • Conifer Oak (not a riparian habitat type) • Mountain Scrub (not a riparian habitat type) • Mesquite (excluded from this dataset but is captured by the SW ReGAP/SWAP dataset, which covers a larger area and thus will capture more of the mesquite habitat type throughout the state; total unique acres not captured by SW ReGAP/SWAP = 849) • Marsh (ET values for emergent wetland habitat types not available; total acres = 51) • Wet Meadow (ET values for emergent wetland habitat types not available; total acres = 771) • Flood Scoured (flood scoured habitats are areas of bare sand that are likely spots for future riparian recruitment; total acres = 7,000). Including these areas would likely have overestimated riparian acreage. To augment the 1993-94 dataset, the Environmental Workgroup also utilized a Riparian Habitat Model (Lowry et al., 2007), developed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department, to identify additional areas of the state with potential riparian habitats. Presented In: Maps Arizona Game and Fish Department State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Riparian Model (Lowry et al., 2007; Valencia et al., 1993) At the time this model was developed, two sources of riparian data were available for Arizona: the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (SWReGAP) landcover database (Lowry et al., 2007) and the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s (Department) Riparian Inventory (Valencia et al., 1993). Both were reviewed for accuracy by an internal team familiar with riparian areas throughout the state. The SWReGAP landcover layer was found to under represent riparian in much of the state while misclassifying large areas of mesquite Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 133 Water Resources Development Commission woodlands as riparian. These misclassified pixels were re-assigned to mesquite forest in the original data. The 1993 Department’s Riparian Inventory was discovered to be out-of-date and incomplete since riparian vegetation was only mapped along perennial drainages and not intermediate ones. In an attempt to fill in the blanks left by those datasets, the Department modeled the potential riparian vegetation along lakes and perennial and intermittent streams by calculating cost weighted distance from each stream and lake using slope as the cost surface, essentially mapping the flood plain around each stream and lake. The resulting output was constrained by an upper cost limit and by distance from the stream or lake. The model was combined with the Department’s riparian inventory and the SWReGAP riparian categories to create a comprehensive map of potential riparian vegetation. Known areas of development, agriculture or dewatering were erased from the model. In recognizing the importance of riparian vegetation in Arizona, the Department chose methodology that may over represent the presence of riparian habitat in Arizona as opposed to methodology that under represents riparian habitat. Presented In: Maps 134 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission WILDLIFE Catchments (Wildlife Waters) (AGFD, 2010) The number of catchments identified within each basin is presented in the tables. A wildlife water catchment is a watering device for wildlife. It collects precipitation, holds the water in a covered tank to minimize evaporation and maintain adequate water quality, and dispenses water into a basin or reservoir from which animals can drink. Catchments are manufactured in several styles, including inverted umbrella and apron. They often are used in remote wilderness locations. To provide water to wild animals fencing is usually built to surround the catchment. Catchments are a wildlife management tool, and are widely used in the southwest United States, where periodic droughts may cause population crashes in game animals unless water supplies are provided. Spatial data for wildlife water catchments/resources within Arizona Game & Fish Department Wildlife Water Development Database to which AZGFD holds responsibility. Data does not include Forest Service or BLM owned/operated/managed water catchments. Presented In: Tables USFWS Designated ESA Critical Habitat Areas by Species (USFWS, 2011b) The Endangered Species Act of 1973 allows the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to designate specific areas as protected “critical habitat” zones. The provision of the law in Section 4 that establishes critical habitat is a regulatory link between habitat protection and recovery goals, requiring the identification and protection of all lands, water and air necessary to recover endangered species. Critical habitats are areas considered essential for the conservation of a listed species. The GIS files and their associated coordinates are not the legal source for determining the critical habitat boundaries. The user is referred to the critical habitat textual description in the appropriate final rule for the species as published in the Federal Register. Presented In: Summaries, Tables & Maps Arizona Game and Fish Department State Wildlife Action Plan (AGFD, 2011b) The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) modeled species distributions for their 2011 revision of the Statewide Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). Not all species in Arizona were modeled; modeling efforts were limited to those species identified in the SWAP as having the greatest conservation need. Data sources included the following: Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas (ABBA) (Corman & Wise-Gervais, 2005), Southwest Regional GAP (SWReGAP) Land Cover Dataset (Lowry et al., 2007), SWReGAP Animal Habitat Models (Boykin et al., 2007), and the Lower Colorado River Basin (LCRB) Aquatic Gap Analysis project (Whittier et al., 2010e. Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 135 Water Resources Development Commission Species Distribution Models The AGFD developed species distribution models for the species of greatest conservation need as identified in the Arizona SWAP. These species distribution models represent the historic, present, and potential distribution for an individual species. A specific set of parameters was used for each species distribution model, including vegetation, elevation and slope associations, and known occurrences. Several base data layers were used for a majority of the predictive distribution models, including: • SWReGAP landcover to map vegetation associations for individual species. • Digital elevation model (DEM) to map elevational and slope associations for individual species. • 10-digit HUC (watershed) boundaries and species occurrence data were used to identify watersheds associations for individual SGCN species. After the SGCN species distribution models were created, the parameters that went into each model were entered into the database. This created a straightforward way to access the model parameters via queries and tables. The species distribution parameters database is fully linked to the SWAP database, so future updates to the SWAP database (e.g., taxonomic or legal status changes) will be reflected in the species parameters database. Methods for species distribution models were generally consistent within higher taxonomic levels (e.g., invertebrates, amphibians, birds, etc.), but occasionally species specific parameters were employed (see discussions below). However, all of the data sources discussed above were used in compiling the distribution models for the SGCN, and were further refined through expert opinion and through validation with the HDMS element occurrence data (if those data were available). For most species, validation with HDMS data has not yet occurred. We are continuing to refine models as time permits. Regardless of methods, there are assumptions inherent in all of the models: 1. Most of the models are built using SWReGAP Landcover as a base layer and have a base pixel size of 30 m. However, the models, as is the Landcover database, are meant to be used for landscape level analysis at a scale of 1,000 ha or greater (Boykin et al., 2007). 2. Each model represents a predicted range distribution for a species. Species are expected to occur within that range, but are not assumed to be present at every point within the geographic range. Also, the models do not provide information on species abundance or on habitat quality within the predicted range. The SGCN species distribution models were reviewed by AGFD biologists before they became finalized. The SGCN species distribution models were created using the best available data at the time, and will be updated as data become available in the future. Presented In: Summaries, Tables & Maps SWAP Data Sources Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas: First statewide survey of Arizona birds containing a wealth of information regarding the actual locations and habitat preferences of over 370 species of birds. The survey was based on the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) 7.5 minute topographic maps. Each quad was divided into six blocks and a block from each quad was randomly selected for sampling. Each block was visited several times during the breeding season to detect each bird species and confirm breeding of as many species as possible. In addition, field personnel 136 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission noted other environmental information such as vegetation types and elevational ranges in which each species was detected (Corman & Wise-Gervais, 2005). Southwest Regional GAP (SWReGAP): The U.S. Geological Survey mapped landcover and terrestrial vertebrate species using 1999-2001 satellite imagery (Prior-MaGee et al., 2007). The landcover map served as a proxy for vegetation in the species distribution models. The SWReGAP developed 819 terrestrial vertebrate models based on environmental parameters that define Wildlife Habitat Relationships (WHRs). Vegetation alliances were the primary parameter for modeling wildlife habitats followed by elevation and distance to water. WHRs were restricted to 8-digit Hydrological Unit Codes (HUCs) that the species had historically occurred in. A full description of the modeling process can be found in chapter 3 of the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Final Report (Boykin et al., 2007). Lower Colorado River Basin Aquatic GAP Analysis: Identified areas with native aquatic fauna diversity to support development of future conservation strategies for the Lower Colorado River Basin (Whittier et al., 2010e. Project collected fish observation data from federal and state agencies, universities, online fish databases and museums. Riparian Existing SWReGAP riparian was supplemented with modeled riparian (see SWAP Riparian Model discussion in previous section) and coded to “AZ05 – Riparian.” In addition, the development team felt that xeric riparian, an important vegetation type for many species, was seriously under represented. We addressed that problem with a very simple modeling exercise in which named washes were extracted from the Arizona State Lands Department’s Arizona streams dataset (ALRIS, 1993). The washes were assumed buffered by 60 meters below 4,000 feet elevation and by 30 meters at higher elevations. The 4,000 foot elevational limit corresponds roughly to the elevational ranges of Fremont cottonwood (lower elevations) and sycamore (higher elevations). Invertebrates Invertebrate species models were created using several approaches. Aspect, slope, elevational and vegetation associations for individual species were identified by AGFD biologists. Aspect, slope, and elevational associations were extracted from a 30 meter Digital Elevation Model. Vegetation associations were extracted from SWReGAP vegetation layer. Occurrence data from the HDMS were used to identify watersheds in which each species occurs at the HUC 10-digit level. The identified watershed range was used to restrict the vegetation association layer down to only those watersheds in which the individual species occurs. The aspect, slope, and elevational association layers were then used to further restrict the updated vegetation association layer. In some cases, the watershed distributions identified by HDMS occurrence data were used to locate water springs located within the selected watersheds. When the water springs were used in the invertebrate species distribution models, a spatial buffer was used around each spring to ensure that the springs are present in the final version of each distribution model. Fish Three hydrological data layers were used to create the fish distribution models. Two hydrologic data layers with stream features created by AGFD were used to extract intermittent and perennial stream features. A hydrologic data layer with lake features created by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) was used to query a subset of lakes. AGFD staff used LCRB Aquatic GAP Analysis Project to identify 10-digit level watersheds. The identified Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 137 Water Resources Development Commission watershed range was used to restrict hydrological features to only those watersheds in which the individual fish species was known to occur. The hydrological features were merged together to create a final distribution model for each SGCN fish species. Amphibians The amphibian distribution models were created using several approaches. Elevation and vegetation associations for individual species were identified by AGFD staff. Those associations were extracted from a DEM of Arizona and the SWReGAP vegetation layer. Occurrence data from the primary literature, the Riparian Herpetofauna Database, HDMS and other AGFD sources (e.g., internal reports) were used to identify watersheds in which each species occurs at the HUC 10-digit level. The identified watershed range was used to restrict the vegetation association layer to only those watersheds in which the individual species was known to occur. Then the elevation association layer was used to further restrict the updated vegetation association layer. This method created predictive species distribution models that assumed that if a species was known to occur in a portion of a watershed within a specific elevational range and within specific vegetation types, then it should occur in other areas of the watershed that have the associated vegetation types and fall within that elevational range. In some cases species distributions were inferred from distribution maps in field guides e.g., Brennan & Holycross, 2007) or species accounts in the Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles (published by the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles). This information was coupled with staff knowledge and literature reviews of habitat types and elevational ranges. Additional species distribution models created by the SWReGAP project were used for the SWAP. When Arizona-specific species information was available, such as elevational range, vegetation associations, and occurrence information, the SWReGAP species distribution models were modified to incorporate those data. Reptiles The reptile distribution models were created using a similar approach as for amphibians. Elevation and vegetation associations for individual species were identified by AGFD staff and selected from a DEM of Arizona and SWReGAP vegetation layer. Occurrence data from the primary literature, the Riparian Herpetofauna Database, Desert Tortoise Database, HDMS and other AGFD sources (e.g., internal reports) were used to identify watersheds in which each species occurs at the HUC 10-digit level. The identified watershed range was used to restrict the vegetation association layer to only those watersheds in which the individual species was known to occur. The elevation association layer was used to further restrict the updated vegetation association layer. This method created predictive species distribution models that assumed that if a species was known to occur in a portion of a watershed within a specific elevational range and within specific vegetation types, then it should occur in other areas of the watershed that have the similar vegetation types and elevational ranges. In some cases species distributions were inferred from distribution maps in field guides (e.g., Brennan & Holycross, 2007) or species accounts in the Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles (published by the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles). This information was coupled with staff knowledge and literature reviews of habitat types and elevational ranges. Species distribution models created by the SWReGAP project were used to map a few reptile species distributions for the SWAP. When Arizona-specific species information was available, such as elevational range, vegetation associations, and occurrence information, the SWReGAP species distribution models were modified to incorporate those data. Birds The bird distribution models were created using similar methods as the reptiles and amphibians. Elevational 138 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission and vegetation associations for individual species were identified by AGFD staff, and extracted from DEM and SWReGAP vegetation layers. Occurrence data from the Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas were used to identify watersheds in which each species occurs at the HUC 10-digit level. The identified watershed range was used to restrict the vegetation association layer down to only those watersheds in which the individual species was known to occur, and then the elevational association layer was used to further restrict the updated vegetation association layer. This method created predictive species distribution models that assumed that if a species was known to occur in a portion of a watershed within a specific elevational range and within specific vegetation types, then it should occur in other areas of the watershed that have the associated vegetation types and fall within that elevational range. Mammals The mammal distribution models were created using a combination of new models and SWReGAP mammal distributions. Elevational and vegetation associations for individual species were identified by AGFD staff and those associations were extracted from DEM and SWReGAP vegetation layers. Occurrence data from a variety of sources, including the HDMS, were used to identify watersheds in which each species occurs at the HUC 10-digit level. The identified watershed range was used to restrict the vegetation association layer down to only those watersheds in which the individual species occurs, and then the elevational association layer was used to further restrict the updated vegetation association layer. This method created predictive species distribution models that assumed that if a species was known to occur in a portion of a watershed within a specific elevational range and within specific vegetation types, then it should occur in other areas of the watershed that have similar vegetation types and elevational ranges. In some cases species distributions models created for the SWReGAP project were used as the species distribution models for the SWAP. If Arizona specific species information was available the SWReGAP species distribution models were modified to incorporate the refined data such as elevational range, vegetation associations, and occurrence information. SWAP Species data were filtered to represent aquatic, marshland and riparian species. Data subsets were then queried by groundwater basin, and presented in the Basin Table as a numeric summary of Birds, Amphibians, Fish, Invertebrates or Mammals. It is also noted of those enumerated how many are listed under the Endangered Species Act. Limitations: SWAP Species Models are based on habitat characteristics and other features associated with each species. In many instances the models also utilize species occurrence data. However, some models may overestimate the potential occurrence of particular species. Presented In: Summaries, Tables & Maps Arizona Game and Fish Department, Heritage Data Management System (AGFD, 2011a) Arizona’s Heritage Data Management System (HDMS), housed in the Arizona Game and Fish Department, is part of an international network of natural heritage programs and conservation data centers operating in all 50 American states, Canada, Latin America and the Caribbean. The HDMS collects and manages detailed local information on plants, animals, and ecosystems and is the leading source of information about rare and endangered species in the State of Arizona. HDMS data is compiled from many sources and carefully documented. Information included in the HDMS Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 139 Water Resources Development Commission comes from published and unpublished reports, data collected by cooperating agencies, museum and herbarium collections, the scientific and academic communities, and many other sources. The Arizona Heritage Data Management System (HDMS) tracks species that are federally listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), or are candidate species for listing under ESA. The HDMS also tracks some species that have been identified as sensitive species by other agencies, notably the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The BLM has a Bureau Sensitive Species list to focus management on species that may be declining or for which habitat may be limited or susceptible to alteration. The USFS’s Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) Species list identifies species that need special management attention and habitat restoration. The HDMS also tracks species included on the Navajo Nation endangered species list managed by the Navajo Natural Heritage Program. Not all species have been systematically surveyed throughout the state, meaning that some species may not be accounted for in all basins. In general, sensitive species tracked by the HDMS are declining due to habitat losses and modifications, competition with other species and weather-related drought. Additional species get added to the HDMS tracking system when they become federally listed or are identified as candidate species for federal listing. The Arizona Game and Fish has also identified Wildlife of Special Concern; these data are also included in the HDMS. All natural heritage programs and conservation data centers use standardized methods for gathering, managing, and analyzing biological and ecological data. These methods focus on documenting location and condition of species and ecosystems, with particular focus on those that are of greatest conservation concern. HDMS also contains information on conservation status, taxonomy, distribution, life history, and habitat requirements of the species and associated ecological communities. Species summaries for the WRDC report were generated using the HDMS Geographic Information System (GIS) dataset. This dataset depicted element occurrences, a spatial representation of a species or ecological community at a specific location. An element occurrence generally delineates a species population or ecological community stand, and represents the geo-referenced biological feature that is of conservation or management interest. Element occurrences are documented by voucher specimens (where appropriate) or other forms of observations. A single element occurrence may be documented by multiple specimens or observations taken from different parts of the same population, or from the same population over multiple years. HDMS data are used to promote sound environmental planning and conservation measures concerning the plants, animals, and communities that compose Arizona’s diverse natural heritage. Users of HDMS information include cooperating agencies, naturalists, educators, researchers, resource managers, consultants, planners, policy makers, developers, environmentalists, and the general public. HDMS species data were provided by AGFD. The database was queried to provide a subset of information relating only to aquatic, marshland, and riparian species. The data subset was then filtered by groundwater basin to identify which species have been observed and documented in each groundwater basin. These data are described in the narrative Basin Summaries. It is also noted in the Basin Summaries which species are listed under the Endangered Species Act. Limitations: Not all species have been systematically surveyed throughout the state, meaning that some species may not be accounted for in all basins. Presented In: Summaries, Tables & Maps 140 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Economics of Fishing (AGFD, 2001; Silberman, 2001) Data were provided by AGFD from 2001 evaluating Angler Use Days at water bodies throughout Arizona. The value of an Angler Use Day in 2001 is calculated using economic data on fishing in a study prepared by Jonathan Silberman, PhD, ASU School of Management. Using information presented by Silberman (2001): Table 4: Total Fishing Expenditure ($831,493,493) divided by Table 3: Total Angler days (5,302,707) = $156 per Angler Use Day in 2001. These data are described in the narrative Basin Summaries. Limitations: Not all water bodies have been systematically surveyed throughout the state, meaning that some economic impacts from fishing opportunities have not been estimated. Presented In: Summaries Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 141 Water Resources Development Commission ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGNATIONS AND BOUNDARIES Cities (ALRIS, 2006) Major Arizona cities are presented in the maps. This dataset represents point locations of cities and towns in Arizona. As described by the ASLD, the data contains point locations for incorporated cities; Census designated places and populated places. Several data sets were used as inputs to construct this data set. A subset of the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) national dataset for the state of Arizona was used for the base location of most of the points. Polygon files of the Census Designated places (CDP), from the U.S. Census Bureau and an incorporated city boundary database developed and maintained by the Arizona State Land Department were also used for reference during development. Every incorporated city is represented by a point, originally derived from GNIS. Some of these points were moved based on local knowledge of the GIS Analyst constructing the data set. Some of the CDP points were also moved and while most CDP’s of the Census Bureau have one point location in this data set, some inconsistencies were allowed in order to facilitate the use of the data for mapping purposes. During development, an additional attribute field was added to provide additional functionality to the users of this data. This field, named ‘DEF_CAT’, implies definition category, and will allow users to easily view, and create custom layers or datasets from this file. For example, new layers may created to include only incorporated cities (DEF_CAT = Incorporated), Census designated places (DEF_CAT = Incorporated OR DEF_ CAT = CDP), or all cities that are neither CDP’s or incorporated (DEF_CAT= Other). Presented In: Maps Counties (ALRIS, 1988) This dataset consists of the county boundaries in Arizona. As described by the ASLD, the data was created to serve as base information for use in GIS systems for a variety of planning and analysis purposes. Presented In: Tables & Maps Presented In: Summaries, Tables & Maps State Managed Conservation Lands (AGFD, 2011c & 2011d; & ASP, 2010) The state managed conservation lands data sets were provided by the AGFD and ASP; boundaries include Arizona state parks, historic parks and natural areas, AGFD deeded lands (ranches, wildlife areas, nesting areas etc), and AGFD designated wildlife areas. Presented In: Summaries, Tables & Maps 142 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Federally Protected Lands (ALRIS, 1990 & 2011; BLM, 1992, 1999, & 2001; UMT, 2010; USFS, 2004; & USFWS, 2011a) Federally protected lands data sets are from BLM, UMT, USFS, USFWS and ALRIS. Boundaries include USFWS national wildlife refuges, BLM conservation areas, national monuments and wilderness areas, USFS wilderness areas, national parks, and national recreation areas. Presented In: Summaries, Tables & Maps Wild and Scenic Rivers (National Wild and Scenic Rivers System Act of 1968; AGFD, 2011e; USFS, 2007; & WSRC, 2009) The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created by Congress in 1968 (Public Law 90-542; 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) to preserve certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values in a freeflowing condition for the enjoyment of present and future generations. There are three designations under the Act: 1) Wild Rivers or sections of rivers are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted; 2) Scenic Rivers or sections of rivers are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads; and 3) Recreational Rivers or sections of rivers are readily accessible by road or railroad, may have some development along their shorelines, and may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. As described by the AGFD (2011e), modifications were made to the USFS Wild and Scenic Rivers dataset (2007) and the Wild & Scenic River Council’s dataset (2009): Data was downloaded from Wild and Scenic Rivers website (http://www.rivers.gov/index.html). Data for Fossil Creek were selected from the dataset and buffered 1/4 mile since a Comprehensive River Management Plan (CRMP) has not been developed for Fossil Creek. Per USFS-Region 2 office, 1/4 mile is the interim Wild and Scenic corridor before a CRMP is approved. Data was merged with the approved Verde River Wild and Scenic data downloaded from the Tonto NF GIS data download site. Presented In: Summaries, Tables & Maps Outstanding Arizona Waters (A.A.C., 2008; & ADEQ, 2009) Outstanding Arizona Waters, as classified by ADEQ, are identified in the basin tables and maps. The term “outstanding Arizona waters” (OAW) was formerly known as “unique waters”; these terms are considered to be synonymous. R18-11-101(28) “Outstanding Arizona water (OAW)” means a surface water that is classified as an outstanding state resource water by the Director of ADEQ under R18-11-112. Unique waters are designated only by administrative rulemaking. Members of the public may nominate surface waters for unique waters classification or the DEQ may initiate the rulemaking. The director of the DEQ may classify a surface water as a unique water by making a finding that a surface water is an “outstanding state resource water” because it meets decision criteria set out at R18-11-112(D). In general, a surface water has to be perennial, in a free-flowing condition, have water quality that meets or is better than applicable water quality standards, and meet one or both of the following: 1) The surface water is of “exceptional recreational or ecological significance,” or 2) threatened or endangered (T&E) species are known to be associated with the water body and maintenance and protection of existing water quality is essential to the maintenance of the Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 143 Water Resources Development Commission threatened or endangered species or the surface water provides critical habitat. Presented In: Summaries, Tables & Maps Instream Flow (ADWR, 2010b) An instream flow water right is a non-diversionary appropriation of surface water for recreation and wildlife use. An application to appropriate public water for instream flow purposes must be submitted to the Arizona Department of Resources, which makes the determination of whether to approve or reject the application. If a permit is approved, the Department issues a Certificate of Water Right. All permits and certificates are for specific uses at specific places. The Department maintains a database that tracks the status of instream flow applications. Presented In: Tables & Maps National Hydrography Dataset (USGS, 2008) The basin tables and maps utilized data available in the National Hydrography Dataset for water features and geographic boundaries in Arizona. These features include watersheds as defined by the 8-digit hydrologic unit codes, surface water bodies and streams. The NHD is a national framework for assigning reach addresses to water-related entities, such as industrial discharges, drinking water supplies, fish habitat areas, wild and scenic rivers. Reach addresses establish the locations of these entities relative to one another within the NHD surface water drainage network, much like addresses on streets. Once linked to the NHD by their reach addresses, the upstream/downstream relationships of these water-related entities (and any associated information about them) can be analyzed using software tools ranging from spreadsheets to geographic information systems (GIS). GIS can also be used to combine NHD-based network analysis with other data layers, such as soils, land use and population, to help understand and display their respective effects upon one another. Furthermore, because the NHD provides a nationally consistent framework for addressing and analysis, water-related information linked to reach addresses by one organization (national, state, local) can be shared with other organizations and easily integrated into many different types of applications to the benefit of all. The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) is a feature-based database that interconnects and uniquely identifies the stream segments or reaches that make up the nation’s surface water drainage system. NHD data was originally developed at 1:100,000-scale and exists at that scale for the whole country. This high-resolution NHD, generally developed at 1:24,000/1:12,000 scale, adds detail to the original 1:100,000-scale NHD. (Data for Alaska, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands was developed at high-resolution, not 1:100,000 scale.) Local resolution NHD is being developed where partners and data exist. The NHD contains reach codes for networked features, flow direction, names, and centerline representations for areal water bodies. Reaches are also defined on water bodies and the approximate shorelines of the Great Lakes, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico. The NHD also incorporates the National Spatial Data Infrastructure framework criteria established by the Federal Geographic Data Committee. Presented In: Summaries, Tables & Maps 144 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission WATER-DEPENDENT NATURAL RESOURCE INDEX Groundwater/Surface Water Connections Basin Sub-basin Current GW/SW Connection? (h=historic connection; may not currently exist) Agua Fria None YES Aravaipa Canyon None YES Fort Rock YES Wikieup YES Big Sandy Bill Williams Bonita Creek Burro Creek YES Alamo Reservoir YES Clara Peak YES(h) Skull Valley YES Santa Maria YES None YES Description of GW/SW Connection Agua Fria basin contains perennial reach on Horseshoe Ranch and other locations; BLM National Monument Aravaipa basin contains perennial Aravaipa Creek, on TNC and BLM managed property. Fort Rock subbasin contains the upper perennial reach of Big Sandy River. Wikieup subbasin contains a perennial reach of the Big Sandy River; managed by the BLM, I believe it has an ISF permit. Burro Creek subbasin contains perennial reaches of Burro Creek. Alamo Reservoir subbasin contains perennial reaches of lower Burro Creek, Santa Maria River, and Big Sandy River. Clara Peak subbsin contains flowing reachs of Bill Williams River downstream from Alamo dam (gaining reaches?) Skull Valley subbasin contains a perennial reach of Kirkland Creek. Santa Maria subbasin contains perennial reaches of: Kirkland Creek; Peoples Creek; Date Creek; Santa Maria River; Sycamore Creek; Smith Canyon; Cottonwood Canyon Bonita Creek basin contains the lower perenial reach of Bonita Creek; City of Safford infiltration gallery captures much of the perennial flow. Bulter Valley contains ephemeral washes (Cunningham Wash) Cienega Creek basin contains perennial reaches of Cienega Creek (BLM NCA) and Sonoita Creek Butler Valley None NO Cienega Creek None YES Coconino Plateau None YES Coconino Plateau basin contains perennial Blue Spring and the South Rim springs. Detrital Valley None NO Detrital Valley contains ephemeral washes (tributary to the Colorado River) Donnelly Wash None YES(h) Douglas ---- Douglas INA NO (h) Dripping Springs Wash None YES(?) Duncan Valley None YES Douglas Donnelly Wash contains a regulated reach of the Gila River between Florence and Colidge Dam ---Douglas INA - Brown, Camory, and Turner (BCT) document an historically perennial reach on Whitewater Draw just north of the International border. Dripping Springs Wash subbasin contains a regulated reach of the Gila River and a perennial(?) reach of Ash Creek Duncan Valley basin contains a perennial reach and a formerly perennial reach of the Gila River - sw diversions and gw pumping in the Duncan-Virden area have depleted streamflow. Gila Bend None NO (h) Grand Wash None NO Grand Wash basin contains ephemeral washes Harquahala None NO Harquahala basin contains ephemeral washes (Centential Wash) Hualapai Valley None NO Kanab Plateau None YES Lake Havasu None NO Hualapai Valley basin contains ephemeral washes Kanab Plateau basin contains N. Rim perennial creeks: Kanab, Crystal, Tapeats, Deer, Bright Angel, Clear, Vishnu, N. Canyon, Nankoweap Lake Havasu basin contains ephemeral washes Lake Mohave None NO Lake Mohave basin contains ephemeral washes (tributary to the Colorado River) C-aquifer YES D-aquifer YES(?) Little Colorado River Plateau C-aqufer discharges to springs and perennial reaches along Little Colorado River Perennial reaches(?) N-aquifer YES(?) Perennial reaches(?) Joseph City INA YES Childs Valley NO (h) Childs Valley subbasin contains a formerly perennial reach of the Gila River Dendora Valley NO (h) Dendora Valley subbasin contains a formerly perennial reach of the Gila River Wellton-Mohawk NO (h) Wellton-Mohawk subbasin contains a formerly perennial reach of the Gila River Camp Grant Wash YES Little Colorado River Plateau Lower Gila Lower San Pedro Gila Bend basin contains a formerly perennial reach of the Gila River Joseph City INA contains a perennial reach of the Little Colorado River Camp Grant Wash subbasin contains a perennial reach of Camp Grant Wash (BCT); spans the downstream boundary of this subbasin Mammoth YES Mammoth subbasin contains perennial reaches of the Lower San Pedro River McMullen Valley None NO McMullen Valley basin contains ephemeral reaches Meadview None NO Morenci None YES Meadview basin contains ephemeral washes Morenci Basin contains San Francisco and Blue rivers and Eagle Creek, perennial with perennial tributaries. Snow-melt and rainfall driven flow, but summer flow likely gw discharge. Paria None YES Paria River is perennial Anning, D.W. and Konieczki, A.D. 2005. Classification of hydrogeologic areas and hydrogeologic flow systems in the Basin and Range Physiographic Province, Southwestern United States. USGS Professional Paper 1702. 37 pp. Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 145 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater/Surface Water Connections (continued) Basin Parker Peach Springs Phoenix Pinal Sub-basin Current GW/SW Connection? (h=historic connection; may not currently exist) Cibola Valley NO Colorado River Indian Reservation La Posa Plains NO Description of GW/SW Connection Parker basin contains ephemeral washes (CRIR and Cibola tributary to Colorado River) NO None YES Peach Spring basin contains a short perennial reach in Spencer Canyon and part of N. boundary of basin is coincident with the perennial reach of Diamond Creek Cave Creek subasin contains a perennial reach of Cave Creek Carefree YES East Salt River ? Fountain Hills YES East Salt River subbasin contains a short perennial reach on Queen Creek Fountain Hills subbasin contains a perennial reach of Camp Creek and a regulated reach of lower Verde River Hassayampa YES Hassayampa subbasin contains part of the lower perennial reach Hassayampa River Lake Pleasant YES Lake Pleasant subbasin contains a perennial reach of New River Rainbow Valley NO Rainbow Valley contains ephemeral washes West Salt River YES West Salt River Valley contains formerly perennial Gila River, now effluent dominated Aguirre Valley NO Eloy NO(h) Aquirre Valley subbasin contains ephemeral washes Eloy subbasin contains a formerly perennial (now regulated) reach of the Gila River Maricopa-Stanfield NO Maricopa-Stanfield subbasin contains ephemeral washes Santa Rosa NO Santa Rosa subbasin contains ephemeral washes Vekol Valley NO Vekol Valley subbasin contains ephemeral washes Little Chino YES Upper Agua Fria YES Ranegras Plain None NO Little Chino subbasin contains Del Rio Spring and the Upper Verde River Upper Agua Fria subbasin contains a perennial reach of Agua Fria River adjacent to Young Farm Ranegras Plain basin contains ephemeral washes Sacramento Valley None NO Sacramento Valley basin contains ephemeral washes (tributary to the Colorado River) Gila Valley YES Gila Valley subbasin contains perennial and formerly perennial reaches of the Gila River San Carlos Valley YES San Simon Valley NO Prescott Safford Black River A groundwater/ surface water connection is exhibited for some of the perennial streams that carry C-aquifer baseflow that originate along the southern flank of the Mogollon Rim. Otherwise, for most other portions of the SR basin, the streams carry runoff over consolidated sedimentary rocks, and/or igneous and metamorrphic rock formations that probably have minimal connections to groundwater. Per Frank Corkhill, ADWR. Salt River Canyon Salt River Salt River Lakes White River San Bernardino Valley San Carlos Valley subbasin contains the perennial San Carlos River and formerly perennial and regulated reaches of the Gila River San Simon Valley subbasin contains ephemeral washes (perennial water only at high elevations) None YES YES San Rafael None San Simon Wash None NO Santa Cruz None YES San Bernadino Valley basin contains a perennial reach of Black Draw and the San Bernadino National Wildlife Refuge San Rafael Valley contains perennial reaches of the Santa Cruz River Shivwits Plateau None NO Tiger Wash None NO San Simon Wash basin contains ephemeral washes Santa Cruz AMA basin contains perennial reaches of Potero Creek, Sonoita Creek, Peck Canyon, and Santa Cruz River (effluent dominated) Shivwits Plateau basin contains ephemeral washes; southern boundary coincides with the Colorado River in the western Grand Canyon Tiger Wash basin contains ephemeral washes Tonto Creek None YES Tonto Creek basin contains perennial Tonto Creek and numerous other perennial creeks Avra Valley YES Upper Santa Cruz YES None YES Allen Flat YES Sierra Vista YES Sierra Vista subbasin contains perennial reaches of the San Pedro and Babocomari rivers, O'Donnel Canyon Creek, Turkey Creek, and Brown Canyon Creek Big Chino YES Big Chino subbasin contains perennial reaches of the Verde Rivera and Williamson Valley wash Verde Canyon YES Tucson Upper Hassayampa Upper San Pedro Verde River Virgin River Avra Valley subbasin contains Arivaca Creek and Sycamore Canyon; otherwise, ephemeral washes Upper Santa Cruz subbasin contains Cienega Creek and formerly perennial reaches of the Santa Cruz River; plus mountain creeks such as Sabino Creek Upper Hassayampa basin contains perennial reaches of the Hassayampa River (downstream from Wickenburg at TNC preserve; upstream from Wickenburg at the Box; and upstream at Wagner) and Minnehaha Creek. Allen Flat subbasin contains Bass Canyon Creek and Double R Canyon Creek on Muleshoe preserve; otherwise ephemeral washes Verde Valley YES None YES Verde Canyon contains perennial reaches of the Verde River and tributaries (East Verde River, Fossil Creek; Deadman Creek, Lime Creek, and others) Verde Valley subbasin contains perennial reaches of the Verde River and tributaries (Sycamore Creek; Oak Creek; Beaver Creek; West Clear Creek Virgin River basin contains perennial reaches of the Virgin River Western Mexican Drainage contains ephemeral washes Western Mexican Drainage None NO Willcox None NO Yuma None YES Willcox basin contains perennial water only at higher mountain elevations; otherwise ephemeral washes Yuma basin contains formerly perennial reaches of the Gila River and reaches of the Colorado River Anning, D.W. and Konieczki, A.D. 2005. Classification of hydrogeologic areas and hydrogeologic flow systems in the Basin and Range Physiographic Province, Southwestern United States. USGS Professional Paper 1702. 37 pp. 146 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission SUMMARY OF METHODS USED TO DEVELOP FIRST APPROXIMATION ESTIMATES OF FLOW VOLUMES CURRENTLY SUPPORTING WATER-DEPENDENT NATURAL RESOURCES By Rob Marshall, The Nature Conservancy Primary Differences in the Datasets Used to Estimate Current Flows Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources The Commission developed two sets of estimates of current flows. The two estimates both use the same formula for estimating flow volumes [flow volume = (baseflow + groundwater underflow + (riparian acres x ac-ft of evapotranspiration)] and the same data for estimating baseflow. The primary difference between the two is in the data used to estimate riparian acreage and evapotranspiration. Riparian Estimates The USGS data used for the first set of estimates (estimate 1) derived values for riparian acreage from remotely-sensed imagery. The imagery was used to calculate riparian acreage along a 100 m buffer centered on river drainages. Sampling vegetation laterally 50 m on either side of the river channel likely underestimates riparian acreage in some areas and overestimates in others. For example, riparian habitat found in valley bottoms may extend several hundred meters laterally from the river channel. Conversely, within steeper parts of watersheds the method likely captures non-riparian vegetation types. So in flat valley bottoms the method may underestimate riparian habitat extent, while in steeper areas it may overestimate. For the Committee’s second set of riparian habitat estimates (estimate 2) two data sources were used. The first was a study conducted in 1993 by the Arizona Game and Fish Department that used a combination of aerial photography, aerial videography and ground verification. That study was limited to the larger perennial river basins and to the wider, valley-bottom sections of those watersheds. As a result, a substantial portion of the state’s riparian habitat was not surveyed. To include areas not surveyed by the AGFD 1993 study, the Committee also used a dataset produced by USGS called the Southwest ReGAP project. The SW ReGAP was completed using remotely-sensed imagery (although a different type of imagery than what Tillman and others used for estimate 1 described above). To improve the accuracy of the SW ReGAP product, the Arizona Game and Fish Department modified the dataset for use in their State Wildlife Action Plan. Those modifications are described in detail further down on this page. Evapotranspiration Estimates Evapotranspiration for the first set of estimates was based on reflectance values from the same remotelysensed imagery that Tillman and others used to estimate riparian acreage. Different vegetation types have different signatures on remotely-sensed imagery that show up as differences in the amount and bandwidth of the light reflected off of vegetation. The different reflectance values were correlated with field data on evapotranspiration, which enabled USGS to estimate evapotranspiration directly from the imagery across a large portion of Arizona (all areas south of the Colorado Plateau/Mogollon Rim). The Committee’s second set of estimates for evapotranspiration relied on empirical data developed by USGS (Nagler et al., 2005). The data in the graphic box below are from Table 4 in Nagler et al. (2005). The data show the results of field studies that measured evapotranspiration for stretches of three rivers in the Southwest: Rio Grande, Upper San Pedro, and Lower Colorado River. The values are in mm/year. The graph and table demonstrate that rates across the three study areas show little variation. Based on the close correspondence across these study basins, the Committee selected the mean value (859 mm/yr converted to English units = 2.828 ft/yr) to use for the Committee’s second set of estimate for evapotranspiration. Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 147 Water Resources Development Commission The Committee’s review of the overall flow estimates derived using these datasets revealed a counterintuitive result – while the overall riparian acreage in the first set of estimates was twice as high as those in the Committee’s second set of estimates, the overall amount of evapotranspiration in the first set of estimates was half of the value estimated in the Committee’s second set. Further analysis revealed that this was a direct artifact of the different methodologies and datasets used. The USGS remote-sensing data used in the Committee’s first set of estimates superimposed a 100 m buffer over a watershed’s drainage network. The network of drainages tends to get more extensive and complex as you move up a watershed, with many small drainages branching off of larger ones. As noted above, using a 100 m buffer to estimate riparian habitat likely underestimates riparian extent in valley bottoms but probably captures considerable acreage of non-riparian vegetation types higher up in watersheds. Conversely, the riparian studies used for the Committee’s second set of estimates attempted to delineate discrete patches of riparian habitat, which should have omitted much of the areas higher up in watersheds that do not contain riparian vegetation types. The difference in evapotranspiration between the two sets of estimates is likely the result of the evapotranspiration rates applied to the two riparian datasets. The USGS remote-sensing study used a variable evapotranspiration rate based on reflectance values in the remotely-sensed imagery. True riparian vegetation types have higher reflectance values (more evapotranspiration), so even though this method may have 148 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission captured areas higher up in watersheds with non-riparian vegetation types, the evapotranspiration from those types would be relatively small. Conversely, because the riparian data used in the Committee’s second set of estimates attempted to delineate discrete patches of riparian habitat and, thus, should have relatively little nonriparian vegetation included, the Committee used a constant rate of evapotranspiration taken from Nagler’s empirical studies of cottonwood-willow types across the southwestern U.S. Evapotranspiration rates for cottonwood-willow are among the highest rates documented, so while the Committee’s second set of riparian estimates are lower, the constant evapotranspiration rate applied across this acreage is likely higher than that used in the USGS’s study that relied on remotely-sensed imagery. Despite these differences in data and methodologies, the overall flow volumes from the two sets of estimates are within ten percent of one another. The close correspondence of the two overall estimates increases the overall certainty of the result and illustrates the benefit of using the two different approaches in a comparative manner. Methods and Data Used in the Commission’s Estimate of Riparian Habitat Extent Below is a list of specific habitats selected and excluded from 1993 AGFD dataset used for estimating riparian habitat. Also explained below are the modifications AGFD made to the SW ReGAP data for their State Wildlife Action Plan. Habitat types from the 1993 AGFD riparian data included in estimate of riparian acreage Cottonwood Willow (11,400 acres) Mixed Broadleaf (18,861 acres) Tamarisk (5207 acres) Russian Olive (0) Strand (5732 acres) These types represent tree-dominated riparian habitat types. Tree types are what we have ET estimates for from the scientific literature. Habitats excluded and rationale Areas not Ground Verified (no way to know what if any vegetation was present; total acres = 428) Conifer Oak (not a riparian habitat type) Mountain Scrub (not a riparian habitat type) Mesquite (excluded from this dataset but is captured by the second dataset we are using – SW ReGAP/SWAP, which covers a larger area and thus will capture more of the mesquite habitat type throughout the state; total unique acres not captured by SW ReGAP/SWAP = 849) Marsh (we do not have ET values for emergent wetland habitat types; total = 51 acres) Wet Meadow (we do not have ET values for emergent wetland habitat types; 771 acres) Flood Scoured (flood scoured habitats are areas of bare sand that are likely spots for future riparian recruitment; total acres = 7,000). Including these areas would likely have overestimated riparian acreage. Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 149 Water Resources Development Commission Methodology AGFD Used to Refine the SW ReGAP Riparian Data for Use in the Department’s State Wildlife Action Plan At the time this model was developed, two sources of riparian data were available for Arizona: the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (SWReGAP) landcover database (Lowry et al., 2007) and the Department’s Riparian Inventory (Valencia, 1993). Both were reviewed for accuracy by an internal team familiar with riparian areas throughout the state. The SWReGAP landcover layer was found to under represent riparian in much of the state while misclassifying large areas of mesquite woodlands as riparian. These misclassified pixels were re-assigned to mesquite forest in the original data. The 1993 Department’s Riparian Inventory was discovered to be out-of-date and incomplete since riparian vegetation was only mapped along perennial drainages and not intermittent ones. In an attempt to fill in the blanks left by those datasets, the Department modeled the potential riparian vegetation along lakes and perennial and intermittent streams by calculating cost weighted distance from each stream and lake using slope as the cost surface, essentially mapping the flood plain around each stream and lake. The resulting output was constrained by an upper cost limit and by distance from the stream or lake. The model was combined with the Department’s riparian inventory and the SWReGAP riparian categories to create a comprehensive map of potential riparian vegetation. Known areas of development, agriculture or dewatering were erased from the model. In recognizing the importance of riparian vegetation in Arizona, the Department chose methodology that over represents the presence of riparian habitat in Arizona as opposed to methodology that under represents riparian habitat. Rationale for the Baseflow Estimates Selected for the Bill Williams and Lower San Pedro Rivers Estimates of baseflow were not available in the scientific literature for the Bill Williams and Lower San Pedro rivers. Due to the importance of these two systems for riparian and aquatic natural resources, the Commission evaluated available gage data to estimate baseflow values. For the San Pedro River available data were compiled in the table below. Based on a review of the data, the Commission selected 5 cfs, which is close to the median value, for baseflow in the San Pedro River below Benson. 150 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission For the Bill Williams River, data was reviewed from the following gages: Bill Williams River near Parker gage record is from 10/1/1988 to present; median flow = 8 cfs Bill Williams River below Alamo Dam gage is from 10/1939 to present; pre-dam period (1940-1967), median flow = 9.4 cfs; for the concurrent period of record (10/1/1988 to present) median flow = 25 cfs Based on a review of these data, the Commission selected 8 cfs as the baseflow value for the Bill Williams River, which is the median flow near the Parker gage. This value represents current conditions in the watershed. Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 151 Water Resources Development Commission Sources and References for Data Used in Estimates of Current Flows Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Blasch, K. W., Hoffmann, J.P., Graser, L.F., Bryson, J.R., & Flint, A.L. (2006). Hydrogeology of the upper and middle Verde River watersheds, central Arizona (USGS SIR 2005-5198, 102 p., 3 plates). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Corell, S.W., Corkhill, F., Lovvik, D., & Putman, F. (1996). A groundwater flow model of the Sierra Vista Subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro Basin, southeastern Arizona (Modeling Report No. 10). Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of Water Resources, Hydrology Division. Fisk, G.G., Duet, N.R., McGuire, E.H., Roberts, W.P., Castillo, N.K., & Smith, C.F. (2006). Water Resources Data Arizona Water Year 2005 (USGS WDR AZ-05-1). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Available from http://pubs.usgs.gov/wdr/2005/wdr-az-05-1/pdf/wdr051.pdf Lowry, J. H, Jr., Ramsey, R. D., Thomas, K. A., Schrupp, D., Kepner, W., Sajwaj, T., . . . Thompson, B. (2007). Land cover classification and mapping. In J.S. Prior-Magee, et al., (Eds.) Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Final Report (Chapter 2). Moscow, ID: U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program. Marshall, R.M., Robles, M., Majka, D., & Haney, J.A. (2010). Sustainable Water Management in the Southwestern United States: Reality or Rhetoric? PLoS ONE 5(7): e11687. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0011687 Nagler, P.L., Morino, K., Murray, R.S., Osterberg, J., Glenn, E.P. (2009). An empirical algorithm for estimating agricultural and riparian evapotranspiration using MODIS Enhanced Vegetation Index and Ground Measurements. I. Description of method. Remote Sensing, 1 (4), 1273-1297. Nagler, P.L., Scott, R.L., Westenburg, C., Cleverly, J.R., Glenn, E.P., Huete, A.R. (2005). Evapotranspiration on western U.S. rivers estimated using the Enhanced Vegetation Index from MODIS and data from eddy covariance and Bowen ratio flux towers. Remote Sensing of Environment 97(3): 337-351. Tillman, F.D., Cordova, J.T., Leake, S.A., Thomas, B.E., & Callegary, B. (In review). Water Availability and Use Pilot: Methods Development for a Regional Assessment of Groundwater Availability, Southwest Alluvial Basins, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report. Valencia, R. A., Wennerlund, J. A., Winstead, R. A., Woods, S., Riley, L., Swanson, E. & Olson, S. (1993). Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department. 152 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission The compilation of data used to quantify current flows supporting water-dependent natural resources was prepared by: Rob Marshall (Director) and Jeanmarie Haney (Hydrologist), The Nature Conservancy Center for Science & Public Policy With contributions from: Fred D. Tillman, Ph.D., U.S. Geological Survey Pamela Nagler, Ph.D., U.S. Geological Survey Linda Stitzer, Arizona Department of Water Resources Santiago Garcia, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Rebecca Davidson, Salt River Project Dave Weedman, Arizona Game and Fish Department Comments and review of the work were provided by (in alphabetical order): Jean Calhoun, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Philip Bashaw, Arizona Farm Bureau Cliff Cauthen, Hohokam Irrigation and Drainage District & Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District Rebecca Davidson, Salt River Project Christine Dawe, U.S. Forest Service Amelia Homewytewa, Gila River Indian Community Doug Kupel, City of Phoenix Karen Nally, Hohokam Irrigation and Drainage District & Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District John Rasmussen, Yavapai County Jim Renthal, Bureau of Land Management Linda Stitzer, Arizona Department of Water Resources Dave Weedman, Arizona Game and Fish Department William Wells, Bureau of Land Management Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 153 Water Resources Development Commission Environmental Flow – Figures Figure 1: First Approximation of Current Flow Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources 154 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Figure 2: Estimates of Current Flow Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resource Using Data from the U.S. Geological Survey (Estimate 1) River/ Watershed Annual Baseflow (acreft/yr) Groundwater Underflow (acre-ft/yr) Agua Fria River Aravaipa Creek Arivaca Creek Bill Williams River Cienega Creek Gila River Salt River Upper San Pedro River Lower San Pedro River Santa Cruz River Tonto Creek Verde River Total 1,811 11,591 304 5,796 27,028 12,565 1,190 79,733 Average Annual First ET (acre-ft/yr) Approximation of Current Flow Supporting WaterDependent Natural Resources (acreft/yr) 34,454 36,265 16,692 28,283 2,136 2,440 79,511 85,307 797 127,503 236,170 9,417 5,683 87,695 87,271 17,916 8,022 106,953 136,970 22,890 8,819 234,456 373,140 32,747 3,622 43,368 62,087 65,709 11,591 15,213 194,151 617,966 7,710 14,130 82,334 466,623 12,427 21,082 115,157 618,381 24,018 36,295 309,308 1,236,787 440 440 Riparian Extent (acres) Flow volume estimates are in acre-feet/year using the following formula: flow volume = (baseflow + groundwater underflow + (riparian acres x ac-ft of ET)) All flow volumes are for the watershed area above the specific USGS gage used to estimate baseflow. See Figure 4 for USGS gages used. These estimates were based on the following studies: baseflow: adapted from the methods of Blasch et al. (2006); Marshall et al. (2010); Fisk et al. (2006) groundwater underflow: Correll et al. (2006) evapotranspiration [ET]: adapted from the methods of Tillman et al. (in review) and Nagler et al. (2009) riparian extent: adapted from Tillman et al. (in review) Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 155 Water Resources Development Commission Figure 3: Estimates of Current Flow Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Using Alternative Datasets (Estimate 2) River/ Watershed Annual Baseflow (acreft/yr) Groundwater Underflow (acre-ft/yr) Agua Fria River Aravaipa Creek Arivaca Creek Bill Williams River Cienega Creek Gila River Salt River Upper San Pedro River Lower San Pedro River Santa Cruz River Tonto Creek Verde River Total 1,811 11,591 304 5,796 9,861 2,766 1,131 44,799 Average Annual First ET (acre-ft/yr) Approximation of Current Flow Supporting WaterDependent Natural Resources (acreft/yr) 27,788 29,599 7,793 19,384 3,188 3,492 126,244 132,040 797 127,503 236,170 9,417 2,945 53,786 45,772 17,480 8,299 151,568 128,986 49,259 9,096 279,071 365,156 59,116 3,622 21,002 59,183 62,805 11,591 15,213 194,151 617,966 9,657 7,616 51,874 268,689 27,214 21,462 146,181 757,165 38,805 36,675 340,332 1,375,571 440 440 Riparian Extent (acres) Flow volume estimates are in acre-feet/year using the following formula: flow volume = (baseflow + groundwater underflow + (riparian acres x ac-ft of ET)) All flow volumes are for the watershed area above the specific USGS gage used to estimate baseflow. See Figure 4 for USGS gages used. These estimates were based on the following studies: baseflow: adapted from the methods of Blasch et al. (2006); Marshall et al. (2010); Fisk et al. (2006) groundwater underflow: Correll et al. (2006) evapotranspiration [ET]: adapted from the methods of Nagler et al. (2005) riparian extent: adapted from Valencia et al. (1993); Lowry et al. (2007) 156 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Figure 4: USGS Gages and Riparian Habitat Acreages USGS Gages and Riparian Habitat Acreages Used in WRDC Study River Gage # Gage Name Agua Fria River 9512800 Aravaipa Creek 9473000 Arivaca Creek 9486590 Bill Williams River 9426620 Cienega Creek 9484600 Gila River 9448500 Salt River 9498500 Agua Fria River near Rock springs Aravaipa Creek Near Mammoth Arivaca Wash near Arivaca Bill Williams near Parker Pantano Wash Near Vail Gila River At Head Of Safford Valley Near Solomon Salt River near Roosevelt San Pedro River at Charleston San Pedro at Winkelman Santa Cruz River at Tubac Tonto Creek abv Gunn Creek Verde River below Tangle Creek Upper San Pedro 9471000 River Lower San Pedro River 9473500 Santa Cruz River 9481740 Tonto Creek 9499000 Verde River 9508500 Riparian acres Riparian acres USGS (Tillman & others 2011) 27,028 SWAP/AGFD (Valencia & others 1993; Lowry & others 2007) 9,861 12,565 2,766 1,190 1,131 79,733 44,799 5,683 2,945 87,695 53,786 87,271 45,772 17,916 17,480 43,368 21,002 7,710 9,657 14,130 7,616 82,334 51,874 Environmental Working Group / Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Methodology / August 2011 157 Water Resources Development Commission BASIN TABLES Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Agua Fria None Agua Fria Yavapai & Maricopa B22, C8.1, C8.2, C14.1, C14.2 5 amphibian; 13 bird; 6 fish; 1 invertebrate; 6 mammal; 3 reptile species. Of these, 3 fish, 2 bird and 1 reptile species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Baseflow (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component 1,811 27,788 - 34,454 29,599 - 36,265 YES 2 Water Feature Water Feature Characteristics 48 miles of perennial flow Agua Fria River Perennial tributary reaches of Ash, Big Bug, Black Canyon, Grapevine, Humbug, Indian, Little 60 miles of perennial flow Ash, Little Sycamore, Silver, Sycamore and Turkey creeks, Horner Gulch and Little Hackberry Wash Instream Flow Springs Effluent/Other Water Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 65 YES WWTP discharge to Agua Fria (at Black Canyon City) and unnamed watercourse (at Mayer) NR 1,108,600 2 small reservoirs 2 small reservoirs 63 13 527 stockponds / 13 catchments TOTALS 1,811 27,788 - 34,454 1 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 Baseflow measurement on the Agua Fria River at the Rock Springs gage. 3 4 Combined Surface Area (acres) 870 1 large reservoir (Lake Pleasant) Reservoirs (5 total) Combined Volume (acre-ft) YES Perennial Flow/Major Springs within 32 stream miles, 1 major spring Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 5 Max. Reservoir Storage YES 2 applications: Big Bug Creek (1) and Turkey Creek (1); 2 certificates: Ash Creek (1) and Sycamore Creek (1) 5 major springs with flow range from 14 to 340 gpm 14 minor springs with flow range from 1 to 6 gpm 294-297 total springs 4 Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) 29,599 - 36,265 935 1,108,663 13 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Agua Fria Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 158 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Aravaipa Canyon None Lower San Pedro Graham, Pinal B1, C5.1, C5.2, 4 amphibian; 19 bird; 8 fish; 6 C12.1, C12.2 mammal; 2 reptile species. Of these, 4 fish, 3 bird and 1 amphibian species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Baseflow (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component 11,591 7,793 - 16,692 19,384 - 28,283 YES 2 Water Feature Water Feature Characteristics Aravaipa Creek 18 miles of perennial flow; ADEQ Outstanding Arizona Water Perennial tributary reaches of Deer, Parsons Canyon, Turkey, Virgus Canyon creeks 32 miles of perennial flow Springs 5 339 70 YES Reservoirs (4 total) 2 small reservoirs 2 small reservoirs Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 349 stockponds/5 catchments 117 38 11,591 7,793 - 16,692 1 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 Baseflow measurement at Aravaipa Creek near Mammoth gage. 4 Combined Surface Area (acres) None TOTALS 3 Combined Volume (acre-ft) YES Perennial Flow/Major 33 stream miles, 4 major Springs within Federal/State Designated springs Conservation Lands Effluent/Other Water Max. Reservoir Storage YES 1 application: Oak Grove Canyon; 4 certificates: Aravaipa Creek 7 major springs with flow range from 10 to 100 gpm 15 minor springs with flow range from 1 to 6 gpm 87- 116 total springs Instream Flow4 Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) 19,384 - 28,283 409 117 38 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Aravaipa Canyon Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 159 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Groundwater Basin Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Big Sandy Fort Rock, Wikieup Big Sandy, Hualapai Wash Yavapai & Mohave B2, C9.1, C.9.2, C14.1, C14.2 4 amphibian; 12 bird; 5 fish; 5 mammal; 2 reptile species. Of these, 3 bird and 1 fish species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources 2 Water Feature Water Feature Characteristics Baseflow (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) 11 miles of perennial flow YES Perennial reaches of 38 miles of perennial flow Cottonwood, Knight, Trout, and Wright creeks YES Big Sandy River Instream Flow4 1 application: Big Sandy River Springs 6 major springs with flow range from 10 to 1600 gpm 11 minor springs with flow range from 1 to 5 gpm 165 - 179 total springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands None Effluent/Other Water5 None Reservoirs (11 total) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) YES 4742 50 117 3 small reservoirs 7 small reservoirs 492 92 426 stockponds / 4 catchments 4,792 TOTALS Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 No baseflow measurements. 4 Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) 1 large reservoir 1 3 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component 609 92 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Big Sandy Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 160 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Groundwater Basin Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Bill Williams Alamo Reservoir, Burro Creek, Clara Peak, Santa Maria, Skull Valley Big Sandy, Yavapai, Burro, Santa Mohave, La Maria, Bill Paz Williams, Centennial Wash B3, C7.1, C7.2, 3 amphibian; 16 bird; 9 fish; 6 C9.1, C.9.2, mammal; 2 reptile species. C14.1, C14.2 Of these, 5 fish and 4 bird species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Water Feature Characteristics Bill Williams 22 miles of perennial flow Big Sandy 20 miles of perennial flow 37 miles of perennial flow; ADEQ Outstanding Arizona Water Burro Creek Baseflow2 (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component 5,796 79,511 - 126,244 85,307 132,040 YES YES Instream Flow4 4 applications: Big Sandy River (1), Bill Williams River (1), Burro Creek (1), Francis Creek (1); 1 certificate: Bill Williams River; 1 permit: Peoples Canyon Creek YES Springs 6 major springs with flow range from 18 to 228 gpm 13 minor springs with flow range from 1 to 9 gpm 249 - 303 total springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 37 stream miles Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 75 YES 117 504 203 796 stockponds / 29 catchments 5,796 79,511 - 126,244 1 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 Baseflow measurement at Bill Williams River near Parker gage. 4 Combined Surface Area (acres) 886 None 2 large reservoir (Alamo, Havasu) 3 small reservoirs 16 small reservoirs TOTALS 3 Combined Volume (acre-ft) YES 73 miles of perennial flow. Francis and Peeple's Canyon creeks are ADEQ Outstanding Arizona Waters Reservoirs (21 total) Max. Reservoir Storage YES Perennial reaches of Bland, Boulder, Bridle, Conger, Date, Francis, Kirkland, Peeple's Canyon, Pine, Spencer, Sycamore, Waterman and Wilder creeks, Copper Basin Wash, Mountain Spring Wash, Colorado and Santa Maria rivers Effluent/Other Water5 Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) 85,307 132,040 961 621 203 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Bill Williams Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 161 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Groundwater Basin Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Bonita Creek None Upper Gila-San Graham Carlos Reservoir, San Carlos B16, C5.1, C5.2 Water Feature 4 amphibian; 14 bird; 6 fish; 4 mammal; 3 reptile species. Bonita Creek Of these, 1 amphibian, 3 bird, 2 fish and 1 reptile species are Instream Flow4 federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Environmental Species Springs Act. Water Feature Characteristics Baseflow2 (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) 14 miles of perennial flow; ADEQ Outstanding Arizona Water 1 application: Bonita Creek 1 major spring with flow of 20 gpm 4 minor springs with flow range from 2 to 8 gpm 37-41 total springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 14 stream miles Effluent/Other Water5 None Reservoirs (17 total) 1 large reservoir 2 small reservoirs 14 small reservoirs Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) YES YES 32 25 YES NR 59 289 121 57 TOTALS Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 No baseflow measurements. 4 Current Flood Flow Component 24 stockponds / 0 catchments 1 3 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) 289 180 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Bonita Creek Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 162 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Butler Valley None Bouse Wash La Paz B23, C7.1, C7.2 1 amphibian; 4 bird; 4 mammal species. Of these, 1 bird species is federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources 2 Water Feature Water Feature Characteristics Perennial Streams None Instream Flow4 None Springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 1 spring < 1 gpm Effluent/Other Water5 None Reservoirs (1 total) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 1 large (Cunningham) Baseflow (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) 143 7 stockponds / 3 catchments 143 TOTALS Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 No baseflow measurements. 4 Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) None 1 3 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Butler Valley Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 163 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Cienega Creek None Rillito, Upper Santa Cruz, B27, C2.1, San Pedro, Upper Pima, Cochise C2.2, C11.1, Santa Cruz C11.2, C13.1, C13.2 6 amphibian, 19 bird, 7 fish, I invertebrate, 4 mammal and 3 reptile species; of these 2 amphibian, 3 bird, 3 fish, 1 invertebrate and 1 reptile species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Water Feature Characteristics Baseflow2 (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component Cienega Creek 12 miles of perennial flow; ADEQ Outstanding Arizona Water 797 8,022 - 8,299 8,819 - 9,095 YES Perennial reaches of Sonoita, Red Rock Canyon, Alum Gulch, Harshaw Canyon and Mattie Canyon 34 miles of perennial flow; Davidson Canyon ADEQ Outstanding Arizona Water YES Instream Flow4 6 applications: Big Casa Blanca Canyon Creek (1), Cave Creek (1), Gardner Canyon Creek (1), Harshaw Creek, Redrock Canyon Creek (1) and Temporal Gulch (1); 1 certificate: Cienega Creek YES Water Feature 8 major springs with flow range from 10 to 430 gpm Springs 10 stream miles, 1 spring Effluent/Other Water5 Effluent-Dependent Water: Sonoita Creek (0.16 mi.) Reservoirs (4 total) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 73 68 10 797 8,022 - 8,299 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 Baseflow measurement at Pantano Wash near Vail gage in the Tucson AMA. 4 Combined Surface Area (acres) YES 1 3 Combined Volume (acre-ft) 11 2 small 2 small 426 stockponds / 5 catchments TOTAL Max. Reservoir Storage 1,318 2 minor springs with flow range from 3 to 4 gpm 78 total springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) 8,819 - 9,095 1,402 68 10 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Cienega Creek Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 164 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Coconino Plateau None Lower Little Colorado, Moenkopi Wash, Lower ColoradoMarble Canyon, Grand Canyon, Havasu Canyon Coconino B4N, B4S, 5 amphibian; 13 bird; 9 fish; 3 C3.1N, C3.1S, invertebrate; 7 mammal; 1 C3.2N, C3.2S reptile species. Of these, 4 fish, 3 bird and 1 invertebrate species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Colorado River Water Feature Characteristics Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Baseflow2 (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) 153 miles of perennial (regulated) flow Perennial reaches of Little Colorado River, Boulder, Monument, Garden, Pipe, Hermit, Matkatamiba, 44 miles of perennial flow Havasu, Royal Arch, Three Springs, West Cataract and Diamond creeks None Instream Flow4 29 major springs with flow range from 10 to 101,600 gpm Springs 28 minor springs with flow range from 1 to 8 gpm 87- 116 total springs Perennial Flow/Major 128 stream miles, 10 major Springs within Federal/State Designated springs Conservation Lands WWTP discharge to unnamed wash (Valle Airport); Cataract Creek, Bright Angel Wash (South Rim); Coconino Wash (Tusayan) and Mohawk Canyon Effluent/Other Water5 (Williams) Effluent-Dependent Waters: Bright Angel Wash (7 mi.) and Cataract Creek (0.62 mi) 5 large reservoirs 7 large reservoirs Reservoirs (57 total) 8 small reservoirs 37 small reservoirs Stockponds/Wildlife 757 stockponds / 40 catchments Catchments TOTALS 1 2 3 4 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) NO YES 218,245 132 YES (some streams) NR 4,939 850 892 521 218,377 5,831 1,371 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. No baseflow measurements For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Coconino Plateau Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 165 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Detrital Valley None Detrital Wash, Lake Mohave Mead, HavasuMohave Lakes Water Feature Characteristics Water Feature B9, C9.1, C9.2 3 amphibian; 11 bird; 1 fish; 1 Colorado River invertebrate and 5 mammal species. Of these, 1 fish, 2 bird Instream Flow4 and 1 amphibian species are federally listed as endangered, Springs threatened or candidate species under the Environmental Species Act. Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Baseflow2 (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) 27 miles of perennial (regulated) flow None 1 major spring normally submerged by Lake Mead Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) NO 1,200 34 24 to 27 springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 27 stream miles Effluent/Other Water5 None Reservoirs (1 total) 1 large (Lake Mead) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 43 stockponds / 3 catchments TOTALS Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 No baseflow measurements 4 Current Flood Flow Component 4 minor springs; flows range from 3 to 6 gpm 1 3 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) NO 29,755,000 1,234 29,755,000 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Detrital Valley Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 166 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Donnelly Wash None Middle Gila Pinal B1; C12.1, C12.2 2 amphibian; 13 bird; 4 fish; 3 mammal and 2 reptile species. Of these, 1 fish and 3 bird species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Gila River Perennial reach of Box Canyon Instream Flow4 Springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands Water Feature Characteristics Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Baseflow2 (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) YES 3 miles of perennial flow YES Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) None 12 to 14 springs None Effluent/Other Water5 None Reservoirs (2 total) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 2 small reservoirs 10 89 stockponds / 4 catchments TOTALS Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 No baseflow measurements 4 Current Flood Flow Component Regulated flow; may be perennial 1 3 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) 10 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Donnelly Wash Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 167 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Douglas None Whitewater Draw, Willcox Playa Cochise B5, C2.1, C2.2 3 amphibian; 17 bird; 3 fish; 4 mammal and 4 reptile species. Of these, 1 amphibian, 1 fish, 3 bird and 1 reptile species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Water Feature Characteristics Baseflow2 (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) 2 miles of perennial flow YES Instream Flow4 1 certificate: Leslie Creek YES Springs 6 minor springs; flows range from 1 to 4 gpm 6-10 total springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 2 stream miles Effluent/Other Water5 WWTP discharge to Whitewater Draw Reservoirs (3 total) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 3 small 254 stockponds / 1 catchment TOTALS Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) 2 No baseflow measurements Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) 21 YES 28 21 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 4 Current Flood Flow Component Perennial reach of Leslie Creek 1 3 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) 28 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Douglas Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 168 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Dripping Springs Wash None Middle Gila, San Pinal, Gila Carlos B1, C4,1, C4,2, 3 amphibian; 18 bird; 5 fish; 4 C12.1, C12.2 mammal and 2 reptile species. Of these, 1 amphibian, 2 fish and 3 bird species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Gila River Water Feature Characteristics Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Baseflow2 (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) 3 miles perennial (regulated) flow Perennial reach of Mescal 4 miles perennial flow Creek and Dripping Springs Wash 2 3 4 Current Flood Flow Component Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) NO YES YES Springs 1 certificate: Mescal Creek 2 major springs with flow range from 165 to 200 gpm 76-99 total springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 2 stream miles, 1 major spring YES Effluent/Other Water5 None Reservoirs Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments None Instream Flow4 589 79 stockponds / 6 catchments TOTALS 1 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) 589 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. No baseflow measurements For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Dripping Springs Wash Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 169 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Duncan Valley None Upper GilaMangas Greenlee, Cochise B6, C2.1, C2.2, 4 amphibian; 13 bird; 3 fish; 5 C6.1, C6.2 mammal and 2 reptile species. Of these, 1 amphibian and 3 bird species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Water Feature Characteristics Water Feature Baseflow2 (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) YES YES Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 6 stream miles, 1 major spring YES Effluent/Other Water5 None Reservoirs (3 total) 1 large 2 small Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 373 stockponds / 3 catchments Instream Flow 4 Springs TOTALS Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. No baseflow measurements Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) 73 10 124 38 83 2 4 Current Flood Flow Component 26 miles perennial flow 1 application: Gila River 2 major springs with flow range from 15 to 30 gpm 1 minor spring with flow of 6 gpm 30 to 36 springs Gila River 1 3 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) 162 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Duncan Valley Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 170 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Gila Bend None Lower GilaPainted Rock Reservoir, Tenmile Wash Maricopa B7, C8.1, C8.2 4 amphibian; 12 bird; 4 mammal and 2 reptile species. Of these, 3 bird species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Water Feature Characteristics Gila River Effluent and agricultural return flows may support flow Instream Flow4 Springs None 0 to 1 spring Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands None Effluent/Other Water5 Reservoirs (3 total) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments Baseflow2 (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) Effluent-Dependent Water: unnamed wash (2 mi.) 1 large (Painted Rock, usually dry) 2 small 24 stockponds / 21 catchments TOTALS Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 No baseflow measurements 4 Current Flood Flow Component Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) NO 4,831,500 171 4,831,671 1 3 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Gila Bend Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 171 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Grand Wash None Grand Wash, Lake Mead Mohave Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources 2 Water Feature B8, C9.1, C9.2 3 amphibian; 11 bird; 3 fish; 1 Colorado River invertebrate and 5 mammal species. Of these, 1 amphibian, Instream Flow4 1 fish and 3 bird species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate Springs species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Characteristics Baseflow (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) 4 miles perennial (regulated) flow None 6 major springs with flow range from 13 to 75 gpm 2 3 4 Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) NO 372 9 minor spring with flow of 2 to 9 gpm 43 47 to 52 springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 4 stream miles, 5 major springs Effluent/Other Water5 None Reservoirs (1 total) 1 large (Lake Mead - see Lake Mohave Basin) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 109 stockponds / 16 catchments TOTALS 1 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component NO 415 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. No baseflow measurements For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Grand Wash Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 172 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Harquahala None Centennial Wash, Maricopa; La B23, C7.1, Bouse Wash Paz C7.2, C8.1, C8.2 2 amphibian; 10 bird and 4 mammal species. Of these, 2 bird species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Water Feature Characteristics Perennial Streams None Instream Flow4 None Springs 0 to 1spring <1 gpm Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands None Effluent/Other Water5 None Reservoirs (1 total) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 1 small 42 stockponds / 9 catchments 2 Baseflow (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) TOTALS 1 2 3 4 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) 17 17 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. No baseflow measurements For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Harquahala Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 173 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Hualapai Valley None Lake Mead, Red Lake, Detrital Wash Mohave Water Feature Characteristics Water Feature B9, C9.1, C9.2 4 amphibian; 14 bird; 1 fish Colorado River and 5 mammal species. Of these, 1 amphibian, 1 fish and 4 bird species are federally Instream Flow4 listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Springs Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources 2 Baseflow (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) 21 miles perennial (regulated) flow Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) NO None 3 major springs with flow range from 10 to 25 gpm 86 19 minor springs with flow of 1 to 7 gpm 79 30 to 36 springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 21 stream miles Effluent/Other Water5 None Reservoirs (4 total) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 2 large (Lake Mead - see Lake Mohave Basin, and Red Lake) 2 small 72 stockponds / 9 catchments TOTALS 1 2 3 4 NO 13,412 145 165 12 13,424 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. No baseflow measurements For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Hualapai Valley Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 174 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland HabitatDependent Wildlife Species1 Kanab Plateau None Fort Pierce Wash, Coconino, Kanab, Lower Mohave Colorado-Marble Canyon B10, C3.1N, C3.1S, C3.2N, C3.2S, C9.1, C9.2 5 amphibian; 11 bird; 8 fish;1 invertebrate and 7 mammal species. Of these, 2 bird, 4 fish and 1 invertebrate species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Colorado River Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Water Feature Characteristics Baseflow2 (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) 49 miles perennial (regulated) flow 24 miles perennial flow Kanab Creek Perennial reaches of Bright Angel, Clear, Crystal, Deer, Dragon, Nankoweap, North Canyon, Phantom, 65 miles perennial flow Roaring Springs, Shinumo, Tapeats, Thunder River and White creeks, North Canyon Wash and Paria River and unnamed watercourse None Instream Flow4 Springs Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) NO YES YES 38 major springs with flow range from 10 to 18,763 gpm 85,130 23 minor springs with flow of 1 to 9 gpm 102 181 to 190 springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 52 stream miles, 28 major springs Effluent/Other Water5 Effluent-Dependent Water: Trancept Canyon (2.44 mi.) YES (some streams) 1 large (Fredonia) Reservoirs (13 total) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 2 3 4 83 1 small 9 small 705 stockponds / 36 catchments TOTALS 1 2,710 2 large 104 112 85,232 2,814 195 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. No baseflow measurements For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Kanab Plateau Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 175 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland HabitatDependent Wildlife Species1 Lake Havasu None Sacramento Wash, Mohave Havasu-Mohave Lakes B11, C9.1, C9.2 Water Feature Characteristics Water Feature 2 amphibian; 15 bird; 3 fish; Colorado River 6 mammal and 2 reptile species. Of these, 1 amphibian, 4 bird and 3 fish 4 species are federally listed as Instream Flow endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Springs Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources 2 Baseflow (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) 38 miles perennial (regulated) flow 2 3 4 Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) NO None 3 springs < 1gpm Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 8 stream miles Effluent/Other Water5 None Reservoirs (1 total) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 1 large (Lake Havasu) 0 stockponds / 8 catchments TOTALS 1 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component NO 651,000 651,000 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. No baseflow measurements For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Lake Havasu Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 176 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland HabitatDependent Wildlife Species1 Lake Mohave None Havasu-Mohave Lakes Mohave B12N, B12S, C9.1, C9.2 Water Feature 3 amphibian; 13 bird; 3 fish; Colorado River 1 invertebrate and 5 mammal species. Of these, 1 Instream Flow4 amphibian, 2 fish and 4 bird species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Springs Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Characteristics Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Baseflow2 (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) 122 miles perennial (regulated) flow None Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) NO 10 major springs with flow range from 20 to 400 gpm 1,344 2 minor springs with flow of 1 to 5 gpm 10 27 to 29 springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands Effluent/Other Water5 Reservoirs6 (7 total) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 80 stream miles, 9 major springs; CO River entitlement of 41,839 acre-ft/yr for the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge WWTP discharge to Fort Mohave Treatment Wetland 45 WWTP discharge to unidentified watercourse at Bullhead City 78 2 large (Mead and Mohave lakes) 3 large (Topock Marsh, Lost Lake, Beal Lake) 2 small Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 No baseflow measurements 5 4,868 30 1,477 TOTALS 4 31,573,300 3 stockponds / 20 catchments 1 3 NO 31,573,300 4,898 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. 6 Lake Mead extends into Detrital, Grand Wash, Meadview and Hualapai basins. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Lake Mohave Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 177 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland HabitatDependent Wildlife Species1 Little Colorado River Plateau None Lower Lake Coconino, Powell, Lower San Apache, Juan-Four Navajo Corners, Middle San Juan, Chaco, Chinle, Lower San Juan, Little Colorado River Headwaters, Upper little Colorado, Carrizo Wash, Zuni, Silver, Upper Puerco, Lower Puerco, Middle Little Colorado, Leroux Wash, Chevelon Canyon, Cottonwood Wash, Corn-oraibi, Polacca Wash, Jadito Wash, Canyon Diablo, Lower Little Colorado, Dinnebito Wash, Moenkopi Wash B13N, B13C, B13S, C1.1N, C1.1S, C1.2N, C1.2S, C3.1N, C3.1S, C3.2N, C3.2S, C10.1N, C10.1S, C10.2N, C10.2S 7 amphibian; 18 bird; 14 fish; 4 invertebrate, 9 mammal and 2 reptile species. Of these, 1 amphibian, 4 bird, 7 fish, 1 invertebrate and 1 mammal species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Riparian ET Current Flood Total Flow Baseflow 3 Flow (acres x ET rate) (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) Component (acre-ft/yr) 2 Water Feature Water Feature Characteristics Little Colorado River Perennial reaches of Colorado River, Silver Creek, Chevelon Canyon, East Clear Creek, Navajo Creek, Walker Creek and 80 other watercourses 72 miles perennial (regulated) flow 812 miles perennial flow. Colorado River and Silver Creek flow regulated. Lee Valley Creek and West Fork Little Colorado River ADEQ Outstanding Arizona Waters 12 applications: Billy Creek (3), Brown Creek (1), Chevelon Creek (2), Coyote Creek (1), East Clear Creek (1), Mineral Creek (1), Porter Creek (1), Show Low Creek (1) and Walnut Creek (1); No Certificates 67 major springs with flow range from 10 to 3,648 gpm 161 minor springs with flows of 1 to 9 gpm Instream Flow4 Springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State 86 stream miles, 2 major springs Designated Conservation Lands WWTP discharge to Black Creek at Window Rock, to unidentified washes at Dilkon and Many Farms, and to Laguna and Chinle Wash at Kayenta WWTP discharge to Ruby Wash at Effluent/Other Water5 Winslow, Rio de Flag at Flagstaff and to wildlife areas at Flagstaff, Eagar, Pinetop/Lakeside, Show Low and Springerville Effluent-Dependent Water: Reach of Rio de Flag 62 large (Lake Powell) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 3 4 Combined Combined Volume Surface Area (acre-ft) (acres) YES YES YES 20,320 678 YES 1,815 NR 20,672,620 32 large 10,269 416 small 269 small 13,343 3,907 6,113 stockponds / 43 catchments 22,813 TOTALS 2 Max. Reservoir Storage 1,222 to 1,305 springs Reservoirs (779 total) 1 Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) 20,685,963 14,176 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. No baseflow measurements For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Little Colorado River Plateau Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 178 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland HabitatDependent Wildlife Species1 Lower Gila WelltonMohawk, Childs Valley, Dendora Valley Lower Gila, Tenmile Wash, San Cristobol Wash, Tule Desert, Imperial Reservoir Maricopa, Pima, Yuma, La Paz B14N, B14S, C7.1, C7.2, C8.1, C8.2, C11.1, C11.2, C15.1, C15.2 4 amphibian; 15 bird; 2 fish; 6 mammal and 1 reptile species. Of these, 3 bird and 1 fish species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Water Feature Characteristics Water Feature Colorado River 11 miles perennial (regulated) flow Instream Flow4 Springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands None 6 to 8 springs < 1gpm 5 stream miles; CO River entitlement of 28,000 acreft/yr for the Imperial National Wildlife Refuge Effluent/Other Water5 None 2 Baseflow (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) 1 large (Imperial) Reservoirs (11 total) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments TOTALS Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 No baseflow measurements 4 Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) NO NO 160,000 4 large 6 small 65 stockponds / 64 catchments 1 3 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component 1,159 70 160,000 1,229 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Lower Gila Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 179 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland HabitatDependent Wildlife Species1 Lower San Pedro Mammoth, Camp Lower San Pedro, Cochise, Gila, B15N, B15S, Grant Wash Middle Gila Graham, Pinal, C2.1, C2.2, Pima C4.1, C4.2, C5.1, C5.2, C11.1, C11.2, C12.1, C12.2 4 amphibian; 21 bird; 9 fish; 5 mammal and 2 reptile species. Of these, 1 amphibian, 5 fish and 3 bird species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Riparian ET Baseflow Water Feature Characteristics (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) 2 Water Feature San Pedro River 33 miles perennial flow 3,622 59,183 - 62,087 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component 62,805 65,709 YES Perennial reaches of Aravaipa Creek, Bass Canyon, Buehman Canyon Creek, Copper Creek, 44 miles perennial flow. Devils Canyon, Hot Springs Buehman Canyon Creek ADEQ Canyon, Mill Creek, Mineral Outstanding Arizona Water Creek, Redfield Canyon Creek, and Swamp Springs Canyon Creek YES Instream Flow4 7 applications: Buehman Canyon Creek (2), Paige Creek (1), Peppersauce Wash (1), San Pedro River (2), and Swamp Springs Canyon/Redfield Canyon (1); 4 certificates: Aravaipa (1), Hot Springs Canyon (2), Wildcat Canyon (1) YES Springs 12 major springs with flow range from 11 to 1000 gpm 30 minor springs with flow of 1 to 8 gpm 203 to 209 springs Combined Surface Area (acres) YES 38 NR NR 360 33 3,622 59,183 - 62,087 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 Baseflow measurement at San Pedro River at Winkelman gage. 4 Combined Volume (acre-ft) 142 1 3 Max. Reservoir Storage 3115 Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State 6 stream miles Designated Conservation Lands WWTP discharge to Gila River at Winkelman WWTP discharge to Effluent/Other Water5 watercourse and wildlife area Effluent-Dependent Water: unnamed tributary (1.77 mi.) 4 small Reservoirs (7 total) 3 small Stockponds/Wildlife 648 stockponds / 4 catchments Catchments TOTALS Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) 62,805 65,709 3,295 360 33 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Lower San Pedro Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 180 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 McMullen Valley None Centennial Wash Maricopa, Yavapai, La Paz B23, C7.1, C7.2, C8.1, C8.2, C14.1, C14.2 2 amphibian; 7 bird and 3 mammal species. Of these, 1 bird species is federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources 2 Water Feature Perennial Flow Instream Flow 4 Water Feature Characteristics Baseflow (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) None Springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 2 springs < 1 GPM Effluent/Other Water5 None Reservoirs (2 total) 1 small 1 small Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 146 stockponds / 6 catchments None TOTALS Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 No baseflow measurements 4 Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) None 1 3 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component 374 7 374 7 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. McMullen Valley Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 181 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland HabitatDependent Wildlife Species1 Meadview None Lake Mead, Red Lake Mohave Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources 2 Water Feature B9, C9.1, C9.2 3 amphibian; 10 bird; 3 fish Colorado River and 5 mammal species. Of these, 1 amphibian, 1 fish Instream Flow4 and 3 bird species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or Springs candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Characteristics Baseflow (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) 7 miles perennial (regulated) flow None 6 major springs with flow range from 16 to 108 gpm 2 minor springs with flow of 1 to 7 gpm 8 to 10 springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 7 stream miles Effluent/Other Water5 None Reservoirs (1 total) 1 large (Lake Mead - See Lake Mohave Basin) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 14 stockponds / 1 catchment Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 No baseflow measurements 4 Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) NO 450 12 NO 462 TOTALS 1 3 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Meadview Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 182 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Morenci None San Francisco, Apache, Upper Gila-San Greenlee, Carlos Reservoir, Graham Upper GilaMangas B16, C5.1, C5.2, C6.1, C6.2 7 amphibian; 16 bird; 11 fish; 8 mammal and 4 reptile species. Of these, 1 amphibian, 7 fish, 3 bird, 1 mammal and 1 reptile species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Water Feature Characteristics Water Feature Blue River Eagle Creek San Francisco River 2 Baseflow (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) 50 miles perennial flow 56 miles perennial flow 54 miles perennial flow Perennial flow in reaches of Ash, Beeler, Bob Thomas, Campbell Blue, Cave, Chase, Chitty Canyon, Cienega, Coleman, Dix, Dutch Blue, East Eagle, Foote, Grant, 195 miles of perennial flow. KP Hannah Springs, Jackson, KP, Creek ADEQ Outstanding Lanphier, Left Prong Dix, Little Blue, Little, Pace, Pigeon, Point of Arizona Water Pines, Raspberry, Right Fork Foote, Sardine, Silver, Squaw, Stone, Strayhorse, Thomas, Turkey and Willow creeks, Long Cienega and unnamed watercourses Instream Flow 4 Springs 6 applications: Blue River (1), Dix Creek (1), Eagle Creek (1), San Francisco River (3); No Certificates 9 major springs with flow range from 10 to 200 gpm 8 minor springs with flows of 1 to 5 gpm 308 to 358 springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 81 stream miles, 1 major spring Effluent/Other Water5 None Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments YES 968 32 YES 229 1,327 138 1,000 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 No baseflow measurements 4 7,522 4 small 12 small 673 stockponds / 1 catchment TOTALS Combined Surface Area (acres) YES 1 large 1 3 Combined Volume (acre-ft) YES YES YES 3 large Reservoirs (20 total) Max. Reservoir Storage 8,849 367 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Morenci Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 183 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland HabitatDependent Wildlife Species1 Paria None Paria, Lower Coconino Lake Powell, Lower ColoradoMarble Canyon B17, C3.1N, C3.1S 5 amphibian; 11 bird; 4 fish and 7mammal species. Of these, 3 bird species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Paria River Colorado River Unnamed watercourse 4 Instream Flow Springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands Effluent/Other Water5 Reservoirs (1 total) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Water Feature Characteristics 2 Baseflow (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) 19 miles perennial flow 5 miles perennial (regulated) flow 2 miles perennial flow None 2 to 3 springs < 1 gpm 26 stream miles Current Flood Flow Component Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) YES NO YES YES (some streams) None 1 large (Lake Powell - see Little Colorado River Plateau Basin) 57 Stockponds / 4 wildlife catchments TOTALS 1 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 No baseflow measurements 3 4 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Paria Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 184 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Subbasin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland HabitatDependent Wildlife Species1 Parker La Posa Plains, Cibola Valley, Colorado River Indian Reservation Imperial Reservoir, La Paz, Yuma B18N, B18S, Tyson Wash, C7.1, C7.2, Bouse Wash, Bill C14.1, C14.2 Williams 2 amphibian; 16 bird; 2 fish and 6 mammal species. Of these, 4 bird and 2 fish species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Water Feature Characteristics Water Feature Riparian ET Baseflow (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) 2 Colorado River 144 miles perennial (regulated) flow NO Perennial reach of Twelvemile Slough and unnamed watercourse 3 mile perennial (regulated) flow NO Instream Flow4 None Springs 11 to 12 springs < 1 gpm Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 47 stream miles; CO River entitlement of 34,500 acre-ft/yr for the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge Effluent/Other Water Reservoirs (10 total) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 5 WWTP discharge to watercourse at Buckskin Mtn. State Park WWTP discharge to watercourse at Parker 2 large (Lake Havasu and Moovalya Lake) TOTALS Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 No baseflow measurements 4 Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) NO 11 NR 671,000 3 large 5 small 5 stockponds / 29 catchments 1 3 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component 829 188 11 671,000 1,017 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Parker Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 185 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland HabitatDependent Wildlife Species1 Peach Springs None Big ChinoWilliamson Valley, Grand Canyon, Hualapai Wash, Lake Mead Coconino, Yavapai, Mohave B19, C3.1N, C3.1S, C3.2N, C3.2S, C9.1, C9.2, C14.1, C14.2 4 amphibian; 11 bird; 6 fish and 5 mammal species. Of these, 1 amphibian, 2 fish and 3 bird species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Water Feature Characteristics Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Baseflow2 (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) 14 miles perennial (regulated) flow NO Perennial reach of Diamond Creek < 1 mile perennial flow YES Instream Flow4 Springs None 14 major springs with flow range from 12 to 1,730 gpm 5 minor springs with flow of 1 to 9 gpm 28 to 29 springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 6 stream miles Effluent/Other Water5 None Reservoirs (10 total) 2 small 8 small Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 135 stockponds / 7 catchments Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 No baseflow measurements Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Combined Volume Surface Area (acre-ft) (acres) 9,409 29 NO 451 93 9,438 TOTALS 4 Current Flood Flow Component Colorado River 1 3 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) 451 93 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Peach Springs Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 186 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland HabitatDependent Wildlife Species1 Phoenix AMA East Salt River Valley, West Salt River Valley, Lake Pleasant, Rainbow Valley, Hassayampa, Fountain Hills, Carefree Lower Salt, Maricopa, Lower Verde, Pinal, Lower GilaYavapai Painted Rock, Agua Fria, Hassayampa, Centennial Wash, Lower Santa Cruz, Middle Gila B20E, B20W, C8.1, C8.2, C12.1, C12.2, C14.1, C14.2 3 amphibian; 16 bird; 15 fish; 6 mammal and 2 reptile species. Of these, 8 fish and 4 bird species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Riparian ET Current Flood Total Flow Baseflow Flow (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) Component (acre-ft/yr) 2 Water Feature Water Feature Characteristics 37 miles perennial flow Gila River 26 miles of perennial (regulated) flow Verde River Perennial reaches of Arnett, Camp, Queen, and Skunk creeks; Hassayampa, New and 31 miles of perennial flow Salt rivers; Seven Springs Wash and unnamed watercourses 3 applications: Cave Creek (1), New River (1), and Queen Creek (1); 6 certificates: Arnett Creek (1), Camp Instream Flow4 Creek (1), Cave Creek (1), Hassayampa River (1), Seven Springs Wash (1), Sycamore Creek (1) 2 major springs with flows of 75 gpm Springs 4 minor springs with flow range of 1 to 3 gpm 110 to 132 springs Max. Reservoir Storage Spring and Effluent Combined Combined Discharge Volume Surface Area (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft) (acres) YES NO YES (some streams) YES 242 16 Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated 10 stream miles Conservation Lands WWTP discharge to watercourse at Avondale, Queen Valley and Superior Effluent/Other Water5 4,337 WWTP discharge to watercourse at Buckeye, Canyon Lake Marina, Cave Creek, Goodyear, Litchfield Park, Mesa, Sun City. Phoenix, Tolleson and to a wildlife area at Phoenix and Gilbert Effluent-Dependent Waters: Agua Fria River (2.4 mi.), Gila River (44.6 mi.), Queen Creek (7 mi.), Salt River (22.2 mi.) and unnamed watercourses (5.4 mi.) 4 large (Lake Pleasant) Reservoirs (46 total) 1,114,386 1 large 132 2 small 39 small Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 2 3 4 643 711 stockponds / 75 catchments 4,595 TOTALS 1 250 1,114,636 775 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. No baseflow measurements For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Phoenix AMA Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 187 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland HabitatDependent Wildlife Species1 Pinal AMA MaricopaStanfield, Eloy, Santa Rosa Valley, Vekol Valley, Aguirre Valley Middle Gila, Pinal, Aguirre Valley, Maricopa, Santa Rosa Wash, Pima Lower Santa Cruz, Brawley Wash, Lower Gila-Painted Rock Reservoir B21N, B21S, C8.1, C8.2, C11.1, C11.2, C12.1, C12.2 4 amphibian; 16 bird; 5 fish; 5 mammal and 3 reptile species. Of these, 4 bird and 2 fish species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Characteristics Water Feature Perennial Streams 4 Instream Flow Springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands Effluent/Other Water5 Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources 2 Baseflow (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) None None 5 to 6 springs < 1 gpm None WWTP discharge to watercourse at Maricopa and Redrock 58 WWTP discharge to watercourse at Arizona City, Casa Grande and Florence Prison NR Effluent-Dependent Waters: Gila River (3.2 mi.), N. Branch Santa Cruz River (5.5 mi.) and Santa Cruz River (15.2 mi.) 2 large Reservoirs (15 total) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments TOTALS 1 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 No baseflow measurements 3 4 384,100 1 large (Picacho) 12 small 315 stockponds / 35 catchments 2,238 150 58 384,100 2,388 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Pinal AMA Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 188 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland HabitatDependent Wildlife Species1 Prescott AMA Upper Agua Fria, Agua Fria, Little Chino Upper Verde Yavapai B22, C14.1, C14.2 3 amphibian; 9 bird; 7 fish; 7 mammal and 3 reptile species. Of these, 3 fish and 2 bird species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Water Feature Characteristics Riparian ET Baseflow2 (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) Perennial reaches of Agua 5 miles perennial flow Fria River and Granite Creek Instream Flow4 Springs Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Combined Volume Surface Area (acre-ft) (acres) YES None 1 major spring with flow of 874 gpm 1,410 9 minor springs with flow range from 1 to 9 gpm 46 57 to 65 springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 0.3 stream miles, 1 major spring YES WWTP discharge to watercourse at Dewey and Prescott Valley Effluent/Other Water5 Effluent-Dependent Waters: Agua Fria River (4.3 mi.) and unnamed watercourse at Prescott WWTP (2.3 mi.) 4 large Reservoirs (17 total) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 5 small 8 small 216 stockponds / 5 catchments TOTALS 1 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 No baseflow measurements 3 4 16,163 888 91 1,456 16,163 979 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Prescott AMA Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 189 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland HabitatDependent Wildlife Species1 Ranegras Plain None Bouse Wash, Tyson Wash La Paz & Yuma B23, C7.1, C7.2, C15.1, C15.2 1 amphibian; 8 bird and 4 mammal species. Of these, 1 bird species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Characteristics Water Feature Perennial Streams 4 Instream Flow Springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Riparian ET Baseflow (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) 2 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) None None 2 springs < 1 gpm None Effluent/Other Water5 None Reservoirs Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments None 16 stockponds / 8 catchments TOTALS 1 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 No baseflow measurements 3 4 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Ranegras Plain Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 190 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland HabitatDependent Wildlife Species1 Sacramento Valley None Sacramento Wash, HavasuMohave Lakes, Bill Williams Mohave B11, C9.1, C9.2 5 amphibian; 16 bird; 4 fish; 1 invertebrate; 5 mammal and 2 reptile species. Of these, 1 amphibian, 4 bird and 3 fish species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Riparian ET Baseflow (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) 2 Water Feature Colorado River Instream Flow4 Springs Water Feature Characteristics 5 miles perennial (regulated) flow None 12 major springs with flow range from 10 to 50 gpm 45 minor springs with flow range from 1 to 8 gpm 90 to 100 springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within 2.5 stream miles Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands Effluent-Dependent Water: Holy Effluent/Other Water5 Moses Wash (1.9 mi.) 1 large (Havasu - see Lake Havasu Basin) Reservoirs (6 total) 3 small 2 small Stockponds/Wildlife 44 stockponds / 14 catchments Catchments TOTALS 1 2 3 4 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) NO 418 210 NO 110 16 628 110 16 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. No baseflow measurements For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Sacramento Valley Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 191 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland HabitatDependent Wildlife Species1 Safford San Carlos Valley, Gila Valley, San Simon Valley Upper Gila, San Greenlee, B24N, B24S, Carlos Cochise, C2.1, C2.2, Reservoir, San Graham, Gila C4.1, C4.2, Simon, San C5.1, C5.2, Carlos C6.1, C6.2 5 amphibian; 22 bird; 12 fish; 2 invertebrate; 6 mammal and 4 reptile species. Of these, 1 amphibian, 8 fish, 3 bird and 1 reptile species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Riparian ET Baseflow (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) 2 Water Feature Water Feature Characteristics Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component 234,456 279,071 YES Gila River 35 miles perennial flow San Carlos River Perennial reaches of Ash, Bonita, Cave, South Fork Cave , Cima, Crazy horse, Deadman Canyon, Eagle, East Turkey, Fishhook, Frye Canyon, Marijilda, North Fork Cave creeks and San Francisco River and unnamed watercourses 32 miles perennial flow YES 90 miles of perennial flow. Cave Creek and South Fork of Cave Creek ADEQ Outstanding Arizona Waters YES Instream Flow4 Springs 127,071 106,953 - 151,568 12 applications: Ash Creek (1), Carter Canyon Creek (1), Cave Creek (1), Crazy Horse Creek (1), Deadman Canyon Creek (1), Frye Creek (1), Gibson Creek (1), Marijilda Canyon Creek (1), South Fork Cave Creek (1), Spring Canyon (1) and Wet Canyon Creek (2); No certificates 23 major springs with flow range from 10 to 3,398 gpm 31 minor springs with flow range from 1 to 6 gpm Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) YES 7,966 108 379 to 387 springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 26 stream miles, 2 major springs YES WWTP discharge to Bennett Wash at Fort Grant Effluent/Other Water5 NR Effluent-Dependent Waters: Bennett Wash (4.4 mi.) and unnamed watercourse (1.2 mi.) 10 large (San Carlos) Reservoirs (69 total) 1,100,575 2 large 501 25 small 32 small 3,862 328 Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 1,429 stockponds / 34 catchments TOTALS 127,071 106,953 - 151,568 1 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 Baseflow measurement at Gila River at head of Safford Valley near Solomon gage. 3 4 234,456 279,071 8,074 1,104,437 829 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 Safford Basin 192 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Salt River Black River, Salt River Canyon, Salt River Lakes, White River Upper Salt, Carrizo, White, Black, Lower Salt, Tonto Apache, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Maricopa, Pinal B25E, B25W, C1.1, C1.2, C3.1, C3.2, C4.1, C4.2, C5.1, C5.2, C6.1, C6.2, C8.1, C8.2, C12.1, C12.2 7 amphibian; 21 bird; 15 fish; 2 invertebrate, 9 mammal and 4 reptile species. Of these, 1 amphibian, 4 bird, 7 fish, 1 invertebrate, 1 mammal and 1 reptile species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Water Feature Characteristics Riparian ET Baseflow2 (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component 365,156 373,140 YES Salt River 91 miles perennial flow Black River 114 miles perennial flow YES Perennial reaches of Big Bonito, Canyon, Carrizo, Cherry, Cibecue, Pinto and Tonto creeks and the East and North Fork White River and 98 other watercourses 982 miles of perennial flow. Bear Wallow Creek, North and South Fork of Bear Wallow Creek, Hay Creek, Snake Creek and Stinky Creek ADEQ Outstanding Arizona Waters YES Instream Flow4 18 applications: Ash Creek (1), Beaver Creek (1), Black River (1), Canyon Creek (1), Cherry Creek (2), Coon Creek (1), East Fork Black River (1), Fish Creek (1), Lewis and Pranty Creek (1), North Fork of East Fork Black River (1), Pinal Creek (1), Rock Creek (1), Tortilla Creek (1),West Fork Black River (1), Workman Creek (1); 2 certificates: Pinto Creek (1), Reynolds Creek (1) YES Springs 26 major springs with flow range from 10 to 8,980 gpm 2 minor springs with flow range from 2 to 5 gpm 624 to 822 springs 236,170 128,986 - 136,969 Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) 28,555 11 Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated 65 stream miles, 1 major spring Conservation Lands WWTP discharge to Miami Wash at Claypool WWTP discharge to unnamed wash to Effluent/Other Water5 Pinal Creek at Globe Effluent-Dependent Waters: Pinal Creek (3.3 mi.) and unnamed wash at Globe WWTP (1.4 mi.) YES 11 NR 11 large (Roosevelt, Apache, Saguaro, Canyon lakes) Reservoirs (74 total) 1 large 26 small 36 small Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 807 stockponds / 15 catchments TOTALS 2,042,636 69 3,239 410 236,170 128,986 - 136,969 1 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 Baseflow measurement at Salt River at Roosevelt gage. 3 4 Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Combined Volume Surface Area (acre-ft) (acres) 365,156 373,140 28,577 2,045,875 479 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Salt River Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 193 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland HabitatDependent Wildlife Species1 San Bernardino Valley None San Bernardino Cochise Valley, Whitewater Draw, San Simon B5, C2.1, C2.2 4 amphibian; 15 bird; 7 fish; 1 invertebrate, 4 mammal and 3 reptile species. Of these, 1 amphibian, 2 bird, 3 fish, 1 invertebrate and 1 reptile species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources 2 Water Feature Water Feature Characteristics Perennial reach of Black Draw 2 miles perennial flow Instream Flow4 None Springs 1 minor spring with flow of 3 gpm 6 to 10 springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 2 stream miles Effluent/Other Water5 None Baseflow (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Total Flow Flow (acre-ft/yr) Component Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) YES 5 YES 1 large Reservoirs (6 total) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 45 22 151 stockponds / 0 catchments 5 TOTALS Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 No baseflow measurements 4 401 1 small 4 small 1 3 Combined Surface Area (acres) 45 423 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. San Bernardino Valley Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 194 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 San Rafael Valley None Upper Santa Santa Cruz, Cruz, Upper San Cochise Pedro B27, C2.1, C2.2, C13.1, C13.2 7 amphibian; 16 bird; 6 fish; 1 invertebrate, 4 mammal and 3 reptile species. Of these, 2 amphibian, 3 bird, 3 fish, 1 invertebrate and 1 reptile species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Water Feature Characteristics Water Feature Riparian ET Total Flow Baseflow (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) 2 Perennial reaches of Santa Cruz River, Ramsey 14 miles perennial flow Canyon and unnamed watercourses Instream Flow4 7 applications: Bear Creek (1), Cave Canyon Creek (1), Lone Mountain Canyon (1), Parker Canyon Creek (1), Scotia Canyon Creek (1), Sunnyside Canyon Creek (1), Sycamore Canyon Creek (1); No certificates Springs 1 minor spring with flow of 1 gpm 23 to 24 springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 12 stream miles Effluent/Other Water5 None Reservoirs (2 total) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments TOTALS Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 No baseflow measurements 4 Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) YES YES 2 YES 1 large (Parker Canyon) 1 small 258 stockponds / 0 catchments 1 3 Current Flood Flow Component 4,400 6 2 4,400 6 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. San Rafael Valley Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 195 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 San Simon Wash None San Simon Wash, Rio Sonoyta Pima & Maricopa B26, C8.1, C8.2, C11.1, C11.2 3 amphibian; 12 bird; 4 mammal and 2 reptile species. Of these, 1 amphibian and 1 bird species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Perennial Reaches Instream Flow Springs 4 Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Water Feature Characteristics None Effluent/Other Water5 None Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments Baseflow (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) 1 large (Menegers Lake) 12 small 3 stockponds / 0 catchments TOTALS 1 2 3 4 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) None None 11 to 17 < 1gpm Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands Reservoirs (13 total) 2 15,000 144 15,000 144 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. No baseflow measurements For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. San Simon Wash Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 196 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Santa Cruz AMA None Upper Santa Cruz Santa Cruz, Pima B27, C11.1, C11.2, C13.1, C13.2 6 amphibian; 20 bird; 6 fish; 4 mammal and 3 reptile species. Of these, 1 amphibian, 2 bird, 2 fish and 1 reptile species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Water Feature Characteristics Water Feature Baseflow (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component 11,591 12,427 - 27,214 24,018 - 38,805 YES 2 Santa Cruz River 12 miles perennial flow Perennial flow in Cox Gulch, East Nogales Wash, Nogales Wash, Potrero Creek, and Sonoita Creek 20 miles perennial flow YES Instream Flow4 3 applications: Peck Canyon Creek (1) and Sonoita Creek (2); No certificates YES Springs Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) 2 major springs with flow range from 40 to 377 gpm 673 1 minor spring with flow of 4 gpm 6 Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) 46 to 48 springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 7 stream miles YES WWTP discharge to Santa Cruz River at Nogales Effluent/Other Water 5 16,221 WWTP discharge to watercourse and wildlife area at Tubac NR Effluent-Dependent Water: Santa Cruz River (48 mi.) 2 large (Pena Blanca) Reservoirs (6 total) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 8,780 1 small 3 small 452 stockponds / 2 catchments TOTALS 200 26 11,591 12,427 - 27,214 1 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 Baseflow measurement at Santa Cruz River near Tubac gage. 3 4 24,018 - 38,805 16,900 8,980 26 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Santa Cruz AMA Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 197 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Shivwits Plateau None Fort Pierce Wash, Mohave Lower Virgin, Grand Canyon, Lake Mead B28N, B28S, C9.1, C9.2 4 amphibian; 12 bird; 5 fish and 5 mammal and 2 reptile species. Of these, 1 amphibian, 3 bird and 2 fish species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Characteristics Water Feature Colorado River Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Riparian ET Baseflow (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) 2 57 miles perennial (regulated) flow Perennial reaches of Boulder Wash, Diamond 4 miles of perennial flow and Spring Canyon creeks Instream Flow4 Springs Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component 0.14 stream miles, 1 major spring Effluent/Other Water5 None Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) YES 534 13 YES (partial) 1 large (Wolf Hole) Reservoirs (3 total) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 2 3 4 58 1 small 1 small 20 10 369 stockponds / 20 catchments TOTALS 1 Combined Surface Area (acres) NO None 1 major spring with flow of 331 gpm 5 minor springs with flow range of 1 to 3 gpm 51 to 56 springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) 547 20 68 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. No baseflow measurements For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Shivwits Plateau Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 198 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland HabitatDependent Wildlife Species1 Tiger Wash None Centennial Wash Maricopa B23, C8.1, C8.2 2 amphibian; 5 bird and 3 mammal species. Of these, 1 bird species is federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Characteristics Water Feature Perennial flow 4 Instream Flow Springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Riparian ET Baseflow (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) 2 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) None None 3 springs < 1gpm None Effluent/Other Water5 None Reservoirs Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments None 9 stockponds / 0 catchments TOTALS 1 2 3 4 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. No baseflow measurements For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Tiger Wash Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 199 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland HabitatDependent Wildlife Species1 Tonto Creek None Tonto, Chevelon Canyon Gila, Coconino B29, C3.1, C3.2, C4.1, C4.2 7 amphibian; 15 bird; 11 fish; 5 mammal and 24 reptile species. Of these, 1 amphibian, 3 bird, 5 fish and 1 reptile species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Riparian ET Baseflow Water Feature Characteristics (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) 2 Water Feature Tonto Creek 60 miles perennial flow 15,213 21,082 - 21,462 Springs YES 38 stream miles Effluent/Other Water5 WWTP discharge to Houston Creek at Star Valley Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) YES 9 applications: Gordon Canyon Creek (1), Green Valley Creek (1), Greenback Creek (1), Haigler Creek (1), Oak Creek (1), Rye Creek (1), Sharp Creek (1), Spring Creek (1), Tonto Creek (1); 1 certificate: Christopher Creek 10 major springs with flow range from 15 to 1,291 gpm 7 minor springs with flow range from 1 to 8 gpm 169 to 175 springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands Reservoirs (1 total) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments YES 4,543 50 YES 13 1 small 20 389 stockponds / 10 catchments TOTALS 15,213 21,082 - 21,462 1 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 Baseflow measurement at Tonto Creek above Gunn Creek. 4 36,296 - 36,675 Perennial reaches of Christopher, Del Shay, Dick Williams, East Fork Horton, Gordon Canyon, 69 miles perennial flow Greenback, Haigler, Horton, Houston, Lambing, Marsh, Rye and Spring creeks Instream Flow4 3 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component 36,296 - 36,675 4,606 20 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Tonto Creek Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 200 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Tucson AMA Upper Santa Cruz, Avra Valley Rio De La Concepcion, Brawley Wash, Upper Santa Cruz, Rillito, Lower Santa Cruz, Middle Gila Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz B30N, B30S, C11.1, C11.2, C12.1, C12.2, C13.1, C13.2 7 amphibian; 24 bird; 10 fish; 4 mammal and 4 reptile species. Of these, 1 amphibian, 4 bird, 7 fish and 1 reptile species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Characteristics Water Feature Arivaca Creek Sabino Creek Perennial reaches of Cienega, Madera Canyon, Romero Canyon creeks, Santa Cruz River, Sutherland Wash, Sycamore Canyon and unnamed tributary to Madera Canyon Creek Instream Flow4 Springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands Effluent/Other Water5 Reservoirs (38 total) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources 1 mile perennial flow 16 miles perennial flow Riparian ET Baseflow (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) 2 304 2,136 - 3,188 Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) YES YES YES 11 applications: California Gulch (1), Canada del Oro (1), Rincon Creek (1), Romero Canyon Creek (1), Sabino Canyon (5), Sycamore Canyon (1) and Tanque Verde Creek (1); No certificates 8 major springs with flow range from 10 to 250 gpm 2 minor springs with flow range from 1 to 3 gpm 162 to 187 springs YES 774 6 19 stream miles and 1 major spring YES WWTP discharges to watercourses at Avra Valley, Tucson and Marana and to wildlife areas at Tucson and Sahuarita Effluent-Dependent Water: Santa Cruz River (57 mi.) 1 large (Arivaca) 2,915 1 large (Aguirre) 51 8 small 28 small 1,538 stockponds / 53 catchments TOTALS 600 338 304 2,136 - 3,188 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 Baseflow measurement at Pantano Wash near Vail gage. 4 2,440 - 3,492 25 miles perennial flow; Davidson Canyon ADEQ Outstanding Arizona Water 1 3 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component 2,440 - 3,492 780 3,515 389 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Tucson AMA Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 201 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Upper Hassayampa None Centennial Wash, Hassayampa Maricopa & Yavapai B22, C8.1, C8.2, C14.1, C14.2 3 amphibian; 13 bird; 7 fish; 3 mammal and 2 reptile species. Of these, 3 bird and 5 fish species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Water Feature Characteristics Water Feature 2 Baseflow (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) Hassayampa River 28 miles perennial flow YES Perennial reaches of Antelope, Ash, Lion Canyon, Minnehaha and Weaver creeks, French Gulch and unnamed watercourse 24 miles perennial flow YES Instream Flow4 Springs 1 certificate: Hassayampa River 164 to 166 springs < 1 gpm Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands None Effluent/Other Water5 None Reservoirs (7 total) 7 small Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 266 stockponds / 14 catchments TOTALS 1 2 3 4 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) YES 1,684 1,684 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. No baseflow measurements For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Upper Hassayampa Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 202 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland HabitatDependent Wildlife Species1 Upper San Pedro Sierra Vista & Allen Flat Upper San Pedro, Lower San Pedro Cochise, Santa B21S, B21N, Cruz, Pima C2.1, C2.2, C11.1, C11.2, C13.1, C13.2 8 amphibian; 22 bird; 9 fish; 1 invertebrate; 5 mammal; 3 reptile. Of these, 5 fish, 3 bird, 2 amphibian, 1 reptile and 1 invertebrate species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature San Pedro River Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Riparian ET Current Flood Total Flow Baseflow2 Flow Water Feature Characteristics (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) Component (acre-ft/yr) 56 miles of perennial flow 9,417 22,890 - 49,259 32,307 58,676 Perennial tributary reaches of Babocomari, Bass, Carr, Miller and Ramsey canyons and 45 miles of perennial flow Double R Canyon, Garden Canyon and Turkey creeks and unnamed watercourse Instream Flow4 Springs 8 applications: Babocomari River (2), Miller Canyon Creek (2), O'Donnell Creek (1), San Pedro River (2), and Turkey Creek (1); 6 certificates: San Pedro River (1), Ramsey Canyon (1), O'Donnell Creek (2) and Bass Canyon (2) 12 major springs; flows range from 10 to 134 gpm 4 minor springs; flows range from 2 to 7 gpm 79-91 total springs Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments TOTALS YES 52 YES 2,500 240 WWTP Discharge to Greenbush Draw (Bisbee) and Walnut Gulch (Tombstone) NR Effluent-Dependent Water: Walnut Gulch (12 mi.) 112 2 small reservoirs (combined) 247 2 small reservoirs (combined) 13 974 stockponds / 13 catchments 9,417 22,890 - 49,259 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 Baseflow measurement at San Pedro River at Charleston gage. 4 Combined Surface Area (acres) 1,930 1 3 Combined Volume (acre-ft) YES Created wetland-Sierra Vista EOP Apache Nitrogen (ANP) Superfund cleanup wetland Reservoirs (4 total) Max. Reservoir Storage YES Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated 36 stream miles, 2 major springs Conservation Lands Effluent/Other Water5 Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) 32,307 58,676 4,834 247 13 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 Upper San Pedro Basin 203 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin County Watershed Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Verde River Big Chino, Verde Big ChinoValley, Verde Williamson Canyon Valley, Upper Verde, Lower Verde Yavapai, Coconino, Gila, Maricopa B32N, B32S, C3.1, C3.2, C4.1, C4.2, C8.1, C8.2, C14.1, C14.2 7 amphibian; 16 bird; 13 fish; 5 invertebrate, 8 mammal and 4 reptile species. Of these, 1 amphibian, 3 bird, 8 fish, 1 invertebrate and 1 reptile species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Verde River Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Water Feature Characteristics 150 miles perennial flow Riparian ET Baseflow2 (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft/yr) 194,151 115,117 - 146,181 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component 309,308 340,322 YES Perennial flow in reaches of East Fork Verde River, Fossil Creek, 163 miles perennial flow; Fossil and Oak Oak Creek, Sycamore Creek and creeks ADEQ Outstanding Arizona Water West Clear Creek YES 162 miles perennial flow; West Fork Oak Creek ADEQ Outstanding Arizona Water YES Perennial flow in 38 tributary reaches Instream Flow4 Springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands Effluent/Other Water5 23 applications; 11 certificates: East Verde River (2), Fossil Creek (1), Spring Creek (1), Sycamore Creek (2),Verde River (2), Walker Creek (1), West Clear Creek (1) and Wet Beaver Creek (1) 90 major springs with flow range from 10 to 21,647 gpm 95 minor springs with flow range from 1 to 9 gpm 493 to 571 springs Spring and Max. Reservoir Storage Effluent Combined Combined Discharge Volume Surface Area (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft) (acres) YES 97,214 1,585 153 stream miles and 21 major springs YES WWTP discharge to Bitter Creek at Jerome, unnamed tributary to Oak Creek at Sedona and unnamed watercourse at Bellemont WWTP discharge to American Gulch at Payson and unnamed tributaries at Lolo Mai Springs and Village of Oak Creek, and to wildlife area at Kachina Village and Sedona 170 NR Effluent-Dependent Waters: American Gulch (3.8 mi.), Bitter Creek (1.6 mi.) and unnamed wash at Jacks Canyon Rd. (3.3 mi.) 7 large Reservoirs (72 total) 314,817 6 large 1,666 27 small 32 small Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 2,328 stockponds / 41 catchments TOTALS 3,592 496 194,151 115,117 - 146,181 1 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 Baseflow measurement at Verde below Tangle Creek gage. 3 4 309,308 340,322 98,969 318,409 2,162 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 Verde River Basin 204 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Virgin River None Lower Virgin Mohave B33, C9.1, C9.2 3 amphibian; 11 bird; 7 fish; 1 invertebrate, and 5 mammal species. Of these, 2 bird and 3 fish species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources 2 Water Feature Virgin River Beaver Dam Wash and unnamed watercourse Instream Flow 4 Springs Water Feature Characteristics Baseflow (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component 37 miles perennial flow YES 10 miles perennial flow YES 7 applications: Beaver Dam Wash (1) and Virgin River (6); No certificates YES 2 major springs with flow range from 1,120 to 22,400 gpm Max. Reservoir Storage Spring and Effluent Combined Combined Discharge Volume Surface Area (acre-ft/yr) (acre-ft) (acres) 37,937 23 to 25 springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 9 stream miles Effluent/Other Water5 WWTP discharge to watercourse at Beaver Dam Reservoirs (1 total) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 2 3 4 6 1 small 6 45 stockponds / 7 catchments 37,943 TOTALS 1 YES 6 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. No baseflow measurements For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Virgin River Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 205 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Western Mexican Drainage None Rio Sonoyta, Tule Desert Pima & Yuma B34, C11.1, C11.2, C15.1, C15.2 Water Feature 1 amphibian; 9 bird; 1 Perennial Flow invertebrate, 2 mammal and 1 Instream Flow4 reptile species. Of these, 1 bird and 1 reptile species are federally listed as endangered, Springs threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Water Feature Characteristics 2 Baseflow (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) None None 1 major spring with flow of 28 gpm 2 minor springs with flow range of 1 to 4 gpm 4 to 6 springs Effluent/Other Water5 None Reservoirs Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments None 0 stockponds / 1 catchment TOTALS Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 No baseflow measurements 4 Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Max. Reservoir Storage Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) 45 8 1 major spring 1 3 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component 53 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Western Mexican Drainage Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 206 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Willcox None Willcox Playa, Whitewater Draw Graham & Cochise B35N, B35S, C2.1, C2.2, C5.1, C5.2 4 amphibian; 19 bird; 5 fish; 6 mammal and 3 reptile species. Of these, 1 amphibian, 3 bird and 2 fish species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Perennial reaches of Big Bend, Big, Grant, Leslie, Post, Soldier, Turkey creeks and Rucker and Ward canyons Instream Flow4 Springs Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources Water Feature Characteristics 2 Baseflow (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) 32 miles perennial flow 1 certificate on Leslie Canyon Creek 8 minor springs with flow range from 1 to 3 gpm 87 to 92 springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands 9 stream miles Effluent/Other Water5 Effluent discharged to Cochise Lake Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 2 3 4 Combined Surface Area (acres) YES 21 YES NR 29,809 2 small 2 small 762 stockponds / 3 catchments 185 182 21 TOTALS 1 Combined Volume (acre-ft) YES 2 large (Willcox Playa) Reservoirs (6 total) Max. Reservoir Storage 29,994 182 Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. No baseflow measurements For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Willcox Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 207 Water Resources Development Commission Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sub-basin Watershed County Environmental Resource Values Map # Riparian, Aquatic and/or Marshland Habitat-Dependent Wildlife Species1 Yuma None Yuma Desert, Yuma Lower Colorado, Lower Gila B36, C15.1, B15.2 1 amphibian; 14 bird; 2 fish; 5 mammal and 1 reptile species. Of these, 3 bird species are federally listed as endangered, threatened or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Water Feature Characteristics Water Feature Colorado River Instream Flow4 Springs Perennial Flow/Major Springs within Federal/State Designated Conservation Lands Current Quantifiable Flows and Volumes Supporting Water-Dependent Natural Resources 2 Baseflow (acre-ft/yr) Riparian ET (acres x ET rate)3 (acre-ft/yr) 53 miles perennial (regulated) flow 0.3 stream miles WWTP discharge to Colorado River at Somerton Reservoirs (4 total) 2 large 2 small Stockponds/Wildlife Catchments 0 stockponds / 1 catchment Combined Volume (acre-ft) Combined Surface Area (acres) NO NO 9,555 NR 6,010 25 9,555 TOTALS Data from the Arizona Game & Fish Department's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Habitat Distribution Models. These models predict the distribution of a species by assessing the characteristics and quality of a habitat. 2 No baseflow measurements 4 Max. Reservoir Storage 1 spring < 1 gpm 1 3 Spring and Effluent Discharge (acre-ft/yr) None WWTP discharge to Colorado River at Yuma Effluent/Other Water5 Total Flow (acre-ft/yr) Current Flood Flow Component 6,010 25 For more information, please see the Methodology Section of the Environmental Working Group's Report. Data from the Arizona Department of Water Resource's Surface Water Division. 5 Water features receiving discharge from wastewater treatment plants may not be Effluent-Dependent Waters. Effluent-Dependent Waters are presented in the basin maps. NR = not reported NOTE : The number of springs and reservoirs presented in the basin table may differ from the basin map due to overlapping features or a lack of locational data. Yuma Basin Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Tables / June 2011 208 Sand sh Wa St r atton ee r lan d Da y Min W n Kl o a h W as ash e e Gar d P 0 W lls n h Wash Ho rs ep y Cr ee Oa ed m Fou Long Ho ll ow r 0 n yo ! 8 16 Km Miles 12 6 ! BASINS Canyo n re ek ! r eek H ig h C h Was Pete rs k a COUNTIES WILLCOX Cree k hO ¶ ek wC Lo k Cre e Sunset S ou t h ! Ho r ton Cree k e Al d rW as Bol len Wash Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 x Bo Sprin g Cre ek ! Te legra Ca n o n S tr e y am GRAHAM Jam e d h NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. ! a ve Ri ree k Ri a sh Catal ina W PINAL PIMA ARAVAIPA CANYON Red fi el e Was uc sh Wa h e y W as h e h T t tlesnake dy s rt No T Catalina ! Pe pp a ers r rC E Two ek Jesus Can G r San Manuel ! as al W F res n C W nin Ca nad a de l Or o W ! nt we a n Ra Oracle Junction h s ! h as W a sh ta W re h i r ua a h sh sh C ar pas Wash Fa r a wa yW a sh Bow l C ree k Ba a tm C ote n dia S I ndian Well a h on n W o w as ri nW a I Nariska ash gW n Oa k lt m s ar o ns P as h S s m mot h Li es te e a sh W r T dn or ver ! Oracle h d in ! s En Wa s p b ow n Wa sh yS Rai n ma Ra c Casa Ba t Wa sh arg ar del MOro Campo ne e Ir ! Highjinks !Bonito ! Ke Wi lo dr o Pe ! Wash k ash W k S BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land Tay lor Was h Cl ark Wash h a sW can lo n W h as W us t G us t Jam t l ! State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) sh th So u h as er W e Sh ! Sa z Wash Cru w ay Th r ee Fa k r ee eC Ma Sombrero Butte e Cr az y wCre h e ile Syc am ash Big W Wa r l Fordville ! ! Tiger ! Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) Gra nt C re lb Mammoth Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) W ood Und erw C ree k ua w Sq ! k sh ree r C err y W e p p Co Mu a h Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ! a sh C Pa B o is ge l s uc o n Wash Copper Creek Wel n Stre am Ca nyo ! Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) ! ph k Klondyke ee Cr ! LOWER SAN PEDRO Wash Gu i ld Cr as PINAL tre pC any o ny y on on tr eam S r eam m C p am y Dr C ! t ! ea m S tr s on ds h Tar W as on Ca ny ! 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) ! y eek Cr sh Wa ! Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ke Tur Blake Place Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) ! Instream Flow Application (ADWR) sh Wa ke Was dy Parsons Grove Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) ! t an rC a o no a ea m Stream on ash SW k Ar av a a C ree ip ag pg h Ca W as ley on r C n Aravaipa h an y Za pa ta Wash e S a nS nyo tr Ca sh ! sh Wa er Was Hor se ho F o t W ash TUCSON AMA ! ! as h eW h Wa s win Go o d sh ck W a Bla c k R o S us r Hortons S pr ing Place sC Putna m Was h a Ca m p G Fin ! Vr g r P alme Was as h Ho r Dudleyville Do ry W as nzin W h ! Bl ood suck ra n B sh Ci r x Bo ! C ree k i im Es k Oak h rew W as WellsD p Ti p ash ee k n ac Ro Ellison Place am A sh ash hW Wa ! Wash g ea cle River or Stream (ALRIS) ! l ch i Wa Barkerville To m Mi x sh Wa ri rS p as h gl e W Sw in Polecat OWa sh Deer Creek se Ea g le Pip e o mer Ro a ith W Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) Geronimo Emery ! ! ! sh Sm Jim Tho o W s ah W h amboa Wa t Ste as h In dian Cam Ha ckb e rry W Wash a sh h d Ke ll y Gu Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? ? Stream Gage (USGS) e ! O o h ! Hayden Junction ! ! Hayden Winkelman sh s Wa h g PINAL AMA ! s ma nw e h B Cot to ne lly Wash SAFFORD Cree k DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH A GIL L A PIN W s Wa ey el l y h Do n i plet Was h ! ttle As h C Li r R ck Cr ek Christmas ! pW Reservoir or Lake (NHD) s ! a Wa sh Gar den ! Wa s sh Wa W in g Kearny R ip s on na DONNELLY WASH i h Bylas o C as ! r Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) !r R ! C ng S p lv s ! W as Calva k Si r Ray ! Junction !! Riverside Kelvin n Gi l a River eek Cr ! Ch i San Carlos Reservoir e Drippi Troy ! Groundwater Basin (ADWR) k Cr M esc a l Cree ! Price ! ! Sonora Cochran Coolidge Dam State (ALRIS) Sa lt ek Natches i em Lo ng Ston e Cab in Sk unk Ca mp a ! l County (ALRIS) ee k le T Ran ch Cree k G Town (GNIS) ! HAM RA Ray a o apai Cr e h Wa s sh W i n g Br an c h iv ee r Tr F k Sp r u Reymert C M k ree ill C Pion ee r Hac kb Arn ett Cr ee k ! Pinal Cr k eral n u lch i erry e rt Wash M s River Rey m PHOENIX AMA Creek n ek e Cre ek ARAVAIPA- DRIPPING SPRINGS- DONNELLY BONITA CREEK ash Coyo t e W Que e ! rl n Ca Sa r Fo ns Lyo San Carlos Peridot G I LA k ! Cre ARAVAIPA GROUPING ! SALT RIVER Rus s e ll G Superior ! ! k ee Top-of-the-World k P in to Cree ! Bellevue Ap ach eW s ! Queen Valley Smelter ! Town B1 Water Resources Development Commission BASIN MAPS MAP LOCATION 209 ! B2 Water Resources Development Commission DETRITAL VALLEY Putman ! ash ton W ux Tr Wash Truxton Valentine HUALAPAI VALLEY ! Hackberry Cot n t o w ood C ! Walapai ! ! C rt Th Golden Valley s County (ALRIS) ! State (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin (ADWR) Audley r r W as no Ch ou Was h Reservoir or Lake (NHD) Pi ne Seligman ! M Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! ! *a h Berry ! Wa en es YAV CO AP AI CON INO s ! as W e Fr ash Cerbat ! at W ! erb le W ash mi e i ! Town (GNIS) ! Bishop Place ta ve Stockton n nyo Ca Ca nyon k ee Santa Claus ht Pica h as h ri g W W ash rry W kb e Ha c Te nne ss e e ! ! Grasshopper Junction R o ck Crozier Antares ! i ! ! h Yampai PEACH SPRINGS cka Tu y k W as Voc BIG SANDY GROUNDWATER BASIN COCONINO PLATEAU ! Nelson ! ! Chloride Grand Canyon Caverns Peach Springs Crookton as mW h ha ar k Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? ? Stream Gage (USGS) h ! Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) ! a e Loo k o c ck Wa nyo n op e ash s as r W ey e 20 Km hr Hu 0 7 Fair Oaks Wa s h ! Willow Spring n yo Wood Trap ! Tank C ee k BASINS ! ! Miles 14 ¶ d n ! th Ca Sm i a mor al l ey Wa sh rs e Ho on r re C dle Bagdad ! tto nw o od Ca n Co t rer Six Mile Crossing k ee 10 S tricklan Co ur r C C per op ! mp COUNTIES Bu to W as h y sl e To n W oo yC Turke k he Cre e Gra v u nt H Sh e k C ree k enc prin g Kais er S ek n s er i Ka o r n yo 0 Will iam h Wa sh ! r dy R Big San Ca in g Spr Bri pr a Canyon Wash Boul d er C k ee Cre ek sh Wa ng h as Ca s tane Wash as Co n C ree k ! h p ri W Box Lo sh Big Ship p Wa S d sh ya r ive Wa s h k ee S yc Gro o m Grav e a d a W sh y Gra r Cr l de Wi Wash as W Salt Le ad H itt Was h y co c W Round Va ll e eC e H id r ek ng r reek C BILL WILLIAMS Cree sh er W Sti eek Cr on Br z ie Cro B p BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land Mu dT an k Wa sh h India a s g W n i n Spr ash Stringt o wn W re e oC k ! Bronc o C ree k ash nW sh ai oun t kM uc ni nc o Fr a e or ca m Sy k Wa sh nson Bit t er reek C Wikieup ash rW Apa c Natu r al C o r rals W ash any ing C on v Sto eS re e ree eep C k Sh er C ree k a rt nV so Fr an c in Was h Ca b Wash an rm e ro Was h Ca Bur ll Bu on ny Q k is ! T u rke y C MOHAVE YAVAPAI Was h Big State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) a W sh Was M cGe e Wa sh ! B e Cr e be Ado Tu le Wa s h Cedar Illava r Was h LAKE HAVASU t As hC as h i H Haviland l F attop W ash ! Mohave W a Mo S C re e e Mac k sh De luge aW a Ea s As J rson Fa Pea l l s Wa sh Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) eC Pin r eek Cr ee k Wa G nzales o Ca e Wa o gl h ek re ek gs Wa sh rn Sp Wh eel Wash n o n n g n yo ash Ca rW e rni a pe Hib p i l C air r im Wa sh Pilg a n C ro w C n yo Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ash yW ash ie W en z H appy Jack Wa sh Mack Bar I-L W a Cow ek Cre k C r ee Yucca ! t Tro u Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) H op i nz M o ss W Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) a sh ck C Ro ek h uddy z Willow Cre re re ek h C e VERDE RIVER u Athos a nd ank Wa s h Blu e T SACRAMENTO VALLEY ! H ft as kW oc R ck Bla Wash Ant elope W ash T im er Wa b sh ackma nW a sh Moss W W r a a e s as C d h Le h 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) e ek Cre Wa lnu t ! Wheeler M eek Cr ! Drake rC re ek reek ock Cre ek tR ow Knigh tC F or F e Griffith eC a BIG SANDY k S h in Ye l low ck ny n l s Was h Pas cre t h Was Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) trid ge C r Pa ek r McGarr ys Wash B ott lene Kabb a Wash Wa sh Se Littl e ! Harris ! Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) ! Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) h McConnico h ffit Gr i ! ! no W Big Ch i as sh *b ! ou t ash W r nt W h as ash oW ent cra m Sa Kingman ! ! P ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of !any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 210 ! sh h Wa sh f n la H c S n nt W sh a t W oo l S ku l l u As t Eas two ey V ek h h h Sla te dW a Cr ee r M ooneek v As Was ep p Ante l op eC We ave r e ek rC re k h ree i lk C a Ha mli k Wash n sh Wa Mo na rc h Wickenburg BASINS ! Miles 15 ¶ e ! Matthie s e st Fl y ! C le a C M er aR Date LA PAZ YAVAPAI But W a Co tt o n Co Wash ia l e nc V a l Wa sh C ente nn W ash av e t on es ca n er Mi Ca LA PAZ MARICOPA 7.5 ! ak h Cr l k Miner al H n woo d Canyo re re Bridle Moun ta i n Sp rin g Wash S ek sh W ee Co i se K as h ast an ed a C as h W F ox W as Yucc a s d Stan d o R iver eek Cr sh ! ! ! Copperopolis re ! k Constellation Briggs mJ Sli im ek W a sh Whi psa w ! C re ek COUNTIES AGUA FRIA ash di e W Ed Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 k re e Sand Mill ! 20 Km ! ! Cr e sh NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. ! The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. k ee ! 10 0 ! Place n Aguila 0 Wagoner C r eek ! ! ! ! ha Cree inneh r y r e h Paxton e k ! ! h as nW a h rtma W E H in g BLM Land !National Forest National Park ! ! Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land k er k RANEGRAS PLAIN ! h ! ! O a eT Blu s ! Forepaugh Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) Riv Ha ssay am pa re Wa Bouse MARICOPA So l s Wa e Octave ! YAVAPAI Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) M eC r ek Spr ing C r e BUTLER VALLEY MCMULLEN VALLEY C r e Flores Bouse as tr Midway ! r eek as rW Ar r Glen Ilah !n e !YarYarnell ll C lle Wa ! a sh zW Wa s ningha m Cun M w Bla ck ate Stanton t Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ! Rush Place ! Windmill ! McNary ! k Walnut Place Grove ! l Creek ! Piedmont Congress Junction !!Congress Wa sh s r Wash Valley e Mar in CAP C an a no l Cr eek Peeples UPPER HASSAYAMPA Bull ar d Orofi o de ek re Date C re e k Swansea PARKER C ! AZ ! ek ate M South ! Fo rk Alamo Lake Wilhoit r k AVE MOH Pop la ee Hawkins Cr k *a ! D Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) C ! Kirkland C Ferguson ar e Junction ! Place Sh Windmill Walker ! ! Place Windmill t Date No rth Fo rk s Wa ! Kirk ek Ri tter C re ek e r od C wo e Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) ek teC renC re ek ! pe i Ponderosa Park ! Glen Oaks rd Kirkland ! e lan d C ! Alamo Crossing (historical) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) I nd Co ppe r Basi n k ek Cr e i Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Flow Application (ADWR) ! ! Instream ! Fin ch Wa s re dC Hillside C re Grand View Blan ! re a nyon Wa sh kC Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) Boa y ler r c B la Wate rman il le hC ll s M h Sout F ork S an t a ar ia Rive r B ll aValley ! Wa ali sh h! A L aw ee k Mi l h as W Skull Yava a Q ua il Spr i ng W s T ank W as h h C iv Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) ! ! an B Apron Crossing ant a Mar i C ree k a sh Co l od Cre ek ee k ! Iron Springs !Highland Wa Highland ley s h Park Va Pines ! ler Cr e e k Ta n kC re ash ! River or Stream (ALRIS) yWash sl e ek Sp W o a Tont W s sh e Iro boy Was h r ing ! P r ne Wa sh eri ta People sC sh a as h LA sbo Plac a Sa y Ri v nd Wa ! O nm e er n i pW a as pW h er d eW ! tr d M issi s ip B ill Wi lliam s Riv ! Ra whi i h as W ! Go v t re Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) ! ! Shi ! PRESCOTT Wood Bu r Trap s sh Wa Planet a sh Sa n hap sh C rs eW gl Ea Gie C h s Larneds Landing ! ora d an on y C ow as W m aW a Wa ave lo Lake Havasu Bi g oh Pa h lac k as h M LAKE HAVASU ! ash R upley W eW ve W BILL WILLIAMS Greenwood Signal ash ha o gW ash ! v tM a i h W M W es rd Bagdad ! ! Cre ittl Li ttle ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? ? Stream Gage (USGS) * h Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) Mint AMA ! Stringfield ! Williamson ! C i h a n yo Sm Cr mo sh Syc a a W pp Six Mile Crossing n pr ar m oo h h iddle M o Wa S C k pper Cr L Gr G r av ey a Bo ul d e k n ek a Burro t rer MOHAVE YAVAPAI co B h yo an n gC ri n r Sp d k ! Canyon Wash tr i h ash Box Fair Oaks s ! h o Willow Spring Lo co Cre k n Co h e Wa s ors sh Wa ro n k Reservoir or Lake (NHD) nt Mi yWa s Gra s te Wa D illo ! e W a sh h r W as zie ek rC e d l Wi Wash as S Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! s Wa e rC r e a Big Ship p W W ai n C ro eCr e um p Groundwater Basin (ADWR) ! r re y h ek C Con e ge r r Alk o Sti State (ALRIS) ! Was h sh Cre e al t nt ou kM h B uc B ronc o Cre ek County (ALRIS) ash as W r a mo S yc Tan k pe r n ia co Wikieup ! ChinoW Hit t Wa sh ek SACRAMENTO VALLEY r an Wa s Bit t er Creek Bi VERDE RIVER n Wa sh nso F as eC Grav re Cr ch Turkey e C reek Hid Mu d Town (GNIS) ! sh Wa Co Cr ee k ! ! h as Indi W a n Spri ng s ce c is ! h er W Ap a ek Cre Fr an Eddy Place ad Was h n ! ek k e dob a h Burr o W s n ny ll C a u B Cedar Illava r Wa sh H op sh Big Wa ash k ee ee p Cree Sh sh Tule W ash Le Antel ope Sh e Cr e k BIG SANDY in Was h Ca b sh n Wa rma r Cr ee Haviland F latto p Wa sh ! F alls Wa Qua rt Sp en Del u ge W Pearson A a n C ro w C nyo r I-L Wa sh as un t Hop e W h eW i H Cane Wag Cr M ack e n zi e Wa s h lgrim Pi C reek BILL WILLIAMS GROUNDWATER BASIN *b eC P in r eek g h y Ja ck W ash Was Happ Ba r Mud d k ! k enzi e Mac n yon Ca Mo Wa zales on sh Yucca ia ibern k ee e G e ek W il low C reek gs Wash rn Sp Wheel Wash n o Cr ee k z Ro o ss W Cow t C Kn i gh Athos k C ree k c ! C Trou t reek as h ree tC a y l nu Wa Moss W as Lef h an dM Mc G e s Wash Ceda r k k Bl a ck W Tu r key C an yon ! h a tH as ent o W h Sa c ra m c Ro B3 Water Resources Development Commission Big Reef Mill PHOENIX AMA ! ! MAP LOCATION 211 B4 N Water Resources Development Commission r kS oa al Cre e k ot W Dr y Wa sh e Wa s h C ha tso t g p pi ko en er se M Vis ek a n c e Cr e 0 De l mi ve e h H h Wa s 10 0 20 Km 10 i F n C an y o a W ed Hor Little R Cameron ! T ap pa Was h BASINS sh Wa Miles 20 ¶ COUNTIES h M i ller Wash ! ! Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 a La v h as W re W mo ed e N *a Gray Mountain ! M h Wa sh ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. ! The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. yo n as Red o H rse urro Ca C e daW r as Ra Willaha Was h o kar Cre ek Un eek ek S ee k Cr ar l C i sh nT an k y S Bri g ht An g el C re ek Mi Dr ago nC r ee re k r Tuna C rC it Cre ek S Bo sh ash Bl a ckTa nkW as o u th h C th k k Crysta l C ree k e ek e e 12 122 n e Lit tle C Ca ny o haw k Mo k ct C re e W a Bo n ita i ve r as h r sW Alb n O O NI N s B ek ek ab Cre asa P le Ca ny on Ha ck r No h lr Kan Tape n s La OC i le C r e ek e ash sW rin S ! B ch Moenave n Rose Well Camp Tin House ea e he s er Tank W ! ! p Creek PEACH SPRINGS as ! k Lee i Woodin BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land Hidden Springs Willow Mission Springs ! s ol a !h as W h Frazier Wells r as k Apex ee k S d an ston e W h uC P ro pe ! i h Big S as h e n ni n Tusayan oW Ha va s Gray W h an dW as h re ek 1 96 Mile C ev Coconino ! ek Bas re State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) a Gr ek ! u hn Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) sh Grand Grand Canyon Canyon Village ! Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) b k Sixtymil e Cree e C nCr e d r Ga re ek l ! Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) v he uc Her m Sa h Was Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU W t C re er Wa H ea th k ree 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) oR ora d lat ash Sp Litt le C sh Wa Wa sh Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) T e e r Cr e Cr e ua alt Ch r r ra ek e Vista Cr n Encantada Kwa u Pip e e Prai r i COCONINO PLATEAU 193 M ! eek Cr t Creek P ast ure Was h reek eC ap nko w e Na North Rim mC Ph a n o n yo y init C ek T t oy o ee C mo Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) Wa sh hat so ! Lech e -e r ! ! h li n lk C Stream Gage (USGS) m Ha Flint ek Cre Shinu at a ek r Cre C il 0M Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) ! G on any o e Cr e inum o Sh ek re Ca i na dz idza h aN eW pe a Whitmo re Wash Supai ! T s Wa hoy s Cre ek ! ? ? River or Stream (ALRIS) ee y aWa sh M ile Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! n a Tat k Cr ee one St s ! Bitter Springs Sh ash p Sp ri ng W Tig er W h as To Ha jis ho t ! O tle ll ey u Va t n ny o n ee k Reservoir or Lake (NHD) l an na h as H ai l Ca ek re te C sh h l Mi H tW Cane on ny n Ca Coc o P Em sh e Ca Kan i g r h Fo F Sa lt i at s Creek Wh i nt 12 8 e Di a k m ond C re ut So eR as h r Wa s m et n yo obins o n do l ora R Co a ng W pr i dS P ha Wa ! eek r Cr Dee ! Cre ek eek Big! Springs W Co tch W as h as pC o ck S o wa ts C a nyon C a ka ss Cre ek ac sh er Wa Wa t as h ner W ap So us Ho Ca n ng s Mangum Springs M O HAVE R r lo J Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! te An at ! Ca n y on Groundwater Basin (ADWR) ! ! pri ! War m S Ryan State (ALRIS) LeChee ! Canyon One Mile KANAB PLATEAU l Chair Crossing PARIA County (ALRIS) ! Cat hedr a Wash lMarble Ca nyon Town (GNIS) ! Jacob Lake G ul ch as h rican n R W id c yo Snak e W layho le tl e C Lit Hu r h Bu a R iver Page W Tuweep ! Iv an pa C an p J ump u SHIVWITS PLATEAU Mount Trumbull a o ck C y on l st o Yello w as h W ng Jac ! n us n e Was h Ru P ari ! sh ho ! Booze Crossing W l le as Nagles Crossing a h Ca y ley W as nson W Joh sh ob V al e eps er S pe as Fredonia ! Wash ag e Kaib ab ! Bitt Pi eS hit W W h Was Sa ndridg e Wash Rock Crossing eek Cr w o od W a sh !d o ! on t Dra w Cany o nW as h Moccasin Sand ! Kaibab ! COCONINO PLATEAU NORTH GROUNDWATER BASIN Wahweap ! n ndy Sa sh a tc hm Du Co t n Cane Beds Sixmile o Village ash ! a r P ear c Wa e Lake Powell UTAH Co yote W Colorado City eek w t ton Co Sh ort C o rt ap F h s Wa s ay MAP LOCATION 212 B4 S Water Resources Development Commission kar Cre ek Un ek h W a Mo en C p ek a n c e Cr e H G ra p sh l F urro Ca r ingVall y Sp Valle as ar W ! sh p r ing e W a ! h Wa nt a Audley ! 10 20 Km Wa h H s se r Angell ! t Cree l nu k a 0 10 n o tD y ny o Ca n ng s u Yo Pad r s ie Pr n Ca BASINS Upper Lake Mary ee k D Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 Indian Gardens ! Munds Park ! Ashurst R un ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. S tz as h n Vo l Perkinsville ! 0 k Oa k Cr eek Cr MC Wa sh R iver Sch m on ny e Ve r d Fo ry Abra ! Paulden Syc o D Ratt le h Wa s ek ch e Grav C Was h ana k h De v snak ey Can Tu rk C ! w Tur key She r eek C rro re ns w J A yo n T oc kC r e ek rt R *c Ch i MOHAVE YAVAPAI Lo e eW as h McG Ho Mu dT ank Kachina y Village as ! Mountainaire h raw ree kC Oa re p C ek Bear ek COCONINO YAVAPAI Mack ! W Tuthill W Was a sh ek Coff e e C re Ap a Pa ge ! k Wash Cosnino h W Sin cl air Fort ! W es t a sh an Fr ncis co Wa !Winona !!Darling Flagstaff ! ! Woo ing Cr e ek S pr k ree er ! Rogers Lake o ny i lroad Dra Ra re Drakea Eddy Place lope Ant e Wash e h k ek BILL WILLIAMS Bu C Ca Elden Pueblo ! ! teer W s a u ar Be sh h C re Cree eep Sh i W s Was z ale BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land K Miles 20 ¶ r reek n Tr Gon n W ash abi a sh an W rm State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) A Cre ! ! JDD m W *b Bellemont Riordan ny Ca og C ll anyo n e H e Wa sh ul l g a ! k Cr ee Meath (historical) Pin e C ! Maine ! Chalender n n Tul e Ta Cow il Wago ek C re ddy Mu Fo ! od Parks d BIG SANDY Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) e eF VERDE RIVER ! Sereno ! Pine Tank Wash W as Williams !! W Mea th as h k ree rou t C re ek Sereno Spring n gto w Ash Fork o D ! C ore Corva ! F rk D ra Daze on Cre sh o ek ! h o no ght C C ree ! Pinaveta Big Ch i tC Cucamonga Junction Ri ! Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) ash W k Crookton Wash ac a Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ! C vet ne okout W a sh am aw P Seligman ! Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ei LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU ! ata r h as W u Was h yo ka Tuc i ll Ba Was dma n De a Pumpkin Center r Eig htmile r eek C no kh Ma r ou ney M Do h h ek ! as h W l ls ar n r Pa M Ca t ridge Cre G rin dst one a sh ! k Pica ! W a t on ux Tr am D ti n D n Ro nyo c k Ca Bishop Place W Hu a ! as ! h ou rt Wa s Quivero Yampai Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Cit ad el Was h t Mon u ! Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) sh s Jackra b bi t Wa h n me ! sWa ay ! ! Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) a sh W ake dL Re Nelson ! e ach Gray Mountain s Grand Canyon Caverns Stream Gage (USGS) COUNTIES Long Lake Pilgrim erso n Can yo n Playground ! ! Rockledge A nd S PEACH SPRINGS Pe n a re W mo d ee h Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) River or Stream (ALRIS) *a h M Wa s L a va ! ! ? ? Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) pb el l F ran c is W Robbers Roost N Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) h as nW s Wash yo s ! in W ash Was h Mille r Wash Red Lake ! Franci s Hambl i n Wash k ree ar C C C Vis i e e ek ed Hor T ap pa n Ca m k C ree d Willaha Tin House Reservoir or Lake (NHD) Cameron ! ! mi ive ! h a a W Ced do MOHAVE COCONINO Red o H rs e Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! eWa ! COCONINO PLATEAU State (ALRIS) n C an y o Little R ! Rose Well Camp Dia m n o s Wa sh h B ! County (ALRIS) r h Frazier Wells p ko sh Ta nk se Woodin ! Peach Springs Kni Lee Ra in Bl a ckTa n s Rive r W er a sh k Wash k ctC re e k Town (GNIS) ! ash iW Groundwater Basin (ADWR) a !h as S C as Cr ! De Apex ton ds e Was an r o lo eek n ni n Tusayan ! ee pe i s er Tank W ! oW Ha P ro k r Coconino h re S Cr C Bo it Cre ek rC S a e Lit tle C Ca nyo n Mo ha wk re ek Tuna n Alb e rs a eek ek ash ! Co co va su u hn n i le C r eek Grand Grand Canyon Canyon Village ! ev 193 M sh er W Moenave ol v ath He ek e he o ora d R ash eW Prair i h k Basa le n Cr G ar de r ee lt C P ast ure Was re ek Cre 196 Mile C t r reek k eC ree la t e h uc Her m COCONINO PLATEAU SOUTH GROUNDWATER BASIN Hidden Springs Willow Mission Springs ! s Litt le C Ca y init t oy o k Vista Sixtymi l Cree e Encantada KANAB PLATEAU go Dra T SHIVWITS PLATEAU n yo ! North Rim e r Cr e ua W re mC Ph a n o r Pa an t sh ! Ch W ash ! Mormon Lake Mormon Lake Lakeview ! !! Tempe Camp ! ! MAP LOCATION 213 B5 Water Resources Development Commission North Wit Tu rke y Cr eek E Pearce Paradise n C ree k ! ast SAN BERNARDINO- DOUGLAS Portal ree ey C urk k h C reek ! Oni ! T ! DOUGLAS GROUPING ! Galeyville Cree k o itc th W Arizona Sun Sites y r So u Pi ne P ine Cree k ch W it ch Creek eek Cr F ive mil e Cree k k R ock C re e ! Cave C ree k Sunizona County (ALRIS) ! As h Cree k Black Diamond St anfor d Cr P rid ham C reek ! h !r R ! *b Courtland ! ek WILLCOX s ! e Cr Grizzles Orchard W hitewa t er D ! nyon R u ker C a c SAFFORD raw Gleeson ! DOUGLAS D aw a Me s Elfrida Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) ! ! ! Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) ! O wl C r ! e e 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) k er De C Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) r ee k Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) w ra Mul b erry D G ad well Can yon Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) McNeal ! Chiricahua Big Bend C r ee k DOUGLAS INA Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) ! State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) B uc k C r BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land eek e ek eCr li Le s D ia Ind n C ek a nge re rW ash ! Neff n od C ee k *a ce Gl an Bisbee Junction ! Naco ! W t Wil dca C r ee k Paul Spur Forrest !! Calumet ! ARIZONA (USA) C Corta Junction as h ollow W yH a H 0 6 12 Km 5 tto ! ! ! dD oo nw aw r South Bisbee UPPER SAN PEDRO 0 Syc a m ore Cre ek COCHISE COUNTY g in SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY o ash e C an yon ! r Sp e Cre k o on w Pirtleville ! Douglas ! a lu BASINS p Miles 10 ¶ COUNTIES ua d k k C Sil ver r re e Draw ! Highland Park Bisbee ! sh Ba Double Adobe gC ree B lack Co tt Cazador Bernardino ! H a ckb ry Wa er Rileys El Encinar ! n ni Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) Apache r k Ree ves Cr ee Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? ? Stream Gage (USGS) ! NEW MEXICO de r so n Wa s h He n ! Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir or Lake (NHD) Ha W ow Wil l y be r Groundwater Basin (ADWR) Br ush o t s Was sh Wa uth Fork So State (ALRIS) k a sh ck ffo rd C li e ek e Cr e ve Ca Town (GNIS) G MEXICO NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 214 B6 Water Resources Development Commission gh ! Buena Vista m Yu W sh te Toll ga Shoa t T ! ! ! a ree Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) h Harr is W ash as W d Wash an h as W s te a W Cr ee k so n co b Ja SAFFORD Artesia ! S Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ! Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) Franklin Hot W w Stoc State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) sh Dra w k Dr a Oa k ton Wa sh Cr h Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Duncan a le W vi Rai n h B urro W as BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land l ell itlo Wh ilig Flat Tw ! Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) ! k tTurkey ! ld Wash k S lick R oc Was h r Littl e Sa Swift ! Trail Junction 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Fox DUNCAN VALLEY ck Tanque W ! ash W a sh XW sh Whitlock Cienega a A W ! a W Parks Lake il G Ba r sh Wash le sp ie ti n Ma r Sa n h Wa s S 0 m on Rive r ! h r W illow Sp i ng W a s WILLCOX 0 Little Franks GRAHAM COCHISE ! GREENLEE COCHISE 15 Km 6 BASINS S as h ash Dial W 7.5 Chaney Place i Ow l Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) White fi e h W as ilda ij Cree k ! nd Ash Lebanon B ig eC po ! ! n Cree Noo eek River or Stream (ALRIS) Sheldon ank W Cactus Flat ar M Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) ve Sto ! son Cree k Gib ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? ? Stream Gage (USGS) A oWa sh Wam W ash od k Bitt er C re a sh W s r Sa nd e Wash San Jose ! Solomon Gripe ! Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) e ! C reek e ry k Cr ee a ee r nd k e e m ! h as ! ! s ! o Sanchez ! Hollywood ! Lone Safford ! Star F Reservoir or Lake (NHD) p on L Apache Ka yw Grove sh Wa Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! ! Thatcher W t ar eS w a ! ! el l as h Graham ! Tid Pa York W as h C G Pima i la Riv Kimball ! er Central r a W ! t Groundwater Basin (ADWR) r h ac a ote oy W ek C re ul l y Sk k sh ee Cr er W d o o s C t to nwo k ea Guthrie ! Three Way a h Glenbar ! n reek nC Li ts o s Wa State (ALRIS) ek G sh ek Bryce Lo e dary p ee k W re o Dr ll i County (ALRIS) rC E Cr Cr ! M HA ita o w h k kC Oa r eek ez W u M S k re e mC a rk ha ings Wa pr M ! Bo n Town (GNIS) ! ree ld C Co Maques Aragon Place Place ! l Bi a Clifton ! NEW MEXICO k n ny C ree D ry Cr eek ! t e r son Was h lch ek Cre h ling sle y k as W n as i er B Sil v Jo h ! A GR am Peck Wa s e ek Cr Stargo Morenci E LE rkh rti n Ma tone G es Lim ! ash C M MORENCI N EE ! ! k DUNCAN VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN Co a lCr eek ee GR Hot S i id n BONITA CREEK e re sh eek Cr arkh rk M tF o C ek t Cr e White Mul e Creek E agle ef am a sh pW he e C ha se Cr L W ato n ac Yellow Hammer Mill Bowie Junction (historical) !Luzena COUNTIES ! lc sh u p Bowie m ! a W pp y Ca dG Go l ¶ h ! Raso ! Miles 12 Ha ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than ! their intended purpose. MAP LOCATION ! Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 215 ! HARQUAHALA INA GILA BEND GROUNDWATER BASIN Komatke Crossing Gillespie f Ju l ! ! ash yW Co pp er W ho rt h as ! Crag ! Gila u o F B7 Water Resources Development Commission ! Harqua ow R a inb ! Lone Butte Ranch Santa Cruz sh ! ! Town (GNIS) ! a W sh Wa M Q w dic i Saddle e m i lk W ne der u Lo County (ALRIS) ! ash lse y W oo W sh ! S n Groundwater Basin (ADWR) t a Cr uz W Reservoir or Lake (NHD) s ! i ! Camel ! ! ! Shawmut Sil Murk (historical) ! ! Maricopa River or Stream (ALRIS) ! ! ! Estrella Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) PINAL Bosque ! 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) ! S en tin el Was Smurr h Theba Piedra Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) ! ! ! GILA BEND Tartron Bende r Wa sh Wa t e r man Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) h Wa s lo t Qu i S and Ta nk Wa s ! Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) ! Freeman h as LOWER GILA Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) ! Big Horn h sa W Stanwix o s Wa pe Ante l o h Sentinel ! Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Peters Corner ! ! PINAL AMA State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land c au S e a W da h s M e s a Wash 0 *a sh ! Wa Ve k l Bitt e rWe ll o *d Sif Vaya Mi dway Wa sh Moivayi COUNTIES ! Kaka SAN SIMON WASH Stoa Pitk as h W MARICOPA ¶ Chiapuk sh Wa PIMA Miles 12 ! n *c Wa sh ! Totopitk H ickiw a ! h Grow l er W as *b 6 BASINS Chiulikam ! ! Rocky Point 15 Km ! K ohatk Wash Da nie ls Arr oy o 7.5 0 Midway Tenm il Wash e Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) ! ! Gila Bend Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) ! Ak-Chin Village ! ! Ak Chin ! Agua Caliente Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? ? Stream Gage (USGS) ! We stP g r on Wat er h as Rive r G ila Heaton Enid ma n Montezuma Wash nal Ca se sW bu lum Co h s Ent e rp r a Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! r a h Papago ! State (ALRIS) Sacate Maricopa ! Wells PHOENIX AMA a Wa s i ua MARICOPA Yello l Spr i ng Sundad ! Kaka PINAL PIMA ! ! ! ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. ! Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 216 B8 Water Resources Development Commission GRAND WASH GROUNDWATER BASIN an yo n Rive n r ott Wa sh Abb V irgi Su lli vans C MOHAVE COUNTY oc u m k Bl a ck R o c P VIRGIN RIVER ash W Town (GNIS) ! NEVADA l lW as h h Gulc u dC an State (ALRIS) ! Groundwater Basin (ADWR) To m County (ALRIS) Rock Crossing Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! r an tc hm Du w Dr a Ho b bl C ar ny o a Wash w a Dr n Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) Su lli v a River or Stream (ALRIS) ca ne W ash as h W ! ! NEVADA d n oo Cotton w MOHAVE COUNTY Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? ? Stream Gage (USGS) e Ced Reservoir or Lake (NHD) s ! ! ! i Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) Hu rr P ako on Gr an Wash a * den Ca y n on La h as dW Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) h KANAB PLATEAU B lac k Wa Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) GRAND WASH Sq uaw sh Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) Mount Trumbull Ca nyon State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) ! Hors eS p ring Wa 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) s Lake Mead Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Ru n gs n H id Iva npat ch W BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land h as SHIVWITS PLATEAU Gr an d Gul ch Wash ld Co sh i ng pr S Gyp Was h a a yW sh Wa w Ag Pige on Wash Wh Wash Wash h ork Para kP h as o Colo r ad n S u rp ris e Can G r ape vi ne W as h NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MOHA VE er Ri v ¶ COUNTIES NIN O a P Miles 10 COCONINO PLATEAU C OC O W e st F sh an t W ash ara nt W ha ras yo PEACH SPRINGS 5 BASINS ! ! 14 Km or HUALAPAI VALLEY MEADVIEW 7 tF s Oak Grove South Cove 0 Ea ant W s a sh DETRITAL VALLEY 0 o re itm si T as Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) MAP LOCATION 217 B9 Water Resources Development Commission P t Fo rk arashant Wes Wa s F Par ashan t W sh or k GRAND WASH HUALAPAI GROUPING st Ea h HUALAPAI - MEADVIEW- DETRITAL Meadview eek Cr Sa lt ash a k 193 M i l Reservoir or Lake (NHD) nyon s ! rs e Ca Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) !r R ! ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? ? Stream Gage (USGS) COCONINO PLATEAU MEADVIEW Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) El Wa sh k Cre e nt Colora River or Stream (ALRIS) o e ! R ! Referen c ! ! Lost Cr eek PEACH SPRINGS an C reek Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) k DETRITAL VALLEY Lo st M on an y rC ! MOHAVE COCONINO nc e S pe White Hills e D i amo n dC re ! Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ! Pe ach Dolan Springs Spri ng W a sh Ca ne T wen tysix W ash ! State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) Wa s ash Truxton Peach Springs a sh W to n x u r ! ! T a HUALAPAI VALLEY ! Harris ! r MOHAVE 9 BASINS YAVAPAI ut Wa sh e r C reek Whe Ante lope W e l er Wa sh ash ee k Cre sh ck C re ek Ro e K night Cr eek ek o w e G W F l r lv e ingle C y on h an as Sh Griffith th W ! ir ff i Yel l ow rys Wa sh M c Gar K abba Wa B ott leneck sh a sh F or t et Pa s s W ash k ! Wa 20 Km Miles 18 ¶ COUNTIES McConnico Si Cre Look o sh *b Sec o ck Bullhead City BIG SANDY c ea ! ! Mon Silve t ana r C Was re k h Was h P Kingman e ek Cr ! SACRAMENTO VALLEY A ee S acr nm il w Will o Ea st nd Th irt ee ! sh Wa Berry Golden Valley 10 0 u Wash yo es 0 ka Tuc F re Kat herine KatherineW ash ! Lake Mohave sh Wa err y ck b ame nt o Wash Te nn es s Walapai ! Stockton ash Cerbat ! tW ! rba Ce e Wa sh t C anyo eek Cr Santa Claus ! yo an ! Hackberry C ott o nwoo ! d Ha Gra n ite W ash W Valentine W Tyro W ash Mojave Hardyville City (historical)!! ! as h st ! R o ck C Crozier Antares ! Ash Cr Lo sh ! n Crossing k Wa V oc Grasshopper Chloride ! Junction AVA PAI rig h Wa sh C a bi n W a sh * Portl a Mohave ! ! n Lake Mohave Bi g h Was rout Cr ee k T Putman W BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land !State Trust Land Tribal Land Grand Canyon COCONINOCaverns ! Nelson Y h LAKE MOHAVE Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) Sp s ri n g Lake Mohave Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) r ive ! Cyclopic Lake Mohave P oi d h Ray p Ir o n SPlace r ing Wh ite a sh x C ny on W Fo a NEVADA pi ur Groundwater Basin (ADWR) S Hua la pai r ing W ash Sa l t Sp Detrital W ash h as sW J e W ash Trail R ap i m pl Wa sh T *c Was bo um tW ha n ep d 196 Mile Cr SHIVWITS PLATEAU ! e State (ALRIS) eCe re ! Gr ape ash yp h W sh Pe t r og l a nW Ki n g ma County (ALRIS) ee k South Cove Town (GNIS) ! Par Bonelli Landing ! ash vi ne Wash Lake Mead s Wa nt h Oak Grove a ! ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 218 B1 0 Water Resources Development Commission KANAB PLATEAU GROUNDWATER BASIN UTAH te W h as nt ny C o h N k al Cree k e as h so W Be a al M r ee k re ek C kar Cre Un ek ek ar C 8 ra oR BASINS Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 ree k ce C Ha n ¶ COUNTIES er Ta o n nin Apex ! D Miles 16 nk Wash ank Wa e ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. 0 Li t hn u sh e Tusayan iha un t C re ek ng e l C n it C r eek Vi s e Cre k Coconino C ash W one Bla ck T tA ree k r C Tuna Cr sh Bo h Cr Cr l k Cry sta l Cr ee 122 o an o Lit tle C Brigh C Mi le h a rs W A Ca ny on haw k Mo ee k re ra c tC nC Gar de p ev n t nds Sa Prospe Bas W 20 Km iver e Ce r ek le Sh ee 10 G ! ! W a sh ot W Cr B o nit r iv e Cold re ek k i o n 0 d 196 Mile C Sixtym e i l ol tle C o l Grand Grand Canyon Canyon Village ! oco BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land t p r he uc Her Wa sh k ek Cre ek Cr e alt Sa ! ek C re r k ee ek Cre Vista Creek sa g Encantada go Kw Pi p e as ther W Hea t Sla Cr eek ek C re t Creek Prai r ie sh Wa ash k u e Wall C r e a y init P ast u re Wash m 193 M i l C r ree k eC State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) Ham a ts o r eek ar C go Dra m nto C te ! T oy p nko we a Na North Rim P h Was h re y ee COCONINO PLATEAU G ra Ta Ch k n e Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) ash Sp sh Wa k ree uC lbe ik M k Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) bl i tC ree o eek ! s C Supai v s Ha a i tm Wh NINO COC O k ee Flin oW L ech e- e W as h e Cr e r Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ta h t i te Wh Mi e l C re ekreek 127 Mi le Cr eek eek Cr 0 le 12 Mi Wa sh Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Sou Shinu ah oys a in umo Sh Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) y W Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) h Dry Wa sh ny o on any rt Tape l Ca h as r e ek eC 12 8 ! ! 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) ash Hog ans a a ni W Wa sh a sh an ! ny k Cre e r So a W u sh Kan ab rk on Tat P ar n Sto R i River or Stream (ALRIS) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) ash p Spr in g W h s Ti g er Wa m H ai n h as gW rn Sp orado Col Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) l ! To Ha jish o Ple a sa tlet! ley Ou V al sh a F Bitter Springs Gray W as Big yo n Sh Cane on ny Ca th Creek at s e ek Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ahi n Ha ck Ca n aa N inadzid z an binso n Ro Dee r Creek s ! LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU ee s H ! VE M O HA La ash Big! Springs Ca n yon Sowat s ! T W an o u th F So et mm t Mangum Springs Ca ny on Sa lt sh at e r Wa W a sh ner W E Wa sh Reservoir or Lake (NHD) ! pC oc k eR ash s u ngs ! rm S pr i Ryan Wa ! yo n C an eW Cre ek k ee re ek ss Cr e ek Jacka o ! ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? ? Stream Gage (USGS) ! ap So on e Gulch H Jacob Lake Ca Kan e Tuweep ! Marble Canyon dg sh Sna k KANAB PLATEAU a l Wash Ba er C bC any Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! One Mile Ja co Bu lr W Mount Trumbull ! ! h as ! R ! r Chair Crossing a sh dW S an ! h Wa s ng Groundwater Basin (ADWR) COCONINO COUNTY PARIA a st o Yell o w ash ca n an o ck C o n State (ALRIS) a R iver Cat h edr a p Jum p u Ru P ari Booze Crossing layhol e le C Litt Hu r ri R y Wash ne W s ah SHIVWITS PLATEAU h r S eeps W itte ey all a o yh le W ! s c B Pip V e Cl a Rock Crossing Fredonia a Sand as W h ag e S e t Kaib hi ab W ! son Run John as hnson W Jo Wil d at Nagles Cany on Crossing ! County (ALRIS) ! W casMoccasin Mo c !inWa s Kaibab h ! h Wa s S S andridg e Wa sh th ou Can yon as h W w o od W as h k ee Cr ! to n !d o S andy tton w h Co t Cane Beds Town (GNIS) ! Lake Powell Wahweap UTAH Sixmile o Village h e ! Coy o Colorado City ek Co r Sho rt C P ea r ce Was t Fo r e Ca Le MAP LOCATION 219 B11 Water Resources Development Commission h W as h as as h o Wash Te nn es see ame nt ee s mi C S acr Fr a h le W s Th irt e e Berry Golden Valley ! State (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin (ADWR) !r R ! ck s R oc kC r eek Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) n Cedar State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) k y BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land ce nc i ! re ek Franconia ! nge r Cr Co eek ! Bitte r C reek ra a B a C dl Bri e la ia W a sh a l enc P eopl aria Ri v e r h tW te nni a l C ita cer s Cr ee n Alamo Lake Alamo Crossing (historical) 20 Km 0 10 es BASINS t Miles 20 ¶ ! COUNTIES re Bla c kC n on y Y ucca W as h P aM u as n a h as h MOHAVE 10 ! nyo ek ve r in W h Ca v B eW s a kC 0 C dtr ap p whide Was W as h NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. S Ri Ch Ra ill Williams Riv ! Sa n a F ox Wash Big andy en s er PARKER Go en ve r m h Copper Basin Reservoir h Wa ave as Larneds h Landing ! e BILL WILLIAMS Wa s h !Signal sh San as h Ca sta ne da sh ard tand ! k M Lake Havasu aW e se n S y pl e Greenwood s Wa oh m C boy Wa sh ow R W lo Pa Cr e ! a a Six Mile Crossing k lc ve d st M W ash a dle Mo h ve oh a W Burro k ree ppe r ek Iro Cr Bagdad ! Co B o ulder Cree k nSp ringW a i Gra S v ey ar gW a W ash sh e r er C n a gC p ri n in pr s rS ny o Bo x C nyon as a W h Wa sh ! k yWa s om Gr o Mi d HAVASU D G ra Ka Ba t sh Wa ain as h ier W sh Wa gs We pt u Lake in Ne a D ra Kiow Havasu Citya h !a W LAKE Lake Havasu ton ay sh co on k e r Cr li de W Wash as on t Sal ree tC t ou n i ash Fall s S pr ne W ! Bro n co Cr eek z Cr o Desert Hills Jops ! Landing eCre or cam Sy ek ia on nc W as h Wikieup ck M Bu IA RN FO LI C h ! ! ort H a sh Bull C Bur ro W a Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) ek Cre be Ado Sp en Powell Wash Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) p Creek ee Sh r Cree as r Cane C re SACRAMENTO Illavar Wash VALLEY av e Wa De lug e as h Tule W ash F CA Topock Cr o w Canyon Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) sC Catfish Paradise ! sh so Pear n F alls W 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Fr a Beal Lake y J ack Wash Was h Happ B ar I- L W ash Haviland Fla tto p Was h ! ! BIG SANDY W iver Fivemile Landing ash sW on cke nzi e Ma i h i le Wa s ve m reek ut C Tro Br R do F k Yucca ! H pr M acke nz S m r C Wa Sp h on any Wa C er nia ip p iber l C air sh Wa Pilg ri m ie Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Cow Cr ee MOHAVE YAVAPAI W Arizona olo Village ra ! Creek a LAKE MOHAVE G ings Was h Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) k Ho re e p C ings W sh ! ek k re e Athos R ock C ! Willo w ! ! k re e tC ln u Wa ! ! B r F G onzal e Mojave Ranch ! Estates Mohave !Valley k oc kR la c an Mesquite Creek River or Stream (ALRIS) dy eek M Wash L oss eft Ceda r H Wash dM sh k W a n a os s W Blue T Mu d C ! h as k r ve Drake Me adow Cr ee k Ash Cre E as t As Mc e eW ash Sh i n k a Cree k Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) K night Cr eek re ek h C e h r s M c Garry Wa sh B o tt leneck W Ka ash b ba Was Wheel er W h as A nte lope W h ash Ti mber Wa sh le Can yo ng h Wa s fith Griffith Gr i f ! Oatman sh ! Harris ! Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? ? Stream Gage (USGS) ut Was McConnico e t Pa ss W ash Sil ! s ! h ac Sec Look o Wa *b Mojave Hardyville City (historical)!! Willow Valley o ! ! Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir or Lake (NHD) Pe Kingman Mo S i lver nt n Cr aa W ee sh Was h Town (GNIS) ! County (ALRIS) ! Bullhead City NEVA DA oc sh Wa Kat herin e KatherineW ash ! n Wash sh Wa sh Wa ! n o rry kb e Cerbat !Stockton n Walapai HUALAPAI VALLEY ! ! o Hackberry Cot tonwo ! y Santa Claus a kC Tu c nd Wa s ! t ba er ! Lake Mohave n Ca sh Tyro Wash Valentine W ri ght reek dC ! W LAKE HAVASU - SACRAMENTO VALLEY PEACH SPRINGS ! H ac Crossing Gra n ite Wa ! Crozier Antares ! ! s Lo Portl a Mohave Caverns ! Yampai ! sh k Wa V oc Grasshopper Chloride ! Junction as h n Wh ab i tC Truxton y on g B lW DETRITAL VALLEY LAKE HAVASU GROUPING COCON AVA Grand PAICanyon INO ! R *a tri t Lake Mohave i ! NelsonY ! as h nW to De a ! Tru x Wash kayou Putman V W ash ! LA PA Z ! Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 220 B1 2N Water Resources Development Commission LAKE MOHAVE NORTH GROUNDWATER BASIN Lake Mead GRAND WASH ! Bonelli Landing State (ALRIS) ! as h glyp h W o r t Pe h as Groundwater Basin (ADWR) ! R ! r h De t rital W as s as h s ! Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) MEADVIEW ! ? ? Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) u Stream Gage (USGS) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) H as h p le W ! a lap ai W T Salt Spr ing W a em Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir or Lake (NHD) Meadview h ADA N EV W an Kin gm County (ALRIS) South Cove ! Town (GNIS) lo Co River or Stream (ALRIS) i ! W ! ! Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) S p ring 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Ray ron IPlace a sh Fo x Can y o n W Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) a sh Wa s h E te Whi ash W ash bo W Jum Lake Mohave lep d ap i s as h ne l R *c W nt ha ! T r ai iv oR er v ape Gr ra d Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) ! Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Cyclopic Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ! Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) White Hills ! Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) *b State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land HUALAPAI VALLEY DETRITAL VALLEY LAKE MOHAVE Dolan Springs k Cree Ash ! Tw entysi x Was h Truxt o n W h as Lake Mohave MOHAVE COUNTY Can e Sp ring W as h 0 9 0 BASINS sh ¶ a B sh Miles 18 9 Put m a n Wa s h ig W a 18 Km *a Lake Mohave ss T en ne ee W Chloride Grasshopper ! h Junction in as ab W h s W en o c ram h rtl a d Was Po n ! a t Sa L tC os COUNTIES Wa sh Vock SACRAMENTO VALLEY ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 ! ! MAP LOCATION 221 CA B1 2S Water Resources Development Commission W Big W as a W as h es Ten n Gra n it e Wash ! ! e se Sac h Po rtl and Wa s Mohave Crossing LAKE MOHAVE SOUTH GROUNDWATER BASIN ash Vock W h s rame nt oW DETRITAL VALLEY Chloride ! Grasshopper Junction ! h inWa s h Cab st Lo sh a al t ri t De Lake Mohave *a Santa Claus r ! le Wa s h mi ee sW Reservoir or Lake (NHD) e Th ash Berry ! s h Golden Valley ! ! Lake Mohave Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! ! n e Groundwater Basin (ADWR) Stockton Cerbat Fr irt Katherine State (ALRIS) ! sh t Wa rba Ce s ! Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! ? ? Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Stream Gage (USGS) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) Kingman ! ! ! ! ! Bullhead City Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) McConnico S ecre t Pa Wash ! Harris ! ss Wash 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) a ontan Yel l ow Flo we a sh M ea dow Cr eek Oatman ! SACRAMENTO VALLEY MOHAVE COUNTY Athos ! Wi llow Cree k ! W Arizona Village ! i ken c h h ck Was h e Was y Ja Ba r I-L n zi Wa sh Happ Mac k e Fivemile Landing Haviland ! Beal Lake Illav ar Catfish Paradise ! Topock ! Buck M Franconia ! co an Fr n oun t ain 0 5 0 Was h 10 Km 5 BASINS Was h ! Miles 10 ¶ COUNTIES Cree k Cow a i a W Cav e Wa Powell ! n nyo Flatto p Wa sh ! sh Cop per Cre e k ! m BIG SANDY ze Yucca r r i ve oR ad Was Fi ve mil e Wa a sh Sp ri s ng k Was h Tan Cr r ee k kC Roc BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land ee k ! Willow Valley State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) Wa sh ue LAKE MOHAVE Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) Ca ! Mojave Ranch Estates Mohave ! Valley k ee Waln ut C r Bl Mesquite Creek Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Ma CALIFORNIA ! Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) kWash Ro c ss Mo Drake Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ash rW eel e k e eek Cre r Cr Canyo h Sh in g le n as W Griffith h t i iff r ! G er S ilv Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Wh kW Hiberni a Cree Bl ack Si l ver Mojave Hardyville City (historical)!! Co lor Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) ! M ! County (ALRIS) Walapai ! Tyro Was h Kathe r ine Wa Town (GNIS) ! HUALAPAI VALLEY sh B at NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 222 Water Resources Development Commission Cr eek APACHE l e Cr k ee Ts ai a el d s C Palis re ade Cre ek W kC ny C lo Ye W a Ho sh g ich ee C l S B l L one T h Wa F is ne g ash W ee W re ek l ac W a Sa bi sh d Zeniff ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. ! The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. b ! ek ash ble W 0 R r an Can y ar ds c m a e on St r Morg H Navajo ! ra b re Cra z y ash W on nd 10 20 Km o e Wash 0 10 Potter Place ! w B ea ve r Wa s h Draw ol low Draw L lky Mi Jar Draw os a BASINS ¶ e Co i ld W e ittl h W as ek D a m e Cr s pr Su al Wa sh m! Zuni Riv e r O Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 Pin sh a da Ce r L ak e W ash W Headquarters Miles 20 i Wash eek S il ve r Cr aw ile Dr enm Se v r r oyo sh Wa lky Mi p sh W bo a s Dry Lake s Li ho n T Po rte r h a te rA ! Jim Ca w Dr n Mc do nal ds Ca Bl ac kCan yo n a ! Sanders !Chetco Chambers ive erc Pu Ni nemil Ubank Place Woodruff ! Wa de C ! a BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land Allentown Houck ! W as h ! Goodwater Paulcell Adamana !Place Ha yH ! P otat Sa nd e l Wi l * Pinta r ! rL C ar rd n Del unt ai n W h sh sh u Arntz ! Holbrook ! State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) ! s Wa a h lai B W Mes a aW ash phC it Wa Le h a sh W Hu mp y er F eath nil Sun Valley ! h JOSEPH CITY INA a h C h eney ! oe W a sh n velo C Ch e a Dr a w ! ! n Babbit nC Winter e lo an h e v! !! yon C Mormon Crossing ! West ! ! ! Macks Crossing Horse ! Crossing ow C t Little Spring t k Cle a n ev in k Cle ar Cre ! We s on F o e e As hurst R YAVAPAI e Ca ny ick Ra r W o at Wa C Ba bbi t t Wa sh C Ande a ll Ye llo t Pr i t un a n a yo n W r eek Oak C k Cr av er C re Dry rC r Lost Eden a ! k Wa w Beav o n W Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) kC Pine Springs B COUNTIES S pr ings Was h e ny ek g on k re e k ! ny o ! e x Penzance o ny a De ra so D av er Cre Brady Ca We t Be Wal ker C L Rimrock McGuireville !! ee! Lawrence Cany Lake ! e Crossing Montezuma p Cr eek u i k ic Be s Whitted Echinique Place ! Place Hay Lake ! yo C an ck Creek Ro Jordan ! ck Ja k y ash W ! a e a Jos Joseph M Manila City ! ! ! r ee rC y ro Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) ! r k nC re R t Sch rW as h unte e *c re D r ldie ! sh Hibbard Wa ! sh s Ta nn e r Was un Pilgrim Long Lake Munds Playground r Ca n ge Park Rockledge!! Ya Indian ! Mormon e Gardens Lake Lakeview So anyo n ! Tempe ! !! r eC Coyote Sedona Camp Basin ! Gr ap Ranch Baldwins ! lo VERDE RIVER Allan Lake Canyo n D iab Crossing!!Red Rock nStoneman ! Landing Oak ny o Page a Lake Creek tles na C Long Lake k Springs ! ! Happy R at ! Big Park Tremaine Lake Jack ek on Brigham City (historical) ! ! Sunset City (historical) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Oak Springs Lupton Wa gW p rin as rs S Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ! Tanner Springs Dig ge r Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) NEW MEXICO e ck Ja e rn h Rimmy Two Guns !Jims n ! ! Sunshine Dennison Leupp a ny ! ! Corner n o Meteor ! rs n nyo ! Moqui a City C Winslow ac ! ! Winslow W West yon sW sh w ! ar Se Bill y Upper Lake Mary ver Ri rad o o lo ! es D as W ! as in e Ru W id Lit t le C Rid g e Oa k Kn nt Wide Be Ruins to ! Canyon Diablo 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) w hit e o Wash Cosnino Darling Angell Riordan!Flagstaff ! !! h ! e as Winona ! k e e r Fort C c i r l a n t Vol al n u Si n Tuthill W Rogers Lake ! C Kachina ny o gs eC n Village o dr nyo Y a Mountainaire P ! raw Ca ! Pue blo Co l o rad o Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Window Saint !Rock Michaels ek as Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) ! h Castle Butte Sunrise Old or ! ! Leupp ! Leupp ! ! Hunters Point sh ! ! COCONINO a mb St ! as W W te W Dilkon ! re ! aC Bur ntwat er W San Fr a n cis c B d aho ch i Was h Bellemont Elden io de F Pueblo l ag Bes hb ito Was h o ash Twin Buttes River or Stream (ALRIS) ! ash mW Stream Gage (USGS) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) Bonita Fort k ree Defiance Trading !Post Kin l a h nt sh Bur P ino n W s Klagetoh ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Ci e ! Indian Wells ! ! Bidahochi ! C oyo Greasewood Da B ig ! ? ? Bo h as ! ! i h eek !! Cornfields ! Sunrise Springs Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! k lo ac d Wi ere Kinlichee ca tt ! Sa Ganado ! ! ! ul ! e l W Wood e h us as sh W Springs in a u ! e il R w Wash eW So Ganado Lake Toyei Na Ah Tee T Tolani Lake Wolf Tolchico Crossing ! B m s Seba Dalkai ! TeeshT !Toh Cedar Wash Springs Burnside ! ! ! Nazlini w Wa te r ! s ! Sawmill Red Lake h Kan A Steamboat Canyon Steamboat ! e u NAVAJO Wa s i as h ! ! White Cone lac c COCONINO ! as re rn rnt C B S aW I Tsintaa Yiti Ii e NAVAJO W Tiis Holoni Wash Cr lz as Or a ib i h oW dt Ja as h a s yo n i r ut e Zh Kish Wa Wep o h o i a sh i n ash sW Black Falls shCrossing As pen W F E sh ash Bi tt ash ibito W ash Be g s o r ut W a ini Wash h k ash W Dr y W ash as h W so Be kihat d ar h as ll C Ba ! W ter wa alt ac hi W a s Toh s h h Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir or Lake (NHD) ! ! kai Was a la Po r Colo rad o Ri C e dma n D ea Sand Springsh ! ees Wash tade l Wa s h Ci Pumpkin Center h ! R ! Milkwater ! h Jackra bbi t a Groundwater Basin (ADWR) ! i Pa h as May ash W ail W n Tewa Ca ! First Hano Keams a Sichomovi!!! Mesa Village CanyonK Walpi ! ! !! ! !Sipaulovi Toreva Nesuftanga ! ! !!!Jeddito Second Kawaika-A ! Mesa ! h Chakpahu State (ALRIS) r e o Cr e k n it ! T ! ! tf i Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) as Lav h a Was h Tona aa d W as h ak Low ! zz Tse C hi i W Mountain Wepo Village Pivahn-hon-kya-pi !! Mumurva Ovi ! ! Huk !! ! Aponi-vi Kykotsmovi Salina i Was z haa iW he White Clay s Deesh Flat Rock ! Smoke Signal LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU ! Upper Wheatfields ! Lower ! Wheatfields h n a ! Mahtson-pi ! Hotevilla-Bacavi ! ! Bacavi r dma k Wash La n Gray * Mountain e b it nn T h Wa s Ah B is i Bu p a ! ! o an y rr o C W as h re W mo ed Ne Tap a g W sh D Pinon ! oo as W h Ca ny D Chell y on e ! Tii s W h ood a s Cott on w iit Nd Coal Mine Mesa aS ! Navajo Hard Gospel! Rocks Mission Del o yon Muerto an a ! c Junction o Chinle Blac k R ! Overlook o ck M Bl a Blue Gap Moen kopi Wash Cameron Wash ! as sh COCONINO PLATEAU B Tahchee e Tank W on o C u ! le W m ve Fi a e Ca ny Rare Tuba Metals Moenave City ! ! ! Moenkopi ek se Naz lin i Wa sh sh H amblin Wa De er Le nebi to Wa Di n d k r C r Cr ee ua t She e eek Basal as e h Many Agu Farms Jims !Many on We reek e T a lC Tsaile Farms Lake W zi n ie W ash ! as Sh h Sehili Coyote ek epD ! i p Cre Tsaile Lake erto h Springs ! Mu Wheatfields !ek h Ch inle Wa s ho ysa Wash Ch a pW p Po rc u sh rr o w W a Na W pri n g er S LITTLE COLORADO CENTRAL GROUNDWATER BASIN Lukachukai Li !To h otso rd W sh a as oW Tonalea Red Lakei ne Hidden Springs Willow Mission Springs ! ! as h !! Rough Rock Fk hW Ora ibi W T Tat a KANAB PLATEAU ! Cow Springs ! za Shin um Le oW a ta c h e as h a -e Wa h sh ts ve B1 3C ! Greer Ca rri zo Was h Hunt Place Heap ! ! Zion Reservoir Place ! MAP LOCATION 223 B1 3N Water Resources Development Commission LITTLE COLORADO NORTH GROUNDWATER BASIN ! Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) State (ALRIS) Lake Powell Groundwater Basin (ADWR) ! R ! r ni To h Da hs ti c Ove r Cr ee k n e B ck Co Re dr S o Cr ee k ai C W * e ek ea l e Cr Ts ai eld Palis s Cre ade e Cre ek o n De l an un tain W ash Teec No s P os W ash ohach Wash k h tW P ing 20 Km 10 Cornfields ! lo Ye h l ek S W Bonita ek Fort reTrading Defiance Post ¶ COUNTIES ! ! Window Cr e BASINS Bl a ck C o So us H sh L one T nl ich ee tP sh sh B urn in on Wa ash in W Ru lW Bo Miles 20 Saint !Rock Michaels eek Cr ! ga Cie ne Pu eb l o lor ad oC Ganado Lake sh !Ganado a oW h Wa boa t Wa sh ! S team Sal ! ! ! Toyei h as as sh e W in W Wa i u R o a ! W k Wash c w ul e Bla ge W il l Sa d e Kinlicheecat te r ! Wood Springs Fis ms kC NAVAJO APACHE Bu rnt C sh aW sh it Di l h on Bes hb ito Was h as h h iW iD We p i r ute h ee rn C h i Bit sh as a sh Burnside l ! ash ash 10 Cr e ek ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. ! The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data!layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Steamboat Canyon Steamboat SawmillBu w Wat er o ni t ! as h oW 0 el W As pen W Fk E sh i as h COCONINO NAVAJO Wa sh Dry Wa s h Wash tso Bek iha r ny h Ce Co y L W tw rW a te Liz s Jackr abbit Wash hac hi W as H a To ash a I Taa n I Tsintaa Yiti Ii ! it Jad ! Red Lake ! Ki W May s ! r Sand Springs i Pa a h tf i ! h ny Ca Kokopnyama Nesuftanga ! !!!Jeddito Kawaika-A ! Chakpahu ! BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land s ! Keams CanyonK ea State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) 0 Nazlini Tewa ! Hano h ! ai Wa s h lak Ba Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) Upper Wheatfields ! Lower ! Wheatfields White ot e W as Clay Milkwater i Was haa i Wa h h T W ail h as ! ! Sichomovi!!!! First ! ! ! ! Sipaulovi !Toreva Mesa ! Second Mesa r lC Gray Mountain ad Wa s h ka ! Wepo Village Flat Rock Salina Low ! izzi Tse C h Wa Mountain elly on D e Ch s Deesh z Smoke Signal yon an Chinle Junction Blac k Roc ! Overlook Cany Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Wheatfields !k oo a Tona h *a a W aS gu as h yo n W ! ! Ti is Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Sehili ! Tsaile Lake Mue t o ii t Nd dmark W ash L an c ac ! Del y Muerto C Mo a sh hW iA ! Po Te Aponi-vi !Pivahn-hon-kya-pi ! ! Oraibi Huk ! Ovi! ! ! Kykotsmovi Village da dar o Mahtson-pi Hotevilla-Bacavi! Cameron re W mo ed Ne sh a Wa ! ! Wash Co ttonw ood a Tsaile W zi n ie W ash as h k h eep ip Cr ee D B is as h a g W sh B o ! ! as W ! ! Bacavi Bur o r Can an W Wa eb nn ck Bl a Coyote Springs Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) b s il e em Fi v COCONINO PLATEAU La v Coal Mine Mesa Blue Gap S e Ts a Nazli ni W s h oRi ve Hard Navajo Rocks ! Gospel Mission as ! Pinon eek !Many n e Farms Lake e Tahchee o Mo en kopi Wa h s ! r a d O ra ! on Tap p as ter Wash Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) ! reek uk Luka chLukachukai ! To hot s ard as h A 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Red Rock o sh Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) ! di n tan g W Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) Horse Mesa h as W g li oi h as Yazzi W !Cove v ! W l r e Co o Rare Tuba Metals Moenave City ! ! ! Moenkopi ib W k k Lu W Fk sh H amblin Wa Lit ad nebi to Wa Di n ac huka i Many Farms Jim so h Red Lake ne !! Tonalea Por cu p a sh rro w W Na W Spri n g te r Hidden Springs Willow Mission Springs ! sh tl a ee C ! as so Shee p Wa Red ! a W ha bi W LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU ! Rough Rock Or a i h Cow Springs ic Cree Go h s ee n Ch i nl eC re Ho e ga s hibi Burr oW a sh Tr o y psu ! Red Wash Round Rock ide foot W as Tse g Cut Pe P nd ch W ash i Ca ny on as W v ora do Co Fal l Cr eek C Be s Chilchinbito ! ! NEW MEXICO h os ad sh Chi n le Wa Gray W G ! T Shonto as ! ! nd ek C re d it o H asb i Stream Gage (USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) s h Wash s Ty k ree eC Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) B lac k Ho r ock e M Wa e a i ne W sh a o ash kW o i te R Wh ! ! ? ? rs ! S hinu mo Wa Le s Ta ta che -e Wa sh t Wa sh Wa Mission lk ! Cr ee k Rock Point Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ah Was h seCr ee k P h r Bl ack un C ee k Lag a r Kayenta Twin Falls s ! ! s it Emmanuel ! ! ! ! to on Sh Kit S Totacon ! Teec e Nos Pos ! il i Wash Sand Springs Fields Baby Rocks sh Wa t ! Dennehotso Tsegi a W Tes Nez ! ekIah Reservoir or Lake (NHD) Red Mesa ! T Sour Water W a sh ree k st Mexican Water er er ep K a i b it reek ash in g ! hCr ar ri s T as h oW Diamond ! ! a sh W to Kaibito zah i Was g n i r Sp sh h sh a Tig er Wa h Betatakin Overlook Wa sh Bitter Springs h as a pitan W El C St art Wa t W ee k a Oljei o ek ! Sh e ek eC r e Cr e e pe Cr e elo k eek i Cr i ya h Nav ajo G ypsu mC k ee Cr m ai an yon Nak C t Pl u Sa ! r r t Navajo Mountain Mission eek Ch a a sh er W Ta nn a Nin dz id na a C ec n An p Ha ee k h a ss Cr eek ck So a Cre ek oh LeChee ! Marble Canyon Ja yon C ! r e! Ri l! iko Page Ca ii Shijei Chair Crossing b A zt iizh r PARIA es t iilk ri a Riv e W iB Se L ! Pa W est UTAH Wahweap Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / !Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 ! MAP LOCATION 224 B1 3S Water Resources Development Commission ! o h b h h ee cra ar ds St r b am C razy al k e rs Cedar La k eWa Gre er W as h n ch o C e ek r W as h r L yman D llow NAVAJO APACHE Ala e at ld W AM k it n C re ek A ter Ca R M e M Colt e ek Cre stl Cr ee k C n GRAHAM GREENLEE F as C Pad dy C Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 Ho rton Cr ee o C r o L Cr g West u rk eyC r C rn k ee Co sh C re ek dC re Cree e k k Fo rth No Na a v t iv Wh ite i GR AH k ek re ar C Ha La nn y C re e e n k Cr eek e So l Go r Cr e Wa sh Be as h ek e std a le C re dl e Ced a W est Cedar C Am os W ek Pinea sc oC r Up p Ch e C Big ney D ra w Hay H ash W d Li H e oy C ree C Ce d lf C ree Ca ek eC r Bea ve Co Wi ld i o llo wD r aw h Dod so n or R o Cre ek Carri u gh C re ek Littl e Tr Ca d h Wa s am Jim C h Wa oa r sh k Mud Cr Ca n yo n Jum poff an y on u ng Was h W s e as i le W Five m w nk D r h tt W as Sc o ke Day Wa r W sh a sh Wil l ow Wa sh Ba gna lW as as h Pa rk W o en ix D ec P e ep S C am pai g PA CO Ban n Ros rke rC C reek re Wa r Medd m Cre l ek W ash re ek k ack C dist Met ho an yon W h i ph C n Wash w B la ck C a ny o n S Ca ny on okba nk Br o k C re eek Cr r P e Wa Po tat o n any at C Wild Mul e k ee C Cro uch l Gu n Cre ek am bi n g rk Cr Pa Bu k d Mc do nalds Ca C an sh ve Ch e Dr a w Sa nd k low W il We st C Alde r C ee h e ve lon C r k an y H Cre Pi geon er e Lit ho de nd ro a Wa sh d n o tt ni Cr eek COCONINO NAVAJO C Wa h a sh Hum py W er F eath Bl C W Mes a W a as h ny ce yo n erd yC ree k E a k i l l C ree St Ru re F n n An et Ya ea st C Ea P ine Cree k b Dude C Fu ller Cr e e k e Lew is Cree k e Ta Ho rdur Co oy on YAVAPAI COCONINO re Ha rd t ito W as t h k n a Yell Ash urst R na W k e RI CHE APA C F ish Snak onk Beave rC Ca BASINS ¶ COUNTIES T n Foot e Creek nag a Ha n nt C ree k Gr a Steep C K P C e le re k k k ree Sw eat e r reek k r k re e APACHE GREENLEE rf rv Li Miles 20 re e tC it k ee Bon i B K To nto Cr eek Perry Cr eek Pa 10 eek Cr eek Cr 0 ttle h H ay Cr 20 Km ut nwo o rk B l 10 Cre ilk ek ek t C re Ca Cot o stF 0 reek sC E od o l k ad h No W c so Cre ek Cr r ke y Tu s rvi p Ja ny o illig a n Creek Creek ud d ek Cr ek ggs Ri er Cr e k ree v NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Ditch Big A u ge rC r e ek ee k ke BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land ri T ree k State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) itch hi te R iver o reek Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) Nut Springerville o yD ! m Eagar ! er ack R iv Canyon Fork ! Day ! Blu e o er k eek Cre e Cr k me Cre e lin Ho k ire Cr eek e ee e Cre k n t e ee Ce y Cr g eek Bo g nC Rese at i o k t Cr ee che a Whiteriver Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) W as Coyo te Cre e re e a er Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) l Run igi r k ll C e er S un Cr eek e Ri Cre k ree k ie ox eep CFor k W h b D e r t Eas F rk ! East Indi a n Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) *d rth ond Cree am Di r Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) ash W re g C ek ker C reek B e Cree k rd e e Cr e ise k ee k Pa R ! ! ! V eral Cr Mi tch ern on Cr e l Di in e ra er Creek k ree ed a C Be C Stream Gage (USGS) Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Pul Sepu lv C River SAFFORD nd ed id M ast C E SALT RIVER a sh la k e re r C ek die ose b Sa rses h o Ho T Cre r ad ek ut Cre O ek Bu l Cr k e ek Cr e Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) k z v k i c Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) River or Stream (ALRIS) ! Saint Johns k n eek l k er Ri v h s a ar GW Ho ro on any ed C e re s ! ? ! ? Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) in Spr gs Wa s h cif V wC e r ek ry Cre er c W evenmi le o C am r e r e ek S yc M Pinetop-Lakeside r r NAVAJO GILA o ly ! ne Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir or Lake (NHD) Ca r rizo Wash itch o ek du B e k r ee k A rroyo S how Lo ar Wash ree k C re Sh e Wash ng le Pri utte hC B !r R ! Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) o m C Sp ri ng C As ek a l Cr e Pin r ee D B Show Low ! r k Fo re P sh Z un i Ri ve r B og il C Sa l t Ri v er ash ro wn C W Groundwater Basin (ADWR) w n y ck Ro Cibecue ek k Cr e ry nC H-z Was h A GIL ree MA ek Cr on er C o C Pa i Wa s h *a en ee Wash ee on co Br ree k ek nk Cree k Ta q es ek C re er C t Bo ul d as C ! k Sloan Cr e ek k e Cr e se lky Mi tt le State (ALRIS) Draw os a Jar h Was am ee rD Cr i rp Su w k C r ee W k ree Roc k Ho k i H gan C Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) sh Wa lky Mi O ! Canyon key Tur reek p sh Wa Taylor C ana l h CI ee S w D ra nmile eve Wash bath ol Salt C C n d b Snowflake Sp c u e Cre ek reek Oak C eek Cr Cr so E lli on i s W C re ek Da v a sh rL W L ! gs C anyo n rn G entry Ta er De k r e e Cre k ee l o me Cr M PHOENIX AMA o er P B Cr Sa erd e Ri er ash ek V e gW Green b lebee Creek mb uit e W Di nn R Sp Basin ! r ash e Cre ry k t n Indi a rin ! ! Cree k eno C reek L k ee Tonto Rio Verde ek Ca mp Creek r eC Sl a Creek n yo an oot C GI ar M ! ee Young er ash dW Clove r Was h Ry k ee C Cr rdt reek Ha Creek l d o G Cher TONTO CREEK l di Ci be ree wC Co o Gisela e MARICOPA S h F LA ee Cr k S an Cree aigler Cre ek sh Creek r eek nC ! G ns Cr eek ibso h Jo c k Hou st on reek k Cre ek k H k ree rse C Ho re e C an m B ear C reek D De ash W t YAVA PAI or en Fountain Hills Car Th e S ilver be R e GILA YAVAPAI Star Valley ! Payson st V o orte Was Holbrook ! h rc a qu h Wa s Hess Web rC i ver eR Cit ek r ! VERDE RIVER Cr to m e Bo COC ON INO on h ! oc C D ry s a W as eW er Cree k lov Wa l Strawberry Pine C ss il Creek Fo le sc r ab Cam p ver Ri e Pi C sh ek e Cre r Cr eek Ca nyo n ager Ye ek rs ! Co rn Ba bb itt Wa sh lt Sch Pri r n kC a Ra rc ny g on ek We s t C lea r Cre nkWa sh t We co Pu er o ny lon h Wa Nine m i le s Dr a so er Cr eek Brady Ca et B eav on L Walke r Cre Can y Wickiu p C reek ! h a oyo ! i M or Sun Valley JOSEPH CITY INA yo n as ble W i LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU ny o ! e Jo s r l ea k D e W a Can yon D blo ia Ar r ! horse il d ek ve ke Big Park Be a a R tt le s ry n an yo at er k Cr k sC ck Ja ux Wa ! as h NEW MEXICO *c Gr apevi n C an e nyo Ca n a r L h LITTLE COLORADO SOUTH GROUNDWATER BASIN Houck W h M ty as W h Sedona la a De ash W Winslow ! la Wa l yo n C an r e eg s sh s Tan ne r Wa Ca un ! ! on Di gge r W as g prin Wa sS air id e W as nW h sh W h ! de o wo o Was h sh Munds Park Ca e rn rs Se a Bil ly ck Ja ow rs o v n yo er P n ny o Ca as W r o i ad R ny o Ca dre ittl e Co l o Mountainaire w ! t Dr a es eek Cr b Sa L t Cree k nu W al Kachina Village ! C You ngs C anyo n Flagstaff h! as nc l air W Si ! Wa sh San Fr a n cis co e zC * as in W e e Pueblo Colo r ado w hi te u Fla g reek e Ri d o Leupp sh W a ash Co eW yo as W sh Wa rin o Que Bur ntw at e r W COCONINO PLATEAU MORENCI MAP LOCATION 225 B1 4N Water Resources Development Commission *f a rW pe s in r ing o W Co YUMA W ool MARICOPA Clant o n Wash Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) GILA BEND S nt n Wash Ta k Sand al m ers Can w nal Ca YUMA Qu ail a Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) h e terp r i s sh h h Wa s b BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land Gila Bend ! inel W il Qu ot ver i R as da W uce Sa G ila sh Wa sa d * M or ga n Was M h oh Wellton ! wk Fortuna Foothills W as h Ow l W ash 0 tu F or a sh Wa 7.5 15 Km 7 BASINS *a G row ler W ash S l risto ba an C sh Wa NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Danie ls Arr oyo Te nm Wa sh i le Midw ay Wash Miles 14 ¶ COUNTIES *b MARICOPA YUMA PIMA YUMA 0 h ! ! n a Tacna Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) ash Cas tle a W ! ! En goon a Stream Gage (USGS) Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) e Th eL Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ! 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) W sh LOWER GILA m Ra sh y Wa se sh Wa W Wash r Fa Ye llo Sp w Lo Me u mi i ne as W a s bu as h hW n Bara g a Eye Big Do h as ! ! PHOENIX AMA h h as c Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) o ! Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) River or Stream (ALRIS) Wa s di c lk r de W sh e er Riv u lu Co us Nott b q ma Wa rk Yu ui h ly st F We Ya Gra ve l Wash a s ! ? ! ? J of h as nW a sh er W h CALIFORNIA !r R ! Fo u rth p a m Groundwater Basin (ADWR) s a t ennial Wash ash W Dea d as h W Cen her McP so n W ash sh g les Wash s An e Lo State (ALRIS) L uk e W a s LA PAZ t o t lli s e ia I nd Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) a am p ssay Ha n e Wa sh *c nW ! W W int er s Ce m n W ash v ash Tyson W Hoodo o sh o gn Wa Reservoir or Lake (NHD) a Red R e Mc A a ey a n Wa sh De l er Wa sh lla L h HARQUAHALA INA as W Co yo Fou te rmi le as Ph il lips Wa sh h D ic key Wash LA PAZ MARICOPA Was A *i *g m sh Dag gsWa sh h o Riv r Colora d an Wash ek eC e r ek lamo LOWER GILA NORTH GROUNDWATER BASIN W W h as h h Cre h PARKER Yu ma W r line h Was il l h M as RANEGRAS PLAIN Ca v c *h Pe te Trigo W ash sW ash Wash zW as as we b h ren F h as Wa sh *e Lop r bit * j W G ou l d sh M ule Was h W le *k ash pW am dC Ol be rg e Wa a h as er W Tig Ehre n We a ver Wa s ash La ke Wash Mo hav er B ou se ash eW B lu Bee r Bott p n W Up h W h ! Li mek il h ho aC Ehrenberg P P s mol omo sa s it a W as as Itali lo e S Po k a c J Quartzsite ca dd en Wa ! as W Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 PIMA MAP LOCATION 226 ! Water Resources Development Commission ! B1 4S ! ! Sentinel ! odo o Wash Ho ye Wa sh Big E Cas tle Bender Wa sh S an an k Wa d T s County (ALRIS) State (ALRIS) Stoval Groundwater Basin (ADWR) ! Kim ! l Owl Wa ! s h! Mohawk a r YUMA MARICOPA h as aW ed uc sh Asher ! ! Reservoir or Lake (NHD) *a tu sh Wa a Midway ! *d T enmi G row ler Was h le Wa Midway Wash sh Stream Gage (USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) ! ! ! h Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) ! Ar oyo r Childs ! Emika Gi bson Tule Was I ZO NA (US ME A) XIC O b al W as rn e z Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Hickiwan ! Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ! Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) ! erda de Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) Hoa Murk Len Why a ! Gu nsig ht Was h h Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) ! Sikort Chuapo Cu h s s to Da r b Rio Co oy o YUMA PIMA ri nC Sa A rr ieShunie C h i co Sh un! 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) ! Tatai Toak A Co yo te Was h ! State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) Charco Schuchuli ! ! Hotason Vo BLM Land ! National Forest National Park ! Military Reserve ! ! and Other Land Private State Trust Land Tribal Land ! h Kua kat ch W ash *b WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE Kuakatch ! Pa pago W a sh Alamo h Gu Vo i h as gu SAN SIMON WASH ! W a o n A sh Wa eri Ch ji ta s W a Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) Stoa Pitk PIMA Si kort C hua Gibson po Wa sh Mexican! ! Ajo ! ! rroy o Town Rowood y Chico AR Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) ! Wa s an sh Mo hawk Wa YUMA ! ? ? ! H ickiw *c LOWER GILA Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) Chiulikam ! MARICOPA s ! ! Rocky Point Dan ie ls Ar royo Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! S Tanque Aloma Tacna !Colfred !! Noah o La J lla Wa Town (GNIS) ! ! GILA BEND ! i LOWER GILA SOUTH GROUNDWATER BASIN h Stanwix ! F or n ! a sh W Wellton ! ! Piedra ! Tartron Ow Ligurta ! ! ! ! n Wa Fortuna Foothills ! Theba ! Bosque Gila Bend a tos Quil o r ! La ! Smurr Dateland G ila R Roll ga ash W M o ! he ! nt inel goon Kinter Dome ! Palomas Aztec Growler !Norton !er Tyson v ! S T Kofa ! ! Horn e W sh i Wa qu Ya l Wash av e Gr Do me as h ! ash G u Vo W Pia Oik Wash 0 9 18 Km ! Siovi ! Shuatak Pia Oik ! Sweetwater ! A ata k Was h Sh u vi as Sio uk W Lukeville ! 0 Ali Ak Chin li C h 9 ! BASINS ! Miles 18 ¶ h Ali Chuk COUNTIES ! ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 227 ! k ek re e k i plet Wash ash h W ra Te leg n as Kl o h W as Ho rs Was h e m Fa ed Cr k Ke n n Sh sh Wa ep e k y e e lls C ree k ua w Sq Cr a z y as al W F res n ! Wi lo re as W am J u W as h 0 e dn E Two ek re rC 0 h Gar h Clark Wa s h as ra A NOTE: Because GIS ! data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. ! The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. 12 Km 6 BASINS Miles 12 ¶ r s Wash Peter ARAVAIPA CANYON d dy P r e W as h c T ash rW lde 6 k e ek w Cr Lo ny Ca o n Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 COUNTIES WILLCOX ! r ee k Hi g h C h Oak C re ek ort tto S t talina W ash Ca a sh nW nt in d h a r ee C rs Pepp e t tlesnake er ! Was ce au Ra San Manuel Ri v ro Oracle h d s En Wa s W ! p in bow an ash yS m Ra h Ra Ba Casa t Wash arg ar del MOro Campo ! Cana Iren e da Highjinks !Bonito Oracle de l ! O Junction ash ! eW yn we ive sR Redf iel sh Wa ing Pe as h Wash way Th r ee BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land h it G State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) Fou k Klondyke ee Cr ! Oa a lb as h r ile Long Ho ll ow p Sm a T amm o S ash W n Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) ek Cre us t Jam tl e L Sa n d Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) sh S ou T lo r Wa t h ay W can lo n W Sombrero Butte y wCre r elt e sh Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) dW w oo Unde r l th W ke Was dy Syc am o r ! k sh r ee r C err y W p pe o C Mu Mammoth Fordville ! ! Tiger s h o c s h u n Wa as M Copper Creek Wel a yon Stre am C n ! t am tre m y Dr h Ta r Was Ca 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) s Wa Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) G es st ge S yon Ca n PINAL on ds sh Wa ! GRAHAM Blake Place ! l Sah Ch r Bat am uar o e Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) ph Parsons Grove Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) a sh Sand Hor se ge o n eek Cr a pg h W as ley on Cr Ca ro ! C ar pas Wash Fa r awa y W a sh h as W n eo i r a W sh it Wa t Avra ! ! h as W ke Tur tream nS Was h Red Rock ! Cruz Was h G ! ! tr h ny o a sh S le as h ny Ca y Aravaipa S Ci ! k Ar av a pa Cr ee i ash Big W ash uild W River or Stream (ALRIS) sh Wa win Go o d sh ck W a Bla c k R o Be t Box LOWER SAN PEDRO sh Wa Za pata Wash e t Pa Boo isa r Ca n h a r Hortons p rin gs Place C Putna m Was h a Ca mp G Fi n e a re Ca i ! sh Wa Blo od suck er Was Horse h F oot W ash TUCSON AMA as nzin W h im Es k Dudleyville Oak h rew Was WellsD ! W e r ash Pal m ry W Cree k p am Do Barkerville ra h ee k k sh Wa ! p Ti p A sh h es W E ag l in gle Sw rc a sh Mi x W ng ash r hW r S p Roac C a ith W Wa Ellison Place ! rson Pa s Cany S trea on m sh o mer Ro Poleca OWa sh Deer Creek i ! eW as To m Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) ! Emery ! m In d ian Ca m Sm h PINAL AMA a sh W s ah W s a Hackb e rry W as m Thom d o o n e lly Wash Ji h Cot to n w Stream Gage (USGS) Geronimo Ke ll y Gu l ch ny o nS t on on S r e am S e am a O Cactus Forest Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) W Cre ek DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH Hayden Junction ! ! Hayden sh Winkelman s Wa s pW ! ttle Ash C Li r R ck Cr ee Christmas ! Pip e g Wa s Don ! Wa sh Gar den h B i ! ? ? ! sh Wa DONNELLY WASH Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) nd s h amboa W t Ste s h Bylas s ! ! sh a SAFFORD ! y se R ip ly W l k na Wa Calva ! o Kearny ne Ch i Gi l a Ri ver r A GIL L A PIN C on lv a ! San Carlos Reservoir ee k Cr Ray ! Junction !! Riverside ! Price ri n g Reservoir or Lake (NHD) ! M es c al Cree p ! Si m ve Natches e D ripp i ng S Troy Kelvin Coolidge Dam ! Sonora ! Cochran l Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! gC Ca r la ! T Ran ch Cree k GR Groundwater Basin (ADWR) r Fi ek C S t one C ab in W a Skunk C am p Ray a sh W a o apai C r e sh r anc h State (ALRIS) AM AH Reymert ! gB u Arn ett Cr ee k Sprin re Tr s River M k ree il l C Pion ee r i ne M County (ALRIS) Ap a ch e W s lC k ree ra L en e Wa sF y on Reym e rt Cr k or ash Coyo t e W Qu e Superior ek ! Town (GNIS) ! Peridot L on ! BONITA CREEK ! Wa sh T C San Carlos ! r ee Pina l Can yo n Cutter ek Wh itlo Gilson Wash ash rl n Ca Sa ! W ! sh LOWER SAN PEDRO NORTH GROUNDWATER BASIN Salt C ree ee k er r y C r Ha c kb GI LA Queen Valley Smelter ! Town ! Florence Junction Bellevue PHOENIX AMA w R SALT RIVER bo k Top-of-the-World ! Ra z k dy Blo o Globe ! m C ree W an ks ! i le a Pin t o ! s h ! Miami u s s ell Gu lch ! B1 5N Water Resources Development Commission ! N Sunset ! MAP LOCATION 228 ! B1 5S Water Resources Development Commission ! ! h Fl ag Wa s r me lt e Campo S Highjinks ! W ash Wa ge Do d Bonito ! ro a del O nk Ta Pe p W as h p ersa uce Was h h Was ers i pa a va reek Ar Hi gh C North Oa k Creek et na d Ca Dodge P a Catali n Was h South PINAL O m Ca Groundwater Basin (ADWR) W ork A s Cree k rin g Sp Reservoir or Lake (NHD) reek hF sh C h Was s ! Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! ? ? Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Stream Gage (USGS) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) ng s Red fie ld Can yon u ud S GRAHAM COCHISE ! M Redington Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! r pri ! Bradberry Whitetail River or Stream (ALRIS) ! B re State (ALRIS) pW ash PIMA a ehm n Ca on ny ! S County (ALRIS) x Bo a ep en So u t e Sh Bo l l GRAHAM sh er Wa Town (GNIS) ! a k Cree k A sh eek Cr h A ld h ! C e WILLCOX Summerhaven ! Soldier Camp no abi C re Sunset PIMA Loma Linda ek O ak ! St ratt n Was h o Was G ibb LOWER SAN PEDRO SOUTH GROUNDWATER BASIN ARAVAIPA CANYONCr eek k s PINAL GRAHAM h s Iren e Wa h Casa del Oro ! ! ! ! ! Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Willow Canyon ! Soz a rro Cre e u B k ash ny on W Cre Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Roc k ney im Ch Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Hookers Hot Springs Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Ca ! oR r yo n W an Wa Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) h s P ed Po o Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) l n Bird ie v State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) r a Ho t Sp ring s Can yon Cascabel PIMA ! h ran Wa s Te on COCHISE P aig Tanque Verde ! Verde ue C r eek q n a T sh oma s W a P al sh a llins W Co Drai a sh oW am Al e ek Deer C r n a ge Way Turkey C y an s Bea r Creek W 0 4 0 k ree no Panta UPPER SAN PEDRO eCe r ek TUCSON AMA BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land h Cr eek C sh sh n t eWa a lie ua C g A A Esp er ero Was h 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Sa Vent an a C Wash LOWER SAN PEDRO ek Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) 4 Tres A la mos Wa sh k Creek ro c Re d as h Rin c on C Old Ju li an W ash BASINS Km Miles 8 ¶ ek re COUNTIES te W C oy o h as 8 ! CIENEGA CREEK NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 229 B1 6 Water Resources Development Commission ! i e Cr k ee Cr Fal r Blue as Cr k r e ek re e lue C l Du tc h lu B eC ek Ce Can C ol em stl e reek an C ag Cr e R ng Dix is Fra R San ight P r o Harden o o lC BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land White M u le Cr C k ee r ld Co ek Cr e eek Cr de a r ly 20 Km ek Cr e 0 9 BASINS Creek ! 10 oo d Li n L n E op 0 eek n z Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) ga C ien e Cr k Stargo ! Morenci ! ! Clifton Ma h ek e r l te r Cr a H o rton Cree k o y Cr eek Cor dur C reek Sh e e ee k he e Wh ite GRAHAM GREENLEE Cr C reek arkha m M ng sl ey Cr u Guthrie nw eek tt o ! Sk Co C Three s a W r Way Gr e a e sh ar W Graham Central ! ! t eS on Thatcher L ! ! Wa sh a DUNCAN VALLEY ell sh Gi l w Sanchez ! m ! a sh Wa r ac he Ap po o W Wa York a sh ! Apache ood W Ka y w Grove ! te Wash To llga ek Bitter C r e ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. a h ts s n o W ¶ COUNTIES l as h h Wa s e y ot Wa Co Pima RiveKimball !r ! ! Miles 18 m r i ng sW r W ash Patt e s on Was h o M idnig Bu r r nc Maques Aragon Place Place ! Tid arl an d C e F co ek Le ft e Gu lch est o Lim Yu ek h ee k at a sh ph ele g ra Cre e p W as h orth So F h Lon gC ile W em re ek t Ea g l e C r e k o nC ev a ti Re M i AM Cr APAC k e a Sa lt H k r ee ra l k Al a tC r ee r k n e Cre e k Cr H F o all C rk re e Hu ghe y Creek fly Cr ee k Pa c h et a C reek tte r P add Cre e rn k r B ob ag Son t kC ee r We i r ee C ke k r K LC W C k NAVAJO APACHE key C st Tu i ek I k Fl a sh C r eek i ve Fo rk White No k e oC Pin ea L Bi ittl e Bo n ito C GILA NAVAJO re ek M i Bear Wa sh re ree C Ca lf eek ve C i Cre ek leC e dar West C e dar Creek A k r r izo Cree C ou g h Cree k Litt le T c k i k s Klo nd Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) ! k ee k Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Charlie Moore Place State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) k e eB Lit t Springs h H anna NEW MEXICO et W as h Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) e re a C ng Dix Cr ee ek 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Cree Tr ip Cree Pr C Ea ! Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) k iver Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) k ek r s ado e C re e P ac e Cr ek Ca s reek k ree eC ! ! ! rgo Cre ek La Apa c h e Was eC k t Cre e Ca k o tl Li t ok Cr ee k N ew C ree R k k ee r ee ttC Tu PINAL GRAHAM ee e Big l River or Stream (ALRIS) ! eek r Bryce ! Glenbar ! k ee sh ! eek eek re e Wa to Und e w od C Sa rdin e Cre Granville ! Dry Cree k li Bil h k e T W k ree ! eek Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) r k r ee Cork!Eden ash W J ohnn y Cre a ! Wa yke sh k ee Cr vaip a ht k Wa s Pe c k t Pa C ek ! ARAVAIPA CANYON Ara Cr e ek e rtin Alder C ea in C B as ! Indian t SpHot Ho Springs ! Ashurst h as ash C nC r Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? ? Stream Gage (USGS) Blue Vista ! Blue k ee ve r Sil Fort Thomas Wa sh k Ro ck Pistol Spur Cross eek hase C r c Bl a W a ek Aravaipa k Sq w Cr ua eek on C r Pig e C ree k gl e G o o dwi C re ad r r k De l e C e Cr Tu wa ter r in as nW ree ! ns o ck C re Ben sC r C ek er De Bo n Emery ! ! Ellison e Place r rayhors e Cr e ek l St A ek Cr e a ! C k k Cre e Geronimo lc Brushy it Wa sh ine yM a D Wash ton te as ym Pa Fo Le ft rk BONITA CREEK ash rW Mar kh am ash W h k e G a rden Cr e Cr e ek reek rC e a rk SAFFORD ! ll y Gu MORENCI e ek Cre Bylas Ke C P Calva ! rr s ! ! ee lan C r No Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir or Lake (NHD) Whispering Pines ek No rt h C o g Creek rral Cie n re ! San Carlos Reservoir E R ous e ! eek Natches e Th ek F v tre ab P ip uth l as se Ras p Cr e ek Point of Pines Cr sh rk A Fo h Strayhorse ! l k N So Peridot Cre ek Steeple ree C K P Cr ee k ittric Mc K !r R ! Bus!h Cr F oot e Cr eek Fis ho Gr a nt ek ! ! ! t em es Ash ork ldier Ho le e k C re Cr e ek re San Carlos P rong Hannagan H ann Meadow a om k re e eek Cr C or e am Salt C ree rry Cree k Ha ckbe GR A H Ca Carlton l Vista y k ee A s hC e Cr ou C r be k g C r eek r ree k Clo GILA GRAHAM r Sy c le dd Prong Cre t es W N l ur a ra l Co g Sa ze out Cr e e Cleaveland rC ! k ee kC n Carl os ive Sa R r ! Fr e r ee ver ee k re e pC Poke r G S Dr y P ron k Oa Rocky i pJunction r re e C ek e Dehorn ! ll C mi aw e iv ek eR Bl u r ! GRA HA M yC r Cr e ek Bea Bear Canyon Junction k ee Shar p C NAVAJO Ba nt y e ek C or B ur nt C F i sh Cr r Swea ter C re e C k ee Cr eek Cr B ear Wal HE County (ALRIS) State (ALRIS) ek n C re yo an B av ! Town (GNIS) Groundwater Basin (ADWR) ll l ! k B lu Sprucedale e eek Sna nk li n C ek e ek Alpine re k ee Cre ek ek e APACHE GREENLEE e y C re Ess low W illow C reek erC Aug re e k r Perry Cree ke y tC BONITA CREEK- MORENCI Troweek !reek C Ston ! o te C C mpb Sp la Ma u Maverick eek H orse Cr sc r fir ! Tont o Creek o gg k ree ee k Nas h Cr r Co y ! k ee k Three ! Forks C eek ke C r e on gB ek re e Bu McD ek o n a d Cr e r d eek Cr to Big Lake ork Reservation Lake Hay C Co k ee ndian Cr t Cre Cr ud ! st e C re ort h *a RIVER PLATEAU Crosby C o a cCrossing kR ! ive Boneyard r eek eC te r Ce n reek y C Wildca e oo c k Cre C ree k r Bl r ve R Bo Pr ieb e SALT RIVER k ree ek ree k it e ep C t For k Wh De E as Ro East Fork S un Cre F ork k re e me Ho c kRi ver a Bl re ek ! rth r Bl ack a Whiteriver Fort Apache Fort Junction Apache! ! ! ! Sevenmile ! Canyon er v eR t i Day Wh Black River ive R Crossing Cr ox eb Fir Cre ek F G Was h C ar Ced r ! eek Cr Ea st MORENCI GROUPING t ts Feaster C!r e k a M m Nutrioso ! COLORADO om er ! Rosebud k e C Rig g s ee k LITTLE N s We ek Kinney Junction ond Creek am Pa e Ri ! a Tr D s Was h mo Cedar Creek Crossing Cr ee k ! Greer r o lo n Bett le Li r s radi Cedar Creek k ee E ! Sa l t River ull on a ny R ed C dd dar C Ce s at Hawley ! Lake Ea rl Cree k Litt l e Diam on d Creek e Wa ! Sunrise Lake Hawley Lake Pine Cre Bea r Fl ek at Cr B ree k rd C O Smit h eek C Carrizo k n C y Cre ad k oR ! Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 230 B1 7 Water Resources Development Commission PARIA GROUNDWATER BASIN Lake Powell Town (GNIS) ! County (ALRIS) State (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin (ADWR) UTAH Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! r Wahweap ! Reservoir or Lake (NHD) s ! Par ia R Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? ? Stream Gage (USGS) i v er Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) ! ! COCONINO COUNTY ! ! Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) Page Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) ! An te 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) e op l C Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) ek re Chair Crossing te W as h ! Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) LeChee PARIA Coy o Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ! Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Cath ed Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) r al Wa sh State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) Marble Canyon BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land ! One Mile r iv e o rado R ! Col LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU ek r Bad g er Ce ss ka Jac Cree k Cre ek ree k 0 4 8 ll C S oap Fa 0 KANAB PLATEAU So F or k a Wa sh k ee pCr So u th H e Miles 6 ¶ COUNTIES ash dz i a hi dza on a ny eC K n a met tW ash Ni n rW aa an Em BASINS at Salt W W ash COCONINO PLATEAU r Rock e nn Ta Ho u se 3 Km ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 231 B1 8N n nial W a sh nt B ill W illiam h as W gl e W ash County (ALRIS) ! State (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin (ADWR) BILL WILLIAMS ash lW Reservoir or Lake (NHD) Bluewater ! Swansea ! Parker iv r do R e s ! Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! ? ? Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Stream Gage (USGS) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) ora Co l Osb orne W a sh River or Stream (ALRIS) CAP Canal ! ! CA LIF O ! IA N R Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! r n ! Town (GNIS) ! a r ie M iW E M O HAV Z A LA P ! Cienega Springs sis M is oh s Planet Ri ver Ea e Ce av e Wa h s W C s ier sh a W av e G e pp r Bas in as as h Co PARKER NORTH GROUNDWATER BASIN p sip h Copper Basin Reservoir a M x o F Yu c ! Wash Larneds Landing C astaneda Wash Lake Havasu ca W LAKE HAVASU sh Water Resources Development Commission ! ! Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Midway ! 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) PARKER as h Poston ! nn Cu eW as s Bo u m ha ing Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) W Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) h BUTLER VALLEY State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land Bouse ! LA PAZ COUNTY B ig Gra nite *k Wash 0 Utting 5 10 Km ! se rW as h RANEGRAS PLAIN McVay 0 Ka s Wa h n Wash Wa C al cit h e Se vent y Was ! Poo m an s Wa COUNTIES Hope ! Pioneer sh *b ! ! Vicksburg Junction ! ¶ ! r La Paz Desert Wells BASINS Miles 10 Harcuvar Bush Pit Vicksburg ! h s Itali a sh a(historical) dma n W! 5 lom e ! i *l Goo ! Sa Tyso n W ash MCMULLEN VALLEY ! ! ! ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 232 B1 8S Water Resources Development Commission ! W lcite Desert Ca Wells La Paz (historical) Go o h Sc adden W as Pl o mo sa Wa sh P lo mo Plomosa si ta W ! ash sh ! a L a lla W Ch o ! Town (GNIS) ! County (ALRIS) k hal ! Brenda ! h Quartzsite *b Pioneer Po orma n sWas dm ! an W P az Wash sh Morgantown Olive City (historical) !Ehrenberg ! ! ! a La PARKER SOUTH GROUNDWATER BASIN ! h sh Se vent y Wa ! Wa sh as I t alian State (ALRIS) C W as h Groundwater Basin (ADWR) ! Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! r ! Lime kiln Wash Reservoir or Lake (NHD) RANEGRAS PLAIN Ehre Fre e Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Stream Gage (USGS) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) ! ! ! ! *h Wash Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) *i *g 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) zy Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) *f W as h Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ne W ash Hart Mi Ho odoo Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Wash Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) sh Wa Cibola a h R e d Ra v en W s Tyson LA PAZ YUMA *e ! C olo rado State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) *c *d BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land r ve Ri Cibola Lake Wash gre Yum a sh ez L op Wa sh na Vi Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) Trigo Wash PARKER Wash ! ? ? Ala mo W ash h C e re k ash Pet es Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) k Cave C r e IA OR N LIF *j nc CA h ve W oman *k Moha Mule W a sh W gW as Wea v er Wa sh d Go u l Cra er nb La ke Wash s ! a W Engesser Junction C lip Wash ! Fo rk est W LOWER GILA n r so he Mc P h Cl d vel Wash G ra sh Wa B as h BASINS la k Ro c ck Nortons Landing sh ! ter M hite W Alli a gele s W sh s An Lo c as gEye W h Bi as h ¶ COUNTIES a W s Miles 12 q as nW dia In W Nommel Place ! 6 ui Re 12 Km Ya ou d W a s 6 0 ash ma W h Yu 0 h Was W Ferguson Lake Martinez Lake ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and!varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 233 B1 9 Water Resources Development Commission sh Wa PEACH SPRINGS GROUNDWATER BASIN n yo an e y Co Pa ot ha ras ! C KANAB PLATEAU nt Oak Grove GRAND WASH e tl Lit n ek County (ALRIS) State (ALRIS) 0 5 Mil eC r eek re e k 196 Mile Albe rs Cre sh vine Wa Gr ap e Meadview ! Groundwater Basin (ADWR) 193 M il e C ny Reservoir or Lake (NHD) t e Cre k r on as h lapa iW Sa l Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! 2 e Ca rpri s Su Town (GNIS) ! W Lake Mead as h Ca ny o ! Mo haw k NEVA DA South Cove Hu a s ! SHIVWITS PLATEAU 214 M l tC ek MEADVIEW in t Cr ee k e Po nc Los t Cr ! R S 222 M eek n ek n Cre s tM a Lo Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) ! Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Rose Well Camp on d Cr e ek Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ! MOHAVE COCONINO ny o Ca Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) Robbers Roost BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land ! Red Lake PEACH SPRINGS Cane Sp ring Wa sh Pe ngs pri ac h S Twe n tysix W as h W ash HUALAPAI VALLEY xto nW u Tr Grand Canyon Caverns Peach Springs ash ! Nelson ! ! Truxton 0 Yampai ! C Wri gh t yon an Valentine ! h Stockton ! Fr Miles 12 ! Audley BASINS ! C o h in o s Wa ¶ as h W COUNTIES BIG SANDY Seligman ! C sW e e Was h yo u 6 VERDE RIVER Cr e ek c a sh ry W kb er as bat Cerbat Cer !W Walapai ! CO C YA ONIN VA PA O I h SACRAMENTO VALLEY Ha ! 0 h in Co t tonw ood 16 Km h as m rkh a Was h Ma *a ig Hackberry ! MOHAVE YAVAPAI ! ! ! on Ro c ny k Ca Crozier Antares Tucka Wa sh Vock 8 ! Pica ! Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) tone Wash ds Frazier Wells eek Di am Spenc er ! ! iv Cr ile ! River or Stream (ALRIS) er Ref ere Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) an Ray pr nS I r o !Place re ! Wash Colora do Fo x Can y on i ng W a sh ec Pros p ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? ? Stream Gage (USGS) COCONINO PLATEAU i e Creek Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) B ! ! ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 234 ! ! k re h uc Cr GILA NAVAJO ree k C i o rs c k Cr en ba a sh W a sh h as Wa C am p sh Mu d A s Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) Cr eek State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land re ek h Cutter ! o rk lC Sprin g Pione er C ipp ing S prin S tone C g W Sku nk Ca abin a mp R anch Cr e k e 0 Tu la SAFFORD M esc al ek C r e ek 7 0 14 Km 7 Miles 14 ! DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH BASINS Christmas ¶ COUNTIES ! Hayden Junction ! Hayden ! LOWER SAN PEDRO Winkelman a W e ro om ash hW ac Ro R it Sm sh ! h hW as s Was h m Tho B ra nc h i Cr pa e k Silv er C e reek r al Mi Re ym L er t W Pin a Russ e w Cany Wh i tlo W p r ings ash H -z Wa s h ca S Cr p ri ng C reek ee W ld Devo re W H i h s Mu ra y ee v i s Cree k R d on y ph Cam paign reek A ld er C Me dd o use Wa sh Cr l h e tt Mes ep k r Wash arke rC ree k Con no Tan k Cr ee k ge r Dag k it ee k W mp i sh Cam merm an Wa oz W mb Ra ma 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) k Ch W ash B an S ing W Ro Sa lom e Cree k C r eek Gr od i st Me th r k cam o Iro nw ood W de Ri Ver v er k ve C ree Cre e sh We a r m Cr e Pa eek Par sh ek La u C re k D G I LA P igeo n k en Gun Cre e r D v ine Wa a p we A pa De R iver W a ash Dry W e t h dm h n ! Fri a k Agua k ny on C re e ash ck W kja Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 ! ! r t NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. ! The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. ! ac Bl h W as Wash C er Donn elly tto Co n wo od ! Cree as h Globe Kearny ckbe rry Wash Ha s h ! on ! ! sh Wa a sh Wa l di r man Wash ae P rong W r eek Oak C r We st k W O Cactus Forest ! ! ek l Bi g ! Adamsville ! Valley Farms Coolidge ! C y Florence ! ol Wa sh Vek sh W a DONNELLY WASH y Ri p s e PINAL AMA Cochran ! l ne on Sacaton Flats Ch ami Wash Mi ! ! Burns ! GILA BEND ! r ek Price Olberg Blackwater ! Ray Kelvin Junction !! ! Riverside Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) ! Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) a ! re ! ! ! c ul ll G Troy Magma ! ! Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) A GIL L A P IN ! Maricopa ! Ak-Chin Village ! ! Ak Chin on El li s Sonora Sacaton gs r ee ! ! ! Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ! ah ! W! Claypool ks n a T Miami h W asash W Ray a in Estrella ett C ! R iv er ek Cre ! ! Reymert ! ! a Enid Heaton Ar n ! Wash uz Cr h Queen Cree k Stotonic Sweetwater South Bapchule ! Casa ! Santan ! Blanca G! il d Stream Gage (USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) Radium Copper Hill k s F Cree yon e n e Cre k M il l sh ! ! Maricopa Wells San t a Wa t Superior ash Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) S ash sh W sh Wa Wash g a S p r n i h r s et W ck gg Nu sh Wa ! PINAL Santan ! ! ! n ! Sacate ma er Shawmut Snaketown Blo o k MARICOPA ! ! Cr Sun Lakes ! ! p ! k ee Queen Creek Lone Butte Ranch Santa Cruz C ! Gila Crossing ep De m ! ! Cr eek Top-of-the-World ! Bellevue Queen Valley Smelter ! Florence Town Junction Chandler Komatke ! W as ek L ! Cor ge Wa tt W sh a sh eS ! ! ? ? Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) Inspiration Central ! Heights ek Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) as t r s ! Dagger ! ! Burch Pi ee Corral r ald Ge n ny o Ca So McMillianville h e Gilbert en oC ! ! e n Laveen ! u Ra n Gold Canyon Guadalupe B i r in Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir or Lake (NHD) ! Shut E t ! R ! r Sh e a sh W le Prin g W l er as sW h ad Cree k ol ek Groundwater Basin (ADWR) Ca Dry as sW e Bar g ! Maricopa Village Willow k State (ALRIS) n ldi er o e ek Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) e ek ow Cree k W ill v La r e l Mesa P Co o Pocke A GIL ! Apache og lld Bu Junction ! h as W Sch oo OPA Fish Creek ty Creek ewis a nd Pr a n L(historical) ! T ortil la C re Creek Tortilla quit e Flat sh Wa e sGoldfield !!Youngberg PHOENIX AMA Phoenix Apache Lake ek Salt River k ree First Wate r C ! RIC ! Mormon Flat (historical) Tempe MA Paradise Valley ! ! ek Cre se Cre mp Ca H ld AztecsC ek Wo Lodge ! rk ! RosenCreek Lodge Cr se SALT RIVER Horse Mesa ! Reyno n eek e k ee Sy Saguaro Lake Goodyear Avondale ! ! ! Tolleson ! Sloan C Roc k H o e ! h Creek Was re e ood u e ck C Government on w Ro TheodoreHill Roosevelt Lake Co Roosevelt ! r Cre ek Buck hor n Cre ulde ! o B ro e B Grapevine nc ! oC ! Scottsdale r Mes re ! Youngtown ! Sun City Peoria ! W reek tC ash ! ! C err y Cr mbl eb ee C ree k Bu Hills Litchfield Park ls o n ma C A sh Pic a ill Cre ek d a ! Fountain Glendale e re Fort McDowell Ca ! ek ner Cre C C ree P B Cr ee k ree ! in hay Creek k u Sk Surprise El Mirage Ge ntry k Pine Cr ! ! e o ek ek Bartlett Reservoir Rio Verde k ree kC ek VERDE RIVER Wa a ! ey C Tur k e D Wash C re q Tr ilby k ee p ! Sun City West Ch Coffeepot k ree Tonto C Wash C amp Cre ir ! ! Punkin Center ek Sunflower e ! r ! ! k C Riverside e Rancho Del Acres ! ! Roosevelt Lake Escondido Roosevelt Lake ! Gardens West Tonto ! Gardens East Basin k ee R a Young k re e mb in g C Ha uf e r Was h a sh W cka r d en o Creek sh ash sh Wa e Gr a a o Cave R yW Creek Gall o w ! Carefree ! ! g ri n as an W Blue Camp Creek S In dia n er Cr ee k R odg cheW ash yW Sp sh er Lake Pleasant Jakes Corner De ! lS Go ld Cree k s Was ri ng New River Mo r g an C it o rk ! eep Cre ek Sh d ys v Da h as W Sev en F ree k Sa Ma tt le C st r Rive New h as rt W po re ek Cr lnut e W pC r ! ek k Horseshoe Reservoir eC r e ek ! reek rC ee Hardt C re e Cam Gallups C ! C Bear Creek TONTO CREEK Ry e Road Junction Windmill PA YAVAPAI Gillette MARICOPA I i ! one Moor e Wa sh Clo v er Wash YAVA C a k Columbia ! Cr ! ! L im Big Reef r Cr eek e Mill Bi tt Springs ! Castle Hot Springs ! g le h Re dC r e ek (historical) ! eek rs Ho e C e Cre an dm a e r ua w C le S q Li t Spurlock Sol Gisela ! PHOENIX AMA EAST GROUNDWATER BASIN ! nd Rye eek e Cr !Rock eek n Wa s Humbug ee k Cr e S quaw Canyon teCity Tip Top k re e le Tu ug Cr eek mb Hu Duga reek anty C ! e Sla Briggs B Cr Cr ee ee Packer a p CrBlack k ! o Mill ! Copperopolis ! S ek k e ow Cr C d k Sa Fren c h n Tan AGUA FRIA Bo ! Ji ! UPPER Burro!!Fort Lehman John Misery HASSAYAMPA B2 0E ! Water Resources Development Commission ! Dr ! W ! ! ! ! MAP LOCATION 235 ! v ine Wa as p k ve C ree nk h h W s D ic key Wash n ail S p W oo Theba ! Smurr n Wash ma Wat e r ! PINAL Sacate m Wells W ash Enid W est Pro ng ! Snaketown Heaton ! Estrella ! as kol W h Ve Qu r ive! la R Gi Stotonic Bapchule ! Casa ! ! Blanca u n il h S an an k Wa dT s ! Peters Corner NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. 14 Km 7 ! ! BASINS Burns ! Miles 14 ¶ COUNTIES Stanfield ! Br an ch Sant a Cruz Was h Casa Grande ! ! ! ! 0 7 PINAL AMA ! Big Horn South Santan ! Sacaton Maricopa ! Ak-Chin Village ! ! Ak Chin No r th r Was h 0 ! ! Ben de ek Cre en eSantan ! Sweetwater ! ! as h W a tos h Q uil o as W Sauced a goon Tartron wa sh W a Agua ash W e W a r a pe rW Co sh Clan t o n Was h l m ers Cana YUMA h as Piedra ! ! Sun Lakes ! ash zW e i nel W ! Lone Butte Ranch ! Maricopa ! Bosque Gila Bend *b Stanwix Gila Crossing Cr Shawmut ! ! ! Chandler San t a Sil Murk (historical) ! T Te ash GILA BEND BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land ! Tribal Land Gilbert ! an MARICOPA W a al Can rp i se nte r ash W W ! MARICOPA Hyder Agua Caliente Sentinel Laveen ! Papago Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) Mesa ! Guadalupe Santa Cruz g h an Ba r ag e Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) ! E Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ! sh w Wa nb o sh y Wa lse Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Salt River Tempe r te Colu mb us W Rai ! ! nt Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) ! Komatke Harqua Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) Phoenix Cor ge Wa tt W sh a sh ! he La m Scottsdale ! um Arlington ! S ! ! ! Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) ! ! ! ! Camel Palomas ! We r *a Co yo Fo u te rmi le h ! Montezuma r Fa we R iv e r Fri a W LA PAZ MARICOPA sh as sh ! Stream Gage (USGS) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) ! Maricopa Village Buckeye Palo Hassayampa Verde W di c a W il m as h hW LOWER GILA Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) ! a d c Not tb us sh o Wa H o od o Yel lo Qu Lou w M e Saddle er ! k in e as sh ! ? ? Paradise Valley Glendale Goodyear Avondale ! ! ! Tolleson ! Horn Apac h h a Do ming oW Sa n LA PAZ YAVAPAI n Mo nar ch Sa n x om i ng oW rtle Tu Ce m e ter tma n Fl yi n g Har D h Sundad ! Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! ri a am Wa sh ! Youngtown ! Sun City Peoria ! L a ve n s ! ! Litchfield Park r Riv e ed p Fountain Hills ! ! h R Reservoir or Lake (NHD) C reek ! Ca PHOENIX AMA Gillespie Wa s p Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) River or Stream (ALRIS) eek Cr ! ly sh C ! ! u ! R ! ! Crag rth u J of h as nW Fo u Sk Surprise ! El Mirage aya m pa H ass m a Groundwater Basin (ADWR) r ! Lu ke W a Dea d Cen nnia te l Wash Lim ! W ash W Win te r s LA PAZ YUMA gs Was ri n ash ! P hil l ips Wash ! ey W a sh F as h p W am dC Ol De l an State (ALRIS) ! i Sun City West T as r il b yW r as W Wintersburg *c W Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Camp Creek a sh h W e Gr a yW RoCave Creek Ga ll o ! Carefree ! h as h Tig er Wa ork Wittmann ! gn ! R e r Cr ee k R o dg as eW ! Sp sh ! HARQUAHALA INA RANEGRAS PLAIN Seven ys ! AGUA FRIA we r lin e Tonopah Ma New River Lake Pleasant Mo r g an C it y Horseshoe Reservoir eC r e ek ! River New PHOENIX AMA WEST GROUNDWATER BASIN VERDE RIVER tt eek Road Junction Windmill ! k Cr ee ICOP A Circle City ash eW B lu Bot t l e W e h e B Centennial Rock Springs Gillette ! k Cr h ! er Bou ld eW oodc hop per Wash Po ! Black Canyon City ash M in d ea k re e le Tu ug Cr eek mb Hu h u mp MAR C re Fr ench C e k ree a P ! a bbi t W s e Was h s r Ho kr TIGER!WASH ree k c a Ambrosia Mill on C ot t woo Lit tl e Morristown ! Wa sh nWa s h J a d sh Da as h Wa Star xW Bo a sh Mi ll W ash ash mie W k W Jim n as Ta W gg s y Wenden ! sh ! ! D Wash O ash Can ns o B r ow Big Reefr Cr eek e Mill Bi tt ll le C st W Allah ! ash Castle Hot Springs C Gr a ss ash a sh yW W ck ba k Gladden Wickenburg ! Co w ! ! Love h as EW h As W Aguila ash s Wa Humbug Tip Top ! C Columbia! (historical) ! Cr Re ee d Cr eek k ee h Matthie ! Forepaugh ! Blu ash die W Was Ed e itch M l s Was ! MCMULLEN VALLEY a eT n S YAVAPAI ! Whips aw ! Cree k Briggs a ml Constellation i h s Wa orn Cr ckh Bu H UPPER HASSAYAMPA k Wash o BUTLER VALLEY Flores h ! BILL WILLIAMS B2 0W ! ! Water Resources Development Commission ! Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 ! MAP LOCATION 236 B2 1N Water Resources Development Commission !! ! Tempe Salt R iver Apache Junction Mesa ! ! on any hC olp ! an Guadalupe Laveen ! Gold Canyon ! ! Gilbert Canyon Maricopa Wells ! ! C i sh on ly W nel g W a ! Cactus Forest h Don nell Cot to n wo od Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) y Wash Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Was h Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) Randolph State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) ! Eleven Mile Corner Casa Grande ! ! La Palma BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve ! Private and Other Land State Trust Land ! Tribal Land x Bo An tel Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) as sh h O ! Wash 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) C B i h Stanfield Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) ! Flow Application (ADWR) Instream DONNELLY WASH Wa Adamsville ! Valley Farms ! O W ash Arizola as h o pe W ! nd Sa To m Mi x PINAL AMA Tan kW Was h as h Arizona City Chuichu Eloy ! ! ! Shopishk Vaiva Vo e en ! eef Wa sh Jackrabbit House Friendly Corners W ! Ri ver Red Rock ! ! PINAL PIMA Nariska es W ! ! ash a ¶ COUNTIES Avra bl Ro North Komelik ! Wash Gu i ld Miles 15 s Lo MARICOPA !Kaka PIMA t BASINS Cru ! sh SAN SIMON WASH Ko h a Chiapuk ! ! Ta t Momo l i W Ka a k h as kW Sa nta ! Totopitk s h! Wa Laguna Sa n ta z Kohatk Moivayi ! Ro sa W a sh ! ! Tat Momoli 7.5 ! h as W ell 0 TUCSON AMA Wymola rR lve Bitt e r 15 Km G Wa sh Si Sif Vaya 7.5 ! re M esa Wash 0 Picacho ! ! Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) !! na Florence Coolidge ! ! Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) ! ! ! ! ! h Gila R i ve r ! Peters Corner Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) ! Burns Bra nch Santa Cruz ! ! Price Blackwater Nort h Stream Gage (USGS) ! ! as Wat e man W r Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ! h as ! Estrella ! ? ? River or Stream (ALRIS) Cochran Olberg ! Sacaton Sacaton ! Flats ! Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! ! W s ! Magma South Santan Maricopa Big Horn k be r Stotonic ! Ak-Chin Village ! ! Ak Chin Freeman e rt W ! ! ! R ey m Santan ! Vekol W as Reservoir or Lake (NHD) Reymert ! Bapchule Casa ! ! Sweetwater Blanca Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! r c ! ru ta C San rm anWash a te We st Pron g W PINAL ! Heaton ee k Snaketown Sacate Enid tC ry Creek ! ! ! Q ueen C reek Groundwater Basin (ADWR) ! A rn et r ! MARICOPA z ! Sun PHOENIX AMA Lakes ! ! Florence Junction Queen Creek Lone Butte Ranch Smelter Town Ha itlo ! Santa Cruz GILA BEND County (ALRIS) ! Superior ash ! Gila Crossing ! ! Town (GNIS) ! ! State (ALRIS) Queen Valley Wh Lu Chandler ! Komatke ! er Wa sh ! w rget tW as h ! Bend LOWER SAN PEDRO ! ! Co SALT RIVER Ro d PINAL AMA NORTH GROUNDWATER BASIN k ree R Maricopa Village mW ash ck C ! ! ! ! MAP LOCATION NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 ! ! 237 B2 1S Water Resources Development Commission PINAL AMA SOUTH GROUNDWATER BASIN ! Lake Saint Clair GILA BEND ! sh h Wa sh Silver Bell Silver Bell River or Stream (ALRIS) as oW h n Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) Tailings Co Pond ! ! ! a Wa sh Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) ! Instream Flow Application (ADWR) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Pipyak Hoi Oidak ! ! ! Makgum Havoka Queens Well ! Quinlin V io Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) li W pu ! Agu irr Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) Wa e h as Sil Nakya State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) sh Gurli Put Vo Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) W anco Bl Skoksonak ! ! ! BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land ! a Wahak Hotrontk * sh W i ce ali M ash Santa Cruz ! ! Pavo u Pan Tak ! ! 0 6 12 Km h t 0 6 W a sh ! ! M h Wa s o za end ! San Vicente Haivana Nakya Wickchoupai Hali ! Murk ! Nawt Vaya ! Three Points ! ! g W as ash ! Ali ! Molina A li M o lin a Wash Sauci to Gu Chuapo ! So o Wash an Wa sh dondo Was h Re W W ! !! as h re S te ve s W as h Ba e ! Wash W r ! Artesa San Jua n W ash nn Chuwut Murk Ali Chukson Chukson Sells ! ! Alamb l Gu Oidak S el ls Wash ! Chiawuli Tak BASINS F resn a ¶ COUNTIES n Murk K u i Wash Gu O idak Wash Kupk ! Wa sh Altar Wash m ob ab i ! Uhs Kug l Pan Was h Co ! a Me ndo z uth So h Vamori Was h Kom Vo Miles 12 o Kaihon Kug H Comobabi ! Nolic San Pedro K ! Vainom Kug ! Kui Tatk ! ! Tatk Kam Vo Santa Rincon ! Lucia ! Ko Vaya ! ley W as imat k ! ! B raw as h kW r u San Luis Was h Sik u lH Piato Vaya aW as So Pisinemo Viason Chin ! San V Wa s h W Peach Pu Corner Windmill Schuchk ! an W h SAN SIMON WASH ! Va h o nim Pi s i Ko y as Sikul Himatk ! An eg Quijotoa ! sh Wa ! ! * a nte Narcho Santos Ahan Owuch ak nT Pa Maish W ash jotoa Vaya Qu i ! b ! Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) h i l Naky Komak Wuacho Gu Vo W ash Stream Gage (USGS) TUCSON AMA ! ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) as S Ak Chin ! ! ? ? H ouse Wa s h ! Noipa Kam Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! an Wash ck iw Hi Oit Ihuk s ! ! PINAL AMA ! ! Achi Santa! Palo Verde Rosa Stand ! Ali Oidak ! Stotonyak ! San Luis sh G u Achi Wa Reservoir or Lake (NHD) Avra Valley ! ! ! Wa Silverbell Anegam Vaya Chin Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! ! R ! ! W as h Mammot ! Hickiwan Groundwater Basin (ADWR) r a W E l Ti ro ! State (ALRIS) sh Aneg am s sh S bl e Ro PINAL imon Wa Sa Tatai Toak PIMA sh Ventana ! County (ALRIS) os a ! Red Rock L ! ! Town (GNIS) ! ver ! North Komelik MARICOPA !Kaka PIMA Emika Ri a Ro sa Ka Chiapuk aC ! Tat Mom o li W MARICOPA PINAL k h as tk W a h Ko sh ! Wa Laguna ! ci Totopitk ! a sh Sa nt Tat Momoli S ant Moivayi W ! ! ! W as h ! a e da Sauc Kohatk W as W ash z ru ! Jackrabbit House Well Wa s h Friendly Corners h Bi tt er Wymola ver Re ef Sif Vaya ! S il Gree ne Ve kol Wa s h a sh A sh W ash ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 238 ! ! Water Resources Development Commission s Ca n yon k ck Ca Cree k YAVAPAI v Dr COCONINO aver Be ek d B r eek ble re a F oss il C C k Cre e th Red C o e po en ash tW D Fo uth BASINS Miles 18 ¶ COUNTIES ! W as h e 9 e ek pr C 20 Km k ee o C a ny n C r ! Was h 0 ek Cr e e e Sh re Ca m p C pper Co rk She So Camp Creek re Be a r C e k 10 ek av Cr eek 0 ee k p r Horseshoe Reservoir r ek Creek Gallo w a ! Carefree ! as W h G ver Sy p D rin g W y Wa a s r ek Bl ue BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land re d Cr eek Mi d dle Re No r e k i re h C ave Cre ast Cr ee Ji m any o North C R oCave me i ng ad n Cr ma ad e D mp Ca D F or k Ve r de R k rse C r e Ho k ee S ash W tl YAVA PAI MARICOPA sh A pa ming o Wa sh Tri lby W s D S kunk Cre Mo nar ch W om ing o D Sa as h aW G ra k ef a m lan R h as h W r ng b a Mock Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) YAVAPAI r Se v en S y re n dia lk C re e k lch lG ev i t Sa h W ash Me sc d C As B h ar S k reek We ave rC re nte l op eC Ce m e tery Tu rtleb Fl y in Dry ra w sD h Was ote Co i W oo Va S kull V lle l Date h t tys ek we c S Wa sh Eas two t on Co Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Cr ep h te ree Oak C k f Wa sh la n H n r nt h C nw o od an y o Co tto Was M oon v Riv Alk Cr n Ma r ee But W a ph H k re e ee Bridle Mun d h k rr trer Li ttl Ce ! re e k Creek tto m tB cam o We sh GILA h I ndi a n J immie W as M Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 eC im eL Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) W ngs as pr i Po w er li ne W as h ! r eek dge r C Ro cheW ! re e Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) i C Li Riv er C st C reek Li t Road Junction Windmill ek ! ek r dscra b Ha Ea k ttl eek qu aw C r eS ! ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. le g e ek S a as nW ma ke k Tan ek ash yW h as s Circle City Mo r g an Cit e sh a ! Lake Pleasant C B re rry r L on ny k reek k ee sh o le Sa nMorristown Litt ! New River C ng H n Ne w ! eek C C 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Lancaster k r ee op C B i sh Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) To wel Creek ek Cre S i ng s C Soda pr shy re ek ru Creek aw S qu ! eon Cre!e k Pig PHOENIX AMA h G reek pC ee Cr n k re e a Wa sh Ox r Larry C River or Stream (ALRIS) ! ! Cr Ru n ull Hous ton C C o pper W le Tu reek ash Cha sm C reek k ree ree nC be Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) re Was h r Spr i g dge Bee C r eek ble m n ac ! ! ia ar C re Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? ? Stream Gage (USGS) k Arnold Place Silver Cr e ek Gillette gC Castle Hot Cr ee k Springs ek ek re In rC Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir or Lake (NHD) s ! e en ive ug ek um b eek Cr e Cre k e ! u ga C r ee AGUA FRIA ow F n Big Reef Bitt e r Mill Re dC re ek Wingfield rap e vin e Wa e k r Cree Sp e eek sh nso n W a Jo hcet r ack Wa sh Ra Moun ta n Sp ring Wash i k r ee e hy g rin a sh W e Ya rb h s Br B er Cr e ek e Cr Allah ! ll h i i ek Cre Ban ty sW a ash W Bo x St ar Was h kr h g Da g a a b bit Wa as h lW Mil rW as h an Wickenburg d ! h Wa s sh kW ac s Wa ash di e W Was Ed e itch M G r ass W ash a on W sh Cr e ! Cordes Lakes n a MCMULLEN VALLEY li n ! Ambrosia k re e dC l an Black o P n k sh ! Aguila c ! Ba Bu a ! rs Wes t Cl e ! Cordes a k Wickiup C ree Dugas ! azy B !Cleator si Wagoner Wa s Matthie ! sh Wa an sh m t r Wa Ha gE Forepaugh Mill TIGER!WASH eT Bl u So l s Wa J C re sc u Tu Hooper e Lake Montezuma ! Arcosanti ! State (ALRIS) !r R ! Cree k ave r t Be We Lo ! t w J ack e Yel lo h C reek As tl e L it k re Was h ash W nnia l Tige Cree k er Camp Verde ! C County (ALRIS) ! ! ! ig B on ny Ra ttl esn ake Rari c k Cany on Rimrock ash ll W Hi as h G ri W is Ga d Ch e ! Mayer ! r y C ree k ral T eek n aR r ! Town (GNIS) ! ! McGuireville! Lawrence Cre! ! Crossing Wal e Cre rry Cedar Mill r ber e Cr e r ll C sh Wa lard bi ea yB Flower PotCi Wa sh Crown any Bumble Min e ! o King e r Cr C Bee eh aha Cr ek ! e l Shelley Tig! Bradshaw ! Paxton ! Congress C Lapham City East Place ! Stanton Junction ! Minnehaha Chilean Fort ! !!Congress ! k Mill Fort e! k e Cre Octave ! South d Misery ! ! t ! Burro Fort y Sand ! John Lehman Am ek Mill Packer S oapC k Black z Sand ee ! ! C A Mill Copperopolis Canyon m Jim ! i ! l r S City Flores Constellation n ch Tip Top Briggs ! ! Rock ! Wh Humbug ek (historical) ipsaw Cr! UPPER HASSAYAMPA ek e Springs ! H Ha ! m ! Wash k Columbia Dug an W ash ez Mar in Bul Wa Cr st re C B lind I n C re ek w Black ate i M us Ocotillo Ce dar C reek ! Spring Min Valley ! e lf ! McNary Place Baldwin Rush Place ! Place Walnut ek Windmill ! ! ! Grove C k l Cr eek A o eek Cr Glen Ilah !n e YarYarnell ! Ha ck Dandrea ! Goodwin a Sp ow Peeples Valley Arroyo Poland Junction Ag ua Fri ! Venezia ! k rr a Piedmont e Walker ! Place Windmill r Wash e ek l W ! p he p ! ! Cr Dat e e ek Kirkland Junction d eek Cr er l Cr ek ee Hawkins Cr k South F!o rk Cr e Wa ! u apar r a Ch key Cr ee ur ate Jordan Bignotti! k Hecla Dewey-Humbolt PRESCOTT- AGUA FRIA- HASSAYAMPA Groundwater Basin (ADWR) Cornville ! Verde Cherry Breezy Pines eC Potato ! Gr ap n r eek ! T Patch C sh D Pop la de Mo *a No rth F or k no ! ! ! ! Ponderosa room CreGroom ParkG ! k ! Creek Walker ! k re e Date ! Bo a ! t Ash C re PRESCOTT AMA Riv Ha ssay am p a Place Windmill Orofi yon Wash Ca n C Ferguson e ek k ck ! ! Kirk r re B la ! Wilhoit Kirkland ! ek ek Ri tter C re k ree C d o wo e Prescott Oak Knoll Village ree k n C re ek ! pe Glen Oaks rd s Wa Bridgeport ! ! Co ppe B asi n r lan d r C te ut Fin ch Wa s re dC ! ek C re ler Wate rman ek re Grand View Blan Hillside L aw M South F ork S an t a ar ia Rive y ll S a nta A as h yW ! p nd Ly nx Cre ek Clip p er Wa sh ! C il le y Prescott Valley Granite Dells Entro k e r e C !! e h! Mi l Skull Valley a ali W sh Yava as Q ua il Spr i ng W T ank W as h h ria * C ree Red Rock !! Baldwins Crossing Oak Ja Page Big Park !Creek Springs ! bo rn e Os Apron Crossing ! eek ek od Creek ash er Wash h as e Sp boy Wa sh ow W ne c ttl e Bo kW ! !! ! Smelter City Oak W as h ! ! Iron llo w Springs W !Highland WashHighland ey Park al Pines ! ler Cr ee k Ta n kC re k ring y sl e ! Shi Iro C a Tonto W s Wood Bu Trap r ee sh ore C a W pp ittl Bagdad ! ! ithCa n yo Sm anyon Mar tin C Granite Williamson sh Wa y cam ! ! reek tC Jerome u n l Wa! Cottonwood k ! u tC o l w o B ring Coy o t e Sp nt Mi eS k L Cr Mint ! Stringfield Cr ! ! PRESCOTT GROUPING W Sedona a ! Clarkdale a h k ee k tr i Willow Spring k Wash Boul d er C Tapco Chino Valley e ! h as Big Ship p W n Co co Cr ee o as L d * r sh Cr lder Wi C e Fair Oaks n ek ors h e Wa s rW BILL WILLIAMS ash ino W um oo p rC e as h W St i n Wash nso Co nge re y it h C s te Wa D illo sh n ee Cr a Gr o n Bu VERDE RIVER tl e C Lit e nc e k Sycamore ! Hit t Wa sh ! S ! Perkinsville sh ek re Ap ac e C reek H id River ring Sp Pi ne C Ve r d ! h ! Abra Paulden Cre e ffee Co h er oldi BIG SANDY B2 2 ! Bartlett Reservoir MAP LOCATION 239 ! Water Resources Development Commission Congress Junction ! UPPER HASSAYAMPA d Wa sh h Flores BUTLER VALLEY ls Wa Ce m Tu W i te W ash C alc *a li ne Wa sh B yot Co Centennial eW as h Cr e e k k Fourm il nc Tonopah h Del a ne Ph il lip s Was h D ickey Was h ! T ig er Was *i *g e gn Wa PHOENIX AMA oW Alam a sh h Cree yW ash 0 a ssaya m p Ha *f Wintersburg ! R em n t os a YUMA MARICOPA ! BASINS Arlington Miles 16 ¶ ! COUNTIES ! sh rW oppe Yaq ui Was h as ! h a C Gillespie ! Harqua ! sh Wa No sh ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Hassayampa Crag th of Ju l yW Fo ur lk d r mi Lou e t t bu s c h W a ! W h as Engesser Junction 8 h as nW ma D ea d sh LOWER GILA Co lumb u s Wa sh sh *d a Cen t enn ia l Was h L uk e a W *c 0 18 Km er Riv C W Win te r s Ra ve n Was h e LA PAZ YUMA ed ash Tyso n W Hoodoo W ash 9 GILA BEND MAP LOCATION ! Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 Gila Riv e r *e BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land rW ash h as eW sh Wa se ou Cav e State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) h as W Up per B Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) B New Hope ! amp dC Ol as h Wash B lue ottl e Wash r e e HARQUAHALA INA *h Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) LA PAZ MARICOPA h F re Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ! Ch ! *j Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) ash sh rW S ta we r 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) h as oodch oppe r Wa Mill W ash ash W mie W Ji m n Ta Vicksburg !Hope ! Junction k Po M sh Wa ine ! Vicksburg Was h it Pu mp ! e Wash or s ad H De Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) ! Instream Flow Application (ADWR) RANEGRAS PLAIN W alk a Plom s o Plo sa W ash mo Plomosa sit a W! ash ! Ja ckrab b ! TIGER WASH Salome Harcuvar Bush Pit ! Ambrosia Mill alo ! a m e W sh S *l ! ! Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) ! Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) sh Wenden ! ! ! W a ash McVay ! Pioneer Brenda ! anyon sC W B ro wn ! Desert Wells Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) gs Da g h as xW Bo Love Utting Wash ! Wash ! Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? ? Stream Gage (USGS) as e ter lyi F ! s ras *k G Gladden Big Gr an ite Wash s ! g Aguila rt le h as W ! Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir or Lake (NHD) Matthie sh Wa rt m an h Wickenburg ! s Ha a EW h Wa s h y n W ck a b ! Quartzsite S cad den W Groundwater Basin (ADWR) ! ! Forepaugh MCMULLEN VALLEY Bouse So YAVAPAI MARICOPA ! ! State (ALRIS) ! !r R ! sh Bo us e *b An Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Sand Mill ! PARKER Itali a n ! ! C LA PAZ YAVAPAI Bu lla r as h W Midway r i ! k ee l CAP C an a ningha m Was Cun ! ez Mart n Osbo r n e Wa sh TIGER-BUTLER-MCMULLEN-RANEGRAS-HARQ. Stanton !!Congress Cre ek We a ver BILL WILLIAMS er Wash telo pe M ill RANEGRAS GROUPING reek reek C ! i an Swansea ! Yarnell ! Yarn Glen C Ilahd k ell te Cree In Da ! Bluewater Cienega ! Springs Parker B2 3 ! ! 240 e eC Ho rton Creek o y Cr eek C reek ag an Cordur ek C reek lt H ee M i Cr C Sa Cre Dut ch Blue C e k r e P add A i k r ee AM k e p Wash Sh e ng sley k nc Co n ree k eek Cr ee k r S ! m Yu h as W te Wash To llga o Sh a t Tan DUNCAN VALLEY 0 York ! Apache GroveWa sh ! o ve St tter C re ek Bi 7 0 nR ve 7 ! BASINS Miles 14 ¶ Fox r ! ash Slick Ro ck W ! k Oa 14 Km Sheldon k Dra w COUNTIES ! ell D r aw k on C C ld s Sanchez Buena Vista ! Sto ck ton Wa sh Cactus Flat ! Lebanon ! Swift h s ! Trail Wa e ijilda re Junction a M Artesia s co b Ja BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land n w Ho tW WILLCOX R San ! ell Wa sh a sh ta r Lo S Tid W ne k k n Cr ee No o State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) e Gu lch Maques Aragon Place Place ! Hollywood ! !Lone Safford Star Gripe ! ! Solomon ! Jose ! San r so n Cr eek G ib Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) Stargo ! Morenci ! ! Clifton as h W a t ash Thatcher Cr ee F us ry e Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) ight P o r e ! Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) k Cre e R is C W Graham Central ! Old Columbine ! co iver n g Dix ee k C ree Granville ! C Guthrie de lly ! ! Lin ku Three ash W Way Gre a er Pima i la RKimball ! ! ! Bi g Cr eek W C an y on ash Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) k Fra he er hi te Mi dnig Wa h Mar t C reek ar kha m M Cr r i ng sW ek a sh sh r Wa Jes r eg i en hC ut C nd Ca rl a n egr a ph W sh as h Patt r son Wash B T n so y ot W o C ! al ls Wa s ne dy Cr Oa Ra tt les nake C ree k m ile Cr e ek Long H o llo w Four P al rC a rth F So or h ek ile W Lon gC em Bu r Sand PINAL s on Can y on Str e am a rs dy n Pa e d dysCre R er as h lon rd Ga e u GRAHAM ul be W a pe r s t Sm e GR AH n S Al a tCr ee r e Cre ek in k Cr et W as h Tr ip an y on nS t r eam rea C C Booge Horse m ta p C C Bi K LC r B ob ag Son t Cass Ap a c he Wa r Ca Piper n ash F as h lW es na oE Tw ek v i Sar din e Pat C as h ck W mot n Ke Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Cr e e on Pig e Sa n F Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) it lo Wh M Bryce ! Glenbar Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) ! ! Cr eek k ee Johnn y Cre ! ! Dix sh River or Stream (ALRIS) re e s on Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) ash W ash C n ald r eek McD o ek rn NAVAJO APACHEC I k ne P GILA ek co C r R o cky New C ree k Cr NAVAJO ek k r C Cav Li t tl Sy camore C r k ee a d o reCre ek re ek Pi n k est Turk y Cre i v Tro gh Cr u eek i S alt sh g g A ssell Stream Gage (USGS) r est o L im Dry Cree h k So p ri ng s Wash Mud N Ru Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ! r ! ? ? ek l Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) eek ! ARAVAIPA CANYON reek sh li Bi l ler W Bi g a od W de rw o n U e Cr z ine k Wa s Pe c reek rC el K e eek e Klondyke ek Cr e nee Pio r Cr c k re e l Cto as s ! l as h k r k m it hW k ee Bul C Ben r e Ro u n C ek se n sock re Cr eek S quaw C re e Pip Alder C C r ea t em es er o ee k Cr ck Reservoir or Lake (NHD) re e k ek Cre rant ok Cree k Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) rr le C reek G h k s t Ea g Ea G Groundwater Basin (ADWR) ! R ! in Ba s ver st Ja m sW State (ALRIS) ! ! S il Clar k County (ALRIS) r rayhors e Cre ek l St A eek hase Cr sh yC SAFFORD NORTH GROUNDWATER BASIN Town (GNIS) ! l C re ek ra M a Ta ylor W ash p Co ! ash ke W ek ! Fordville !! Tuc s o n W shTiger Wa h a PEDRO h er W l m a as h ek Cre rr y W ! So ut h Mammoth reek r Copper Creek ! Sombrero Butte k ve i am el l on St re am D ry W Ca n y Cork!Eden E EE NL EE M GR AHA GR a Rasp be k ee e St r ! h as sh ock Wa tol C r ee k agl yo n Ca n Blake ! Place ow Wa sh W Cr e ek i oR LOWER SAN Z apa r h Was Tar W Parsons Grove K P Cr ee k ittri Mc K ! Bus!h Cr o Sim ed n P Sa sh Wa ge a ash g ap n ley W o Cr ! kR l ac ! W !Cross is Putn am W ash Aravaipa yo an ek A rav aip a C re Do d n G oo dwi Fi sh Wa Indian t SpHot Ho Springs ! Ashurst h as k P r i ve Wa m eW ree r ! ash De e ek r Cr le C wa t er Tu Spur C k p ! p C am ! Brushy ht mC r Emery Fort Thomas ! a C re ad it Bo n G Hortons Place ! lc ek Wash k ! Bloo d suc k er Wa sh ! BONITA CREEK e m Dudleyville h Wa s i ngl e Sw Geronimo Ellison Place D eer Creek ek Pa Wa sh ine yM a D Wash ton h m Ro ll y Gu ne g a Cr e k ree C a rkh a R sh Wa k ee Cr e Ci ash W DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH Creek t As h S Cr e ek Steeple ee Cr e btr ra No rth C o k Ke g sh ri Wa Sp oach n Wash nz i R im i Es k Carlton re Vista F oot e Cr eek Fis ho Strayhorse e stl Ca Gr an t MORENCI k Ma Le ft For h S ! ! st We ! t er as ym a P Calva ! oc k C ee k Hayden Junction ! Hayden sh Winkelman s Wa s ou re ! ! k Thom Point of Pines rk Natches ! ! k v Fi Gard en C ree Christmas Cleaveland rC Hannagan H ann Meadow k Cre ek Prong Cre Bylas ! g Cr e ek e ddl Pr o ng Cre ek re ! A GIL L A PIN ! Dr y P ron C e eez eou t r uth as k ee in ! k re ! Coolidge Dam l Cr e ek Sharp Cr e No ri e p pin g Sp r Cr r g Wa s k ee D r Cre e y e F Co n Snake B ear Wall ACHE AP k C r ee ai C ap r e S ilv Mesca sh kA C ldier Ho le k C l San Carlos Reservoir ek ek re Ess e k eek ek Tu l R an ch Cr e ek ver B ran c h r C sh rk A Fo ee C So sh r Co k re e Sprin g Clo SAFFORD Peridot eek re e pC r ee GILA GRAHAM Salt C ree ! ! C l Mi Poke r G r San Carlos ! C al a ! e rry Cree k Ha ckb n as h Gilso W SALT RIVER rlos R iv Ca er k Cutter S k sh Wa W oz mb h ul c ! Rocky pJunction ee e Dehorn reek ill C h o i ve eR Bl u g Sa reek lC ra at u r al C m ile W as sh ! G v en e Ra ! Bear Canyon Junction ! B ur nt m aw k as iami W h M Copper n Central !Hill Claypool Heights ! ! ! Miami a Globe Ba n ek Ch amp io n Cre e Ca mmerm a Radium Cr e ek Will o w Cree k NAVAJO G RA H AM r W et Wa Spri n sh Nu g ! ! Burch k ee Cr yC Perry Sweat e ar Cr e ek Be Cor r al C ! r eek S Cre e ke y Tu C ty McMillianville h as i Tont o Cr eek CH PA E EE G R E E N LF t la Ma as W h kjac k S ee k k Sp B av ! nC kli B la Tucker ! ee Nas h C r as o Sprucedale e Maverick ! e k Cr e e c eek Cr k k ee r ee ttC Tu ! k ee ndian Cr ek re ek Cre to Cree ish Dagger ! on gB ek k ee Cr ee e e e ry C her Cree k ! *a e e ek Black River c Crossing k Riv r Cree k h a Pac e Cre Cr ud Chrysotile er te R i Wh Pr ieb e C re B la r ve e Cr R utt e C oon Seneca ! ! W B Wa sh le Pri n g B2 4N Water Resources Development Commission ! ! ! ! ! ro Bur Wash ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. ! The user is responsible for understanding the ! accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. ! Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 ! MAP LOCATION 241 ! ! Water Resources Development Commission h ash W W as h Hot le ell D raw yo te aw s ld G ul ch ap py Ca m ! na Va h 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) ! Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) e t hi e ! Black Diamond ash W W a sh H er st o ab on Was h Hende rs h s a low W a m Creek St an ek for d Cre *b Whitew Courtland r Gleeson e Cre e e ek Portal Grizzles Orchard ek 0 0 Elfrida DOUGLAS ! es ra aD w O wl ! Double Adobe !! !! ! COUNTIES Ha ck Cazador ! Bernardino ! o nw tt o dC ek ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. ! The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. ! ! ra w ck D re D Rileys El Encinar ! Neff ! ! ! SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY ! SAN RAFAEL Cre e k ¶ Chiricahua o k e o reek ng C B ann i C Miles 16 Co sh Bla c kt S ai lW g ht as er h ous e Wh SANTA CRUZ COCHISE Sierra Vista Estates aw Dr r B ig Be nd y ld i DOUGLAS INA l Le s ree ie C k ash an ger W as h rr y W be S ! ! R ive r ed ro Sa n P ! lau *a Sierra Vista e e ! Cr Lewis Springs McNeal BASINS Mulb r r In nyon G a dwell C a C e a B Charleston ! k k Cre e eek r uc n dia Campstone Huachuca ! City ! Bla B ! 8 Apache ! o iv 16 Km k ree oc ab ri R ma M ! 8 yon ucker C a n e h ! ! rD raw e ! e av u t a Boquillas Contention ! ! W il Benson k Junction Fairbank Wal n u t Gulc ee ! C s (historical) e ! Tombstone R e v ! Whetstone er Cr BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land Ca So u th For k k ck Cli ffo rd P ridh ! UPPER SAN PEDRO sh e ek r State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) ! R ock C r e ek ! ! Cal i f o rn ia Wa Sunizona lv Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) ve C re Escalante Slavin Was h E scalante W ash Crossing k Br ! Tur ke y Cr ! k Galeyville ! Paradise ! ek Pearce ! Cree Turk ey k Fivemi le Cre Pine e C re r Ce ek Arizona Sun Sites Hilltop ! Cr e e k i W t ch ! Curtiss ng Si P in er y Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) C sh Saint David a ti Ke Wes t ! Benson !Fenner ail Creek r s hy C ee ra g Tully ! R h! as D t Ea st Dragoon Wa oon ! ek W h Taylor Place ! ! Manzoro s Pomerene Chamiso ! O Kansas Settlement w B D ra Cr e u c o Wa s a W eep Sh Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) WILLCOX Cochise ! Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Vanar ! Dos Cabezas tWa s h Stream Gage (USGS) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) Wheeler Place sh ! ! H h al Cre ek h k ton Wash W as od C as h Cree kC a Willcox San Simon ! ! dg Ri CIENEGA CREEK Mesc ! Olga ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) River or Stream (ALRIS) ! pWash ! ? ? Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) Bowie Buckeye Mill Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! ! Go la os e s A m Wash Tr C ad il la cW o ! Yellow Hammer Mill SAFFORD Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) s ! NEW MEXICO oy Pimaco Two ! s ch e Pa r Mescal e sca l A r ! ! R ! DUNCAN VALLEY Reservoir or Lake (NHD) COCHISE Bowie Junction (historical) !Luzena ! Raso ! As o Wash mar M Groundwater Basin (ADWR) r A P ai g eC r eek PIMA COCHISE Wash State (ALRIS) Chaney Place ve Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Little Franks Di a l Wash ! ! ! o aca nyon Cu ! im o n Ri t S h n Ho Po ol ran W Te Wa ln Johnson Creek ! Parks Lake Sa sh l Wa sh Ow Wa ing w S p r o l l i W n yo Ca Wash yon Wo Be e an Springs ! ck Cr eek dro Re h A W h as nW gs C anyon Hookers Hot as Palo m h R Burr o Wa s ! Cascabel ! S tock h Cree k a Wa s So z pri tS sh Wa so n M B -X ar og H sh Wa nW a sh p ri Mud ley nW s ngs W B y on ! S M ar Re i h PIMA GRAHAM Creek ing h ox S pr as GRAHAM Bradberry ti a W Whitlock Cienega r Redington ! ny Ca k eld Ca n Redf i sh h Wa a on W r Wa k a H or ton Cre e ! Tanque ! nS No PINAL PIMA ! ! Oak Cr eek Sunset k ee Cr k Dr Oa Franklin ! v il a in Co k rt B ig Bonita e k Cre Cree k Low Cree ip Hig h a v a r A LOWER SAN PEDRO ee C ry R iv a e r dne P s dy ad Turkey Flat ash W e Cree o ny r G co Ja k n Cr ee N oo ck itlo Jesus Ca G ra nW n t Cr Go ash eek ud y Can yo n Wa s h r k ee Duncan ! Gila Wh nak Rattl es PINAL GRAHAM rC SAFFORD SOUTH GROUNDWATER BASIN Fox ! Wa s Sl ic k R o c k r G R A HA M ARAVAIPA CANYON h Sombrero Butte e Oa l k Cactus Lebanon! Flat ! h Swift Trail as ! Old e a W r Junction F ijild C Columbine r a Artesia ! so n C ree ! Gib k b ee k h Wa s sna Fr s Wa oE Tw G illes pie ek re C Cr e ver Ri ! w qu a S ! ek ek re Copper per C C op Creek B2 4S ! ! E E N L EE ! GR ! ! Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 242 ! B2 5E ! Water Resources Development Commission ! ! tC sh W w ek er k re e ic C k ud d Cre P ic n Cr ee ater W ree k C k e n Colt Mo Be Creek u ger k r ee nC C any C Ca s t ort on Cr eek k Cre e H an r lC Blue ee k D u tch Bl ue C re ek e Wash Charlie Moore Place Miles 12 ¶ COUNTIES ! k A lder C 6 e ee rC 0 BASINS lue eB Li ttl pri ngs Cr hS Ha nn a Squaw C ree Cl e Cree 12 Km Cr e C C re ek C reek GRAHAM GREENLEE Ea g le Cr eek B ob soc k Cr e ek e ek 6 ek r 0 eek P p F R c Ea st F or k B a R Col e k n Cr e ser a tio Sa lt F k A k ek C re tyD pevi ne C ee r k g La Hall Be C nny C o k e ek se r do R Fo r s W r ric ane C rfl Creer eek k k G t Cr e ek Blue! r Poin Al k re e No rt Sol h F Be Cre l er C re r C a Sa Pad k ek t M le u C Los r k n e Cre e pi k il R ca Wi Holl reek sh oe C s i rn I r s co e P ag te ok e F C k KL Bi r Li t tle B onito tT u rkey C W es r ee k ree k C ie nega Cr e o R v i rth For k Wh t ash ar W Be n k NAVAJO APACHE nd ia D sh e k Cr ee k C r k d C mez Go GILA ee k ek C re ar ree k lf C Ca r Ca v Big r re Petri f k r West k e ar r izo C reek h C r eek u h s tda le C r eek C r Co rd Wash Tro H on Wash og Pi ek d Mu Jump o ff Can yo n h ool Cr ek BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land ! k Strayho rseC r eek as C m Th o ca Son t k Litt le Blue Vista Cr ee k MORENCI Point of Pi nes C ek rPines e ! ek P ac e Cr e k Cr e on tre rab Raspb er State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) k o Creek rg La us Ho Strayhorse Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) ! oo cK ittrick M ! Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Whispering Pines eek e lan Cr e No kCr ee k re ek k k t Cr ee Ca eek Cr sh eek Cr ee k Cr kC e Cr Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) al tt Tu Cr do re ee k e C re k ne Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) e v Cas sa ! o ttl e 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Fo ote hh Ro cky NEW MEXICO Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Bu K P Cr eek R ou se n t of ork e Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) Troweek C!reek e Carlton Vista ! t Cre ek St eeple C reek ek re a eek m Cr ste ipe ek h BONITA CREEK le k re C k Salt C ree e Cr e reek Creek H ackb erry San Was t ple Carlos Ti ! om er Creek on le Fis Gran l ra Gils o n Was h re ek sC re se nF ! Stream Gage (USGS) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Right F Foote C r eek Hannagan g Ha n na Meadow C As ork h e i d r Ho ! ! Jacks l ue Creek ree k Cr eek New Cr eek ek re r Ca m s t Pr ong Cr eek ! ry GR AHA M oR i Alpine e !r ek Cr e ek C so Bea v er e le C re k st Ea g Ea C ree Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) rC k ek Cre GRAHAM r h Fo c iver orth E C ell B ! k Dry Pr o ng C e ree zeo ut r e Middle Pro n g C r e ek Cl A sh Cr e Fi sh Cr e e Co Snake nk li n k ek Cr e ap pb Sprucedale o r Pok r e k ee t ura l SAFFORD GILA APACHE GREENLEE ! Cr CHE PA C re e sR rlo ive r n r ranci s c a m e ! l low Rocky l AJunction re e k iver k Bear Wal e W g Sa e Dehorn ! er ov ee l k Oa GR A HAM mil l Sa w e Ri v ek e Bl u Dr eek Ban k Sharp Cre e NAVA JO Cr ty Bear Canyon Junction Na sh C re k ee Cr ! Sw e at er Cre e B ur e n Cre C orr al k ree ! ? ? Dee S C dy R y Cree k ! o Cr Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) River or Stream (ALRIS) son rr i Li Boneyard Sa Cleaveland e ek Sto ! s ! Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) Nutrioso Hul Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir or Lake (NHD) oo d Feaster att ! s C ! RivCrossing er ! ! Perry Cr eek W illow Cr eek t k Cr ee Be a r le W a Tu e Maverick Tonto C re ek Cre e k key e Cr Rigg s er Cre ek Three Forks e ee Cr k Na s h Cre e a r i ley C eek Cr W A kB la Hay Cree v r e ek ona d C in re m p son C reek lk C Mi Co Bi ll R B h yC Cree k y t Rosebud ! Crosby rk B l ac k k re e C er m iv Ho c k R k to nto ee k k ee ir e nte rf eek r Ce yC gg B ek Cre Creek on gB u R W Big Lake ek ek a st or st F We eek la N ! n ek C ro Greer ! Correjo Crossing yo ree k llig Ca n Mi an C Northwoods ! a v er k Whit e R i dC fer Lo a Gr t Th o M cD ee SALT RIVER e Cr e Ri C r eek ia nd r Bi g ! R ! r e Ami Eagar ! h D it c k ! ebe C st F o Ea R o ck Cre e ee k Cr k ree ek ree k ch et a C Pa East Fork r olo pu d e P ri r ve ore C reek am Syc Sev enmi C Black River Crossing Bl k ee ack ug No eck er C r eek Chrysotile re e epC Whiteriver Fort Apache ! ! ! ! Sevenmile ! Canyon Day r Springerville !itc Cree r itt le kL M oon Cr e Sun Ce k r eek ! Fort Apache Junction ite R i v Wh De Sunrise Lake B r k Groundwater Basin (ADWR) rio N ut reek yC e Cre R k Cree rd ek Smi th C e C e e Cre ek C ieneg a Seneca l Cr e ra ine r dar C Ce ! ! ie G Wash Kinney Junction n Cre ek ! reek xC eb r i F n C k ee C Sa lt Ri ver er a Amo s W ! e l Creek sto ek eek Cr L itt l e D ia mo n dCre ek State (ALRIS) Coy o te C reek re oC rn Ca O Snow S ta Pi Cedar Creek ! Cedar Creek Crossing mo o u d dl e as t Mi E Co yon Ca n re ek Cr dar Ce Hawley Lake Hawley!Lake B C ull be Ci d Ce Pine C reek reek eek Cr dise NAVAJO Tr o ut C reek oo Carrizo Re d eC Dit c h Cot ! Sol ee ttle B og i L Mc N ar g o Ditc B h Ba r HC Ho r s e No N r ame nd C P a ra r eek McNary ! reek y ee Cr C ier r ee k C g Cr eek ek Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) ! Creek Sa ee n ry eb e Goo s Indian Pine ash dW ht Ei g ek C on ifer Cr eek C w to n V ra V ied ! R Green Spot k ree ek ! k ! da Ce Los Burros aC ee d e ly yon Can u oy L o wCre ek Pinetop-Lakeside Cr ! re Fo ree k Bil ulv p ! Sho w Se Lake of the Woods LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU o y ! ey Sp rin er n Pu M lc r e e lo a o l Sponseller Turk Sc D ay Cibecue ! o i ttl SALT RIVER EAST GROUNDWATER BASIN *a r ad kyA Ro c ro Vi g Co ! ree k un Richville ! ld Vernon ! e Cr I Wa sh Wa sh ! r on on an y ! Bell Long Lake Show Low Do ds C Cibecue Creek as W H e Mi n t n y ! *d n Cree L rin Sp C ! Brow k r ee Foo gs Ca Linden Roundy Crossing e D ash C olb ath W Wash dale Pinedale ne ! Sh ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 243 Water Resources Development Commission W le Cre e k ree k C Ca lf ee k e I ndia e oC Pin ea s ag Son t Tu r Dehornkey Cree r i ve ! ek 0 C GILA S an a ! s Ri ver ro l n e Cre k Cr Rocky i pJunction Al ad ore Cr e ek Cas San H Carlos 0 7 14 Km 7 BONITA CREEK San Carlos Reservoir ! Arizona’s! Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 h v Fi as re C ile W et W l Lon g R an ch Cre k e h Apa c he Was B ra nc h ¶ COUNTIES as h Peridot em Pi n ! BASINS Miles 14 ek ! C BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land re nC e Salt C ree ry Cree k a ckbe r n as h Gi lso W Tr ip re ek ch State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) k ve C Littl e New Cr eek Rocky r eek S y camore C sh W g y Russ e ee dle C edar Cr ee k Wes t C e A C reek ie n ega C ou g h C ree k C am p Wa sh W pr ings ash Mu d s s Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) k a sh H -z Wa s h Devo re W Hi h Mu s ra y r Mi n ra e orestda k r r izo Cree h as as h nn S ng W B k ar m Cre W Me dd re W ild ca g son Wa sh k Ho C re ek n no C ar ke r k Cr ee k T an Ca m tC r ee k se Wa l hou sh Finto e C reek Wa R s k C Sa lome Dag ge r e rt W Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Federally ! ! ! ! Wa sh Coyo te Re ym re c k Cr e k en ba Gr od i st Me th l ph d Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ! G Was k Canyo n Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) eek Whit lo w Linde Pi n Was h c e La Mes i rs sh o nw o o d Was h Cott ek Mu d Jump of f Ca n yon h ool u ro yC O W ash e k k re uc h Cr Da y Wa sh Will ow Was h i on W Dec k er W ash n Ca ck P ie rce Wa Phoen ix Par k h Was h Hes s Wa sh COCONINO NAVAJO on Cany Ch ev el n e ek k ree k V C re P igeo n Gun C re e i ore W Syc am Par ek tt reek rC t W a te ee k g ee h W as h ln Ho usto n Cre ek n S uW Zu l a Bo it ood W er Cre on Hor Cre Ton o G Ea s t V er ek Cre Cre e Den H k Call k D D p Da h i sto p k to r i D ng Wa y Wa sh Iro n w 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) h s Wa s mo r HAM GRA DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) r Cutter Sprin g Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) k lC B ee g Sa ! reek Mi ll C eR Blu Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) k s as h al ! N Bellevue ul ll G i le Wa ! ! eek Cr Bear Canyon Junction ra ur a l Co Inspiration Central ! ! ah ! Heights W Claypool ! Globe k ! Miami Ta n ! reek rC Ald e h ! en m ev Radium Copper ! ! Burch Hill ! ! Cree k SAFFORD S River or Stream (ALRIS) Black White R iv er River ive R Crossing Cr Stream Gage (USGS) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) id ar C r M ed tC Ea s c s h Wa s W oz mb Ra d Blo o k sh Wa Ch amp ion Cr ee Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) r a r Cr e ek Bea h ash a s t Wa W Wash r Sp in g Nug e h ck r As ! ? ? ! C Bl ac k Tucker ! Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) h k k rdeRi Ve v er n anyo yC h Cr e C at idd l e Red No M C re ek r th R ed C ree k Squa w e Turk I Wa sh r yon an m r Sp op sh ol ba th Wa er De on k Seneca ! Chrysotile Corr al Cr ! eek NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. ! ! The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. ! ar Ced r Ca mmerm a n ! lC C ree ! ash ck W kja k Reymert e S LOWER SAN PEDRO k ee As s ! ! a ! s C reek ek Cedar Creek Crossing ac Bl tC ee r ne GILA PINAL Superior ! A p Shee Wa sh e Prin gl ami Wash Mi ! ash C er h ek Cedar Creek ek !Large ! Reservoir or Lake (NHD) e re Carrizo Small Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! r F ! Sal t Ri ver But te County (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin (ADWR) ! r ie old Town (GNIS) ! ! re rC da So as t re ! pri Top-of-the-World Queen Valley ! Smelter ! Florence Town Junction a ! a State (ALRIS) ow C ree k W ill McMillianville a W ns Pi o e ve Ho W rd Co Tr ng Bl Linden ! Do d C Dagger te S C ek Shu ald Ger r ! Queen Cree k ek i Roundy Crossing e Cr SALT RIVER ee ! ! n on a ny R ed C W l er Was h ig n pa r ek Cr e Grapevine ! t ! re ek eC SALT RIVER WEST GROUNDWATER BASIN Robinson Trail ! Crossing h s Burton a Wash C dal e Pinedale ne ! C Dry on r Queen Creek ! oC ! Chandler Willow ds Ea ny Ca r e P R MARICOPA PINAL D Co o n ! ! ou s ns Clay Springs ! Sc Day Cibecue ! h t ee Ei g NAVAJO GILA e e Cree k Bar g Ra n Gold Canyon Gilbert kH Cr Cr Pocket C A GIL ! La F n s ee vi s Creek Fish Creek ty Creek ewis and Pr a n L(historical) ! Cr e ek W o dApache ull Junction ! OPA Apache Lake Creek Mormon Flat Tortilla quit e (historical) Flat ! T ortilla Sch oo RIC ! sh Wa e sGoldfield !!Youngberg o h as W n h r ! Horse Mesa Saguaro Lake r MA Hills ! os Government Theodore Roosevelt Lake Hill Roosevelt ! sh Wa kar k ree ! Fountain Mesa ! ek mp Ca C eep Buck hor n Cr ee B ro nc C hu oC ! Rose Creek Lodge ! k Fort McDowell r Cr e ek ulde Bo Aztec Wo Lodge rk k ee Co Cre ek ood on w e rs k e e Cr C qu ash eW e n Me s PHOENIX AMA C Ro e ek C re le be e k mb C re e Bu Picadill a r e ek C ash W reek Rio Verde ls o n P B Cr ee k Basin P i ne Cre ! Cre k ee ek e C amp Cr Bartlett Reservoir Grasshopper r h as ldi ! ner ma sh Wa ny g ri n p F o ot C i e Wash Cibecue Creek Cr Slo k ee ! ek Cre re mb ing C ek k ee S ay Cre h ek Ha uf er Bue na Vist Wash a Cr ek R e no C Punkin ree k Center Sunflower ! reek ! ! k C Riverside Rancho Del Acres ! ! Roosevelt Lake Escondido Roosevelt Lake Gardens West ! Tonto! Gardens East S In dia n Blue k re e ! k gs Was ri n VERDE RIVER Camp Creek Cr e ek Coffeepot a C re St ing s ! ee k Sl ate G en try o ek MARICOPA e k r ee ak C C ek ld Go C r e C E l liso n eep Cr eek Sh s ! ! Spr ing C an C r e Jakes Corner De ! l Young ! Overgaard n re e re ut C e D Seve nS p Hardt C re e Wa C am pC re Gallups k ve n Was h ort i ! ek k Lim Horseshoe Reservoir eC r e ek Sol Gisela C YAVAPAI reek rC ee e Cr C ibecue y on Can ee k k tl Cr an dm ea one Moor e W a s h C love r Wash reek wC Co r ry C he ek H ek e ors C r e Bl a ! LA Spurlock er k ee Hai gle r C r ee o ny ! sh ! R ye Lit t TONTO CREEK M ar s h Creek sh Rye COC O GI d dW a ek NO NI City GILA YAVAPAI r r Sp Oxbow s Cree k Estates ill oh ! t J sh nis Creek an C reek h h s a a ek k ot tB We reek n k eC al le en V re ! ! i eL re yC e Paysonwart Cree k sh ree Star Valley Sa C r i ve de R Po cke t W a g le ! ! mC Christopher ! r Creek Ch ! Mountain Hunt e rC r Meadow D ry Tan Kohls Tonto Ranch ! Village D raw S te B ee k k ee Cr P ye atte Cr eek i e bb k ree eek Red C s Cr a S i ng Sod pr ushy C r e ek r B sh W C ! k ee er r Ro ck C Lancaster AGUA FRIA t LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU o ek Creek W F ossil C r eek Ha rds cra ! Pine Cree bbl e B2 5W ! ! ! M ule C re ! ! ! ! MAP LOCATION 244 ! ! ! W m h h nW ash uc to W ash Was h sh Wa Vopolo Havoka ! ! Ak Komelik as h do Wa s ur r a ash W Ch a pag Pa Pe n itas W oquiva ri W as h Bab sh Br o wn Wa s Lit t o oma Wa sh Wa sh T homa l e T h utu m Va ya ChSouth Chutum s Ca Komelik Vamori nyo n a Vaya Wa s ! ! h ! Sec as Utevak Plac W as ! A ash Secundino Kuit tos W h L ! a s Las oy Vaya Gu ! Guijas ja Choulic Las ! s Wa ! Mora sh do s Wash soli Wa Le Ak Chut h g SANTA Vaya San i ta CRUZ AMA W Haivan ! A as San Cua ivac Miguel Vaya d ro W h Kom Kug Puertocito a ash ! Agustin! ! C ! P ! Sapano eek ! Lo uer ash Hashan Vaya A ros W m Arivaca Chuchg ! ! 0 10 ! ! rr 0 o s A 8 r igo W sh a un r BASINS ¶ ! a W Or o Bl an co Sandwash Mill COUNTIES sh Oro Blanco ! Partridge ! (historical) ! ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 Miles 16 A PIMA SANTA CRUZ h as aW Cano oy d el Sa A rr o Wa sh Sasabe ! h Osa h as W sh Wa sabe to ! L a Buenos Aires aWa s Fraq u i t z pe i toc Newfield ! 20 Km ! i Tatkum Vo ! an W sh o ! ! n Ju eri Vakamok Itak ! as h as r iet o Wa Cerr o P nc ! sW i ne il t ep Ch Sa as h o bin Bann er Was h As h Was h h Chiuli be u Shaik BLM Land National Forest ! National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land even s Was mp rry W as h h esno Wa s Fr St l las B ! ARI Z San Rafael Topa ! State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) B Chukut Kuk Sivili ! Chuchg ! M ! Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) ! Altar Wa sh Solan o Sa ! TopawaFr esnal W aKahachi sh Pitoikam ! Miliuk ! wa W h Cowlic B ig W a sh Stan ! Papago ! Shuatuk Shaotkam Farms ON A(U SA) XIC O sh Ali ! A li Mo Sells Chukson Chukson l ina W s ! ! a h Artesa ! Ali Gu Chuapo ! ! ! Molina ri W ash sh u Chuku t K k Wa ME ash l h Ali Chuk ! Diamond Bell Ranch s Chiawuli Tak za W a Men do Uhs Kug So u th ! h Wa m Ala b r e rk Ane ga b abi Wash W o as uk W Va m ! C S l A a ! ! oK om o W Ku i Sel ls Wash Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) s o k Aneg as h le r Gr i Chuwut Murk Mur k ! Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) o h SAN SIMON WASH Ali Ak Chin Gu Oidak ! P Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Pan Tak i Ch Gu O id ak Was h Kupk ! Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) ! ! ash za W Nawt ndo e Vaya M ! San Vicente Haivana Nakya ! ! 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) h ! Sweetwater ! Siovi Shuatak A li Pan Wa s h ! Three Robles Points Junction a W ! Kom Vo Pia Oik Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) t So Was h Lukeville ! ! Wickchoupai ! ! WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE ! ! ug ak at iovi S hu ik Wa sh Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Corner Windmill ! San Pedro sh Wa Vice nte h Pia O Santa Cruz Nolic Comobabi ! ! ! ! Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) n av sh Pisinemo Wa u Viason iM Hali !a Tatk ChinHMurk ! Kam Vo ! ! Sa a W s Piato Vainom Vaya Kug ! Kui Tatk ! !Kaihon Kug Peach Pu ! ! Va y s Gu V o Was h River or Stream (ALRIS) Schuchk a ! i n o Ko Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) eW as W h a ! * Wa Wash Santa h Rincon ui s Lucia ! ! nL Sa ! Ko Vaya W as h Gu Vo er i Ch ji ta Was h gu a ! Himatk i P is ! op ! Sik Sikul ul Himatk ! Quijotoa h as oW m n ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? ? Stream Gage (USGS) s ! ! ! Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) sh Kuakatch ! Al a mo Was h s ! ! ir r Stotonyak Ahan ! Owuch Skoksonak h as W Tak Pan Maish ij toa u o Vaya Q Narcho ! Santos ! t ch Wa sh Reservoir or Lake (NHD) u li Kua ka *b Wahak Hotrontk as oW ! Queens Well A ! Quinlin u Sil Nakya Gurli Put Vo Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! Picture Rocks Pipyak ! Vi sh Wa ow ! Groundwater Basin (ADWR) ! r g ! ! Tailings Pond TUCSON AMA ! ! Komak Wuacho h h a Schuchuli State (ALRIS) ! ! as Silver Silver Bell cio Bell C ot h Was h as Hou s e W ! Charco ! ! Hotason Vo ash r Hoa Murk ! Anegam ! Palo San Luis Verde a sh Santa! Stand ! G u Achi W PINAL AMA Rosa ! Achi ky a Wa Hoi ! Ali sh Oidak Oidak Noipa ! ! Ak Chin Makgum Kam ! ! Havoka ! W on S Sa n ! County (ALRIS) a ey W Br awl n Da Oit Ihuk ! Cuerda d eL en Why ! Gunsi gh tW as h o Vaya Chin Town (GNIS) ! C Riv Avra Valley L ! Nelson Silverbell o W as h Mamm ! Sikort Chuapo LOWER GILA r oy Hickiwan ! ! El Tir W yA o ! h Wash im a Sil N Cornez Rio t C huapo W as ! ant a R os ob le s W as h Gi b son ! Nariska S a ! Tatai Toak Ten mile Was h PINAL PIMA er Arr o yo Ventana Emika S ikor North Komelik z ru Wa s h ki w an Hic Childs Avra ! ! ! ! Gibson ! Mexican ! roy o !! Ajo r Town Rowood Chico Da rb y r r o A S hu nie Shunie sh Wa SAN SIMON WASH GROUNDWATER BASIN Red Rock ! Blan c Kaka W ash ! t Ko h a Ka MARICOPA Chiapuk ! ! Sa Stoa Pitk ka *c iel sA ! Laguna Momoli o ! a sh ! PIMA Kohatk ! Totopitk W Rocky Point Moivayi MARICOPA PINAL c eda !Clair ! Lake Saint Tat ash S anta R os a W a sh Chiulikam a ! u GILA BEND ! S *d Midw ay Wash Ch o ic B2 6 Water Resources Development Commission ! MAP LOCATION 245 ! B2 7 Water Resources Development Commission r SANTA CRUZ- SAN RAFAEL- CIENEGA ! as W h S Mountain View a sh S teven s Wash De m et rie Wa sh a Ti n a sh h Reservoir or Lake (NHD) W Drag o on ! Helvetia Ap a ! ! Rosemont Rosemont Junction !Camp Box Ca ny River or Stream (ALRIS) ! ! ny on e Was h Mi dd m Str e a le C anyon W a C aliforn ia Wash sh C li fford ! ! Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) on W s h a sh S lau i lW as h C re k e e r er C *a ! ol i d Sierra Vista 0 8 16 Km ! ! ! 0 ek SAN RAFAEL Beyerville ! ! Ramsey Bledsoe !! Sunnyside ! k C re e uin J oaq lan c ! Sierra Vista Estates ! k ree Pot re ro C BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land 6 Miles 12 ! Guevavi Mission (historical) Casa Piedra State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) ! S ca y S ! reCa ny on mo Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) e Lewis Springs Kino Springs Washington Camp ! Duquesne ek rC re Ruby rke y Trench Camp!Harshaw Rio Rico ! Calabasas ! ! Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Charleston Huachuca City Tu r ! Old Glory ! a ek (historical) ! B e gh ter ho u se W Cien e ga yo n an ars ha w Cr oWash Canelo ! ! Otero ! Partridge c ek r e Patagonia ! Oro Blanco i b Campstone n J ose phi e C SANTA CRUZ AMA a r Ri ve ! lac kt a W a Toro s W as h Tumacacori ar om oc Elgin So Alto ! Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ! ! O ro Was h i Ba H Fraq C Tubac ek Cr e a sh ti na W Can s B el lo tas Cany on Te ! ! ! da Ce to Wa sh mi Ala Sandwash r Mill ek Cr e noi t a ! t Wash ck e ta Sonoita Hacienda Los Encino ! ! J sh u Agua Linda ! B w lo Ye l L Wa Whetstone ! Carmen ! u is sh Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ! UPPER SAN PEDRO CIENEGA CREEK ! c Cre ek Tu ba Arivaca an reek Sotos Crossing (historical) Pap a l ote Wash k e S Cave Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) w Was h Benson Wil l o Junction h ! FairbankGul aln ut W (historical) Mes l Cr eek ca ea m St r nyon Ca r e n d Gar sh Amigo W sh a e r aC ! SANTA CRUZ Amado lo Di ab ! r v ac Madera Canyon 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Boquillas Contention ! n Pedro Ri v Sa ui Ar i S auc it o Wash So as h ri W po s La Las Guijas G ! ja s Wa ca s Wa sh n o oy ! a l Arr ash nW ! Arivaca h sB la e co on Wa sh PIMA !Junction s a o B S ta m ot eW o Hi lt Greaterville C Ba Jun c ti SANTA CRUZ COCHISE Old Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) Wa sh go C an s za Wa h F or t ynin ! Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) Slavi n Wa sh Escalante E sc al ant e Wash Crossing ! Green Valley Continental ! Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? ? Stream Gage (USGS) Curtiss Es per s ! a ! ! Juan Wa h s W as h r rad o pu m a h h as W a p Pa a sh Pen i t as W ! Saint David TUCSON AMA Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) !r R ! ! Fenner Benson ! sh Wa sh Groundwater Basin (ADWR) ! Twin Buttes ja San ! e Ca ch la W Tas c u e sh a Prie t o W rro h as W Pimaco Two ! Pomerene Chamiso Mescal al Arroy ! Me sc State (ALRIS) ! s ! PIMA A lta r Wa sh ! F resn a l Wa sh p Wa ee Sh Pa ! Corona de Tucson Sahuarita Heights !East ! Sahuarita County (ALRIS) Wa eco o ! Sahuarita Bann er a sh W h s a Ash W ! New Tucson San Xavier ! Ce Pantano ! Diamond Bell Ranch ! Town (GNIS) ! sh ut h o ot W V er de Creek Harrington Place sA Tre lam os Wash Ash C r eek ch Agu a Vail ! So Wa s h Wash ez arti n M Summit ! aro Cum C ad il la c h M en doza W as te SANTA CRUZ GROUPING LOWER SAN PEDRO s River sh h Wa doza Men h z Cr u nta Sa Three Robles BPoints Junction ! ! Co yo o No r t th F ork A irpor t F or Was kA i rport Wa h u r aw ley W a ! ash oW nta n Pa !sh ek Ri n n C e co Littletown Drexel Heights COCHISE ! Corner Windmill S PINAL AMA Be a Black Bear Spring ! Nicksville ! ! BASINS Miracle Valley ! ! ! ! ¶ COUNTIES ! Nogales ! Lochiel ! ARIZONA(USA) MEXICO NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for otherofthan their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 246 B2 8N Water Resources Development Commission UTAH Was h st Ca Pocke t Ced a s le SHIVWITS PLATEAU NORTH GROUNDWATER BASIN r iff Cl Fo rt Pe a rc Colorado City ek rt Cre Sho ! Town (GNIS) ! e Wash Mo u m Da h Was h eep Littlefield ! ! Groundwater Basin (ADWR) D Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! r raw nt ain S sh Wa Vi r gin River State (ALRIS) ma n t ch Du av er Be h as W County (ALRIS) MOHAVE COUNTY Reservoir or Lake (NHD) VIRGIN RIVER Sa nd ridg e Wa sh KANAB PLATEAU s ! Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! ? ? Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Stream Gage (USGS) yo n Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) a n ! ! Su C ans lliv ! ! Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) B lack R oc um Po c sh W a kG ulc h 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) W sh ! Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) a sh Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) To m a d a ll W Cu le ho ay n Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Cl Rock Crossing Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) SHIVWITS PLATEAU Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) e as h eW yho l Cla an D raw v Su lli n Cot to BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land sh Wa Bu Li t t l a nyo n l ru sh C le Hob b Was h od Wa sh w o Hur ric an e GRAND WASH 0 ash rW da an yon an nd W a 10 Km 0 5 h n s o Ca ny Gra 5 n Ru L dden C gs Ce Hi H ac k BASINS Miles 10 ¶ COUNTIES Squaw Mount Trumbull Can yo ! n ash nW ak o o P Ivan p Tuweep ! atch Wash NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 247 B2 8S Water Resources Development Commission ak o SHIVWITS PLATEAU SOUTH GROUNDWATER BASIN C Iva npat ch W as e n Hi Gran d ng s Ru ! i can sh e Wa Tuweep ! La Can y o dd Gran dW a nyo n sh h nwoo Cott o a Mount Trumbull Town (GNIS) ! h NEVADA h Gulch Was County (ALRIS) State (ALRIS) ld Co S P i geon w Ag Wa sh y Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! r sh Wa h s Wa Groundwater Basin (ADWR) KANAB PLATEAU i ng pr Gyp Was h a H ors as dW n ash Spr i s S quaw rr Hu ash on W a * a e n P Bl ng Wa h ck W GRAND WASH Reservoir or Lake (NHD) e mo r hit W F s ! Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! ? ? Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Stream Gage (USGS) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) kP W est F Oak Grove MOHAVE COUNTY River or Stream (ALRIS) ! ! ! Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) nt sh Wa P sha ar a 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) South Cove Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) h s a ! awk C reek 19 6 Mile Cre ek Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Moh Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) k 2 05 M ile C 193 M BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land ee Meadview Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) an y on l d er W B ou ile C r yo n ! an se C i Sur pr ek Cre t S al COCONINO PLATEAU s Wa h e 0 6 0 12 Km 6 r n p P r os er s Al b Cr ct W as h Sp ring PEACH SPRINGS Ray I o Place ee k sh h as ! R e fe o ce P ren int Cree k Lo st C r r eek le C r enc e Sp HUALAPAI VALLEY BASINS 222 M i eek ala Hu sh Wa ai on ny Ca Colo rad oR i ve r MOHAVE COCONINO W n Fox Can yo il e C reek 215 M e W vin MEADVIEW M il e Cre ek Gra pe 2 14 a p Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) SHIVWITS PLATEAU ! ! n Wash sha t ar a or k Para or sh Lake Mead h Was h as st Ea ant W h Tas si Was Frazier Wells Miles 12 ¶ COUNTIES ! ! k Dia mo nd Cr ee NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 248 !! B2 9 ! Water Resources Development Commission ! n ny yon o ok ban COCONINO NAVAJO re e ac re re e k k C C k k ee k ek GILA NAVAJO r C k kH use C e ek o il H Ro c r C de rs k e sh u tte C re e ¶ COUNTIES a lt r ie ! S War m B Miles 10 ! R Wa Sh eep Wa s h le ng P ri v o BASINS e er i sh as h e ek C ni ng W ek n a ld k Cr r Cre a rke r C reek W k Cel e Ba C C mp Ca k r C oo n e Cr Da g e S n no R rW a h C ree k ek 5 i Med ci n eC r 14 Km k r ee Sa lom 0 S ep De P 7 e ek ge sh Wa l C ee k Poc ket ee er 0 rC o T l low Cr ee Wi i e k ree re Fin to n Wo Aztec ! km k e C amp old Me t ldsC re Lodge ! Rose Creek os e s Lodge k Bu Cr ee mb le b ee CO PA k ree bell C am p SALT RIVER Cr k e Cre Ho ek re MA RI ee Cr BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land ek Cre ing nCr eek Reyn o k re e k C an t sq ui Me h eW as eenb ack Cree k Gr i st hod As h ad Roosevelt Lake Gardens East k ! e r ! PHOENIX AMA Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) C an e h ! Acres Roosevelt Lake! Tonto Gardens West Basin p aS McF Punkin Center C Park reek ! Rancho Del ! Riverside Escondido ! Pi cadi l l a Cree k C so n o rse Ta nk Cr e e in Ch rk Tu ey Cre ek Lit tle h Wa s Cher r y C r eek te L it Bi g Cherry C re ek d r P ac ka Pi ne C r eek Rio Verde C k m bin g C ree La Bartlett Reservoir C amp Cree ro re Pi g eon C k S ycamor e o rk st F TONTO CREEK P B Cre ek ek g r Creek W r n pri nS Wa s Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) k i ! Bould uc h ash tai n Blac B r t C ree k Cre ek am ore st For We Syc k t Tourn ee k Ha u fer W ash B uena Vis t a Cre e Sunflower VERDE RIVER inn er Cree l or D e l Shay Cre ek k In a Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ! r S ou t ! reek Ren o Cr eek Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Slo k GILA 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) ey Creek Tur k Jakes Corner reek Ea Cre e ! k Creek C Cotton wo o S late Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Cree k on Cree Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) Cre ek Grasshopper Coffeepot D k ee Cr Ge ntr y C Gun en am k Cr ek Cr k ee Cr p er Co pp C am h e kS e p ! Cree k dC e C re Gold orral Cre e k MARICOPA ! ! k Cre e ! anCr k ee h S pring ee Oa lis El u So Shee p C re e k ek Fo Hard t Young p ee Cr t Wash or np ve a YAVAPAI D hF Gallups a C ree eer kD aln ut Cre W er am C ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? ? Stream Gage (USGS) Cree k River or Stream (ALRIS) ! Was h Deer Cr e ek Bear C reek Horseshoe Reservoir ou n kM n k Gisela ! k ee Cr Rye ad De ork m C lover h ld i So th De r ee k nC ma d a a s Dr y Sa oone M oore Wash F yo n Br k a rp C re S y k re e C h rr y C e Spurlock W Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) k d C Ma r sh Creek ! nd W ! rse C re e k Ho ue s ! ree k Sa lt Cree lu Wash Rye Sou Cibe c ek zo C e Cr e Sw amp Dr s J Moor eWa sh re e k D or e C Cow k S Wa sh p i n g ek r YAVAPAI Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! r Carri H aigl er C re Zu GILA Groundwater Basin (ADWR) ILA ! City C State (ALRIS) k Sycam Min eral Cre ek nis Cr ee en House k C r ee k lahan Cr eek al r C e ree Al Ce nter C r ee k Bl Creek ule on C an y r eek Cr Wash eek Cr County (ALRIS) an Reservoir or Lake (NHD) Houst on C ree k P D ry oc ket Wa h l Hi l l et W eek Cr kC ek rt Ste wa C r eek G Oxbow ibson oh ns Cre ek Cre ek Estates St ! Town (GNIS) ! on to V erd eR iv eek Payson ! ! kC an T ! C ov er r G Hun ter C TONTO CREEK GROUNDWATER BASIN Cr e Ea Star Valley C d Cr ey e l l een V a er st V River de ek ek re Squ a k C er om Bott Christopher Creek ! ! Mountain Meadow h ! Gr c o C ek re COC O O NIN Tonto Village ! ! w Kohls Ranch M to Lancaster h LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU k r ee ek nC Cr Hor rle Pe C nit Pyea tte D r w a R e vel on C a k B ree r k ree rody C bb W e er C Ha Dud e C Dry ree k Du Fu Bo l le C ree k yC a Moore re ek Cr eek eek Le w i s C reek Ea s t Br a y C reek k k eek re e er Creek is toph Ch r Fo ssi l Cr k ee ore C r ee eC ca W Hes s a s h k d C r Heber ! W o tC a ny on se Campo ! Bonito Turkey Crossing Washington Park i ld ! a k C h Pine ! re e bb le C rdscr a h Sy c a m No rt Ma ll y Sa re e Strawberry rawbe rr y C ! St y Was k Towel Cree h Willow ! Theodore Roosevelt Lake NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. ! The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. ! a sh in W Gr iff Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 ! MAP LOCATION 249 ag a ry Mammoth ! Fordville ! ! Tiger pr y ! Flowing Wells nc o W Bla R illito ! C Burro C re e ck Ro him Bi ne y Ca en sh te Wa 0 A gua ! C ree Tanque Verde Pant n Wa h n ¶ COUNTIES e Wa sh Old J ul ia nW Littletown ash ! ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Miles 12 k Cr z u R nc h Sa n ta st Bra We h le y W a Way ige o B D e er Creek Be ar C ree a ! Ju s sh Wa w ra Drexel Heights BASINS a ! lia ak nT Pa s Cr eek 6 k ! South Tucson Verd!e 0! C re r ive Tucson Estates a sh ! Tucson ro yo C !hi co sh Wa Ar di a e Tan qu D r i n ge a h Old Tucson mo W Ala *b Wa s Ar c a u irre 14 Km Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 Pa as Ag 7 li Catalina Foothills Viop uli W h C Rinc o Cre n k UPPER SAN PEDRO e ! R ed fie ld Can yon Redington Bu eh m Willow Canyon k ! BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land ! PIMA COCHISE as h ! any o State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) ! rd C Casas Adobes Valley View ! Avra ! Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) C ash Cany on W ! ! any on Wash sh Wa an Whitetail ek Cre a V a Pim Camp k Oro Valley ! h i es Sm el t Ma e W as h as h da d Can a Su th Rillito Ri! ver Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) ! se Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) sh Wa ash Al der W s Wa h Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Wash LOWER SAN PEDRO Loma Linda ! Summerhaven Soldier b ino ruz Montro Picture Rocks Skoksonak G ibb el r lan e S t r atton S Sa nt a C Tortolita as h eW ! O na enta Tailings Pond sh ! Nelson ! L os R oble W s as h ! W on Can y Silver Bell Silver Bell d k Cre e ! sh 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) PIMA GRAHAM Catalina ro a lk Ch Co Wa c io Do h as W k re e Silverbell ! ! Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) er Was h h Ca talina Wa s Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) Pet er s TUCSON AMA Marana Avra Valley ce au er s Pep p h as W ! ! ! k nin ! r ee t en Tw re s ! t ir Ch W h ri ta a s W o Nariska ! a Avra ! Oracle Junction e ! River or Stream (ALRIS) ed ! y Red Rock PINAL AMA an San Manuel h C arpas Wash Fa r awa y Wa sh Bowl Creek Sah ua Ba t am te I nd as ia n h We on ll W a h PINAL lit o C au sa PIMA S Stream Gage (USGS) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) ! Oracle in End Wash ! S n Wa sh a Ra m h as Bac W Casa Wa sh g e r g r a a l F Ma del Oro Iren e W Campo ! dg Highjinks !Bonito ! Wash Gu i ld ! ash gW b ow s Rai n Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Riv ro z C ru Wash ! ? ? P ! y Wash ew a T hre Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) Jam er ot mm sh Wa S Friendly Corners Ho u s h h Wa s ash Big W s s ! e Tu Wymola ! Clark Wash Wa s es h as t W Gus a J m t tt l Gu s L l Sca n on W s c W on a s h Reservoir or Lake (NHD) Butte ! a tW Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! ! Was h Sombrero h a h s n Cam p Gr a iro E l T Was h k re e r C Mu lbe r p pe o C ry h Tar W as n h p Ti p Groundwater Basin (ADWR) r Copper Creek yo n St rea Wel l Can m er ! rs Pa o ns Ca n y on St re a m re am s Wa State (ALRIS) St Picacho y ar County (ALRIS) on an y r Wash Ho rs e Fo ot Wa sh D ! Town (GNIS) ! ! m! e Bl ood suck k Parsons Grove Virg Blake Place tr e nS n yo Ca p Ca m ash eW pg h Ca as ey W onl Cr h Eloy n Str eam Z a pa ta Wash er P al m Was ! anyo Putnam Wash Oak ew Was h WellsDr ! reek TUCSON AMA NORTH GROUNDWATER BASIN y PINAL GRAHAM son Do d Ar a v aip a C C us Barkerville oe C ea Str m Holy n h Was ! h Mix Wa s Tom ny o e Cr e Jam ! J le S Was h od Was h C irc ARAVAIPA CANYON Hortons rS prin gs Place C a DONNELLY WASH nw o Be Polecat Wash Was es h Wa sh Cot to e Tu r k La Palma ! O Wa sh a xO Bi g Bo Eleven ! Mile Corner B3 0N ! Water Resources Development Commission ! MAP LOCATION 250 a sh ch Sa a Mountain View ! h a s W h a s as F h yW a l Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Stream Gage (USGS) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) Ca ny o n PIMA River or Stream (ALRIS) ! ! so n ! v id Helvetia per Box C a za W s h ny on tr eam S ash ine W Fo rtyn ! an yo n W Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Apa Rosemont Rosemont Junction !Camp 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) ash Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) So a Cre i eneg an yon C Tumacacori J ose ph ine C UPPER SAN PEDRO SANTA CRUZ AMA Ja (historical) 9 0 reCany mo on rk ey C re y ek BASINS Guevavi Mission (historical) SAN RAFAEL ! Beyerville ! ! k ree Pot re ro C Kino Springs Miles 18 ¶ COUNTIES ! Casa Piedra 18 Km 9 ca O ! Old Glory 0 ! ! S Wash ro Ruby ! e Trench Camp!Harshaw Rio Rico ! Calabasas ! B ! ars ha w Tu ! Partridge o lan c H ! ek Oro Blanco Canelo Patagonia ! Otero C ckt l W Bla a i ash Pap a l ote Wash Carmen Cr a n on es B el lo tas C y ME XIC O h a Wa s nti n Ca T Sandwash r Mill ! ita Alto ! ! ! ! ek ! c Cr ee k Tubac T uba ! ek Cr e Fraqu n a w BLM !Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve ! Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land Sonoita mari Riv oco e Hacienda Ba b Elgin Los Encino ek Cr e noi t a ar ed rr Ws h W h as State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) ! ! ! ash ck et W o lo Ye ash a h ash Ala sh Wa ieta W a A Cano W ash k zW l Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) CIENEGA CREEK Agua Linda Sotos Crossing (historical) ! to Wa sh mi A rroy o del Amigo C s Wa h Sasabe ! pe a ui sW as L h La Os e Arivaca Cor Lo a a W ! re Sa ci to n Lo sab Sa e d ner Gar reek j s Buenos Aires Cave Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) ea m Str nyo n Ca r u lo Di ab ash eg s no Newfield ! SANTA CRUZ Amado h Ariv ac s ! ! Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) SANTA CRUZ COCHISE s La Las G Guijas ! i as Wa sh Madera Canyon ! W i ! Tor os Wash sh Wa ori p So yo o Secundino ! W a sh Santa M a rga rita ! La sM lido W oras W sh Aso as a L un ita W a h Cu n c E i Kom Kug s a dro W Puertocito ash ! ! Pu a W s Sapano h erto ! Wa s h Vaya s o Ar Arr ! Arivaca PIMA Junction h co ash on W Hil t Greaterville on Wa sh C sh h sh S Jun c ti Ba ta m ot eW as W Wash e r to s lac Kuit Vaya nc as a P Old a e ! Utevak n Wa s W Li e hom a s a sh tt l T T hom asC a ny on W ash Chutum Vaya ! l B a Wa sh l Br ow Bo as Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) o Top awa Wa sh ! ash quiv a ri W Bab o Es ur rad o W mp C h a sh a W ag p Pa s Wa Pe n i ta ! ? ? ! ! ! an ine ilt e p Ch sh Wa Wa sh h Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! a Ce San Juan Wa h s s ! eC ch s Green Valley Continental ! ja s h oW S abi n Kahachi Pitoikam Miliuk ! Tin a ! ! Demet rie Wash AshWash sh la W Tas c u e h a Pri e to W rro Pimaco Two TUCSON AMA Twin Buttes y rroMescal ! Me scal A ! Ba nn er a sh W ! Da a Altar Was h S teven s Wash Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! r o h as Chiuli rr be u !Shaik ! Groundwater Basin (ADWR) k ! Corona de Tucson Sahuarita Heights !East ! Sahuarita Sahuarita F resn a l Wa sh don Re do Wa s no Wa sh h res a ras tr e Co n s ! e Reservoir or Lake (NHD) Pantano New Tucson San Xavier ! COCHISE Ri e vr nt a Cr uz yW st Bran ig e V erde Creek C re Vail Harrington Place State (ALRIS) A sh Agu a ! a oK So u th Sauc i to Was lano Was o h h S SAN SIMON WASH M Wa sh aro rti nez W ash a Vio pu h Summit ! ! Diamond Bell Ranch County (ALRIS) Cum M s Wash nd oz a Me Town (GNIS) ! a W s o ot W Uhs Kug Gu Chuapo Pa e sh Wa h an Wa sh Coy eek Cr Cr e e k ot S No r t h F or k Airpo hF r t Wa ork s Airpo rt W a sh t ou Ane o ta n P an R in con S ! W ! ! ay sh Wa ! ug A l i M oli na W ash ! O ld J ulia n LittletownWas h ! ! sh mbre W A la C hu tum Vay sh Pan Tak ! ! ruz River ! ! a Wa ndoz Me ai n ag eW C nt a Sa ! LOWER SAN PEDRO a nW as h We Three Robles Points Junction Nawt Vaya San Vicente Haivana Nakya as Sells W h li W San Pedro D ! Corner Windmill PINAL AMA te an Vic en g Pav Drexel Heights ! S South Tucson Ju TUCSON AMA SOUTH GROUNDWATER BASIN Cr eek Be r ! r sh e Braw l *b ir W a ! ! Tucson Estates li Ag sh Wa ak nT Pa Schuchk re ash ! u B3 0S Water Resources Development Commission ! Washington Camp ! Duquesne ! ! Nogales ! Lochiel ! MEXICO NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 251 ! Soza Wa s h k C LOWER SAN PEDRO h Raso Wash Reservoir or Lake (NHD) ! G Gulc h on a ny Hot Sp ring s C Wa s ran Te Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! ! B n nyo Ca Groundwater Basin (ADWR) r h old s ! Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! ? ? Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Stream Gage (USGS) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) r de State (ALRIS) Bowie Junction (historical) Luzena! sh Wa o l ! n nyo ee li Cascabel County (ALRIS) SAFFORD W S a dC o W ! sh Wa Poo sh teW a en T an que Ve h Ba r Hookers Hot Springs yR ock C ne hi m Ca A gua at o n ac Town (GNIS) ! a sh D ial W as Bradberry re k GRAHAM COCHISE ! e UPPER SAN PEDRO NORTH GROUNDWATER BASIN g R ed fi eld Ca nyo n Redington ! ! Burro C re e B ash Bu e Willow Canyon sW h Ow l Wa s Sp rin g Wa s h W illow as Reiley C reek ! or k A W -X h as Sp rin W hm C an le a th F r ing Creek Sp ox M ud PIMA GRAHAM anyo n Soldier ! Camp Whitetail S Bo l mp C r ee k oC ! ! Summerhaven sh n Wa p She e Loma Sabi n Linda ou s h Cre e k ash Al der W sh Wa G ib b B3 1N Water Resources Development Commission ree k Cre ek n ny o ! ! Ca h llins Wa sh Co ! ! as as W Palom D e er C reek Be ar C ree Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) h As k s Alamos Wash Tr e 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) ! Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) k k Cr ee R ed roc TUCSON AMA sh sh Wa a Cuma Was h W as h ro n ez arti C r ee k ! r t ln u Wa Manzoro as oW ach S C r Pimaco Two eek Corona de Tucson eg a Chamiso Mescal ! h as W ac ! ill ! oyo al Arr M e sc ! Ca d Ci en Pomerene as h ! Dragoon ! Drago on as h pW hee W Pantano New Tucson ! Tully ! Fenner Benson ! ! ! UPPER SAN PEDRO ! Escalante Crossing Black Diamond o ! te Was h E scalan m nin e W as h rea S tre am d le Canyon W ash Cal ifor nia Wash C liffo rd W ash ny on t re ! dne rC Greaterville a DOUGLAS INA Ha a h be r stock W s am S as h W ton Hi l 6 BASINS ! Mid 0 14 Km ! S lavin Was h t he C ac ! an yo n 7 Sunizona Curtiss ! a Cany o nS Ap M ont s Turk ey C re e k Pearce ! ! CIENEGA CREEK Rosemont Rosemont Junction ! Camp Fo rty 0 Arizona Sun Sites Saint David ! BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land ! ! ec Mountain View State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) Kansas Settlement A sh C e ek r P ! Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) Wash h Vail ! Harrington Place e Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) ! Sa M Agua Verd e Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ! Johnson o R iver eW t d yo o o Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Cochise nP ta n P an C WILLCOX ge Rid PIMA COCHISE re e k nC R in c o Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) Cre ek ! River or Stream (ALRIS) Willcox ! Pa i ge C Tanque Verde Boquillas Contention ! ! as h Will ow W h derson Was H en Miles 12 ¶ COUNTIES *b DOUGLAS Courtland ! Grizzles Orchard ! r Ga ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. ! The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. ! Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 ! MAP LOCATION 252 B3 1S ! Water Resources Development Commission ! Ap a ch yo n Str e am C anyon Wa sh C alifor nia W a h s n eC a Wa s h Cliff ord PIMA e Fo rtyn n i Mi d dle i k W ash H a b ersto c Boquillas ! m ea nyon S ! *b ! scal Creek Me PIMA SANTA CRUZ ! ! ! Reservoir or Lake (NHD) Ree v es C re ek Tombstone Whetstone ! s ! Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! ? ? Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Stream Gage (USGS) ! it no So Hacienda Los Encino Elgin o bo c Ba m a Cr e CIENEGA CREEK Sonoita Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! Gleeson Waln ut Gulch Fairbank (historical) r ! ek State (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin (ADWR) Benson Junction tr rdne r Ca Ga County (ALRIS) sh Wi llow W a Contention Town (GNIS) ! ers on Wash He nd COCHISE Ca nyon S r ea m g Spr n as h W Wa sh t d Mu to n Hil UPPER SAN PEDRO SOUTH GROUNDWATER BASIN ! ! ari Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) Ri v e r River or Stream (ALRIS) COCHISE k Charleston ! rho use W a sh Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) ! e ier Cr k Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) *a DOUGLAS ! Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) ld e e ght au Sl Sierra Vista o Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) DOUGLAS INA Lewis Springs UPPER SAN PEDRO a S Canelo ! Bl a ck ta i l W sh n SANTA CRUZ e Ci ! ! G adwe ll C an y on ! e ga Cr e e ! Huachuca City ! Campstone ! Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) e Cr e k Ban ning wC re e k ! Neff ! ! r eek C iv z R er Cr u nta Sa ! Rileys El Encinar Sierra Vista Estates sha ar Tu r key H Ramsey Bledsoe !! Sunnyside Highland Park Bisbee ! ! ! Spri ng ek qu Cr e oa i n ! 0 Be a ! ! Miracle Valley ! ce Palominas ! Duquesne reek C Black Bear Spring Corta Junction Glan re e k rC ! South Bisbee Cr e ek J SAN RAFAEL ! Hereford Nicksville ! Washington Camp BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land 5 0 10 Km Stark ! Bisbee Junction Ped ro iv e r ! R n Sa Lochiel ! Naco Miles 10 5 BASINS ¶ ! ! MEXICO COUNTIES NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 253 B3 2N Water Resources Development Commission ! h Wa s La va e e as rW eda h Was rabbi t Wash J ac k Ca mp b ! C as h sh C tz Was h Sa on an y y a Ca a P t Spr n Bab k As h ur st Ru r 7.5 0 7 ! an y ee k Cre ek g an yo n BASINS Br ad y Canyo Miles 14 ¶ ek ave r t Be 15 Km Happy Jack n Cr e e a ver B r ver 0 Allan Lake ! Landing e We st Cle arC r Dry Wa sh a Gra k ea ! pC Long Lake COUNTIES ! h r k re h ef Rimrock ! ! W alker C Lawrence Cr !McGuireville Ru ! Crossing Lake B Montezuma Was Camp Verde BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land ! n C M Mun d ash We Wic ki u a ! gs ol ny on Grinds ton e Wash C oyote h Cr O a k e ek *f k aF T i AGUA FRIA i nd ka s Dr a sh B Wa sh H ti Wo o Sku ll L a ash ll W Hi as h G ri W s Gad d e C Cherry Ch ! R arick C a nyo o l ssel re e yC e rr Stoneman Lake n Lo p nd Ash C re e State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) Ja ck s C k ree urn t ash W ! Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) on Mormon Lake k Dy n ! Red Rock !! Baldwins Crossing Oak Page Creek Big Park ! ke C anyo n Springs R at tle sn a ! Bridgeport Cornville ! Verde Jordan Bignotti! PRESCOTT AMA ! dre C Pa Mormon Lake Lakeview ! !! Tempe Camp Coyote Basin Ranch a Sedona ! eek Mi l ! ! ! ! Oak W a s Lyn x Cre ek C lipper W as h Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Pilgrim Playground ! ! Rockledge ! ee Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) C ou sh *c a gC tt lesn Ra sh n Ti re Wa Wago W W y h Hu n w ood Canyon e Smelter City k h Iron Springs W !Highland y W Highland lle a s h Park V Wash Pines ! ler Cre e k B low out C Granite ash W sh Wa Cot ton r as ch eC Grav r Turkey Cr ek C o eek ! W D Ch ny o n as t Hop e W h un She r k h rC ! Jerome Cottonwood Can yon ver Prescott Granite Ri ria Valley Dells Entro ! Cre e !! u llow Ag yWas sle an og Clarkdale k ter Cree B it C Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Upper Lake Mary ! Indian Gardens ! n ing bi k Oa k Cr eek S Tapco ! * st rie ra w Munds Park C rin g Coy ot e Sp ck tle ne Bo t ! LITTLE Y COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU n t Min h Wood B Trap onto Was Kachina Village ! Mountainaire Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) !!Darling n ! w r Perkinsville ! h e Wa s y 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Winona re lnut C ek Wa sh Mar t in ! i er W old Chino Valley ! ! ee a sh ! ! Flagstaff ! r S h r Mint ! Stringfield ! Williamson !C ith a n yo Sm T an kC We st F o reek ring Sp eek Cr ffee Co l Cosnino k rc Willow Spring k ree k C W o re Wa sh ! YAVAPAI Bear ! ! BILL WILLIAMS n k Wash Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) r nci sco Wash nF a Cree Mack ! r Wa Fair Oaks r Sh Loc o C r ee k sh sh m ash Syc a ipp itt L ittle le L Spr ing W Bagdad ! a S Big hip p W Iron e ors l ag Tuthill sh r COCONINO eek C te n Gra sh hino Wa Li ttle C re e op Co e uld Bo Wo C ed i as W r Wa utte D illo h as n so n Was r Cr eek Be e Rive Ve d ! de F Elden Pueblo ! JDDm W Abra ! Paulden ash Rogers Lake nyo Sycamore mp n d W il a d D ra w Mu dT ank W ul Wa Sin cl air Fort ilroa Ra ash teer W h un as V r eek S ti e rC e C r Indi a n Spring s Pa ge W ash ! sh Wa ! ! Cre ar k Hi de C Bellemont ! yo VERDE RIVER ! H itt Wash C onge He ll Ca n T Drake Eddy Place d W as h Antel o pe Ap a Chalender Ri o ! a ea L w re ! Maine ! ! T ule tz r Qua h b in Was Ca ash W n ma rr Bu ! Parks od ree k e Cr eek P in ee k h er W Pine Tank n n o ny Stream Gage (USGS) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) Riordan ake W ash Tu rke y C a y ! k ee o Sereno or a ree k Mo ree ! !! Meath ev il Do (historical) D *b C Williams h W as as W C ut C ! k ee Wash Meat h h BIG SANDY eC Sch Joh ! Big Chino Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) r m Sereno Spring ns w ! Ash Fork ! ? ? ek Daze on Cre ek n gtow Tro ! D Pinaveta Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! a Corva ! s ! River or Stream (ALRIS) eek ! ra Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) Cucamonga Junction h For k D As Groundwater Basin (ADWR) Reservoir or Lake (NHD) r ! ll C Ba n Wash ma D e ad a t ra c W a sh Crookton Wash as t ta ek ev e Ca aw Dr i am n Cre P Seligman ! ! R ! r ! m artin D a M Ei ghtmi le in o as h W ney Do ! Pumpkin Center Syc Audley Co s h ! ! Mu dd Hu Bishop Place Partri dge C r ee k a W h t un Mo Ka n a AW Wa s ! kh COCONINO PLATEAU ou rt Was h ake Yampai M ar Quivero ! lls L ! Pica State (ALRIS) ain tW e Mon Re d PEACH SPRINGS ! County (ALRIS) h a Citade l W s h n Town (GNIS) ! *a a um VERDE RIVER NORTH GROUNDWATER BASIN s W r ll e Mi Valle e Red Lake h k h as rin gVall Sp y ! May s Wa n h u Cr o ne W ! Robbers Roost ell a Fr c is W ash ! Havas Tin Sa House n ds t ! ! ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 ! MAP LOCATION 254 ! ! ! ! c le C e lo W ash C P ota any o dc a tC NAVAJO W on COCONINO Ca n ro o kba n k n yo Mul e C ac k rp Cree k Sh Ch err O k re e uc h GILA Cr nC r eek u 0 9 0 o rs 18 Km W a sh sh W C am a as p h ash BASINS Sh e Was h le Pri ng Miles 16 ¶ ! r k ve Ri ! COUNTIES alt a r mCr e ek W le rW e ep no r Wash a rk er Cre ek Con Da gg e ! Grapevine ! e 8 So er ldi Ba n Sonin g Ros C reek Salo me Me th o dis t k SALT RIVER Willow Med d B toe d Dr aw Sa n C ow W r Cre s tophe ck C ree en ba Gr C r eek La Par r o it Co tton Ca nyon Ald e r Cre ek est C r eek r ke y T C k Tonto Cre l ree Cr e e P i geon er h ev elo n n Can yo Yea ge wi s Cree k ree C Le St G ln Cre ek City k wo od W as h e Cr e se ek Iron n Ca ac k B ray C reek e ek P i n eC r r Ea V st e a s ay NAVAJO eek S Dagger ! ash ck W kja ac Bl Government Hill P De e k k Cr C ee k Cr ash rW Theodore ! Roosevelt Lake ! Roosevelt A ve C re e F uller ry C Cr W ordu roy r se e b tt e D v ine Wa p we Apa che East Cle C YAVAPAI COCONINO lea W ic k iu p re h a ! er ldi ead m ek Cr e r e Cr ep a sh ak e lds H C Aztec ee Wor Lodge k k ! ! Rosen Creek Lodge C n oo r BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land ek e Reyno ek re We State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) Cre mp Ca ma uckh orn Cree k e r Riv e r Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Grasshopper Sloan C R ock Ho k nk Cr so Wi l Cr k Cre ek Fri a C o k Ta n Agua Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) r eek D n Cre ave r Be r ee C Be av G Y e r Arr a Dry W C t re ash ore C reek l Cre Jim nd C 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Bl eek R yla No Mi dd l e Red C eek r rt h R ed Cre ek r ian lk Mi k aW Gran Hi d C lc lG G Sla te C W a ev e ard ep e o te W as oy C Cli si n Was h Fin As C W ash Bu M i L e es c Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Flow Application (ADWR) ! Instream Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) li El n ner Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) ! an ntry Creek k D on ar ch Tub S r W sh ng W as h ! ! ! Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) PB Cr ee ! SAFFORD ! ! Young p Creek e n Cr e k Gu OP A ! C yo n Ca n Ma ldi k Wash ree u e dC wo ee k Cr de Bou l Stream Gage (USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) eek Cr s on i GIL Fort McDowell ! Fountain Hills Me s IC Ca ! S ! MA R u Sk Surprise ! El Mirage lebee C r eek mb Bu Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) TONTO CREEK Reno C reek Punkin Center reek ! ! k C Riverside Picad i lla Creek ! ? ? Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) y Ge ! ek Cr q T ! ut Cree am Acres ! Rancho Del e Roosevelt Lake! Escondido ! Gardens West Tonto Roosevelt Lake ! Basin Gardens East eek p Creek Rio Verde e ek Cr et Wash Ca m W Sun City West W a er C l Sunflower ! Spurlock o h as ! il reek yC ! ek Cr e mb in g Ha uf er Was h gs Wa i C re e k Camp Creek Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) LA Coffeepot ! Jakes e ek !Corner De Gold Cr S hay C re Co rdt Cr ee Ha k s ! Haigle r Cr eek r sh Creek ! k re ek Reservoir or Lake (NHD) B Gallups C p Cr eek ee Sh e Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! n Wiggins Crossing Christopher Creek ! hri ! Mountain a Meadow y Poc k n bso Sa n De reek ey C al nV ! Ry e eek Cr Wi l l Barts Crossing Mule !! Campo !Crossing West Chevelon Bonito C ! Turkey Crossing ! u Crossing Kohls Tonto Ranch Village! Groundwater Basin (ADWR) r Dr Gisela ! Cl ove r Wash Blue Was h sh Wa h e Gra Cave o Wa R CreekGallo w ! Carefree ! dW Rye rral Cr eek ork St e Payson w art Creek House Cr eek k D ! Babbit Lower Winter!Tillman ! Mormon ! Chevelon Crossing Crossing ! Durfee ! Crossing ek D raw State (ALRIS) h ev GI Star Valley Oxbow Be ar Cree COCONINO ! iver n pr i ! de R Se ve nS F Wittmann PHOENIX AMA P ye atte YAVAPAI a h tW s or np ve k s Cree k Estates Gi hn Jo ! ek rse C r e Ho Cr e an dm a e Lm Horseshoe i Reservoir eC r eek tt h as ree k eC k m k ys Ch GILA r ee r reek C l e tBo We ca Sy sh er Cr e ek Ro d g s Wa h W bb e h Tan g ek W as Ma Washington Park as ! ! Cre om ! ! er C e k rry ! r il b yW ash B pp ek k nW e R ock C r C op ek C re shy C re ek ru sh ing W a er S p r adg Be C reek ble eek Cr ee Cr Circle City Lancaster Macks Crossing ee County (ALRIS) n n yo Whitted !Echinique Place! Place ! ar eek n e elo p Bish ! Lake Pleasant k ee k k ee iver wR Ne Ci t y Wa sh ! ek ek n rg a Morristown re ! New River Mo r r r reek ove C Cl Housto k Co Ha ckb e r Cree e ! h as w r Strawberry Stra b e ! Creek Pine l b ! sc r a d r a H k k C sh ash die W Was Ed e itch M ! ! Wa a n Cr Ru B u ll eek As h Cr eek J Jones Long Crossing Reservoir Valley ! ! s C To m re e sh Wa le n nyo Ca ks Victorine Horse ! Crossing Kinder ! Crossing ! C.C. Cragin Crossing Wingfield ! Ho eek Towe l C reek Cr ar Creek n h on W as hns Jo acet r ack Was h R t Li t k ree Packer S oapBlack C re ek wC ! S qua Canyon Tip Top City Rock Cre w Cree Squ a Humbug (historical) ! tle t Springs i !H L ! ! Road Columbia YAVAPAI Junction Red ! MARICOPA Gillette re ek ! Windmill Castle Hot ! Springs ek Big Reefr Cr e Mill Bit te ll Jac ke t r Sil v e r C e e k L arry C We s t a sm Cre ek Hay Lake ! AGUA FRIA Bumble Bee ee k Cr reek rC k Arnold Place Ch Tremaine Lake Lost Eden ! Little Spring k Wa sh Tan le Tu Creek ug um b a n a Ox i ! Cre e k Dug nW a k reek re w C ek o d an F ren ch H am Blue Ta nk li h W W as sh B Briggs reek anty C Wh ip s aw ! p Creek T iger C ! ! ! re ia n C I nd Bum n ek John Lehman C Mill e ! Copperopolis C sell k ee k ek C re ek Cre Cr e ash ral k w e r Cordes Cordes C ! r B ! Lakes k ee Cr nd rp Creek Crown a Wagoner ll A Po Bi ! Minnehah King a Cre ek astle ! Shelley! Bradshaw Paxton ! Lapham e City East Place ! Chilean ! Fort Minnehahak! Mill Fort ek ! ree South ! r eMisery ek ! ! Burro Fort s S ! Constellation M g lf Cr e Cleator Crazy Ba s!i ! rs Bli n d In d UPPER HASSAYAMPA Cr Dugas W McNary Baldwin Rush Place Place! k !Place Windmill! Walnut e ee k To e Cr ! C Grove Hooper e al Cr eek Camp Verde Town (GNIS) ! Br ady C anyo ! ! ell o w Happy Jack an y on Wa sh Montezuma ek Wingfield ! g Bu Mayer Venezia ! C ! re C ry reek e Dandrea Ocotillo Ce d o ! ar C reeSpring ! ! Goodwin Cordes Min Valley e An ! e t Junction ! ! Arcosanti Ha ck b Walker ! Place Windmill M w Black at hy k ree r W Cedar Mill prin g er ! h S us av er Cr ee t Be We L Rimrock W ! ! a lke r C McGuireville Lawrence Rus k ! ! Lake Crossing er Flower Ci en eg aC Pot ! Bi Kirkland Junction p R re ek ! sh Br a rB rn a Glen Oaks d ! C Wilhoit ar Bo C opp yo hA ! u Ponderosa rr a Creek Groom apa h Park m C ! Poland r!ooH Creek as Junction sa y Potato! Walker ! Breezy m Patch pa Gr ine C reek ! ap Pines ! iver ash ll W h as Gri e f W is a d G Cherry ! VERDE RIVER Dry dp r ! ! k ree Ash C Prescott Valley h eS W as Osb o Yar be sh a BILL WILLIAMS Jordan ! Bignotti ! Iron ! !! Willow Creek Reservoir Springs !Highland Creek n x y L Highland pper Wash Park ek ! h n WasPines Cre r og a e ll Prescott ree k Creek! Oak KnollPRESCOTT AMA Hecla n Dewey-Humbolt ! tte pe ! Village rro ch Verde R arick C a n yo * Long Lake gC on ash W sh Wa sh * Granite Dells Entro ! ! p h ! ! Stoneman Lake k t Min eck ttle n Bo k Oa ash Granite ! ! h sh r ing Co yote S p VERDE RIVER SOUTH GROUNDWATER BASIN LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Coyote Gr apevine C ny o n a Basin ! Ranch Allan Lake ! Ca nyon ia l o Landing D b ek e f C anyon Fossi l Cree Mun d M arti n * Mint ! Stringfield ! Williamson oW Tont a Tapco Clarkdale ! ! Smelter Jerome ! Cottonwood City k e !! Blo wout Bridgeport Cornville Was h Cr W ! a Dry sh h pe r Red Rock Baldwins!! Crossing Oak Page Creek ke Ca ny on Springs Big Park ! Ra tt le sna ek ! Chino Valley s ee Cr sh Co Wa lon But sD ra C Camp ! W w ni te Wa Dil o eek Cr te G ra Wash Chino Littl e ash Sedona reek ring Sp e e Cr Cof f e Sycamore ! ! !! Tempe Mormon Lake C rd e Ve Hitt W ! ! Perkinsville B3 2S Water Resources Development Commission ek ! Paulden Abra er v ! Ri ! ! re ! ! ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. ! MAP LOCATION ! Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 ! 255 B3 3 Water Resources Development Commission UTAH H d San VIRGIN RIVER GROUNDWATER BASIN w s Was h o l lo Wa e B eav r D am Was t cke Ce dar P o h h s County (ALRIS) State (ALRIS) s a C Town (GNIS) ! k Black Ro c G ul ch C tle liff Groundwater Basin (ADWR) W h as Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! r Reservoir or Lake (NHD) Vir gin River s ! Mo un ta in S ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? ? Stream Gage (USGS) h Was ee p h VIRGIN RIVER Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) ! ! ! ! ! Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) n C oo Tow nW Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) ash h as W Ben d Big Littlefield Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) Cr ee k 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) as h ott W Abb Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) a ny n o SHIVWITS PLATEAU liv n Sul a s C NEVADA MOHAVE COUNTY Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land m To a W ull Co ton 0 w 4 8 t dC an oo d sh h Wa s lli va Su GRAND WASH 3 um oc raw nD P 0 W ash BASINS b l e C anyon Hob d ar e C Km 6 Miles ¶ COUNTIES W ash MOHAVE Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 COUNTY NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. MAP LOCATION 256 ! B3 4 Water Resources Development Commission er W ash Midw ay Wash Te nm il e Wash YUMA MARICOPA G rowl ! GILA BEND Rocky Point Da nie ls Ar royo W. MEXICAN DRAINAGE GROUNDWATER BASIN *d ! *c PIMA MARICOPA Town (GNIS) sh Mohawk Wa ! ! County (ALRIS) Childs ! A rr oy o State (ALRIS) Gib son Groundwater Basin (ADWR) S ikor t Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! R ! C hua po Wa sh o Gibson ! Mexican ! !! Ajo oy Town Arr Rowood r by orn e z Ch i co S h Wa s s to ba * a lW as Reservoir or Lake (NHD) D ar ! ri nC Sa La Jolla Was h Chico rShunie oy o huni e Ar Cuerda h G uns Hoa Murk Le na Why ! Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? ? Stream Gage (USGS) ! de igh t s ! Sikort Chuapo Ri o C YUMA LOWER GILA YUMA PIMA Coy o te Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) ! Charco ! ! Hotason Vo Was h ! ! Schuchuli River or Stream (ALRIS) ! ! ! Tule Was h Kua WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE ka t c *b Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) hW ash 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Kuakatch ! Pap ago Wash A W ji ta ash gu a Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Gu Vo h Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) ! sh Vo Wa Gu o as W ni IZO NA (US A) ME XIC O Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) A lamo W as h er i Ch AR Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) SAN SIMON WASH State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) a at vi Sio Shu BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land k Wash Siovi Sweetwater ! Pia Oik Shuatak ! W P ia Oi k as h ! Lukeville ! Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) h C Al i as uk W Ali Ak Chin ! h Ali Chuk ! 0 10 0 20 Km 8 BASINS ARI ZON A(U S A) ME XIC O Miles 16 ¶ COUNTIES NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 257 B3 5N h Was rye l h Wa s k ee o r k As h r pr ing Creek xS Bo k k to n Wa sh ek as as h Ho t We ll D r aw a O wl S h Was SAFFORD Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) Lake ! River or Stream (ALRIS) ! ! ! ! 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) GRAHAM Dial Wash k COCHISE Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) as h S at o n ac W Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) Soz a Was h Hookers Hot Springs W ! l B sh C od nyo Hot S p rin g s C a ee yon Can State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) Bowie Junction (historical) !Luzena sh Wa yo n n a o LOWER SAN PEDRO BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land ! ! Raso Wash ! Bowie ! n Olga ! UPPER SAN PEDRO Buckeye Mill Willcox H py Camp Wash Was h an Ter ap ! ! old G G 0 ch ul as as W Palom Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Chaney Place r prin an re ek ey C Re i l Stream Gage (USGS) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Bradberry 7.5 15 Km kC a ny h on Miles 15 7.5 e sh e Cr 0 A Dos Cabezas sA Wash Tre lamo s ! BASINS e roc k Cre k Re d COUNTIES dC r e ek Cochise r o ed Johnson ! ! ln u Wa ¶ a Br Ri v er ge Ri d San P ! ! ? ? WILLCOX ! Poo Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) im on Ri ve S pri n g Wa s h Willow h Mud S on y Wa n Whitlock CienegaParks s ! g F ree hC As C G s a sW B W Wa sh Ma k sh S So uth W WA r-X Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir or Lake (NHD) Tanque a C Ho r ton C ree rtin re ek Sunset ! h Oa k C ! R ! ! h as nW nyo Ca h as W Groundwater Basin (ADWR) ! Sout h k Ho g North O ak Cr eek State (ALRIS) r ! ee k Cr ipa ek a va Hi gh Cre r A Redf ield o re Je Lo w re h gC Bi W h n as n yo W Ca n e o n i v ny ape k Ca Gr Pitc h f or Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) w k Dr a Oa Bonita e Cre k k c sp ie Cr ee ! re e on C bs C tTurkey ili g Tw Flat ! a R attle snake ! Artesia ek ee Cr ck Wash Slic k R o Sto c k ar G ARAVAIPA CANYON ver Ri a P s dd y k n Cre e Noo C ash rW ay lo th T So u Cr su J a k ee son Cr eek Gib ek re h a Wa s ijild h Was r eek eC or er dn Ma ! C ek Old Columbine F Pos t r e E Two C itl oc k Wh wCr ee S y ca m D e er C k s a ny on W G ou ash dy C a n yon Wa Gr sh ant ll o Wa sh r Fr esn a WILLCOX NORTH GROUNDWATER BASIN i ll e e n n Ke Cactus Flat ! Lebanon Swift ! Trail Junction ! ree Fa dy ak O Wi ep he ll s r C k ee S k ua C re e Sq w Wa s h Water Resources Development Commission ash tW Bi O B Dra w sh d Wa g S an Taylor Place ! ! NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. ! The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 258 B3 5S Water Resources Development Commission g Ri d a Br d Cr ek e Cochise ! Johnson O B Dra w h Wa s and Big S ! h Was lnut Wa Kansas Settlement Taylor Place White t ail Cree e st a ting W h Manzoro ! State (ALRIS) Cre ek Groundwater Basin (ADWR) ! R ! Oak C ree r k p k Dragoon ! s Ea Pine Cree ry k ! Five mil e Cree k Pi ne Cre ek r D th N or W Turke y Cr e ek ek C e River or Stream (ALRIS) ! ! ! ! Cre rkey Tu ! Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Rock C ree k Sunizona ! 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) e k Sla vin Wash Ash C r Black Diamond e ek ek e ok Sou h F t Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Ca ve C k ree Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) son Wa sh nde r He ! ! State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) k ree w ood C BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land e Cr Br us h y *b Courtland ek l W H aber s to c ow Wil UPPER SAN PEDRO Cr ash kW ash rd W h as St anfor d Cre Pridh am Creek ! ffo Cli ve Ca r nte Wash Escala W hi tewa t er D Ru c ker n Canyo t Co Grizzles Orchard ! r aw to n W a lnut ! ! Gleeson G ulch ! Tombstone k Reev es C re e Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) st Ea Stream Gage (USGS) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) Paradise Oni o Cr eek WILLCOX Pearce ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ! ! itc tc h Wi uth Arizona Sun Sites ! ? ? n S o Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! reek hC W it ch reek C s ! Galeyville ek r h Was on o ag Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir or Lake (NHD) t Whitet ail C reek Hilltop ! Tully Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) K e e Sh e ! !SAFFORD ! Wa s WILLCOX SOUTH GROUNDWATER BASIN e DOUGLAS ! D aw r a Me s Elfrida ! ! 0 DOUGLAS INA 7 0 Bu c Mulb erry Dr Gadwell Can on y w McNeal ! Chiricahua Big Bend Cr eek Lewis Springs ! BASINS SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY ! S an d ro Pe e C re ek ¶ COUNTIES *a li Le s Mile 14 7 a r eek kC ! 14 Km a n ger a n Cr ek e sh nning Cree Ba k Ind W ia Ri ver D NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. ! Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 ! Bernardino ! MAP LOCATION 259 B3 6 Water Resources Development Commission s YUMA GROUNDWATER BASIN D B ig E Ca stl e o me ye Was h h a W Imperial Reservoir Town (GNIS) ! County (ALRIS) Laguna ! State (ALRIS) Kool Corner tW ash Be Kinter Dome ! sh Wa s gn ! Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? ? Stream Gage (USGS) ! CA LIF OR Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) s ! Roll W as Mu g Blaisdell ! ! Small Reservoir or Lake (NHD) i Gi la Riv e r NI A ! r ga h Yuma M n Steam ! R ! r o ! ! ! ng M Lo h Wash San Dionysio (historical) Groundwater Basin (ADWR) ! *d Was az n ou ne t Vin eg ar ro on ntai n Ar Was h ! ! a un ! Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) Tanque Aloma Tacna Fo Fortuna rt sh Wa Fortuna Foothills ! Wellton ! Asher ! River or Stream (ALRIS) ! ! ! Ligurta ! !! Noah ! ! Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) ! Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) LOWER GILA Co lorad iver oR Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) YUMA 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Somerton ! Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Designated ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Gadsden ! Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) YUMA COUNTY BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private and Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land San Luis ! a * 0 7 0 AR IZ ME ON A XIC O 14 Km 5 (US A) Coyote Wa sh BASINS Miles 10 ¶ COUNTIES WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE La Jo lla h as W NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / Basin Maps / June 17, 2011 MAP LOCATION 260 ! na C r e gu La ito W h as Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 0 on De l M National Park Military Reserve Private or Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land River or Stream (ALRIS) Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) MAP EXTENT National Forest Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) as h W ee d c he Reservoir, Lake (NHD) n nt K Be k tter e Sc a sh ee k e C r eek se Cr ee ee Cr Pu e rco Riv e r ash wW W ill o Wa Soil lly ve Wash Co a c h uk a i C r ua S Ag a ny o n oc k C B la ck R Can yon D e C he to ek BLM Land i Was an s r State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) ad h as l in z Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) De W W L Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) sh do h Wa h County (ALRIS) Miles 20 e a in W Ru o bi t sh C o lo ra blo as Many Farms Lake uk a Wa li Town (GNIS) 10 in s Wa h LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU lakai Wa s h Ba W id e k K in 20 Kilometers k e Cr k Co yote Wa s re at e r rro y ek C-1.1N APACHE COUNTY (North Half) Land Tenure o iskey C ree k Wh eatfield s C r W 10 ee en h C 0 Cr O raib i Was h de st e as Cr ¶ ek Ho W as h o NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. d Ja NAVAJO COUNTY um ps Po lac c APACHE COUNTY Ty e h Gy C hinle o Ts y ek C n Co oat Was h e ek e Cr Na n it St eamb aW as A spen Wa s h Wa sh ood t to nw ta o un Bl ac k M Pu e ukai Bo Sa h h W a re ue k ee Black a sh C hinle W Cr ch k ile Lu al Ts a rC r h l ke o kh ac W Bl k Environmental Working Group ash dW h s t in i W Re Da e ek To h B la c COUNTY MAPS Water Resources Development Commission ew hit A 261 Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 0 0 10 20 Kilometers ad Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) h as on De l M h i Was Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Stream Gage (USGS) W W River or Stream (ALRIS) Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) De do h l in an as h Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Designated ESA Critical Habitat Area (USFWS) ! Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Major Spring (ADWR) ! ! Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) sh o bi t sh C o lo ra blo as c z Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) ! Miles 20 k a in W Ru lakai Wa s h Ba W id e h LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Lu Small Reservoir Large Reservoir County (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) Town (GNIS) 10 ¶ in s Wa Many Farms Lake ka ek ee as h W ee c he e C r eek k se Cr ee ee Cr Pu e rco Riv e r sh Wa Soil h k Was i ll ow dW e r t te S ca MAP EXTENT n nt K Be ve Wash Co a c h uk a i C r ua S Ag a ny o n oc k C B la ck R l ly Can yon D e C h e to Wa li s ! h as k re e k C oy ote W as re w te A rr ek APACHE COUNTY (North Half) Natural Resources o yo iskey C ree k Wh eatfield s C r a ! ? ? oW ee Cre e k e C h inle C st e hit e W r it ad Cr na gu Orai b i Wa sh de La Ho h C ! R ! ! Cr as K in NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. J NAVAJO COUNTY m su aW as h p Gy APACHE COUNTY Ty e n Co o a t Wa s h Po lac c A spen Wa s h Wa sh ood t to nw ta o un Bl ac k M W y so nT Na S tea mb Cr it o Sa C k ee as h n Bo P ue ai W h W a r ue re B la c e ek as h W Black k hu k Cr inle Ch Lu al le rC r Ts ai l ke o kh W B c la h sh W Environmental Working Group h s ti a ni W Re d Da e ek To h k k ee C-1.2N Water Resources Development Commission r 262 ! D ur h No rt Cr ee k Littl e W F ork h ite C ng a sW sh er Be av Ba r H rl Cr Co C re e k Sn ak e ee Cr ash C ree hC k g Zu ni R ro ne ga n reek oC k Tonto C reek k lC k ee Cr k Military Reserve Private or Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) MAP EXTENT National Park River or Stream (ALRIS) k National Forest ee re ek C at e ra w r rro yo m o le ee Cr k Cr k ega ee i en gC Lo n 0 0 10 20 Kilometers Miles 20 APACHE COUNTY (South Half) Land Tenure 10 ¶ NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. reek Bob Th om as C nF r an c is co R iver an Sa re ek lk C ly Li C oyote C reek MORENCI yard C Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) Cr B one Reservoir, Lake (NHD) re e at Ri Ja ra l o s Mi ek re eek sC R igg C o l te r Cr k Cree ek d Cr e R u d O pen D ra w Cre ek De er Cr ee k rk B l ack B t en i g an M ill BLM Land C ild c H n Eagar ! ! State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) k ss W Fo Vigil Run ! Saint Johns Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) l Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) r ee E C reek er am Carrizo Was h t re ek e Cre C re ek om H orse County (ALRIS) ek C re y Bu tterfl SALT RIVER C re ek C an Rive r tle Col ek ek r e re y C k C L it rc o M or Pu e i v er h Wa s W l ky D am Mi ash Nine m ile W r ee k Bo g C ek C re C ree k C ro o ked le Lit t R oc a ne g C ie it on k ree reek yC ke rn C ry b er ose Go re e k ek re ow C B r o wn Cre h e e Sn o k wS tak k e iamond C re ek ee D Cr Cr ti tle ee ey l L l k a eV nd C ree k Co o Le mo nC reek Dia Moo n Creek box r eek Thom ps on Cree k C F ire k P p Cre e River ea Dee S tink e s t i h ou y Cre ek kW p Cr Ea s t F o Hay C ee r k W s wL am ill i S ho v en as LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Se ri Sp as h D ry W D W r ve Town (GNIS) BONITA CREEK ! Pinetop-Lakeside Show Low ! er W a sh dr ig g Li t h as W sh on en ho d NAVAJ O COUNTY d ea Bu GILA COUNTY Taylor ! ! Snowflake h ree k Pa ce C GRAHAM COUNTY SAFFORD JOSEPH CITY INA Holbrook r it o Cre e ! k re ek heta C ree P ac yC D Wa sh in e Ru Wid as W d Cre e k Or k ree Pa d d B C gy og Bon S q Fla s u a h Cre w Cree ek k Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 k ee Ri GRAHAM COUNTY T ho o bit Sa Ea GILA COUNTY Fis W ild C ow Wa ek re Cra zy nc e y Dr aw Ch en ut E NAVAJO COUNTY re ek APACHE C OUNTY T ro r rth t as k ac Bl Co No ver C iv e k B H a l l R os e Pu lc i fe rC R ee Cr B ig Bi h as W w Ho llo ar Cre ek ek Wa te r Ca k ek ee D ra w re Cr so O M ra l C i ne yo n o ad or R iv W ts at GREENLEE COUNTY nS yo o Cree k trios re ek Environmental Working Group Nu C A on W w hi te a C-1.1S Water Resources Development Commission 263 Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Stream Gage (USGS) ! ? ? ! ! k ke Cr ee k ro ne k k ee Cr rn i to C ie a neg ek Cre e Cre k Tonto C reek k SALT RIVER lC r ee k E ss C re e k Designated ESA Critical Habitat Area (USFWS) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) n Bo k ree e e Sn o k wS tak k ek m e a ond i re C re e D Cr e l tt yC e i e e l L k al eV Co o nd C ree k Le mo nC reek Dia Moo n Cree k box r eek Thom ps on Cree k C F ire k P p Cre e River ea Dee St in k so hite y C re up kW ek o C F Ea s t re Hay C ek r k ee R oc o ok ro C r ee k C y C re ek tle B utterfl Lit k e W re ild c yC at ke Cr ur ee k r l Cr a Sn k Ca er on Stre H am Saint Johns ! Eagar Ri B one MAP EXTENT Cr ee k J le yo Dra w rr o k 0 0 10 20 Kilometers Miles 20 APACHE COUNTY (South Half) Natural Resources 10 ¶ NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. reek Bob Th om as C nc i s co Rive r L ee Cr i ly k ega ee i en gC Lo n ra Cr nF n ma Sa Cre ek ilk Co a alos r C oyote Creek MORENCI yard M ek to re sC r eek en B R igg C o l te r C k Cree ek d Cr e R u d i g an M ill O pen D ra w Cre ek De er Cr ee k lack ! ! Carrizo Wash any Fo rk B Vigil Run Li t tle Co i v er k r ee ee C Cr y ree hC ig Zu ni R h Mo r Riv e r k ree s ! Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Major Spring (ADWR) ! e Cr e r ry be l Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) o se Go ek h rc o r ve !r R ! ! C re r ee k Bo g C Littl e Cr s rk Wh ite am Ba r H h Fo il li C re e No rt W k Cr ee k k ee L ow Bro wn C re Co Bu BONITA CREEK Sh ow ash d Cre e k Or GILA COUNTY ! Pinetop-Lakeside Show Low ! nS sW Wa s Pu e ate ree k Pa ce C GRAHAM COUNTY SAFFORD Taylor ! C Snowflake k Co r ! ve g p rin B y lk Wa s r D am eav e Mi LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Se Dry Was h C as h Nine m ile W De h as W re ek heta C Bi g Bo nit Fla sh JOSEPH CITY INA in ad P ac ree C gy og dy C Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 k ee P ad Holbrook ash u eR Wid Ea u aw C re ek ! Sa W gg er dr Di Li t T as h en ho d NAVAJ O COUNTY ek re W h as W on sh Wild Cow W a n ey Dra w h P n as W Fis to bi B Cree k Ri GRAHAM COUNTY Ea e om k ac Bl GREENLEE COUNTY r th st GILA COUNTY No ve r NAVAJO COUNTY ee k Cr ul c if er Che t Cr B Cr a zy ek c ho Cre a sh W w Ho llo r H a l l R os e APACHE C OUNTY ou Tr r Cr ed e Cr ek eek Sq iv e k C re e k R ee Cr rs e W ts at Ho ek Wa ter ek k w re ee M ra l C i ne Cr D ra so O o Ca ny on Environmental Working Group d ra lo Ri v k nC ga re trioso C e k re e Nu C A n W w hite ar C-1.2S Water Resources Development Commission ! 264 Water Resources Development Commission GRA HAM COUNTY COCHISE COUNTY As hC ch G ul C ss gs H ot S p ri n n Ca yo Go ld Ba ! k a n yon re e LOWER SAN PEDRO n S an SAFFORD dro Pe Willcox Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) ! Sa R ver nS im on Ri ve r s Alamo s Wash Tre O BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private or Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land B Dr a w reek P iner y C Dr a as nW h P ine Cr e ek y ke re C ek r Tu st Ea rk Cave Cre o F k r th re e No aC Ward C an y on C i m Cr ee k ek Turkey Creek ve ! o go Ca PIMA C OU NTY COCHISE COUNTY WILLCOX Benson Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) i TUCSON AMA COCHISE COUNTY Land Tenure DUNCAN VALLEY C-2.1 o n CIENEGA CREEK UPPER SAN PEDRO PI MA COU NTY SA NTA CRU Z C OU NTY Wh Walnut itew a t e r D raw Tombstone 0 G a dw ell Ca ny on DOUGLAS INA COCHISE COUN TY Sierra Vista li Le s e Creek Big Bend Creek ! 0 ny ! S i lve a rC on B la r Cr e ek Douglas ! Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 y d a lup e C an on Bisbee n M i l le SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY on ua yo an ey C an y aw Dr G s Ram Ca rr C d ar n Creek ck ek G yo an 20 Kilometers 10 Miles 20 MAP EXTENT a n Cre C en 10 D raw Huachuca City M ulbe r ry di In SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ny aw Dr iv e r ! SAN RAFAEL Mes a DOUGLAS ri R uc Ca G ulch ! B abo co m a R r ke ¶ NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. 265 Water Resources Development Commission GRAHAM COUNTY COCHISE COUNTY As hC ch G ul sC H ot gs S pri n Ca ny Go ld s ! k a n yon re e Ba LOWER SAN PEDRO on S an !r R ! SAFFORD d ro Pe Willcox ! Sa R i ver nS im on s ! R s Alamos W ash Tre TUCSON AMA COCHISE COUNTY Natural Resources DUNCAN VALLEY iv e r ! ? ? O COC HISE COU NTY B Dr a w !! ! ! r eek P iner y C on W as h P in e C r ee k re C ey ek rk Tu st E a rk Cave Cree Fo k r th re e No aC Wa rd C a ny o n C i m ee Cr Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Stream Gage (USGS) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Designated ESA Critical Habitat Area (USFWS) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) k k Tu rk ey Creek ve go Dr a ! Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Major Spring (ADWR) Ca P I M A CO U N T Y WILLCOX Benson C-2.2 o n CIENEGA CREEK UPPER SAN PEDRO PIMA COUNTY SANTA CRUZ COUN TY Wh Walnut Gu lch it ew a te r D raw Tombstone ! iR B abo co m a r an y 0 M ulbe G adw ll Ca ny on e DOUGLAS INA li Le s reek eC rr y Big Bend Creek ! 0 n Cre w Dra M i l le r Ca n n yo ! Cr e ek Douglas ! Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 yo a l u p e Ca n n Bisbee n yo B la S i lver Ca rr an SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY ny o n Gu ad sey Ca R am C ny ck ek Ca 20 Kilometers 10 Miles 20 MAP EXTENT ia G n de ar re ek on C 10 D raw Huachuca City Sierra Vista COCHISE COUNTY rC aw Dr d In SANTA CRUZ COUNTY u r iv e ! SAN RAFAEL Mes a DOUGLAS R e ck ¶ NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. 266 Water Resources Development Commission COCONINO COUNTY (North Half) Land Tenure Lake Powell h Pa ria River an y a nyo n ! C ha te An Ri o ra d C Ca ny on So u Tata r e ek it C ee k reek sh t An ge ya l A Ro yo Lit Cr en ar d G Cr t t le sh C Moe n k opi W h as ee k eek Cr ek v as u L Br ig h rc h lC C re Canyon ek i nyo n Ca aw k as h W H er m a Mo h ek in bl e ko w e Cr Cre H 0 9 18 Kilometers ec L ee sp P ro San d k ee C ed ¶ Environmental Working Group ge Cre Pa rtri d ek M tin ar w ad De ma n Wa s Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 Or ai bi W a i nn h Pola cca BIG O UNT Y SANDY ra mD Da D as W ebit o h UN T ata r c t C ree a k CO Y YA VA PA IC VERDE RIVER C INO ed a sh ke W La COC ON R sh ash W COCONINO COUN TY W ash y ll e PEACH SPRINGS Miles 20 MAP EXTENT ring Va Sp Chino Wa sh MOHAVE COUN TY a sh ar r Mille as h H o rse W W R ed h 10 sh a n Cr 0 p as W m ond on Tap ne st o D ia C a ny Wa t Cr e ek COCONINO PLATEAU an to m P ipe P as tu re W a s Ph h r Ri ve y Cr l ta Cr k ee oW as olorad o tle Co Nan ap i te um Wa m ver Shi a ts o Ha eek e Cr Color a do R LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU p S prin g Wash n yo No rt h r ee sh ibit an th ee k Cr C r No n W hit SHIVWITS PLATEAU Sh n De er Cree k sh n Wa yo an C th sh Ri ve ol h de r ek B ega ek sh yo Th un Cr k ree k an ajo C to oc l ai C e Cr Ka n a b Cre ek us H N av eek e e op Ho nyo n Ca y on r o Wa anyon e C K an n Sowats Ca KANAB PLATEAU ve R i Cr Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private or Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land NAVAJO COUNTY n Ju m e Ka ib i iyah o Wa Ca n gs W arm Sp rin C p up a n yon k PARIA l Gu ke lc h Sn a Cr ee Page t C an yo n yo on ! COCONINO COUNTY Rock C k Cr e e Azte c as ge W Sa ca ! Fredonia as h nW hn s o Jo Wi ld Jacob te W hi C st Colorado City We ! C-3.1N ash W NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. 267 Water Resources Development Commission COCONINO COUNTY (North Half) Natural Resources Lake Powell s ! Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Major Spring (ADWR) ! ? Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? Stream Gage (USGS) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Designated ESA Critical Habitat Area (USFWS) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ! an y a nyo n ! C ha te An Ri o ra d C r e ek it C ee k reek sh t An ge ya l A Ro yo Lit Cr en ar d G Cr t t le sh C Moe n k opi W h as ee k eek Cr ek v as u L Br ig h rc h lC C re Canyon ek i nyo n Ca aw k as h W H er m a Mo h ek in bl e ko w e Cr Cre H 0 10 20 Kilometers ec L ee sp P ro San d k ee C ed ¶ Environmental Working Group ge Cre Pa rtri d ek M tin ar w ad De ma n Wa s Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 Or ai bi W a i nn h Pola cca BIG O UNT Y SANDY ra mD Da D as W ebit o h UN T ata r c t C ree a k CO Y YA VA PA IC VERDE RIVER C INO ed a sh ke W La COC ON R sh ash W MOHAVE COUN TY W ash y ll e PEACH SPRINGS Miles 20 MAP EXTENT ring Va Sp Chino Wa sh COCONINO COUN TY a sh ar r Mille as h H o rse W W R ed h 10 sh a n Cr 0 p as W m ond on Tap ne st o D ia C a ny Wa t Cr e ek COCONINO PLATEAU an to m P ipe P as tu re W a s Ph h r Ri ve y Cr l ta Cr k ee oW as olorad o tle Co Nan ap i te um Wa m ver Shi a ts o Ha eek e Cr Color a do R sh ibit Ca ny on So u Tata No rt h r !! ! ! LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU p S prin g Wash n yo th ee k Cr an ee n De er Cree k C r No n W hit SHIVWITS PLATEAU Sh sh Ri ve sh n Wa yo an C th h de r ol B ega ek sh yo Th un ek k ree k an Cr C to oc l ai C e Cr Ka n a b Cre ek us H ajo e e op Ho nyo n Ca y on o Wa anyon e C K an n Sowats Ca KANAB PLATEAU v R N av !r R ! ek NAVAJO COUNTY n e er Ka ib i iya re hi C o Wa Ca Ju m gs W arm Sp rin C p up a n yon k PARIA n l Gu ke lc h Sn a Cr ee Page t C an yo n yo on k Rock C ria River COCONINO COUNTY te S Cr e e Azte c W hi Pa ca ! Fredonia as h nW hn s o Jo Wi ld Jacob h C st Colorado City e W as ag We ! C-3.2N ash W NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. 268 Water Resources Development Commission Sa e W ash Mille COCONINO COUNTY (South Half) Land Tenure s uC W ash r t on H a va s nd e re ring Va Sp Or ai COCONINO PLATEAU h ash an W d Re ta Ja as h Co lor ek lnut C Wa an y n w llo Ye Sedona e nyon ac n Diablo r Cle an y n Leo Cr W i llow n ar d o tC es h Ye a W a C ge r Canyo n s k Eas t m To k ee Cr ree ! rC Dewey-Humbolt ! 0 o ee k L Payson ! UPPER HASSAYAMPA GILA COUNTY TONTO CREEK YAVAPAI COUNTY MCMULLEN VALLEY Environmental Working Group CO INO PHOENIX AMA Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 UN CO TY UN SALT RIVER Miles 20 ¶ TY NAVAJO COUNTY GI A GILA COUNTY AGUA FRIA CO N 20 Kilometers MAP EXTENT n CO 10 0 Wi ld c a t Ca n y o BILL WILLIAMS Camp Verde le Prescott ! k re e Cany C on lon C PRESCOTT AMA C hev e n D raw Cree k ar B rady Ca ny o Prescott Valley n ek Clear C e on any ! ! yo Can Sa n d ick C Ra r Ca t es Clarkdale Jerome ! Cottonwood ! ! ! G ra p e yo n Ca Winslow J ny o ek re ! n yo W Chino Valley g an c ll a Wa nyo n a C r e n Yae Cree nds Anderso n C a C ak O LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU C n k Mu ket C Jac ks re g Ca ny o ee k VERDE RIVER n yo v in e Cr S te rl in Ca n Pad ash o As hu rst R un C ar d COCONINO COU NTY Tank W Military Reserve Private or Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land reek S n State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) BLM Land National Forest National Park o R i ver a nyon Y oung s C Flagstaff ! n nyo more C r e e k y ca M S p r in g C a Ce YAVAPAI COUN TY Bi g e YAVAPAI COUNTY De B ear C Ca nyon Ca nyo M on ny Ca g ny o n D o Hell a vil T ul MOHAV E COU NTY BIG SANDY re ag ! ash hW ncisco W Fr a ash Sa n Sch ultz C l ad R io e F d Williams t ea dit Litt le n h as e W W Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) ash oW NAVAJO COUNTY ve Dr aw ne La k Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) h as W COCONINO COUNTY Pi Da m dm Pola cc a rtin D ea e v elo n Ca ny a h C h in o W s b it Dinn e Ma ge Cr ee Part r id k ! sh ar oW as PEACH SPRINGS C-3.1S h as h W k ee bi Wa act Was ta r Ce d Ca y l le COCONINO COUNTY k Cr MOHAV E COUNTY SHIVWITS PLATEAU Red Ho rse W as h NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. 269 Water Resources Development Commission Sa e W ash Mille COCONINO COUNTY (South Half) Natural Resources s uC W ash r t on H a va s nd e re ring Va Sp rtin ma n Wa sh d Re ta Ja as h lor ek re Sch ultz C lnut C Wa River or Stream (ALRIS) !! ! ! C Sedona e nyon ks Ca ac n Diablo r t es D raw Cree k ar Cr W i llow Leo o tC es h W Ye a 0 L Payson ! UPPER HASSAYAMPA GILA COUNTY TONTO CREEK YAVAPAI COUNTY MCMULLEN VALLEY Environmental Working Group CO INO PHOENIX AMA Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 UN CO TY UN SALT RIVER 10 Miles 20 ¶ TY NAVAJO COUNTY GI A GILA COUNTY AGUA FRIA CO N 20 Kilometers MAP EXTENT n CO 10 lon C an y n Cany a C ge r Canyo n ree rC s k Eas t m To k ee Cr le ! ! 0 o ee k n ar d Camp Verde Wi ld c a t Ca n y o BILL WILLIAMS k re e C hev e n C on Dewey-Humbolt Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Cle PRESCOTT AMA Prescott n ek Clear C e on any B rady Ca ny o ! yo Can Designated ESA Critical Habitat Area (USFWS) W ick C Ra r ! G ra p e yo n Ca Winslow J ek re ! n yo c ll a Wa nyo n a C r e n g an Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Sa n d Cree nds Anderso n C a k ak LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU C n ee k Mu Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) an y w llo Ye ket C Jac ny o g Ca ny o ! ! Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) n re Ca on ny v in e d Cr S te rl in Clarkdale ! Jerome Cottonwood ! Prescott Valley Stream Gage (USGS) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) Yae ash O ! ? o R i ver o Pad Tank W VERDE RIVER Chino Valley Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) reek As hu rst R un n ar ! ? a nyon Y oung s C Flagstaff ! yon S Ce COCONINO COU NTY S p r in g C an more C r e e k y ca M Bi g n anyo e YAVAPAI COUNTY De YAVAPAI COUN TY n Ca og Hel D l vil C t B ear C Ca nyon Ca nyo ea T ul MOHAV E COU NTY M ncisco W Fr a ash Sa n ag BIG SANDY dit ad l Williams ! n yo Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Major Spring (ADWR) Co R io e F d ash hW s ! Litt le n h as e W W ash oW r NAVAJO COUNTY ve Dr aw ne La k ! R ! COCONINO COUNTY Pi Da m d D ea Small Reservoir (ADWR) h as W Pola cc a b it Dinn e e v elo n Ca ny a h C h in o W s ge Cr ee Part r id k Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) h Ma Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Or ai COCONINO PLATEAU ! sh ar oW as PEACH SPRINGS C-3.2S h as h W k ee bi Wa act Was ta r Ce d Ca y l le COCONINO COUNTY k Cr MOHAV E COUNTY SHIVWITS PLATEAU Red Ho rse W as h NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. 270 C-4.1 Water Resources Development Commission GILA COUNTY Land Tenure ! Camp Verde Snowflake Ch e ! k r in Sp re e k Ce re e k M id k Am o r e sh Bear W a e UN TY CO UN TY CO ch n Ca rlos R iver AM AP AC HE C re ek In r Roc C amp aign r 0 ek 10 20 Kilometers h Gilso n Wash MORENCI Miles 20 0 ek C re Ran ch l M in er a e ek Cr Ru s s el l G ul PINA L COUNTY ek C re lC re LOWER SAN Hayden ! ! PEDRO Winkelman DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH GRAHAM COUNTY ek ! BONITA CREEK ca es Coolidge ! Kearny r ! DONNELLY WASH SAFFORD M Florence i ve aR PINAL AMA San Carlos Reservoir PINAL COUNTY MAR IC OPA COU NTY k ac Sa t as G il Maricopa ! Superior ! Y NT OU TY AC UN G IL CO AL P IN ! r dian C e Na Queen Creek W ek Chandler ! bo z C re ! R iv u ra l l C o rr a Gilbert Globe ! Sycam o re ! Guadalupe ! m Ra Miami ! ue Bl Miami Wa sh Apache Junction ! Ri ve k ree Tempe ! Cre ek Co on ! PHOENIX AMA Mesa Bl C al Phoenix er Riv Pi n Scottsdale ! reek Pinto C Paradise Valley ! C dar C Ce W h ite SALT RIVER Theodore Roosevelt Lake ! Apache Lake st S ek Fountain Hills ek re kC Ea as h sW to To n C re ek d le oC k ee r C reek k re e ed a oy C re e ee Cr C S a ltR i ve r re C a lome d ur C arri z k ee k Cr e cu an ee nb ac k n Cree k lds Creek y no Re km Gr k or W reek in g C ! Cr ee nyo Ca L am b Bartlett Reservoir Carefree ! GILA COUNTY B Cor da r C NAVAJO COUNTY k Gun C r eek re e gC Horseshoe Reservoir BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private or Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land AH TONTO CREEK P Cave Creek Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) Pinetop-Lakeside Cib r ve Ri Cree rry GR e Show Low r Hou e Cr YAVAPAI CO UNT Y MARICOP A CO UNT Y s ton Cre e k ye VERDE RIVER H aigle Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) ! k GILA COUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY R Ve rd e C om re o tt ek W CO UN TY U NT Y ek Payson ! B et LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU NAVAJO COUNTY er CO ! APACHE COUNTY eR iv CO NI N O ! Cre Ve rd LA GI Eas t CO Taylor NAVAJO COUNTY ree k e r Creek Di c Hk W or illi t o am n sC C re re ek ek C Elli son Christo p h AGUA FRIA COCONINO COUNTY k k re e r ee ley C de C Per k Du r ee reek bber Cre We ek Bray Creek sil C Fos P in eC ! MAP EXTENT ¶ NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. ARAVAIPA CANYON ! Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 271 Water Resources Development Commission GILA COUNTY Natural Resources ! Camp Verde Snowflake ek Cre Payson NAVAJO COUNTY C reek ek C re Am o sh In e ek UN TY CO UN TY r a CO n W ash AH GR MORENCI BONITA CREEK lC re GRAHAM COUNTY LOWER SAN Hayden ! ! PEDRO Winkelman DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH PINAL COUNTY ek ! er Coolidge ! Kearny SAFFORD ca es ! DONNELLY WASH R iv Florence San Carlos Reservoir M PINAL AMA AM AP AC HE r 0 10 20 Kilometers 0 10 Miles 20 k Russ e ll G ulc h n Carl os R iver M in er Gilso Sa Cr e e C re ek C amp aign r dian C Ra n ch Roc k ac PIN AL COUNTY er Riv k MARIC OPA C OU NTY Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) re e h G ila ! k W as Y NT OU TY AC UN G IL CO AL P IN ! Maricopa r ee lC Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Designated ESA Critical Habitat Area (USFWS) iv e N Superior ! Queen Creek Globe ! ek Chandler ! ! eR a tu C r al al C o rr Gilbert ! Miami ! B lu Syc amore C re Guadalupe ! Apache Junction oz mb ! Ra Tempe ! Miam i Wa sh ! PHOENIX AMA Mesa Ri ve k ree ! Phoenix Cre ek Co on Scottsdale Stream Gage (USGS) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) C al ! ? Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) Pi n Apache Lake Paradise Valley reek Pinto C ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) dar C Bl ! ? Bear W a C s ! River or Stream (ALRIS) C ek a l t Riv er W h ite SALT RIVER Theodore Roosevelt Lake st re ek Fountain Hills ek re kC Ea Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Major Spring (ADWR) !! ! ! as h sW to Ton C re ek le Small Reservoir (ADWR) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) ed ar Ce k d M id re e r e S re C lome C k ee Cib Cr e ek e cu Sa Cr ee k lds Creek y no Re an ee nb ac k k km Gr Cr ee or W reek in g C ! B oC L am b Bartlett Reservoir Carefree ! GILA COUNTY oy d ur Cor dar C re G Y NAVAJO COUNTY un ek Cre C arri z k TONTO CREEK APACHE COUNTY ! P Cave Creek Pinetop-Lakeside k MARICOP A CO UNT e Horseshoe Reservoir Cree rry e Cr e e g k NT Y Sp ri Ch e ye e Cr YAVAPAI COUNTY R Show Low k GILA COUNTY VERDE RIVER YAVAPAI CO U s ton Cre e k C om r Hou r ve Ri ott r ! R ! ! n Ve rd e tB k ee We H aigle Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) r k ee Cr ! Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU e er CO UN CO TY U NT Y ! yo n eR iv CO NI N O ! Can Ve rd LA GI Eas t CO Taylor NAVAJO COUNTY ree k e r Creek Di c Hk W or illi t o am n sC C re re ek ek C Elli son Christo p h AGUA FRIA COCONINO COUNTY k k re e r ee ley C de C Per Du ek reek bber Cre We ek Bray Creek Cr e sil Fos P in eC ! C-4.2 MAP EXTENT ¶ NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. ARAVAIPA CANYON ! Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 272 NAVAJO COUNTY APACHE COUNTY NAVAJO COUNTY GILA COUNTY Water Resources Development Commission GRAHAM COUNTY Land Tenure Bear Wallow Creek ! B lac k River SALT RIVER S ill wm ek Cr e Globe B ! e lu R er iv Ash C Salt Cre e Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) r e ek Po k S outh of Pi ne W ill sC rk Fo i nt o w C ree k k k re e ek Ci C re Pa hh o ok F is TY Boni eg a Cr ee ag l k eC re ek ta ek re N OU C P IN C AL Y BONITA CREEK en E k re e L NT Gila R iver r kC GI OU AC San Carlos Reservoir State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private or Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land MORENCI hC As re e Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) a er rlo s R i v Sa n Ca C-5.1 Ke lly G ul GR Pe c TY ek Pima Un d er w ! k Thatcher ARAVAIPA CANYON e e Was h Safford DUNCAN VALLEY k re e 0 Duncan zy H o rs eC r ee k D ak l el ra w St o c C re ch ek Gold Gul ld C any o R edfie gh WILLCOX a nS Hi S im o n Riv e r PIMA COUNTY n W as h to o r th Oak C re ek N PINAL COUNTY ek k C re Oa re e hC As any on Cree k eld C k R edfi UPPER SAN PEDRO 10 20 Kilometers 0 10 Miles 20 w k Cr ee B ig C re ek Po st Cr a k Environmental Working Group W ash To llgat Dra ke a n TUCSON AMA nC ma ! Ra GRAHAM COUNTY k C reek e re F ry yo Can ! O rC n ttles Yu d oo H ot W re ey C PINAL COU NTY C ! h C re as ip a W Tur k LOWER SAN PEDRO as so W t ote Wa oy SAFFORD pe Cop ! W as ee Cr er De Ar ava e Mammoth n k h h Winkelman TY UN ! UN CO CO AM ash EE AH ! ! NL GR ch kW Hayden Clifton EE DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH GRAHAM COUNTY COCHISE COUNTY Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 MAP EXTENT ¶ NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. 273 NAVAJO COUNTY GILA COUNTY NAVAJO COUNTY APACHE COUNTY Water Resources Development Commission GRAHAM COUNTY Natural Resources Bear Wallow Creek Black R iver ! SALT RIVER S a ill wm !r R ! eek Cr Globe B ! e lu R er arlos R i v Sa n C er iv Ash C r e ek s ! Po Salt Cre ek S outh i nt of Pi ne sC rk Fo ! ? Ash Will o w C reek re ? ek MORENCI C re ek ek Cie n oo k F is hh BONITA CREEK Gila R iv er ee k ag le C r e ek ta re C Bon i !! ! ! Cr E San Carlos Reservoir r k r ee kC C re Pa eg a Cr W ee k as h Coyote Pe c as h er h as C Un d e ek re rw d oo ARAVAIPA CANYON 0 Duncan 10 Miles 20 gh C re D ak ra w D W Ho a sh Gold Gul ch R ed fi Hi re e k w eC ek S a im r o n Riv e As h Cr k ee Environmental Working Group 0 20 Kilometers ra o rs WILLCOX nyo n Cre ek eld Ca R edfi TUCSON AMA 10 k tC re e re e k P os zy H nS o rt h Oak C re ek ek k C re Oa N eld Can yo DUNCAN VALLEY ek Stockt o an C t reek C ra a Gr Ra C re te Wa s h ! ke k C reek e re e Fr y yon Can Big C rC sn ttle a Tollg Thatcher ! Safford ! O e GRAHAM COUNTY Pima W De n t We ll N TY OU CO UN LC pa C re PINAL COU NTY TY TY UN UN vai n PIMA COUNTY CO A ra n PINAL COUNTY Clifton ! CO rk ey Tu LOWER SAN PEDRO Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Designated ESA Critical Habitat Area (USFWS) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ! pe Cop ! so Wa t SAFFORD k Mammoth W Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Stream Gage (USGS) EE ash AM PI NA AH kW Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Major Spring (ADWR) NL GR GIL A lly G ul EE ! Y Ke GR ! DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH ch T ek C-5.2 UPPER SAN PEDRO GRAHAM COUNTY COCHISE COUNTY Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 MAP EXTENT ¶ NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. 274 ! Y NT OU C Y E NT LE OU EN C E GR AM AH GR Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 APA CH E Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) ek Sa r d ine C Ch Cr ee yC k L im re e co k aw C R ive r P igeo n Sq u h ulch ton e G es Wa s Clifton e re o C Strayh rse r e ek Silve r Creek To llgate as ry ek ek K P Cre ek Cr e Raspb er Turke r eek nn Gran t Ha Cr e ek C re ek r Ea C k ee ac Ap v er Military Reserve Private or Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land h Duncan Ri k ree Bit te r C DUNCAN VALLEY L in n de Cre ek ek Cr e EXTENT Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) BLM Land National Forest National Park MAP COCHISE COUNTY GRA HAM COUNTY SAFFORD C re h MORENCI e East Ea g le C r e le Ea g Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) k eep W as Sh Cr ee ow sN Bl u e ila G Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) al low Wi wk on e Riv er B lu Safford ar W F i sh Cre e Co n e k klin Ha C es t y an Dix Cre ek Thatcher BONITA CREEK Be Sn ak e Cre aver C reek Be GREENLEE COUN TY e Ja ck so n n WILLCOX Pima TY UN O C M er B la ck R iv Ch itt Do y Ca ub nyon le C C r ee i k e n eg a C r e ek Co rd u r oy C r e ek SALT RIVER TY UN CO HA GR A ek Ca k APACHE COUNTY ll H orto n Creek k ek Cav e Cre Cr e ek Th o a g ma s a n C r ee C ree k k cis Sa n Fra n Be Environmental Working Group re e k eek Cr re k el e Bear Creek C rC ll F A s D u tc h Blue Cre ek h pb e m ek Cree k oote r an re o ny Lop C ole m C np Ca re La r h ie eC Cr ee k 0 0 10 20 Kilometers Miles 20 GREENLEE COUNTY Land Tenure 10 ¶ NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. C-6.1 Water Resources Development Commission 275 Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 ! ? ? s ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Stream Gage (USGS) ! ! ! Sa r d ow ine C Ch as Ha wk sN Cr ee k yC re e ek aw C ive r Wa s h ulch ton e G es R P igeo n Sq u co k Designated ESA Critical Habitat Area (USFWS) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) To llgate re Bl u e o C Strayh rse r e ek L im Clifton e ry K P Cre ek Cr e Raspb er Turke r eek nn a on ny ek C es t Gran t Ha Silve r Creek Gila Riv er Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) COCHISE COUNTY GRA HAM COUNTY SAFFORD C re h Wi MORENCI e East Ea g le C r e Y NT OU C Y EE NT NL OU C EE R G AM AH GR Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Major Spring (ADWR) k eep W as Sh Cr ee ek r Safford al low le Ea g Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Thatcher BONITA CREEK ar W F i sh Cre e Co nk lin ek aver C reek Be GREENLEE COUN TY Cr e ek d C re ek ek Cr e r Ea C k ee ac Ap h MAP EXTENT Duncan k ree Bit te r C DUNCAN VALLEY L in en Cre ek e Riv er B lu ! R ! ! TY UN CO Be Sn ak e Cre Do ub l C yon SALT RIVER er B la ck R iv Co rd u r eC ie n eg a C r e ek oy C re ek r eek Ch itt y Ca n e Ja ck so n n WILLCOX Pima APA CH E G Y NT CO U AM RA H ek Ca k APACHE COUNTY ll H orto n Creek k ek Cav e Cre Cr e ek Th o a g ma s a n C r ee C ree k k cis Sa n Fra n Be Environmental Working Group re eek Cr rC k C el e Bear Creek A s D u tc h Blue Cre ek h ll r Dix Cre ek Lop pb e m C Cree k oote re e k an F yo an r C ole m k ee n rC re La ie ph eC Cr ee k 0 0 10 20 Kilometers Miles 20 GREENLEE COUNTY Natural Resources 10 ¶ NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. C-6.2 Water Resources Development Commission ! 276 Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 ! d o R iv er G ou ld Wash M oh eW as h a W a sh Yu ma sh YUMA nW do lora La C as h PARKER Twelvemile Slough Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) ia In d Lake W a sh Co ! Wa ! 0 0 Fr Cr ek Po o rm 10 10 ¶ YUMA COU NTY a Bouse Wa sh e W as h en bor n LA PAZ COUNTY Os R iv er Miles 20 LOWER GILA RANEGRAS PLAIN LA P A Z C OU N TY MOHAVE CO UNTY 20 Kilometers Bill Williams SACRAMENTO VALLEY Military Reserve Private or Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land EXTENT Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) BLM Land National Forest National Park MAP ! Quartzsite Italia n W as h Parker LAKE HAVASU ns Wa sh Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) C olora av ter W e li s ch M cA l BUTLER VALLEY ash gham W nin BILL WILLIAMS n Cu iv er R lla ho sh n Wa sh Tyso h as Da er te C ia Riv re e k HARQUAHALA INA MCMULLEN VALLEY Sa nta Ma r TIGER WASH LA PAZ COUNTY Land Tenure e nt lW ia nn Lake Havasu City YUMA COUNTY NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Ce MOHAVE COUNTY LA PAZ COUNTY LA PAZ COUNTY YAVAPA I C OUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY MARICO PA COU NTY Environmental Working Group MARICOPA COU NTY C-7.1 Water Resources Development Commission 277 d o R iv er eW as h a W sh s ! ! ? ? Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Stream Gage (USGS) !r R ! YUMA Imperial Reservoir County (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Major Spring (ADWR) ld Wash Yu ma Town (GNIS) G ou M oh sh ! ! ! nW do lora La C as h PARKER Twelvemile Slough Wa 0 0 Os Fr Cr ek Po o rm 10 River or Stream (ALRIS) Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Designated ESA Critical Habitat Area (USFWS) 10 ¶ YUMA COU NTY R iv SACRAMENTO VALLEY MAP EXTENT Miles 20 LOWER GILA RANEGRAS PLAIN LA P A Z C OU N TY MOHAVE CO UNTY er 20 Kilometers Bill Williams a Bouse Wa sh e W as h en bor n LA PAZ COUNTY Quartzsite Italia n W as h Parker Lake Havasu Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) ia In d Lake W a sh Co Lake Havasu LAKE HAVASU Lake Havasu City ns Wa sh ! C olora Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 r Wa av s te e l li ch M cA BUTLER VALLEY ash gham W nin BILL WILLIAMS n Cu NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. e nt lW h as Alamo Lake Da er te C ia Ri v re e k HARQUAHALA INA MCMULLEN VALLEY Sa nta Ma r YAVAPA I C OUNTY TIGER WASH LA PAZ COUNTY Natural Resources Ce iv er R o ll a h sh n Wa sh Tyso LA PAZ COUNTY LA PAZ COUNTY YUMA COUNTY ia nn MOHAVE COUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY MARICO PA COU NTY Environmental Working Group MARICOPA COU NTY C-7.2 Water Resources Development Commission ! 278 Water Resources Development Commission UPPER HASSAYAMPA AGUA FRIA Lake Pleasant Cave Creek as h W Carefree ! De ad ! C amp Cr ee oo nw ! Agua Tolleson ! To r ona C a n a l A r iz Scottsdale Cr til l a Cre e Apache Lake ! Phoenix ! Buckeye Guadalupe ! ! k ! Gilbert ! Four th h to n Ca ee n in g h as b Rain as ow W na l MAR ICOPA COUNTY a sh W a terman W ash p p er W Co ! Queen Creek ! PI NAL COU NTY at er LOWER SAN PEDRO DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH m a n as h W Maricopa P r on g G il a River W Creek Qu l Ju Superior ! A rl of Chandler yW BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private or Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land Apache Junction Mesa ! Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) TY OU N AC TY GIL O UN AL C PIN Tempe ! ee ek ee k Cr Fria R iver ! PHOENIX AMA Fi sh re ek Re ev is C Glendale ! altR v e e Cr Paradise Valley Theodore Roosevelt Lake P e in Peoria ! Avondale ! Goodyear ! SALT RIVER Cott o Fountain Hills i gn C d k k ial Wash ! e Cre r Litchfield Park k k re e i ten n mo re Cr e e ! h as Luk e W C en un Sk El Mirage ! Youngtown ! Phillips W as h YUMA CO UNTY as h W i nte rs W LA PAZ COUN TY nal Surprise HARQUAHALA INA RANEGRAS PLAIN Ca S a Be y sl e rd Sy ca Wash S tar Wa sh e River or Stream (ALRIS) Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) k k MARICOPA COUNTY h Coyot Tiger W a s h LA PAZ COUNTY b it W as TIGER WASH n ma h Jackra b Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) pa s Wa iver Bo x sh ! m Wa pa R am ss TONTO CREEK VERDE RIVER Ca ay ra Cre ek ve v er ss G w River Ne YAVA PA I C OU N MA R TY ICOP A CO UNT Y Ca Wickenburg ! Ha MCMULLEN VALLEY Horseshoe Reservoir Ri S ols W ash MARICOPA COUNTY Land Tenure V e rde BILL WILLIAMS BUTLER VALLEY ! W e st Florence DONNELLY WASH ! Gila Bend Coolidge Kearny ! 0 ! 10 20 Kilometers MAR ICOPA COUNTY Sand Ta Casa Grande Miles 20 sh PINAL AMA Ve k Sa u ash e Wash Mi d way W ash W as MARICOPA COUNTY PIMA COUNTY Environmental Working Group ce kW rW Tenm il ash a MAP EXTENT Eloy ! TUCSON AMA Lake Saint Clair sh h niels A rroyo Da ol W Kohat da wle 10 ! nk LOWER GILA Gr o 0 a W YUMA COUNTY ! GILA BEND C-8.1 SAN SIMON WASH PINAL COUNTY PIMA COUNTY Marana ! Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 ¶ NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. 279 Water Resources Development Commission UPPER HASSAYAMPA h h Carefree ! ! C amp Cr ee mo re Cr e e C Fountain Hills ! Fria R iver Agua ! To r ona C a n a l A ri z Scottsdale til l a Cre e ek ee k re ek Re ev is C ! Phoenix ! Tempe Buckeye ! Guadalupe ! Apache Junction Mesa ! ! Gilbert ! ! Four th to n h as Ca ee n in g l na l Co MAR ICOPA COUNTY W a term an Wash er Wa sh pp ! Queen Creek ! PI NAL COU NTY at Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Major Spring (ADWR) Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Stream Gage (USGS) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Designated ESA Critical Habitat Area (USFWS) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) LOWER SAN PEDRO DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH er m an as h W Maricopa P r on g G il a Riv er W Creek Qu Ju Ra ash wW inbo ! ! Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) Small Reservoir (ADWR) Superior ! A rl of Chandler yW ? !! TY OU N AC TY GIL O UN AL C PIN ial Was h Avondale ! ! Tolleson Goodyear ! Cr k t enn ! PHOENIX AMA Fi sh er v C en ! h as Luk e W YUMA CO UNTY ash Win ters W LA PAZ COUN TY Phillips W a sh RANEGRAS PLAIN Litchfield Park Paradise Valley Glendale Theodore Roosevelt Lake P Apache Lake e Cr Salt R i e in Peoria ! HARQUAHALA INA SALT RIVER k ! Youngtown ! d oo Cr nw Surprise ! El Mirage k un ! ? k re e Cot to S ta r W a Sk s ! Sy ca k ds ar sh Be nal ee Wash Ca le y k k MARICOPA COUNTY as Coyote Tiger W as h LA PAZ COUNTY bit W !r R ! ee Jackr a b TIGER WASH n Verde River Cave Creek sh Wa Cr as W Lake Pleasant ! i gn Bo x sh TONTO CREEK VERDE RIVER pa Wa iver pa R am ss C re ek ve m ay ra w River Ne YAVA PA I C OU N MA R TY ICOP A CO UNT Y ss G Horseshoe Reservoir Ca ash Wickenburg ! Ha MCMULLEN VALLEY AGUA FRIA MARICOPA COUNTY Natural Resources Ca Sol s W De ad ma BILL WILLIAMS BUTLER VALLEY ! W e st Florence DONNELLY WASH ! Gila Bend Coolidge Kearny ! 0 ! 10 20 Kilometers MAR ICOPA COUNTY San d Ta Casa Grande Miles 20 a PINAL AMA uc ed a h as h e Wash M idw a y Wash MARICOPA COUNTY PIMA COUNTY Environmental Working Group W as h Kohat TUCSON AMA Lake Saint Clair sh a Wa s Tenm il k ol kW niels Arroyo Da MAP EXTENT Eloy ! W Ve wler 10 sh Sa LOWER GILA Gr o 0 ! nk W YUMA COUNTY ! GILA BEND C-8.2 SAN SIMON WASH PINAL COUNTY PIMA COUNTY Marana ! Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 ¶ NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. 280 Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 ! Fr co an sh Wa do lora Co e sh Wa Wa i an reek ny o Military Reserve Private or Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land River or Stream (ALRIS) Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) MAP EXTENT National Park Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) BUTLER VALLEY Bl ac k National Forest as ro C Bur BLM Land ash yW W on ny ck Ro Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Ru p le g Ca sh Wa l Bul Tule h mo nd kou t W a Loo ek n yo BIG SANDY k D ia ash PEACH SPRINGS e Cr w illo K n ight Creek ek an e ut Cr e Tro W r ig nwoW od Cr e C ht n nyo h an t W State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) Y sh S Ca SHIVWITS PLATEAU Pa ras Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) CO U N T Y C OU N T C ot to W ash Ho bb le County (ALRIS) r Ri ve Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) LA PAZ MO HAVE r zie ro C n sh a sh n C row Ca yo D eluge yo C an nia Tank Wa C any Pigeo n Wash M cG ar rys Wash Wh eeler W Blue yo n Hidde n h Parker ek Cr e Was h n Kingman lo rad Wa s h Co er R iv S qu aw Ca GRAND WASH Tru xto n HUALAPAI VALLEY ta in Wa s un h PARKER HAVASU Lake Havasu City LAKE n Mo h av ver Ri dy Town (GNIS) Miles 20 ia G MEADVIEW nzie C ow SACRAMENTO VALLEY Ma cke sh Mo gS 10 ento W a B k uc Sp B 20 km h Ca n y o ing le Sh Sa cr am Gr o o m r in n 10 LAKE MOHAVE W h as VIRGIN RIVER g in V ir n Ca 0 0 ¶ ital W ash D etr Bullhead City Tenn DETRITAL VALLEY h e es se eW as ash sW nmil NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. sh Cr e ek Sho rt C BILL WILLIAMS Wash der Cas ta n Hualapa i W as n w ood W Co tt o Wa sh r an d l li v a n s C an yo n Su ver Ri Hiber a Tr a pi d il R uW T u ka yo a sh c T hirte e Gr a pe vi ne W sh a ash kW W as h ac pris e Bl ur h as o y on da r Ce n yon Can sh on an l Bo u Wa u reek a l Wa s CO CO N IN YA O VA CO PA UN IC TY OU NT Y h on ny s KANAB PLATEAU Wa Sand a Cr ee k AGUA FRIA Prescott Valley Prescott PRESCOTT AMA Chino Valley Fredonia UPPER HASSAYAMPA na b nW Ka n yo VERDE RIVER COCONINO PLATEAU sh Bulru Colorado City h MOHAVE COUNTY Land Tenure Sandridge W ash ole LA PAZ COUNTY Environmental Working Group Wa s h as W c sh Po um W a H u r r icane ck ulch B l a ck Ro G y Can on r ed a van Draw S ulli Rive S p e ncer C ra w ma n D ado MOHAVE COUNTY m Da h ay or Co l MOHAVE COUNTY a COCONINO COUNTY er sh YAVAPAI COUN TY av ek od C re wo YAVAPAI COUNTY t ch Du n C R yC n gs Be on L tt Co Hack Ca C-9.1 Water Resources Development Commission 281 Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 ! ? ? s ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Stream Gage (USGS) Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Major Spring (ADWR) ! ! ! PARKER e C OU N T n C row Ca yo D eluge C ot to Ru p le g ash yW W Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Designated ESA Critical Habitat Area (USFWS) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Ho bb le Pa ras S Ca i an BUTLER VALLEY ck Ro Bl ac k ny o MAP EXTENT reek on ny ro C Bur Ca sh Wa l Bul Tule h mo nd kou t W a Loo ek n yo BIG SANDY k D ia ash PEACH SPRINGS h an t W e Cr w illo K n ight Creek ek an e ut Cr e Tro W r ig nwoW od Cr e C ht n nyo SHIVWITS PLATEAU Alamo Lake as W ash Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Y sh C any Pigeo n Wash a sh sh n Tank Wa Wa yo n M cG ar rys Wash yo C an nia r zie ro C CO U N T Y lo rad Wa s h Co Wh eeler W Blue Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) LA PAZ MO HAVE sh Wa Parker ek Cr e Was h n Kingman Tru xto n HUALAPAI VALLEY MEADVIEW nzie C ow G Hidde n S qu aw Ca GRAND WASH er R iv h Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) sh Wa Lake Havasu LAKE HAVASU n h av ver Ri dy !r R ! ! ia co an ta in Wa s un h Miles 20 Ma cke SACRAMENTO VALLEY Fr Mo gS 10 h Ca n y o ing le Sh sh Mo Lake Havasu LAKE MOHAVE City r Bullhead ento W a B k uc Sp B 20 km iv e m Sa cr a Gr o o m r in n 10 oR W h as VIRGIN RIVER g in V ir n Ca 0 0 ¶ Co ad lo r ital W ash DETRITAL VALLEY Tenn D etr Lake Mead h e es se eW as s Wash nmil NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. sh Cr e ek Sho rt C BILL WILLIAMS Wash der Cas ta n Hualapa i W as n w ood W Co tt o Wa sh r an d l li v a n s C an yo n Su ver Ri Hiber a Tr a pi d il R uW T u ka yo a sh c T hirte e Gr a pe vi ne W sh a ash kW W as h ac pris e Bl ur h as o y on da r Ce n yon Can sh on an l Bo u Wa u reek a l Wa s CO CO N IN YA O VA CO PA UN IC TY OU NT Y h on ny s KANAB PLATEAU Wa Sand a ee k Prescott Valley Chino Valley AGUA FRIA PRESCOTT AMA Prescott Cr Fredonia UPPER HASSAYAMPA na b nW Ka n yo VERDE RIVER COCONINO PLATEAU sh Bulru Colorado City h MOHAVE COUNTY Natural Resources Sandridge W ash ole LA PAZ COUNTY Environmental Working Group Wa s h as W c sh Po um W a H u r r icane ock Gulch B l a ck R y Can on r ed a van Draw S ulli Rive S p e ncer C ra w ma n D ado MOHAVE COUNTY m Da h ay or Co l MOHAVE COUNTY a COCONINO COUNTY er sh YAVAPAI COUN TY av ek od C re wo YAVAPAI COUNTY t ch Du n C R yC n gs Be on L tt Co Hack Ca C-9.2 Water Resources Development Commission ! 282 Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 ! iW op a sh bi W Wa h nC Military Reserve Private or Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) MAP EXTENT National Park River or Stream (ALRIS) rs Sea Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) h as National Forest W ito k W h as am sh bo as h r a do W APACHE COUNTY Pueblo C olo sh e Chizzi W a BLM Land Ja d ash Ts sh Reservoir, Lake (NHD) sh Wa ms cc sh la Po Wa C anyon p b ito nn e Di LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU ai Or Dinnebito Wa h as State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) C o y ot e K ea nk oe en ee Cr e ek Cr s k re e a L agun G yp um Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) Miles 16 a No k County (ALRIS) 20 km as h M Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) 8 ¶ reek lute C Town (GNIS) 10 y on an Te es Toh W Ts e 0 0 i as h Be g h NAVAJO COUNTY W as bi to COCONINO COUNTY on ny iC a n y on ai C a N ak gi C W P o We Fk E sh C de Ty s a or tC Burn NAVAJO COUNTY ek re i Wa Ste Fk C-10.1N W h as NAVAJO COUNTY (North Half) Land Tenure Many Farms Lake NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. ash bi to xW Sa a t Wa sh Olje io W a W ro u Environmental Working Group O ra ib Le Lake Powell Water Resources Development Commission 283 Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 ! ? ? s ! !r R ! Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Stream Gage (USGS) yo sh n nk oe iW a No k ms h as l Po W cc a h as ash W ito Ja d Canyon p a n ne Di G Wa h bi to s um C e end Ty reek C yp sh k k ee e re n C W rs APACHE COUNTY h blo Colorado W a sh as P ue sh e Chizzi W a MAP EXTENT S Ts un a L ag LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU O W h Wa s ib i ra Dinn ebito h as sh Wa K ea op Co yote M Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Designated ESA Critical Habitat Area (USFWS) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) r ! ! orado ve Ri ! Miles L ittle C 18 ol reek ute C Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Major Spring (ADWR) 9 20 km Tee s Toh W a Ts e ! 10 hib as Be g h as NAVAJO COUNTY W i to COCONINO COUNTY on ny iC a k ai C Na gi C o Fk E a n y on an 0 0 ¶ l W a We s ea sh Cr r Co Burn t NAVAJO COUNTY ek re i Wa eam St Environmental Working Group Fk sh bo L C-10.2N W h as NAVAJO COUNTY (North Half) Natural Resources Many Farms Lake NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. sh bi to Wa Sa a t Wa sh Olj ei o W a W ou x P O raib er Lake Powell Water Resources Development Commission ! 284 OU N ¶ OC OU NT Y TY TONTO CREEK LA C ON IN COCON INO COUNTY C t ca re W x P e re on ds n W National Park Military Reserve Private or Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Federally Designed Wild and Scenic River (USFS) MAP EXTENT National Forest ! r M id d ek Show Low ! Sho de S Carr ek Mo W hite R rg a h n u t C r eek nW as Be yW Milk yW ow r eek h as ash h h as W e Cre k ite ! Thompson Creek E ast F or iv er ke Br H a to bi h L W as Dr LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Snowflake Taylor ! sh Riv e rco D i g ge r Wash C ordu r o y Cre w BLM Land nW a ra mile D v en Se Reservoir, Lake (NHD) SALT RIVER GILA COUNTY D as dW e Pu as W Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) SAFFORD gs r NAVAJO COUNTY rin rte W Holbrook ! er x ou State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) C r Po aw JOSEPH CITY INA Dry Lake ds al Mcdon Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) Miles 20 S pr i ng r e ek o Cr e ek eC Carriz Cibecu ek County (ALRIS) 10 20 km re kC ek C k oo n Pi n yo n Town (GNIS) 10 k on ny W o d as h on a ny ! 0 Theodore 0 Roosevelt Lake Ca wo ton Co t h lora d o Wa s o ebl Pu o Winslow ! e Cr ar NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. GI CO C Ja s ck le NAVAJO COUNTY C any on Wild y Ca n a sh W a toe e k Bl ac on Cre ek Oa ba n yo a nk C Pot yon Br an C h e ve lon C an oen i Ph h as W a rk h as yW Da C a n yon n any o Ju m poff C Dr Little C olor k L h as Ta n k dC Mu a Co o h r hb oa sh h as W Tu r de Li eek e r Cr ash C a r rizo W y Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 Indi an Cr ee k Na sh Cr s Sea r Bil ly Cre ek Ceda r C re ek to C r ite C r ee k TY OUN EC TY UN CO A M MORENCI AH GR APA CH NAVAJO COUNTY (South Half) Land Tenure on d er R iv D iam h kW ni Big Bo Sp sh ar Wa Black R ive r o ny W h a Foo t C ny Ca on ey C N or t h For k Tu rk st Ea k ee k er De wC r e al ee R wLo W e z Cr ee k S i lv n t ho Li dro n W as NAVAJO COUNTY Environmental Working Group ce as h nC r Rive r APACHE COUNTY ad e aw Hollo w Dr ay Go m iv e C-10.1S Water Resources Development Commission r Cre ek Ceda le 285 10 20 km Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Stream Gage (USGS) Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Major Spring (ADWR) 10 ¶ Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) 0 Theodore Roosevelt Lake 0 ! ? ? dc ! ! ! Miles 20 k C re Sp r ing eek C re r e ek o Cr eC Carriz Cibecu o on as h x P SAFFORD gs rte r GILA COUNTY e re Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Designated ESA Critical Habitat Area (USFWS) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) SALT RIVER NAVAJO COUNTY rin Po aw JOSEPH CITY INA Dry Lake s ald Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) ek C k oo n ek s ! e Cr ar k wo ton Co t on a ny !r !R C ny Ca on Winslow dWas n ! COCONINO COU NTY NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. TONTO CREEK CO CO NI N IL O A CO CO UN UN TY TY ks Ja c le NAVAJO COUNTY o Ch e lon C a ny ev ! e k a t Can yo n Wil C reek y on Can sh Wa Pot Bl ac Oa n yo Ca ba nk a toe Br y on an h Pie rce W oen i Ph h as W a rk Mcdon Da h as yW Dr C olor a W h Pu as W nm Seve bo ar x D ds on n W n a Show Low ! ! Taylor Sho Mid d ek ! Snowflake Riv e r h as W C ordur oy Cre k e MAP EXTENT W co er s Sea r Draw ile LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU a W ! Le u ro Holbrook o Little k sh h as C a n yon n an y o Ju m poff C sh Ta n k Mu dC P ue blo Col ora o sh h dW as de Li Silv e r Creek Mo rg a e ke od Dry on W h e Cre k ite Bo to ni h kW h r ee k Ri on d C r ee k Y UNT CO E TY UN O C M HA MORENCI A GR APA CH NAVAJO COUNTY (South Half) Natural Resources ver D iam it e h as ash h yW Milk Thompson Creek ! k Br o W h as W to bi Sa L Wa s Ca rr e u t Cr e r W hite R iv E ast F o er B ln nW L a sh as er W Di gg ash Ca r rizo W I n d i a nC re e k Na sh C B la ck R iver Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 Big G T ur o oll ay H H aw d Bil ly Creek Cedar C reek y n dr e i th as NAVAJO COUNTY wD r h yo an Foot C N or t h For kW Sp ar Wash re ek nyo n Ca ey C R Tu rk st Ea ek ek er De wC r e a r Environmental Working Group wLo W e z C re iv e Rive r APACHE COUNTY ad C wn G om Cr e C-10.2S Water Resources Development Commission r Cre ek Ceda le ! 286 Water Resources! Development Commission PHOENIX AMA Hayden ! DONNELLY WASH ! Casa Grande PIMA COUNTY Land Tenure DRIPPING ! Winkelman SPRINGS WASH ARAVAIPA CANYON Eloy ro y W la del O Tucson BLM Land n hm a n Ca nyo State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) Bu e Cr r de Tanqu e Ve no W as Military Reserve eek R in c on Cr e PIMA COUNTY ! ! Wa sh C r ee k A TUCSON AMA as Canada W a sh Big la Cr eek Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) National Forest National Park ek w le n it o South Tucson h Sa River or Stream (ALRIS) Private or Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land SAN SIMON WASH C re e h ! ash ti e at as PIMA COUNTY lt sh A on SAN TA CRU Z C OUN TY op or ito S oc e rt Pu h ny i Wa as W Ca Ar i va ca C re e k SANTA CRUZ AMA Patagonia ! UPPER SAN PEDRO SAN RAFAEL Nogales ! COCHIS E COUNTY Chu tu m Vaya Wa sh CIENEGA CREEK Was h ar W ash Peni t SA NTA C RU Z COUNTY iW M or Wa s mbre ega Ala Sells Was h ie n as h kW Va m Mescal Arroyo Sahuarita C Ag u a S io vi a Shu a t WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE k jit a W a sh is Lu Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) Br a Gu Vo Wash R ill Oro Valley S ab ino Wash h as aW os as h Rio C or nez h as W n Simo n Sa PIMA COU NTY Q u i jotoa W h ! r nco s Wa h YUMA COUNTY B W as h V nd ta Pa n as h Was h Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) r Pe dro R i v e e th a e rl oW m a sh o County (ALRIS) Sa n uir Su C ve Ri hW a sh Ag ta ruz W ni h as lW Ala m bles W ash Ro io s Ch er ba ta R Was Sa n a sh iW C to ! ul an r is katc Marana iop K ua Sa n kya r W ler a sh S Na h e Cu rda de Len Gunsi ght a Wa s h w Sil roy G ro o Was h ap Ar iels o PIMA COUNTY ash W D an Ten m ile Wa sh S ikort C hu Town (GNIS) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) PINAL COUNTY an Hick iw PIMA COU NTY ! C-11.1 Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) PINAL AMA Lo LOWER GILA LOWER SAN ! Mammoth PEDRO ! MARICOPA COUNTY PINAL COUNTY PINAL COUNTY GILA BEND MARICOPA COUNTY YUMA COUN TY MARICOPA COUN TY ! COCHIS E COUNTY ! Coolidge GRAHAM COUNTY Gila Bend ! 0 0 10 20 km Miles 20 10 MAP EXTENT ¶ NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 287 Water Resources Development Commission PHOENIX AMA Hayden ! DONNELLY WASH ! Casa Grande ! Winkelman PIMA COUNTY Natural Resources DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH ARAVAIPA CANYON as h u is del O n Ca n yon Canada y Wa sh W no W as s ! ! ? Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? Stream Gage (USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) ek Cr e R in c on Cr e Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Major Spring (ADWR, Pima County) hm a C r ee k r de Tanqu e Ve Small Reservoir (ADWR) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) Bu e W a sh ro as h nL Big la TUCSON AMA Tucson ! South ! Tucson ! R ! ek 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Designated ESA Critical Habitat Area (USFWS) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) SAN SIMON WASH C re e h ! ash ti e at as PIMA COUNTY lt sh A on SAN TA CRU Z C OUN TY op or ito S oc e rt Pu ny i Wa h as W Ca Ar i va ca C re e k SANTA CRUZ AMA Patagonia ! UPPER SAN PEDRO SAN RAFAEL Nogales ! COCHIS E COUNTY Chu tu m Vaya Wa sh CIENEGA CREEK Was h ar W ash Peni t SA NTA C RU Z COUNTY iW M or Wa s mbre ega Ala Sells Was h ie n as h kW Va m Mescal Arroyo Sahuarita C Ag u a S io vi ta Shu a WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE k jit a W a sh Sa la Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) r !! ! ! w le Gu Vo Wash A Town (GNIS) Br a Was h Cr eek S ab ino Wash h as aW os h as W n Simo n Rio C nez or Sa Q u i jotoa W it o h o R ill Oro Valley ta Pa n as h PIMA COU NTY B W as h V n oW m YUMA COUNTY r nco r la ! ve Ri uir e S C ruz sh Ag ta e u th h as dW C-11.2 County (ALRIS) r Pe dro R i v e bles W ash Ro Ala m hW a s a sh h as lW W ni ba io Was Sa n a sh iW Ch er ! ul C to Marana iop an r is katc S kya r K ua Na R ant a h W ler a sh S Sil roy w o Was h ap Ar iels G ro e Cu rda de Len Gunsi ght a Wa s h PIMA COUNTY ash W D an Ten m ile Wa sh S ikort C hu o PINAL COUNTY an Hick iw PIMA COU NTY ! Sa n PINAL AMA Lo LOWER GILA LOWER SAN ! Mammoth PEDRO Lake Saint Clair MARICOPA COUNTY PINAL COUNTY Eloy ! PIMA COUNTY PINAL COUNTY GILA BEND MARICOPA COUNTY YUMA COUN TY MARICOPA COUN TY ! GRAHAM COUNTY ! Coolidge COCHIS E COUNTY Gila Bend ! 0 0 10 20 km 10 Miles 20 MAP EXTENT ¶ NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 288 Water Resources Development Commission ! Fountain Hills Peoria N TY OU Apache Junction ! ek Gilbert ! Wh itlo PHOENIX AMA Que e n Cre ek ! ne k l k h Sa a uz Cr ! DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH Kearny DONNELLY WASH Florence nt Y NT OU TY AC UN GIL CO AL PIN ash yW as W Maricopa ! San Carlos Reservoir r Gila Riv e M il k k Ve PI NA L COUN TY re e MARI COPA COUNTY eek Cr ll C re e Mi tt C ! G ila Rive r Globe ! Superior Ar Queen Creek ol Miami ! Mescal Creek Chandler ! Mine ra ! w Cany on Guadalupe lch rs G u Hau nt e d ! ! Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) SAFFORD Po w e ! C re GILA COUNTY Mesa Ca ny Tempe la SALT RIVER on Phoenix ! ! NT Y To rt i l GR AH AM C OU NTY Scottsdale ! Tolleson OU C PA ! ! AC ICO Paradise Valley Glendale ! PINAL COUNTY Land Tenure GI L Apache Lake MA R ! C-12.1 River or Stream (ALRIS) Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private or Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land W Hayden ! as Co h Coolidge ! nn elly B ig W O ! Winkelman ARAVAIPA CANYON k vaipa C r eek ee Ar a Cr er De ash Creek gu Vir s C any o Casa Grande ! W as h n Eloy nt ! a pG r Mammoth ! m PINAL AMA Ca l Gu i dW h Wa s dr o Ca n a h as da d el o Or Santa R osa TUCSON AMA uz Ri r K o ha tk W Cr ve Wa sh Sa n ta n Pe Sa Big Lake Saint Clair h as Pe p pers a u h Wa s ce PINAL COUNTY PIMA COUNTY Marana ! SAN SIMON WASH Environmental Working Group Co p Oro Valley ! Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 R ive r pe r Cr e e k 0 GRAHAM COUNTY sh LOWER SAN PEDRO PINAL COUNTY re en eW a Wa sh G 5 10 0 20 km 10 Miles 20 MAP EXTENT ¶ NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. 289 Water Resources Development Commission ! Fountain Hills Peoria N TY OU ! w Cany on Guadalupe Gilbert ! Que e n Cre ek Ar ne ! Superior tt C re e lC k Y NT OU TY AC UN GIL CO AL PIN Sa a uz Cr ! ! !! ! ! Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Major Spring (ADWR) Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Stream Gage (USGS) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Designated ESA Critical Habitat Area (USFWS) Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH Kearny DONNELLY WASH Florence nt ? k h ash yW as W Maricopa ! San Carlos Reservoir r Gila Riv e M il k k Ve PI NA L COUN TY s ! ! ? re e MARI COPA COUNTY G ila Rive r reek ll C ! Mi Queen Creek ol ! Mescal Creek ! Wh itlo PHOENIX AMA Chandler !r R ! Globe ! Mine ra ! SAFFORD Miami lch rs G u Hau nt e d ! Po w e ! ek GILA COUNTY Mesa C re Ca ny Tempe Apache Junction la SALT RIVER on Phoenix ! ! NT Y To rt i l GR AH AM C OU NTY Scottsdale ! Tolleson OU C PA ! ! AC ICO Paradise Valley Glendale ! PINAL COUNTY Natural Resources GI L Apache Lake MA R ! C-12.2 W Hayden ! as Co h Coolidge ! nn elly B ig W O ! Winkelman ARAVAIPA CANYON k vaipa C r eek ee Ar a Cr er De ash Creek gu Vir s C any o Casa Grande ! W as h n re en eW a sh LOWER SAN PEDRO Eloy Co p as h G pe r Cr e e k 0 m pG r Mammoth ! PINAL AMA Ca G u il d W h Wa s dr o Ca n a h as da d el o Or Santa R osa TUCSON AMA uz Ri r K o ha tk W h as Cr ve Wa sh Sa n ta n Pe Sa Big Lake Saint Clair Pe p pers a u h Wa s ce PINAL COUNTY PIMA COUNTY Marana ! SAN SIMON WASH Environmental Working Group Oro Valley ! Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 R ive r GRAHAM COUNTY n a PINAL COUNTY tW ! 10 0 20 km 10 Miles 20 MAP EXTENT ¶ NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. 290 C-13.1 Water Resources Development Commission PIMA C OU NTY TUCSON AMA ash iW ! Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) PIMA COUNTY SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ee k S or op COCHISE COUNTY SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Land Tenure Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) r g aC CIENEGA CREEK Ci e en Bab mari Rive oco r BLM Land National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private or Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land ree k C ita ny o n So n o UPPER SAN PEDRO Jos ephin e C a ro ck C nyo a Cr e y Creek n ! Patagonia Tu r k e d Re SANTA CRUZ AMA ek h SAN TA C RUZ COUNTY Gu l c C ox v Ri c er k e rshaw Cre Ha uz m o Cr a P o tre ro Sy Gu l ch n ta Can y o n T r es Bellota s re yo C an n Sa COC HIS E C OU NTY Alum SAN RAFAEL C r ee 0 5 k 10 km o Ea st N 0 5 Miles 10 ga l sh Wa es Nogales ! MAP EXTENT ¶ NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 291 C-13.2 Water Resources Development Commission PIMA C OU NTY TUCSON AMA ! Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) ! R ! re Cie g aC CIENEGA CREEK ne B abo ! ? Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? Stream Gage (USGS) comari Rive r Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) e River or Stream (ALRIS) on e Ca hi n Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Major Spring (ADWR) k Jo se p So n re ta C oi Small Reservoir (ADWR) s ! PIMA COUNTY SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) r ek ash ri W po o S COCHISE COUNTY SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Natural Resources !! ! ! ny Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) UPPER SAN PEDRO Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) k Designated ESA Critical Habitat Area (USFWS) d Re SANTA CRUZ AMA ro ck C nyo a Cr e n ! Patagonia Tur ke y Cre e Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ek h SAN TA C RUZ COUNTY Gu l c C ox o c er k e rshaw Cre Ha v Ri m uz a P o tre ro Sy Gu l ch Cr ta any o n Tre s B ello ta s C C re anyon Sa n SAN RAFAEL COC HIS E C OU NTY Alum C r ee 0 5 k 10 km 0 5 Miles 10 o Ea st N ga l sh Wa es Nogales ! MAP EXTENT ¶ NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Environmental Working Group Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 292 Water Resources Development Commission t o n W as h PEACH SPRINGS YAVAPAI COUNTY Land Tenure COCONINO PLATEAU Tr ux HUALAPAI VALLEY ! C-14.1 Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) COCONINO COUN TY YAVAPAI COUNTY reek D ek l Gap Creek k sil C Fos S yc am ek n C re Ind ia or e k ree G ILA CO UNT 10 20 km Miles 20 10 Silv er Cre ek R Sq u aw Cr ee k w Ne Ri ver Payson ed ! Cr ee MAP EXTENT k Ta n gl e C re e k dm AGUA FRIA ee an De a Horseshoe Reservoir G ILA U CO PA Carefree Bartlett Reservoir Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 Y ! NT ! UNTY CO I CO Cave Creek ¶ TONTO CREEK ek C re MA R Lake Pleasant 0 0 k PHOENIX AMA Y Creek k Cr an Cr B eav er h Wa s err y e t tl Li k e re ee h Cr As ONINO COUNTY COC Verde River r Po la st le a YAVA PA I C OUN MAR TY ICOP A CO UNT Y Cr e ree eC L im W Ca Ra r ic av Be k D ry ee Cr e ind Bl nd C ek H sh ckb Big Bu g C k ee on ar Creek We t C e s Cave Cree k am pa ay ss Ha ha ha Cr e e Ha a sh in W B as per Co p M inn e Lit tl Wo s Val l e y W le a Sk ull Mi ll er C Cot tonwo od Nor ez M a rtin Indian kC er Oa k Cre e C re k w nd Mu s D ra lle Va or se n an yo Br i d le Cr k ee Do g i yW as h i k o ul de r h Moun ta YAVAPAI COUNTY k ee ny Camp Verde ! ek UPPER HASSAYAMPA Wickenburg ! e Cr e ek ee k ug C r umb LA PAZ COUNTY Cr evin g k e op el nt nch Gulc h ls HARQUAHALA TIGER WASH INA re ek F re So lW G ra p ee r Cr k ve a t B e Walker We ee Cr h as A n ia en nt r ve Ri n yo n yo Ca C k ree W Dewey-Humbolt ! an Rattle sn ak e C n te ! Prescott Tribal Land Sedona ! Lo Cr Cre Valley State Trust Land C ek k Da t e Cree k h as ! Jerome ! Cottonwood r Wa sh be Ya r Cr ee Ritte r e ek re ek ek an ash yW e rkey C re k Tu rm ry h As ek at e ! Prescott Lyn x C re ek A River Fria gua ee k Kirkl an dC Fork D th a Ce Environmental Working Group Cr Cre NTY MCMULLEN VALLEY RANEGRAS PLAIN iver Canyon g ote Sp r in Co y sh o nd M anta R ar ia OU NTY BUTLER VALLEY k Bla S W M a r t in ek C re er B itt ! Clarkdale PRESCOTT AMA ith C Sm n Ta S Wa pp s h hi in S prin g Was B W as h Li ttl e ! H p Big S h ip BILL WILLIAMS PARKER re Devi l Cab k ro e Cr e eek gCr S p r in reek e C o ffe eek Cr Chino Valley Military Reserve Private or Other Land Mormon Lake C ek r ilde Hitt Wash W i ll i am so n sh a W Chino W a sh Cr e ek r ve de Ver R ash C de reek H National Park ne W dst o n yo k ee Cr BLM Land National Forest Ca n ll Ap ac he State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) Cre ger Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) nyo n Ca He L i t tle r eek reek Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) h as Gra n i te YAVAPAI COUNTY tC Waln u Instream Flow Application (ADWR) G r in Cre k Wash e ci s C r Bu C on th ea W VERDE RIVER Pine C reek ee Cr W SACRAMENTO VALLEY Alamo Lake ! M M ud dy in Fr a n L A PAZ C ek Tu C k ree MOHAVE COUN TY Cow MOHAVE COU ge C tr id ar LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Flagstaff rk ey C BIG SANDY P a n yon k sh as h et a W B ig hino W C a P in ev r ut C ee Tro Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Williams ! SALT RIVER NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. 293 Water Resources Development Commission t o n W as h PEACH SPRINGS YAVAPAI COUNTY Natural Resources Tr ux HUALAPAI VALLEY COCONINO PLATEAU ! C-14.2 Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) !r R ! C ree ek C re k an kC er av k D ry B e ee Cr B eav er h Wa s l ckb err y or e k ree G ILA CO UNT 10 20 km 10 Miles 20 Silv er Cre ek R Sq u aw Cr ee k N ew Ri ver Payson ed ! Cr ee MAP EXTENT k Ta n gl e C re e k dm AGUA FRIA ee an De a Horseshoe Reservoir G ILA Y Bartlett Reservoir NT Carefree ! UNTY CO ! U CO PA Cave Creek ¶ TONTO CREEK ek C re I CO Lake Pleasant 0 0 MA R PHOENIX AMA Y Creek Verde River r Po la Ra r ic w nd Mu s D ra Cr e ind Bl ek n C re Ind ia Cave Cree k am pa ay ss sil C Fos S yc am k ee ONINO COUNTY COC Gap Creek k k Cr ee h Cr As k YAVA PAI C OU N Wickenburg !MA R TY IC O P A CO UNT Y Camp ree eC L im st le HARQUAHALA TIGER WASH INA Ca sh e Ha a sh in W B as per Co p Ha nd C ek H a MCMULLEN VALLEY W l Lit tl Wo s Val l e y W le a Sk ull Mi ll er C Cot tonwo od Nor ez M a rtin ha ha Cr e ls n ia en Oa k Cre e n an yo Br i d le Cr k ee YAVAPAI COUNTY i yW lle Va or se k o ul de r h n S prin g Was Moun ta i as h i M inn e on ar Creek We t C e s tl e ek UPPER HASSAYAMPA Wa r Big Bu g C k ee ny Cr e t Li k ree u umb g C LA PAZ COUNTY YAVAPAI COUNTY Indian g k Cr k ee Creek er av t B e Walker e W ee Cr k G nch ulch e Cr e ek n yo Ca ek re pe lo te n A e re F re evin n yo n C h as G ra p an Rattle sn ak e C Lo te W Da t e Cree k sh Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) ek t Cre Rit e r e ek Fork D th a r ve Designated ESA Critical Habitat Area (USFWS) ! y Dr ! Verde W ber a sh Ya r Cr Ri Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Sedona h As k Dewey-Humbolt ! Prescott River Cr ee re ek ek an ! e rkey C re k Tu rm ash yW Fria gua ee at e ek NTY nt Ce Environmental Working Group Kirkl an dC ! Prescott Valley Lyn x C re ek A So BUTLER VALLEY RANEGRAS PLAIN iver k Cre r ia R Cr sh o nd Ma anta OU NTY PARKER k Bla W ek C re er ! B itt M a rti n Canyon Jerome ! Clarkdale! Spri ng ote Cottonwood y o C k PRESCOTT AMA ith C Sm n Ta Alamo Lake S Wa pp s h hi S B W as h Li ttl e ! H p Big S h ip BILL WILLIAMS COCONINO COUN TY Devil Cab k ro W SACRAMENTO VALLEY reek rC ilde C Chino Valley Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Mormon Lake eek gCr S p r in reek e C o ffe e Cr e ! ! Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) sh Cr e ek Stream Gage (USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) Wa ger r ve de Ver R Hitt Wash W i ll i am so n sh Wa Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) ? !! ne dst o n yo k ee Cr he ac e Creek Ap H d s ! ! ? Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) Ca n ll r eek He k r ee eC Gra n i t Chino W a sh L i t tle YAVAPAI COUNTY e ci s C nyo n Ca G r in eek t Cr Waln u Cre k Wash LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU h as VERDE RIVER Pine C reek ee Cr r Bu C on th ea W Do g M Mu dd y in Fr a n L A PAZ C Flagstaff ! Tu C k ree MOHAVE COUN TY Cow MOHAVE COU g tr id e C ar ek rk ey C BIG SANDY P a n yon k sh re B C hino Wa as h et a W ig P in ev r ut C ee Tro Large Reservoir (ADWR) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Major Spring (ADWR) Williams ! Small Reservoir (ADWR) Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 SALT RIVER NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. 294 ! ai Ma in n Ca na l C Ind ia Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 National Forest National Park Military Reserve Private or Other Land State Trust Land Tribal Land Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) Instream Flow Certificate (ADWR) Instream Flow Application (ADWR) Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River (USFS) Ho o oW LOWER GILA do Gr ow le il e W h h as r W as Te nm MARICOPA COUN TY YUMA COUNTY Land Tenure WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE h as MAP EXTENT BLM Land Reservoir, Lake (NHD) W a sh State Managed Conservation Land (AZGFD, AZSP) y o te as h Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) Co Mo County (ALRIS) ek Federal Conservation Land (USFS, BLM, NPS) NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Wellton re C Town (GNIS) Miles 20 a sh 10 YUMA rt Gila Rive r 20 km ¶ al Fo o nWash YUMA COU NTY LA PAZ COUN TY kW 10 San Luis n E ai in Somerton Yuma l Co PARKER RANEGRAS PLAIN HARQUAHALA INA C-15.1 LA PAZ COUNTY YUMA COUNTY Quartzsite lW 0 0 M W r a o Riv e r d aW un D ra w ha M Do m Ca s tle ash W e Wa s h Tyso n PIMA COUNTY Environmental Working Group ch MARICOPA COUNTY en Fr h as an n Sa ba s to Cri YUMA COUNTY MCMULLEN VALLEY Water Resources Development Commission 295 Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources / County Maps / June 2011 Proposed ESA Critical Habitat (USFWS) Stream Gage (USGS, SWM Study) Stream Gage (USGS) y ote as h W as h MAP EXTENT Co Mo LOWER GILA d oo W as h h Gr owle il e W as h r W as h Te nm MARICOPA COUN TY YUMA COUNTY Natural Resources WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE Ho o as ! ? ? Modeled Riparian Habitat (AZGFD) Designated ESA Critical Habitat Area (USFWS) Outstanding Arizona Water (ADEQ) Effluent Dependent Stream (ADWR, NEMO) 1993 Riparian Inventory (AZGFD) Perennial Flow (ADEQ, USGS) River or Stream (ALRIS) Reservoir, Lake (NHD) Major Spring (ADWR) ! ! Wellton NOTE: Because GIS data for this project were acquired from multiple sources employing different land base grids and varying accuracy standards, some inconsistencies were encountered. The user is responsible for understanding the accuracy limitations of GIS data layers and is responsible for the results of any application of the data for other than their intended purpose. Gil a River s ! ! ia !r R ! Town (GNIS) County (ALRIS) Miles 20 ! Groundwater Basin/AMA (ADWR) Small Reservoir (ADWR) Large Reservoir (ADWR) ! 10 20 km YUMA W h as 10 ¶ C al Somerton F o ek W 0 0 E in Yuma l Co nWash YUMA COU NTY LA PAZ COUN TY RANEGRAS PLAIN HARQUAHALA INA C-15.2 LA PAZ COUNTY YUMA COUNTY Quartzsite W San Luis WM a in Ca n al Main Dra PARKER Ca s tle r r a d o R iv e a tu n or an ash W Do m e Wa s h Tyson Ind C C ain wk ha n al M Sa ob r ist YUMA COUNTY Environmental Working Group MARICOPA COUNTY ch en Fr PIMA COUNTY MCMULLEN VALLEY Water Resources Development Commission re 296 Water Resources Development Commission Water Resources Development Commission Population Working Group Working Group Chair: Karen Collins, Salt River Project July 13, 2011 Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 1 Water Resources Development Commission Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 2 Water Resources Development Commission TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 OBJECTIVES 1 METHODS RESULTS OTHER METHODS AND/OR REFERENCES CONSIDERED LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Arizona State Population Projections Table 2. Arizona County Population Projections Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Arizona Counties Figure 2. Arizona Groundwater Basins Figure 3. CCD’s within Cochise County Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 3 Water Resources Development Commission Figure 4. MPA’s and County Areas within Maricopa County Figure 5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS OVERVIEW In 2010, the Arizona Legislature passed H.B. 2661, which created the Water Resources Development Commission (WRDC) for the purpose of assessing the current and future water needs of Arizona. This paper provides a more detailed description of the methods and assumptions used by the Water Resources Development Commission’s Population Working Group to project Arizona’s future population by county and groundwater basin to the year 2110. OBJECTIVE The Population Committee’s objective was to develop a set of projected population scenarios by county and groundwater basin for 25, 50 and 100 years into the future. METHODS Baseline Data Use for Projections: 1. U.S. Census Bureau national population projections for the years 2000 to 2100 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). a. This publication includes various projection scenarios. The Population Committee used data from the Lowest Migration Series, Middle Migration Series and Highest Migration Series (found in Table A) in developing three population projection scenarios for Arizona. (http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/downloadablefiles.html) 2. Population projections from the year 2006 to the year 2055 published by the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) in 2006, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) in 2007, and Gila, Pima and Pinal Counties or their association of governments circa 2006, which appear collectively on the Arizona Department of Commerce (Commerce) website (Commerce, Circa 2006), Arizona Department of Economic Security, Research Administration, Population Statistics Unit. (2006, March 31). Arizona Population Projections 2006 - 2055. Retrieved September 24, 2010, from Arizona Commerce Authority Web Site: www.azcommerce.com Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 4 Water Resources Development Commission a. were also used as the basis for projecting population to the year 2110. (Note that after the 2006 projections were prepared by the Department of Economic Security, the Population Statistics Unit of that agency was moved to the Department of Commerce.) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. State Land 2010 Ownership Layer (http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/layers.html) ESRI scripts Calc Demographics Incorporate Cities layer (2009) MPA layer (mpa2007_mc.shp) US Census CCD CDP Layers (http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/layers.html) ADWR Basin Layer APPROACH 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Adjust published DES population projections to account for economic downturn Project Arizona’s population to the year 2110 Calculate each county’s population to the year 2110 Calculate each sub-county’s population to the year 2110 Calculate each sub-county’s population by basin within the county Apply these ratios to state and county projections a. This will provide population by total county, sub-county, and county remainder (total county - sub-county = county remainder) 7. Dissect basins into associated counties 8. Dissect sub-county geographies into basins within each county 9. If a sub-county is split into two or more basins, calculate the sub-county’s geographical ratio within each basin 10. Remove sub-county geographies and unavailable land areas from each county 11. Calculate new area for remaining available land within each county 12. Calculate new area for remaining available land within each basin/basin part in remaining available land within each county 13. Calculate the ratio of remaining available land within each basin/basin part to total remaining available land within each county 14. Apply sub-county projections to its associated basin ratio within each county 15. Apply county remainder projections to its associated basin remainder ratio within each county 16. Exceptions for counties that provide their own specific basin ratio to apply to the county projection Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 5 Water Resources Development Commission Figure 1: Arizona Counties Figure 2: Arizona Groundwater Basins Adjustment for Economic Downturn State demographers from the Arizona Department of Commerce, as part of the Population Committee, adjusted the published DES population projections for the years 2010 to 2012 as a way to address the economic downturn that occurred in Arizona after the DES population projections were published. An overriding assumption that growth in the state was 0.5% in 2010, 0.7% in 2011 and 1.5% in 2012 resulted in a reduction of 595,700 people per year after 2012 which was subtracted from the published DES projections for the period of 2013 to 2055 (See Appendix 1.) Calculation of Arizona State Population to 2110 The proportion of the adjusted DES state population projection to the U.S. Census national population projection (Mid-Series) was calculated through the end of the DES projection period to 2055. The proportion of Arizona’s state population to the U.S. Census national population projection Mid-Series in the year 2055 was then applied to the U.S. Census national population projection period of 2056 to 2100 to get a new projection period for Arizona’s state population. The Population Committee recognizes that this assumes Arizona’s proportion of the national population will remain unchanged after the year 2055. Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 6 Water Resources Development Commission The U.S. Census national population projection was extended to the year 2110 by using the calculated rate of growth per year from 2050 to 2100 and carrying this forward to 2110. Arizona’s state population was then calculated from 2101 through 2110 using the same methodology described above. This process was then used to project Arizona’s population as it relates to the national projection for the U.S. Census Lowest-Migration (Low-Series) and High-Migration Series (See Appendix 1 for details). The result of this methodology is shown in Table 1 below, where Arizona’s population is 8,383,314 in the Low-Series scenario; 18,322,751 in the Mid-Series scenario, and 39,661,922 in the High-Series scenario in the year 2110. Table 1: State Total Population 2010, 2035, 2060, 2110 Year 2010 2035 2060 2110 State, Mid-Series 6,628,757 10,453,870 13,252,013 18,322,751 State, Low-Series 6,589,080 8,909,230 9,318,236 8,383,314 State, High-Series 6,685,863 12,899,009 20,574,451 39,661,922 Calculation of County Population to 2110 The proportion of each county’s population to the total state population was calculated using the published (not adjusted for economic downturn) DES state population projections for the years 2006 to 2055. Maricopa County’s population projections were adjusted from the published MAG projections. This adjustment was necessary due to a discrepancy discovered between the published DES population for the state as a whole and the sum of the published county population projections and the MAG population projections. The MAG projections were adjusted to equal the remainder of the DES state population after all other counties were subtracted. This increased the MAG projections by 72,980 people by the end of the original projection period of 2030 (See Appendix 2; table 1, column AM). Similar to the methodology used to calculate Arizona’s proportion of the national population, each county proportion to the total state population in 2055 was held constant and used for the new projection period of 2056 to 2110 (See Appendix 2; County_Percent_State_Total, and Population_WRDC.mdb; table Cty_Percent_of_State for details). Tables 2a, 2b and 2c show the results of this calculation for the Mid-Series, Low-Series and High-Series projections: Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 7 Water Resources Development Commission Table 2a: County Population – Mid-Series 2010, 2035, 2060, 2110 County 2010 2035 2060 2110 Apache 74,082 91,244 105,989 146,545 Cochise 138,296 184,479 217,775 301,103 Coconino 133,959 170,790 201,624 278,773 Gila 54,704 68,234 80,030 110,652 Graham 35,456 43,654 50,325 69,582 Greenlee 7,774 7,991 9,285 12,838 21,432 27,488 31,471 43,514 3,993,865 6,269,032 7,871,942 10,884,054 Mohave 209,705 331,521 414,724 573,414 Navajo 116,643 163,942 197,230 272,698 Pima 1,013,965 1,436,009 1,758,846 2,431,850 Pinal 345,261 916,691 1,407,673 1,946,304 Santa Cruz 47,548 70,943 87,166 120,519 Yavapai 228,856 354,682 430,025 594,569 Yuma 207,211 317,173 387,908 536,337 6,628,757 10,453,870 13,252,013 18,322,751 La Paz Maricopa STATE Table 2b: County Population – Low-Series 2010, 2035, 2060, 2110 County 2010 2035 2060 2110 Apache 73,639 77,762 74,527 67,050 Cochise 137,468 157,221 153,129 137,766 Coconino 133,157 145,554 141,773 127,549 Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 8 Water Resources Development Commission Gila 54,376 58,152 56,274 50,627 Graham 35,244 37,204 35,387 31,836 Greenlee 7,727 6,810 6,529 5,874 21,304 23,426 22,129 19,909 3,969,960 5,342,734 5,535,205 4,979,844 Mohave 208,449 282,536 291,616 262,358 Navajo 115,945 139,718 138,683 124,769 Pima 1,007,896 1,223,828 1,236,744 1,112,658 Pinal 343,194 781,243 989,814 890,504 47,264 60,461 61,291 55,142 Yavapai 227,487 302,274 302,375 272,037 Yuma 205,971 270,308 272,760 245,394 6,589,080 8,909,230 9,318,236 8,383,314 La Paz Maricopa Santa Cruz STATE Table 2c: County Population – High-Series 2010, 2035, 2060, 2110 County 2010 2035 2060 2110 Apache 74,720 112,585 164,554 317,215 Cochise 139,487 227,628 338,106 651,777 Coconino 135,113 210,737 313,031 603,439 Gila 55,175 84,194 124,250 239,521 Graham 35,762 53,865 78,133 150,619 Greenlee 7,841 9,860 14,415 27,789 21,617 33,917 48,861 94,191 La Paz Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 9 Water Resources Development Commission 4,028,272 7,735,346 12,221,606 23,559,919 Mohave 211,511 409,062 643,881 1,241,227 Navajo 117,648 202,288 306,210 590,289 Pima 1,022,700 1,771,889 2,730,702 5,264,048 Pinal 348,235 1,131,103 2,185,487 4,213,022 47,958 87,537 135,330 260,879 Yavapai 230,829 437,641 667,637 1,287,021 Yuma 208,996 391,359 602,248 1,160,969 6,685,863 12,899,009 20,574,451 39,661,922 Maricopa Santa Cruz STATE Calculation of CCD Population to 2110 The proportion of each County Control Division’s (CCD) population, which is the next largest geography after the county, to the total county population was calculated using the published (not adjusted for economic downturn) DES state population projections for the years 2006 to 2055. The proportion of the CCD to the county total population in the year 2055 was held constant and used for the new projection period of 2056 to 2110. The results of these calculations can be found in Population_WRDC.mdb; table CCD_Percent_of_County. Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 10 Water Resources Development Commission Figure 3: CCDs within Cochise County Calculation of Municipal Planning Area and Incorporated Area Population to 2110 Four counties (Maricopa, Gila, Pima and Pinal) do not have published population projections available at the CCD level. Maricopa County projected population within Municipal Planning Areas (MPAs) and County Areas. Gila, Pima, and Pinal Counties projected population within Incorporated Areas and reservations or reservation parts. MPAs in Maricopa County, and Incorporated Areas in Gila, Pima and Pinal Counties, are the smallest geographies for which population projections are available within these counties. The same approach that was used for calculating the proportion of each CCD’s population to the total county population was employed for calculating the proportion of each MPA or Incorporated Area’s population; the proportion of the MPA or Incorporated Area to the county total was calculated for the extent of the published projection period (Maricopa County projections went to 2030, Gila, Pima and Pinal County projections went to 2055). The proportion MPA or Incorporated Area to the county total population in the year 2055 was held constant and used for the new projection period of 2056 to 2110. The results of these calculations can be found in Population_WRDC.mdb; tables MPA_Percent_of_County and Other_Area_Percent_of_County. Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 11 Water Resources Development Commission Figure 4: MPAs and County Areas within Maricopa County Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 12 Water Resources Development Commission Figure 5: Incorporated Areas and Reservations within Gila County Calculation of CDP Population to 2110 For counties other than Maricopa, Gila, Pima, and Pinal, DES made projections down to the Census Designated Place (CDP) level. CDPs are unincorporated population centers within a CCD and make up the smallest geography for which DES population projections are available. Calculations of population for CDPs to the year 2110 were done using the same methodology that was used for the state, county, CCD, MPA and Incorporated Areas. The proportion of the CDP to the CCD was calculated for the projection period of 2006 to 2055. The proportion of the CDP to the CCD in the year 2055 was held constant and used for the new projection period of 2056 to 2110. The results of these calculations can be found in Population_WRDC.mdb; table CDP_Percent_of_CCD. Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 13 Water Resources Development Commission Figure 6: CDPs and CCDs within Cochise County CCD and County Remainders Any portion of the projected population within a CCD that does not contain a CDP is considered a CCD remainder; likewise, any portion of the projected population for a county that is not contained within an Incorporated Area is considered the county remainder. Within Maricopa County, areas outside of an MPA were categorized as County Areas in the published DES projection. Calculation of CDP Population by Basin After the population of each CDP was projected to the year 2110, CDP population projections were split between groundwater basin boundaries within each county. Many CDPs fell entirely within only one basin; however some CDPs straddled more than one basin. ADWR used an ESRI GIS script called Calculate Demographics (http://arcscripts.esri.com) to calculate the percent of each CDP’s land area located within a basin or basins (area split method). This percent, which did not change from year to year, was then applied to the projected population for each CDP for each year to determine the population of each CDP within each basin (See Population_WRDC.mdb; table CDP_Percent_of_Basin). Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 14 Water Resources Development Commission Figure 7: CDPs, CCDs and Groundwater Basins within Cochise County Calculation of MPA Population by Basin The methodology used to divide Maricopa County’s MPA and County Area population projections into basin boundaries is similar to the methodology used to divide the CDP population projections into basin boundaries. The same ESRI script was used to calculate the percent of each MPA’s land area within a basin or basins. This percent was then applied to the projected population of the MPA and County Area to determine the population of each MPA and County Area within each basin. Some exceptions were made to this methodology due to water provider service areas crossing basin boundaries. For example, some water service areas are located predominantly within the Phoenix AMA basin, but cross the Pinal AMA basin boundary. Because the water demand associated with this population is met with supplies from the Phoenix AMA, the population of the MPA within Pinal AMA was not distributed to Pinal AMA, but was kept 100% within the Phoenix AMA. The results of these calculations can be found in Population_WRDC.mdb; table MPA_Percent_of_Basin. Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 15 Water Resources Development Commission Figure 8: MPAs, County Remainders and Groundwater Basins within Maricopa County Calculation of Incorporated Area Population by Basin Population projections within incorporated areas of Gila, Pima and Pinal Counties were divided into groundwater basins using the same methodology that was used to divide the CDP population projections. The resulting percent distribution was then applied to the projected population within each incorporated area. In addition to population projections by incorporated area, the published projections for both Gila and Pinal County include population by reservation or reservation part. In these counties, the projected population for the reservation or reservation part was divided into groundwater basins using the same methodology described above. This percent distribution was then applied to the projected population within each reservation or reservation part. It is important to note that Gila and Pinal are the only two counties that include published population projections for specific Indian reservations and that all county projections were based on the published DES projection data for each county. Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 16 Water Resources Development Commission Figure 9: Incorporated Areas, Reservations and Groundwater Basins within Gila County Calculation of CCD Remainder and County Remainder Population by Basin The projected population for each CCD remainder and county remainder (CCD population – CDP population = CCD remainder population) (county population - Incorporated Area population = county remainder population) was divided between groundwater basin boundaries within each county using a slightly different approach to the CDP, MPA and Incorporated Area splits described above. First, using GIS software, the CDP and Incorporated Area geographies were removed from each county. Next, using land ownership information published by the State Land Department, select land ownership types were removed from each county as follows: Bureau of Land Management, National Forests, Indian reservations*, state parks and recreational areas, Military bases, Federal Parks, Bureau of Recreation, Game and Fish, County Land, wildlife areas and refuges *For county projections that use CCDs, Indian reservations are included in the CCD populations, so the geographies for Indian reservations within these CCDs was not erased and was included as available land in the area split method. Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 17 Water Resources Development Commission A new geographical area was then calculated for each county and CCD; this became the geographical equivalent to the CCD remainder and county remainder. These new geographies were then divided between groundwater basin boundaries within each county and a ratio of each was calculated (area split method). This percent, which did not change from year to year, was then applied to the projected population for each CCD remainder or county remainder for each year to determine the population within each basin. Figure 10: CCD Remainders and Basins within Cochise County La Paz, Pima and Pinal County Exception The Population Committee requested feedback from each county on how they would distribute the projected population remainders between basins within their county. The Committee received guidance from La Paz, Pima and Pinal County. The percent distribution of population within each basin for the CCD remainders and county remainders provided by La Paz and Pinal County do change over time (unlike the geographic distribution described in the previous sections). These figures are found in Appendix 3 and 4, and the results of these calculations, which are used in the final report, can be found in Population_WRDC.mdb; table Pinal_LaPaz_Percents. Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 18 Water Resources Development Commission In Pima County, the population within unincorporated areas is considered the county remainder. Pima County officials decided that the distribution of the unincorporated area population based on the 2000 U.S. Census block level population data gave a better result than distributing the unincorporated area. The proportion of the unincorporated area by basin can be found in Population_WRDC.mdb; table Inc_Area_Percent_of_Basin. RESULTS Most of the population calculations by county, CCD, CDP, MPA and Incorporated Area were done using queries within an Access database called Population_WRDC.mdb. For some calculations, queries were run through the year 2055 and then the query results were exported to Excel in order to quickly extend the 2055 proportion from 2056 to 2110. The results were then imported back into Access. Queries for CDP, MPA and Incorporated Area by basin also contain fields for CCD (where applicable) and county which make it possible for the results to be viewed by county, CCD, MPA, CDP, Incorporated Area and basin. Tables 3a, 3b and 3c below shows the results of the compilation query by basin: BASIN_NAME Table 3a: Basin Population – Mid-Series 2010, 2035, 2060, 2110 2010 2035 2060 2110 147,501 215,989 270,217 373,613 542 609 676 935 6,139 9,619 11,960 16,536 BILL WILLIAMS 18,801 23,339 26,647 36,976 BONITA CREEK 998 1,300 1,530 2,116 BUTLER VALLEY 0 0 0 0 CIENEGA CREEK 4,406 6,422 7,886 10,903 14,020 17,692 20,798 28,757 2,390 3,702 4,605 6,367 0 0 0 7,897 4,708 5,561 6,284 8,689 AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY COCONINO PLATEAU DETRITAL VALLEY DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 19 Water Resources Development Commission 23,796 33,709 40,559 56,078 DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH 5,515 6,046 6,626 9,161 DUNCAN VALLEY 3,816 3,926 4,562 6,307 29,729 107,998 135,612 187,503 172 319 415 574 HARQUAHALA INA 7,842 15,264 19,449 27,886 HUALAPAI VALLEY 38,342 59,180 73,538 101,677 JOSEPH CITY INA 647 760 858 1,186 KANAB PLATEAU 9,101 14,301 17,878 24,719 LAKE HAVASU 64,361 107,807 136,955 189,359 LAKE MOHAVE 61,773 91,293 112,009 154,868 283,135 372,602 441,842 610,908 LOWER GILA 36,640 63,136 78,012 107,863 LOWER SAN PEDRO 16,553 23,349 36,277 50,158 6,862 11,194 13,695 18,670 176 271 337 466 4,883 5,268 6,135 8,482 209 242 274 379 16,279 19,685 21,835 29,528 4,904 7,287 8,956 12,384 3,873,900 6,079,298 7,640,570 10,540,458 PINAL AMA 234,814 672,112 1,065,750 1,457,753 PRESCOTT AMA 113,614 190,819 235,698 325,885 557 834 1,035 1,232 23,047 37,460 47,215 65,281 DOUGLAS INA GILA BEND GRAND WASH LITTLE COLORADO PLATEAU MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PARKER PEACH SPRINGS PHOENIX AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 20 Water Resources Development Commission SAFFORD 40,335 48,814 55,879 77,261 SALT RIVER 29,550 39,113 45,539 62,964 2,214 2,327 2,503 3,461 592 759 885 1,224 SAN SIMON WASH 7,415 11,484 14,444 19,971 SANTA CRUZ AMA 46,493 69,814 86,008 118,918 SHIVWITS PLATEAU 1,433 2,655 3,455 4,777 TIGER WASH 1,053 1,828 2,295 3,173 19,522 27,074 33,475 46,284 1,002,673 1,428,170 1,769,275 2,477,858 4,443 7,060 8,637 11,942 91,178 122,806 145,434 201,083 VERDE RIVER 110,035 160,699 192,864 266,661 VIRGIN RIVER 362 671 874 1,208 WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE 282 433 545 753 12,812 15,557 17,770 24,569 YUMA 198,191 306,214 375,432 519,087 STATE 6,628,757 10,453,870 13,252,013 18,322,751 SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL TONTO CREEK TUCSON AMA UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO WILLCOX BASIN_NAME Table 3b: Basin Population – Low-Series 2010, 2035, 2060, 2110 2010 2035 AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BILL WILLIAMS Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 2060 2110 146,618 184,075 190,005 170,941 539 519 475 428 6,102 8,198 8,410 7,566 18,688 19,891 18,737 16,918 Page 21 Water Resources Development Commission 992 1,108 1,076 968 BUTLER VALLEY 0 0 0 0 CIENEGA CREEK 4,379 5,473 5,545 4,989 13,936 15,078 14,625 13,157 2,376 3,155 3,238 2,913 0 0 0 3,613 4,680 4,739 4,419 3,976 23,653 28,728 28,519 25,658 DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH 5,482 5,153 4,659 4,192 DUNCAN VALLEY 3,794 3,346 3,208 2,886 29,551 92,041 95,357 85,789 171 272 292 263 HARQUAHALA INA 7,795 13,008 13,676 12,759 HUALAPAI VALLEY 38,112 50,436 51,709 46,521 JOSEPH CITY INA 643 648 603 543 KANAB PLATEAU 9,046 12,188 12,571 11,310 LAKE HAVASU 63,976 91,877 96,301 86,638 LAKE MOHAVE 61,403 77,804 78,760 70,858 281,440 317,546 310,684 279,512 LOWER GILA 36,421 53,807 54,855 49,351 LOWER SAN PEDRO 16,454 19,899 25,508 22,949 6,821 9,540 9,630 8,542 175 231 237 213 4,854 4,489 4,314 3,881 208 207 193 174 BONITA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DETRITAL VALLEY DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DOUGLAS INA GILA BEND GRAND WASH LITTLE COLORADO PLATEAU MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 22 Water Resources Development Commission 16,182 16,777 15,354 13,510 4,874 6,210 6,298 5,666 3,850,713 5,181,034 5,372,514 4,822,637 PINAL AMA 233,408 572,802 749,389 666,974 PRESCOTT AMA 112,934 162,624 165,733 149,104 554 710 728 564 SACRAMENTO VALLEY 22,909 31,925 33,200 29,869 SAFFORD 40,094 41,601 39,292 35,350 SALT RIVER 29,374 33,334 32,021 28,808 2,200 1,983 1,760 1,583 589 647 622 560 SAN SIMON WASH 7,370 9,787 10,156 9,137 SANTA CRUZ AMA 46,215 59,499 60,477 54,409 SHIVWITS PLATEAU 1,424 2,262 2,430 2,186 TIGER WASH 1,047 1,558 1,614 1,452 19,406 23,074 23,538 21,177 996,671 1,217,147 1,244,077 1,133,709 4,416 6,017 6,073 5,464 90,632 104,661 102,263 92,003 VERDE RIVER 109,376 136,954 135,613 122,007 VIRGIN RIVER 360 572 615 553 WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE 280 369 383 345 12,735 13,258 12,495 11,241 YUMA 197,005 260,968 263,987 237,501 STATE 6,589,080 8,909,230 9,318,235 8,383,314 PARKER PEACH SPRINGS PHOENIX AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL TONTO CREEK TUCSON AMA UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO WILLCOX Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 23 Water Resources Development Commission BASIN_NAME Table 3c: Basin Population – High-Series 2010, 2035, 2060, 2110 2010 2035 2060 2110 148,772 266,508 419,527 808,733 547 751 1,050 2,024 6,192 11,869 18,568 35,795 BILL WILLIAMS 18,963 28,798 41,371 80,038 BONITA CREEK 1,007 1,604 2,376 4,579 BUTLER VALLEY 0 0 0 0 CIENEGA CREEK 4,444 7,924 12,243 23,601 14,141 21,830 32,291 62,248 2,411 4,568 7,150 13,783 0 0 0 17,095 4,749 6,862 9,757 18,809 24,001 41,594 62,970 121,389 DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH 5,563 7,460 10,287 19,830 DUNCAN VALLEY 3,849 4,845 7,082 13,653 29,986 133,259 210,545 405,874 174 394 645 1,243 HARQUAHALA INA 7,910 18,834 30,196 60,362 HUALAPAI VALLEY 38,672 73,022 114,172 220,092 JOSEPH CITY INA 653 938 1,332 2,568 KANAB PLATEAU 9,179 17,646 27,757 53,508 LAKE HAVASU 64,915 133,022 212,629 409,892 LAKE MOHAVE 62,305 112,646 173,900 335,231 285,574 459,752 685,983 1,322,389 AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY COCONINO PLATEAU DETRITAL VALLEY DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DOUGLAS INA GILA BEND GRAND WASH LITTLE COLORADO PLATEAU Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 24 Water Resources Development Commission LOWER GILA 36,956 77,903 121,118 233,483 LOWER SAN PEDRO 16,696 28,810 56,322 108,573 6,921 13,812 21,262 40,414 177 335 523 1,008 4,926 6,500 9,524 18,360 211 299 426 821 16,419 24,289 33,901 63,916 4,946 8,992 13,905 26,806 3,907,273 7,501,233 11,862,389 22,816,161 PINAL AMA 236,837 829,318 1,654,633 3,155,491 PRESCOTT AMA 114,592 235,451 365,934 705,420 562 1,029 1,607 2,667 SACRAMENTO VALLEY 23,245 46,221 73,304 141,310 SAFFORD 40,683 60,232 86,756 167,241 SALT RIVER 29,805 48,261 70,702 136,294 2,233 2,871 3,886 7,491 597 936 1,374 2,649 SAN SIMON WASH 7,479 14,170 22,425 43,229 SANTA CRUZ AMA 46,893 86,143 133,532 257,414 SHIVWITS PLATEAU 1,445 3,276 5,365 10,341 TIGER WASH 1,062 2,255 3,563 6,868 19,691 33,407 51,972 100,188 1,011,311 1,762,216 2,746,893 5,363,638 4,481 8,711 13,410 25,850 91,964 151,530 225,795 435,270 MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PARKER PEACH SPRINGS PHOENIX AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL TONTO CREEK TUCSON AMA UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 25 Water Resources Development Commission VERDE RIVER 110,983 198,286 299,432 577,222 VIRGIN RIVER 366 828 1,357 2,616 WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE 284 534 846 1,630 12,922 19,196 27,588 53,183 YUMA 199,898 377,837 582,878 1,123,630 STATE 6,685,862 12,899,009 20,574,451 39,661,922 WILLCOX Appendix 5 shows the results of a compilation query by County for the portions of basins located within each County. How Uncertainty was Addressed The Population Committee acknowledges that there is a level of uncertainty in projecting population 100 years into the future. Adding to this uncertainty is the use of outdated baseline data. The 2010 U.S. Census population numbers will not be available until early 2011; therefore, the Arizona’s state demographers will not have an updated population projection until late summer/early fall 2012. In an effort to address some of this uncertainty, the Population Committee agreed to create three projection scenarios: Low, Mid and High. The U.S. Census national population projection scenarios to the year 2100 was used in combination with the Population Committee’s adjusted 2006 DES data to derive a set of three State projection scenarios. Assumptions During the development of the Population Committee’s 100-year population projections, certain assumptions were made with regard to future population growth and related geographies. These assumptions include: The baseline data is accurate (U.S. Census and DES population projections) Arizona’s ratio of the projected national population will remain constant from 2055-2100 The proportion of population within each County, CCD, CDP, MPA and Incorporated Area to the total state’s projected population will remain constant from 2055-2110 Population growth will spread geographically based on land availability Land availability will remain as it is today State Trust Land will be available for future development The various geographical references used for the projections are accurate and will remain unchanged throughout the projection period Other Population Distribution Methods and/or References Considered In addition to the Area Split Method (dividing the population into county/basin based on current land use and availability (i.e. people go where there is available land) used to distribute population into Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 26 Water Resources Development Commission groundwater basins, two other methods were considered by the WRDC Population Working Group. These methods included using data from the Arizona Water Atlas to determine population numbers by basin, and using data from the 2000 U.S. Census blocks to determine population numbers by basin. The Water Atlas and the U.S. Census methods are fairly similar to one another. Each look at the ratio of population within a groundwater basin using 2000 U.S. Census block data and apply this population ratio to any future projection (population distribution method) rather than evenly distributing projected population within available land area (area split method). A pro/con list was created for each of the three population/basin methods and the Population Committee determined that dividing the population projections by basin using the area split method (based on land availability) was most logical for the purposes of the WRDC. This decision was partially based on the following: The land availability method could be applied consistently across the State and could be clearly documented for the WRDC Concern that if population growth was limited to the year 2000 U.S. Census geographies, some basins would exceed a maximum population density early in the projection period while others would remain unpopulated Members of the Committee could not readily reproduce or document the methodologies used for the population projections published in the Water Atlas and (not yet published) Basin Study. Furthermore, those projections were not done at a Census Designated Place (CDP), Incorporated Area and Municipal Planning Area (MPA) level (this level of detail was used to develop the Committee’s baseline dataset), but were done on a basin level specific to each publication http://epa.gov/region9/nepa/huachuca/AppendicesGHIJKL02-01-07revision.pd The differences between the area split method and the population distribution method of projecting population continued to be discussed after the Population Working Group formally selected the area split method. The leadership of the Water Supply & Demand Working Group requested a population projection series using the 2000 US Census Block method and the Population Working Group prepared this alternative distribution by basin analysis. The middle range projections given to the Water Supply & Demand Working Group using the population distribution method projection are in the Table 4. Note: The Population Committee received basin distribution information from La Paz, Pima and Pinal Counties which was used to distribute the projected populations for those areas. Table 4: Alternate 2000 Census Block Population Projection – Mid-Series 2010, 2035, 2060, 2110 BASIN_NAME 2010 2035 2060 Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 2110 Page 27 Water Resources Development Commission 11,144 16,671 20,036 27,703 110 123 136 188 BIG SANDY 1,638 2,607 3,251 4,495 BILL WILLIAMS 5,496 6,858 7,850 10,987 BONITA CREEK 23 30 35 49 BUTLER VALLEY 0 0 0 0 CIENEGA CREEK 5,170 7,467 9,130 12,624 11,245 14,987 18,000 24,887 1,773 2,750 3,421 4,730 0 0 0 7,897 30,871 41,635 49,327 68,201 217 245 272 375 DUNCAN VALLEY 3,559 3,659 4,252 5,879 GILA BEND 2,896 11,390 14,302 19,775 0 0 0 0 799 1,491 2,155 3,974 42,237 65,017 80,729 111,620 8,017 12,553 15,675 21,674 LAKE HAVASU 64,797 108,522 137,859 190,609 LAKE MOHAVE 65,226 96,942 119,141 164,728 444,449 614,513 AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON COCONINO PLATEAU DETRITAL VALLEY DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS + INA DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH GRAND WASH HARQUAHALA INA HUALAPAI VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU 285,867 375,183 LOWER GILA 12,470 16,685 19,850 27,446 LOWER SAN PEDRO 13,921 19,984 32,360 44,742 4,866 7,741 9,362 12,679 MCMULLEN VALLEY Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 28 Water Resources Development Commission MEADVIEW 1,084 1,674 2,079 2,875 MORENCI 4,553 4,724 5,477 7,572 582 673 762 1,053 16,809 20,438 22,722 30,753 2,205 3,146 3,799 5,253 4,073,039 6,443,884 8,096,058 11,170,234 PINAL AMA 234,486 674,968 1,071,653 1,465,914 PRESCOTT AMA 130,392 211,763 259,600 358,933 739 1,096 1,346 1,662 SACRAMENTO VALLEY 22,125 36,116 45,574 63,012 SAFFORD 40,125 48,905 56,139 77,261 SALT RIVER 28,822 33,400 37,506 51,856 92 96 104 143 149 183 211 291 SAN SIMON WASH 6,904 10,603 13,337 18,441 SANTA CRUZ AMA 45,914 68,887 84,828 117,287 SHIVWITS PLATEAU 7 13 16 23 TIGER WASH 0 0 0 0 14,131 19,473 24,202 33,463 1,004,446 1,430,910 1,772,729 2,482,634 UPPER HASSAYAMPA 12,914 21,270 26,335 36,412 UPPER SAN PEDRO 92,348 124,419 147,360 203,746 VERDE RIVER 108,577 1654,999 185,477 256,448 VIRGIN RIVER 2,672 4,950 6,444 8,909 26 40 50 69 PARIA PARKER PEACH SPRINGS PHOENIX AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL TONTO CREEK TUCSON AMA WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 29 Water Resources Development Commission 13,722 16,738 19,153 26,482 YUMA 199,551 307,963 377,462 521,894 STATE 6,628,757 10,453,870 13,252,013 18,322,751 WILLCOX Data Issues and Limitations The WRDC Population Committee was faced with several limitations during the development of the population projections. In addition to these limitations, concerns and additional data sources were brought to the group by working group members and other interested parties. Due to the November 30, 2010 deadline for completing the population projections, these limitations, concerns and additional data sources were not accounted for in the development of these projections; however, it is important to note that they were given consideration and may be important factors in any future work. The following is a list of limitations, concerns and additional data sources: Limitations: Work was completed in approximately 6 weeks Limited number of staff completing the work Uncertainty in projecting population 100 years into the future Lack of up-to-date population projections for Arizona 2010 U.S. Census population numbers will not be available until early 2011 Did not use the cohort-component model that is commonly used by professional demographers to project population growth patterns Differences between political and physical boundaries make distributing population by groundwater basin difficult Concerns (aka Bin Items): Representatives from the Navajo Nation stated that the 2000 U.S. Census under represents the Navajo’s population (John Leeper, representing the Navajo Nation, provided additional population information to the Committee: Western Navajo Hopi Water Supply Study by HDR, dated 2003) From: Norm DeWeaver [mailto:norm_deweaver@rocketmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 03:46 PM To: Collins Karen B Subject: "Bin" Item on Reservation Population Projections Fri, Dec 10th KAREN: Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 30 Water Resources Development Commission Great job with the presentation. The thoroughness with which you described the projection methodology was key to keeping the questions to a minimum. Did want to raise a point regarding the "bin" item concerning the Census undercount of the population on the reservations. There are two separate issues. One involves the undercount. The other relates to the rate of population growth in the projections. Navajo and the other tribes consider the growth rates too low. In at least some cases the rates are inconsistent with past rates. In addition, as reservation housing and infrastructure conditions improve, more tribal members living off-reservation are likely to move back to reservation communities. Would appreciate it if both points could be included when you draft the language for this "bin" item. Thanks. NORM The State Land Department is currently working on a study which is not in agreement with Pinal and La Paz County’s projected population distribution by basin There are differences between the Committee’s population projections and the Colorado River Basin Study’s population projections (Perri Benemelis attended a Committee meeting and stated that she was comfortable with the variation in projected population and that the Basin Study and the WRDC Report are being developed for two different purposes.) The Bureau of Reclamation’s Yavapai Highlands study includes projected population that may differ from the Committee’s projections ADWR’s AMA Assessments include projected population that may differ from the Committee’s projections (Pam Nagel is a WRDC Population Committee member and also worked on the population projections used in ADWR’s AMA Assessments.) Full participation from the Association of Governments, county planners, professional demographers and universities would be ideal Using updated 2010 U.S. Census data as a baseline for professional demographers to conduct population projections using a cohort-component method (accounts for age, sex, fertility, migration, etc.) (representatives from the Dept. of Commerce have indicated that a new set of population projections based on the 2010 U.S. Census data will be available for Arizona in 2012) 2010 revised population projection by CAAG (Pinal County) to 2040 Yavapai County non-incorporated areas email from John Rasmussen dated 10-27-10 Dean Trammel Tucson Water Plan and PAG analysis by water provider using TAZs email from Dean dated 10-26-10 Indian Reservations population growth (no new official data since 2000 Census) Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 31 Water Resources Development Commission MAG projections 2030, 2060? Rural/urban/Native American population projection breakdowns Census 2100 did it look at states? Are some counties facing some maximum population due to the limited availability of private land? Should the Population Working Group be working with an assumption of maximum density of population? How do we incorporate areas like Superstition Vistas? How soon will 2010 Census information be available for the Native American Reservations? Kevin Davidson from Mohave County email dated 11-29-10, “With this assumption [area split method] the Mohave North CCDs become a bit problematic with the Grand Wash and Shivwits Plateau basins having more growth than the Virgin River basin. Note this for the "bin." I can make the same argument for the Bill Williams being overrepresented and Lake Havasu being under-represented in the Kingman South CCD. For the Kingman North CCD, the Detrital Valley population projection is most likely underallocated while the estimate for Peach Springs basin is generally too aggressive for growth. Note these for the "bin" as well.” Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 32 Water Resources Development Commission MEMBERS OF THE POPULATION WORKING GROUP Name Jason Baran Phil Bashaw Perri Benemelis Patrick Bray Tom Buschatzke Jorge Canaca Luana Capponi Jim Chang Karen Collins Kevin Davidson Rebecca Davidson Norm DeWeaver Santiago Garcia Maureen George Angela Gotto Laura Grignano Thomas Homan John Hunt David Iwanski Jeff Johnson Robert Kirk Jim Klinker John Leeper Michael Liberti Colleen McVey Adam Miller Sharon Morris John Munderloh Shawn Murray Pam Nagel Karen Nally Steve Olson David Plane John Rasmussen Steve Rossi Bill Schooling Jerry Stabley Dean Trammel Dianne Yunker Affiliation Arizona Municipal Water User’s Association Arizona Farm Bureau Arizona Department of Water Resources Arizona Cattle Feeders’ Association City of Phoenix Arizona Game & Fish Department State Land Arizona Department of Commerce Salt River Project Mohave County Salt River Project Inter-Tribal Council of AZ U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Law offices of Maureen George Central Arizona Association of Governments Arizona Department of Water Resources Gila County Department of Agriculture City of Goodyear Town of Taylor Navajo Nation Arizona Farm Bureau Navajo Nation City of Tucson La Paz County City of Phoenix Arizona Department of Water Resources Town of Prescott Valley City of Mesa Arizona Department of Water Resources representing Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District and Central Arizona Irrigation & Drainage District Arizona Municipal Water Users Association University of Arizona Yavapai County City of Phoenix Arizona Department of Commerce Pinal County Tucson Water Arizona Department of Water Resources Population Working Group / Summary of Findings / July 13, 2011 Page 33 Water Resources Development Commission Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report Working Group Chairs: Ron Doba, Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users Association email: rdoba@cox.net Leslie Meyers, Bureau of Reclamation email: lmeyers@usbr.gov August 1, 2011 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Table of Contents Introduction 1 Objectives 1 METHODS 3 RESULTS 3 CONCLUSIONS 59 RECOMMENDATIONS 60 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 66 Tables Table 1. Baseline Supply and Demand 6 Table 2. 2035 Demand Projections 7 Table 3. 2060 Demand Projections 8 Table 4. 2110 Demand Projections (CS) 9 Table 5. 2110 Demand Projections (AS) 10 Table 6. Changes in Projected Water Demands 11 Table 7. Baseline Supply for Projection Purposes 12 Table 8. Water-Dependent Natural Resource Index 13 Table 9. Currently Developed Adjusted Supplies Vs. Projected Demands 16 Table 10. Adjusted Currently Developed Supplies Vs. Projected Demand 17 Table 10. Adjusted Currently Developed Supplies vs. Projected Demand (Continued) 18 Table 11. Currently Developed Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2035 Projected Demands 19 Table 12. Currently Developed Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2060 Projected Demands 20 Table 13. Currently Developed Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (CS) Projected Demands 21 Table 14. Currently Developed Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (AS) Projected Demands 22 Table 15. Hydrogeologic and Cultural Characteristics of Arizona Groundwater Basins 38 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 i Water Resources Development Commission Table 16. Basins currently in overdraft that have long-term groundwater sustainability issues at baseline rates of groundwater consumption  44 Table 17. Additional Water Supplies That May Potentially Be Developed  53 Table 18. Potential Additional Water Supplies, Technical and Legal Issues and Potential Infrastructure Needs Necessary to Develop and Deliver Additional Supplies to Fully or Partially Offset projected Unmet Demands in 2035 55 Table 19. Potential Additional Water Supplies, Technical and Legal Issues and Potential Infrastructure Needs Necessary to Develop and Deliver Additional Supplies to Fully or Partially Offset projected Unmet Demands in 2060 56 Table 20. Potential Additional Water Supplies, Technical and Legal Issues and Potential Infrastructure Needs Necessary to Develop and Deliver Additional Supplies to Fully or Partially Offset projected Unmet Demands in 2110 (CS) 57 Table 21. Potential Additional Water Supplies, Technical and Legal Issues and Potential Infrastructure Needs Necessary to Develop and Deliver Additional Supplies to Fully or Partially Offset projected Unmet Demands in 2110 (AS) 58 Figures ii Figure 1. 2035 Projected Unmet Demand for Instate Basins 23 Figure 2. 2060 Projected Unmet Demand for Instate Basins 24 Figure 3. 2110 (CS) Projected Unmet Demand for Instate Basins 25 Figure 4. 2110 (AS) Projected Unmet Demand for Instate Basins 26 Figure 5. 2035 Projected Unmet Demand for Basins Receiving Colorado River Water 27 Figure 6. 2060 Projected Unmet Demand for Basins Receiving Colorado River Water 28 Figure 7. 2110 (CS) Projected Unmet Demand for Basins Receiving Colorado River Water 29 Figure 8. 2110 (AS) Projected Unmet Demand for Basins Receiving Colorado River Water 30 Figure 9. 2035 Projected Unmet Demand for AMAs or INAs that May Receive CAP Water 31 Figure 10. 2060 Projected Unmet Demand for AMAs or INAs that May Receive CAP Water 32 Figure 11. 2110 (CS) Projected Unmet Demand for AMAs or INAs that May Receive CAP Water 33 Figure 12. 2110 (AS) Projected Unmet Demand for AMAs or INAs that May Receive CAP Water 34 Figure 13. Water level changes Late 1980’s Early/Mid 1990’s to Mid/Late 2000’s  43 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Figure 14. Estimated Cost to Pump Groundwater From Varying Depths 47 Figure 15. Currently Developed and Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2035 Projected Demands 62 Figure 16. Currently Developed and Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2060 Projected Demands 63 Figure 17. Currently Developed and Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (CS) Projected Demands 64 Figure 18. Currently Developed and Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (AS) Projected Demands 65 Appendices APPENDIX 1: COUNTY BASIN MAPS (SUPPLIES VS. DEMANDS) 67 APPENDIX 2: WRDC AGRICULTURE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT 128 APPENDIX 3: WRDC INDUSTRIAL DEMAND SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT 138 APPENDIX 4: MUNICIPAL DEMAND SUBCOMITTEE REPORT 162 APPENDIX 5: WRDC WATER SUPPLY SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT 172 APPENDIX 6: WRDC TRIBAL WORKING GROUP REPORT 194 APPENDIX 7: COMMITTEE MEMBERS/AFFILIATION 206 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 iii Water Resources Development Commission Introduction In 2010, the Arizona Legislature passed H.B. 2661, which created the Water Resources Development Commission (WRDC) for the purpose of assessing the current and future water needs of Arizona. The Water Supply and Demand (WS&D) Working Group of the WRDC has been tasked with the development of a statewide water needs assessment that identifies, by county, present water demands and supply. Water demand data was available to the Working Group by groundwater basin. In order to meet the purpose of H.B. 2661, all demand and supply data was analyzed on the basis of groundwater basins and then associated with the county(s) that geographically coincide with the basin(s). Present water demands are projected into the future at intervals of 25, 50, and 100 years and compared to present supply to identify future unmet demands. Appendix 1 of this report provides separate maps of the counties in Arizona and the groundwater basins located within each county. Unmet water demands are identified separately for each target year. This assessment includes the identification and legal and technical evaluation of sources of supply to satisfy the future unmet demands. Objectives The Water Resources Development Commission assigned the following tasks to the WS&D Work Group: Objective 1 Compile and consider projected water needs of each county and groundwater basin over the study period. 1. Develop water demand assumptions based on forecasted growth for the study period. a. Provide municipal demand projection based on population growth i. Water provider v. domestic well demand ii. Changes in demand rate b. Prepare industrial demand assumptions i. Develop economic development/growth methodologies with county/other economic development experts; review existing development plans and strategies with appropriate staff ii. Incorporate economic projections that predict growth and location of power and mining industry/development iii. Develop demand assumptions based on current or new technology iv. Develop methodology to predict sand and gravel and industrial golf course demand based on population and other approach c. Prepare agricultural demand assumptions i. Incorporate studies and expert opinions; conduct trend analysis to forecast demand d. Prepare summary of findings and recommendations including needed studies and research by February 28, 2011. Objective 2 Identify and quantify water supplies currently available in each county and groundwater basin. Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 1 Water Resources Development Commission 1. Use the Arizona Water Atlas as the baseline condition for currently available water supplies at the groundwater basin level. a. Develop an approach to display basin data on a county basis 2. Identify how drought and climate change are/are not currently factored into water supply available planning 3. Incorporate Blue Ribbon Panel effluent reuse/recycle availability findings into available water supply portfolio 4. Prepare summary of findings and recommendations including needed studies and research by November 30, 2010 Objective 3 Compare current and future water supplies and demand to identify unmet demands. (With Environmental Committee) 1. Compare forecasted water demand to baseline water supply to determine whether supplies are sufficient to meet current and additional demand. a. Identify available supplies; and how these are defined basin by basin b. Identify current and/or future gaps between water demand and supply (unmet demand) during the study periods c. Identify unmet demands by sector over the study period 2. Prepare summary of findings and recommendations including needed studies and research by February 28, 2011 Objective 4 Identify potential water supplies that could be used to meet additional demands over the study period. 1. Identify additional supplies such as conservation, reuse, alternative technologies, desalination and other strategies such as agricultural land fallowing or retirement and to what extent these supplies could meet additional demand over the study period 2. Identify basins where water supplies may be available from outside the basin and what volumes are necessary to meet additional demands 3. Identify potential water supplies out of the region that could be imported to the region to meet additional demands 4. Prepare summary of findings and recommendations including needed studies and research by May 31, 2011 Objective 5 Identify any legal or technical issues associated with the use of those supplies (in conjunction with Objective 4) 1. For those basins where additional water supplies are available, evaluate the legal and/or technical issues 2 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission with accessing these supplies within the basin 2. For those basins where additional supplies are not available, evaluate the legal and/or technical issues with accessing additional supplies available with the region but outside the basin 3. For those basins where additional supplies are not available and no other regional supply exists, evaluate the legal and/or technical issues associated with importing water supplies into the region 4. Prepare summary of findings and recommendations including needed studies and research by May 31, 2011. METHODS In order to meet the objectives outlined above, four subcommittees and one special working group to the Water Supply and Demand Working Group were formed: Municipal subcommittee (Objective 1.1.a) Industrial subcommittee (Objective 1.1.b) Agricultural subcommittee (Objective 1.1.c) Tribal special working group (Tribal perspective on Objectives 1, 2 & 4) Water Supply subcommittee (Objectives 2, 4 & 5) In addition to the four subcommittees formed by the WS&D Working Group, the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA) suggested an additional effort be undertaken to present Tribal water demands and supplies and volunteered to lead the effort. Tribal water claims had not been clearly identified in the objectives and represent an important portion of the State of Arizona’s water budget that should be identified. Accordingly, the Inter Tribal Council served as the Tribal liaison for the Working Group and for the purposes of this report, also worked with the representatives of the Navajo Nation (not an ITCA member). The background of Tribal water rights is discussed in “The Future of Water Resources in Arizona: A Tribal Report” provided by John Lewis, Ray Benally and Norm DeWeaver and located in Appendix 6. Volunteers from the initial WS&D Working Group served as chairs of the four subcommittees. The subcommittees established their own meeting schedules and had access to Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) data and supporting staff. Agendas and meeting notes were posted on the ADWR website and a File Transfer Protocol (FTP/InfoShare) site was established for data and reports to be accessed by the subcommittee and working group members. Membership and participation on the working group and subcommittees was open to all interested stakeholders. Summaries of findings, including all assumptions, for each of the objectives addressed by the subcommittee are attached to this report as Appendix 1 – County Basin Maps: Currently Developed and Adjusted Supplies Vs. Projected Demands, Appendix 2 – WRDC Agricultural Subcommittee Report, Appendix 3 – WRDC Industrial Demand Subcommittee Report, Appendix 4 – WRDC Municipal Demand Subcommittee Report, Appendix 5 – WRDC Water Supply Subcommittee Report, and Appendix 6 – WRDC Tribal Working Group Report. Reference material provided to the subcommittees and utilized by the working groups include the ADWR Arizona Water Atlas, ADWR AMA Assessments, ADWR 2008 Hydrologic Data and Draft Recommendations Related to the Review of 100-Year Physical Availability Depth Criteria for Demonstrating Adequate water Supplies and the Central Arizona Water Demand Model RESULTS Objectives 1 and 2: Identify Water Demands and Supplies Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 3 Water Resources Development Commission Numerous tables were built to bring together the information presented by the subcommittees to meet the first two objectives. Objectives 1 and 2 are addressed together due to the associated tables representing both demand and supply information. Table 1. Baseline Supply and Demand identifies the baseline water demands provided by ADWR to the subcommittees and the water sources that were used to meet those demands. Water sources include groundwater, instate surface water, effluent, and Colorado River water. The currently available groundwater and instate surface water supply is assumed to be equal to the baseline groundwater and instate surface water demands, respectively. Although existing wells may have capacities in excess of baseline groundwater demand, this conservative supply estimate is the best assumption based on the given level of data. Total Colorado River supply is equal to Arizona’s Colorado River apportionment and is distributed into basins based on entitlements. And finally, effluent supply is equal to the amount of effluent currently generated. Tables 2 through 5 identify demand projections for each basin by sector for the years 2035, 2060, 2110 (census split [CS] population method) and 2110 (area split [AS] population method). The difference between the CS population method (referred to as population distribution method in the Population Working Group Report) and the AS method is the AS method assumes population growth will go to available land and the CS method uses U.S. Census blocks keeping the same population ratios for growth. The WS&D Working Group chose to look at the AS method only for 2110 due to what appeared to be high population growth rates in unlikely areas of the State for the shorter target years (2035 and 2060). A Statewide summary of projected changes in water demands for 2035, 2060 and 2110 (CS and AS) are shown by percentage and Acre-Feet for each sector in Table 6. The industrial subcommittee generated high and low demand projection estimates for industrial users while the municipal and agricultural subcommittees generate a single estimate for projection years. To avoid redundancy, tables provided in the Supply Subcommittee Report are not duplicated in this section of the Working Group Report. Table 7. Baseline Supply for Projection Purposes indicates the amount of water supply currently developed and/or available through entitlements to meet the current water demand. The Supply Subcommittee was charged with projecting water supplies available for future use, taking into account climate change and/or drought. These assumptions are taken into account in the tables that show the projected available water supplies for 2035, 2060, 2110 (CS) and 2110(AS) located in the Supply Subcommittee Report. Determination of Colorado River water supply available to contractors for the target years was more complex. To begin with, ADWR provided the subcommittee a listing of water entitlements based on diversions for Colorado River water users. All Colorado River main stem demands reported in the Arizona Water Atlas were based on water diversions. Therefore, all supply is reported as diversions. Assumptions used to calculate Colorado River water supply can be found in the Supply Subcommittee Report. Water supplies in this report that take into account drought and climate change are referred to as “adjusted water supplies.” In general, there are several variables, including growth patterns, economic conditions, technological advances and climate and weather patterns that, to one degree or another, affect water supply and demand regardless of the water using sector that is examined. While the supply projections reflect a general assumption of the future affects of climate change on future water supplies, any review of the supply and demand figures presented in this report should be cautious because there was no real attempt to independently evaluate these variables and their influence on future water supplies and demands. The supply figures are also confounded by the lack of data. For example, figures for groundwater in storage for some groundwater basins are more accurate than the groundwater in storage data for other basins simply because there have been more measurements in some basins than others. Municipal and Industrial Demand Demands for Municipal and Industrial water are projected to grow in nearly all of the groundwater basins in the future (See WRDC Municipal Demand Subcommittee Report and 5/27/11 rev WRDC Industrial Demand Subcommittee Report). Each of the basins with Colorado River entitlements has an increase in municipal and 4 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission industrial use in the future. Development of Arizona State Trust Land was not considered separately by the Population Working Group for determining population projections. The State Land Department identified their concern that some population projections may be low. The Population Working Group identified the issue as a “bin item” due to the added layer of complexity and short time frame they faced to complete their report. The issue is not addressed in this report. Agricultural Demand In general, non-Tribal demands for agricultural water use are assumed to remain constant into the future (with the exception of the Yuma and Lower Gila groundwater basins and the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs which are expected to decline – see WRDC Agriculture Demand Subcommittee Report in Appendix 2). Tribal Demand and Supply In this analysis, Tribal supply is only available to meet Tribal demands. Colorado River Tribal entitlements in each of the basins will only be available as supply on the reservation and may not be converted to supply to meet non-Tribal future unmet demands unless tribal consent is obtained. Environmental Demand Environmental demands were evaluated by the Environmental Committee. The goal of the environmental demand analysis was to capture a “snapshot in time” only. There was not an attempt to make a projection of environmental demand. Details of the evaluation can be found in the report from the Environmental Working Group titled “Arizona’s Inventory of Water-Dependent Natural Resources”. Three wildlife refuges hold Colorado River entitlements. The Havasu National Wildlife Refuge, located in the Lake Mohave, Lake Havasu and Sacramento Basins has a diversion entitlement of 41,839 AF, the Imperial National Wildlife Refuge 28,000 AF (Lower Gila Basin and Parker Basins) and the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge 34,500 AF (Parker Basin). Although historically not fully utilized, this water is not available for other cultural uses. Entitlements for the refuges are set aside through Secretarial Order and are not available for transfer. Any entitlements not used by the refuges are available to CAP as an unused apportionment. For the purposes of identifying available water supplies, diversion entitlements are assumed to be fully utilized by the three wildlife refuges. Categories of environmental sensitivity have been identified by the Environmental Committee for each basin and are indicated in Table 8. Water-Dependent Natural Resource Index for the Water Resource Development Commission. The table refers to additional work products found in the Environmental Committee Report. Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 5 WILLCOX Version 6-17-11 BASIN NAME WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE VIRGIN RIVER VERDE RIVER UPPER SAN PEDRO UPPER HASSAYAMPA TONTO CREEK TIGER WASH SHIVWITS PLATEAU SANTA CRUZ AMA SAN SIMON WASH SAN RAFAEL SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SALT RIVER SAFFORD SACRAMENTO VALLEY RANEGRAS PLAIN PRESCOTT AMA PEACH SPRINGS PARIA MORENCI MEADVIEW MCMULLEN VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO HUALAPAI VALLEY GRAND WASH GILA BEND DUNCAN VALLEY DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DOUGLAS DONNELLY WASH COCONINO PLATEAU CIENEGA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY BONITA CREEK BIG SANDY ARAVAIPA CANYON AGUA FRIA Table 1. Baseline Supply and Demand Instate + CAP PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA TUCSON AMA AGRICULTURE 1,800 1,000 0 0 14,500 500 0 0 48,000 0 17,100 351,500 0 0 3,700 71,000 0 0 0 0 2,847 29,000 0 169,600 6,900 0 0 500 10,704 0 0 1,500 0 8,800 23,700 1,000 0 166,000 AGRICULTURE Cont. Non-Tribal Ag 217,779 152,140 10,635 Tribal Ag 39,250 2,700 0 1,100 0 20,890 68,110 499,000 21,942 621,454 804,766 6,234 135,500 730,025 819,894 87,755 MUNICIPAL 1,800 14 271 0 3 600 1,173 19 5,300 11 550 750 2 9,100 2,745 500 145 2,200 120 350 17,554 350 2,300 7,300 4,250 19 22 1,000 8,502 2 2 2,700 2,500 18,480 16,560 423 6 3,161 Feedlots 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 567 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 0 288 0 0 0 0 Other Industrial 0 0 14,717 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,544 0 0 8,109 0 0 0 0 90 44 15,448 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mining 2 0 40 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 423 0 0 0 0 1 126 0 0 192 395 0 0 0 195 0 0 0 0 75 1,180 0 0 0 Rock Products 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,200 Power Plants TOTAL 3,602 1,014 15,028 0 14,503 1,101 1,173 19 53,300 11 17,954 357,823 2 9,109 24,622 71,500 145 10,384 120 351 21,887 29,350 3,765 177,558 27,204 19 22 1,500 20,980 2 2 4,200 3,286 29,237 44,527 2,305 6 176,075 TOTAL Total Instate Supply 3,602 1,014 15,028 0 14,503 1,101 1,173 19 53,300 11 17,954 357,823 2 9,109 24,622 71,500 145 10,384 120 351 21,887 29,350 3,765 177,558 27,204 19 22 1,500 20,980 2 2 4,200 3,286 29,237 44,527 2,305 6 176,075 TOTAL 1 Colorado River/ CAP Diversions 3,602 1,014 15,028 0 14,503 1,101 1,173 19 53,300 11 17,954 357,823 2 9,109 24,622 71,500 145 10,384 120 351 21,887 29,350 3,765 177,558 27,204 19 22 1,500 20,980 2 2 4,200 3,286 29,237 44,527 2,305 6 176,075 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Baseline Demand Water Sources Instate SW (c. 2006) 0 0 0 0 0 0 273 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 145 0 0 0 0 0 2,534 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 830 784 0 0 211 Instate Effluent (Used c. 2006) GW (c. 2006) 0 500 0 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 9,900 62,500 0 0 800 0 0 1,258 0 0 1,674 0 0 89,100 14,593 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 0 4,450 15,194 720 0 150 Supply - Demand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 212,583 4,006,675 3,096,749 7,103,425 0 Supply - Demand Cont. 1,165,176 Total Instate Supply Baseline Demand Water Sources Cont. 3,602 514 15,028 0 14,503 1,101 500 19 53,300 11 8,054 295,323 2 9,109 23,677 71,500 145 9,126 120 351 17,679 29,350 3,765 87,958 12,611 19 22 1,500 20,980 2 2 3,000 3,286 23,957 28,549 1,585 6 175,714 154,202 87,132 7,103,425 2,628,917 Instate Effluent (Used c. 2006) TOTAL Turf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 0 0 0 211 0 0 75 0 0 793 0 0 423 211 0 0 0 1,482 0 0 0 0 1,552 3,087 882 0 0 Turf Water Resources Development Commission Baseline Demands Dairy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 173 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 786 42 0 0 0 584 Baseline Demands Cont. INDUSTRIAL Mining MUNICIPAL Power Plants Colorado River/ CAP Diversions Rock Products Instate SW (c. 2006) Other Industrial GW (c. 2006) Feedlots 0 Dairy 160,823 63,200 34,001 331 0 0 0 0 4,000 0 0 126,822 1,201 0 0 0 60 77 0 0 14,900 11,766 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,109 539 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95,813 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160,823 42,800 0 0 27 0 0 3,421 0 1,716 1,250 309 2,500 16,070 21,920 246 0 0 0 0 0 882 2,020 4,520 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 441 4,150 309 3,627 16,130 47,768 68,110 504,687 26,462 621,454 852,241 6,234 136,735 658 199 78 28 13,650 45,046 68,110 394,071 23,559 621,454 742,170 6,234 70,557 238 3,951 231 3,599 2,480 2,722 0 110,616 2,903 0 110,071 0 66,178 0 200 0 0 2,433 715 0 0 1,116 0 460 0 0 1,178 500 72 800 0 0 0 320 0 0 1,041 0 0 0 3,251 159 2,799 47 2,007 0 110,296 1,787 0 108,570 0 66,178 0 4,150 309 3,627 16,130 47,769 68,110 504,687 26,462 621,454 852,241 6,234 136,735 44,960 0 S upply -De mand 0 TOTAL 0 CAP 0 Total Instate Supply 0 T O T AL 128 Turf Mining MUNICIPAL 1,107 Power Plants Effluent (Used c. 2006) 0 Rock Products Instate SW (c. 2006) Other Industrial GW (c. 2006) Feedlots 0 0 0 Dairy 2,170,179 1,022,762 338,067 69,585 96 2,656 485,321 486,124 106,146 10,401 1,199 3,807 1,684,858 536,638 231,921 0 0 34,905 18,750 168,331 4,614 14,336 10,624 1,229 4,181 92,256 842,773 100,734 588 58 3,033 0 29,932 673,754 431,290 216,997 10,080 8,400 110 7,182 2,170,179 1,022,762 338,067 1,060,995 30,485 185,769 20,637 60,632 6,286 8,249 1,524,510 resulting in corresponding reductions in groundw ater and instate surf ace w ater quantities used. Recharged CAP not included as a cultural w ater dem and. 1. Baseline Demand Water Sources are derived f rom the Arizona Water Atlas (outside AMAs) and AMA Assessments w ith some adjustments made f or basins receiving Colorado River Water to ref lect estimated diversions 5,168,825 GW = groundw ater CAP = Central Arizona Project Instate SW = Other Surf ace Water Ef f luent = reclaimed w ater Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 CR = Mainstem Colorado River Water STATEWIDE Major Active Management Areas (AMAs) HARQUAHALA INA Yuma (Tribal Ag) YUMA Parker (Tribal Ag) PARKER LOWER GILA Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) LAKE MOHAVE LAKE HAVASU KANAB PLATEAU DETRITAL VALLEY BILL WILLIAMS LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Basins Which Receive Part of their Supply from the Colorado River or CAP Instate Water Supplies Only Instat e+ Instate + CR Lower Mainstem CR Upper 6 Table 2. 2035 Demand Projections BASIN NAME AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HUALAPAI VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PEACH SPRINGS PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX STATEWIDE GW = groundwater CR = Mainstem Colorado River Water CAP = Central Arizona Project Instate SW = Other Surface Water Effluent = reclaimed water PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA TUCSON AMA Major Active Management Areas (AMAs) LAKE MOHAVE Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) LOWER GILA PARKER Parker (Tribal Ag) YUMA Yuma (Tribal Ag) HARQUAHALA INA BILL WILLIAMS DETRITAL VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Basins Which Receive Part of their Supply from the Colorado River or CAP Instate Water Supplies Only Instate + CR Upper Instate + CR Lower Mainstem Instate + CAP Water Resources Development Commission 2035 Demand Projections TOTAL Low 4,772 1,013 509 5 14,500 1,755 1,596 0 55,841 16 17,969 377,271 0 14,919 20,948 72,008 251 14,150 9,483 810 36,863 29,398 20,005 183,181 39,460 25 26 2,042 25,541 2 0 7,418 5,551 39,528 53,750 2,705 6 177,569 TOTAL Low 259,566 TOTAL High 4,888 1,014 528 5 14,500 2,007 1,701 0 56,344 17 17,994 384,396 0 15,584 37,087 72,062 263 50,183 12,988 832 38,478 29,405 26,067 205,523 55,850 26 28 2,116 26,336 2 0 7,765 5,699 50,520 58,275 2,740 7 180,182 TOTAL High INDUSTRIAL Turf High 218,219 34,346 430 5,163 32,545 MUNICIPAL 1,806 14,298 410 5,075 31,577 AGRICULTURE Turf Low 0 0 0 211 AGRICULTURE 2035 Demands Projections 76,244 2,676 5,391 Dairy 0 0 5,281 0 58 3,033 0 Feedlots 0 0 6,781 0 34,476 3,847 2,501 Other Industrial 0 1,178 0 0 139,700 15,000 4,000 39,000 Mining Low 0 0 0 300 343,900 25,000 18,000 74,000 Mining High 0 0 18,000 300 52,133 32,135 3,366 7,136 Rock Products Low 7 1,536 83 102 125,119 77,125 8,078 17,126 Rock Products High 18 3,686 200 245 300,696 126,752 4,135 2,913 Power Plants Low 918 2,061 1,313 5,563 412,309 174,283 5,686 4,005 Power Plants High 1,147 2,784 1,642 6,979 100,164 67,147 12,658 8,249 Turf Low 0 476 0 0 115,441 76,843 14,486 9,414 Turf High 0 545 0 211 8,191,191 2,985,423 985,887 425,148 TOTAL Low 8,595,266 3,097,639 1,007,978 472,395 TOTAL High 78,867 68,110 516,115 35,067 621,454 861,037 6,234 136,910 INDUSTRIAL 245 0 18,480 0 54,721 Norma l Colora do R iv er S upply A v a ila ble w hen the Elev a tion of L a ke Mea d = 1, 075-1, 145. MUNICIPAL 1,876,700 151,212 278,695 10,541 MUNICIPAL Turf High 1,716 1,050 Turf Low Power Plants High 0 0 0 0 Power Plants High 141,672 882 Power Plants Low Power Plants Low 0 0 0 0 Rock Products High 103,034 19,383 Rock Products Low Rock Products High 0 0 0 0 Mining High 4,490 14,097 Mining Low Rock Products Low 82 33 150 1,299 Other Industrial 1,871 1,160 Feedlots Mining High 34 14 63 541 Dairy 1,500 483 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 0 211 0 0 211 211 0 0 75 0 0 1,032 0 211 423 211 0 0 0 1,781 0 0 211 0 1,675 3,530 882 0 0 Mining Low 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 0 0 0 211 0 0 75 0 0 902 0 0 423 211 0 0 0 1,482 0 0 0 0 1,552 3,087 882 0 0 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 26,147 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,832 0 22 0 5,944 0 577 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,152 Other Industrial 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 19,102 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,332 0 16 0 4,346 0 420 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,656 11,766 0 200 1 31 0 0 89 179 0 498 3 44 136 0 778 239 93 20 57 8 38 2,535 13 432 585 400 1 2 127 824 0 0 233 255 1,489 1,855 59 0 200 Feedlots 0 0 0 0 83 1 13 0 0 37 75 0 208 1 18 57 0 324 100 39 8 24 3 16 1,056 5 180 244 167 0 1 53 344 0 0 97 106 620 773 25 0 83 539 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 48,000 0 300 0 0 12,000 27,000 43,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,000 4,000 0 0 300 Dairy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,000 0 0 12,000 0 300 0 0 8,000 5,000 27,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 1,000 0 0 300 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 567 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 0 288 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 58,523 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 5,281 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 786 42 0 0 0 584 1,564 397 3,885 31,036 2,888 12 496 5 0 918 1,521 0 7,633 14 546 1,332 0 14,595 2,937 970 243 2,051 148 494 32,994 392 7,403 7,914 4,762 25 25 1,489 12,347 2 0 5,821 4,659 26,226 25,190 798 6 3,816 39,250 36,384 1,800 1,000 0 0 14,500 500 0 0 48,000 0 17,100 351,500 0 0 3,700 71,000 0 0 0 0 1,329 29,000 0 169,600 6,900 0 0 500 11,233 0 0 1,500 0 8,800 23,700 1,000 0 166,000 2,700 0 1,100 0 72,736 68,110 497,669 33,298 621,454 858,095 6,234 136,670 20,890 68,110 481,535 21,942 621,454 776,599 6,234 135,500 525,228 194,616 20,412 NonTribal Ag Tribal Ag 307,926 590,540 66,242 30,670 The f irs t tier s horta ge of Colora do R iv er S upply a v a ila ble w hen the Elev a tion of L a ke Mea d = 1, 050-1, 075. If CA M G W S upply > B a s eline ( c . 2006) , the G W S upply is = B a s eline ( c . 2006) . If CA M G W S upply < B a s eline ( c . 2006) , the G W S upply = CA M G W S upply . In this c a s e CA P a nd Priority 4 c ons umptiv e us e entitlements a re reduc ed by a tota l of 320, 000 a c re-f eet. In this c a s e CA P a nd Priority 4 c a n us e their f ull entitlements . 2,693,625 1. 4,808,940 2. In the A MA s , a low a nd high groundw a ter s upply c orres ponds w ith low a nd high indus tria l dema nds . G enera lly s pea king 90% is reduc ed f rom the CA P a nd 10% f rom Priority 4 Ma ins tem Us ers or a s determined by the A riz ona -Nev a da S horta ge A greement. 3. It is divided into the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson A MA s f or planning purposes in the Supply V s. Demand tabulation and unmet demand analysis. 4. The f irst CA P value in the range represents the portion of A rizona's Low er Basin Colorado River Supply that is projected to be available af ter f ull on-river use of entitlements occurs. This value includes a 5% system loss expected f rom the point of diversion and the place of use. 5. The second CA P value in the range represents the addition of w ater contracted to mainstem contract holders currently utilized by CA P pursuant to CA P's contract w ith the Secretary. Pos itiv e v a lues f or ( s upply – dema nd) f or Colora do R iv er ba s ins w ould be a v a ila ble f or us e by CA P or other Colora do R iv er w a ter us ers . No w a ter w ould be lef t unus ed in the ba s in. Increased values in f uture years correspond to decreased values in the Y uma and Low er Gila Basins based on a projected 7% decrease in non-Indian agriculture demand. 6. Note : In a Nor m al Ye ar (Lak e M e ad Ele vation be tw e e n 1,075 And 1,145), AZ CU Entitle m e nts = 2.8M AF, AZ us e =2.8M AF, Balance available e quals ze r o. In a Fir s t Tie r Shor tage Ye ar (Lak e M e ad Ele vation be tw e e n 1,050 and 1,075), AZ CU Entitle m e nts = 2.48M AF, AZ us e = 2.48M AF, Balance available e quals ze r o. Ar izona w ill alw ays us e its full appor tionm e nt. Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 7 Table 3. 2060 Demand Projections BASIN NAME AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HUALAPAI VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PEACH SPRINGS PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX STATEWIDE GW = groundwater CR = Mainstem Colorado River CAP = Central Arizona Project Instate SW = Other Surface Water Effluent = reclaimed water PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA TUCSON AMA Major Active Management Areas (AMAs) LAKE MOHAVE Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) LOWER GILA PARKER Parker (Tribal Ag) YUMA Yuma (Tribal Ag) HARQUAHALA INA BILL WILLIAMS DETRITAL VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Basins Which Receive Part of their Supply from the Colorado River or CAP Instate Water Supplies Only Instate Instate + CR Lower Mainstem + CR Upper Instate + CAP AGRICULTURE 1,800 1,000 0 0 14,500 500 0 0 48,000 0 17,100 351,500 0 0 3,700 71,000 0 0 0 1,329 29,000 0 169,600 6,900 0 0 500 11,233 0 0 1,500 0 8,800 23,700 1,000 0 166,000 AGRICULTURE 39,250 NonTribal Ag 525,228 194,616 20,412 Tribal Ag 2,700 0 1,100 0 20,890 68,110 464,070 21,942 621,454 748,432 6,234 135,500 147,045 418,152 56,723 4,420,519 Water Resources Development Commission 177,657 Power Plants High 1,128 0 0 0 0 1,870 Turf Low 1,126 0 0 0 211 1,867 Turf High 14,529 511 6,057 40,113 249,821 TOTAL Low 5,371 1,014 635 6 14,500 1,968 1,917 0 57,291 17 18,060 390,492 0 18,524 22,961 72,220 312 14,481 11,342 916 44,762 29,488 22,996 184,388 40,148 27 30 2,440 28,921 3 0 8,856 6,685 44,660 59,459 2,953 8 179,443 TOTAL Low 34,584 534 6,166 41,286 307,246 TOTAL High 5,511 1,015 658 6 14,500 2,232 2,043 0 57,847 19 18,090 400,591 0 19,299 39,054 72,285 326 50,519 16,267 942 46,581 29,498 29,797 206,780 56,630 28 32 2,533 29,530 3 0 9,236 6,869 55,686 63,748 2,998 8 183,085 TOTAL High INDUSTRIAL 2060 Demand Projections Power Plants Low 0 0 0 0 MUNICIPAL 123,332 24,307 MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL 2060 Demand Projections Turf High Rock Products High 0 0 0 0 Turf Low 5,319 16,874 Power Plants High Rock Products Low 94 41 188 1,650 Power Plants Low 2,216 1,426 Rock Products High Mining High 39 17 78 687 Rock Products Low 1,500 594 Mining High Mining Low 30,000 0 0 0 0 211 92,464 68,110 509,041 41,130 621,454 851,923 6,234 137,944 Mining Low 1,500 0 0 0 583 84,201 68,110 490,312 38,242 621,454 848,232 6,234 137,516 TOTAL High MUNICIPAL Other Industrial Other Industrial 10,000 0 0 0 2,955 12,412 584 0 TOTAL Low 3,489,538 925,757 535,325 Feedlots 11,766 0 2,364 9,894 3,761 0 Turf High 3,356,261 902,124 486,427 9,092,987 Dairy Feedlots 0 0 0 0 238 272 2,705 2,065 Turf Low 84,234 20,066 10,175 8,637,438 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 0 211 0 0 211 211 0 0 75 0 0 1,103 0 211 423 211 0 0 0 1,914 0 0 211 0 1,731 3,686 882 0 0 539 0 99 113 4,518 1,652 Power Plants High 84,364 20,097 10,191 129,765 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 0 0 0 343 0 0 75 0 0 1,105 0 0 423 211 0 0 0 1,917 0 0 0 0 1,734 3,691 882 0 0 Dairy 0 0 0 0 18,000 300 1,882 26 Power Plants Low 218,724 7,136 5,026 128,826 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 33,434 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,091 0 28 0 7,623 0 723 0 0 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,476 20 0 0 300 0 11 Rock Products High 151,841 4,954 3,489 523,486 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 23,435 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,171 0 19 0 5,351 0 502 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,967 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 Rock Products Low 96,899 12,826 21,217 365,598 240 2 39 0 0 109 215 0 590 3 51 171 0 966 387 112 25 66 9 45 3,107 16 545 672 449 1 3 160 1,015 0 0 290 315 1,764 2,220 77 1 229 69,327 0 6,781 0 1,178 0 Mining High 40,375 5,344 8,840 158,609 100 1 16 0 0 46 90 0 246 1 21 71 0 403 161 47 10 27 4 19 1,295 7 227 280 187 1 1 67 423 0 0 121 131 735 925 32 0 96 1,790 494 4,852 39,425 13,814 0 0 0 Mining Low 25,000 18,000 74,000 66,087 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 48,000 0 300 0 0 12,000 27,000 43,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,000 4,000 0 0 300 44,715 0 0 Other Industrial 15,000 4,000 39,000 343,900 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,000 0 0 12,000 0 300 0 0 8,000 5,000 27,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 1,000 0 0 300 3,184 5,993 0 Feedlots 34,476 3,847 2,501 139,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 567 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 0 288 0 0 0 0 93,451 Dairy 58 3,033 0 54,721 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 354 0 8,000 0 10,541 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 13,814 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 786 42 0 0 0 584 2,357,875 240,081 345,271 37,256 3,471 14 619 6 0 1,123 1,827 0 9,043 16 635 1,672 0 18,122 4,756 1,173 302 2,378 167 597 40,447 482 9,342 9,085 5,347 27 29 1,873 15,204 3 0 7,235 5,768 31,062 30,143 1,039 8 4,366 3,414,190 1. Normal Colorado R iver S upply A vailable w hen the Elevation of L ake Mead = 1,075-1,145. In this c as e CA P and Priority 4 c an us e their f ull entitlements . 2. The f irs t tier s hortage of Colorado R iver S upply available w hen the Elevation of L ake Mead = 1,050-1,075. In this c as e CA P and Priority 4 c ons umptive us e entitlements are reduc ed by a total of 320,000 ac re-f eet. G enerally s peaking 90% is reduc ed f rom the CA P and 10% f rom Priority 4 Mains tem Us ers or as determined by the A riz ona-Nevada S hortage A greement. 3. In the A MA s , a low and high groundw ater s upply c orres ponds w ith low and high indus trial demands . If CA M G W S upply > B as eline ( c . 2006) , the G W S upply is = B as eline ( c .2006) . If CA M G W S upply < B as eline ( c . 2006) , the G W S upply = CA M G W S upply . It is divided into the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs f or planning purposes in the Supply Vs. Demand tabulation and unmet demand analysis. 4. The f irst CAP value in the range represents the portion of Arizona's Low er Basin Colorado River Supply that is projected to be available af ter f ull on-river use of entitlements occurs. This value includes a 5% system loss expected f rom the point of diversion and the place of use. 5. The second CAP value in the range represents the addition of w ater contracted to mainstem contract holders currently utilized by CAP pursuant to CAP's contract w ith the Secretary. Increased values in f uture years correspond to decreased values in the Yuma and Low er Gila Basins based on a projected 7% decrease in non-Indian agriculture demand. 6. Pos itive values f or ( s upply – demand) f or Colorado R iver bas ins w ould be available f or us e by CA P or other Colorado R iver w ater us ers . No w ater w ould be lef t unus ed in the bas in. Note : In a Norm al Ye ar (Lak e M e ad Ele vation be tw e e n 1,075 And 1,145), AZ CU Entitle m e nts = 2.8M AF, AZ us e =2.8M AF, Balance available e quals ze ro. In a Firs t Tie r Shortage Ye ar (Lak e M e ad Ele vation be tw e e n 1,050 and 1,075), AZ CU Entitle m e nts = 2.48M AF, AZ us e = 2.48M AF, Balance available e quals ze ro. Arizona w ill alw ays us e its full apportionm e nt. Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 8 Table 4. 2110 Demand Projections (CS) BASIN NAME AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HUALAPAI VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PEACH SPRINGS PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX STATEWIDE GW = groundwater CR = Mainstem Colorado River CAP = Central Arizona Project Instate SW = Other Surface water Effluent = reclaimed water PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA TUCSON AMA Major Active Management Areas (AMAs) BILL WILLIAMS DETRITAL VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) LOWER GILA PARKER Parker (Tribal Ag) YUMA Yuma (Tribal Ag) HARQUAHALA INA LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Basins Which Receive Part of their Supply from the Colorado River or CAP Instate Water Supplies Only Instate Instate + CR Lower Mainstem + CR Upper Instate + CAP AGRICULTURE 1,800 1,000 0 0 14,500 500 0 0 48,000 0 17,100 351,500 0 0 3,700 71,000 0 0 0 0 1,329 29,000 0 169,600 6,900 0 0 500 11,233 0 0 1,500 0 8,800 23,700 1,000 0 166,000 Tribal Ag Water Resources Development Commission TOTAL High INDUSTRIAL 2110 Demand Projections TOTAL Low MUNICIPAL Turf High Rock Products Power Plants Power Plants High Low High Turf Low Rock Products Low 6,931 1,021 910 8 14,500 2,703 2,824 906 61,533 27 18,352 418,574 0 26,603 41,023 72,740 451 51,454 19,728 1,188 63,463 29,615 35,495 210,513 59,001 39 44 3,311 36,116 4 0 12,115 9,197 68,577 76,836 3,426 12 187,264 Rock Products Power Plants Power Plants High Low High Rock Products Power Plants Power Plants High Low High INDUSTRIAL 2110 Demand Projections Mining High 6,738 1,020 879 8 14,500 2,415 2,651 850 60,845 24 18,311 404,603 0 25,612 24,843 72,652 431 15,401 12,901 1,151 60,736 29,603 27,462 187,971 42,332 38 42 3,182 34,906 4 0 11,670 8,943 56,827 71,347 3,363 11 182,216 TOTAL High MUNICIPAL Mining Low 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 0 211 0 0 211 211 0 0 75 0 0 1,314 0 450 423 211 0 0 0 2,280 0 0 211 0 2,062 4,390 882 0 0 TOTAL Low 372,121 Other Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 0 0 0 343 0 0 75 0 0 1,105 0 0 423 211 0 0 0 1,917 0 0 0 0 1,734 3,691 882 0 0 Turf High 292,195 Feedlots Turf Low 2,225 39,250 4,402 8,111 0 0 Dairy 1,870 0 0 0 450 1,341 2,700 0 1,100 0 129,209 0 NonTribal Ag 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 40,743 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,484 0 33 0 9,298 0 876 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,896 215,112 0 0 0 292 1,128 0 211 35,337 739 8,095 57,242 115,459 68,110 521,304 47,440 621,454 890,423 6,234 138,953 652 Other Industrial 15,000 4,000 39,000 20,890 68,110 464,070 21,942 621,454 748,432 6,234 135,500 Feedlots 34,476 3,847 2,501 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 26,910 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,665 0 22 0 6,155 0 569 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,033 139,831 0 0 0 0 29,431 0 0 695 15,260 706 7,943 55,754 103,795 68,110 502,324 43,651 621,454 885,215 6,234 138,374 TOTAL High Dairy 58 3,033 0 525,228 194,616 20,412 MUNICIPAL 0 0 0 147,045 418,152 56,723 332 2 54 1 0 151 298 95 816 4 70 237 0 1,336 535 152 34 91 13 63 4,296 20 754 929 621 2 3 221 1,404 0 0 401 436 2,439 3,069 107 1 317 Rock Products Low 7,355 0 0 0 0 19,131 3,940 16,508 584 0 TOTAL Low 4,484,942 1,015,930 685,279 3,253,190 328,407 483,537 138 1 22 0 0 63 124 39 340 2 29 99 0 557 223 63 14 38 5 26 1,790 8 314 387 259 1 1 92 585 0 0 167 182 1,016 1,279 44 0 132 Mining High 3,065 131 57 259 2,281 1,972 3,152 13,144 4,663 0 Turf High 4,279,621 983,096 627,088 10,605,563 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 48,000 0 300 0 0 12,000 27,000 43,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,000 4,000 0 0 300 Mining Low 0 55 24 108 951 821 328 368 3,209 2,753 Turf Low 100,127 23,648 12,277 10,017,308 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,000 0 0 12,000 0 300 0 0 8,000 5,000 27,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 1,000 0 0 300 Other Industrial 0 30,000 0 0 0 0 137 153 6,246 2,202 75,927 18,087 8,560 154,115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 567 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 0 288 0 0 0 0 Feedlots 11,766 10,000 0 0 0 0 18,000 300 2,603 48 266,126 8,682 6,115 117,040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 Dairy 539 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 20 172,992 5,644 3,975 637,743 54,721 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 23,782 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 786 42 0 0 0 584 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rock Products Low 133,693 17,545 29,714 418,688 4,800 19 856 8 0 1,552 2,526 811 12,503 22 878 2,312 0 25,056 6,576 1,588 417 3,288 231 825 55,923 595 12,917 12,561 7,394 37 41 2,590 21,022 4 0 10,003 7,975 42,947 41,677 1,437 11 6,037 95,854 0 0 27 0 0 6,781 0 1,178 0 Mining High 55,705 7,310 12,381 219,299 10,541 AGRICULTURE 2,505 682 6,708 54,511 61,825 23,782 0 0 0 Mining Low 25,000 18,000 74,000 91,374 49,192 138,200 342,400 4,717,032 4,420,519 1. Normal Colorado R iver S upply A vailable w hen the Elevation of L ake Mead = 1,075-1,145. In this c as e CA P and Priority 4 c an us e their f ull entitlements . 2. The f irs t tier s hortage of Colorado R iver S upply available w hen the Elevation of L ake Mead = 1,050-1,075. In this c as e CA P and Priority 4 c ons umptive us e entitlements are reduc ed by a total of 320,000 ac re-f eet. G enerally s peaking 90% is reduc ed f rom the CA P and 10% f rom Priority 4 Mains tem Us ers or as determined by the A riz ona-Nevada S hortage A greement. 3. In the A MA s , a low and high groundw ater s upply c orres ponds w ith low and high indus trial demands . If CA M G W S upply > B as eline ( c . 2006) , the G W S upply is = B as eline ( c .2006) . If CA M G W S upply < B as eline ( c . 2006) , the G W S upply = CA M G W S upply . It is divided into the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs f or planning purposes in the Supply Vs. Demand tabulation and unmet demand analysis. 4. The f irst CAP value in the range represents the portion of Arizona's Low er Basin Colorado River Supply that is projected to be available af ter f ull on-river use of entitlements occurs. This value includes a 5% system loss expected f rom the point of diversion and the place of use. 5. The second CAP value in the range represents the addition of w ater contracted to mainstem contract holders currently utilized by CAP pursuant to CAP's contract w ith the Secretary. Increased values in f uture years correspond to decreased values in the Yuma and Low er Gila Basins based on a projected 7% decrease in non-Indian agriculture demand. 6. Pos itive values f or ( s upply – demand) f or Colorado R iver bas ins w ould be available f or us e by CA P or other Colorado R iver w ater us ers . No w ater w ould be lef t unus ed in the bas in. Note : In a Norm al Ye ar (Lak e M e ad Ele vation be tw e e n 1,075 And 1,145), AZ CU Entitle m e nts = 2.8M AF, AZ us e =2.8M AF, Balance available e quals ze ro. In a Firs t Tie r Shortage Ye ar (Lak e M e ad Ele vation be tw e e n 1,050 and 1,075), AZ CU Entitle m e nts = 2.48M AF, AZ us e = 2.48M AF, Balance available e quals ze ro. Arizona w ill alw ays us e its full apportionm e nt. Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 9 Table 5. 2110 Demand Projections (AS) BASIN NAME AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HUALAPAI VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PEACH SPRINGS PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX AGRICULTURE 1,800 1,000 0 0 14,500 500 0 0 48,000 0 17,100 351,500 0 0 3,700 71,000 0 0 0 0 1,329 29,000 0 169,600 6,900 0 0 500 11,233 0 0 1,500 0 8,800 23,700 1,000 0 166,000 AGRICULTURE 39,250 Tribal Ag LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU NonTribal Ag Water Resources Development Commission 2110 (Area Split) Demand Projections 7,326 0 0 0 0 19,131 139,831 3,940 16,508 0 0 0 0 29,431 215,112 584 1,577 0 225 0 0 292 1,128 1,870 Turf Low 7,109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 3,706 0 0 343 0 0 75 0 0 1,105 0 0 423 211 0 0 0 1,917 0 0 0 0 1,734 3,691 882 0 0 Turf Low 0 691 0 211 0 0 0 450 1,261 2,219 Turf High 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 0 211 0 0 211 450 0 0 75 0 0 1,193 0 450 423 211 0 0 0 2,311 0 0 450 0 2,035 4,565 882 0 0 Turf High TOTAL Low 21,541 950 8,901 55,390 100,045 68,110 517,200 43,321 621,454 884,506 6,234 142,642 291,806 TOTAL Low 75,504 1,098 3,232 342 14,500 2,195 3,063 850 60,198 587 18,377 428,755 79 23,331 25,666 73,432 70 15,801 12,750 2,307 55,423 29,447 27,938 187,911 43,971 906 176 3,405 35,207 820 1,285 15,567 3,461 56,252 73,058 2,083 123 181,770 TOTAL Low 4,291,514 1,016,058 684,268 TOTAL High 41,574 995 9,074 56,870 111,560 68,110 535,164 47,102 621,454 889,691 6,234 143,163 371,709 TOTAL High 71,004 1,105 3,347 357 14,500 2,471 3,264 906 60,862 651 18,421 440,191 83 24,252 42,123 73,562 73 51,860 19,572 2,394 57,797 29,456 35,987 210,451 60,718 930 185 3,544 36,460 853 1,307 16,340 3,545 67,957 78,793 2,091 128 186,805 TOTAL High INDUSTRIAL Mining High 3,052 443 76 296 2,266 1,854 3,152 13,144 4,663 225 Turf High 4,078,593 981,227 627,766 10,518,883 MUNICIPAL Mining Low 0 184 32 123 944 772 1,291 353 3,209 2,753 Turf Low 97,650 25,702 12,253 9,930,628 MUNICIPAL MUNICIPAL 4,472 11 198 25 0 130 344 95 775 110 75 2,244 7 1,217 600 223 6 102 5 148 3,900 15 781 925 754 41 15 239 1,423 57 38 554 143 2,407 3,192 14 9 294 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 26,910 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,665 0 22 0 6,155 0 569 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,033 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 40,743 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,484 0 33 0 9,298 0 876 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,896 Rock Products Rock Products Power Plants Power Plants Low High Low High Rock Products Rock Products Power Plants Power Plants Low High Low High INDUSTRIAL 2110 (Area Split) Demand Projections 1,863 5 82 11 0 54 143 39 323 46 31 935 3 507 250 93 2 42 2 62 1,625 6 326 385 314 17 6 100 593 24 16 231 60 1,003 1,330 6 4 123 Rock Products Rock Products Power Plants Power Plants Low High Low High Other Industrial 0 30,000 0 0 0 0 538 147 6,213 2,202 61,454 18,087 10,191 154,116 Mining High Feedlots 11,766 10,000 0 0 0 0 18,000 300 2,589 334 266,126 8,682 6,115 117,040 Mining Low Dairy 539 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 139 172,992 5,644 3,975 637,743 Other Industrial 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126,155 17,447 29,657 418,688 Feedlots 0 0 27 0 0 6,781 0 1,178 0 Mining High 52,565 7,270 12,357 219,299 Dairy 95,477 23,782 0 0 0 Mining Low 25,000 18,000 74,000 91,374 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 48,000 0 300 0 0 12,000 27,000 43,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,000 4,000 0 0 300 8,431 919 7,651 54,153 58,124 0 0 Other Industrial 15,000 4,000 39,000 342,400 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,000 0 0 12,000 0 300 0 0 8,000 5,000 27,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 1,000 0 0 300 17,301 7,788 0 Feedlots 34,476 3,847 2,501 138,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 567 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 0 288 0 0 0 0 128,514 Dairy 58 3,033 0 54,721 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 4,576 0 0 0 10,541 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 23,782 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 786 42 0 0 0 584 3,069,776 326,579 482,607 49,192 64,732 93 3,149 332 0 1,341 2,919 811 11,873 542 942 21,922 77 22,824 7,372 2,339 68 3,683 83 1,945 50,774 441 13,382 12,503 8,977 889 170 2,805 21,314 796 1,269 13,836 2,616 42,386 43,336 195 119 5,601 4,630,352 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 In a Firs t Tie r Shortage Ye ar (Lak e M e ad Ele vation be tw e e n 1,050 and 1,075), AZ CU Entitle m e nts = 2.48M AF, AZ us e = 2.48M AF, Balance available e quals ze ro. Arizona w ill alw ays us e its full apportionm e nt. Note : In a Norm al Ye ar (Lak e M e ad Ele vation be tw e e n 1,075 And 1,145), AZ CU Entitle m e nts = 2.8M AF, AZ us e =2.8M AF, Balance available e quals ze ro. 6. Pos itive values f or ( s upply – demand) f or Colorado R iver bas ins w ould be available f or us e by CA P or other Colorado R iver w ater us ers . No w ater w ould be lef t unus ed in the bas in. Increased values in f uture years correspond to decreased values in the Yuma and Low er Gila Basins based on a projected 7% decrease in non-Indian agriculture demand. 5. The second CAP value in the range represents the addition of w ater contracted to mainstem contract holders currently utilized by CAP pursuant to CAP's contract w ith the Secretary. It is divided into the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs f or planning purposes in the Supply Vs. Demand tabulation and unmet demand analysis. 4. The f irst CAP value in the range represents the portion of Arizona's Low er Basin Colorado River Supply that is projected to be available af ter f ull on-river use of entitlements occurs. This value includes a 5% system loss expected f rom the point of diversion and the place of use. 3. In the A MA s , a low and high groundw ater s upply c orres ponds w ith low and high indus trial demands . If CA M G W S upply > B as eline ( c . 2006) , the G W S upply is = B as eline ( c .2006) . If CA M G W S upply < B as eline ( c . 2006) , the G W S upply = CA M G W S upply . G enerally s peaking 90% is reduc ed f rom the CA P and 10% f rom Priority 4 Mains tem Us ers or as determined by the A riz ona-Nevada S hortage A greement. 2. The f irs t tier s hortage of Colorado R iver S upply available w hen the Elevation of L ake Mead = 1,050-1,075. In this c as e CA P and Priority 4 c ons umptive us e entitlements are reduc ed by a total of 320,000 ac re-f eet. 1. Normal Colorado R iver S upply A vailable w hen the Elevation of L ake Mead = 1,075-1,145. In this c as e CA P and Priority 4 c an us e their f ull entitlements . 4,420,519 525,228 194,616 20,412 2,700 0 1,100 0 20,890 68,110 464,070 21,942 621,454 748,432 6,234 135,500 Major Active Management Areas (AMAs) PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA TUCSON AMA STATEWIDE GW = groundwater CR = Mainstem Colorado River CAP = Central Arizona Project Instate SW = Other Surface Water Effluent = reclaimed water 147,045 418,152 56,723 BILL WILLIAMS DETRITAL VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) LOWER GILA PARKER Parker (Tribal Ag) YUMA Yuma (Tribal Ag) HARQUAHALA INA Basins Which Receive Part of their Supply from the Colorado River or CAP Instate Water Supplies Only Instate + CR Upper Instate + CR Lower Mainstem Instate + CAP 10 Water Resources Development Commission Table 6. Changes in Projected Water Demands Version 6-17-11 Sector AGRICULTURE Change in Percentage Statewide Cultural Water Demands Baseline to Projection Year Statewide Demands (Percents) 2035 2060 Sub Sector 3 3 3 3 low high low high -7% -7% -14% -14% MUNICIPAL� Dairy Feedlots Other Industrial Mining INDUSTRIAL Rock Products Power Plants Turf TOTAL DEMANDS� Instate Colorado River/CAP Diversions 2110 Census 3 low -14% 9b Shortage Year 9a TOTAL SUPPLY Normal Year 9b Shortage Year 3 low -14% 3 high -14% 77% 77% 124% 124% 209% 209% 204% 204% 49% 47% 83% 49% 47% 83% 81% 47% 83% 81% 47% 83% 138% 47% 83% 138% 47% 83% 138% 47% 83% 138% 47% 83% 51% 273% 51% 273% 50% 271% 50% 271% 178% 567% 252% 746% 387% 1070% 387% 1070% 95% 167% 137% 239% 172% 314% 172% 314% 15% 32% 48% 49% 34% 77% 34% 77% 15% 21% 22% 28% 41% 49% 40% 48% 1% -22% 137% 15% -4% -22% 137% 15% 1% -22% 137% 15% Change in Percentage Statewide Currently Developed and Adjusted Baseline Water Supply to Projection Year -3% -1% -7% -1% -3% Groundwater -18% -18% -22% -22% -22% Instate Surface Water 137% 137% 137% 137% 137% Effluent 9a 16% 16% 15% 15% 15% Normal Year 1 2110 Area Split 3 high -14% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 7% 8% 4% 7% 6% 7% 5% 7% 2% 3% 0% 2% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1. Diversions of Colorado River Water indicate an increase in projected future years, however, there would be a corresponding increase in return flow and the same consumptive use (2.8MAF in a normal year and 2.48MAF in a first tier shortage year). Sector AGRICULTURE Change in Quantities (Acre-Feet) Statewide Cultural Water Demands Baseline to Projection Year Statewide Demands (Percents) 2035 2060 2110 Census Sub Sector 3 3 3 3 3 3 low high low high low high -359,884 -359,884 -748,305 -748,305 -748,305 -748,305 MUNICIPAL� 1,169,115 1,889,680 1,889,680 3,192,522 3,192,522 3,105,842 3,105,842 10,033 3,359 24,789 16,619 3,359 24,789 16,619 3,359 24,789 28,555 3,359 24,789 28,555 3,359 24,789 28,555 3,359 24,789 28,555 3,359 24,789 47,444 251,644 47,444 251,644 45,944 250,144 45,944 250,144 33,383 106,368 47,337 139,859 72,624 200,548 72,624 200,548 146,494 258,107 211,396 369,284 264,486 483,541 264,486 483,541 13,032 28,309 41,694 42,633 29,909 66,984 29,909 66,984 1,087,766 1,491,841 1,534,013 1,989,562 2,913,883 3,502,138 2,827,203 3,415,458 Change in Quantities (Acre-Feet) Statewide Currently Developed and Asjusted Baseline Cultural Water Supplies to Projection Year -20,738 -189,047 -16,595 -91,300 20,991 Groundwater -87,353 -207,690 -258,084 -258,084 -258,084 -258,084 Instate Surface Water -207,690 291,853 291,853 291,853 291,853 291,853 Effluent 291,853 9a 482,541 482,541 464,722 464,722 464,722 464,722 Normal Year -108,281 -258,084 291,853 464,722 20,798 -258,084 291,853 464,722 144,533 Rock Products Power Plants Turf TOTAL DEMANDS� TOTAL SUPPLY 9b Shortage Year 9a Normal Year 9b Shortage Year AGRICULTURE MUNICIPAL Industrial Total AGRICULTURE MUNICIPAL Industrial Total 3 high -748,305 10,033 3,359 24,789 INDUSTRIAL Colorado River/CAP Diversions 3 1,169,115 Dairy Feedlots Other Industrial Mining Instate 2110 Area Split low -748,305 Baseline 5,168,825 1,524,510 410,090 7,103,425 Baseline 73% 162,314 162,314 144,533 144,533 144,533 144,533 144,533 479,352 545,966 309,444 481,897 407,191 519,483 390,210 519,289 159,124 225,739 -10,745 161,708 87,002 199,294 70,021 199,100 Projected Sector Demand Totals (acre feet) 2035 2060 low high low high 4,808,940 4,808,940 4,420,519 4,420,519 2,693,625 2,693,625 2110 Census low high 4,420,519 4,420,519 2110 Area Split low high 4,420,519 4,420,519 3,414,190 3,414,190 4,717,032 4,717,032 4,630,352 4,630,352 688,625 1,092,701 802,729 8,191,191 8,595,266 8,637,438 Projected Sector Demand (percents) low high low 59% 56% 51% 1,258,278 9,092,987 879,757 10,017,308 1,468,012 10,605,563 879,757 9,930,628 1,468,012 10,518,883 high 49% low 44% high 42% low 45% high 42% 21% 33% 31% 40% 38% 47% 44% 47% 44% 6% 100% 8% 100% 13% 100% 9% 100% 14% 100% 9% 100% 14% 100% 9% 100% 14% 100% Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 11 BASIN NAME AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DONNELLY W ASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS W ASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND W ASH HUALAPAI VALLEY LOW ER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PEACH SPRINGS PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON W ASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVW ITS PLATEAU TIGER W ASH TONTO CREEK UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER W ESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE W ILLCOX BILL W ILLIAMS DETRITAL VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) LAKE MOHAVE LOW ER GILA Parker (Tribal Ag) PARKER YUMA Yuma (Tribal Ag) HARQUAHALA INA Ma jor Active Ma na ge me nt Are a s (AMAs) Insta te Water Resources Development Commission T otal Instate Supply NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Colora do Rive r/CAP 6 3,632 1,014 15,028 0 14,503 1,201 2,558 19 54,700 11 18,004 351,540 2 10,909 25,211 71,500 145 10,953 120 451 26,645 29,350 4,065 164,741 27,222 19 22 1,900 37,291 2 2 4,500 3,886 33,707 51,243 3,213 T otal Supply Baseline Supply for Projection Purposes (Ge ne r ate d c. 2006) 3,632 1,014 15,028 0 14,503 1,201 2,558 19 54,700 11 18,004 351,540 2 10,909 25,211 71,500 145 10,953 120 451 26,645 29,350 4,065 164,741 27,222 19 22 1,900 37,291 2 2 4,500 3,886 33,707 51,243 3,213 NA Effluent (2001-2006 Ave r age Dive r s ions ) 30 0 0 0 0 100 1,700 0 1,400 0 50 800 0 1,800 700 0 0 200 0 100 6,900 0 300 2,600 2,600 0 0 400 16,311 0 0 500 600 5,300 6,200 10 6 Instate SW (c. 2006) 0 500 0 0 0 0 358 0 0 0 9,900 55,417 0 0 833 0 0 1,627 0 0 2,067 0 0 74,183 12,011 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 0 4,450 16,494 1,618 0 176,364 GW 3,602 514 15,028 0 14,503 1,101 500 19 53,300 11 8,054 295,323 2 9,109 23,677 71,500 145 9,126 120 351 17,679 29,350 3,765 87,958 12,611 19 22 1,500 20,980 2 2 3,000 3,286 23,957 28,549 1,585 0 500 Colorado River/CAP Diversions 1 Colorado River Expected Return Flow Year Shortage Total Supply Baseline Supply for Projection Purposes 176,364 6 150 Instate Year Normal 2 3 Year Shortage 3 Shortage Colorado River Consumptive Use 2 Normal Year Normal Year Shortage Year 3 50,000 Year 50,000 Shortage 1,782 299 150 32 16,796 34,285 55,965 260,645 19,378 375,971 479,086 12,404 0 2 1,782 417 150 45 23,432 47,689 55,965 260,780 26,782 376,655 481,403 12,404 0 Normal Year 198,412 0 0 0 0 89 47,570 139,790 348 288,164 320,786 4,793 0 3 198,412 237 0 25 13,578 24,553 47,570 140,045 9,799 290,025 325,095 4,793 0 Year Normal Year 51,782 4,415 359 4,149 29,975 56,995 103,535 511,687 30,879 665,468 926,217 17,197 66,178 Shortage T otal Instate Supply 51,782 4,604 359 4,169 40,457 77,349 103,535 511,894 40,468 666,680 929,540 17,197 66,178 2 (Ge ne r ate d c. 2006) 146,630 464 150 50 26,528 51,887 103,535 400,617 26,992 665,468 803,175 17,197 0 Effluent (2001-2006 Ave r age Dive r s ions ) 36,100 654 150 70 37,010 72,242 103,535 400,825 36,581 666,680 806,498 17,197 0 Instate SW (c. 2006) 14,717 3,951 209 4,099 3,447 5,107 0 111,070 3,887 0 123,042 0 66,178 GW 95,813 200 0 500 3,400 3,100 0 300 2,100 0 13,500 0 0 Year 2 3 Year 3 703,579 116,073 188,519 Normal 895,395 166,269 220,106 1,008,170 to 1,128,998 (Not Ava ila ble For Cultura l Supply) 3 0 0 0 1,281,770 to 1,403,887 42,930 53,062 2,530,000 Year 0 0 0 0 42,930 67,462 2,850,000 Shortage 2 500 50 800 0 0 0 473 0 0 973 0 0 2 2,396,662 622,712 480,240 0 61,409 0 864,732 Normal Year 2,588,479 672,908 511,827 1,008,170 to 1,128,998 61,409 0 918,911 3 Normal Year 703,579 116,073 188,519 1,281,770 to 1,403,887 0 0 7,381,586 Year T otal Instate Supply 895,395 166,269 220,106 1,008,170 to 1,128,998 0 0 7,701,852 Shortage 1,693,083 506,639 291,721 1,281,770 to 1,403,887 104,339 53,062 3,434,245 4,104,742 (Not Ava ila ble For Supply) 504,436 2 3,251 159 2,799 47 2,007 0 110,296 1,787 0 108,570 0 66,178 (Ge ne r ate d c. 2006) Effluent (2001-2006 Ave r age Dive r s ions ) 315,000 6,900 74,235 Instate SW (c. 2006) 727,402 73,830 506 GW 673,755 431,290 216,996 104,339 67,462 3,768,911 Ce ntra l Arizona Proje ct (CAP) Supply Ra nge 4, 5 Colora do Ma inste m Environme nta l 999,860 1. The Baseline Supply f or Projection Purposes represents currently developed supplies that are available today and throughout the study period to meet both baseline and, if applicable, f uture demand. 2,628,917 CAP Syste m Loss = -5% of Dive rsion GW = groundw ater 3. This value w ill be adjusted in the f uture scenarios to simulate reductions in w ater supply due to climate change and other stressors. 2. Norma l C olora do R iv er S upply A v a ila ble w hen the E lev a tion of L a ke Mea d = 1, 075- 1, 145. In this c a s e C A P a nd Priority 4 c a n us e their f ull entitlements . 12 This value includes a 5% system loss expected f rom the point of diversion and the In this c a s e C A P a nd Priority 4 c ons umptiv e us e entitlements a re reduc ed by a tota l of 320, 000 a c re- f eet. CR = Mainstem Colorado River Water The f irst CA P value in the range represents the portion of A rizona's Low er Basin Colorado River Supply that is projected to be available af ter f ull on-river use of entitlements occurs. Ar izona w ill alw ays us e its full appor tionm e nt. The second CA P value in the range represents the addition of w ater contracted to mainstem contract holders currently utilized by CA P pursuant to CA P's contract w ith the Secretary. Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 G enera lly s pea king 90% is reduc ed f rom the C A P a nd 10% f rom Priority 4 Ma ins tem Us ers or a s determined by the A riz ona - Nev a da S horta ge A greement. In a Fir s t Tie r Shor tage Ye ar (Lak e M e ad Ele vation be tw e e n 1,050 and 1,075), AZ CU Entitle m e nts = 2.48M AF, AZ us e = 2.48M AF, Balance available e quals ze r o. Note : In a Nor m al Ye ar (Lak e M e ad Ele vation be tw e e n 1,075 And 1,145), AZ CU Entitle m e nts = 2.8M AF, AZ us e =2.8M AF, Balance available e quals ze r o. Increased values in f uture yars correspond to decreased values in the Y uma and Low er Gila Basins based on a projected 7% decrease in non-Indian agriculture demand. 5. It is divided into the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson A MA s f or planning purposes in the Supply V s. Demand tabulation and unmet demand analysis. 4. G enera lly s pea king 90% is reduc ed f rom the C A P a nd 10% f rom Priority 4 Ma ins tem Us ers or a s determined by the A riz ona - Nev a da S horta ge A greement. The f irs t tier s horta ge of C olora do R iv er S upply a v a ila ble w hen the E lev a tion of L a ke Mea d = 1, 050- 1, 075. CA P = Central A rizona Project Ef f luent = reclaimed w ater Instate SW = Other Surf ace Water STATEWIDE PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA TUCSON AMA 175,714 Table 7. Baseline Supply for Projection Purposes Instate + CAP LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Basins Which Receive Part of their Supply from the Colorado River or CAP Instate Water Supplies Only Instate Instate + CR Lower Mainstem + CR Upper Water Resources Development Commission Table 8. Water-Dependent Natural Resource Index M at e W sin Ba re nn ia l Pe BASINS AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BILL WILLIAMS BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DETRITAL VALLEY DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HARQUAHALA INA HUALAPAI VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU LOWER GILA LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PARKER PEACH SPRINGS PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK TUCSON AMA UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX YUMA In c lu de s r( In st a te ) Co aj lo or ra Sp do rin Ri gs ve W r at er si n Fe de Cu ra rre l/S nt ta GW te Co -S Ef ns W flu er Co en va nn tD ti o ec n ep tio La e n ES nd nd * A e s nt Cr iti S t ca re lH am ab ES Re A ita ac Sp tD h ec es ie ig sO na In bs te st er d re ve am d Fl ow Au Ce du rt bo ifi ca n te Im po W rt at an er tB Ba ird se d Ar AD Re ea cr EQ ea Ou tio ts n ta O nd pp Fe or in de g tu ra A ni lW riz ty on ild a an W d at Sc er en ic De sig na tio n Water-Dependent Natural Resource Index for the Water Resource Development Commission Ha tched cel l s repres ent perenni a l s trea ms wi thi n groundwa ter ba s i ns where current fl ow vol umes tha t s upport wa ter-dependent na tura l res ources ha ve been es ti ma ted. This table depicts major water-dependent natural resources cataloged by the Environmental Workgroup of the WRDC. It is not meant to be a comprehensive assessment of all important water-dependent natural resources, and some potentially important features are not represented here. Rather, this information is meant to be used as a starting point for identifying important water-dependent natural resources in Arizona’s counties and groundwater basins. For a more detailed description of known resources in each groundwater basin, please review the Maps, Basin Descriptions and *Brown DE, Ca rmony NB, Turner RM. 1981. Dra i na ge ma p of Ari zona s howi ng perenni a l s trea ms a nd s ome i mporta nt wetl a nds . Ari zona Ga me a nd Fi s h Depa rtment, Phoeni x. *Anni ng, D.W. a nd Koni eczki , A.D. 2005. Cl a s s i fi ca ti on of hydrogeol ogi c a rea s a nd hydrogeol ogi c fl ow s ys tems i n the Ba s i n a nd Ra nge Phys i ogra phi c Provi nce, Southwes tern Uni ted Sta tes . USGS Profes s i ona l Pa per 1702. 37 pp. Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 13 Water Resources Development Commission Objective 3: Compare Current and Future Water Supplies and Demand to Identify Unmet Demands (With Environmental Committee) In order to establish unmet demands for the next 25 (2035), 50 (2060), and 100 (2110) years, future demands were subtracted from the baseline available supply. Notwithstanding the caveat regarding the term “currently developed supplies” previously identified, all unmet demands represent water supply that will need to be developed in order to meet demand. The future water demand (projected for 2035, 2060 and 2110) was compiled for each groundwater basin by adding the individual projected demands from the following sectors: • Agricultural (including both tribal and non-tribal in most basins) • Municipal • Tribal Agricultural users of main stem Colorado River water in Lake Mohave, Parker and Yuma basins and CAP in the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs (per Central Arizona Water Demand Model – WRDC Scenarios) • Tribal Industrial in AMAs only (per Central Arizona Water Demand Model - WRDC Scenarios) • Industrial – hard rock mining (low and high demand) • Industrial - rock products (low and high demand) • Industrial - power plants (low and high demand) • Industrial – turf (low and high demand) • Industrial – dairy • Industrial – feedlots • Industrial – other The future water supply (projected for 2035, 2060 and 2110) was compiled for each groundwater basin by adding the individual currently developed and adjusted supplies from the following sources: • Groundwater • Instate surface water • Upper Basin Colorado River apportionment • Lower Basin Colorado River apportionment • Central Arizona Project • Effluent The projected future unmet water demand for each basin was calculated as the difference between the currently available and adjusted supply and the projected future demand (Equation 1). Unmet Demand = (Currently Available and Adjusted Supply - Projected Future Demand) 14 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 (Equation 1) Water Resources Development Commission When future demands are projected to be greater than currently available and adjusted supplies, a deficit (negative) supply or “unmet” demand condition is projected. Multiple projected unmet demand scenarios were developed to account for the high and low range of industrial demand projections, normal supply and shortage conditions on the Colorado River and instate river systems due to potential drought and/or climate change and the two potential future population distributions (census split, and area split) for the year 2110. Results of Projected Unmet Demand Analysis The projected future unmet demand analyses for each basin for the years 2035, 2060 and 2110 for each sector are summarized in Table 9. Currently Developed Adjusted Supplies Vs. Projected Demands. The results show that the total statewide unmet demand (which included positive differences for some basins) is projected to range from a potential low of -608,000 AF/Yr in 2035 to a potential high of -3,303,000 AF/Yr in 2110. A negative “unmet demand” number indicates the existence of unmet demand (rather than the absence of any such demand). Table 10. Adjusted Currently Developed Supplies Vs. Projected Demand shows the projected unmet demands by basin for each of the target periods (2035, 2060 and 2110). Tables 11, 12, 13, and 14 summarize the unmet demands by basin and show the results quantitatively and as a percentage of projected demand. The higher the percentage, the greater the portion of demand is unmet for the target period of time in the identified basin. The analysis indicates that approximately 77% and 82% of the projected unmet demand for 2035 (low demand) and 2110 (low demand, CS) would occur in AMAs with the remaining 23% and 18% of the projected unmet demand for those years occurring in non-AMA areas. Projected unmet demands are greatest in the Phoenix AMA and Pinal AMA for all target years. It is noted, however, that the percent of unmet demand in a basin, versus the raw number, must be considered in any analysis of unmet demand and is a more significant factor of the extent of the problem in any given basin. In addition to the tables provided in this section, Figures 1 through 12 show graphically the unmet demand by basin for the target years. These are categorized by instate basins, basins that receive Colorado River water and AMAs and INAs that may receive Central Arizona Project water. Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 15 Table 9. Currently Developed Adjusted Supplies Vs. Projected Demands Statewide Cultural Water Demands (acre-feet)1 Sector Sub Sector 2035 Baseline 2060 5,168,825 1,524,510 20,637 7,182 low 4,420,519 3,414,190 37,256 10,541 high 4,420,519 3,414,190 37,256 10,541 low 4,420,519 4,717,032 49,192 10,541 high 4,420,519 4,717,032 49,192 10,541 low3 4,420,519 4,630,352 49,192 10,541 high3 4,420,519 4,630,352 49,192 10,541 Other Industrial 29,932 54,721 54,721 54,721 54,721 54,721 54,721 54,721 54,721 Mining 92,256 139,700 343,900 139,700 343,900 138,200 342,400 138,200 342,400 Rock Products 18,750 52,133 125,119 66,087 158,609 91,374 219,299 91,374 219,299 154,202 87,132 7,103,425 300,696 100,164 8,191,191 412,309 115,441 8,595,266 365,598 128,826 8,637,438 523,486 129,765 9,092,987 418,688 117,040 10,017,308 637,743 154,115 10,605,563 418,688 117,040 9,930,628 637,743 154,116 10,518,883 Dairy Feedlots INDUSTRIAL Power Plants Turf TOTAL DEMANDS 3 3 3 2110 Area Split high 4,808,940 2,693,625 30,670 10,541 AGRICULTURE MUNICIPAL 3 2110 Census low 4,808,940 2,693,625 30,670 10,541 2 3 3 Statewide Currently Developed Adjusted Supplies (acre-feet) Groundwater 5 (C. 2006) Instate SW Instate (c. 2006) 6 Effluent (c. 2006 Used)7 Currently Developed & Adjusted Water Supplies 2,628,917 Groundwater (C. 2006 or CAM Values) Instate SW 1,165,176 Instate 212,583 2035 low Mainstem Basin Diversions 1,948,602 Mainstem Basin Diversions To Meet Cultural Demands 1,148,148 Central Arizona Project (CAP) Supply Range10,11 3 high low 2,541,563 2,608,178 957,486 504,436 Environmental (Not Avilable For Cultural Supply) CAP System Loss = -5% of Diversion (Not Avilable For Supply) Total Consumptive Use 2,520,635 2,649,714 907,092 907,092 907,092 907,092 907,092 504,436 504,436 504,436 504,436 504,436 957,486 907,092 504,436 504,436 Normal Year9a high 4,061,436 2,109,553 low 3,932,163 2,109,553 high3 4,061,242 2,109,553 Shortage Year9b 2,106,120 2,106,120 2,064,394 2,064,394 2,064,394 2,064,394 2,064,394 2,064,394 Normal Year9a 1,281,770 to 1,427,903 1,281,770 to 1,427,903 1,281,770 to 1,281,770 to 1,281,770 to 1,281,770 to 1,281,770 to 1,281,770 to 1,451,918 1,451,918 1,451,918 1,451,918 1,451,918 1,451,918 Shortage Year9b 1,008,170 to 1,152,943 1,008,170 to 1,152,943 1,008,170 to 1,008,170 to 1,008,170 to 1,008,170 to 1,008,170 to 1,008,170 to 1,176,889 1,176,889 1,176,889 1,176,889 1,176,889 1,176,889 Normal Year9a 3,579,291 3,579,291 3,561,471 3,561,471 3,561,471 3,561,471 3,561,471 3,561,471 Shortage Year9b 3,259,063 3,259,063 3,241,282 3,241,282 3,241,282 3,241,282 3,241,282 3,241,282 104,339 104,339 104,339 104,339 104,339 104,339 104,339 104,339 Shortage Year 104,339 104,339 104,339 104,339 104,339 104,339 104,339 104,339 9a 67,462 67,462 67,462 67,462 67,462 67,462 67,462 67,462 9a Normal Year 9b Normal Year 9b Shortage Year Normal Year 3 3 3 3 3 53,062 53,062 53,062 53,062 53,062 53,062 53,062 53,062 903,591 903,591 888,271 888,271 888,271 888,271 888,271 888,271 Shortage Year9b 888,964 888,964 873,683 873,683 873,683 873,683 873,683 873,683 Normal Year9a 2,847,500 2,847,500 2,845,000 2,845,000 2,845,000 2,845,000 2,845,000 2,845,000 Shortage Year9b 2,527,500 2,527,500 2,525,000 2,525,000 2,525,000 2,525,000 2,525,000 2,525,000 Normal Year 9b Shortage Year 0 2,649,908 low 3,949,144 2,109,553 3 low 7,582,776 high 7,649,391 low 7,412,868 high 7,585,321 low 7,510,616 high 7,622,907 low 7,493,634 high3 7,622,714 7,262,549 7,329,163 7,092,679 7,265,132 7,190,426 7,302,718 7,173,445 7,302,524 Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies - Projected Demands TOTAL SUPPLY - DEMAND 2,537,616 2,612,322 high 4,023,850 2,109,553 9a 7,103,425 high3 2,439,869 3 low 3,851,397 2,109,553 3 TOTAL SUPPLIES (Instate + CR) low3 low 3 2110 Area Split high high 3 high 4,070,100 2,151,388 9a Total Return Flow 2110 Census 3 low 4,003,485 2,151,388 Total Instate Supply Total Diversion Supplies For Cultural Demand Projections 3 Year Demands 3 3 3 3 12 2035 3 3 2060 3 3 2110 Census 3 3 2110 Area Split 3 Normal Year9a low -608,415 high -945,875 low -1,224,570 high -1,507,666 low -2,506,693 high -2,982,656 low3 -2,436,994 high3 -2,896,170 Shortage Year9b -928,642 -1,266,103 -1,544,759 -1,827,855 -2,826,882 -3,302,845 -2,757,183 -3,216,359 Notes 1. Cultural water demands include agriculture, municipal and industrial uses. Not included are environmental and artificial recharge. 2. Statewide total Includes both tribal and non-tribal agriculture. The CAM shows an increase in tribal agriculture in the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs. 3. The Mining, Rock Products, Power Plants and Turf Industrial sub-sectors submitted high and low projection scenarios to account for uncertainty and volatility in those industries. Both are presented here with corresponding total demands and 'supply - demand' values. Within the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs, the CAM predicted corresponding low and high groundwater and effluent supplies, however, CAM values were only used when less than baseline supplies because additional infrastructure will be needed to fully utilize them. 4. Baseline Demand Water Sources are derived from the Arizona Water Atlas (outside AMAs) and AMA Assessments some adjustments made for basins receiving Colorado River Water to reflect estimated diversions resulting in corresponding reductions in groundwater and instate surface water quantities used. Basin totals from the original sources were maintained, sometimes resulting in the inability to fully quantify the Colorado River portion. The data is circa 2006, however, since the Municipal baseline year was 2005 instead, these values come from both 2005 and 2006. 5. Groundwater supplies used to meet baseline demands correspond with reported groundwater use from the Atlas and AMA assessments (with reductions in some basins for Colorado River use). The value is slightly different than what was used as the 'available' baseline groundwater supply, which is from 2006, because the municipal sector baseline year was 2005. Future year groundwater supplies for most basins = 'available' baseline supply (developed supply). In the AMAs, a low and high groundwater supply corresponds with low and high industrial demands. If Central AZ Model (CAM) GW Supply was > Baseline (c. 2006), the GW Supply = Baseline (c.2006). If CAM GW Supply < Baseline (c. 2006), the GW Supply = CAM GW Supply. 6. Instate surface water supplies used to meet baseline demands correspond with reported surface water use from the Atlas and AMA assessments (with reductions in some basins for Colorado River use). The 'Baseline Supply for Projection Purposes' surface water supply comes from the 2001-2006 average in-state use. Future surface water supplies were calculated by applying a 5% reduction in 2035 and another 5% in 2060, flat-lined thereafter. The Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMA instate surface water supplies came from the CAM results-which were very similar to previous values. 7. Effluent supplies used to meet baseline demands correspond with reported information in the Atlas and AMA assessments. The Baseline Supply for Projection Purposes effluent supply is the total currently generated, much of it not used for current demands. Future year effluent supplies are expected to increase and are addressed in the unmet demand analysis. Values shown here are flat-lined. 8. Colorado River Mainstem supplies used to meet baseline demands correspond with reported diversion information from the USBOR and ADWR Colorado River Management, which was later parsed into groundwater basins for use by the WRDC Supply and Demand Committee. CAP supplies used to meet baseline demands correspond with reported use within the AMAs and the CAP delivered use in the Harquahala INA. Recharged CAP water not included. Approximately 350,000 acre feet of CAP water was recharged in 2006. Please see Table 10. 2006 CAP Summary for more information. 9. The Baseline Supply for Projection Purposes of the Colorado River Mainstem and CAP Diversions are based on a calculation of diversions and return flow to obtain full on-river buildout and the consumptive use entitlement for municipal and industrial uses. Since agriculture projections along the mainstem were either held constant or reduced, previous use of 'full-buildout' diversion entitlements changed to 2001-2005 average diversions, unless those exceeded entitlements. Remaining consumptive use volume = water contracted to mainstem contract holders currently utilized by CAP pursuant to CAP's contract with the Secretary. 9a. Normal Colorado River Supply Available when the Elevation of Lake Mead = 1,075-1,145. In this case CAP and Priority 4 can use their full entitlements. 9b. The first degree shortage of Colorado River Supply available when the Elevation of Lake Mead = 1,050-1,075. In this case CAP and Priority 4 consumptive use entitlements are reduced by a total of 320,000 acre-feet. Of that 90% is reduced from the CAP and 10% from Priority 4 Mainstem Users. 10. The first CAP value in the range represents the portion of Arizona's Lower Basin Colorado River Supply that is projected to be available after full on-river use of entitlements occurs. This value includes a 5% system loss expected from the point of diversion and the place of use. It is divided into the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs for planning purposes in the Supply Vs. Demand tabulation and unmet demand analysis. 11. The second CAP value in the range represents the addition of water contracted to mainstem contract holders currently utilized by CAP pursuant to CAP's contract with the Secretary. Increased values in future years correspond to decreased values in the Yuma and Lower Gila Basins based on a projected 7% decrease in non-Indian agriculture demand. 12. Negative Results of the Supply - Demand reflects the volume of additional water required to meet projected demands above what is currently available, with anticipated reduced availability of surface water. Sources of additional water are explored in the Unmet Demand Analysis. Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 3,096,749 2060 3 3 4,006,675 Diversions 8 (c. 2006) (2001-2006 Average With Reductions/CAM) Effluent (Generated c.2006 ) Total Instate Supply CAP Colorado 8,9 River/CAP Baseline Demand 4 Water Sources 16 RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PEACH SPRINGS PRESCOTT AMA DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HUALAPAI VALLEY COCONINO PLATEAU DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK 20,980 19 22 1,500 29,350 3,765 177,558 27,204 24,622 71,500 145 10,384 120 351 21,887 11 17,954 357,823 2 9,109 1,173 19 53,300 3,602 1,014 15,028 0 14,503 1,101 BILL WILLIAMS DETRITAL VALLEY 3,627 16,130 47,769 68,110 504,687 26,462 621,454 852,241 6,234 136,735 4,150 309 2035 Demands Water Resources Development Commission TOTAL Low 5,371 1,014 635 6 14,500 1,968 1,917 0 57,291 17 18,060 390,492 0 18,524 22,961 72,220 312 14,481 11,342 916 44,762 29,488 22,996 184,388 40,148 27 30 2,440 28,921 3 0 8,856 6,685 44,660 59,459 2,953 8 179,443 TOTAL High TOTAL High 5,511 1,015 658 6 14,500 2,232 2,043 0 57,847 19 18,090 400,591 0 19,299 39,054 72,285 326 50,519 16,267 942 46,581 29,498 29,797 206,780 56,630 28 32 2,533 29,530 3 0 9,236 6,869 55,686 63,748 2,998 8 183,085 2060 Demands TOTAL Low 307,246 2035 Supply - Demand -High Demands 249,821 2035 -Low Demands -64,479 2035 Instate + Shortage Diversions of CR Supply 2035 Supply - Demand Cont.4 Instate + Normal Diversions of CR Supply 2060 Instate Supply - Low Demand -1,879 -51 14,370 -6 3 -1,031 480 19 -3,147 -8 -1,076 -54,593 2 -8,390 -13,927 -785 -181 -39,729 -16,147 -491 -20,143 -148 -25,732 -49,457 -30,610 -9 -10 -633 7,761 -1 2 -4,836 -2,983 -22,425 -14,155 53 -2 -6,736 Instate Supply - High Demand 2060 Supply - Demand -1,739 -50 14,393 -6 3 -767 605 19 -2,591 -6 -1,047 -44,495 2 -7,615 2,167 -720 -167 -3,691 -11,222 -465 -18,323 -138 -18,931 -27,065 -14,127 -8 -8 -540 8,371 -1 2 -4,456 -2,799 -11,398 -9,866 98 -2 -3,094 Total Supply 3,632 964 15,028 0 14,503 1,201 2,523 19 54,700 11 17,014 345,998 2 10,909 25,127 71,500 145 10,790 120 451 26,438 29,350 4,065 157,323 26,021 19 22 1,900 37,291 2 2 4,400 3,886 33,262 49,593 3,052 6 176,349 Instate + Normal Diversions of CR Supply Normal Year1 191,762 Shortage Year2 -58,059 -Low Demands -115,484 -High Demands -58,059 -Low Demands -115,484 -High Demands Instate + Shortage Diversions of CR Supply 2060 Supply - Demand Cont.4 Total Supply 191,762 -30,219 -180 -2,097 -11,311 -35,470 35,425 -25,408 -10,251 44,014 23,929 10,963 -71,766 Low -10,164 -156 -1,988 -10,138 -27,207 35,425 -6,679 -7,364 44,014 27,620 10,963 -71,338 High -30,029 -180 -2,077 -829 -15,115 35,425 -25,201 -662 45,226 27,035 10,963 -71,766 Low -9,975 -156 -1,968 344 -6,852 35,425 -6,471 2,225 45,226 30,725 10,963 -71,338 34,584 534 6,166 41,286 92,464 68,110 509,041 41,130 621,454 851,923 6,234 137,944 TOTAL High 2,224,638 617,209 424,234 7,265,132 4,365 354 4,069 29,975 56,995 103,535 483,633 30,879 665,468 875,852 17,197 66,178 -High Demands 2,549,545 667,405 495,184 7,092,679 4,554 354 4,089 40,457 77,349 103,535 483,841 40,468 666,680 878,958 17,197 66,178 -Low Demands 2,416,455 667,405 455,821 7,585,321 Total Supply Instate Supply - High Demand -High Demands -23,132 -29,956 -73 -1,053 -2,570 -21,873 35,425 -18,455 -4,189 44,014 39,998 10,963 -70,732 Instate Supply - Low Demand -Low Demands -64,479 -9,908 -54 -966 -1,602 -15,742 35,425 -9 -2,419 44,014 42,940 10,963 -70,492 Total Supply Shortage Year2 -23,132 -29,766 -73 -1,033 7,912 -1,518 35,425 -18,247 5,401 45,226 43,212 10,963 -70,732 -1,256 -25 14,500 -5 3 -806 840 19 -1,644 -6 -486 -35,627 2 -4,675 -11,918 -562 -118 -39,312 -12,868 -381 -11,936 -55 -22,001 -44,490 -29,229 -7 -6 -216 10,956 0 2 -3,315 -1,813 -17,036 -7,857 393 -1 -3,825 Normal Year1 195,087 -9,718 -54 -946 8,880 4,613 35,425 198 7,170 45,226 46,154 10,963 -70,492 -1,140 -24 14,519 -5 3 -554 944 19 -1,141 -5 -460 -28,503 2 -4,010 4,221 -508 -106 -3,279 -9,363 -359 -10,321 -48 -15,940 -22,149 -12,838 -6 -4 -142 11,750 0 2 -2,968 -1,664 -6,044 -3,332 427 0 -1,213 195,087 4,390 357 4,109 29,975 56,995 103,535 497,660 30,879 665,468 901,035 17,197 66,178 3,632 989 15,028 0 14,503 1,201 2,540 19 54,700 11 17,509 348,769 2 10,909 25,169 71,500 145 10,871 120 451 26,542 29,350 4,065 161,032 26,621 19 22 1,900 37,291 2 2 4,450 3,886 33,484 50,418 3,132 6 176,357 4,579 357 4,129 40,457 77,349 103,535 497,868 40,468 666,680 904,249 17,197 66,178 -High Demands 3,489,538 925,757 535,325 7,412,868 -High Demands -Low Demands 3,356,261 902,124 486,427 9,092,987 -Low Demands High -702,944 -387,272 -12,918 8,637,438 -High Demands Low -619,308 -365,181 -3,705 -1,266,103 -Low Demands High -511,128 -337,076 18,669 -928,642 High Low -427,491 -314,985 27,882 -945,875 2,357,729 617,209 463,596 -608,415 -1,131,810 -308,548 -71,729 1,008,170 to 1,176,889 -1,827,855 2,394,695 620,706 459,477 1,008,170 to 1,152,943 7,329,163 -1,131,623 -284,915 -62,193 1,008,170 to 1,176,889 -1,544,759 2,366,114 620,706 421,442 1,008,170 to 1,152,943 7,262,549 -939,993 -258,352 -40,141 1,281,770 to 1,451,918 -1,507,666 2,586,512 670,902 491,064 1,281,770 to 1,427,903 7,649,391 -939,806 -234,719 -30,606 1,281,770 to 1,451,918 -1,224,570 2,557,931 670,902 453,030 1,281,770 to 1,427,903 7,582,776 Increased values in future years correspond to decreased values in the Yuma and Lower Gila Basins based on a projected 7% decrease in non-Indian agriculture demand. Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 6. The second CAP value in the range represents the addition of water contracted to mainstem contract holders currently utilized by CAP pursuant to CAP's contract with the Secretary. It is divided into the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs for planning purposes in the Supply Vs. Demand tabulation and unmet demand analysis. 5. The first CAP value in the range represents the portion of Arizona's Lower Basin Colorado River Supply that is projected to be available after full on-river use of entitlements occurs. This value includes a 5% system loss expected from the point of diversion and the place of use. 4. Positive values for (supply – demand) for Colorado River basins would be available for use by CAP or other Colorado River water users. No water would be left unused in the basin. 3. In the AMAs, a low and high groundwater supply corresponds with low and high industrial demands. If CAM GW Supply > Baseline (c. 2006), the GW Supply is = Baseline (c.2006). If CAM GW Supply < Baseline (c. 2006), the GW Supply = CAM GW Supply. Of that 90% is reduced from the CAP and 10% from Priority 4 Mainstem Users. 2. The first degree shortage of Colorado River Supply available when the Elevation of Lake Mead = 1,050-1,075. In this case CAP and Priority 4 consumptive use entitlements are reduced by a total of 320,000 acre-feet. 1. Normal Colorado River Supply Available when the Elevation of Lake Mead = 1,075-1,145. In this case CAP and Priority 4 can use their full entitlements. Baseline Supply & Demand KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) LOWER GILA PARKER Parker (Tribal Ag) YUMA Yuma (Tribal Ag) HARQUAHALA INA Major Active Management Areas (AMAs) Central Arizona Project (CAP) Supply Range STATEWIDE GW = groundwater CR = Mainstem Colorado River Water CAP = Central Arizona Project Instate SW = Other Surface Water Effluent = reclaimed water 14,529 511 6,057 40,113 84,201 68,110 490,312 38,242 621,454 848,232 6,234 137,516 TOTAL Low Table 10. Adjusted Currently Developed Supplies Vs. Projected Demand SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH Baseline Supply & Demand SANTA CRUZ AMA 2 2 4,200 3,286 BASIN NAME SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK UPPER HASSAYAMPA TOTAL High TOTAL High 4,888 1,014 528 5 14,500 2,007 1,701 0 56,344 17 17,994 384,396 0 15,584 37,087 72,062 263 50,183 12,988 832 38,478 29,405 26,067 205,523 55,850 26 28 2,116 26,336 2 0 7,765 5,699 50,520 58,275 2,740 7 180,182 TOTAL Low 259,566 2035 218,219 34,346 430 5,163 32,545 78,867 68,110 516,115 35,067 621,454 861,037 6,234 136,910 TOTAL High TOTAL Low 4,772 1,013 509 5 14,500 1,755 1,596 0 55,841 16 17,969 377,271 0 14,919 20,948 72,008 251 14,150 9,483 810 36,863 29,398 20,005 183,181 39,460 25 26 2,042 25,541 2 0 7,418 5,551 39,528 53,750 2,705 6 177,569 14,298 410 5,075 31,577 72,736 68,110 497,669 33,298 621,454 858,095 6,234 136,670 TOTAL Low 3,097,639 1,007,978 472,395 160,823 2,170,179 2,985,423 985,887 425,148 8,595,266 LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU PHOENIX AMA 1,022,762 338,067 8,191,191 Baseline Supply & Demand 176,075 6 29,237 44,527 2,305 WILLCOX WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER 5,6 PINAL AMA TUCSON AMA 7,103,425 Basins Which Receive Part of their Supply from the Colorado River or CAP Instate Water Supplies Only Instate + CR Upper Instate + CR Lower Mainstem Instate + CAP 17 Baseline Supply & Demand 2110 Demands DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HUALAPAI VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY 19 22 1,500 120 351 21,887 29,350 3,765 177,558 27,204 11 17,954 357,823 2 9,109 24,622 71,500 145 10,384 0 14,503 1,101 1,173 19 53,300 3,602 1,014 15,028 4,150 309 Water Resources Development Commission 2110 Area Split TOTAL High 71,004 1,105 3,347 357 14,500 2,471 3,264 906 60,862 651 18,421 440,191 83 24,252 42,123 73,562 73 51,860 19,572 2,394 57,797 29,456 35,987 210,451 60,718 930 185 3,544 36,460 853 1,307 16,340 3,545 67,957 78,793 2,091 128 186,805 2110 Supply - Demand TOTAL Low 75,504 1,098 3,232 342 14,500 2,195 3,063 850 60,198 587 18,377 428,755 79 23,331 25,666 73,432 70 15,801 12,750 2,307 55,423 29,447 27,938 187,911 43,971 906 176 3,405 35,207 820 1,285 15,567 3,461 56,252 73,058 2,083 123 181,770 TOTAL High 4 Low 2,549,545 667,405 532,769 1,281,770 to 1,451,918 7,622,907 High 2,292,280 617,209 454,339 1,008,170 to 1,176,889 7,190,426 Low 2,357,729 617,209 501,182 1,008,170 to 1,176,889 7,302,718 High -2,506,693 -1,795,524 -315,691 -141,162 -Low Demands -2,982,656 -1,935,397 -348,525 -152,509 -High Demands -2,826,882 -1,987,341 -365,887 -172,749 -Low Demands -3,302,845 -2,127,214 -398,721 -184,097 -High Demands 9,930,628 4,078,593 981,227 627,766 10,518,883 4,291,514 1,016,058 684,268 41,574 995 9,074 56,870 111,560 68,110 535,164 47,102 621,454 889,691 6,234 143,163 TOTAL High Instate + Shortage Diversions of CR Supply 2110 Supply - Demand Cont. Instate Supply - High Demand TOTAL Low 371,709 Instate Supply - Low Demand -High Demands 291,806 Total Supply -Low Demands -180,359 -3,299 -57 14,118 -8 3 -1,502 -302 -887 -6,833 -16 -1,339 -72,576 2 -15,694 -15,895 -1,240 -306 -40,664 -19,608 -737 -37,024 -265 -31,429 -53,190 -32,980 -20 -22 -1,411 1,175 -2 2 -7,715 -5,311 -35,316 -27,243 -374 -6 -10,915 -High Demands -100,433 -30,972 -385 -4,025 -27,267 -58,464 35,425 -37,670 -16,562 44,014 -14,571 10,963 -72,775 -3,106 -56 14,149 -8 3 -1,214 -128 -831 -6,145 -13 -1,298 -58,605 2 -14,703 285 -1,152 -286 -4,611 -12,781 -700 -34,298 -253 -23,396 -30,648 -16,311 -19 -20 -1,282 2,385 -2 2 -7,270 -5,056 -23,565 -21,754 -312 -5 -5,867 -Low Demands -180,359 -10,895 -352 -3,874 -25,778 -46,801 35,425 -18,691 -12,772 44,014 -9,362 10,963 -72,196 3,632 964 15,028 0 14,503 1,201 2,523 19 54,700 11 17,014 345,998 2 10,909 25,127 71,500 145 10,790 120 451 26,438 29,350 4,065 157,323 26,021 19 22 1,900 37,291 2 2 4,400 3,886 33,262 49,593 3,052 6 176,349 Shortage Year2 -100,433 -30,782 -385 -4,006 -16,785 -38,110 35,425 -37,463 -6,973 45,226 -11,465 10,963 -72,775 Instate + Normal Diversions of CR Supply Normal Year1 191,762 -10,705 -352 -3,854 -15,296 -26,447 35,425 -18,483 -3,183 45,226 -6,257 10,963 -72,196 Total Supply 191,762 4,365 354 4,069 29,975 56,995 103,535 483,633 30,879 665,468 875,852 17,197 66,178 2110 Table 10. Adjusted Currently Developed Supplies vs. Projected Demand (Continued) BASIN NAME PARIA PEACH SPRINGS PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER 20,980 176,075 Baseline Supply & Demand BILL WILLIAMS DETRITAL VALLEY 3,627 16,130 47,769 68,110 504,687 26,462 621,454 160,823 KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) LOWER GILA PARKER Parker (Tribal Ag) 4,554 354 4,089 40,457 77,349 103,535 483,841 40,468 666,680 878,958 17,197 66,178 21,541 950 8,901 55,390 100,045 68,110 517,200 43,321 621,454 884,506 6,234 142,642 TOTAL Low 2,484,097 667,405 485,926 1,281,770 to 1,451,918 7,510,616 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 Increased values in future years correspond decreased values in the Yuma andtoLower Gila Basins on a projected 7%Gila decrease non-Indian agriculture Increasedto values in future years correspond decreased values based in the Yuma and Lower Basinsinbased on a projected 7%demand. decrease in non-Indian agriculture demand. 6. The second CAP value in the range represents addition of the water contracted to mainstem contract holders currently utilized bycontract CAP pursuant CAP's contract the Secretary. 6. The secondthe CAP value in range represents the addition of water contracted to mainstem holderstocurrently utilized with by CAP pursuant to CAP's contract with the Secretary. It is divided into the Phoenix, Pinal and planningPinal purposes in the Supply Vs.planning Demandpurposes tabulationinand analysis. It isTucson divided AMAs into theforPhoenix, and Tucson AMAs for theunmet Supplydemand Vs. Demand tabulation and unmet demand analysis. 5. The first CAP value in the range represents portion Basin the Colorado Supply Lower that is Basin projected to be available after that full on-river use to of be entitlements occurs. This value a 5% system expected from theapoint of diversion and the place 5. The firstthe CAP valueofinArizona's the rangeLower represents portionRiver of Arizona's Colorado River Supply is projected available after full on-river useincludes of entitlements occurs.loss This value includes 5% system loss expected from oftheuse. point of diversion and the place of use. 4. Positive values for (supply – demand) for Colorado basins– would be available for use bybasins CAP orwould otherbe Colorado River water water would be left water unused in theNo basin. 4. Positive values River for (supply demand) for Colorado River available for use byusers. CAP orNo other Colorado River users. water would be left unused in the basin. 3. In the AMAs, a low and high groundwater withgroundwater low and high industrial demands. CAMand GWhigh Supply > Baseline (c. 2006), theGW GWSupply Supply> isBaseline = Baseline (c.2006). If CAM GW Supply < Baseline (c. 2006), theGW GWSupply Supply< =Baseline CAM GW 3. In thesupply AMAs, corresponds a low and high supply corresponds withIf low industrial demands. If CAM (c. 2006), the GW Supply is = Baseline (c.2006). If CAM (c.Supply. 2006), the GW Supply = CAM GW Supply. Of that 90% is reduced from the CAPOfand Priority from 4 Mainstem that10% 90%from is reduced the CAPUsers. and 10% from Priority 4 Mainstem Users. 2. The first degree shortage of Colorado River the Elevation of Lakeavailable Mead = 1,050-1,075. In thisofcase and= Priority 4 consumptive useCAP entitlements are 4reduced by a total 320,000 acre-feet. 2. The firstSupply degreeavailable shortagewhen of Colorado River Supply when the Elevation LakeCAP Mead 1,050-1,075. In this case and Priority consumptive useofentitlements are reduced by a total of 320,000 acre-feet. 1. Normal Colorado River Supply Available 1. Normal when Colorado the Elevation River Supply of LakeAvailable Mead = 1,075-1,145. when the Elevation In thisofcase LakeCAP Mead and= Priority 1,075-1,145. 4 can use In this theircase full CAP entitlements. and Priority 4 can use their full entitlements. Baseline Supply & Demand 852,241 6,234 136,735 STATEWIDE GW = groundwater CR = Mainstem Colorado River Water CAP = Central Arizona Project Instate SW = Other Surface Water Effluent = reclaimed water Central Arizona Project (CAP) Supply Range Major Active Management Areas (AMAs) YUMA Yuma (Tribal Ag) HARQUAHALA INA LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU 6 SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH WILLCOX WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE SANTA CRUZ AMA TOTAL High 6,931 1,021 910 8 14,500 2,703 2,824 906 61,533 27 18,352 418,574 0 26,603 41,023 72,740 451 51,454 19,728 1,188 63,463 29,615 35,495 210,513 59,001 39 44 3,311 36,116 4 0 12,115 9,197 68,577 76,836 3,426 12 187,264 2 2 TOTAL Low 6,738 1,020 879 8 14,500 2,415 2,651 850 60,845 24 18,311 404,603 0 25,612 24,843 72,652 431 15,401 12,901 1,151 60,736 29,603 27,462 187,971 42,332 38 42 3,182 34,906 4 0 11,670 8,943 56,827 71,347 3,363 11 182,216 TOTAL High SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TOTAL Low 372,121 4,200 3,286 29,237 292,195 35,337 739 8,095 57,242 115,459 68,110 521,304 47,440 621,454 890,423 6,234 138,953 TOTAL High TONTO CREEK UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO 15,260 706 7,943 55,754 103,795 68,110 502,324 43,651 621,454 885,215 6,234 138,374 TOTAL Low 4,484,942 1,015,930 685,279 44,527 2,305 2,170,179 4,279,621 983,096 627,088 10,605,563 VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER PHOENIX AMA 1,022,762 338,067 10,017,308 5,6 PINAL AMA TUCSON AMA 7,103,425 Basins Which Receive Part of their Supply from the Colorado River or CAP Instate Water Supplies Only Instate + CR Upper Instate + CR Lower Mainstem Instate + CAP 2110 Area Split Instate Supply - High Demand 2110 (Area Split) Supply - Demand Instate Supply - Low Demand -67,372 -141 11,681 -357 3 -1,270 -741 -887 -6,162 -640 -1,408 -94,193 -81 -13,343 -16,995 -2,062 72 -41,070 -19,452 -1,942 -31,359 -106 -31,922 -53,127 -34,697 -911 -163 -1,644 831 -851 -1,305 -11,940 342 -34,696 -29,200 960 -122 -10,456 Total Supply -71,872 -134 11,796 -342 3 -994 -540 -831 -5,498 -576 -1,364 -82,757 -77 -12,422 -538 -1,932 75 -5,011 -12,630 -1,856 -28,984 -97 -23,873 -30,588 -17,951 -887 -154 -1,505 2,084 -818 -1,283 -11,167 425 -22,991 -23,465 969 -117 -5,421 Shortage Year2 -Low Demands -High Demands -100,044 -Low Demands -179,947 -High Demands Instate + Shortage Diversions of CR Supply 4 3,632 964 15,028 0 14,503 1,201 2,523 19 54,700 11 17,014 345,998 2 10,909 25,127 71,500 145 10,790 120 451 26,438 29,350 4,065 157,323 26,021 19 22 1,900 37,291 2 2 4,400 3,886 33,262 49,593 3,052 6 176,349 Instate + Normal Diversions of CR Supply 2110 Supply - Demand Cont. Total Supply Normal Year1 -179,947 -High Demands -100,044 -Low Demands -1,933,785 -398,849 -183,279 191,762 -High Demands -1,804,459 -364,018 -172,262 -3,216,359 191,762 -Low Demands -1,741,968 -348,653 -151,692 -2,757,183 -37,209 -641 -5,005 -26,895 -54,565 35,425 -51,531 -16,224 44,014 -13,839 10,963 -76,985 -1,612,642 -313,822 -140,674 -2,896,170 -17,176 -596 -4,832 -25,415 -43,051 35,425 -33,567 -12,443 44,014 -8,654 10,963 -76,464 High -2,436,994 -37,019 -641 -4,985 -16,413 -34,211 35,425 -51,324 -6,635 45,226 -10,733 10,963 -76,985 Low 2,357,729 617,209 500,988 1,008,170 to 1,176,889 7,302,524 -16,986 -596 -4,812 -14,933 -22,697 35,425 -33,360 -2,854 45,226 -5,548 10,963 -76,464 High 2,274,134 617,209 455,504 1,008,170 to 1,176,889 7,173,445 4,365 354 4,069 29,975 56,995 103,535 483,633 30,879 665,468 875,852 17,197 66,178 Low 2,549,545 667,405 532,576 1,281,770 to 1,451,918 7,622,714 4,554 354 4,089 40,457 77,349 103,535 483,841 40,468 666,680 878,958 17,197 66,178 2,465,951 667,405 487,092 1,281,770 to 1,451,918 7,493,634 18 Table 11. Currently Developed Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2035 Projected Demands 2035 Supply - Demand Instate Water Supplies Only BASIN NAME Instate Supply - Low Demand Instate Supply - High Demand Instate Supply - Low Demand Instate Supply - High Demand -1,140 -24 14,519 -5 3 -554 944 19 -1,141 -5 -460 -28,503 2 -4,010 4,221 -508 -106 -3,279 -9,363 -359 -10,321 -48 -15,940 -22,149 -12,838 -6 -4 -142 11,750 0 2 -2,968 -1,664 -6,044 -3,332 427 0 -1,213 -1,256 -25 14,500 -5 3 -806 840 19 -1,644 -6 -486 -35,627 2 -4,675 -11,918 -562 -118 -39,312 -12,868 -381 -11,936 -55 -22,001 -44,490 -29,229 -7 -6 -216 10,956 0 2 -3,315 -1,813 -17,036 -7,857 393 -1 -3,825 24% 2% None 100% None 32% None None 2% 30% 3% 8% None 27% None 0.71% 42% 23% 99% 44% 28% 0.16% 80% 12% 33% 25% 17% 7% None 7% None 40% 30% 15% 6% None 7% 1% 26% 2% None 100% None 40% None None 3% 37% 3% 9% None 30% 32% 0.78% 45% 78% 99% 46% 31% 0.19% 84% 22% 52% 27% 21% 10% None 11% None 43% 32% 34% 13% None 11% 2% 2035 Supply - Demand Cont.6 Basins Which Receive Part of their Supply from the Colorado River or CAP Instate + Normal Diversions of CR Supply Instate + Shortage Diversions of CR Supply Percentage Cont. Instate + Normal Diversions of CR Supply Instate + Shortage Diversions of CR Supply Instate + CAP Instate + CR Lower Mainstem Instate + CR Upper -Low -High -Low -High -Low -High -Low -High Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU -23,132 -64,479 -23,132 -64,479 11% 25% 11% 25% BILL WILLIAMS DETRITAL VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) LOWER GILA PARKER Parker (Tribal Ag) YUMA Yuma (Tribal Ag) HARQUAHALA INA -9,718 -54 -946 8,880 4,613 35,425 198 7,170 45,226 46,154 10,963 -70,492 -29,766 -73 -1,033 7,912 -1,518 35,425 -18,247 5,401 45,226 43,212 10,963 -70,732 -9,908 -54 -966 -1,602 -15,742 35,425 -9 -2,419 44,014 42,940 10,963 -70,492 -29,956 -73 -1,053 -2,570 -21,873 35,425 -18,455 -4,189 44,014 39,998 10,963 -70,732 68% 13% 19% None None None None None None None None 52% 87% 17% 20% None 2% None 4% None None None None 52% 69% 13% 19% 5% 22% None 0.002% 7% None None None 52% 87% 17% 20% 8% 28% None 4% 12% None None None 52% Major Active Management Areas (AMAs) -Low -High -Low -High -Low -High -Low -High Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA TUCSON AMA -427,491 -314,985 27,882 -511,128 -337,076 18,669 -619,308 -365,181 -3,705 -702,944 -387,272 -12,918 14% 32% None 17% 33% 4% 21% 37% 1% 24% 38% 11% STATEWIDE -608,415 -945,875 -928,642 -1,266,103 7% 12% 11% 16% GW = groundwater 1. Normal Colorado River Supply Available when the Elevation of Lake Mead = 1,075-1,145. In this case CAP and Priority 4 can use their full entitlements. CR = Mainstem Colorado River Water 2. The first tier shortage of Colorado River Supply available when the Elevation of Lake Mead = 1,050-1,075. In this case CAP and Priority 4 consumptive use entitlements are reduced by a total of 320,000 acre-feet. CAP = Central Arizona Project Of that 90% is reduced from the CAP and 10% from Priority 4 Mainstem Users. Instate SW = Other Surface Water 3. In the AMAs, a low and high groundwater supply corresponds with low and high industrial demands. If CAM GW Supply > Baseline (c. 2006), the GW Supply is = Baseline (c.2006). If CAM GW Supply < Baseline (c. 2006), the GW Supply = CAM GW Supply. Effluent = reclaimed water 4. The first CAP value in the range represents the portion of Arizona's Lower Basin Colorado River Supply that is projected to be available after full on-river use of entitlements occurs. This value includes a 5% system loss expected from the point of diversion and the place of use. It is divided into the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs for planning purposes in the Supply Vs. Demand tabulation and unmet demand analysis. 5. The second CAP value in the range represents the addition of water contracted to mainstem contract holders currently utilized by CAP pursuant to CAP's contract with the Secretary. Increased values in future years correspond to decreased values in the Yuma and Lower Gila basins based on a projected 7% decrease in non-Indian agriculture demand. 6. Positive values for (supply – demand) for Colorado River basins would be available for use by CAP or other Colorado River water users. No water would be left unused in the basin. Note: In a Normal Year (Lake Mead Elevation = 1,075 to 1,145), AZ CU Entitlements = 2.8MAF, AZ use = 2.8MAF, Balance available = zero. In a First Tier Shortage Year (Lake Mead Elevation = 1,050 to 1,075), AZ CU Entitlements = 2.48MAF, AZ use = 2.48MAF, Balance available = zero. Arizona will always use its full apportionment. Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HUALAPAI VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PEACH SPRINGS PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies 19 Table 12. Currently Developed Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2060 Projected Demands 2060 Supply - Demand Instate Water Supplies Only BASIN NAME Instate Supply - Low Demand Instate Supply - High Demand Instate Supply - Low Demand Instate Supply - High Demand -1,739 -50 14,393 -6 3 -767 605 19 -2,591 -6 -1,047 -44,495 2 -7,615 2,167 -720 -167 -3,691 -11,222 -465 -18,323 -138 -18,931 -27,065 -14,127 -8 -8 -540 8,371 -1 2 -4,456 -2,799 -11,398 -9,866 98 -2 -3,094 -1,879 -51 14,370 -6 3 -1,031 480 19 -3,147 -8 -1,076 -54,593 2 -8,390 -13,927 -785 -181 -39,729 -16,147 -491 -20,143 -148 -25,732 -49,457 -30,610 -9 -10 -633 7,761 -1 2 -4,836 -2,983 -22,425 -14,155 53 -2 -6,736 32% 5% None 100% None 39% None None 5% 37% 6% 11% None 41% None 1.00% 54% 25% 99% 51% 41% 0.47% 82% 15% 35% 30% 28% 22% None 29% None 50% 42% 26% 17% None 26% 2% 34% 5% None 100% None 46% None None 5% 43% 6% 14% None 43% 36% 1.09% 56% 79% 99% 52% 43% 0.50% 86% 24% 54% 32% 31% 25% None 31% None 52% 43% 40% 22% None 29% 4% 2060 Supply - Demand Cont.6 Basins Which Receive Part of their Supply from the Colorado River or CAP Instate + Normal Diversions of CR Supply Instate + Shortage Diversions of CR Supply Percentage Cont. Instate + Normal Diversions of CR Supply Instate + Shortage Diversions of CR Supply Instate + CAP Instate + CR Lower Mainstem Instate + CR Upper -Low -High -Low -High -Low -High -Low -High Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU -58,059 -115,484 -58,059 -115,484 23% 38% 23% 38% BILL WILLIAMS DETRITAL VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) LOWER GILA PARKER Parker (Tribal Ag) YUMA Yuma (Tribal Ag) HARQUAHALA INA -9,975 -156 -1,968 344 -6,852 35,425 -6,471 2,225 45,226 30,725 10,963 -71,338 -30,029 -180 -2,077 -829 -15,115 35,425 -25,201 -662 45,226 27,035 10,963 -71,766 -10,164 -156 -1,988 -10,138 -27,207 35,425 -6,679 -7,364 44,014 27,620 10,963 -71,338 -30,219 -180 -2,097 -11,311 -35,470 35,425 -25,408 -10,251 44,014 23,929 10,963 -71,766 69% 31% 32% None 8% None 1.32% None None None None 52% 87% 34% 34% 2% 16% None 5% 2% None None None 52% 70% 31% 33% 25% 32% None 1.362% 19% None None None 52% 87% 34% 34% 27% 38% None 5% 25% None None None 52% Major Active Management Areas (AMAs) PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA TUCSON AMA STATEWIDE -Low -High -Low -High -Low -High -Low -High Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands -939,806 -234,719 -30,606 -939,993 -258,352 -40,141 -1,131,623 -284,915 -62,193 -1,131,810 -308,548 -71,729 28% 26% 6% 31% 28% 15% 34% 32% 13% 36% 33% 21% -1,224,570 -1,507,666 -1,544,759 -1,827,855 14% 18% 18% 22% GW = groundwater 1. Normal Colorado River Supply Available when the Elevation of Lake Mead = 1,075-1,145. In this case CAP and Priority 4 can use their full entitlements. CR = Mainstem Colorado River Water 2. The first tier shortage of Colorado River Supply available when the Elevation of Lake Mead = 1,050-1,075. In this case CAP and Priority 4 consumptive use entitlements are reduced by a total of 320,000 acre-feet. CAP = Central Arizona Project Of that 90% is reduced from the CAP and 10% from Priority 4 Mainstem Users. Instate SW = Other Surface Water 3. In the AMAs, a low and high groundwater supply corresponds with low and high industrial demands. If CAM GW Supply > Baseline (c. 2006), the GW Supply is = Baseline (c.2006). If CAM GW Supply < Baseline (c. 2006), the GW Supply = CAM GW Supply. Effluent = reclaimed water 4. The first CAP value in the range represents the portion of Arizona's Lower Basin Colorado River Supply that is projected to be available after full on-river use of entitlements occurs. This value includes a 5% system loss expected from the point of diversion and the place of use. It is divided into the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs for planning purposes in the Supply Vs. Demand tabulation and unmet demand analysis. 5. The second CAP value in the range represents the addition of water contracted to mainstem contract holders currently utilized by CAP pursuant to CAP's contract with the Secretary. Increased values in future years correspond to decreased values in the Yuma and Lower Gila basins based on a projected 7% decrease in non-Indian agriculture demand. 6. Positive values for (supply – demand) for Colorado River basins would be available for use by CAP or other Colorado River water users. No water would be left unused in the basin. Note: In a Normal Year (Lake Mead Elevation = 1,075 to 1,145), AZ CU Entitlements = 2.8MAF, AZ use = 2.8MAF, Balance available = zero. In a First Tier Shortage Year (Lake Mead Elevation = 1,050 to 1,075), AZ CU Entitlements = 2.48MAF, AZ use = 2.48MAF, Balance available = zero. Arizona will always use its full apportionment. Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HUALAPAI VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PEACH SPRINGS PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies 20 Table 13. Currently Developed Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (CS) Projected Demands Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies 2110 Supply - Demand Instate Water Supplies Only BASIN NAME Instate Supply - High Demand Instate Supply - Low Demand Instate Supply - High Demand -3,106 -56 14,149 -8 3 -1,214 -128 -831 -6,145 -13 -1,298 -58,605 2 -14,703 285 -1,152 -286 -4,611 -12,781 -700 -34,298 -253 -23,396 -30,648 -16,311 -19 -20 -1,282 2,385 -2 2 -7,270 -5,056 -23,565 -21,754 -312 -3,299 -57 14,118 -8 3 -1,502 -302 -887 -6,833 -16 -1,339 -72,576 2 -15,694 -15,895 -1,240 -306 -40,664 -19,608 -737 -37,024 -265 -31,429 -53,190 -32,980 -20 -22 -1,411 1,175 -2 2 -7,715 -5,311 -35,316 -27,243 -374 46% 5% None 100% None 50% 5% 98% 10% 54% 7% 14% None 57% None 1.59% 66% 30% 99% 61% 56% 0.85% 85% 16% 39% 49% 48% 40% None 48% None 62% 57% 41% 30% 9% 48% 6% None 100% None 56% 11% 98% 11% 59% 7% 17% None 59% 39% 1.70% 68% 79% 99% 62% 58% 0.89% 89% 25% 56% 51% 50% 43% None 50% None 64% 58% 51% 35% 11% -5 -6 47% 49% -5,867 -10,915 3% 6% WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX 2110 Supply - Demand Cont. Instate + CAP Instate + CR Lower Mainstem Instate + CR Upper Basins Which Receive Part of their Supply from the Colorado River or CAP Instate + Normal Diversions of CR Supply 6 Instate + Shortage Diversions of CR Supply Percentage Cont. Instate + Normal Diversions of CR Supply Instate + Shortage Diversions of CR Supply -Low Demands -High Demands -Low Demands -High Demands -Low Demands -High Demands -Low Demands -High Demands LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU -100,433 -180,359 -100,433 -180,359 34% 48% 34% 48% BILL WILLIAMS DETRITAL VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) LOWER GILA PARKER Parker (Tribal Ag) YUMA Yuma (Tribal Ag) HARQUAHALA INA -10,705 -352 -3,854 -15,296 -26,447 35,425 -18,483 -3,183 45,226 -6,257 10,963 -72,196 -30,782 -385 -4,006 -16,785 -38,110 35,425 -37,463 -6,973 45,226 -11,465 10,963 -72,775 -10,895 -352 -3,874 -25,778 -46,801 35,425 -18,691 -12,772 44,014 -9,362 10,963 -72,196 -30,972 -385 -4,025 -27,267 -58,464 35,425 -37,670 -16,562 44,014 -14,571 10,963 -72,775 70% 50% 49% 27% 25% None 3.68% 7% None 1% None 52% 87% 52% 49% 29% 33% None 7% 15% None 1% None 52% 71% 50% 49% 46% 45% None 3.721% 29% None 1% None 52% 88% 52% 50% 48% 51% None 7% 35% None 2% None 52% -Low Demands -High Demands -Low Demands -High Demands -Low Demands -High Demands -Low Demands -High Demands -1,795,524 -315,691 -141,162 -1,935,397 -348,525 -152,509 -1,987,341 -365,887 -172,749 -2,127,214 -398,721 -184,097 42% 32% 23% 45% 34% 29% 46% 37% 28% 49% 39% 34% -2,506,693 -2,982,656 -2,826,882 -3,302,845 25% 29% 28% 32% Major Active Management Areas (AMAs) PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA TUCSON AMA STATEWIDE GW = groundwater 1. Normal Colorado River Supply Available when the Elevation of Lake Mead = 1,075-1,145. In this case CAP and Priority 4 can use their full entitlements. CR = Mainstem Colorado River Water 2. The first tier shortage of Colorado River Supply available when the Elevation of Lake Mead = 1,050-1,075. In this case CAP and Priority 4 consumptive use entitlements are reduced by a total of 320,000 acre-feet. CAP = Central Arizona Project Of that 90% is reduced from the CAP and 10% from Priority 4 Mainstem Users. Instate SW = Other Surface Water 3. In the AMAs, a low and high groundwater supply corresponds with low and high industrial demands. If CAM GW Supply > Baseline (c. 2006), the GW Supply is = Baseline (c.2006). If CAM GW Supply < Baseline (c. 2006), the GW Supply = CAM GW Supply. Effluent = reclaimed water 4. The first CAP value in the range represents the portion of Arizona's Lower Basin Colorado River Supply that is projected to be available after full on-river use of entitlements occurs. This value includes a 5% system loss expected from the point of diversion and the place of use. It is divided into the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs for planning purposes in the Supply Vs. Demand tabulation and unmet demand analysis. 5. The second CAP value in the range represents the addition of water contracted to mainstem contract holders currently utilized by CAP pursuant to CAP's contract with the Secretary. Increased values in future years correspond to decreased values in the Yuma and Lower Gila basins based on a projected 7% decrease in non-Indian agriculture demand. 6. Positive values for (supply – demand) for Colorado River basins would be available for use by CAP or other Colorado River water users. No water would be left unused in the basin. Note: In a Normal Year (Lake Mead Elevation = 1,075 to 1,145), AZ CU Entitlements = 2.8MAF, AZ use = 2.8MAF, Balance available = zero. In a First Tier Shortage Year (Lake Mead Elevation = 1,050 to 1,075), AZ CU Entitlements = 2.48MAF, AZ use = 2.48MAF, Balance available = zero. Arizona will always use its full apportionment. Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HUALAPAI VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PEACH SPRINGS PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER Instate Supply - Low Demand 21 Table 14. Currently Developed Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (AS) Projected Demands Instate Water Supplies Only BASIN NAME Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Instate Supply - Low Demand Instate Supply - High Demand Instate Supply - Low Demand Instate Supply - High Demand -71,872 -134 11,796 -342 3 -994 -540 -831 -5,498 -576 -1,364 -82,757 -77 -12,422 -538 -1,932 75 -5,011 -12,630 -1,856 -28,984 -97 -23,873 -30,588 -17,951 -887 -154 -1,505 2,084 -818 -1,283 -11,167 425 -22,991 -23,465 969 -117 -5,421 -67,372 -141 11,681 -357 3 -1,270 -741 -887 -6,162 -640 -1,408 -94,193 -81 -13,343 -16,995 -2,062 72 -41,070 -19,452 -1,942 -31,359 -106 -31,922 -53,127 -34,697 -911 -163 -1,644 831 -851 -1,305 -11,940 342 -34,696 -29,200 960 -122 -10,456 95% 12% None 100% None 45% 18% 98% 9% 98% 7% 19% 97% 53% 2% 2.63% None 32% 99% 80% 52% None 85% 16% 41% 98% 88% 44% None 100% 100% 72% None 41% 32% None 95% 3% 95% 13% None 100% -0.02% 51% 23% 98% 10% 98% 8% 21% 98% 55% 40% 2.80% None 79% 99% 81% 54% None 89% 25% 57% 98% 88% 46% None 100% 100% 73% None 51% 37% None 95% 6% 2110 Supply - Demand Cont.6 Basins Which Receive Part of their Supply from the Colorado River or CAP Instate + Normal Diversions of CR Supply Instate + Shortage Diversions of CR Supply Percentage Cont. Instate + Normal Diversions of CR Supply Instate + Shortage Diversions of CR Supply Instate + CAP Instate + CR Lower Mainstem Instate + CR Upper -Low -High -Low -High -Low -High -Low -High Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU -100,044 -179,947 -100,044 -179,947 34% 48% 34% 48% BILL WILLIAMS DETRITAL VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) LOWER GILA PARKER Parker (Tribal Ag) YUMA Yuma (Tribal Ag) HARQUAHALA INA -16,986 -596 -4,812 -14,933 -22,697 35,425 -33,360 -2,854 45,226 -5,548 10,963 -76,464 -37,019 -641 -4,985 -16,413 -34,211 35,425 -51,324 -6,635 45,226 -10,733 10,963 -76,985 -17,176 -596 -4,832 -25,415 -43,051 35,425 -33,567 -12,443 44,014 -8,654 10,963 -76,464 -37,209 -641 -5,005 -26,895 -54,565 35,425 -51,531 -16,224 44,014 -13,839 10,963 -76,985 79% 63% 54% 27% 23% None 6.45% 7% None 1% None 54% 89% 64% 55% 29% 31% None 10% 14% None 1% None 54% 80% 63% 54% 46% 43% None 6.490% 29% None 1% None 54% 90% 64% 55% 47% 49% None 10% 34% None 2% None 54% Major Active Management Areas (AMAs) -Low -High -Low -High -Low -High -Low -High Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands Demands PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA TUCSON AMA -1,612,642 -313,822 -140,674 -1,741,968 -348,653 -151,692 -1,804,459 -364,018 -172,262 -1,933,785 -398,849 -183,279 40% 32% 22% 43% 34% 29% 44% 37% 27% 47% 39% 33% STATEWIDE -2,436,994 -2,896,170 -2,757,183 -3,216,359 25% 29% 28% 32% GW = groundwater 1. Normal Colorado River Supply Available when the Elevation of Lake Mead = 1,075-1,145. In this case CAP and Priority 4 can use their full entitlements. CR = Mainstem Colorado River Water 2. The first tier shortage of Colorado River Supply available when the Elevation of Lake Mead = 1,050-1,075. In this case CAP and Priority 4 consumptive use entitlements are reduced by a total of 320,000 acre-feet. CAP = Central Arizona Project Of that 90% is reduced from the CAP and 10% from Priority 4 Mainstem Users. Instate SW = Other Surface Water 3. In the AMAs, a low and high groundwater supply corresponds with low and high industrial demands. If CAM GW Supply > Baseline (c. 2006), the GW Supply is = Baseline (c.2006). If CAM GW Supply < Baseline (c. 2006), the GW Supply = CAM GW Supply. Effluent = reclaimed water 4. The first CAP value in the range represents the portion of Arizona's Lower Basin Colorado River Supply that is projected to be available after full on-river use of entitlements occurs. This value includes a 5% system loss expected from the point of diversion and the place of use. It is divided into the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs for planning purposes in the Supply Vs. Demand tabulation and unmet demand analysis. 5. The second CAP value in the range represents the addition of water contracted to mainstem contract holders currently utilized by CAP pursuant to CAP's contract with the Secretary. Increased values in future years correspond to decreased values in the Yuma and Lower Gila basins based on a projected 7% decrease in non-Indian agriculture demand. 6. Positive values for (supply – demand) for Colorado River basins would be available for use by CAP or other Colorado River water users. No water would be left unused in the basin. Note: In a Normal Year (Lake Mead Elevation = 1,075 to 1,145), AZ CU Entitlements = 2.8MAF, AZ use = 2.8MAF, Balance available = zero. In a First Tier Shortage Year (Lake Mead Elevation = 1,050 to 1,075), AZ CU Entitlements = 2.48MAF, AZ use = 2.48MAF, Balance available = zero. Arizona will always use its full apportionment. Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HUALAPAI VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PEACH SPRINGS PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX 2110 (Area Split) Supply Demand 22 High Industr ial Demand LowIndustr ial Demand Water Resources Development Commission WILLCOX WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE VIRGIN RIVER VERDE RIVER UPPER SAN PEDRO (Instate Basins) UPPER HASSAYAMPA TONTO CREEK TIGER WASH SHIVWITS PLATEAU SANTA CRUZ AMA SAN SIMON WASH SAN RAFAEL SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SALT RIVER SAFFORD SACRAMENTO VALLEY 2035 Projected Supply - Demand PRESCOTT AMA PEACH SPRINGS PARIA MORENCI MEADVIEW MCMULLEN VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO HUALAPAI VALLEY GRAND WASH GILA BEND DUNCAN VALLEY DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DOUGLAS DONNELLY WASH COCONINO PLATEAU CIENEGA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY BONITA CREEK BIG SANDY ARAVAIPA CANYON -50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 AGUA FRIA Acre-Feet/Year Figure 1. 2035 Projected Unmet Demand for Instate Basins RANEGRAS PLAIN Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 23 LowIndustr ial Demand High Industr ial Demand Water Resources Development Commission WILLCOX WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE VIRGIN RIVER VERDE RIVER UPPER SAN PEDRO UPPER HASSAYAMPA TONTO CREEK (Instate Basins) TIGER WASH SHIVWITS PLATEAU SANTA CRUZ AMA SAN SIMON WASH SAN RAFAEL SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SALT RIVER 24 2060 Projected Supply - Demand SACRAMENTO VALLEY RANEGRAS PLAIN PRESCOTT AMA PEACH SPRINGS PARIA MORENCI MEADVIEW MCMULLEN VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO HUALAPAI VALLEY GRAND WASH GILA BEND DUNCAN VALLEY DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DOUGLAS DONNELLY WASH COCONINO PLATEAU CIENEGA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY BONITA CREEK BIG SANDY ARAVAIPA CANYON -60000 -40000 -50000 -30000 -20000 0 -10000 10000 20000 AGUA FRIA Acre-Feet/Year Figure 2. 2060 Projected Unmet Demand for Instate Basins SAFFORD Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 High Industr ial Demand LowIndustr ial Demand Water Resources Development Commission WILLCOX WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE VIRGIN RIVER VERDE RIVER (Instate Basins) UPPER SAN PEDRO UPPER HASSAYAMPA TONTO CREEK TIGER WASH SHIVWITS PLATEAU SANTA CRUZ AMA SAN SIMON WASH SAN RAFAEL 2110 (Census Split) Projected Supply - Demand SALT RIVER SAFFORD SACRAMENTO VALLEY RANEGRAS PLAIN PRESCOTT AMA PEACH SPRINGS PARIA MORENCI MEADVIEW MCMULLEN VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO HUALAPAI VALLEY GRAND WASH GILA BEND DUNCAN VALLEY DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DOUGLAS DONNELLY WASH COCONINO PLATEAU CIENEGA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY BONITA CREEK BIG SANDY ARAVAIPA CANYON 20000 10000 0 -10000 -20000 -30000 -40000 -50000 -60000 -70000 -80000 AGUA FRIA Acre-Feet/Year Figure 3. 2110 (CS) Projected Unmet Demand for Instate Basins SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 25 LowIndustr ial Demand High Industr ial Demand Water Resources Development Commission WILLCOX WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE VIRGIN RIVER VERDE RIVER UPPER SAN PEDRO (Instate Basins) UPPER HASSAYAMPA TONTO CREEK TIGER WASH SHIVWITS PLATEAU SANTA CRUZ AMA SAN SIMON WASH SAN RAFAEL SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SALT RIVER 26 2110 (Area Split) Projected Supply - Demand SACRAMENTO VALLEY RANEGRAS PLAIN PRESCOTT AMA PEACH SPRINGS PARIA MORENCI MEADVIEW MCMULLEN VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO HUALAPAI VALLEY GRAND WASH GILA BEND DUNCAN VALLEY DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DOUGLAS DONNELLY WASH COCONINO PLATEAU CIENEGA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY BONITA CREEK BIG SANDY ARAVAIPA CANYON -100000 -80000 -60000 -40000 -20000 0 20000 AGUA FRIA Acre-Feet/Year Figure 4. 2110 (AS) Projected Unmet Demand for Instate Basins SAFFORD Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 -80000 -60000 -40000 -20000 0 20000 40000 60000 2035 Projected Supply - Demand (Basins Receiving Colorado River Supplies) Yuma (Tribal Ag) YUMA Parker (Tribal Ag) PARKER LOWER GILA Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) LAKE MOHAVE LAKE HAVASU KANAB PLATEAU DETRITAL VALLEY BILL WILLIAMS LITTLE COLORADO RIVER Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 Shor tageCRSuppl y/ Hi ghInd. Demand Shor tageCRSuppl y/ LowInd. Demand Nor mal Cr Suppl y-Hi ghInd. Demand Nor mal CRSuppl y/ LowInd. Demand Note: Total supplies for basins receiving Colorado River water may also include groundwater, instate surface water and effluent. Positive values for (supply – demand) for Colorado River basins would be available for use by CAP or potentially by other Colorado River water users within the state. No water would be left unused in the basin. Projected Tribal Sector Surpluses Are Reserved For Tribal Uses. Acre-Feet/YeaR Figure 5. 2035 Projected Unmet Demand for Basins Receiving Colorado River Water Water Resources Development Commission 27 28 60000 40000 20000 0 -20000 -40000 -60000 -80000 -100000 -120000 -140000 2060 Projected Supply - Demand (Basins Receiving Colorado River Supplies) Yuma (Tribal Ag) YUMA Parker (Tribal Ag) PARKER LOWER GILA Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) LAKE MOHAVE LAKE HAVASU KANAB PLATEAU DETRITAL VALLEY BILL WILLIAMS LITTLE COLORADO RIVER Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 Shor tageCRSuppl y/ Hi ghInd. Demand Shor tageCRSuppl y/ LowInd. Demand Nor mal Cr Suppl y-Hi ghInd. Demand Nor mal CRSuppl y/ LowInd. Demand Note: Total supplies for basins receiving Colorado River water may also include groundwater, instate surface water and effluent. Positive values for (supply – demand) for Colorado River basins would be available for use by CAP or potentially by other Colorado River water users within the state. No water would be left unused in the basin. Projected Tribal Sector Surpluses Are Reserved For Tribal Uses. Acre-Feet/YeaR Figure 6. 2060 Projected Unmet Demand for Basins Receiving Colorado River Water Water Resources Development Commission -200000 -150000 -100000 -50000 0 50000 100000 2110 (Census Split) Projected Supply - Demand (Basins Receiving Colorado River Supplies) Yuma (Tribal Ag) YUMA Parker (Tribal Ag) PARKER LOWER GILA Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) LAKE MOHAVE LAKE HAVASU KANAB PLATEAU DETRITAL VALLEY BILL WILLIAMS LITTLE COLORADO RIVER Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 Shor tageCRSuppl y/ Hi ghInd. Demand Shor tageCRSuppl y/ LowInd. Demand Nor mal Cr Suppl y-Hi ghInd. Demand Nor mal CRSuppl y/ LowInd. Demand Note: Total supplies for basins receiving Colorado River water may also include groundwater, instate surface water and effluent. Positive values for (supply – demand) for Colorado River basins would be available for use by CAP or potentially by other Colorado River water users within the state. No water would be left unused in the basin. Projected Tribal Sector Surpluses Are Reserved For Tribal Uses. Acre-Feet/YeaR Figure 7. 2110 (CS) Projected Unmet Demand for Basins Receiving Colorado River Water Water Resources Development Commission 29 30 -200000 -150000 -100000 -50000 0 50000 100000 2110 (Area Split) Projected Supply - Demand (Basins Receiving Colorado River Supplies) Yuma (Tribal Ag) YUMA Parker (Tribal Ag) PARKER LOWER GILA Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) LAKE MOHAVE LAKE HAVASU KANAB PLATEAU DETRITAL VALLEY BILL WILLIAMS LITTLE COLORADO RIVER Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 Shor tageCRSuppl y/ Hi ghInd. Demand Shor tageCRSuppl y/ LowInd. Demand Nor mal Cr Suppl y-Hi ghInd. Demand Nor mal CRSuppl y/ LowInd. Demand Note: Total supplies for basins receiving Colorado River water may also include groundwater, instate surface water and effluent. Positive values for (supply – demand) for Colorado River basins would be available for use by CAP or potentially by other Colorado River water users within the state. No water would be left unused in the basin. Projected Tribal Sector Surpluses Are Reserved For Tribal Uses. Acre-Feet/YeaR Figure 8. 2110 (AS) Projected Unmet Demand for Basins Receiving Colorado River Water Water Resources Development Commission Acre-Feet/Year -800000 -700000 -600000 -500000 -400000 -300000 -200000 -100000 0 100000 2035 Projected Supply - Demand (Basins That May Receive CAP) Figure 9. 2035 Projected Unmet Demand for AMAs or INAs that May Receive CAP Water Shor tageCRSuppl y/ Hi ghInd. Demand Shor tageCRSuppl y/ LowInd. Demand Nor mal CRSuppl y/ Hi ghInd. Demand Nor mal CRSuppl y/ LowInd. Demand Water Resources Development Commission TUCSON AMA PINAL AMA PHOENIX AMA HARQUAHALA INA Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 31 32 Acre-Feet/Year -1200000 -1000000 -800000 -600000 -400000 -200000 0 2060 Projected Supply - Demand (Basins That May Receive CAP) Figure 10. 2060 Projected Unmet Demand for AMAs or INAs that May Receive CAP Water Shor tageCRSuppl y/ Hi ghInd. Demand Shor tageCRSuppl y/ LowInd. Demand Nor mal CRSuppl y/ Hi ghInd. Demand Nor mal CRSuppl y/ LowInd. Demand Water Resources Development Commission TUCSON AMA PINAL AMA PHOENIX AMA HARQUAHALA INA Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 Acre-Feet/Year -2500000 -2000000 -1500000 -1000000 -500000 0 2110 (Census Split) Projected Supply - Demand (Basins That May Receive CAP) Figure 11. 2110 (CS) Projected Unmet Demand for AMAs or INAs that May Receive CAP Water Shor tageCRSuppl y/ Hi ghInd. Demand Shor tageCRSuppl y/ LowInd. Demand Nor mal CRSuppl y/ Hi ghInd. Demand Nor mal CRSuppl y/ LowInd. Demand Water Resources Development Commission TUCSON AMA PINAL AMA PHOENIX AMA HARQUAHALA INA Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 33 34 Acre-Feet/Year -2500000 -2000000 -1500000 -1000000 -500000 0 2110 (Area Split) Projected Supply - Demand ( Basins That May Receive CAP) Figure 12. 2110 (AS) Projected Unmet Demand for AMAs or INAs that May Receive CAP Water Shor tageCRSuppl y/ Hi ghInd. Demand Shor tageCRSuppl y/ LowInd. Demand Nor mal CRSuppl y/ Hi ghInd. Demand Nor mal CRSuppl y/ LowInd. Demand Water Resources Development Commission TUCSON AMA PINAL AMA PHOENIX AMA HARQUAHALA INA Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Objective 4: Identification of Potential Water Supplies to Meet Unmet Demands The projections of future unmet demand were used to identify groundwater basins that will eventually require the development of additional water supplies to meet projected future water demands. Water supplies that were evaluated as potential sources of additional water to meet future unmet demands included: groundwater, surface water (instate rivers, Colorado River), CAP, effluent and other miscellaneous supplies. Groundwater management programs such as water conservation were also considered as means to mitigate unmet demands that would not require development of additional water resources. Water Conservation and the identification of potential additional water supplies that may be developed to offset projected unmet demands Water Conservation Conservation of water supplies is perhaps one of the most simple, yet potentially effective methods to help offset future unmet water demands. In AMAs conservation methods and goals exist for all major water use sectors, including the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors. Outside AMAs many water providers and agricultural and industrial users practice conservation methods, both to conserve the available water supply and to gain the cost benefits that may be achieved by reducing water consumption. It is assumed that conservation in all water use sectors will be an ever-increasing practice in future years, and one capable of generating reductions in future water use for all groundwater basins in the state. Renewable and Non-Renewable Supplies Whenever possible, it is important to promote the use and development of renewable water supplies, such as surface water or effluent. Following this goal will help sustain existing groundwater uses and reserves for longer periods of time and better preserve this limited, non-renewable resource for times of drought or other water shortage and provide a more reliable water supply for future generations. Supporting the use and development of renewable supplies is an important goal. However, as a practical matter it may be found that the development of sufficient additional renewable water supplies in any given basin may be difficult or unlikely due to limited physical availability of renewable supplies, or due to other practical, legal, environmental or economic factors. Since future decisions on developing additional water supplies will involve many complex issues and considerations, it was beyond the scope of this study to specifically recommend the development of one potential source of additional supply over another. However, it is believed that the analysis will help identify those basins where the development of renewable resources is a potentially viable option. Potential Additional Water Supplies The projections of future unmet demand were used to identify groundwater basins that will eventually require the development of additional water supplies to meet projected future water demands. Water supplies that were evaluated as potential sources of additional water to meet future unmet demands included: groundwater, surface water (instate rivers, Colorado River), CAP, effluent and other miscellaneous supplies. Potential Hydrologic, Technical, Legal and Other Issues Related to Developing Additional Water Supplies Although additional sources of water supply are potentially available for any given groundwater basin, there are various hydrologic, technical, legal, environmental and economic issues related to developing such supplies that may limit their practical feasibility or actual development. Potential additional supplies, issues related to developing additional supplies and potential infrastructure requirements are listed for each basin for 2035, 2060 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 35 Water Resources Development Commission and 2110 in Tables 18 through 21. Groundwater Water in aquifer storage is generally referred to as groundwater. However, under Arizona law, water in aquifer storage that is closely associated with certain surface water features may be legally classified as surface water, subflow, Colorado River water, etc. Based on the available data and estimates, no attempt was made to subdivide the total estimated volume of water in aquifer storage into separate legally defined classes of water. With the possible exception of the Colorado River main stem basins, most water in aquifer storage in the state is generally and legally classified as groundwater. Based on available estimates of groundwater in storage, natural recharge and current rates of groundwater consumption it appears that pumping additional groundwater to supply part, or all of the projected unmet demand for many basins would be a potential option. However, estimates of groundwater storage and natural recharge vary significantly in reliability due to existing data limitations, methods of analysis and underlying assumptions. It should not be assumed that these estimates are alone sufficient to project the future longterm sustainability of groundwater supplies in any basin, or portion of a basin. The cost to develop additional groundwater supplies may also be prohibitive when determining if future long-term groundwater supplies are feasible. During its review of currently available water supplies the WRDC Supply committee reviewed recent groundwater level change trends (from the late 1980s/mid 1990’s to the mid/late 2000’s) to assist in making qualitative assessments of each basin’s current overdraft status. Basins with sparse, or no water level data available could not be evaluated for this qualitative indicator of overdraft. Most basins showed predominant trends of either rising or falling water levels. For example, many of the predominantly agricultural basins of west-central and southeastern Arizona showed extensive water level declines over the last 15 to 20 years (see Table 15. Hydrogeologic and Cultural Characteristics of Arizona Groundwater Basins). The observed water level declines in these basins are clear indicators that current levels of groundwater pumping are causing aquifer overdraft. In many parts of the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs water levels have been rising over the last 15 to 20 years. Water level rises in these areas are mainly attributed to overall reductions in groundwater pumping, and the introduction and use of large volumes of CAP water for direct use and recharge. The evaluation of currently available groundwater supplies also included a comparison of the current rate of groundwater consumption in each basin to the basin’s estimated natural recharge and aquifer storage. The estimates of water in aquifer storage and natural recharge were taken from data compiled in the Arizona Water Atlas that were originally presented in various hydrologic reports prepared by United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) and other researchers. Low-end estimates were used for analysis when more than one storage or recharge estimate was available for a given basin. Original aquifer storage estimates for each basin were reduced (adjusted) by 20 percent to reflect hydrologic, practical and other limitations on the actual volume of water that may be produced from a basin. For the most part, the estimates of water in aquifer storage were available only to depths of 1,000 to 1,200 feet below land surface. The results of the analysis indicated that, for most basins, the current rates of groundwater consumption are probably sustainable for at least 100 years (for the purposes of this report, 100 years is regarded as “longterm”). However, it should be noted that basins where groundwater use was estimated to be sustainable for 100 years may still be in overdraft (withdrawals exceed recharge over time), and therefore the depth to water and the total volume of aquifer storage may still decrease over those 100 years. 36 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission The analysis also revealed that some basins that are currently experiencing significant overdraft have relatively large groundwater consumption rates compared to estimated groundwater storage and natural recharge. The long-term sustainability of the groundwater supply for these basins is uncertain as conditions of ongoing water level decline and reductions in storage are not generally considered “sustainable.” The qualitative analysis of the long-term sustainability of current groundwater consumption was based on the underlying assumption that current water supply and demand conditions would remain unchanged into the future (thus assuming all currently available instate surface, CAP and Colorado River water supplies would remain available and undiminished for potential future direct use or recharge). Since this assumption may be unrealistic in the future for some basins that currently rely heavily on such renewable resources, the analysis may significantly overestimate the long-term sustainability of current rates of groundwater consumption. Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 37 Table 15. Hydrogeologic and Cultural Characteristics of Arizona Groundwater Basins Basin Sub-basin Basin Area (Sq. Miles) SELECT CHARACTERISTICS OF ARIZONA GROUNDWATER BASINS Major Aquifers Instate Water Supplies Only AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON Instate + CAP Instate + CR Lower Mainstem Instate + CR Upper Basins Which Receive Part of Supply from the Colorado River or CAP LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Sub-basin none Burro Creek Alamo Reservoir BILL WILLIAMS Clara Peak Skull Valley Santa Maria DETRITAL VALLEY none KANAB PLATEAU none LAKE HAVASU none LAKE MOHAVE none Childs Valley LOWER GILA Dendora Valley Wellton - Mohawk Cibola Valley Colorado River PARKER Indian Reservation La Posa Plains none YUMA HARQUAHALA INA none Carefree East Salt River Fountain Hills PHOENIX AMA Hassayampa Lake Pleasant Rainbow Valley West Salt River Aguirre Valley Eloy PINAL AMA Maricopa-Stanfield Santa Rosa Vekol Valley Avra Valley TUCSON AMA Upper Santa Cruz Colorado River + CAP Basin Subtotals Statewide Totals 1,263 Basin Fill, Sedimentary Rock 517 Recent Stream Alluvium, Basin Fill 1,988 Recent Stream Alluvium, Basin Fill, Sedimentary Rock (R-Aquifer) 457 288 606 5,812 293 Recent Stream Alluvium, Basin Fill, Volcanic Rock Basin Fill Recent Stream Alluvium, Basin Fill Basin Fill, Volcanic Rock, Sedimentary Rock (Moenkopi, Chinle, R, & C aquifers) Basin Fill 949 Basin Fill with locally Inter-bedded Volcanic Rock 378 550 1,284 959 1,212 Recent Stream Alluvium, Sedimentary Rock (Gila Conglomerate) Recent Stream Alluvium, Sedimentary Rock (Gila Conglomerate) Basin Fill Recent Stream Alluvium, Basin Fill, Volcanic & Sedimentary Rock Basin Fill, Volcanic & Sedimentary Rock 1,624 Recent Stream Alluvium, Basin Fill 649 190 1,599 408 1,409 Basin Fill Sedimentary Rock (Muddy Creek) Recent Stream Alluvium, Volcanic Rock Sedimentary Rock (N- aquifer) Basin Fill, Sedimantary Rock (R-Aquifer) 485 Basin Fill, Igneous (Volcanic mainly) & Metamorphic Rock 912 Basin Fill 1,587 Basin Fill & Volcanic Rock 4,747 Recent Stream Alluvium & Basin Fill 5,232 Recent Stream Alluvium, Volcanic Rocks, & Sedimantary Rock (R, C aquifers & Gila Conglomerate) 387 229 2,284 716 1,821 74 955 787 Recent Stream Alluvium & Volcanic Rock Recent Stream Alluvium & Basin Fill Basin Fill Recent Stream Alluvium, Basin Fill Recent Stream Alluvium Basin Fill Basin Fill, Sedimantary Rock (R & C aquifers) Basin Fill 1,825 Recent Stream Alluvium, Basin Fill 5,661 Recent Stream Alluvium, Basin Fill Inter-bedded with Volcanic Rock, Sedimentary Rock (Verde Formation, R & C aquifers), Igneous & Metamorphic Rock 434 Recent Stream Alluvium, Basin Fill, Sedimentary Rock (Muddy Creek Formation) 610 Basin Fill 1,911 Recent Stream Alluvium & Basin Fill 53,092 Basin Area (Sq. Miles) 26,700 Major Aquifers1 Recent Stream Alluvium, Volcanic Rock (Lakeside-Pinetop Aquifer) and Sedimentary rock (Bidahochi Formation, C,D,N, Springerville, and White Mountain Aquifers) 3,350 Recent Stream Alluvium, Basin Fill and Volcanic Rocks 892 4,247 252 980 Recent Stream Alluvium, Basin Fill, Sedimentary and Volcanic Rocks Recent Stream Alluvium and Sedimentary Rock Basin Fill Recent Stream Alluvium 7,309 Recent Stream Alluvium, Basin Fill 2,229 Recent Stream Alluvium, Sedimentary Rock (Bouse Formation) 792 Basin Fill 766 Basin Fill 5,646 Recent Alluvium, Basin Fill with locally inter-bedded volcanics, sedimentary rocks (Red Unit and conglomerate) 4,000 Recent Stream Alluvium, Basin Fill 3,866 Recent Stream Alluvium and Basin Fill (Fort Lowell Formation and Tinaja Beds) 61,029 114,121 Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 none none Fort Rock BIG SANDY Wikiup BONITA CREEK none BUTLER VALLEY none CIENEGA CREEK none COCONINO PLATEAU none DONNELLY WASH none Douglas DOUGLAS Douglas INA DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH none DUNCAN VALLEY none GILA BEND none GRAND WASH none HUALAPAI VALLEY none Camp Grant Wash LOWER SAN PEDRO Mammoth MCMULLEN VALLEY none MEADVIEW none MORENCI none PARIA none PEACH SPRINGS none Little Chino Valley PRESCOTT AMA Upper Agua Fria RANEGRAS PLAIN none SACRAMENTO VALLEY none Gila Valley SAFFORD San Carlos Valley San Simon Valley Black River Salt River Canyon SALT RIVER Salt River Lakes White River SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY none SAN RAFAEL none SAN SIMON WASH none SANTA CRUZ AMA none SHIVWITS PLATEAU none TIGER WASH none TONTO CREEK none UPPER HASSAYAMPA none Allen Flat UPPER SAN PEDRO Sierra Vista Big Chino VERDE RIVER Verde Valley Verde Canyon VIRGIN RIVER none WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE none WILLCOX none Instate Subtotals 1 38 Table 15. Hydrogeologic and Cultural Characteristics of Arizona Groundwater Basins (Continued) SELECT CHARACTERISTICS OF ARIZONA GROUNDWATER BASINS Recent Water Level Change Trends and Depth-to-Water in Wells Measured in Basin 2,3 Basin Sub-basin none none Fort Rock BIG SANDY Wikiup BONITA CREEK none BUTLER VALLEY none CIENEGA CREEK none COCONINO PLATEAU none DONNELLY WASH none Douglas DOUGLAS Douglas INA DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH none DUNCAN VALLEY none GILA BEND none GRAND WASH none HUALAPAI VALLEY none Camp Grant Wash LOWER SAN PEDRO Mammoth MCMULLEN VALLEY none MEADVIEW none MORENCI none PARIA none PEACH SPRINGS none Little Chino Valley PRESCOTT AMA Upper Agua Fria RANEGRAS PLAIN none SACRAMENTO VALLEY none Gila Valley SAFFORD San Carlos Valley San Simon Valley Black River Salt River Canyon SALT RIVER Salt River Lakes White River SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY none SAN RAFAEL none SAN SIMON WASH none SANTA CRUZ AMA none SHIVWITS PLATEAU none TIGER WASH none TONTO CREEK none UPPER HASSAYAMPA none Allen Flat UPPER SAN PEDRO Sierra Vista Big Chino VERDE RIVER Verde Valley Verde Canyon VIRGIN RIVER none WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE none WILLCOX none Instate Subtotals 1,263 517 1,988 457 288 606 5,812 293 949 378 550 1,284 959 1,212 1,624 649 190 1,599 408 1,409 485 912 1,587 4,747 5,232 387 229 2,284 716 1,821 74 955 787 1,825 5,661 434 610 1,911 53,092 Measurement Period (Beginning Year Ending Year) 1991 - 2008 1990 - 2007 1995 - 2008 1995 - 2008 NA 1990 - 2008 1987 - 2005 1994 - 2009 NA 1990 - 2004 1990 - 2009 1990 - 2009 1990 - 2007 1993 - 2008 1991 - 2009 1991 - 2006 1994 - 2006 1994 - 2006 1989 - 2004 1995 - 2006 1990 - 2007 1991 - 2007 1995 - 2009 1994 - 2010 1994 - 2009 1988 - 2004 1990 - 2006 1990 - 2008 1992 - 2007 1987 - 2007 NA 1991 - 2007 1991 - 2003 NA 1990 - 2007 1987 - 2008 1989 - 2004 1987 - 2010 1992 - 2005 1993 - 2007 1990 - 2008 1990 - 2008 1990 - 2006 1990 - 2007 1992 - 2009 1994 - 2009 1990 - 2009 1990 - 2009 1991 - 2004 1990 - 2005 Mean Annual Mean Annual Overall Mean Maximum Minimum Mean DTW Negative Water Level Positive Measured Measured for Ending Change Change Rate Change In DTW for DTW For Year for Wells Basin Over Rate for Ending (Feet Showing Measuremme Ending Year Wells Year (Feet - BLS) BLS) Declines nt Period Showing (Feet -BLS) (Ft/Yr) (Feet) Rises (Ft/Yr) 0.1 NA 0.2 0.4 NA NA 0.2 NA NA 0.4 0.4 NA 0.1 2.1 1.2 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.3 <0.1 NA NA 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.4 NA 0.4 NA NA NA NA 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 NA 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.7 -0.1 -0.1 -0.4 -0.4 NA -1.0 -0.3 -0.5 NA -1.2 -1.3 -0.4 -0.2 -4.3 NA -0.9 -0.9 -0.6 -2.2 -1.1 -0.1 -1.2 -0.1 -1.4 -1.4 -0.9 -0.1 -0.2 NA -1.2 NA -0.3 -2.2 NA -0.4 -0.4 NA -0.5 NA NA -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.5 -0.2 -1.2 -2.4 -0.1 -0.5 -2.0 0.2 -2.5 -2.5 0.5 NA -18.5 -1.7 -8.7 NA -16.4 -20.0 -7.5 -1.8 -58.8 23.1 -2.9 -9.5 0.2 -34.2 -11.0 -10.0 -19.9 2.1 -19.2 -16.1 -11.7 8.3 1.3 NA -15.7 NA -4.3 -30.2 NA -4.2 -5.2 4.9 -9.6 NA 4.1 1.2 0.1 -4.7 -4.1 3.8 -13.1 -41.1 3.4 -4.2 -32.1 21 38 7 4 NA 88 2 95 NA 17 67 90 23 3 10 24 9 5 122 397 16 111 146 15 44 44 <1 24 722 2 NA 20 46 NA <1 7 6 6 959 21 4 15 7 <1 <1 <1 85 46 28 3 120 54 686 523 NA 515 405 274 NA 347 358 100 194 645 508 925 319 606 700 494 16 519 825 435 652 482 1229 631 722 537 NA 20 82 NA 464 209 6 255 959 217 82 817 373 611 694 883 318 313 99 730 55 46 214 70 NA 247 113 185 NA 162 165 95 76 221 259 459 72 94 474 439 16 322 486 214 245 231 241 105 722 178 NA 20 68 NA 74 75 6 78 959 94 38 356 141 116 132 183 173 168 74 211 Recent Water Level Change Trends and Depth-to-Water in Wells Measured in Basin 2,3 Instate + CAP Instate + CR Lower Mainstem Instate + CR Upper Basins Which Receive Part of Supply from the Colorado River or CAP LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Sub-basin none Burro Creek Alamo Reservoir BILL WILLIAMS Clara Peak Skull Valley Santa Maria DETRITAL VALLEY none KANAB PLATEAU none LAKE HAVASU none LAKE MOHAVE none Childs Valley LOWER GILA Dendora Valley Wellton - Mohawk Cibola Valley Colorado River PARKER Indian Reservation La Posa Plains YUMA none HARQUAHALA INA none Carefree East Salt River Fountain Hills PHOENIX AMA Hassayampa Lake Pleasant Rainbow Valley West Salt River Aguirre Valley Eloy PINAL AMA Maricopa-Stanfield Santa Rosa Vekol Valley Avra Valley TUCSON AMA Upper Santa Cruz Colorado River + CAP Basin Subtotals Statewide Totals Number of Number of Number of Wells Wells Wells Measured Total Measured In Measured In In Basin Basin Area Measurement Period Number of Basin Basin Showing (Sq. Miles) (Beginning Year Wells Showing Showing No Change Ending Year) Measured Rising Declining In Water Water Water Level or Levels Levels Flowing Conditions Mean Annual Mean Annual Overall Mean Maximum Minimum Mean DTW Negative Water Level Positive Measured Measured for Ending Change Change Rate Change In DTW for DTW For Year for Wells Basin Over Rate for Ending (Feet Showing Measuremme Ending Year Wells Year (Feet - BLS) BLS) Declines nt Period Showing (Feet -BLS) (Ft/Yr) (Feet) Rises (Ft/Yr) 26,700 3,350 892 4,247 252 980 7,309 2,229 792 766 5,646 4,000 3,866 61,029 114,121 1991 - 2004 NA 1991 - 2009 1991 - 2008 1991 - 2009 1991 - 2009 1995 - 2006 1992 - 2009 1991 - 2009 1991 - 2009 1992 - 2007 1992 - 2009 1992 - 2007 NA 64 0 3 1 7 5 15 2 1 2 1 1 20 0 12 0 2 1 3 2 10 1 1 1 1 0 9 0 51 0 1 0 4 3 5 1 0 1 0 1 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 NA 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 <0.1 1.3 1.2 0.9 NA 0.3 NA -1.4 NA -0.2 NA -1.3 -0.1 -0.8 <-0.1 NA -0.1 NA -1.7 -0.4 NA -14.5 NA 0.2 5.4 -11.1 0.2 -1.4 0.4 25.3 10.0 14.2 -30.4 -1.1 NA 12 NA 51 22 37 19 7 484 28 346 676 96 12 NA 1241 NA 640 22 248 91 773 611 28 427 676 96 383 NA 230 NA 276 22 150 55 354 548 28 387 676 96 141 NA 1991 - 2010 1992 - 2009 1992 - 2009 1993 - 2009 1991 - 2009 1991 - 2009 1991 - 2009 1991 - 2009 1991 - 2009 1991 - 2008 1991 - 2009 1993 - 2007 1993 - 2008 1993 - 2008 NA 1993 - 2007 1994 - 2010 1994 - 2010 1 3 4 27 1 172 7 35 3 22 273 1 490 174 0 12 131 529 2,007 4,691 0 0 0 18 1 149 4 18 2 8 111 0 314 140 0 3 98 78 987 1,596 1 3 4 9 0 23 3 17 1 14 162 1 175 33 0 9 33 450 1,016 3,053 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 4 42 NA NA NA 1.4 2.7 4.6 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.7 1.7 NA 1.3 3.4 NA 0.1 1.9 1.2 >-0.1 -0.9 -0.4 -1.1 NA -1.1 -2.1 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -1.0 -0.8 -1.8 -1.0 NA -0.1 -1.0 -1.7 -0.1 -17.1 -7.0 9.9 50.6 69.6 -12.7 6.8 4.9 -1.4 1.9 -11.9 3.5 38.9 NA -0.8 18.0 -19.8 78 66 16 28 94 13 13 24 27 256 16 273 32 52 NA 213 5 7 78 510 121 607 94 855 663 658 275 582 525 273 619 674 NA 529 745 620 78 238 56 342 94 217 194 234 169 370 182 273 195 314 NA 351 300 215 Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 Instate Water Supplies Only AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON Basin Area (Sq. Miles) Number of Number of Number of Wells Wells Wells Measured Total Measured In Measured In In Basin Number of Basin Basin Showing Wells Showing Showing No Change Measured Rising Declining In Water Water Water Level or Levels Levels Flowing Conditions 6 3 3 0 2 0 2 0 6 2 4 0 37 21 16 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 0 54 19 33 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 272 31 240 1 13 2 11 0 2 0 2 0 7 2 5 0 124 8 116 0 2 2 0 0 46 26 20 0 17 3 14 0 112 57 55 0 84 4 80 0 8 1 7 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 5 0 2 1 1 0 35 4 31 0 20 6 14 0 89 20 69 0 82 60 20 2 14 6 7 1 1 0 0 1 286 85 201 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 24 6 17 1 6 2 4 0 1 1 0 0 48 6 42 0 1 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 9 5 3 1 5 4 1 0 7 1 6 0 379 111 244 24 60 43 16 1 174 33 138 3 7 1 6 0 3 2 1 0 5 1 4 0 587 27 560 0 2,684 609 2,037 38 39 Table 15. Hydrogeologic and Cultural Characteristics of Arizona Groundwater Basins (Continued) SELECT CHARACTERISTICS OF ARIZONA GROUNDWATER BASINS Aquifer Basin Sub-basin none none Fort Rock BIG SANDY Wikiup BONITA CREEK none BUTLER VALLEY none CIENEGA CREEK none COCONINO PLATEAU none DONNELLY WASH none Douglas DOUGLAS Douglas INA DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH none DUNCAN VALLEY none GILA BEND none GRAND WASH none HUALAPAI VALLEY none Camp Grant Wash LOWER SAN PEDRO Mammoth MCMULLEN VALLEY none MEADVIEW none MORENCI none PARIA none PEACH SPRINGS none Little Chino Valley PRESCOTT AMA Upper Agua Fria RANEGRAS PLAIN none SACRAMENTO VALLEY none Gila Valley SAFFORD San Carlos Valley San Simon Valley Black River Salt River Canyon SALT RIVER Salt River Lakes White River SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY none SAN RAFAEL none SAN SIMON WASH none SANTA CRUZ AMA none SHIVWITS PLATEAU none TIGER WASH none TONTO CREEK none UPPER HASSAYAMPA none Allen Flat UPPER SAN PEDRO Sierra Vista Big Chino VERDE RIVER Verde Valley Verde Canyon VIRGIN RIVER none WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE none WILLCOX none Instate Subtotals 1,263 517 1,988 457 288 606 5,812 293 949 378 550 1,284 959 1,212 1,624 649 190 1,599 408 1,409 485 912 1,587 Estimated Natural Recharge 4 (AF/Yr) Pumping Estimated Centers or Predominant Natural 2006 Baseline Areas Within Adjusted Estimated Current/Recent Groundwater Recharge Basin That Volume of Water in Trend of 2006 Baseline Show Locally Aquifer Storage 8,9 Demand 5 Basinwide WL Significant GW Demand6 (AF/Yr) (AF) Declines?7 Current/Recent (AF/Yr) WL Decline? 9,000 7,000 3,602 514 5,398 6,486 22,000 9,000 1,000 8,500 NA 3,000 15,028 0 14,503 1,101 500 19 6,972 9,000 -13,503 7,399 NA 2,981 15,500 3,000 6,000 10,000 NA 2,000 53,300 11 8,054 295,323 2 9,109 -37,800 2,989 -2,054 -285,323 NA -7,109 24,000 1,000 4,000 15,000 NA NA 23,677 71,500 145 9,126 120 351 323 -70,500 3,855 5,874 NA NA 8,200 1,000 1,000 17,679 29,350 3,765 -9,479 -28,350 -2,765 105,000 87,958 17,042 178,000 9,000 5,000 11,000 50,800 NA 1,000 17,000 8,000 12,611 19 22 1,500 20,980 2 2 3,000 3,286 165,389 8,981 4,978 9,500 29,820 NA 998 14,000 4,714 35,800 23,957 11,843 107,000 30,000 1,000 15,000 723,800 28,549 1,585 6 175,714 915,970 78,452 28,415 994 -160,714 4,747 5,232 387 229 2,284 716 1,821 74 955 787 1,825 5,661 434 610 1,911 53,092 NA NA NA N NA Y Y NA NA Y Y NA N Y NA Y Y N Y Y NA ? N Y Y Y ? N NA Y NA NA ? NA Y Y NA Y NA N N N Y Y N Y ? N N Y N ? ? N NA Y ? ? NA Y Y ? N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y NA NA Y NA N Y NA Y NA N N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y 480,000 4,000,000 7,600,000 800,000 1,600,000 4,080,000 2,400,000 112,000 16,640,000 120,000 7,200,000 13,600,000 NA 2,400,000 8,800,000 11,200,000 800,000 2,400,000 12,000,000 800,000 2,400,000 7,200,000 2,880,000 If Baseline Supply/Demand Conditions Continue, Documented Is Baseline GW Land Demand Estimated to Subsidence? 11 Be Sustainable For at Least 100 Years? 10 Y Y Y Y ? Y Y Y ? Y Y Y N Y ? Y Y ? Y Y Y Y Y ? ? Y Y Y,? Y 21,600,000 Y,? 6,960,000 1,280,000 3,200,000 5,360,000 128,000 NA 560,000 1,600,000 800,000 15,840,000 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10,400,000 1,360,000 2,400,000 33,600,000 214,600,000 Y Y ? Y Aquifer Instate + CAP Instate + CR Lower Mainstem Instate + CR Upper Basins Which Receive Part of Supply from the Colorado River or CAP LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Sub-basin none Burro Creek Alamo Reservoir BILL WILLIAMS Clara Peak Skull Valley Santa Maria DETRITAL VALLEY none KANAB PLATEAU none LAKE HAVASU none LAKE MOHAVE none Childs Valley LOWER GILA Dendora Valley Wellton - Mohawk Cibola Valley Colorado River PARKER Indian Reservation La Posa Plains YUMA none HARQUAHALA INA none Carefree East Salt River Fountain Hills PHOENIX AMA Hassayampa Lake Pleasant Rainbow Valley West Salt River Aguirre Valley Eloy PINAL AMA Maricopa-Stanfield Santa Rosa Vekol Valley Avra Valley TUCSON AMA Upper Santa Cruz Colorado River + CAP Basin Subtotals Statewide Totals Basin Area (Sq. Miles) Estimated Natural Recharge 4 (AF/Yr) Pumping Estimated Centers or Predominant Natural 2006 Baseline Areas Within Adjusted Estimated Current/Recent Groundwater Recharge Basin That Volume of Water in Trend of 2006 Baseline Show Locally Aquifer Storage 8,9 Demand 5 Basinwide WL Significant GW Demand6 (AF/Yr) (AF) Declines?7 Current/Recent (AF/Yr) WL Decline? If Baseline Supply/Demand Conditions Continue, Documented Is Baseline GW Land Demand Estimated to Subsidence? 11 Be Sustainable For at Least 100 Years? 10 26,700 344,600 95,813 248,787 32,000 1,000 NA 35,000 183,000 3,251 159 2,799 47 2,007 28,749 841 NA 34,953 180,993 9,000 110,296 -101,296 241,000 213,000 1,000 1,787 108,570 66,178 239,213 104,430 -65,178 172,300 673,754 -501,454 96,300 431,290 -334,990 99,100 1,427,300 2,151,100 216,997 1,712,948 2,628,918 -117,897 3,350 892 4,247 252 980 7,309 2,229 792 766 5,646 4,000 3,866 61,029 114,121 Y NA NA NA ? N N NA NA NA NA NA N NA Y NA NA NA Y N N NA NA NA NA NA N NA NA N NA N NA N N N NA Y ? NA N N N Y ? Y NA Y Y Y NA Y Y N NA Y Y NA Y Y N N Y Y 763,200,000 Y 8,000,000 800,000 NA 800,000 960,000 Y Y ? Y Y 80,000,000 ? 11,200,000 27,200,000 10,400,000 Y Y ? Y 64,320,000 Y Y 28,160,000 Y Y 48,800,000 1,043,840,000 1,258,440,000 Y Y Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 Instate Water Supplies Only AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON Basin Area (Sq. Miles) 40 COCONINO PLATEAU BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK none Douglas Douglas INA none none none none none Fort Rock Wikiup none none none Sub-basin DONNELLY WASH none DOUGLAS Basin Area (Sq. Miles) 1,263 517 1,988 457 288 606 293 5,812 949 378 550 1,284 1,624 959 1,212 485 649 190 1,599 408 1,409 912 1,587 4,747 5,232 387 229 2,284 716 1,821 74 955 787 1,825 5,661 434 610 1,911 53,092 0 0 0 273 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2006 Baseline Effluent Directly Used (AF/Yr) 800 0 1,800 1,400 0 50 1,700 0 0 0 0 100 30 0 2006 Baseline Effluent Generated (AF/Yr) Effluent 12 0 0 0 700 0 0 200 0 100 Basin Includes Effluent Dependent Stream Reach? Y Instate Perennial Stream Miles14 108 50 49 14 0 46 44 3 Y 0 0 0 Y Y 77 0 0 355 7 <1 2 7 26 Y 1,187 2 14 0 32 4 0 129 52 145 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Y 101 6,900 0 300 157 Y 2,534 0 0 Y 2,600 0 0 400 16,311 0 0 500 600 2,600 5,300 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 Y 830 Y 475 47 0 32 3,025 Instate Perennial Stream Miles14 6,200 10 0 500 49,101 12 Basin Includes Effluent Dependent Stream Reach? 784 0 0 211 5,477 Effluent Generated (AF/Yr) 36,100 850 14,900 200 0 89 0 0 Y 200 0 500 3,400 3,100 3 2,100 3 151 0 0 2,433 715 300 1,116 Y 42 1,232 4,257 0 94 0 0 74,235 455,335 504,436 6,900 315,000 13,500 0 168,331 4,614 14,336 207,105 212,582 Y 460 0 Y Y 0 Used (AF/Yr) Basin Area 2006 Baseline 2006 Baseline Effluent (Sq. Miles) Effluent Directly 26,700 3,350 892 4,247 252 980 7,309 2,229 792 766 5,646 4,000 3,866 61,029 114,121 Water Resources Development Commission Basin Includes Instream Flow Certificate(s)? Number of Major (>10GPM) Springs 16 14 18 2 10 Y Y Y Y Number of Minor (<10GPM) 22 16 Estimated Annual Discharge of Major (AF/Yr) 5 7 Estimated Annual ESA Critical Discharge of ESA Species Habitat Minor Observed? Designation? (AF/Yr) SELECT CHARACTERISTICS OF ARIZONA GROUNDWATER BASINS Waters in Fed/State Conservation Lands? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 28,555 7 1 5 2 1 1 50 6 13 11 5 2 Y Y Y Y Y Water Based Recreational Opportunity? Y ADEQ Outstanding Arizona Water? 17 Audubon Important Bird Area? Y Y Y Y Environmental / Recreation Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 6 Y Y 8 13 Y Y Y Y Y 2 13 Y Y Y Y Y Y 11 4 6 Y Y Y Y Y 16 32 28 10 Y Y Y Y 694 6 2 11 8 1 142 6 1 323 48 30 9 19 Y Y Y 121 40 Y Y Y Y Y 2 2 3,115 12 32 Y Y Y Y 6 3 2 8 46 29 Y 673 534 Y Y Y Y Y 12 450 968 9 5 210 4,543 26 163,882 Y Y 6 9 1,410 9,409 45 Y Y 29 4 21 1 14 418 Y Y 7 Y Y Y Y Y 12 108 Y Y 19 14 Y 31 Y Y Y 2 1 Y Y Y Y Y Y 10 29 Y Y Y 4 Y 1,075 Y Y Y Y 17 678 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Audubon Important Bird Area? Y Y Y Water Based Recreational Opportunity? Y Y ADEQ Outstanding Arizona Water? Environmental / Recreation Y Y Y 12 1,585 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 95 8 Y Y Y Y 2 Y Y Y Y Y 97,214 37,938 45 2,369 Y Y Y Y 90 2 1 360 Springs 161 15 10 Estimated Annual ESA Critical Discharge of ESA Species Habitat Minor Observed? Designation? (AF/Yr) 20,320 13 4 Number of Minor (<10GPM) 67 29 1,936 15 Estimated Annual Discharge of Major (AF/Yr) 6 1 23 Y 30,265 Y Y Y 38 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 6 750 3,119 16 10 2 209 569 4 2 774 54,910 414,417 242 1,344 8 132 422 2 10 Number of Major (>10GPM) 359,507 Y Y Basin Includes Instream Flow Certificate(s)? 290 34 Y Y Y Y 5 7,966 57 23 16 Y 153 Reach Length of CR Bordering or Within Basin14 (Miles) River & Streams 13 Current GW/SW Connection? (h=historic connection; may not currently exist)15 Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y(h) Y N (h) Y (?) Y N (h) Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N ? Y ? ? Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y 13 <1 27 Y Y Y Waters in Fed/State Conservation Lands? 49 38 122 Y Y Y Y Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 53 144 11 Reach Length of CR Bordering or Within Basin14 (Miles) River & Streams Current GW/SW Connection? (h=historic connection; may not currently exist)15 Y Y Y Y(h) Y Y Y Y Y Y N (h) N (h) Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y(h) Y Y Y N Y N N(h) N(h) N N Y Y Y Y Table 15. Hydrogeologic and Cultural Characteristics of Arizona Groundwater Basins (Continued) Basin DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON GILA BEND BIG SANDY GRAND WASH HUALAPAI VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PEACH SPRINGS PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX Avra Valley none none Carefree East Salt River Fountain Hills Hassayampa Lake Pleasant Rainbow Valley West Salt River Aguirre Valley Eloy Maricopa-Stanfield Santa Rosa Vekol Valley none none none Childs Valley Dendora Valley Wellton - Mohawk Cibola Valley Colorado River Indian Reservation La Posa Plains Burro Creek Alamo Reservoir Clara Peak Skull Valley Santa Maria none none Sub-basin none none Camp Grant Wash Mammoth none none none none none Little Chino Valley Upper Agua Fria none none Gila Valley San Carlos Valley San Simon Valley Black River Salt River Canyon Salt River Lakes White River none none none none none none none none Allen Flat Sierra Vista Big Chino Verde Valley Verde Canyon none none none Instate Subtotals PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA TUCSON AMA Upper Santa Cruz Colorado River + CAP Basin Subtotals Statewide Totals HARQUAHALA INA YUMA PARKER LOWER GILA KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE DETRITAL VALLEY BILL WILLIAMS LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Basins Which Receive Part of Supply from the Colorado River or CAP Instate Water Supplies Only Instate + CR Upper Instate + CR Lower Mainstem Instate + CAP Federal Wild and Scenic Designation? Y Federal Wild and Scenic Designation? San Carlos Apache Havasupai Hualapai Navajo San Carlos Apache Hualapai San Carlos Apache 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% Estimated % of Tribe(s) Total Water Use within Basin 23 12 16 36 224 275 739 1,177 404 4 6 Area of Tribal Lands in Basin (Sq. Miles) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.59 0.05 0.13 0.20 0.88 <0.01 0.01 Tribal 18 Gila Bend Tohono O'odham 0% 0% 0.01 0.22 Ratio Tribal Land / Total Basin Area Hualapai Tribal Lands In Basin San Carlos Apache 0.60 0.30 3 357 1,408 0.50 0.09 0% 0% 2,627 484 0.99 Hualapai San Carlos Apache 100% 2,270 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 100% 0% 2 2 San Carlos Apache 0% <1 845 White Mountain Apache San Carlos Apache 0% 100% Tohono O'odham 20% <0.01 <0.01 100% Hualapai <1 <1 <0.01 Hualapai Tonto Apache 100% 80% 1 Yavapai-Prescott Yavapai-Apache Tonto Apache 0% Fort Mojave Hualapai Kaibab Navajo White Mountain Apache Hopi Navajo San Juan Southern Paiute Zuni 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 93% 100% 100% Estimated % of Tribe(s) Total Water Use within Basin 391 164 37 <1 189 <1 5 2,536 14,681 <1 18 Area of Tribal Lands in Basin (Sq. Miles) 0.01 <0.01 0.18 0.02 0.04 <0.01 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 0.09 0.55 <0.01 <0.01 10,917 Tohono O'odham Tohono O'odham 100% 11 3 <0.01 0.06 0.01 18 Colorado River 100% 100% 39 311 81 0.07 <0.01 0.45 Tribal Cocopah Fort Yuma 100% 70% 100% 277 33 1,802 <0.01 0.03 0.02 Ratio Tribal Land / Total Basin Area Fort McDowell Gila River Salt River Pima-Maricopa 30% 100% 31% 1 111 59 Tribal Lands In Basin Gila River Maricopa (Ak-Chin) Tohono O'odham 100% 69% 100% 20,747 31,664 Pasqua Yaqui Tohono O'odham San Xavier 41 Water Resources Development Commission Table 15. Hydrogeologic and Cultural Characteristics of Arizona Groundwater Basins (Continued) Footnotes: Water Level Data for Some Basins With Few Measurements May Be Insufficent to Accurately Characterize Basin-wide or Local Water Level Change or Depth to Water Conditions Waterlevel data from ADWR-GWSI database 1 Major aquifer classifications from Arizona Water Atlas, Vol. 1, ADWR, 2010. 2 3 2006 Baseline GW Demand From ADWR Az Water Atlas and AMA Assessment Data and USGS data Estimated Natural Recharge From Arizona Water Atlas Vols. 2-8. ADWR, 2007- 2010. 4 5 Basins with insufficient water level data to support basinwide water level trend analysis identified as NA. 6 Negative Differences Between Estimated Natural Recharge and Baseline GW Withdrawals Are Not Necessarily Indicators of Groundwater Overdraft. Assessment of Overdraft for Any Basin Requires A Complete Evaluation of All GW Inflows and All GW Outflows. 7 8 Estimated water in aquifer storage from compilations of independent estimates listed in the Arizona Water Atlas Vols. 2-8. ADWR, 20072010. Original studies by USGS and/or ADWR usually estimate volume of water in aquifer storage to depths of 1,000 to 1,200 feet below land surface. Original estimates were reduced (adjusted) by 20 percent to reflect hydrologic, technical and practical limitations on theoretical withdrawals of all water from aquifer storage in a basin. 9 Water in aquifer storage is generally referred to as groundwater. However, under Arizona law, water in aquifer storage that is closely associated with certain surface water features may also be legally referred to as surface water, subflow, Colorado River water, etc. Based on available data and estimates, no attempt was made to sub-divide the total estimated volume of water in aquifer storage into seperate legally defined classes of water. With the possible exception of the Colorado river mainstem basins, most water in aquifer storage in the state is generally and legally classified as groundwater. Land subsidence analysis from historic and current surveying data and INSAR data collected and analyzed by USGS and ADWR. 10 Estimates of potential 100 year gw sustainability assume that current water supply and demand conditions will continue unchanged into the future (assumes no reduction instate surface water, Colorado River water or CAP water supplies that may be directly used, or recharged by artifical or incidental processes). This assumption may be very unrealistic for some basins that directly use of recharge large volumes of surface water. Groundwater sustainability assessment was a qualitative assessment of current baseline GW withdrawals, estimated natural recharge, estimated adjusted gw in storage and current water level change trends. 11 Effluent data from Arizona Water Atlas Vols. 2-8. ADWR, 2007-2010. River and stream related information from various independent sources that are compiled in WRDC - Environmental Committee (WRDC Natural Resources Index Table with accompanying metadata). 12 13 Perennial Instate and Colorado River stream miles based on GIS analysis of Brown DE, Carmony NB, Turner RM. 1981. Drainage map of Arizona showing perennial streams and some important wetlands. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. 14 16 Environmental and Recreation Data information from various independent sources that are compiled in WRDC - Environmental Committee (WRDC Natural Resources Index Table with accompanying metadata). Spring information from independent data and estimates compiled by WRDC Environmental Committee. 15 Current GW/SW Connection based mainly on work of Anning, DW and Konieczki, 2005. Classification of hydrogeologic areas and hydrologic flow systems in the Basin and Range Physiographic Province, Southwest United States. USGS Professional Paper 1702. And Hart, RJ, and others, 2002. Generalized hydrogeology and groundwater budget for the Coconino aquifer, Little Colorado River Basin, and parts of the Verde and Salt River Basins, Arizona and new Mexico. USGS Water Resources Investigations report 02-4026. These data are summarized in WRDC - Environmental Committee (WRDC Natural Resources Index Table - metadata worksheet). 17 Tribal data from ADWR Arizona Water Atlas data, and GIS analysis. 18 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 42 Figure 13. Water level changes Late 1980’s Early/Mid 1990’s to Mid/Late 2000’s Water Level Changes Late 1980's/Early-Mid 1990's to Mid/Late 2000's Colorado City ^ Hurricane Wash ash ito W n eb k ive r Chinle ^ iW Or a ib Fort Defiance ^ ^ h as W k ee Co Flagstaff ^ ^ Big Ch Paulden Sedona ^ ^ VERDE RIVER r er iv R ni Fr Tonto ua ia Riv r AY A M PA ve Creek Ri er Carr Show Low izo Cre ^ ek Pinetop-Lakeside ^ r Wh it e GILA LA PAZ LA HA UA RQ HA Glendale Fountain Hills ^ nnial W as h Scottsdale Goodyear Tolleson Phoenix Tempe Mesa Avondale Guadalupe Gilbert Chandler Buckeye A IN Apache Junction Globe ^ Gold Canyon ^ Sun Lakes MARICOPA San Carlos ^ Superior Queen Creek BO NI TA Sa nta Cru a sh Sim on Ri ^ ive r A NT SA Sierra Vista UZ CR SANTA CRUZ AM A Nogales ^ SAN RAFAEL ^ COCHISE White w DOUGLAS Bisbee ^ A LAS IN DOUG S an ta C ru zR Green Valley ^ at er D raw Dr aw Bra wle h as W Benson Sahuarita UPPER SAN PEDRO al ash ob yW ist Cr ^ WILLCOX Summit CIE NE GA CR EE K Sim o n SAN SIMON WASH Three Points r Willcox Tanque Verde Tucson South Tucson Tucson Estates Drexel Heights PIMA ve Sa n W as h n as h eW sh Tortolita Oro Valley Picture Rocks Casas Adobes Flowing Wells Sa uirr l Wa San Luis ^ San nal Ca ain EY WM N VALL DUNCA Ag toba Cris Ajo ^ ^ ^^ ^^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ TUCSON^AMA ^ ^ Avra Valley Marana Sells ^ Safford Thatcher ^^ Catalina WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE Water Level Change SAFFORD N O NY CA er S an YUMA Feet Riv Oracle San Manuel ^ ^ PINAL AMA Ü ro ^ ^ h GRAHAM PA AI AV AR Arizona City Eloy ^ San Luis ^ W as PINAL ed Fortuna Foothills Somerton ^ YUMA m ile ^ nP ^ LOWER GILA Casa Grande GILA BEND Te n DONNELLY WASH Sa O DR PE AN Yuma ^ iv er Clifton ^ RS WE LO zW R Gila GREENLEE K DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH Florence ^ Coolidge MORENCI CR EE SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY ck sh Tyson Wa PHOENIX AMA Black River Paradise Valley Litchfield Park Cente Salt River ^ ^ ^^^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Surprise Sun City Peoria Whiteriver ^ Douglas Bla sh ^^ h Fo rk Wa SALT RIVER Cave Creek Carefree Sun City West Eagar ^ Nort use New River ^ San Carlos River Bo TO NT O ^ Wickenburg RANEGRAS PLAIN o Was h Taylor Riv e H A SS U PP ER Black Canyon City TIGER WASH er W as yon Ag dy Payson ^ AGUA FRIA ^ EY ALL EN V ULL M C M Carriz Snowflake ^ ^ nC an S an BUTLER VALLEY ux ^ Dewey-Humbolt ^ BILL WILLIAMS Bill William s River ro ^ Camp Verde ^ City or Town Major River or Stream -175 to -50 County -50 to -25 ADWR Groundwater Basin -25 to 0 Hardrock 0 to 25 0 15 30 60 90 25 to 50 50 to 245 0 20 40 80 120 Many groundwater basins lack sufficient water-level data to support interpretive analysis of basin-wide or local water-level trends. Data Sources: ADWR GWSI, 2010 & City of Tucson, 2011. 120 Miles Kilometers 160 ADWR Hydrology Division June 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Lake Montezuma ive Big Prescott eR ^ Cornville rd Ve ^PRESCOTT AMA ^ YAVAPAI Holbrook ^ JOSEPH CITY INA Big Park Clarkdale ^^ ^ Cottonwood r Creek Chino Valley ^ Williamson ve Zu ^ Ri co Silver k er ve lo ee Cr Pu C he rr o Diab lo h as Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 Bu Winslow ^ Le W h Kachina Village i no EY VALL ENTO RAM SAC BIG SANDY ^^ Quartzsite APACHE NAVAJO rn ^ Kingman ^ Parker Cienega Springs ^ Window Rock Cr Williams Lake Havasu City PARKER as LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Canyon ^ PEACH SPRINGS CR EE K Wa sh ento ram S ac Golden Valley oW J ^ olo do R it ad LAKE HAVASU C olora as ash MEADVIEW pai W as h Huala Lit tl eC iW h ^ R h aib Or Din ee ^ COCONINO Mohave Valley o as MOHAVE Bullhead City d ra iW nk Tuba City COCONINO PLATEAU ^ iv Chinle Creek Chinle Wash SHIVWITS PL ATEAU W nd Gr a h op e Mo Cr ital W as h r EY ALL AI V LAP HUA HAVE LAKE MO L VALLEY DETRITA Detr iv e KANAB PLATEAU su oR Kayenta ^ va ad lo r Page ^ PARIA Ha Co R GRAND WASH as h E RIV GIN VIR ek r Cr e ive nab in R Ka g Vir 43 Water Resources Development Commission Basins that have uncertain long-term groundwater sustainability, based on current rates of consumption, are listed in Table 16. A complete listing for all basins is provided in Table 15. Hydrogeologic and Cultural Characteristics of Arizona Groundwater Basins. It should be noted that the available water level change data for some sub-basins or local areas within basins, such as the San Simon sub-basin of the Safford basin clearly indicate overdraft conditions. However, sub-basin specific groundwater storage and groundwater withdrawal data are unavailable. Therefore, it was not possible to evaluate the long-term sustainability of the baseline groundwater demand for such sub-basins or local areas. Based on the analysis it seems that plans to develop additional groundwater supplies in basins that already face long-term groundwater sustainability issues may be comparatively short-term solutions that will eventually fail to meet projected long-term water needs. 2006 GW Demand Basin Sub-basin Butler Valley none (AF/Yr) 14,500 Estimated Natural Recharge (AF/Yr) 1,000 Adjusted GW Storage (AF) 2,000,000 Douglas Recent WL Neg. WL Change Rate (FT/Yr) -1.0 -1.2 Douglas Douglas INA 53,500 15,500 16,640,000 -1.3 Gila Bend none 295,300 10,000 13,600,000 -4.3 Harquahala none 66,000 1,000 10,400,000 -1.1 Hualapai none 8,800 2,000 2,400,000 -0.9 McMullen Valley none 71,500 1,000 11,200,000 -2.2 Little Chino -1.4 Prescott AMA Upper Agua Fria 20,300 8,200 2,400,000 -1.4 Ranegras Plain none 29,350 1,000 7,200,000 -0.9 Willcox none 175,000 15,000 33,600,000 -2.0 Table 16. Basins currently in overdraft that have long-term groundwater sustainability issues at baseline rates of groundwater consumption Aquifer Productivity Basins with a currently sustainable long-term groundwater supply still face other hydrologic and technical issues that may ultimately limit the actual volume of additional groundwater that can be produced. For example, in any basin groundwater production is directly related to aquifer transmissivity and storage properties. In many basins these properties vary substantially from location to location. Therefore, it isn’t always possible to develop groundwater resources in the area where they may be needed to supply the current or projected water demand. Additionally, it is unrealistic to assume that sufficient wells could be drilled within a basin over any reasonable time-frame that would be capable of completely “draining” an aquifer, as some planned groundwater depletion scenarios might propose. Groundwater Quality Other hydrologic and technical issues related to the development of groundwater resources include degradation of water quality at increasing pumping depths. In many groundwater basins it is a well known fact that the quality of groundwater decreases with increasing depth in the aquifer. For most basins it is likely that increased treatment costs, particularly for municipal supplies, will be experienced as groundwater supplies are pumped from deeper depths in the aquifer system. 44 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Land Subsidence Land subsidence and earth fissures are potential problems that often accompany groundwater development and aquifer overdraft. Wide-spread, damaging land subsidence and earth fissuring has occurred in many groundwater basins of central and southern Arizona where historic groundwater pumping has caused the water table to decline by several hundred feet and irreversible aquifer compaction has occurred. Land subsidence has caused significant damage to land, structures, wells, flood control and water/wastewater infrastructure and permanent reductions in aquifer storage capacity. Although land subsidence is generally regarded as a regional problem that is caused by the collective impacts of many wells, ADWR is charged with evaluating the potential for new, non-exempt wells that are proposed to pump in AMAs to cause unreasonable increasing damage to surrounding land and other water users due to projected water level decline and projected regional land subsidence. The potential for land subsidence or earth fissuring to endanger property or potential groundwater storage capacity is one of the three fundamental water management concerns that may be evaluated to determine if subsequent (new) active management areas are formed in the state. It is clear that land subsidence continues to be a major concern that could eventually impact groundwater development in certain areas of the state. Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction The development of additional groundwater supplies may also be limited in areas where pumping may impact perennial or intermittent surface water features such as: rivers, streams, springs or lakes. In such areas groundwater in the aquifer may be in direct hydraulic connection with the surface water system, and additional pumping may cause reduction in surface water flows that could be legally limited or prohibited due to their detrimental impact to surface water right holders. Depletion of surface water resources may also damage the state and local economies (especially because of impacts to tourism, recreation, and property values) and/or may be otherwise culturally undesirable or unacceptable. Along the main stem of the Colorado River any pumping that occurs within the area known as the Colorado River accounting surface is regulated under Federal law or rules. For instate basins that have perennial or intermittent rivers, streams or springs; the existence of numerous surface water rights may practically limit the actual locations and volumes of any additional groundwater supplies that may be developed. A compilation of groundwater - surface water connection data is provided for all basins in Table 8. WaterDependent Natural Resource Index for the Water Resource Development Commission provided by the Environmental Committee. Environment Since additional groundwater pumping may impact surface water resources and because such impacts to surface water often result in collateral impacts to environmental resources it is also possible that potential environmental impacts and concerns would be raised that could limit the development of additional groundwater supplies in environmentally sensitive and/or protected areas. Tribal Rights and Claims Many Indian Tribes have currently quantified their water rights through decrees, settlements or other processes. Some settlements include rights to groundwater. Other tribes have yet to quantify their water rights through settlements or litigation. All Tribes may claim a legal right to groundwater under their tribal lands. The use of groundwater from aquifers underlying tribal lands by non-Tribal users is restricted by these legal rights. Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 45 Water Resources Development Commission Legal Limits The development of additional groundwater resources and location of new wells in Active Management Areas (AMAs) and within some areas covered by various legal agreements or settlements also carries varying levels of regulation and potential restriction. In AMAs, applicable groundwater withdrawal permits or groundwater rights must be obtained to withdraw groundwater. Additionally, well spacing and impact rules must be followed to receive authority to drill non-exempt wells in specific locations in AMAs. Outside AMAs, restrictions on well drilling (other than well construction) are few, but prospective well owners are advised that the location and pumping of their wells may eventually be evaluated as part of future adjudications proceedings that could ultimately impact the future use of their well. Inter-Basin Transfer Legal restrictions prohibiting the transportation of groundwater from one groundwater basin to another exist for most basins in the state. Except for a few limited situations, groundwater supplies that are developed in one basin cannot be transported to another basin. Costs The economic costs to drill and test wells and to pump, transport and potentially treat groundwater are significant considerations that may ultimately limit the uses and volume of additional groundwater that is produced in many groundwater basins. In 2008, the estimated cost to drill domestic wells in the Payson area was about $25,000 to $30,000 (ADWR, 2008). Recent costs to drill high capacity municipal wells in alluvial basins of central and southern Arizona were estimated at $600,000 to $800,000 (ADWR, 2008). Recent costs to drill four, 12-inch diameter municipal wells into deep, hard rock aquifers in the Flagstaff area were estimated to range from about $1.2 to $1.5 million per well (ADWR, 2008). Costs to drill 700-foot deep wells in the Showlow area that are capable of producing 300-500 gallons per minute (gpm) from the Coconino sandstone run from about $250,000 to $300,000 per well (ADWR, 2008). Costs to drill, case, develop and install pumping equipment in a 3,000 to 4,000 foot water production well for the City of Williams are reported to have run in the $2 to $3 million range. The reported costs to pump this well which has a depth to water that exceeds 3,000 feet below land surface (BLS) along with the other City of Williams well at peak rates that produce a combined volume of several hundred gallons per minute is in the $24,000 to $28,000 per month range. Pumping costs increase as the depth to water increases. Estimated pumping costs of groundwater are shown in Figure 14 for various pump (Ep) and pump motor (Em) efficiencies, and power rates currently available to groundwater pumpers in various areas throughout the state. For reference purposes, the current average statewide depth to water was about 200 feet BLS for the over 4,000 wells that are shown on Figure 13. Based on the current average depth to water for those wells, and assuming electrical costs will still be in the 4 to 10 cent per kilowatt-hour range (not necessarily a likely assumption), there would be about a 5-fold increase in pumping costs over today’s costs when pumping depths approach 1,000 BLS. Based on the high costs to drill wells and to pump, transport and potentially treat groundwater it seems probable that economic considerations will have an increasing influence on the ultimate development of additional groundwater supplies in any basin, and potentially make groundwater too expensive for certain uses. 46 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Power Costs to Pump Groundwater From Varying Depths Electricity Cost Per Acre-Foot Pumped At Specified Depth (Dollars) 250 200 Ep=.6,Em=.8,Cost=.04 KWh 150 Ep=.9,Em=.9,Cost=.04 KWh Ep=.6,Em=.8,Cost=.06 KWh Ep=.9,Em=.9,Cost=.06 KWh Ep=.6,Em=.8,Cost=.08 KWh Ep=.9,Em=.9,Cost=.08 KWh Ep=.6,Em=.8,Cost=.10 KWh 100 Ep=.9,Em=.9,Cost=.10 KWh 50 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 Pumping Lift (Feet) Figure 14. Estimated Cost to Pump Groundwater From Varying Depths Surface Water Climate Change Current scientific research generally indicates that climate change may significantly reduce and/or change the future magnitude and timing of annual precipitation, surface water runoff and stream flow. There seems to be little doubt that such changes will eventually impact and diminish instate surface water, Colorado River, and CAP water supplies. Physical Availability and Water Rights Instate Rivers and Streams The development of additional surface water supplies from the state’s in-state river and stream systems is physically possible, but legally unlikely without the purchase of existing surface water rights that would have to be severed and transferred from the land to which it is appurtenant, which in and of itself poses a significant obstacle. There are existing surface water rights or claims to many of these flows, and it would generally be necessary to acquire existing rights in order to tap this potential source of supply. However, the acquisition of existing surface water rights may be difficult to justify due to uncertainties in the eventual outcomes of ongoing and/or potential future adjudications proceedings in the state and the legal limitations on severance and transfers of surface water rights. Perennial reaches of rivers and streams have been identified in many instate groundwater basins The physical availability of instate surface water could also be impacted by future groundwater pumping that may diminish surface flows. Proposals to construct additional storage (new dams and/or reservoirs) have also been made. However, it is doubtful that many new dams could be built in the state, due to the lack of suitable dam sites, or due to environmental concerns and regulations or because the flow they might capture and divert would already be Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 47 Water Resources Development Commission claimed by existing surface water right-holders. Increasing storage capacity of existing dams provides another option that carries with it similar concerns as new construction. Colorado River Arizona has to two allocations of Colorado River: an Upper Colorado River Basin (Upper Basin) apportionment of 50,000 acre-feet, and a Lower Colorado River Basin (Lower Basin) apportionment of 2.8 million acre-feet (MAF). Arizona’s Lower Basin apportionment is fully utilized by main stem users and the Central Arizona Project (which delivers water to Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima counties for municipal, industrial, agriculture, and Central Arizona Indian Tribes uses). Federal regulations allow the acquisition and transfer of main stem entitlements between a willing buyer and seller. But before the transfer can be completed, consultation is required with the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) and must meet the conditions of its transfer policy. Entitlements for certain main stem Indian Tribes and Federal reservations are not allowed to be transferred. Thus there is not any “new” Colorado River water that can be made available to meet unmet demands for Basins along the Colorado River or for areas served by the Central Arizona Project. Arizona’s Upper Basin apportionment of 50,000 acre-feet is not fully utilized at present but expected to in the near future. The Navajo Generating Station is the largest user, followed by the City of Page, and the Navajo Nation. Any changes in use or transfers are governed by Federal law and Arizona’s State Water Code. CAP The volume of Colorado River water available for diversion to CAP off the mainstem is calculated as the remainder of Arizona’s 2.8 MAF Lower Basin apportionment after subtracting mainstem uses. The CAP currently delivers about 1.6 MAF of Arizona’s Lower Basin apportionment to Central Arizona. Over time, this amount is expected to decrease as the main stem contractors fully use their entitlements. All of the water diverted by CAP from the Colorado River is delivered to users through various forms of contracts with the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD), the entity that operates the CAP delivery system. Any exchanges or transfers of CAP water are governed by ADWR’s CAP transfer policy and Federal regulations. There is a block of relinquished CAP agricultural priority water designated by the Arizona Water Settlements Act for re-allocation by ADWR for municipal and industrial use. The CAWCD has also undertaken an evaluation of acquiring additional water supplies above their current subcontracted amounts. Tribal Rights and Claims Many Indian Tribes have currently quantified their water rights through decrees, settlements or other processes. These currently quantified rights frequently involve mainstem Colorado River and in-state surface water. Other Tribes have yet to quantify their water rights through settlements or litigation. All tribes may claim a legal right to surface water flowing across or adjacent to their lands. The use of such surface water by non-Tribal users is restricted by these legal rights. Surface Water Quality Water quality is an important factor that must be considered when evaluating instate surface water, Colorado River or CAP water as potential additional water supplies. Any water supplies that may be potentially developed for municipal use would require treatment to existing Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and state standards. Increasingly stringent SDWA standards may affect the ability to treat water and raise treatment costs beyond the means of water users in some basins. 48 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Environment Since impacts to surface water resources often result in collateral impacts to environmental resources it is possible that potential environmental impacts and concerns would be raised that could limit the diversion of additional surface water supplies, or the sever and transfer of existing surface water flows that may help maintain or support environmentally sensitive and/or protected areas. Costs The costs to acquire surface water rights, and to build infrastructure such as dams, diversion works, canals, pipelines and water treatment plants are very high. Some of these costs will be detailed in the WRDC Finance committee report. Effluent The use of effluent to offset projected unmet demands is a very important option for many basins. Based on data developed from the Arizona Water Atlas and other sources there was about 503 KAF/yr of effluent generated in the state during the 2006 baseline period and about 212 KAF/yr of effluent that was directly used during that same time. The effluent numbers used in this report were questioned during the final writing of this report and a recommendation was made to review the numbers with the Sub-Regional Operating Group (SROG) that manages Phoenix’s 91st Avenue wastewater treatment plant. Due to time constraints, this review was not made. In AMA’s much of the difference between the volume of effluent generated and that which was directly used went to aquifer recharge, either in managed or constructed facilities. A substantial volume of effluent that is discharged into rivers and streams also helps support wildlife and riparian habitat and some may also be diverted by downstream users. In the future more effluent will be used directly to meet projected unmet demands Additionally, in areas served by sewage systems, the volume of effluent generated will increase as populations grow. Therefore, basins with significant populations and sufficient sewage and wastewater treatment facilities will have significant additional “new” effluent supplies available to help offset projected unmet demands. In these areas “new “ effluent will probably be much more useful to meet new demands than “old” effluent because many existing waste water treatment facilities are regional facilities, and do not have infrastructure that connects them to areas where effluent may be used directly. New treatment facilities would not have this constraint, because they could be sited locally, closer to the end users. Costs The costs to build and operate infrastructure such as sewers, pumping stations, pipelines and wastewater treatment plants are very high. Some of these costs will be detailed in the WRDC Finance committee report Other Water Supplies In the future the potential development of other sources of water may help meet projected unmet demands. Statewide, other potential sources of additional supply may be unavailable or insufficient in volume to significantly offset projected unmet demands. However, on the local and basin scale the development of other potential supplies will be important. Potential sources of additional water supply include, but are not limited to: • Currently Undevelopable or Under-utilized Sources of Groundwater o Brackish and/or Poor Quality Groundwater Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 49 Water Resources Development Commission o Mine drainage o Agricultural drainage • Desalination of ocean water • Weather modification Currently Undevelopable or Under-utilized Sources of Groundwater Although groundwater has been identified as a generally available potential source of additional water in many basins there are some areas in the state where poor groundwater water quality makes it an essentially undevelopable resource to supply current uses. Likewise there are certain areas in the state where mining or agricultural activities require the pumping of water for drainage purposes, and the resource may be currently under-utilized. The following sections provide information on these currently undevelopable or under-utilized sources of water Brackish and/or Poor Quality Groundwater There are large volumes of brackish and poor quality groundwater located in certain parts of the state (Little Colorado River basin, Gila basin, Yuma Basin) that may eventually be developed. While this volume of water is included in the estimates of aquifer storage, it is generally not regarded as a currently practical resource to develop because of its comparatively high treatment costs. Although this resource has limited current uses it may be tapped sometime in the future as supplies diminish and/or treatment costs become a less significant component of the overall price of providing water. Mine Drainage This potential source of supply could provide additional water in areas where hard rock mining operations, and possibly sand and gravel mining operations exist and require dewatering. This potential source of supply would likely be limited to the known copper mining areas of central and southern Arizona. And to areas along stream channels where sand and gravel operations exist and pit flooding occurs. Water quality issues and potential groundwater/surface water impact issues could also limit the volume and suitable uses of this potential source of supply. Agricultural Drainage In AMAs, drainage water withdrawal permits may be obtained if it is determined that drainage of irrigated lands is necessary for a reasonable economic return from agricultural production in respect to those lands. Enduse of water obtained under drainage permits may be allowed for certain non-irrigation, industrial or municipal purposes. In most areas outside AMAs the end-use of agricultural drainage water does not carry this same set of restrictions. However, in the Yuma basin and in other basins where Colorado River is used there are many laws, rules, agreements or treaties that may legally or practically impact the diversion or end-use of irrigation drainage water. Desalination of Ocean Water Desalination of ocean water is a possible method that may eventually bring additional water supplies to some Arizona basins. Possible locations for desalination plants include the Gulf of California and Pacific coast of California. In either situation it is unlikely that desalinated ocean water would actually be transported to instate Arizona groundwater basins. Instead, the desalinated water would be exchanged for Colorado River water that would have been used in California or Mexico. Suffice it to say, the costs of such activities would be high, the details complex and ultimate implementation may be far into the future. However, it is a potential long-term 50 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission option to supplement water supplies that may eventually be available to some basins. Weather Modification Cloud seeding projects have occurred in various areas of Arizona in the past. However, no comprehensive assessment of the results of such studies was made in the preparation of this report. Therefore, the potential for cloud seeding to appreciably increase precipitation and to ultimately increase available water supplies in any groundwater basin is uncertain. Weather modification has been successfully employed in other states such as California, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and others for more than 20 years in some cases. There are physical and meteorological limitations on the implementation of weather modifications, but in the states that have used it continuously, the average annual increase in precipitation has ranged from a low of about 3 percent to a high of as much as 20 percent with the variability due to the meteorological conditions present during the year. Summary The unmet demand analysis for 2035, 2060 and 2010 indicated that unmet demands may potentially range from -608,000 AF/Yr in 2035 to -3,303,000 AF/Yr. in 2110. The analysis indicated that approximately 77% and 82% of the projected unmet demand for 2035 and 2110 would occur in AMAs with the remaining 23% and 18% of the projected unmet demand for those years occurring in non-AMA areas. It is noted, however, that the percent of unmet demand in a basin, versus the raw number, must be considered in any analysis of unmet demand and is a more significant factor of the extent of the problem in any given basin. Water conservation is seen as an extremely important activity that will help reduce projected future unmet demands. Likewise, whenever possible, the development and use of renewable supplies will help sustain existing groundwater uses and reserves for longer periods of time and better preserve this limited, nonrenewable resource for times of drought or other water shortage and provide a more reliable future water supply. However, since future decisions on developing additional water supplies will involve many complex issues and considerations, it was beyond the scope of this study to specifically recommend the development of one potential source of additional supply over another. The projections of future unmet demand were used to identify groundwater basins that will eventually require the development of additional water supplies to meet projected future water demands. Water supplies that were evaluated as potential sources of additional water to meet future unmet demands included: groundwater, surface water (instate rivers, Colorado River), CAP, effluent and other miscellaneous supplies. Additional sources of water supply are potentially available for any given groundwater basin, however there are various hydrologic, technical, legal, environmental and economic issues related to developing such supplies that may limit their practical feasibility or actual development. Table 17 provides a summary of potential additional supplies, issues that may limit their development and use, and general infrastructure requirements associated with developing additional water supplies. The analysis of Arizona’s current and future water supplies and demands has revealed several areas of data deficiency and/or analytical uncertainty that may impact the potential accuracy of the unmet demand analysis. Some major areas of data deficiency and/or analytical uncertainty include: • Future population growth (magnitude and distribution) and associated water use • Future levels of agricultural activity and associated water use Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 51 Water Resources Development Commission 52 • Future levels of industrial activity and associated water use • Limited hydrogeologic data (recharge estimates, basin storage, water level data) • Limited water consumption data for some areas and some sectors • Future impacts of climate change on water supplies and water demand • Future outcomes of various on-going settlements and legal proceedings related to Tribal water rights and stream adjudications • Future impacts of various state, Federal and international water negotiations and settlements • Other Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Potential Source of Supply Potential Issues Potential Infrastructure Requirements Conservation Costs Lining or Relining Canals, Greywater systems, water use and monitoring equipment, water savings devices and equipment Groundwater (Within Basin) Groundwater (Import) Available GW in Storage Current GW Basin Overdraft Aquifer heterogeneity/productivity Water Quality Land Subsidence and Earth Fissures GW/SW Impacts Colorado River Accounting Surface Impacts Environmental Tribal Rights and Claims Groundwater Right and Well Drilling Rules Costs to Drill Wells and to Pump, Treat and Transport Groundwater Same as Above Plus Inter-basin GW Transfer Restrictions Wells Pipelines Storage Facilities Treatment Facilities Same as Above Physical Availability of SW Physical Availability of New Dam and Reservoir Sites Costs to Construct and Operate New SW Diversion and Transport Infrastructure Water Quality Environmental Costs to Treat SW SW Rights (Acquisition) Tribal Rights and Claims Dams Diversion Works Pipelines Canals Treatment Facilities Physical Availability of CR Water Water Quality Costs to Treat CR Water Environmental Tribal Rights and Claims Colorado River Entitlements (Acquisition) Diversion Works Pipelines Canals Treatment Facilities CAP Physical Availability of CAP Water Proximity to CAP Canal Tribal Rights and Claims Costs to Treat CAP Water Priorities in Times of Shortage Diversion Works Pipelines Canals Treatment Facilities Effluent Water Quality Treatment and transport costs Sewer systems Lift stations Pipelines WWTPs Surface water (In-state) Surface water (Colorado River) Other Supplies: Mine Drainage Agricultural Drainage Desalination/Ocean Water Desalination/Brackish Water Weather Modification GW/SW Impacts Water Quality Treatment and transport costs GW/SW Impacts Water Quality Treatment and transport costs International and Interstate Water Transfer Issues Infrastructure and Treatment Costs Ownership of Water Availability of Electric Power Costs Federal Regulations Availability of Electric Power Technical Feasibility Cost Same as for GW Same as for GW Desalination Plants Pipelines Brine Disposal Systems Desalination Plants Pipelines Brine Disposal Systems ? Table 17. Additional Water Supplies That May Potentially Be Developed Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 53 Water Resources Development Commission Objective 5: Identification of Legal or Technical Issues Associated with the Uses of Potential Supplies Legal and technical issues were identified for accessing groundwater, surface water and effluent. Those associated with groundwater include: • Decreasing physical availability or aquifer heterogeneity possibly limiting water well production • Current or near term groundwater water quality issues • Current or near term land subsidence • Documented or potential groundwater pumping impacts on surface water • Environmental issues • Tribal rights or claims • Some existing limits on well locations and withdrawals • Complete or partial restrictions on importing or exporting groundwater • Ownership of groundwater Legal and technical issues associated with surface water include: • Physical availability and water storage • Surface water quality issues • Water rights • Environmental issues • Tribal rights or claims Legal and technical issues associated with the use of effluent are primarily dealing with environmental issues. However, environmental issues are not the only issues affecting the reuse of effluent. In its final report, the Governor’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Water Sustainability made 18 recommendations and 63 additional subrecommendations to promote reuse. Public education to increase awareness of the value of effluent, facilitating indirect potable reuse, and regulatory permitting inconsistencies are three examples cited by the Blue Ribbon Panel in this regard. Readers should refer to the Blue Ribbon Panel on Water Sustainability Final Report (ADWR/ADEQ/ACC, November 30, 2010) as a source for additional legal and technical issues associated with effluent use. Tables 18 through 21, Potential Additional Water Supplies, Technical and Legal Issues and Potential Infrastructure Needs Necessary to Develop and Deliver Additional Supplies to Fully or Partially Offset Projected Unmet Demands …(2035 through 2110) identify basins where technical and legal issues may exist. 54 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 -1256 -25 14500 -5 3 -806 840 19 -1644 -6 -486 -35627 2 -4675 -11918 -562 -118 -39312 -12868 -381 -11936 -55 -22001 -44490 -29229 -7 -6 -216 10956 0 2 -3315 -1813 -17036 -7857 393 -1 -3825 -251,038 Ins t at e Supply - H igh D emand 2035 Supply - D emand (P ro jec t ed Unmet D emand) Ins t at e Supply - Lo w D emand -1140 -24 14519 -5 3 -554 944 19 -1141 -5 -460 -28503 2 -4010 4221 -508 -106 -3279 -9363 -359 -10321 -48 -15940 -22149 -12838 -6 -4 -142 11750 0 2 -2968 -1664 -6044 -3332 427 0 -1213 -121,566 2035 Supply - D emand (P ro jec t ed Unmet D emand) √ √ √ √ B asin o r AM A Cur r ent ly A llo wed So me GW Imp o r t s Fr o m Ot her Leg ally Sp ecif ied B asins Gr o und wat er Wit hin B asin o r 2 AM A √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ ? √ √ ? √ ? √ ? √ √ √ √ ? ? √ ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 4 CR CA P Sur f ace Wat er 3 Inst at e √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Ef f luent √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 5 6 Water Resources Development Commission 7 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ot her Potential Sources of Additional Water Supplies Suf f icient to Of f set a Portion of Projected Unmet Demand Co nser vat io n √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Cur r ent o r Near - Ter m Land Sub sid ence Co ncer ns In So me A r eas √ √ √ Tr ib al Rig ht s / 10 Claims Wat er Rig ht s ( A cq uir e o r Tr ansf er ) √ Envir o nment al 13 Issues -54 -9,71 8 -23,1 32 7,91 2 -1 ,033 -73 -29,766 -64,479 -1 ,602 -966 -54 -9,908 -23,1 32 -2,570 -1 ,053 -73 -29,956 -64,479 √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Ef f luent √ √ √ Other ? Wat er Tr eat ment Plant s √ Other Dams, Diver sio n Wo r ks, Canals, Wells & Pip elines √ √ √ √ √ √ Ef f luent Potential Inf rastructure Needs to Develop and Deliver Additional Water Supplies (For New Construction or Expansion, Upgrade, or Replacement of Existing Inf rastructure) 15 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Surface Water √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Groundw ater √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? Wat er Tr eat ment Plant s o r Disinf ect io n Syst ems √ √ √ √ √ WWTPs & Lif t St at io ns Wells & Pip elines ? √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ ? √ √ ? √ ? √ ? √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ ? √ √ ? √ ? √ ? √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Dams, Diver sio n Wo r ks, Canals, Wells & Pip elines √ Wat er Tr eat ment Plant s √ WWTPs Ef f luent ? Other √ √ √ ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? Wat er Tr eat ment Plant s o r Disinf ect io n Syst ems √ √ √ √ ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? Other Wells & Pip elines √ √ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ef f luent ? √ √ Potential Inf rastructure Needs to Develop and Deliver Additional Water Supplies (For New Construction or Expansion, Upgrade, or Replacement of Existing Inf rastructure) 15 Envir o nment al 14 Issues ? √ √ Surf ace Water Tr ib al Rig ht s / 11 Claims √ √ √ Groundw ater √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ ? √ √ ? ? √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ ? √ ? √ ? √ ? √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? ? ? ? √ ? √ √ ? √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ ? √ ? ? √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ ? ? ? ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Envir o nment al 14 Issues Envir o nment al 13 Issues √ √ √ √ √ -946 BILL WILLIAMS 8,880 √ √ Tr ib al Rig ht s / 10 Claims Wat er Rig ht s ( A cq uir e o r Tr ansf er ) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ DETRITAL VALLEY √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ KANAB PLATEAU ? √ √ √ Basins w ith uncertain 100 Year Baseline GW sustainability = ?. Mainstem Colorado River basins also received ? due to potential Accounting Surf ace restrictions. √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ So me St at e Co mp let e o r Leg al Limit s Par t ial or Physical Rest r ict io ns Rest r ict io ns A vailab ilit y SW- WQ On o n Well Imp o r t / Exp o r t / Ext r a SW Issues Lo cat io ns 12 Of St o r ag e and / o r GW Gr o und wat er Wit hd r awals Exist 11 Exist √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Surf ace Water Potential Physical, Technical and Legal Issues Related to Acquiring, Developing and Delivering Additional Water Supplies to Of f set Projected Unmet Demand 1 Envir o nment al 9 Issues Groundw ater Cur r ent GW/ SW Co nnect io n ( h=hist o r ic co nnect io n, may no t cur r ent ly 8 exist ) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Cur r ent o r Near Ter m GW- WQ Issues M ay Limit So me Uses in So me A r eas √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ (h) √ √ (?) √ (h) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Decr easing A q uif er St o r ag e o r A q uif er Het er o g enit y M ay Limit A ct ual Well Pr o d uct io n In So me A r eas √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Surf ace Water Potential Physical, Technical and Legal Issues Related to Acquiring, Developing and Delivering Additional Water Supplies to Of f set Projected Unmet Demand 1 √ √ Groundw ater √ √ √ Surf ace Water √ √ Groundw ater Potential Sources of Additional Water Supplies Suf f icient to Of f set a Portion of Projected Unmet Demand √ Cur r ent o r Near Ter m GW- WQ Issues M ay Limit So me Uses in So me A r eas √ √ Ins t at e +Sho rt age D iv ers io ns o f C R Supply √ √ √ Ins t at e +N o rmal D iv ers io ns o f C R Supply √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Potential Additional Water Supplies, Technical and Legal Issues and Potential Infrastructure Needs Necessary to Develop and Deliver Additional Supplies to Fully or Partially Offset Projected Unment Demands in 2035 Table 18. Potential Additional Water Supplies, Technical and Legal Issues and Potential Infrastructure Needs Necessary to Develop and Deliver Additional Supplies to Fully or Partially Offset projected Unmet Demands in 2035 2035 Note! Basins Highlighted in Light Blue had Insignif icant or No Projected Unmet Demand in Basin AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HUALAPAI VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA Instate Water Supplies Only PEACH SPRINGS PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX Instate Subtotals (Non-Highlighted Basins Only) 2035 √ Decr easing A q uif er St o r ag e o r A q uif er Het er o g enit y M ay Limit A ct ual Well Pr o d uct io n In So me A r eas √ √ 7 √ √ √ Ot her √ √ √ 6 √ √ Ef f luent √ √ Co nser vat io n ? √ 5 ? √ 4 ? √ 3 √ √ √ ? ? √ So me St at e Co mp let e o r Leg al Limit s Par t ial or Physical Rest r ict io ns Rest r ict io ns A vailab ilit y SW- WQ On o n Well Issues Imp o r t / Exp o r t / Ext r a SW Lo cat io ns 12 St o r ag e Of and / o r GW Gr o und wat er Wit hd r awals Exist √ ? Tr ib al Rig ht s / 10 Claims √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? ? ? ? ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ Envir o nment al 9 Issues √ √ √ √ √ Cur r ent GW/ SW Co nnect io n ( h=hist o r ic co nnect io n, may no t cur r ent ly 8 exist ) √ Cur r ent o r Near - Ter m Land Sub sid ence Co ncer ns In So me A r eas √ CA P √ ? CR ? ? -9 √ Inst at e ? Wit hin B asin o r 2 AM A √ -H igh D emands √ -Lo w D emands √ -H igh D emands √ -Lo w D emands 35,425 11 -1 8,455 -21 ,873 Exist 35,425 -1 5,742 √ ? ? √ √ √ √ -1 ,51 8 √ -1 ,31 6,441 B asin o r AM A Cur r ent ly A llo wed So me GW Imp o r t s Fr o m Ot her Leg ally Sp ecif ied B asins 35,425 LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU -1 8,247 -4,1 89 √ -1 ,567,479 √ 1 98 4,61 3 -2,41 9 44,01 4 -427,491 -1 ,1 1 2,454 √ 35,425 Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) 5,401 1 0,963 39,998 LOWER GILA 7,1 70 44,01 4 PARKER Parker (Tribal Ag) 42,940 1 0,963 43,21 2 -70,492 45,226 1 0,963 46,1 54 -70,732 45,226 1 0,963 -702,944 -31 4,985 1 8,669 -1 ,363,492 -70,732 -70,492 -1 2,91 8 -387,272 YUMA Yuma (Tribal Ag) -365,1 81 -61 9,308 27,882 -1 ,1 55,546 -1 ,033,980 ? √ √ √ -51 1 ,1 28 -846,765 √ √ √ √ -337,076 -3,705 -968,330 √ √ √ √ LAKE MOHAVE BASIN NAME Note! Basins Highlighted in Light Blue had Insignif icant or No Projected Unmet Demand in Basins Which Receive Part of their Supply f rom the Colorado River or CAP Instate + CR Upper Instate + CR Low er Mainstem16,17 Instate + CAP HARQUAHALA INA PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA TUCSON AMA Colorado River + CAP Basin Subtotals (Non-Highlighted basins Only) Statew ide Total (Non-Highlighted Basins Only) 1 Please see WRDC Supply & Demand Committee Report - (Unmet Demand Analysis) - f or more details on this analysis. Also, please note Cost is regarded as an underlying issue in the development of any additional w ater supplies to of f set projected Unmet Demands. 2 Potential additional groundw ater supply identif ied by √ (checkmark) if basin's Baseline GW Consumption w as estimated to be sustainable f or at least 100 years as per analysis show n in Basin Characteristic Worksheet. Basins w ith Blank = Baseline GW Supply not estimated to be sustainable over Projection Period (ie, 2035, 2060, 2110). 3 Potential additional Instate Surf ace Water Supply identif ied f or basins having perennial Instate streams w ithin basin as per Basin Characteristic Worksheet. Gila Bend identif ied because it receives surf ace w ater f rom a diversion on the Gila Riverat basin boundary. Actual development of any such supplies subject to all potential issues and limitations listed. 4 Potential additional Colorado River Supply identif ied f or basins having reachs of Colorado River bordering or w ithin basin as Per Basin Characteristic Worksheet. Actual development of supplies is unlikely unless the f low of the Colorado River is augmented. Development is unlikely f or the Hualapai Valley due to engineering reports, others subject to all potential issues and limitations listed. 5 Potential additional CAP supply identif ied f or basins currently receiving CAP. Actual development of any such supplies subject to all potential issues and limitations listed. 6 Potential additional ef f luent supply identif ied f or basins currently producing more ef f luent than used in 2006, and/or f or basins w ith signif icant additional projected municipal grow th that w ill likely be served by providers that w ill also have municipal sew er and w aste w ater treatment systems. 7 Potential other supplies include, but are not limited to: currently underdeveloped poor quality groundw ater, ag and mine drainage w ater, w ater harvesting, ocean desalination, w eather modif cation, etc. 8 Current GW/SW connection analysis as per Basin Characteristic Worksheet. 9 Basins having current GW/SW connections identif ied received a √ (checkmark) f or potential impacts to surf ace w ater that could also have environmental impacts. 10 Basins having Tribal lands identif ied in Basin Characteristic Spreadsheet received a √ (checkmark) if potential additional GW or surf ace w ater supplies w ere also identif ied f or basin. 11 Basins identif ied w ith √ (checkmark) have some type of legal restriction or limitation on w ell locations and/or groundw ater w ithdraw als. 12 Basins identif ied as having potential additional Instate surf ace w ater or Colorado River supplies received a √ (checkmark). 13 Basins identif ied as having potential additional surf ace w ater supplies that could be developed or transf erred received a √ (checkmark) f or potential environmental impacts. 14 Basins identif ied as having potential ef f luent resources to use w ere identif ied w ith a √ (checkmark) f or potential environmental issues associated w ith its use. Wastew ater discharged to w atercourses may support w ater dependent natural resources. For additional inf ormation ref er to the Environmental Conditions Basin tables. 15 Potential inf rastucture needs checked f or any basin having a particular potential source of supply available, regardless of potential volume(s) available or other practical, technical, legal or economic f actors that may impact actual development and use of the potential supplies. 16 Any positive Unmet Demands f or Colorado River mainstem basins represent w ater that could be used bY CAP or other Arizona Colorado River w ater users 17 Any positive Unmet Demand For Colorado River tribal agriculture is reserved f or tribal uses. CR = Mainstem Colorado River Water CAP = Central Arizona Project Instate SW = Other Surf ace Water Ef f luent = reclaimed w ater Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 55 -1879 -51 14370 -6 3 -1031 480 19 -3147 -8 -1076 -54593 2 -8390 -13927 -785 -181 -39729 -16147 -491 -20143 -148 -25732 -49457 -30610 -9 -10 -633 7761 -1 2 -4836 -2983 -22425 -14155 53 -2 -6736 -318,905 Ins t at e Supply - H igh D emand 2060 Supply - D emand (P ro jec t ed Unmet D emand) Ins t at e Supply - Lo w D emand -1739 -50 14393 -6 3 -767 605 19 -2591 -6 -1047 -44495 2 -7615 2167 -720 -167 -3691 -11222 -465 -18323 -138 -18931 -27065 -14127 -8 -8 -540 8371 -1 2 -4456 -2799 -11398 -9866 98 -2 -3094 -182,782 2060 Supply - D emand (P ro jec t ed Unmet D emand) √ √ √ √ B asin o r AM A Cur r ent ly A llo wed So me GW Imp o r t s Fr o m Ot her Leg ally Sp ecif ied B asins Gr o und wat er Wit hin B asin o r 2 AM A √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ ? √ √ √ ? √ ? √ √ √ √ ? ? √ ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 4 CR CA P Sur f ace Wat er 3 Inst at e √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Ef f luent √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 5 6 Water Resources Development Commission 7 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ot her Potential Sources of Additional Water Supplies Suf f icient to Of f set a Portion of Projected Unmet Demand Co nser vat io n √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Surf ace Water Decr easing A q uif er St o r ag e o r A q uif er Het er o g enit y M ay Limit A ct ual Well Pr o d uct io n In So me A r eas √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Cur r ent o r Near Ter m GW- WQ Issues M ay Limit So me Uses in So me A r eas Cur r ent o r Near - Ter m Land Sub sid ence Co ncer ns In So me A r eas √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Tr ib al Rig ht s / 10 Claims √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Ef f luent Envir o nment al 14 Issues Envir o nment al 13 Issues √ √ √ Tr ib al Rig ht s / 10 Claims Wat er Rig ht s ( A cq uir e o r Tr ansf er ) √ √ √ √ Other ? Wat er Tr eat ment Plant s √ Other Dams, Diver sio n Wo r ks, Canals, Wells & Pip elines √ √ √ √ √ √ Ef f luent Potential Inf rastructure Needs to Develop and Deliver Additional Water Supplies (For New Construction or Expansion, Upgrade, or Replacement of Existing Inf rastructure) 15 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Surface Water √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Groundw ater √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? Wat er Tr eat ment Plant s o r Disinf ect io n Syst ems √ √ √ √ √ WWTPs & Lif t St at io ns Wells & Pip elines ? √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ ? √ √ ? √ ? √ ? √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ ? √ √ ? √ ? √ ? √ √ √ √ ? √ ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? Dams, Diver sio n Wo r ks, Canals, Wells & Pip elines Wat er Tr eat ment Plant s √ √ WWTPs Ef f luent ? Other ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Wat er Tr eat ment Plant s o r Disinf ect io n Syst ems √ Potential Inf rastructure Needs to Develop and Deliver Additional Water Supplies (For New Construction or Expansion, Upgrade, or Replacement of Existing Inf rastructure) 15 Other Wells & Pip elines √ Surf ace Water Ef f luent ? √ Groundw ater Envir o nment al 14 Issues √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? ? ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Claims Tr ib al Rig ht s / √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ So me St at e Co mp let e o r Leg al Limit s Par t ial or Physical Rest r ict io ns Rest r ict io ns A vailab ilit y SW- WQ On o n Well Issues Imp o r t / Exp o r t / Ext r a SW Lo cat io ns 12 Of St o r ag e and / o r GW Gr o und wat er Wit hd r awals Exist 11 Exist √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 10 √ √ Surf ace Water Potential Physical, Technical and Legal Issues Related to Acquiring, Developing and Delivering Additional Water Supplies to Of f set Projected Unmet Demand 1 √ √ √ √ Envir o nment al 9 Issues Groundw ater Cur r ent GW/ SW Co nnect io n ( h=hist o r ic co nnect io n, may no t cur r ent ly 8 exist ) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ (h) √ √ (?) √ (h) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Surf ace Water Potential Physical, Technical and Legal Issues Related to Acquiring, Developing and Delivering Additional Water Supplies to Of f set Projected Unmet Demand 1 Groundw ater Envir o nment al 13 Issues Groundw ater Potential Sources of Additional Water Supplies Suf f icient to Of f set a Portion of Projected Unmet Demand √ Ins t at e +Sho rt age D iv ers io ns o f C R Supply Wat er Rig ht s ( A cq uir e o r Tr ansf er ) √ Ins t at e +N o rmal D iv ers io ns o f C R Supply √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Potential Additional Water Supplies, Technical and Legal Issues and Potential Infrastructure Needs Necessary to Develop and Deliver Additional Supplies to Fully or Partially Offset Projected Unment Demands in 2060 Table 19. Potential Additional Water Supplies, Technical and Legal Issues and Potential Infrastructure Needs Necessary to Develop and Deliver Additional Supplies to Fully or Partially Offset projected Unmet Demands in 2060 2060 Note! Basins Highlighted in Light Blue had Insignif icant or No Projected Unmet Demand in Basin AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HUALAPAI VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA Instate Water Supplies Only PEACH SPRINGS PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX Instate Subtotals (Non-Highlighted Basins Only) 2060 √ 7 √ √ 6 √ 10 √ √ Tr ib al Rig ht s / √ Claims √ √ Envir o nment al 9 Issues √ Ot her √ √ Ef f luent √ 5 √ √ CA P Cur r ent o r Near Ter m GW- WQ Issues M ay Limit So me Uses in So me A r eas √ 4 √ √ CR Decr easing A q uif er St o r ag e o r A q uif er Het er o g enit y M ay Limit A ct ual Well Pr o d uct io n In So me A r eas √ ? √ ? √ ? √ ? √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ ? √ √ √ √ ? √ ? √ √ ? √ ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? ? ? √ √ √ ? ? ? ? √ √ √ ? ? √ √ √ ? ? ? ? ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Basins w ith uncertain 100 Year Baseline GW sustainability = ?. Mainstem Colorado River basins also received ? due to potential Accounting Surf ace restrictions. √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ ? √ ? √ √ ? √ √ ? √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? ? √ 35425 √ √ ? √ -25408 3 √ √ Inst at e √ Wit hin B asin o r ? √ Co nser vat io n ? ? √ -10251 ? ? Cur r ent GW/ SW Co nnect io n ( h=hist o r ic co nnect io n, may no t cur r ent ly 8 exist ) √ ? Cur r ent o r Near - Ter m Land Sub sid ence Co ncer ns In So me A r eas √ √ 2 √ √ √ AM A √ √ √ -H igh D emands √ √ -Lo w D emands √ √ -2097 -H igh D emands -115484 √ -11311 -Lo w D emands -58059 √ -35470 -6679 ? ? So me St at e Co mp let e o r Leg al Limit s Par t ial or Physical Rest r ict io ns Rest r ict io ns A vailab ilit y SW- WQ On o n Well Issues Imp o r t / Exp o r t / Ext r a SW Lo cat io ns 12 St o r ag e Of and / o r GW Gr o und wat er Wit hd r awals Exist 11 Exist -115484 -180 -30219 -1988 B asin o r AM A Cur r ent ly A llo wed So me GW Imp o r t s Fr o m Ot her Leg ally Sp ecif ied B asins -58059 -156 -10164 -10138 √ -180 -30029 -27207 √ -156 -829 -2077 -7364 35425 √ ? ? ? ? √ √ √ √ ? √ -9975 -15115 -6852 35425 ? 344 -1968 LAKE MOHAVE -662 -25201 √ 2225 -6471 √ √ PARKER 44014 √ √ √ √ 35425 √ √ √ √ √ Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) 10963 23929 √ 10963 44014 √ √ 27620 ? √ √ √ 10963 √ √ √ √ 45226 -1 ,742,365 -71766 -71338 -71766 -939993 -1131623 -1131810 -258352 -284915 -308548 -40141 -62193 -71729 27035 -2,061 ,270 10963 -1 ,609,473 45226 -1 ,928,378 30725 -1 ,459,51 0 Yuma (Tribal Ag) -71338 -939806 -234719 -30606 -1 ,642,291 Parker (Tribal Ag) -1 ,322,71 7 YUMA -1 ,505,499 √ √ √ LOWER GILA LAKE HAVASU KANAB PLATEAU DETRITAL VALLEY BILL WILLIAMS LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU BASIN NAME Note! Basins Highlighted in Light Blue had Insignif icant or No Projected Unmet Demand in Basins Which Receive Part of their Supply f rom the Colorado River or CAP Instate + CR Upper Instate + CR Low er Mainstem16,17 Instate + CAP HARQUAHALA INA PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA TUCSON AMA Colorado River + CAP Basin Subtotals (Non-Highlighted basins Only) Statew ide Total (Non-Highlighted Basins Only) 1 Please see WRDC Supply & Demand Committee Report - (Unmet Demand Analysis) - f or more details on this analysis. Also, please note Cost is regarded as an underlying issue in the development of any additional w ater supplies to of f set projected Unmet Demands. 2 Potential additional groundw ater supply identif ied by √ (checkmark) if basin's Baseline GW Consumption w as estimated to be sustainable f or at least 100 years as per analysis show n in Basin Characteristic Worksheet. Basins w ith Blank = Baseline GW Supply not estimated to be sustainable over Projection Period (ie, 2035, 2060, 2110). 3 Potential additional Instate Surf ace Water Supply identif ied f or basins having perennial Instate streams w ithin basin as per Basin Characteristic Worksheet. Gila Bend identif ied because it receives surf ace w ater f rom a diversion on the Gila Riverat basin boundary. Actual development of any such supplies subject to all potential issues and limitations listed. 4 Potential additional Colorado River Supply identif ied f or basins having reachs of Colorado River bordering or w ithin basin as Per Basin Characteristic Worksheet. Actual development of supplies is unlikely unless the f low of the Colorado River is augmented. Development is unlikely f or the Hualapai Valley due to engineering reports, others subject to all potential issues and limitations listed. 5 Potential additional CAP supply identif ied f or basins currently receiving CAP. Actual development of any such supplies subject to all potential issues and limitations listed. 6 Potential additional ef f luent supply identif ied f or basins currently producing more ef f luent than used in 2006, and/or f or basins w ith signif icant additional projected municipal grow th that w ill likely be served by providers that w ill also have municipal sew er and w aste w ater treatment systems. 7 Potential other supplies include, but are not limited to: currently underdeveloped poor quality groundw ater, ag and mine drainage w ater, w ater harvesting, ocean desalination, w eather modif cation, etc. 8 Current GW/SW connection analysis as per Basin Characteristic Worksheet. 9 Basins having current GW/SW connections identif ied received a √ (checkmark) f or potential impacts to surf ace w ater that could also have environmental impacts. 10 Basins having Tribal lands identif ied in Basin Characteristic Spreadsheet received a √ (checkmark) if potential additional GW or surf ace w ater supplies w ere also identif ied f or basin. 11 Basins identif ied w ith √ (checkmark) have some type of legal restriction or limitation on w ell locations and/or groundw ater w ithdraw als. 12 Basins identif ied as having potential additional Instate surf ace w ater or Colorado River supplies received a √ (checkmark). 13 Basins identif ied as having potential additional surf ace w ater supplies that could be developed or transf erred received a √ (checkmark) f or potential environmental impacts. 14 Basins identif ied as having potential ef f luent resources to use w ere identif ied w ith a √ (checkmark) f or potential environmental issues associated w ith its use. Wastew ater discharged to w atercourses may support w ater dependent natural resources. For additional inf ormation ref er to the Environmental Conditions Basin tables. 15 Potential inf rastucture needs checked f or any basin having a particular potential source of supply available, regardless of potential volume(s) available or other practical, technical, legal or economic f actors that may impact actual development and use of the potential supplies. 16 Any positive Unmet Demands f or Colorado River mainstem basins represent w ater that could be used bY CAP or other Arizona Colorado River w ater users 17 Any positive Unmet Demand For Colorado River tribal agriculture is reserved f or tribal uses. CR = Mainstem Colorado River Water CAP = Central Arizona Project Instate SW = Other Surf ace Water Ef f luent = reclaimed w ater Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 56 (P ro jec t ed Unmet D emand) Ins t at e Supply - H igh D emand -3299 -57 14118 -8 3 -1502 -302 -887 -6833 -16 -1339 -72576 2 -15694 -15895 -1240 -306 -40664 -19608 -737 -37024 -265 -31429 -53190 -32980 -20 -22 -1411 1175 -2 2 -7715 -5311 -35316 -27243 -374 -6 -10915 -423,789 √ √ √ √ B asin o r AM A Cur r ent ly A llo wed So me GW Imp o r t s Fr o m Ot her Leg ally Sp ecif ied B asins Gr o und wat er Wit hin B asin o r 2 AM A √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ ? √ √ √ ? √ ? √ √ √ √ ? ? √ ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 4 CR Water Resources Development Commission CA P Sur f ace Wat er 3 Inst at e √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Ef f luent √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 5 6 7 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ot her Potential Sources of Additional Water Supplies Suf f icient to Of f set a Portion of Projected Unmet Demand Co nser vat io n √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Groundw ater Ef f luent 6 Ot her 7 Decr easing A q uif er St o r ag e o r A q uif er Het er o g enit y M ay Limit A ct ual Well Pr o d uct io n In So me A r eas √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Cur r ent o r Near Ter m GW- WQ Issues M ay Limit So me Uses in So me A r eas Cur r ent o r Near - Ter m Land Sub sid ence Co ncer ns In So me A r eas √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Tr ib al Rig ht s / 10 Claims √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Ef f luent √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Wat er Rig ht s ( A cq uir e o r Tr ansf er ) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Envir o nment al 13 Issues √ √ √ √ √ √ Envir o nment al 14 Issues √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Tr ib al Rig ht s / 10 Claims √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Other ? Ef f luent Other Potential Inf rastructure Needs to Develop and Deliver Additional Water Supplies (For New Construction or Expansion, Upgrade, or Replacement of Existing Inf rastructure) 15 Wat er Tr eat ment Plant s √ Surface Water Dams, Diver sio n Wo r ks, Canals, Wells & Pip elines √ √ √ √ √ √ Groundw ater √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ WWTPs & Lif t St at io ns Wat er Tr eat ment Plant s o r Disinf ect io n Syst ems √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Wells & Pip elines √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ ? √ √ ? √ ? √ ? √ √ √ √ ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ ? √ √ ? √ ? √ ? √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Wat er Tr eat ment Plant s o r Disinf ect io n Syst ems √ Dams, Diver sio n Wo r ks, Canals, Wells & Pip elines √ Wat er Tr eat ment Plant s √ √ √ WWTPs Ef f luent ? Other √ √ √ √ ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? Other Wells & Pip elines √ √ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ef f luent ? √ √ Potential Inf rastructure Needs to Develop and Deliver Additional Water Supplies (For New Construction or Expansion, Upgrade, or Replacement of Existing Inf rastructure) 15 Envir o nment al 14 Issues ? √ Surf ace Water Tr ib al Rig ht s / 10 Claims √ √ Groundw ater √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Surf ace Water √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ So me St at e Co mp let e o r Leg al Limit s Par t ial or Rest r ict io ns Physical Rest r ict io ns On A vailab ilit y SW- WQ o n Well Issues Imp o r t / Exp o r t / Ext r a SW Lo cat io ns 12 Of St o r ag e and / o r GW Gr o und wat er Wit hd r awals Exist 11 Exist Surf ace Water Potential Physical, Technical and Legal Issues Related to Acquiring, Developing and Delivering Additional Water Supplies to Of f set Projected Unmet Demand 1 √ √ √ √ Envir o nment al 9 Issues Groundw ater Cur r ent GW/ SW Co nnect io n ( h=hist o r ic co nnect io n, may no t cur r ent ly 8 exist ) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ (h) √ √ (?) √ (h) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Tr ib al Rig ht s / 10 Claims Potential Physical, Technical and Legal Issues Related to Acquiring, Developing and Delivering Additional Water Supplies to Of f set Projected Unmet Demand 1 Groundw ater exist ) √ √ √ √ ? √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ ? √ ? ? √ ? ? ? √ ? ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ ? √ ? √ √ ? ? √ √ ? √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ ? √ √ √ ? ? ? ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ ? √ ? ? Envir o nment al 9 Issues Envir o nment al 13 Issues √ 4 Wat er Rig ht s ( A cq uir e o r Tr ansf er ) ? √ √ 8 √ ? Cur r ent GW/ SW Co nnect io n ( h=hist o r ic co nnect io n, may no t cur r ent ly √ Cur r ent o r Near - Ter m Land Sub sid ence Co ncer ns In So me A r eas √ √ √ CA P √ CR √ Surf ace Water 3 Inst at e √ 5 Potential Sources of Additional Water Supplies Suf f icient to Of f set a Portion of Projected Unmet Demand Co nser vat io n Wit hin B asin o r 2 AM A Cur r ent o r Near Ter m GW- WQ Issues M ay Limit So me Uses in So me A r eas √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Potential Additional Water Supplies, Technical and Legal Issues and Potential Infrastructure Needs Necessary to Develop and Deliver Additional Supplies to Fully or Partially Offset Projected Unment Demands in 2110 Census Split 21 1 0 Supply - D emand Ins t at e Supply - Lo w D emand (P ro jec t ed Unmet D emand) -3106 -56 14149 -8 3 -1214 -128 -831 -6145 -13 -1298 -58605 2 -14703 285 -1152 -286 -4611 -12781 -700 -34298 -253 -23396 -30648 -16311 -19 -20 -1282 2385 -2 2 -7270 -5056 -23565 -21754 -312 -5 -5867 -274,908 21 1 0 Supply - D emand -H igh D emands Ins t at e +Sho rt age D iv ers io ns o f C R Supply -Lo w D emands Decr easing A q uif er St o r ag e o r A q uif er Het er o g enit y M ay Limit A ct ual Well Pr o d uct io n In So me A r eas √ -58464 √ √ ? √ So me St at e Co mp let e o r Leg al Limit s Par t ial or Physical Rest r ict io ns Rest r ict io ns A vailab ilit y SW- WQ On o n Well Issues Imp o r t / Exp o r t / Ext r a SW Lo cat io ns 12 St o r ag e Of and / o r GW Gr o und wat er Wit hd r awals Exist 11 Exist √ √ 35425 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? ? ? ? 57 Table 20. Potential Additional Water Supplies, Technical and Legal Issues and Potential Infrastructure Needs Necessary to Develop and Deliver Additional Supplies to Fully or Partially Offset projected Unmet Demands in 2110 (CS) 2110 Census Split Note! Basins Highlighted in Light Blue had Insignif icant or No Projected Unmet Demand in Basin AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HUALAPAI VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA Instate Water Supplies Only PEACH SPRINGS PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX Instate Subtotals (Non-Highlighted Basins Only) -H igh D emands Ins t at e +N o rmal D iv ers io ns o f C R Supply -Lo w D emands B asin o r AM A Cur r ent ly A llo wed So me GW Imp o r t s Fr o m Ot her Leg ally Sp ecif ied B asins ? √ -46801 -37670 -16562 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 35425 BILL WILLIAMS √ √ √ -180359 √ √ √ -100433 √ √ -180359 ? √ √ -100433 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ -30972 √ √ -10895 √ -30782 √ √ -10705 √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ -385 √ -4025 √ -27267 √ -352 ? -3874 ? -25778 ? -385 √ -4006 √ -16785 -38110 -18691 √ -352 35425 √ √ -3854 LAKE HAVASU -26447 -37463 -12772 ? √ √ √ √ √ -15296 √ DETRITAL VALLEY LAKE MOHAVE 35425 -6973 ? ? √ -18483 -3183 √ √ √ PARKER 44014 √ 10963 -14571 √ -9362 √ √ 44014 √ √ √ 10963 ? √ √ √ 45226 √ √ √ √ 10963 -72775 -2127214 -398721 -184097 -11465 -3,1 53,081 -6257 -72196 -1987341 -365887 -172749 -3,576,871 45226 -2,827,1 32 10963 -72775 -1935397 -348525 -152509 -3,250,922 YUMA -72196 -1795524 -315691 -141162 -3,1 1 0,441 -2,835,533 Parker (Tribal Ag) Yuma (Tribal Ag) HARQUAHALA INA PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA TUCSON AMA -2,784,492 -2,509,584 √ √ √ √ √ LOWER GILA √ Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) √ KANAB PLATEAU LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU BASIN NAME 2110 Census Split Note! Basins Highlighted in Light Blue had Insignif icant or No Projected Unmet Demand in Basins Which Receive Part of their Supply f rom the Colorado River or CAP Instate + CR Upper Instate + CR Low er Mainstem16,17 Instate + CAP Colorado River + CAP Basin Subtotals (Non-Highlighted basins Only) Statew ide Total (Non-Highlighted Basins Only) 1 Please see WRDC Supply & Demand Committee Report - (Unmet Demand Analysis) - f or more details on this analysis. Also, please note Cost is regarded as an underlying issue in the development of any additional w ater supplies to of f set projected Unmet Demands. Basins w ith Blank = Baseline GW Supply not estimated to be sustainable over Projection Period (ie, 2035, 2060, 2110). Basins w ith uncertain 100 Year Baseline GW sustainability = ?. Mainstem Colorado River basins also received ? due to potential Accounting Surf ace restrictions. 2 Potential additional groundw ater supply identif ied by √ (checkmark) if basin's Baseline GW Consumption w as estimated to be sustainable f or at least 100 years as per analysis show n in Basin Characteristic Worksheet. 3 Potential additional Instate Surf ace Water Supply identif ied f or basins having perennial Instate streams w ithin basin as per Basin Characteristic Worksheet. Gila Bend identif ied because it receives surf ace w ater f rom a diversion on the Gila Riverat basin boundary. Actual development of any such supplies subject to all potential issues and limitations listed. 4 Potential additional Colorado River Supply identif ied f or basins having reachs of Colorado River bordering or w ithin basin as Per Basin Characteristic Worksheet. Actual development of supplies is unlikely unless the f low of the Colorado River is augmented. Development is unlikely f or the Hualapai Valley due to engineering reports, others subject to all potential issues and limitations listed. 5 Potential additional CAP supply identif ied f or basins currently receiving CAP. Actual development of any such supplies subject to all potential issues and limitations listed. 6 Potential additional ef f luent supply identif ied f or basins currently producing more ef f luent than used in 2006, and/or f or basins w ith signif icant additional projected municipal grow th that w ill likely be served by providers that w ill also have municipal sew er and w aste w ater treatment systems. 7 Potential other supplies include, but are not limited to: currently underdeveloped poor quality groundw ater, ag and mine drainage w ater, w ater harvesting, ocean desalination, w eather modif cation, etc. 8 Current GW/SW connection analysis as per Basin Characteristic Worksheet. 9 Basins having current GW/SW connections identif ied received a √ (checkmark) f or potential impacts to surf ace w ater that could also have environmental impacts. 10 Basins having Tribal lands identif ied in Basin Characteristic Spreadsheet received a √ (checkmark) if potential additional GW or surf ace w ater supplies w ere also identif ied f or basin. 11 Basins identif ied w ith √ (checkmark) have some type of legal restriction or limitation on w ell locations and/or groundw ater w ithdraw als. 12 Basins identif ied as having potential additional Instate surf ace w ater or Colorado River supplies received a √ (checkmark). 13 Basins identif ied as having potential additional surf ace w ater supplies that could be developed or transf erred received a √ (checkmark) f or potential environmental impacts. 14 Basins identif ied as having potential ef f luent resources to use w ere identif ied w ith a √ (checkmark) f or potential environmental issues associated w ith its use. Wastew ater discharged to w atercourses may support w ater dependent natural resources. For additional inf ormation ref er to the Environmental Conditions Basin tables. 15 Potential inf rastucture needs checked f or any basin having a particular potential source of supply available, regardless of potential volume(s) available or other practical, technical, legal or economic f actors that may impact actual development and use of the potential supplies. 16 Any positive Unmet Demands f or Colorado River mainstem basins represent w ater that could be used bY CAP or other Arizona Colorado River w ater users 17 Any positive Unmet Demand For Colorado River tribal agriculture is reserved f or tribal uses. CR = Mainstem Colorado River Water CAP = Central Arizona Project Instate SW = Other Surf ace Water Ef f luent = reclaimed w ater Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 21 1 0 Supply - D emand √ √ √ √ B asin o r AM A Cur r ent ly A llo wed So me GW Imp o r t s Fr o m Ot her Leg ally Sp ecif ied B asins Gr o und wat er Wit hin B asin o r 2 AM A √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ ? √ √ √ ? √ ? √ √ √ √ ? ? √ ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? Water Resources Development Commission CA P Sur f ace Wat er 4 CR √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Ef f luent √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 3 Inst at e √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 5 6 7 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ot her Potential Sources of Additional Water Supplies Suf f icient to Of f set a Portion of Projected Unmet Demand Co nser vat io n √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Groundw ater Ef f luent 6 Ot her 7 Decr easing A q uif er St o r ag e o r A q uif er Het er o g enit y M ay Limit A ct ual Well Pr o d uct io n In So me A r eas √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Cur r ent o r Near Ter m GW- WQ Issues M ay Limit So me Uses in So me A r eas Cur r ent o r Near - Ter m Land Sub sid ence Co ncer ns In So me A r eas √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Tr ib al Rig ht s / 10 Claims √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Ef f luent √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Wat er Rig ht s ( A cq uir e o r Tr ansf er ) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Envir o nment al 13 Issues √ √ √ √ √ √ Envir o nment al 14 Issues √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Tr ib al Rig ht s / 10 Claims √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Other ? Ef f luent Other Potential Inf rastructure Needs to Develop and Deliver Additional Water Supplies (For New Construction or Expansion, Upgrade, or Replacement of Existing Inf rastructure) 15 Wat er Tr eat ment Plant s √ Surface Water Dams, Diver sio n Wo r ks, Canals, Wells & Pip elines √ √ √ √ √ √ Groundw ater √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ WWTPs & Lif t St at io ns Wat er Tr eat ment Plant s o r Disinf ect io n Syst ems √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Wells & Pip elines √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ ? √ √ ? √ ? √ ? √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ ? √ √ ? √ ? √ ? √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ Dams, Diver sio n Wo r ks, Canals, Wells & Pip elines √ Wat er Tr eat ment Plant s √ √ √ WWTPs Ef f luent ? Other √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? Wat er Tr eat ment Plant s o r Disinf ect io n Syst ems √ √ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Other Wells & Pip elines √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Ef f luent ? √ √ √ Surf ace Water Envir o nment al 14 Issues ? √ √ Groundw ater Tr ib al Rig ht s / 10 Claims √ ? √ √ Potential Inf rastructure Needs to Develop and Deliver Additional Water Supplies (For New Construction or Expansion, Upgrade, or Replacement of Existing Inf rastructure) 15 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? ? ? ? ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ ? ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ So me St at e Co mp let e o r Leg al Limit s Par t ial or Rest r ict io ns Physical Rest r ict io ns On A vailab ilit y SW- WQ o n Well Imp o r t / Exp o r t / Ext r a SW Issues Lo cat io ns 12 Of St o r ag e and / o r GW Gr o und wat er Wit hd r awals Exist 11 Exist Surf ace Water Potential Physical, Technical and Legal Issues Related to Acquiring, Developing and Delivering Additional Water Supplies to Of f set Projected Unmet Demand 1 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Envir o nment al 9 Issues Groundw ater Cur r ent GW/ SW Co nnect io n ( h=hist o r ic co nnect io n, may no t cur r ent ly 8 exist ) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ (h) √ √ (?) √ (h) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Surf ace Water Potential Physical, Technical and Legal Issues Related to Acquiring, Developing and Delivering Additional Water Supplies to Of f set Projected Unmet Demand 1 Groundw ater Envir o nment al 13 Issues Tr ib al Rig ht s / 10 Claims Wat er Rig ht s ( A cq uir e o r Tr ansf er ) Envir o nment al 9 Issues √ √ 4 √ √ √ Cur r ent GW/ SW Co nnect io n ( h=hist o r ic co nnect io n, may no t cur r ent ly 8 exist ) √ Cur r ent o r Near - Ter m Land Sub sid ence Co ncer ns In So me A r eas √ CA P √ CR √ Surf ace Water 3 Inst at e √ 5 Potential Sources of Additional Water Supplies Suf f icient to Of f set a Portion of Projected Unmet Demand Co nser vat io n Wit hin B asin o r 2 AM A Cur r ent o r Near Ter m GW- WQ Issues M ay Limit So me Uses in So me A r eas √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Potential Additional Water Supplies, Technical and Legal Issues and Potential Infrastructure Needs Necessary to Develop and Deliver Additional Supplies to Fully or Partially Offset Projected Unment Demands in 2110 Area Split -67372 -141 11681 -357 3 -1270 -741 -887 -6162 -640 -1408 -94193 -81 -13343 -16995 -2062 72 -41070 -19452 -1942 -31359 -106 -31922 -53127 -34697 -911 -163 -1644 831 -851 -1305 -11940 342 -34696 -29200 960 -122 -10456 -510,003 Ins t at e Supply - H igh D emand (P ro jec t ed Unmet D emand) Ins t at e Supply - Lo w D emand -71872 -134 11796 -342 3 -994 -540 -831 -5498 -576 -1364 -82757 -77 -12422 -538 -1932 75 -5011 -12630 -1856 -28984 -97 -23873 -30588 -17951 -887 -154 -1505 2084 -818 -1283 -11167 425 -22991 -23465 969 -117 -5421 -368,097 (P ro jec t ed Unmet D emand) -H igh D emands Ins t at e +Sho rt age D iv ers io ns o f C R Supply -Lo w D emands Decr easing A q uif er St o r ag e o r A q uif er Het er o g enit y M ay Limit A ct ual Well Pr o d uct io n In So me A r eas √ √ √ √ So me St at e Co mp let e o r Leg al Limit s Par t ial or Physical Rest r ict io ns Rest r ict io ns A vailab ilit y SW- WQ On o n Well Imp o r t / Exp o r t / Ext r a SW Issues Lo cat io ns 12 St o r ag e Of and / o r GW Gr o und wat er Wit hd r awals Exist 11 Exist √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? ? ? √ √ ? ? ? √ √ √ ? √ √ √ ? √ √ √ ? √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ ? ? ? ? ? ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 58 Table 21. Potential Additional Water Supplies, Technical and Legal Issues and Potential Infrastructure Needs Necessary to Develop and Deliver Additional Supplies to Fully or Partially Offset projected Unmet Demands in 2110 (AS) 2110 Area Split Note! Basins Highlighted in Light Blue had Insignif icant or No Projected Unmet Demand in Basin AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HUALAPAI VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA Instate Water Supplies Only PEACH SPRINGS PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX Instate Subtotals (Non-Highlighted Basins Only) 21 1 0 Supply - D emand -H igh D emands Ins t at e +N o rmal D iv ers io ns o f C R Supply -Lo w D emands B asin o r AM A Cur r ent ly A llo wed So me GW Imp o r t s Fr o m Ot her Leg ally Sp ecif ied B asins ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ -179947 √ √ √ -100044 √ √ -179947 ? √ √ -100044 BILL WILLIAMS LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ -37209 √ √ -17176 √ -37019 √ √ -16986 √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ -641 √ -5005 √ -26895 √ -596 ? -4832 ? -25415 ? -641 √ -4985 √ -16413 √ -596 √ -4812 √ -14933 √ DETRITAL VALLEY ? ? √ √ √ LAKE HAVASU √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? ? ? √ √ √ √ ? √ √ ? √ √ ? 35425 √ -54565 -51531 √ 35425 -33567 44014 -16224 √ -43051 -51324 44014 -12443 √ 35425 -6635 √ -34211 -33360 45226 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ? ? ? ? ? √ √ √ √ √ ? √ √ √ √ √ 35425 -2854 ? ? -22697 45226 √ √ √ Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) PARKER √ LOWER GILA Parker (Tribal Ag) 10963 ? √ √ √ -13839 √ √ √ √ -8654 -76985 -1933785 -398849 -183279 10963 -2,978,753 10963 -76464 -1804459 -364018 -172262 -3,488,756 -10733 -76985 -1741968 -348653 -151692 -3,1 72,983 -2,662,979 -5548 -2,661 ,205 10963 -76464 -1612642 -313822 -140674 -3,029,301 YUMA -2,345,431 Yuma (Tribal Ag) HARQUAHALA INA PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA TUCSON AMA -2,71 3,528 √ √ √ LAKE MOHAVE √ KANAB PLATEAU BASIN NAME 2110 Area Split Note! Basins Highlighted in Light Blue had Insignif icant or No Projected Unmet Demand in Basins Which Receive Part of their Supply f rom the Colorado River or CAP Instate + CR Upper Instate + CR Low er Mainstem16,17 Instate + CAP Colorado River + CAP Basin Subtotals (Non-Highlighted basins Only) Statew ide Total (Non-Highlighted Basins Only) 1 Please see WRDC Supply & Demand Committee Report - (Unmet Demand Analysis) - f or more details on this analysis. Also, please note Cost is regarded as an underlying issue in the development of any additional w ater supplies to of f set projected Unmet Demands. Basins w ith Blank = Baseline GW Supply not estimated to be sustainable over Projection Period (ie, 2035, 2060, 2110). Basins w ith uncertain 100 Year Baseline GW sustainability = ?. Mainstem Colorado River basins also received ? due to potential Accounting Surf ace restrictions. 2 Potential additional groundw ater supply identif ied by √ (checkmark) if basin's Baseline GW Consumption w as estimated to be sustainable f or at least 100 years as per analysis show n in Basin Characteristic Worksheet. 3 Potential additional Instate Surf ace Water Supply identif ied f or basins having perennial Instate streams w ithin basin as per Basin Characteristic Worksheet. Gila Bend identif ied because it receives surf ace w ater f rom a diversion on the Gila Riverat basin boundary. Actual development of any such supplies subject to all potential issues and limitations listed. 4 Potential additional Colorado River Supply identif ied f or basins having reachs of Colorado River bordering or w ithin basin as Per Basin Characteristic Worksheet. Actual development of supplies is unlikely unless the f low of the Colorado River is augmented. Development is unlikely f or the Hualapai Valley due to engineering reports, others subject to all potential issues and limitations listed. 5 Potential additional CAP supply identif ied f or basins currently receiving CAP. Actual development of any such supplies subject to all potential issues and limitations listed. 6 Potential additional ef f luent supply identif ied f or basins currently producing more ef f luent than used in 2006, and/or f or basins w ith signif icant additional projected municipal grow th that w ill likely be served by providers that w ill also have municipal sew er and w aste w ater treatment systems. 7 Potential other supplies include, but are not limited to: currently underdeveloped poor quality groundw ater, ag and mine drainage w ater, w ater harvesting, ocean desalination, w eather modif cation, etc. 8 Current GW/SW connection analysis as per Basin Characteristic Worksheet. 9 Basins having current GW/SW connections identif ied received a √ (checkmark) f or potential impacts to surf ace w ater that could also have environmental impacts. 10 Basins having Tribal lands identif ied in Basin Characteristic Spreadsheet received a √ (checkmark) if potential additional GW or surf ace w ater supplies w ere also identif ied f or basin. 11 Basins identif ied w ith √ (checkmark) have some type of legal restriction or limitation on w ell locations and/or groundw ater w ithdraw als. 12 Basins identif ied as having potential additional Instate surf ace w ater or Colorado River supplies received a √ (checkmark). 13 Basins identif ied as having potential additional surf ace w ater supplies that could be developed or transf erred received a √ (checkmark) f or potential environmental impacts. 14 Basins identif ied as having potential ef f luent resources to use w ere identif ied w ith a √ (checkmark) f or potential environmental issues associated w ith its use. Wastew ater discharged to w atercourses may support w ater dependent natural resources. For additional inf ormation ref er to the Environmental Conditions Basin tables. 15 Potential inf rastucture needs checked f or any basin having a particular potential source of supply available, regardless of potential volume(s) available or other practical, technical, legal or economic f actors that may impact actual development and use of the potential supplies. 16 Any positive Unmet Demands f or Colorado River mainstem basins represent w ater that could be used bY CAP or other Arizona Colorado River w ater users 17 Any positive Unmet Demand For Colorado River tribal agriculture is reserved f or tribal uses. CR = Mainstem Colorado River Water CAP = Central Arizona Project Instate SW = Other Surf ace Water Ef f luent = reclaimed w ater Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission CONCLUSIONS The WS&D Working Group was asked to identify whether current water supplies exist to meet projected demands by county and groundwater basin for 2035, 2060 and 2110 for agriculture, municipal, and industrial needs. Additionally, the WS&D Working Group was to evaluate future water supply options for potential impacts on and risks to water-dependent natural resources. It is impossible to look at the State of Arizona’s water situation without considering the tribal water settlements. Data from the Arizona Water Atlas was utilized for baseline information to develop this report. While the Atlas did consider tribal water demands, in some cases, the information was based on estimates due to the availability of information. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona and the Navajo Department of Water Resources participated in the Working Group and provided the report titled The Future of Water Resources in Arizona: A Tribal Report. The report is included in Appendix 6. The water rights and entitlements identified in the report must be considered along with the projections made by the WS&D Working Group and in analyzing future water demands in the State. Review of the data for 2035 (statewide) reveals a minimum of 968,000 acre-feet to a maximum of 1,567,000 acre-feet of water may be needed to meet the projected demands for some basins. In the best case scenario, when low demand and normal supply occurs, nine basins may have a need for an excess of 10,000 acre-feet, three basins an excess of 50,000 acre-feet and two basins in excess of 100,000 acre-feet of water. If high demand and shortage supplies occur, the number of basins that may have a need for an excess of 10,000 acrefeet grows to seventeen and an excess of 50,000 acre-feet grows to four. To put this in perspective, Flagstaff currently uses 8,000 to 10,000 acre-feet of water in one year. Thirteen basins are projected to have unmet demands of 30% of greater. Looking at the data for 2060, a minimum of 1,505,000 acre-feet and a maximum of 2,061,000 acre-feet of water needed for some basins. In the best case scenario, when low demand and normal supply occurs, twelve basins will have a need for an excess of 10,000 acre-feet, four basins an excess of 50,000 acre-feet and two basins in excess of 100,000 acre-feet of water. If high demand and shortage supplies occur, the number of basins that will have a need for an excess of 10,000 acre-feet grows to twenty and basins with a need in excess of 50,000 acre-feet grows to six. The number of basins needing an excess of 100,000 acre-feet increases to three. Sixteen basins are projected to have unmet demands of 30% or greater. Data for 2110 (census split method) shows a statewide need of from 2,784,000 to 3,577,000 acre-feet of water. In the best case scenario, when low demand and normal supply occurs, eighteen basins will have a need for an excess of 10,000 acre-feet, six basins an excess of 50,000 acre-feet and four basins in excess of 100,000 acrefeet of water. If high demand and shortage supplies occur, the number of basins that will have a need for an excess of 10,000 acre-feet grows to twenty-three and basins with a need in excess of 50,000 acre-feet grows to eight. The number of basins needing an excess of 100,000 acre-feet remains at four. Twenty-eight basins are projected to have unmet demands of 30% or greater. The 2110 data for the area split method shows a statewide need of from 2,714,000 acre-feet to 3,489,000 acrefeet of water. In the best case scenario, when low demand and normal supply occurs, twenty basins will have a need for an excess of 10,000 acre-feet, seven basins an excess of 50,000 acre-feet and four basins in excess of 100,000 acre-feet of water. If high demand and shortage supplies occur, the number of basins that will have a need for an excess of 10,000 acre-feet grows to twenty-five and basins with a need in excess of 50,000 acre-feet grows to ten. The number of basins needing an excess of 100,000 acre-feet remains at four. Important to note is that the projected needs do not take into account additional water resources that can be developed. The projected water needs are based on currently developed/entitled supplies. A combination of groundwater development, reuse of effluent, and conservation strategies are identified as having potential for further development to help meet future demands. Use of surface water, a renewable resource, is a potential Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 59 Water Resources Development Commission source of supply when transfer of entitlements can occur. Conservation is currently widely used across the State with varying results, depending on the requirements in place and strategy of the water provider. For conservation alone to meet the State’s water needs for 2060, consumption would need to be reduced by approximately 14% for the low demand scenario and 17% for the high demand scenario across all sectors. This assumes normal supplies are available. Reuse of effluent from wastewater treatment plants is also currently utilized by many water providers to offset demands. Often, the cost of infrastructure to increase the level of treatment and deliver the reclaimed water acts as a barrier for additional reuse. Public perception of the use of treated effluent will also have to be improved before some indirect or any direct reuse projects can be developed. Current environmental use of effluent also needs to be considered when identifying how much impact additional reuse can have on meeting projected demands. In some basins, augmentation of surface water entitlements and additional groundwater development hold the most promise for meeting future needs other than a major desalination project. These projects face technical and, in some cases, legal obstacles as well as being very expensive. Figures 15 through 18. Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2035-2110 Projected Demands show maps of the Arizona counties and their associated groundwater basins. RECOMMENDATIONS The compilation and projection of water supply and demand data is only one part of the overall task of assessing and preparing for Arizona’s future water needs. It will be important to continue to improve and refine estimates and plans on a more detailed local or sub-regional basis before significant decisions regarding the development of future additional water supplies occurs. The following recommendations are provided to support and promote sound water management policies and the analysis of the state’s future water needs: 60 • Continue to support and promote water conservation at all levels and in all areas of the state. The potential for water conservation to reduce future water demand was not addressed in this analysis and should be evaluated and taken into account in further analysis of future water demand and supply needs. • Continue to support the use and development of renewable water supplies when available and practical • Continue to collect and analyze water consumption data, throughout the state, added efforts are needed with respect to rural areas and on Tribal lands, with the cooperation of Tribal governments involved. • Continue to collect and analyze hydrogeologic data to better estimate basin and local area recharge, groundwater storage, water level change trends and other basin characteristics and water budget components. • Using GIS and other methods, begin a process to analyze basin-level supply and demand data, and hydrogeologic data at the county-level or other planning area levels of analysis. • Continue to support research on potential impacts of climate change on future water supplies and demands. • Integrate the most recent census data into future population projections and water demand analyses. • Compile and evaluate weather modification data for the state and for the Colorado River basin area in general. Potentially support efforts, even if conducted out of state, that may significantly enhance Colorado River Basin precipitation and runoff. • The Commission create and support a continuing Departmental effort to refine, update, expand and use Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission the information generated by all the working groups. Work is still needed to fill data gaps and enhance analytical methodologies, to evaluate future water supply alternatives for each of Arizona’s counties and groundwater basins, and to further analyze and address the associated technical and legal issues associated with those alternatives. • The potential for Colorado River shortages beyond the “first-tier” shortage have not been addressed in this analysis. Drought and shortage should be taken further into account by further analysis. • Continue to support needed research and data collection and develop methods to incorporate consideration of water supplies that support water-dependent natural resources and environmental issues into the analysis of water supply needs and alternatives. Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 61 Figure 15. Currently Developed and Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2035 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 62 Figure 16. Currently Developed and Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2060 Projected Demands Colorado City VIRGIN RIVER +98 to +53 PARIA -11,222 to -16,147 Page Kayenta KANAB PLATEAU -1,968 to -2,077 -1,988 to -2,097 GRAND WASH +2 SHIVWITS PLATEAU -1 Grand Canyon Village MEADVIEW -167 to -181 DETRITAL VALLEY -156 to -180 Window Rock MOHA VE HUALAPAI VALLEY COU NT Y -7,615 to -8,390 PEACH SPRINGS -465 to -491 Peach Springs LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU -58,059 to -115,484 NA VAJ O COU NT Y LAKE MOHAVE -6,852 to -15,115 -27,207 to -35,470 Bullhead City Flagstaff BIG SANDY +14,393 to +14,370 Winslow PRESCOTT AMA -18,323 to -20,143 Prescott BILL WILLIAMS -9,975 to -30,029 -10,164 to -30,219 UPPER HASSAYAMPA -2,799 to -2,983 Saint Johns Springerville TONTO CREEK -4,456 to -4,836 BUTLER VALLEY +3 MCMULLEN VALLEY -720 to -785 TIGER WASH LA P AZ +2 Quartzsite COU NT Y RANEGRAS PLAIN -138 to -148 HARQUAHALA INA PARKER -71,338 to -71,766 +2,225 to -662 -7,364 to -10,251 SALT RIVER -14,127 to -30,610 GIL A COU NT Y PHOENIX AMA -939,806 to -939,993 -1,131,623 to -1,131,810 Phoenix Globe MORENCI -3,691 to -39,729 MA R IC OP A COU NT Y Gila Bend Yuma Tribal Ag +10,963 YUMA +30,725 to +27,035 +27,620 to +23,929 Show Low Payson AGUA FRIA -1,739 to -1,879 GILA BEND -44,495 to -54,593 LOWER GILA -6,471 to -25,201 -6,679 to -25,408 PI N AL COU NT Y BONITA CREEK -6 DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH -6 to -8 Florence DONNELLY WASH +19 Casa Grande GRA HA M COU NT Y ARAVAIPA CANYON -50 to -51 PINAL AMA -234,719 to -258,352 -284,915 to -308,548 Safford SAFFORD -27,065 to -49,457 GRE E NL E E COU NT Y Clifton DUNCAN VALLEY -1,047 to -1,076 LOWER SAN PEDRO +2,167 to -13,927 Tucson TUCSON AMA -30,606 to -40,141 -62,193 to -71,729 WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE -2 to -2 PI M A COU NT Y WILLCOX -3,094 to -6,736 COCH ISE COU NT Y SAN SIMON WASH -540 to -633 CIENEGA CREEK -767 to -1,031 UPPER SAN PEDRO -11,398 to -22,425 SANTA CRUZ AMA SAN T A C R UZ +8,371 to +7,761 COU NT Y SAN RAFAEL Nogales -8 to -10 Sierra Vista Bisbee DOUGLAS -2,591 to -3,147 SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY -8 to -9 Douglas ¯ 0 25 50 75 100 Miles Basin/AMA or Tribal Ag Area Name Legend City, Town or Place PINAL AMA -234,719 to -258,352 -284,915 to 308,548 ADWR Groundwater Basin Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2060 County Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\Figures\Basins_Counties_SvsD2060.mxd Low to High (if applicable) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply - 2035 Projected Demand (Normal Year) Low to High (if applicable) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply - 2035 Projected Demand (Shortage Year, if applicable) Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2060 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 YA VA PA I COU NT Y Parker YU MA COU NT Y Holbrook Sedona VERDE RIVER -9,866 to -14,155 Cottonwood Lake Havasu City LAKE HAVASU +344 to -829 -10,138 to -11,311 Parker Tribal Ag +45,226 +44,014 AP A CHE COU NT Y Williams Kingman Lake Mohave Tribal Ag +35,425 SACRAMENTO VALLEY -18,931 to -25,732 Yuma Kykotsmovi COCONINO PLATEAU +605 to +480 COCO NI NO COU NT Y 63 Figure 17. Currently Developed and Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (CS) Projected Demands Colorado City VIRGIN RIVER -312 to -374 PARIA -12,781 to -19,608 Page Kayenta KANAB PLATEAU -3,854 to -4,006 -3,874 to -4,025 GRAND WASH +2 SHIVWITS PLATEAU -2 Grand Canyon Village MEADVIEW -286 to -306 DETRITAL VALLEY -352 to -385 Kykotsmovi COCONINO PLATEAU -128 to -302 COCO NI NO COU NT Y Window Rock MOHA VE HUALAPAI VALLEY COU NT Y -14,703 to -15,694 PEACH SPRINGS -700 to -737 Peach Springs LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU -100,433 to -180,359 NA VAJ O COU NT Y LAKE MOHAVE -26,447 to -38,110 -46,801 to -58,464 Bullhead City Williams Kingman Lake Mohave Tribal Ag +35,425 SACRAMENTO VALLEY -23,396 to -31,429 Flagstaff BIG SANDY +14,149 to +14,118 Winslow Holbrook YA VA PA I COU NT Y PRESCOTT AMA -34,298 to -37,024 Prescott BILL WILLIAMS -10,705 to -30,782 -10,895 to -30,972 Parker UPPER HASSAYAMPA -5,056 to -5,311 Saint Johns Springerville TONTO CREEK -7,270 to -7,715 BUTLER VALLEY +3 MCMULLEN VALLEY -1,152 to -1,240 SALT RIVER -16,311 to -32,980 TIGER WASH LA P AZ +2 Quartzsite COU NT Y RANEGRAS PLAIN -253 to -265 HARQUAHALA INA -72,196 to -72,775 PARKER GIL A COU NT Y -3,183 to -6,973 -12,772 to -16,562 PHOENIX AMA -1,795,524 to -1,935,397 -1,987,341 to -2,127,214 Phoenix Globe MORENCI -4,611 to -40,664 MA R IC OP A COU NT Y Gila Bend Yuma YU MA COU NT Y Yuma Tribal Ag +10,963 YUMA -6,257 to -11,465 -9,362 to -14,571 Show Low Payson AGUA FRIA -3,106 to -3,299 PI N AL COU NT Y GILA BEND -58,605 to -72,576 LOWER GILA -18,483 to -37,463 -18,691 to -37,670 BONITA CREEK -8 DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH -13 to -16 Florence DONNELLY WASH -831 Casa Grande GRA HA M COU NT Y ARAVAIPA CANYON -56 to -57 PINAL AMA -315,691 to -348,525 -365,887 to -398,721 Safford SAFFORD -30,648 to -53,190 GRE E NL E E COU NT Y Clifton DUNCAN VALLEY -1,298 to -1,339 LOWER SAN PEDRO +285 to -15,895 Tucson PI M A COU NT Y WILLCOX -5,867 to -10,915 TUCSON AMA -141,162 to -152,509 -172,749 to -184,097 WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE -5 to -6 COCH ISE COU NT Y SAN SIMON WASH -1,282 to -1,411 CIENEGA CREEK -1,214 to -1,502 UPPER SAN PEDRO -23,565 to -35,316 SANTA CRUZ AMA SAN T A C R UZ +2,385 to +1,175 COU NT Y SAN RAFAEL Nogales -20 to -22 Sierra Vista Bisbee DOUGLAS -6,145 to -6,833 SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY -19 to -20 Douglas ¯ 0 25 50 75 100 Miles Basin/AMA or Tribal Ag Area Name Legend City, Town or Place LOWER GILA -18,483 to -37,463 -18,691 to -37,670 ADWR Groundwater Basin Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\Figures\Basins_Counties_SvsD2110Census.mxd Low to High (if applicable) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply - 2035 Projected Demand (Normal Year) Low to High (if applicable) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply - 2035 Projected Demand (Shortage Year, if applicable) Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Census) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 Sedona VERDE RIVER -21,754 to -27,243 Cottonwood Lake Havasu City LAKE HAVASU -15,296 to -16,785 -25,778 to -27,267 Parker Tribal Ag +45,226 44,014 AP A CHE COU NT Y 64 Figure 18. Currently Developed and Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (AS) Projected Demands Colorado City VIRGIN RIVER +969 to +960 PARIA -12,630 to -19,452 Page Kayenta KANAB PLATEAU -4,812 to -4,985 -4,832 to -5,005 GRAND WASH -77 SHIVWITS PLATEAU -818 Grand Canyon Village MEADVIEW +75 to +72 DETRITAL VALLEY -596 to -641 Kykotsmovi COCONINO PLATEAU -540 to -741 COCO NI NO COU NT Y Window Rock PEACH SPRINGS MOHA VE HUALAPAI VALLEY -1,856 to -1,942 COU NT Y -12,422 to -13,343 Peach Springs LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU -100,044 to -179,947 NA VAJ O COU NT Y LAKE MOHAVE -22,697 to -34,211 -43,051 to -54,565 Bullhead City Williams Kingman Lake Mohave Tribal Ag +35,425 SACRAMENTO VALLEY -23,873 to -31,922 Flagstaff BIG SANDY +11,796 to +11,681 Winslow Holbrook YA VA PA I COU NT Y PRESCOTT AMA -28,984 to -31,359 Prescott BILL WILLIAMS -16,986 to -37,019 -17,176 to -37,209 Saint Johns AGUA FRIA -71,872 to -67,372 Parker Springerville TONTO CREEK -11,167 to -11,940 BUTLER VALLEY +3 MCMULLEN VALLEY -1,932 to -2,062 SALT RIVER -17,951 to -34,697 TIGER WASH LA P AZ -1,283 Quartzsite COU NT Y RANEGRAS PLAIN -97 to -106 HARQUAHALA INA -76,464 to -76,985 PARKER GIL A COU NT Y -2,854 to -6,635 -12,443 to -16,224 PHOENIX AMA -1,612,642 to -1,741,968 -1,804,459 to -1,933,785 Phoenix Globe MORENCI -5,011 to -41,070 MA R IC OP A COU NT Y Gila Bend Yuma YU MA COU NT Y Yuma Tribal Ag +10,963 YUMA -5,548 to -10,733 -8,654 to -13,839 Show Low Payson UPPER HASSAYAMPA +425 to +342 PI N AL COU NT Y GILA BEND -82,757 to -94,193 LOWER GILA -33,360 to -51,324 -33,567 to -51,531 BONITA CREEK -342 DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH -576 to -640 Florence DONNELLY WASH -831 Casa Grande GRA HA M COU NT Y ARAVAIPA CANYON -134 to -141 PINAL AMA -313,822 to -348,653 -364,018 to -398,849 Safford SAFFORD -30,588 to -53,127 GRE E NL E E COU NT Y Clifton DUNCAN VALLEY -1,364 to -1,408 LOWER SAN PEDRO -538 to -16,995 Tucson PI M A COU NT Y WILLCOX -5,421 to -10,456 TUCSON AMA -140,674 to -151,692 -172,262 to -183,279 WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE -117 to -122 COCH ISE COU NT Y SAN SIMON WASH -1,505 to -1,644 CIENEGA CREEK -994 to -1,270 UPPER SAN PEDRO -22,991 to -34,696 SANTA CRUZ AMA SAN T A C R UZ +2,084 to +831 COU NT Y SAN RAFAEL Nogales -154 to -163 Sierra Vista Bisbee DOUGLAS -5,498 to -6,162 SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY -887 to -911 Douglas ¯ 0 25 50 75 100 Miles Basin/AMA or Tribal Ag Area Name Legend City, Town or Place YUMA -5,548 to 10,733 -8,654 to -13,839 ADWR Groundwater Basin Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County Low to High (if applicable) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply - 2035 Projected Demand (Normal Year) Low to High (if applicable) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply - 2035 Projected Demand (Shortage Year, if applicable) Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\Figures\Basins_Counties_SvsD2110AreaSplit.mxd Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Area Split) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply and Demand Working Group / August 2011 Sedona VERDE RIVER -23,465 to -29,200 Cottonwood Lake Havasu City LAKE HAVASU -14,933 to -16,413 -25,415 to -26,895 Parker Tribal Ag +45,226 +44,014 AP A CHE COU NT Y 65 Water Resources Development Commission LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 66 A/F Acre-Feet of water (325,851 gallons) Ag Agriculture Ag Sub Agriculture Subcommittee AMA Active Management Area ACC Arizona Corporation Commission ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources AS Area Split method of population projections CAM Central Arizona Model CAP Central Arizona Project CAWCD Central Arizona Water Conservation District CS Census Split method of population projections CWS Community Water System BLM Bureau of Land Management DWR Department of Water Resources FTP File Transfer Protocol GPCD Gallons Per Capita Per day gpm Gallons per minute H.B. House Bill ITCA Inter Tribal Council of Arizona MAF Million acre-feet UDA United Dairymen of Arizona US United States WRDC Water Resource Development Commission WS&D Water Supply and Demand Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission APPENDIX 1 COUNTY BASIN MAPS: CURRENTLY DEVELOPED & ADJUSTED SUPPLIES VS. PROJECTED DEMANDS Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 1 / August 2011 67 Water Resources Development Commission V U Page 389 163 £ ¤ MOHA VE COU NTY Kayenta V U 98 89 £ ¤ 160 £ ¤ Grand Canyon Village V U V U 64 264 Kykotsmovi COCO NI NO COU NTY V U 180 £ ¤ NA VAJ O COU NTY Williams § ¦ ¨ V U Holbrook 487 V U Cottonwood V U 99 179 89a £ ¤ YA VA PA I COU NTY Winslow 40 89a Sedona Prescott 77 87 V U 89 APA CHE COU NTY V U V U Flagstaff V U Window Rock 90 LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Baseline: 160,823 Low: 195,087 - 218,219= -23,132 (11%) High: 195,087 - 259,566= -64,479 (25%) 69 V U 17 V VU U V U 377 § ¦ ¨ 65 169 Saint Johns V U 277 V U 61 Show Low Payson Springerville 288 V U 74 V U V U Phoenix GIL A COU NTY V U 73 60 £ ¤ GRE E NL E E COU NTY 88 V U V U 143 Globe 191 £ ¤ V U MORENCI Baseline: 10,384 Low: 10,871 - 14,150= -3,279 (23%) High: 10,871 - 50,183= -39,312 (78%) 170 V U U V V U V U 347 260 188 101 MA R IC OPA COU NTY V U SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26,621 - 39,460= -12,838 (33%) High: 26,621 - 55,850= -29,229 (52%) V U PI N AL COU NTY 587 238 V U 79 70 £ ¤ V U GRA HA M COU NTY 177 Clifton Florence Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Apache County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2035 County State Boundary V U 78 387 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 10 30 40 50 Miles Apache County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2035 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\ApacheCo_2035.mxd 68 20 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission V U Page 389 163 £ ¤ MOHA VE COU NTY Kayenta V U 98 89 £ ¤ 160 £ ¤ Grand Canyon Village V U V U 64 264 Kykotsmovi COCO NI NO COU NTY 180 £ ¤ NA VAJ O COU NTY Williams V U 77 § ¦ ¨ Winslow 40 89a Sedona V U Holbrook 487 V U Cottonwood V U 99 179 89a £ ¤ YA VA PA I COU NTY APA CHE COU NTY V U 87 V U 89 Window Rock 90 V U Flagstaff Prescott V U LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Baseline: 160,823 Low: 191761.9 - 249820.840582= -58058.940582 (23%) High: 191761.9 - 307245.987007= -115484.087007 (38%) 69 V U 17 V VU U V U 377 § ¦ ¨ 65 169 Saint Johns V U 277 V U 61 Show Low Payson Springerville V U V U 260 288 V U 74 V U V U 188 101 MA R IC OPA COU NTY Phoenix 88 V U V U GIL A COU NTY V U 73 60 £ ¤ SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26020.8 - 40147.534494= -14126.734494 (35%) High: 26020.8 - 56630.38811= -30609.58811 (54%) 143 Globe V U 170 V U U V V U V U 347 PI N AL COU NTY 587 238 V U 79 70 £ ¤ V U 191 £ ¤ MORENCI Baseline: 10,384 Low: 10789.95 - 14480.571469= -3690.621469 (25%) High: 10789.95 - 50518.806854= -39728.856854 (79%) GRA HA M COU NTY 177 GRE E NL E E COU NTY Clifton Florence Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Apache County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2060 County State Boundary V U 78 387 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Apache County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2060 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\ApacheCo_2060.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 69 Water Resources Development Commission V U Page 389 163 £ ¤ MOHA VE COU NTY Kayenta V U 98 89 £ ¤ 160 £ ¤ Grand Canyon Village V U V U 64 264 Kykotsmovi COCO NI NO COU NTY V U 180 £ ¤ NA VAJ O COU NTY Williams § ¦ ¨ V U Holbrook 487 V U Cottonwood V U 99 179 89a £ ¤ YA VA PA I COU NTY Winslow 40 89a Sedona Prescott 77 87 V U 89 APA CHE COU NTY V U V U Flagstaff V U Window Rock 90 LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Baseline: 160,823 Low: 191,762 - 292,195= -100,433 (34%) High: 191,762 - 372,121= -180,359 (48%) 69 V U 17 V VU U V U 377 § ¦ ¨ 65 169 Saint Johns V U 277 V U 61 Show Low Payson Springerville 288 V U 74 V U V U Phoenix GIL A COU NTY V U 73 60 £ ¤ GRE E NL E E COU NTY 88 V U V U 143 Globe 191 £ ¤ V U MORENCI Baseline: 10,384 Low: 10,790 - 15,401= -4,611 (30%) High: 10,790 - 51,454= -40,664 (79%) 170 V U U V V U V U 347 260 188 101 MA R IC OPA COU NTY V U SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26,021 - 42,332= -16,311 (39%) High: 26,021 - 59,001= -32,980 (56%) V U PI N AL COU NTY 587 238 V U 79 70 £ ¤ V U GRA HA M COU NTY 177 Clifton Florence Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Apache County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary V U 78 387 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 10 30 40 50 Miles Apache County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Census) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\ApacheCo_2110CS.mxd 70 20 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission V U Page 389 163 £ ¤ MOHA VE COU NTY Kayenta V U 98 89 £ ¤ 160 £ ¤ Grand Canyon Village V U V U 64 264 Kykotsmovi COCO NI NO COU NTY V U 180 £ ¤ NA VAJ O COU NTY Williams § ¦ ¨ V U Holbrook 487 V U Cottonwood V U 99 179 89a £ ¤ YA VA PA I COU NTY Winslow 40 89a Sedona Prescott 77 87 V U 89 APA CHE COU NTY V U V U Flagstaff V U Window Rock 90 LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Baseline: 160,823 Low: 191,762 - 291,806= -100,044 (34%) High: 191,762 - 371,709= -179,947 (48%) 69 V U 17 V VU U V U 377 § ¦ ¨ 65 169 Saint Johns V U 277 V U 61 Show Low Payson Springerville 288 V U 74 V U V U Phoenix GIL A COU NTY V U 73 60 £ ¤ GRE E NL E E COU NTY 88 V U V U 143 Globe 191 £ ¤ V U MORENCI Baseline: 10,384 Low: 10,790 - 15,801= -5,011 (32%) High: 10,790 - 51,860= -41,070 (79%) 170 V U U V V U V U 347 260 188 101 MA R IC OPA COU NTY V U SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26,021 - 43,971= -17,951 (41%) High: 26,021 - 60,718= -34,697 (57%) V U PI N AL COU NTY 587 238 V U 79 70 £ ¤ V U GRA HA M COU NTY 177 Clifton Florence Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Apache County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary V U 78 387 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Apache County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Area Split) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\ApacheCo_2110AS.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 71 Water Resources Development Commission V U V U MA R IC OPA COU NTY APA CHE COU NTY NA VAJ O COU NTY 288 60 £ ¤ 188 V U GIL A COU NTY 88 191 £ ¤ Globe V U 170 GRE E NL E E COU NTY V U 70 £ ¤ 177 Clifton Florence V U 78 PI N AL COU NTY GRA HA M COU NTY DUNCAN VALLEY Baseline: 17,954 Low: 17,509 - 75 17,969= -460 (3%) High: 17,509 - 17,994= -486 (3%) V U Safford V U V U 79 SAFFORD Baseline: 177,558 Low: 161,032 - 183,181= -22,149 (12%) High: 161,032 - 205,523= -44,490 (22%) 77 LOWER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 24,622 Low: 25,169 - 20,948= +4,221 (None) High: 25,169 - 37,087= -11,918 (32%) Tucson V U 186 V U 86 PI M A COU NTY WILLCOX Baseline: 176,075 Low: 176,357 - 177,569= -1,213 (1%) High: 176,357 - 180,182= -3,825 (2%) § ¦ ¨ 10 V U 83 V U COCH ISE COU NTY V U 181 90 § ¦ ¨ 19 V U CIENEGA CREEK 82 Baseline: 1,101 Low: 1,201 - 1,755= -554 (32%) High: 1,201 - 2,007= -806 (40%) UPPER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 29,237 Low: 33,484 - 39,528= -6,044 (15%) High: 33,484 - 50,520= -17,036 (34%) DOUGLAS Baseline: 53,300 Low: 54,700 - 55,841= -1,141 (2%) 80 High: 54,700 - 56,344= -1,644 (3%) SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY Bisbee Baseline: 19 Low: 19 - 25= -6 (25%) High: 19 - 26= -7 (27%) Douglas V U Sierra Vista SAN TA C R UZ COU NTY SAN RAFAEL Baseline: 22 Nogales Low: 22 - 26= -4 (17%) High: 22 - 28= -6 (21%) Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Cochise County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2035 County State Boundary V U 92 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Cochise County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2035 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\CochiseCo_2035.mxd 72 10 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission V U V U MA R IC OPA COU NTY APA CHE COU NTY NA VAJ O COU NTY 288 60 £ ¤ 188 V U GIL A COU NTY 88 191 £ ¤ Globe V U 170 GRE E NL E E COU NTY V U 70 £ ¤ 177 Clifton Florence V U 78 PI N AL COU NTY GRA HA M COU NTY DUNCAN VALLEY Baseline: 17,954 Low: 17,014 - 18,060= -1,047 (6%) 75 High: 17,014 - 18,090= -1,076 (6%) V U Safford V U V U 79 SAFFORD Baseline: 177,558 Low: 157,323 - 184,388= -27,065 (15%) High: 157,323 - 206,780= -49,457 (24%) 77 LOWER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 24,622 Low: 25,127 - 22,961= +2,167 (None) High: 25,127 - 39,054= -13,927 (36%) Tucson V U 186 V U 86 PI M A COU NTY WILLCOX Baseline: 176,075 Low: 176,349 - 179,443= -3,094 (2%) High: 176,349 - 183,085= -6,736 (4%) § ¦ ¨ 10 V U 83 § ¦ ¨ 19 CIENEGA CREEK Baseline: 1,101 Low: 1,201 - 1,968= -767 (39%) High: 1,201 - 2,232= -1,031 (46%) 82 V U V U UPPER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 29,237 Low: 33,262 - 44,660= -11,398 (26%) High: 33,262 - 55,686= -22,425 (40%) DOUGLAS Baseline: 53,300 Low: 54,700 - 57,291= -2,591 (5%) 80 High: 54,700 - 57,847= -3,147 (5%) SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY Bisbee Baseline: 19 Low: 19 - 27= -8 (30%) High: 19 - 28= -9 (32%) Douglas V U SAN TA C R UZ COU NTY SAN RAFAEL Baseline: 22 Nogales Low: 22 - 30= -8 (28%) High: 22 - 32= -10 (31%) City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Cochise County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2060 County State Boundary 181 90 Sierra Vista Legend V U COCH ISE COU NTY V U 92 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Cochise County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2060 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\CochiseCo_2060.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 73 Water Resources Development Commission V U V U MA R IC OPA COU NTY APA CHE COU NTY NA VAJ O COU NTY 288 60 £ ¤ 188 V U GIL A COU NTY 88 191 £ ¤ Globe V U 170 GRE E NL E E COU NTY V U 70 £ ¤ 177 Clifton Florence V U 78 PI N AL COU NTY GRA HA M COU NTY DUNCAN VALLEY Baseline: 17,954 Low: 17,014 - 18,311= -1,298 (7%) 75 High: 17,014 - 18,352= -1,339 (7%) V U Safford V U V U 79 SAFFORD Baseline: 177,558 Low: 157,323 - 187,971= -30,648 (16%) High: 157,323 - 210,513= -53,190 (25%) 77 LOWER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 24,622 Low: 25,127 - 24,843= +285 (None) High: 25,127 - 41,023= -15,895 (39%) Tucson V U 186 V U 86 PI M A COU NTY WILLCOX Baseline: 176,075 Low: 176,349 - 182,216= -5,867 (3%) High: 176,349 - 187,264= -10,915 (6%) § ¦ ¨ 10 V U 83 § ¦ ¨ 19 CIENEGA CREEK Baseline: 1,101 Low: 1,201 - 2,415= -1,214 (50%) High: 1,201 - 2,703= -1,502 (56%) 82 V U V U UPPER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 29,237 Low: 33,262 - 56,827= -23,565 (41%) High: 33,262 - 68,577= -35,316 (51%) DOUGLAS Baseline: 53,300 Low: 54,700 - 60,845= -6,145 (10%) 80 High: 54,700 - 61,533= -6,833 (11%) SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY Bisbee Baseline: 19 Low: 19 - 38= -19 (49%) High: 19 - 39= -20 (51%) Douglas V U SAN TA C R UZ COU NTY SAN RAFAEL Baseline: 22 Nogales Low: 22 - 42= -20 (48%) High: 22 - 44= -22 (50%) City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Cochise County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary 181 90 Sierra Vista Legend V U COCH ISE COU NTY V U 92 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Cochise County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Census) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\CochiseCo_2110cs.mxd 74 10 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission V U V U MA R IC OPA COU NTY APA CHE COU NTY NA VAJ O COU NTY 288 60 £ ¤ 188 V U GIL A COU NTY 88 191 £ ¤ Globe V U 170 GRE E NL E E COU NTY V U 70 £ ¤ 177 Clifton Florence V U 78 PI N AL COU NTY GRA HA M COU NTY DUNCAN VALLEY Baseline: 17,954 Low: 17,014 - 18,377= -1,364 (7%) 75 High: 17,014 - 18,421= -1,408 (8%) V U Safford V U V U 79 SAFFORD Baseline: 177,558 Low: 157,323 - 187,911= -30,588 (16%) High: 157,323 - 210,451= -53,127 (25%) 77 LOWER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 24,622 Low: 25,127 - 25,666= -538 (2%) High: 25,127 - 42,123= -16,995 (40%) Tucson V U 186 V U 86 PI M A COU NTY WILLCOX Baseline: 176,075 Low: 176,349 - 181,770= -5,421 (3%) High: 176,349 - 186,805= -10,456 (6%) § ¦ ¨ 10 V U 83 § ¦ ¨ 19 CIENEGA CREEK Baseline: 1,101 Low: 1,201 - 2,195= -994 (45%) High: 1,201 - 2,471= -1,270 (51%) 82 V U V U UPPER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 29,237 Low: 33,262 - 56,252= -22,991 (41%) High: 33,262 - 67,957= -34,696 (51%) DOUGLAS Baseline: 53,300 Low: 54,700 - 60,198= -5,498 (9%) 80 High: 54,700 - 60,862= -6,162 (10%) SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY Bisbee Baseline: 19 Low: 19 - 906= -887 (98%) High: 19 - 930= -911 (98%) Douglas V U SAN TA C R UZ COU NTY SAN RAFAEL Baseline: 22 Nogales Low: 22 - 176= -154 (88%) High: 22 - 185= -163 (88%) City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Cochise County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary 181 90 Sierra Vista Legend V U COCH ISE COU NTY V U 92 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Cochise County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Area Split) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\CochiseCo_2110as.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 75 Water Resources Development Commission Colorado City § ¦ ¨ 15 PARIA Baseline: 120 Low: 120 - 9,483= -9,363 (99%) High: 120 - 12,988= -12,868 (99%) V U 389 163 £ ¤ Kayenta KANAB PLATEAU Baseline: 3,627 Normal Low: 4,129 - 5,075= -946 (19%) High: 4,129 - 5,163= -1,033 (20%) Shortage Low: 4,109 - 5,075= -966 (19%) High: 4,109 - 5,163= -1,053 (20%) MOHA VE COU NT Y Page V U 98 89 £ ¤ 160 £ ¤ Grand Canyon Village V U V U 64 264 COCONINO PLATEAU Baseline: 1,173 Low: 2,540 - 1,596= +944 (None) High: 2,540 - 1,701= +840 (None) COCO NI NO COU NT Y PEACH SPRINGS Baseline: 351 Low: 451 - 810= -359 (44%) Peach Springs High: 451 - 832= -381 (46%) Kykotsmovi LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Baseline: 160,823 Low: 195,087 - 218,219= -23,132 (11%) High: 195,087 - 259,566= -64,479 (25%) 180 £ ¤ Williams § ¦ ¨ 40 NA VAJ O COU NT Y V U 87 Flagstaff V U Winslow 89a VERDE RIVER Baseline: 44,527 Low: 50,418 - 53,750= -3,332 (6%) High: 50,418 - 58,275= -7,857 (13%) Sedona V U 487 Cottonwood V U 179 89a £ ¤ YA VA PA I COU NT Y Prescott 93 £ ¤ 377 V U 17 V V U U 69 V U § ¦ ¨ 65 169 V U V U 260 V U 277 89 GIL A COU NT Y LA P AZ COU NT Y V U 71 MA R IC OP A COU NT Y Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Coconino County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2035 County State Boundary PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Payson V U TONTO CREEK 288 Baseline: 4,200 SALT RIVER Low: 4,450 - 7,418= -2,968 (40%) Baseline: 27,204 High: 4,450 - 7,765= -3,315 (43%) Low: 26,621 - 39,460= -12,838 (33%) High: 26,621 - 55,850= -29,229 (52%) Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Coconino County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2035 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\CoconinoCo_2035.mxd 76 10 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Colorado City § ¦ ¨ 15 PARIA Baseline: 120 Low: 120 - 11,342= -11,222 (99%) High: 120 - 16,267= -16,147 (99%) V U 389 163 £ ¤ Kayenta KANAB PLATEAU Baseline: 3,627 Normal Low: 4,089 - 6,057= -1,968 (32%) High: 4,089 - 6,166= -2,077 (34%) Shortage Low: 4,069 - 6,057= -1,988 (33%) High: 4,069 - 6,166= -2,097 (34%) MOHA VE COU NT Y Page V U 98 89 £ ¤ 160 £ ¤ Grand Canyon Village V U V U 64 264 COCONINO PLATEAU Baseline: 1,173 Low: 2,523 - 1,917= +605 (None) High: 2,523 - 2,043= +480 (None) COCO NI NO COU NT Y PEACH SPRINGS Baseline: 351 Low: 451 - 916= -465 (51%) Peach Springs High: 451 - 942= -491 (52%) Kykotsmovi LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Baseline: 160,823 Low: 191,762 - 249,821= -58,059 (23%) High: 191,762 - 307,246= -115,484 (38%) 180 £ ¤ Williams § ¦ ¨ 40 NA VAJ O COU NT Y V U 87 Flagstaff V U Winslow 89a VERDE RIVER Baseline: 44,527 Sedona Low: 49,593 - 59,459= -9,866 (17%) High: 49,593 - 63,748= -14,155 (22%) V U 487 Cottonwood V U 179 89a £ ¤ YA VA PA I COU NT Y Prescott 93 £ ¤ 377 V U 17 V V U U 69 V U § ¦ ¨ 65 169 V U V U 260 V U 277 89 GIL A COU NT Y LA P AZ COU NT Y V U 71 MA R IC OP A COU NT Y Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Coconino County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2060 County State Boundary PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Payson V U TONTO CREEK 288 Baseline: 4,200 SALT RIVER Low: 4,400 - 8,856= -4,456 (50%) Baseline: 27,204 High: 4,400 - 9,236= -4,836 (52%) Low: 26,021 - 40,148= -14,127 (35%) High: 26,021 - 56,630= -30,610 (54%) Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Coconino County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2060 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\CoconinoCo_2060.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 77 Water Resources Development Commission Colorado City § ¦ ¨ 15 PARIA Baseline: 120 Low: 120 - 12,901= -12,781 (99%) High: 120 - 19,728= -19,608 (99%) V U 389 163 £ ¤ Kayenta KANAB PLATEAU Baseline: 3,627 Normal Low: 4,089 - 7,943= -3,854 (49%) High: 4,089 - 8,095= -4,006 (49%) Shortage Low: 4,069 - 7,943= -3,874 (49%) High: 4,069 - 8,095= -4,025 (50%) MOHA VE COU NT Y Page V U 98 89 £ ¤ 160 £ ¤ Grand Canyon Village V U V U 64 264 COCONINO PLATEAU Baseline: 1,173 Low: 2,523 - 2,651= -128 (5%) High: 2,523 - 2,824= -302 (11%) COCO NI NO COU NT Y PEACH SPRINGS Baseline: 351 Low: 451 - 1,151= -700 (61%) Peach Springs High: 451 - 1,188= -737 (62%) Kykotsmovi LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Baseline: 160,823 Low: 191,762 - 292,195= -100,433 (34%) High: 191,762 - 372,121= -180,359 (48%) 180 £ ¤ Williams § ¦ ¨ 40 NA VAJ O COU NT Y V U 87 Flagstaff V U Winslow 89a VERDE RIVER Baseline: 44,527 Sedona Low: 49,593 - 71,347= -21,754 (30%) High: 49,593 - 76,836= -27,243 (35%) V U 487 Cottonwood V U 179 89a £ ¤ YA VA PA I COU NT Y Prescott 93 £ ¤ 377 V U 17 V V U U 69 V U § ¦ ¨ 65 169 V U V U 260 V U 277 89 GIL A COU NT Y LA P AZ COU NT Y V U 71 MA R IC OP A COU NT Y Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Coconino County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Payson V U TONTO CREEK 288 Baseline: 4,200 SALT RIVER Low: 4,400 - 11,670= -7,270 (62%) Baseline: 27,204 High: 4,400 - 12,115= -7,715 (64%) Low: 26,021 - 42,332= -16,311 (39%) High: 26,021 - 59,001= -32,980 (56%) Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Coconino County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Census) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\CoconinoCo_2110cs.mxd 78 10 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Colorado City § ¦ ¨ 15 PARIA Baseline: 120 Low: 120 - 12,750= -12,630 (99%) High: 120 - 19,572= -19,452 (99%) V U 389 163 £ ¤ Kayenta KANAB PLATEAU Baseline: 3,627 Normal Low: 4,089 - 8,901= -4,812 (54%) High: 4,089 - 9,074= -4,985 (55%) Shortage Low: 4,069 - 8,901= -4,832 (54%) High: 4,069 - 9,074= -5,005 (55%) MOHA VE COU NT Y Page V U 98 89 £ ¤ 160 £ ¤ Grand Canyon Village V U V U 64 264 COCONINO PLATEAU Baseline: 1,173 Low: 2,523 - 3,063= -540 (18%) High: 2,523 - 3,264= -741 (23%) COCO NI NO COU NT Y PEACH SPRINGS Baseline: 351 Low: 451 - 2,307= -1,856 (80%) Peach Springs High: 451 - 2,394= -1,942 (81%) Kykotsmovi LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Baseline: 160,823 Low: 191,762 - 291,806= -100,044 (34%) High: 191,762 - 371,709= -179,947 (48%) 180 £ ¤ Williams § ¦ ¨ 40 NA VAJ O COU NT Y V U 87 Flagstaff V U Winslow 89a VERDE RIVER Baseline: 44,527 Sedona Low: 49,593 - 73,058= -23,465 (32%) High: 49,593 - 78,793= -29,200 (37%) V U 487 Cottonwood V U 179 89a £ ¤ YA VA PA I COU NT Y Prescott 93 £ ¤ 377 V U 17 V V U U 69 V U § ¦ ¨ 65 169 V U V U 260 V U 277 89 GIL A COU NT Y LA P AZ COU NT Y V U 71 MA R IC OP A COU NT Y Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Coconino County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Payson V U TONTO CREEK 288 Baseline: 4,200 SALT RIVER Low: 4,400 - 15,567= -11,167 (72%) Baseline: 27,204 High: 4,400 - 16,340= -11,940 (73%) Low: 26,021 - 43,971= -17,951 (41%) High: 26,021 - 60,718= -34,697 (57%) Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Coconino County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Area Split) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\CoconinoCo_2110as.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 79 Water Resources Development Commission § ¦ ¨ 40 Holbrook Sedona V U Cottonwood V U 487 V U 89a V U COCO NI NO COU NT Y 99 179 V U 377 V U § ¦ ¨ 169 17 VERDE RIVER Baseline: 44,527 Low: 50,418 - 53,750= -3,332 (6%) High: 50,418 - 58,275= -7,857 (13%) 180 £ ¤ V U 65 V U 277 NA VAJ O COU NT Y YA VA PA I COU NT Y V U V U 61 69 AP A CHE COU NT Y Show Low Payson TONTO CREEK Baseline: 4,200 Low: 4,450 - 7,418= -2,968 (40%) High: 4,450 - 7,765= -3,315 (43%) V U 188 V U 260 V U 288 V U SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26,621 - 39,460= -12,838 (33%) High: 26,621 - 55,850= -29,229 (52%) GIL A COU NT Y 74 V U 73 60 £ ¤ V U 101 MA R IC OP A COU NT Y V U V U V Phoenix U V U 87 51 V U 88 153 143 Globe V U GRE E NL E E COU NT Y 170 V U V U V U 347 177 587 GRA HA M COU NT Y Florence V U V U PI N AL § ¦ ¨ COU NT Y Casa Grande V V U U £ ¤ § ¦ ¨ DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH Baseline: 11 SAFFORD Low: 11 - 16= -5 (30%) Baseline: 177,558 High: 11 - 17= -6 (37%) Low: 161,032 - 183,181= -22,149 (12%) High: 161,032 - 205,523= -44,490 (22%) 387 238 10 84 84 70 £ ¤ 287 Safford 8 V U 79 LOWER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 24,622 Low: 25,169 - 20,948= +4,221 (None) High: 25,169 - 37,087= -11,918 (32%) V U 77 191 £ ¤ PI M A COU NT Y Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Gila County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2035 County State Boundary COCH ISE COU NT Y PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Gila County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2035 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\GilaCo_2035.mxd 80 10 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission § ¦ ¨ 40 Holbrook Sedona V U Cottonwood V U 487 V U 89a V U COCO NI NO COU NT Y 99 179 V U 377 V U § ¦ ¨ 169 17 VERDE RIVER Baseline: 44,527 Low: 49,593 - 59,459= -9,866 (17%) High: 49,593 - 63,748= -14,155 (22%) 180 £ ¤ V U 65 V U 277 NA VAJ O COU NT Y YA VA PA I COU NT Y V U V U 61 69 AP A CHE COU NT Y Show Low Payson TONTO CREEK Baseline: 4,200 Low: 4,400 - 8,856= -4,456 (50%) High: 4,400 - 9,236= -4,836 (52%) V U 188 V U 260 V U 288 V U SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26,021 - 40,148= -14,127 (35%) High: 26,021 - 56,630= -30,610 (54%) GIL A COU NT Y 74 V U 73 60 £ ¤ V U 101 MA R IC OP A COU NT Y V U V U V Phoenix U V U 87 51 V U 88 153 143 Globe V U GRE E NL E E COU NT Y 170 V U V U V U 347 177 587 GRA HA M COU NT Y Florence V U V U PI N AL § ¦ ¨ COU NT Y Casa Grande V V U U £ ¤ § ¦ ¨ DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH Baseline: 11 SAFFORD Low: 11 - 17= -6 (37%) Baseline: 177,558 High: 11 - 19= -8 (43%) Low: 157,323 - 184,388= -27,065 (15%) High: 157,323 - 206,780= -49,457 (24%) 387 238 10 84 84 70 £ ¤ 287 Safford 8 V U 79 LOWER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 24,622 Low: 25,127 - 22,961= +2,167 (None) High: 25,127 - 39,054= -13,927 (36%) V U 77 191 £ ¤ PI M A COU NT Y Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Gila County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2060 County State Boundary COCH ISE COU NT Y PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Gila County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2060 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\GilaCo_2060.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 81 Water Resources Development Commission § ¦ ¨ 40 Holbrook Sedona V U Cottonwood V U 487 V U 89a V U COCO NI NO COU NT Y 99 179 V U 377 V U § ¦ ¨ 169 17 VERDE RIVER Baseline: 44,527 Low: 49,593 - 71,347= -21,754 (30%) High: 49,593 - 76,836= -27,243 (35%) 180 £ ¤ V U 65 V U 277 NA VAJ O COU NT Y YA VA PA I COU NT Y V U V U 61 69 AP A CHE COU NT Y Show Low Payson TONTO CREEK Baseline: 4,200 Low: 4,400 - 11,670= -7,270 (62%) High: 4,400 - 12,115= -7,715 (64%) V U 188 V U 260 V U 288 V U SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26,021 - 42,332= -16,311 (39%) High: 26,021 - 59,001= -32,980 (56%) GIL A COU NT Y 74 V U 73 60 £ ¤ V U 101 MA R IC OP A COU NT Y V U V U V Phoenix U V U 87 51 V U 88 153 143 Globe V U GRE E NL E E COU NT Y 170 V U V U V U 347 177 587 GRA HA M COU NT Y Florence V U V U PI N AL § ¦ ¨ COU NT Y Casa Grande V V U U £ ¤ § ¦ ¨ DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH Baseline: 11 SAFFORD Low: 11 - 24= -13 (54%) Baseline: 177,558 High: 11 - 27= -16 (59%) Low: 157,323 - 187,971= -30,648 (16%) High: 157,323 - 210,513= -53,190 (25%) 387 238 10 84 84 70 £ ¤ 287 Safford 8 V U 79 LOWER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 24,622 Low: 25,127 - 24,843= +285 (None) High: 25,127 - 41,023= -15,895 (39%) V U 77 191 £ ¤ PI M A COU NT Y Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Gila County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary COCH ISE COU NT Y PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Gila County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Census) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\GilaCo_2110cs.mxd 82 10 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission § ¦ ¨ 40 Holbrook Sedona V U Cottonwood V U 487 V U 89a V U COCO NI NO COU NT Y 99 179 V U 377 V U § ¦ ¨ 169 17 VERDE RIVER Baseline: 44,527 Low: 49,593 - 73,058= -23,465 (32%) High: 49,593 - 78,793= -29,200 (37%) 180 £ ¤ V U 65 V U 277 NA VAJ O COU NT Y YA VA PA I COU NT Y V U V U 61 69 AP A CHE COU NT Y Show Low Payson TONTO CREEK Baseline: 4,200 Low: 4,400 - 15,567= -11,167 (72%) High: 4,400 - 16,340= -11,940 (73%) V U 188 V U 260 V U 288 V U SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26,021 - 43,971= -17,951 (41%) High: 26,021 - 60,718= -34,697 (57%) GIL A COU NT Y 74 V U 73 60 £ ¤ V U 101 MA R IC OP A COU NT Y V U V U V Phoenix U V U 87 51 V U 88 153 143 Globe V U GRE E NL E E COU NT Y 170 V U V U V U 347 177 587 GRA HA M COU NT Y Florence V U V U PI N AL § ¦ ¨ COU NT Y Casa Grande V V U U £ ¤ § ¦ ¨ DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH Baseline: 11 SAFFORD Low: 11 - 587= -576 (98%) Baseline: 177,558 High: 11 - 651= -640 (98%) Low: 157,323 - 187,911= -30,588 (16%) High: 157,323 - 210,451= -53,127 (25%) 387 238 10 84 84 70 £ ¤ 287 Safford 8 V U 79 LOWER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 24,622 Low: 25,127 - 25,666= -538 (2%) High: 25,127 - 42,123= -16,995 (40%) V U 77 191 £ ¤ PI M A COU NT Y Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Gila County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary COCH ISE COU NT Y PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Gila County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Area Split) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\GilaCo_2110as.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 83 Water Resources Development Commission V U SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26,621 - 39,460= -12,838 (33%) High: 26,621 - 55,850= -29,229 (52%) 73 AP A CHE COU NT Y NA VAJ O COU NT Y 60 £ ¤ GIL A COU NT Y V U 188 191 £ ¤ Globe V U 170 GRE E NL E E COU NT Y V U BONITA CREEK Baseline: 0 0 - 5= -5 (100%) 70 £ ¤ DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH Baseline: 11 Low: 11 - 16= -5 (30%) High: 11 - 17= -6 (37%) MORENCI Baseline: 10,384 Low: 10,871 - 14,150= -3,279 (23%) High: 10,871 - 50,183= -39,312 (78%) Clifton V U 78 177 GRA HA M COU NT Y SAFFORD Baseline: 177,558 Low: 161,032 - 183,181= -22,149 (12%) High: 161,032 - 205,523= -44,490 (22%) ARAVAIPA CANYON Baseline: 1,014 Low: 989 - 1,013= -24 (2%) High: 989 - 1,014= -25 (2%) PI N AL COU NT Y V U 77 V U Safford 75 LOWER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 24,622 Low: 25,169 - 20,948= +4,221 (None) High: 25,169 - 37,087= -11,918 (32%) Tucson V U V U 186 86 PI M A COU NT Y COCH ISE COU NT Y UPPER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 29,237 Low: 33,484 - 39,528= -6,044 (15%) High: 33,484 - 50,520= -17,036 (34%) V U V U 83 90 10 WILLCOX Baseline: 176,075 Low: 176,357 - 177,569= -1,213 (1%) High: 176,357 - 180,182= -3,825 (2%) V U V U 80 Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Graham County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2035 County State Boundary § ¦ ¨ 181 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Graham County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2035 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\GrahamCo_2035.mxd 84 10 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission V U SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26,021 - 40,148= -14,127 (35%) High: 26,021 - 56,630= -30,610 (54%) 73 AP A CHE COU NT Y NA VAJ O COU NT Y 60 £ ¤ GIL A COU NT Y V U 188 191 £ ¤ Globe V U 170 GRE E NL E E COU NT Y V U BONITA CREEK Baseline: 0 0 - 6= -6 (100%) 70 £ ¤ DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH Baseline: 11 Low: 11 - 17= -6 (37%) High: 11 - 19= -8 (43%) MORENCI Baseline: 10,384 Low: 10,790 - 14,481= -3,691 (25%) High: 10,790 - 50,519= -39,729 (79%) Clifton V U 78 177 GRA HA M COU NT Y SAFFORD Baseline: 177,558 Low: 157,323 - 184,388= -27,065 (15%) High: 157,323 - 206,780= -49,457 (24%) ARAVAIPA CANYON Baseline: 1,014 Low: 964 - 1,014= -50 (5%) High: 964 - 1,015= -51 (5%) PI N AL COU NT Y V U 77 V U Safford 75 LOWER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 24,622 Low: 25,127 - 22,961= +2,167 (None) High: 25,127 - 39,054= -13,927 (36%) Tucson V U V U 186 86 PI M A COU NT Y COCH ISE COU NT Y UPPER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 29,237 Low: 33,262 - 44,660= -11,398 (26%) High: 33,262 - 55,686= -22,425 (40%) V U V U 83 90 10 WILLCOX Baseline: 176,075 Low: 176,349 - 179,443= -3,094 (2%) High: 176,349 - 183,085= -6,736 (4%) V U V U 80 Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Graham County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2060 County State Boundary § ¦ ¨ 181 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Graham County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2060 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\GrahamCo_2060.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 85 Water Resources Development Commission V U SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26,021 - 42,332= -16,311 (39%) High: 26,021 - 59,001= -32,980 (56%) 73 AP A CHE COU NT Y NA VAJ O COU NT Y 60 £ ¤ GIL A COU NT Y V U 188 191 £ ¤ Globe V U 170 GRE E NL E E COU NT Y V U BONITA CREEK Baseline: 0 0 - 8= -8 (100%) 70 £ ¤ DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH Baseline: 11 Low: 11 - 24= -13 (54%) High: 11 - 27= -16 (59%) MORENCI Baseline: 10,384 Low: 10,790 - 15,401= -4,611 (30%) High: 10,790 - 51,454= -40,664 (79%) Clifton V U 78 177 GRA HA M COU NT Y SAFFORD Baseline: 177,558 Low: 157,323 - 187,971= -30,648 (16%) High: 157,323 - 210,513= -53,190 (25%) ARAVAIPA CANYON Baseline: 1,014 Low: 964 - 1,020= -56 (6%) High: 964 - 1,021= -57 (6%) PI N AL COU NT Y V U 77 V U Safford 75 LOWER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 24,622 Low: 25,127 - 24,843= +285 (None) High: 25,127 - 41,023= -15,895 (39%) Tucson V U V U 186 86 PI M A COU NT Y COCH ISE COU NT Y UPPER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 29,237 Low: 33,262 - 56,827= -23,565 (41%) High: 33,262 - 68,577= -35,316 (51%) V U V U 83 90 10 WILLCOX Baseline: 176,075 Low: 176,349 - 182,216= -5,867 (3%) High: 176,349 - 187,264= -10,915 (6%) V U V U 80 Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Graham County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary § ¦ ¨ 181 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 5 15 20 25 Miles Graham County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Census) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\GrahamCo_2110cs.mxd 86 10 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission V U SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26,021 - 43,971= -17,951 (41%) High: 26,021 - 60,718= -34,697 (57%) 73 AP A CHE COU NT Y NA VAJ O COU NT Y 60 £ ¤ GIL A COU NT Y V U 188 191 £ ¤ Globe V U 170 GRE E NL E E COU NT Y V U BONITA CREEK Baseline: 0 0 - 342= -342 (100%) 70 £ ¤ DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH Baseline: 11 Low: 11 - 587= -576 (98%) High: 11 - 651= -640 (98%) MORENCI Baseline: 10,384 Low: 10,790 - 15,801= -5,011 (32%) High: 10,790 - 51,860= -41,070 (79%) Clifton V U 78 177 GRA HA M COU NT Y SAFFORD Baseline: 177,558 Low: 157,323 - 187,911= -30,588 (16%) High: 157,323 - 210,451= -53,127 (25%) ARAVAIPA CANYON Baseline: 1,014 Low: 964 - 1,098= -134 (12%) High: 964 - 1,105= -141 (13%) PI N AL COU NT Y V U 77 V U Safford 75 LOWER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 24,622 Low: 25,127 - 25,666= -538 (2%) High: 25,127 - 42,123= -16,995 (40%) Tucson V U V U 186 86 PI M A COU NT Y COCH ISE COU NT Y UPPER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 29,237 Low: 33,262 - 56,252= -22,991 (41%) High: 33,262 - 67,957= -34,696 (51%) V U V U 83 90 10 WILLCOX Baseline: 176,075 Low: 176,349 - 181,770= -5,421 (3%) High: 176,349 - 186,805= -10,456 (6%) V U V U 80 Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Graham County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary § ¦ ¨ 181 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Graham County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Area Split) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\GrahamCo_2110as.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 87 Water Resources Development Commission Springerville NA VAJ O COU NT Y 180 £ ¤ V U 260 AP A CHE COU NT Y SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26,621 - 39,460= -12,838 (33%) High: 26,621 - 55,850= -29,229 (52%) V U 73 60 £ ¤ GIL A COU NT Y 191 £ ¤ V U 170 GRE E NL E E COU NT Y MORENCI Baseline: 10,384 Low: 10,871 - 14,150= -3,279 (23%) High: 10,871 - 50,183= -39,312 (78%) 70 £ ¤ Clifton V U 78 SAFFORD Baseline: 177,558 Low: 161,032 - 183,181= -22,149 (12%) High: 161,032 - 205,523= -44,490 (22%) GRA HA M COU NT Y V U Safford PI N AL COU NT Y 75 V U 77 DUNCAN VALLEY Baseline: 17,954 Low: 17,509 - 17,969= -460 (3%) High: 17,509 - 17,994= -486 (3%) PI M A COU NT Y COCH ISE COU NT Y Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Greenlee County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2035 County State Boundary § ¦ ¨ 10 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 10 15 20 25 Miles Greenlee County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2035 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\GreenleeCo_2035.mxd 88 5 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Springerville NA VAJ O COU NT Y 180 £ ¤ V U 260 AP A CHE COU NT Y SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26,021 - 40,148= -14,127 (35%) High: 26,021 - 56,630= -30,610 (54%) V U 73 60 £ ¤ GIL A COU NT Y 191 £ ¤ V U 170 GRE E NL E E COU NT Y MORENCI Baseline: 10,384 Low: 10,790 - 14,481= -3,691 (25%) High: 10,790 - 50,519= -39,729 (79%) 70 £ ¤ Clifton V U 78 SAFFORD Baseline: 177,558 Low: 157,323 - 184,388= -27,065 (15%) High: 157,323 - 206,780= -49,457 (24%) GRA HA M COU NT Y V U Safford PI N AL COU NT Y V U 77 75 DUNCAN VALLEY Baseline: 17,954 Low: 17,014 - 18,060= -1,047 (6%) High: 17,014 - 18,090= -1,076 (6%) PI M A COU NT Y COCH ISE COU NT Y Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Greenlee County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary § ¦ ¨ 10 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Greenlee County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2060 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\GreenleeCo_2060.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 89 Water Resources Development Commission Springerville NA VAJ O COU NT Y 180 £ ¤ V U 260 AP A CHE COU NT Y SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26,021 - 42,332= -16,311 (39%) High: 26,021 - 59,001= -32,980 (56%) V U 73 60 £ ¤ GIL A COU NT Y 191 £ ¤ V U 170 GRE E NL E E COU NT Y MORENCI Baseline: 10,384 Low: 10,790 - 15,401= -4,611 (30%) High: 10,790 - 51,454= -40,664 (79%) 70 £ ¤ Clifton V U 78 SAFFORD Baseline: 177,558 Low: 157,323 - 187,971= -30,648 (16%) High: 157,323 - 210,513= -53,190 (25%) GRA HA M COU NT Y V U Safford PI N AL COU NT Y V U 77 75 DUNCAN VALLEY Baseline: 17,954 Low: 17,014 - 18,311= -1,298 (7%) High: 17,014 - 18,352= -1,339 (7%) PI M A COU NT Y COCH ISE COU NT Y Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Greenlee County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary § ¦ ¨ 10 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 10 15 20 25 Miles Greenlee County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Census) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\GreenleeCo_2110cs.mxd 90 5 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Springerville NA VAJ O COU NT Y 180 £ ¤ V U 260 AP A CHE COU NT Y SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26,021 - 43,971= -17,951 (41%) High: 26,021 - 60,718= -34,697 (57%) V U 73 60 £ ¤ GIL A COU NT Y 191 £ ¤ V U 170 GRE E NL E E COU NT Y MORENCI Baseline: 10,384 Low: 10,790 - 15,801= -5,011 (32%) High: 10,790 - 51,860= -41,070 (79%) 70 £ ¤ Clifton V U 78 SAFFORD Baseline: 177,558 Low: 157,323 - 187,911= -30,588 (16%) High: 157,323 - 210,451= -53,127 (25%) GRA HA M COU NT Y V U Safford PI N AL COU NT Y V U 77 75 DUNCAN VALLEY Baseline: 17,954 Low: 17,014 - 18,377= -1,364 (7%) High: 17,014 - 18,421= -1,408 (8%) PI M A COU NT Y COCH ISE COU NT Y Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Greenlee County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary § ¦ ¨ 10 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Greenlee County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Area Split) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\GreenleeCo_2110as.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 91 Water Resources Development Commission § ¦ ¨ 40 93 £ ¤ MOHA VE COU NT Y YA VA PA I COU NT Y BILL WILLIAMS Baseline: 4,150 Normal Low: 4,579 - 14,298= -9,718 (68%) High: 4,579 - 34,346= -29,766 (87%) Shortage Low: 4,390 - 14,298= -9,908 (69%) High: 4,390 - 34,346= -29,956 (87%) Lake Havasu City Parker Parker Tribal Ag Baseline: 621,454 Normal 666,680 - 621,454= +45,226 (None) Shortage 665,468 - 621,454= +44,014 (None) 89 V U BUTLER VALLEY Baseline: 14,503 14,503 - 14,500= +3 (None) V U 95 V U PARKER Baseline: 26,462 Normal Low: 40,468 - 33,298= +7,170 (None) High: 40,468 - 35,067= +5,401 (None) Shortage Low: 30,879 - 33,298= -2,419 (7%) High: 30,879 - 35,067= -4,189 (12%) LA P AZ COU NT Y V U 71 Quartzsite 72 60 £ ¤ RANEGRAS PLAIN Baseline: 29,350 Low: 29,350 - 29,398= -48 (0.16%) High: 29,350 - 29,405= -55 (0.19%) MCMULLEN VALLEY Baseline: 71,500 Low: 71,500 - 72,008= -508 (1%) High: 71,500 - 72,062= -562 (1%) HARQUAHALA INA Baseline: 136,735 Low: 66,178 - 136,670= -70,492 (52%) High: 66,178 - 136,910= -70,732 (52%) MA R IC OP A COU NT Y YU MA COU NT Y LOWER GILA Baseline: 504,687 Normal Low: 497,868 - 497,669= +198 (None) High: 497,868 - 516,115= -18,247 (4%) Shortage Low: 497,660 - 497,669= -9 (0%) High: 497,660 - 516,115= -18,455 (4%) Yuma Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With La Paz County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2035 County State Boundary PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies § ¦ ¨ 8 V U 85 ¯ 0 5 15 20 25 Miles La Paz County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2035 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\LaPaz_2035.mxd 92 10 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission § ¦ ¨ 40 93 £ ¤ MOHA VE COU NT Y YA VA PA I COU NT Y BILL WILLIAMS Baseline: 4,150 Normal Low: 4,554 - 14,529= -9,975 (69%) High: 4,554 - 34,584= -30,029 (87%) Shortage Low: 4,365 - 14,529= -10,164 (70%) High: 4,365 - 34,584= -30,219 (87%) Lake Havasu City Parker V U 89 Parker Tribal Ag Baseline: 621,454 Normal 666,680 - 621,454= +45,226 (None) Shortage 665,468 - 621,454= +44,014 (None) V U 71 BUTLER VALLEY Baseline: 14,503 14,503 - 14,500= +3 (None) V U 95 V U 72 LA P AZ COU NT Y Quartzsite PARKER Baseline: 26,462 Normal Low: 40,468 - 38,242= +2,225 (None) High: 40,468 - 41,130= -662 (2%) Shortage Low: 30,879 - 38,242= -7,364 (19%) High: 30,879 - 41,130= -10,251 (25%) 60 £ ¤ RANEGRAS PLAIN Baseline: 29,350 Low: 29,350 - 29,488= -138 (0.47%) High: 29,350 - 29,498= -148 (0.50%) MCMULLEN VALLEY Baseline: 71,500 Low: 71,500 - 72,220= -720 (1%) High: 71,500 - 72,285= -785 (1%) HARQUAHALA INA Baseline: 136,735 Low: 66,178 - 137,516= -71,338 (52%) High: 66,178 - 137,944= -71,766 (52%) MA R IC OP A COU NT Y YU MA COU NT Y LOWER GILA Baseline: 504,687 Normal Low: 483,841 - 490,312= -6,471 (1%) High: 483,841 - 509,041= -25,201 (5%) Shortage Low: 483,633 - 490,312= -6,679 (1%) High: 483,633 - 509,041= -25,408 (5%) § ¦ ¨ 8 V U Yuma 85 Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With La Paz County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2060 County State Boundary PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles La Paz County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2060 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\LaPaz_2060.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 93 Water Resources Development Commission § ¦ ¨ 40 93 £ ¤ MOHA VE COU NT Y YA VA PA I COU NT Y BILL WILLIAMS Baseline: 4,150 Normal Low: 4,554 - 15,260= -10,705 (70%) High: 4,554 - 35,337= -30,782 (87%) Shortage Low: 4,365 - 15,260= -10,895 (71%) High: 4,365 - 35,337= -30,972 (88%) Lake Havasu City Parker V U 89 V U 71 Parker Tribal Ag Baseline: 621,454 Normal 666,680 - 621,454= +45,226 (None) Shortage 665,468 - 621,454= +44,014 (None) BUTLER VALLEY Baseline: 14,503 14,503 - 14,500= +3 (None) V U 95 V U 72 LA P AZ COU NT Y Quartzsite PARKER Baseline: 26,462 Normal Low: 40,468 - 43,651= -3,183 (7%) High: 40,468 - 47,440= -6,973 (15%) Shortage Low: 30,879 - 43,651= -12,772 (29%) High: 30,879 - 47,440= -16,562 (35%) 60 £ ¤ RANEGRAS PLAIN Baseline: 29,350 Low: 29,350 - 29,603= -253 (0.85%) High: 29,350 - 29,615= -265 (0.89%) MCMULLEN VALLEY Baseline: 71,500 Low: 71,500 - 72,652= -1,152 (2%) High: 71,500 - 72,740= -1,240 (2%) HARQUAHALA INA Baseline: 136,735 Low: 66,178 - 138,374= -72,196 (52%) High: 66,178 - 138,953= -72,775 (52%) MA R IC OP A COU NT Y LOWER GILA Baseline: 504,687 Normal Low: 483,841 - 502,324= -18,483 (4%) High: 483,841 - 521,304= -37,463 (7%) Shortage Low: 483,633 - 502,324= -18,691 (4%) High: 483,633 - 521,304= -37,670 (7%) YU MA COU NT Y § ¦ ¨ 8 V U Yuma 85 Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With La Paz County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 5 15 20 25 Miles La Paz County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Census) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\LaPaz_2110cs.mxd 94 10 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission § ¦ ¨ 40 93 £ ¤ MOHA VE COU NT Y YA VA PA I COU NT Y BILL WILLIAMS Baseline: 4,150 Normal Low: 4,554 - 21,541= -16,986 (79%) High: 4,554 - 41,574= -37,019 (89%) Shortage Low: 4,365 - 21,541= -17,176 (80%) High: 4,365 - 41,574= -37,209 (90%) Lake Havasu City Parker V U 89 Parker Tribal Ag Baseline: 621,454 Normal 666,680 - 621,454= +45,226 (None) Shortage 665,468 - 621,454= +44,014 (None) V U 71 BUTLER VALLEY Baseline: 14,503 14,503 - 14,500= +3 (None) V U 95 V U 72 LA P AZ COU NT Y Quartzsite PARKER Baseline: 26,462 Normal Low: 40,468 - 43,321= -2,854 (7%) High: 40,468 - 47,102= -6,635 (14%) Shortage Low: 30,879 - 43,321= -12,443 (29%) High: 30,879 - 47,102= -16,224 (34%) 60 £ ¤ RANEGRAS PLAIN Baseline: 29,350 Low: 29,350 - 29,447= -97 (0.33%) High: 29,350 - 29,456= -106 (0.36%) MCMULLEN VALLEY Baseline: 71,500 Low: 71,500 - 73,432= -1,932 (3%) High: 71,500 - 73,562= -2,062 (3%) HARQUAHALA INA Baseline: 136,735 Low: 66,178 - 142,642= -76,464 (54%) High: 66,178 - 143,163= -76,985 (54%) MA R IC OP A COU NT Y YU MA COU NT Y LOWER GILA Baseline: 504,687 Normal Low: 483,841 - 517,200= -33,360 (7%) High: 483,841 - 535,164= -51,324 (10%) Shortage Low: 483,633 - 517,200= -33,567 (7%) High: 483,633 - 535,164= -51,531 (10%) Yuma Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With La Paz County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies § ¦ ¨ 8 V U 85 ¯ 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles La Paz County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Area Split) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\LaPaz_2110as.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 95 Water Resources Development Commission Cottonwood V U V U 89 £ ¤ 179 89a V U MOHA VE COU NT Y Prescott 93 £ ¤ V V U U V U MCMULLEN VALLEY Baseline: 71,500 Low: 71,500 - 72,008= -508 (1%) 71 High: 71,500 - 72,062= -562 (1%) V U V U 260 § ¦ ¨ 17 89 YA VA PA I COU NT Y 99 65 169 69 V U 487 89a £ ¤ AGUA FRIA UPPER HASSAYAMPA Baseline: 3,602 Baseline: 3,286 Low: 3,632 - 4,772= -1,140 (24%) Low: 3,886 - 5,551= -1,664 (30%) High: 3,632 - 4,888= -1,256 (26%) High: 3,886 - 5,699= -1,813 (32%) COCO NI NO COU NT Y VERDE RIVER Baseline: 44,527 Low: 50,418 - 53,750= -3,332 (6%) High: 50,418 - 58,275= -7,857 (13%) Payson V U V U 188 NA VAJ O COU NT Y V U 288 V U LA P AZ COU NT Y V U TIGER WASH Baseline: 2 2 - 0= +2 (None) 72 GIL A COU NT Y 74 SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26,621 - 39,460= -12,838 (33%) High: 26,621 - 55,850= -29,229 (52%) PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 60 Normal 101 Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage51 Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) 53 High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639=1-702,944 (23%) £ ¤ HARQUAHALA INA Baseline: 136,735 Low: 66,178 - 136,670= -70,492 (52%) High: 66,178 - 136,910= -70,732 (52%) V U V U V U V U Phoenix V U 87 V U 88 143 Globe 70 £ ¤ 85 £ ¤ MA R IC OP A COU NT Y 347 § ¦ ¨ GILA BEND Baseline: 357,823 Low: 348,769 - 377,271= -28,503 (8%) High: 348,769 - 384,396= -35,627 (9%) LOWER GILA Baseline: 504,687 Normal Low: 497,868 - 497,669= +198 (None) High: 497,868 - 516,115= -18,247 (4%) Shortage Low: 497,660 - 497,669= -9 (0%) High: 497,660 - 516,115= -18,455 (4%) 177 587 V U V U £ ¤ 238 PI N AL COU NT Y Gila Bend 8 YU MA COU NT Y V U V U U V 387 V U Casa Grande 84 84 Florence V U 287 V U V U 79 PINAL AMA Baseline: 1,022,762 Normal Low: 670,902 - 985,887= -314,985 (32%) High: 670,902 - 1,007,978= -337,076 (33%) Shortage Low: 620,706 - 985,887= -365,181 (37%) High: 620,706 - 1,007,978= -387,272 (38%) 77 V U 85 Tucson PI M A COU NT Y SAN SIMON WASH Baseline: 1,500 Low: 1,900 - 2,042= -142 (7%) High: 1,900 - 2,116= -216 (10%) V U 86 § ¦ ¨ 19 V U 83 SAN T A C R UZ COU NT Y Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Maricopa County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2035 County State Boundary PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 10 15 20 25 Miles Maricopa County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2035 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\MaricopaCo_2035.mxd 96 5 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Cottonwood V U V U 89 £ ¤ 179 89a V U MOHA VE COU NT Y Prescott 93 £ ¤ V V U U 69 MCMULLEN VALLEY Baseline: 71,500 Low: 71,500 - 72,220= -720 (1%) 71 High: 71,500 - 72,285= -785 (1%) 99 V U 65 169 V U V U 260 § ¦ ¨ 17 89 YA VA PA I COU NT Y V U 487 89a £ ¤ AGUA FRIA UPPER HASSAYAMPA Baseline: 3,602 Baseline: 3,286 Low: 3,632 - 5,371= -1,739 (32%) Low: 3,886 - 6,685= -2,799 (42%) High: 3,632 - 5,511= -1,879 (34%) High: 3,886 - 6,869= -2,983 (43%) COCO NI NO COU NT Y VERDE RIVER Baseline: 44,527 Low: 49,593 - 59,459= -9,866 (17%) High: 49,593 - 63,748= -14,155 (22%) Payson V U V U 188 NA VAJ O COU NT Y V U 288 V U LA P AZ COU NT Y V U TIGER WASH Baseline: 2 2 - 0= +2 (None) 72 GIL A COU NT Y 74 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 60 Normal 101 Low: 2,416,455 - 3,356,261= -939,806 (28%) High: 2,549,545 - 3,489,538= -939,993 (27%) Shortage51 Low: 2,224,638 - 3,356,261= -1,131,623 (34%) 153 High: 2,357,729 - 3,489,538= -1,131,810 (32%) £ ¤ HARQUAHALA INA Baseline: 136,735 Low: 66,178 - 137,516= -71,338 (52%) High: 66,178 - 137,944= -71,766 (52%) V U V U V U V U Phoenix SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26,021 - 40,148= -14,127 (35%) High: 26,021 - 56,630= -30,610 (54%) V U 87 V U 88 143 Globe 70 £ ¤ 85 £ ¤ MA R IC OP A COU NT Y 347 § ¦ ¨ V U V U £ ¤ GILA BEND Baseline: 357,823 Low: 345,998 - 390,492= -44,495 (11%) High: 345,998 - 400,591= -54,593 (14%) LOWER GILA Baseline: 504,687 Normal Low: 483,841 - 490,312= -6,471 (1%) High: 483,841 - 509,041= -25,201 (5%) Shortage Low: 483,633 - 490,312= -6,679 (1%) High: 483,633 - 509,041= -25,408 (5%) 177 587 238 PI N AL COU NT Y Gila Bend 8 YU MA COU NT Y V U V U U V 387 V U Casa Grande 84 84 Florence V U 287 V U V U 79 PINAL AMA Baseline: 1,022,762 Normal Low: 667,405 - 902,124= -234,719 (26%) High: 667,405 - 925,757= -258,352 (28%) Shortage Low: 617,209 - 902,124= -284,915 (32%) High: 617,209 - 925,757= -308,548 (33%) 77 V U 85 Tucson PI M A COU NT Y SAN SIMON WASH Baseline: 1,500 Low: 1,900 - 2,440= -540 (22%) High: 1,900 - 2,533= -633 (25%) V U 86 § ¦ ¨ 19 V U 83 SAN T A C R UZ COU NT Y Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Maricopa County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2060 County State Boundary PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Maricopa County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2060 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\MaricopaCo_2060.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 97 Water Resources Development Commission Cottonwood V U V U 89 £ ¤ 179 89a V U MOHA VE COU NT Y Prescott 93 £ ¤ V V U U 69 MCMULLEN VALLEY Baseline: 71,500 Low: 71,500 - 72,652= -1,152 (2%) 71 High: 71,500 - 72,740= -1,240 (2%) 99 V U 65 169 V U V U 260 § ¦ ¨ 17 89 YA VA PA I COU NT Y V U 487 89a £ ¤ AGUA FRIA UPPER HASSAYAMPA Baseline: 3,602 Baseline: 3,286 Low: 3,632 - 6,738= -3,106 (46%) Low: 3,886 - 8,943= -5,056 (57%) High: 3,632 - 6,931= -3,299 (48%) High: 3,886 - 9,197= -5,311 (58%) COCO NI NO COU NT Y VERDE RIVER Baseline: 44,527 Low: 49,593 - 71,347= -21,754 (30%) High: 49,593 - 76,836= -27,243 (35%) Payson V U V U 188 NA VAJ O COU NT Y V U 288 V U LA P AZ COU NT Y V U TIGER WASH Baseline: 2 2 - 0= +2 (None) 72 GIL A COU NT Y 74 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 60 Normal 101 Low: 2,484,097 - 4,279,621= -1,795,524 (42%) High: 2,549,545 - 4,484,942= -1,935,397 (43%) Shortage51 Low: 2,292,280 - 4,279,621= -1,987,341 (46%) 153 High: 2,357,729 - 4,484,942= -2,127,214 (47%) £ ¤ HARQUAHALA INA Baseline: 136,735 Low: 66,178 - 138,374= -72,196 (52%) High: 66,178 - 138,953= -72,775 (52%) V U V U V U V U Phoenix SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26,021 - 42,332= -16,311 (39%) High: 26,021 - 59,001= -32,980 (56%) V U 87 V U 88 143 Globe 70 £ ¤ 85 £ ¤ MA R IC OP A COU NT Y 347 § ¦ ¨ V U V U £ ¤ GILA BEND Baseline: 357,823 Low: 345,998 - 404,603= -58,605 (14%) High: 345,998 - 418,574= -72,576 (17%) LOWER GILA Baseline: 504,687 Normal Low: 483,841 - 502,324= -18,483 (4%) High: 483,841 - 521,304= -37,463 (7%) Shortage Low: 483,633 - 502,324= -18,691 (4%) High: 483,633 - 521,304= -37,670 (7%) 177 587 238 PI N AL COU NT Y Gila Bend 8 YU MA COU NT Y V U V U U V 387 V U Casa Grande 84 84 Florence V U 287 V U V U 79 PINAL AMA Baseline: 1,022,762 Normal Low: 667,405 - 983,096= -315,691 (32%) High: 667,405 - 1,015,930= -348,525 (34%) Shortage Low: 617,209 - 983,096= -365,887 (37%) High: 617,209 - 1,015,930= -398,721 (39%) 77 V U 85 Tucson PI M A COU NT Y SAN SIMON WASH Baseline: 1,500 Low: 1,900 - 3,182= -1,282 (40%) High: 1,900 - 3,311= -1,411 (43%) V U 86 § ¦ ¨ 19 V U 83 SAN T A C R UZ COU NT Y Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Maricopa County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 10 15 20 25 Miles Maricopa County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Census) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\MaricopaCo_2110cs.mxd 98 5 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Cottonwood V U V U 89 £ ¤ 179 89a V U MOHA VE COU NT Y Prescott 93 £ ¤ V V U U 69 99 V U 65 169 V U V U 260 § ¦ ¨ 17 89 YA VA PA I COU NT Y V U 487 89a £ ¤ AGUA FRIA UPPER HASSAYAMPA Baseline: 3,602 Baseline: 3,286 Low: 3,632 - 75,504= -71,872 (95%) Low: 3,886 - 3,461= +425 (None) High: 3,632 - 71,004= -67,372 (95%) High: 3,886 - 3,545= +342 (None) COCO NI NO COU NT Y VERDE RIVER Baseline: 44,527 Low: 49,593 - 73,058= -23,465 (32%) High: 49,593 - 78,793= -29,200 (37%) Payson MCMULLEN VALLEY Baseline: 71,500 Low: 71,500 - 73,432= -1,932 (3%) 71 High: 71,500 - 73,562= -2,062 (3%) V U V U 188 NA VAJ O COU NT Y V U 288 V U LA P AZ COU NT Y V U TIGER WASH Baseline: 2 2 - 1,285= -1,283 (100%) 72 GIL A COU NT Y 74 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 60 Normal 101 Low: 2,465,951 - 4,078,593= -1,612,642 (40%) High: 2,549,545 - 4,291,514= -1,741,968 (41%) Shortage51 Low: 2,274,134 - 4,078,593= -1,804,459 (44%) 153 High: 2,357,729 - 4,291,514= -1,933,785 (45%) £ ¤ HARQUAHALA INA Baseline: 136,735 Low: 66,178 - 142,642= -76,464 (54%) High: 66,178 - 143,163= -76,985 (54%) V U V U V U V U Phoenix SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26,021 - 43,971= -17,951 (41%) High: 26,021 - 60,718= -34,697 (57%) V U 87 V U 88 143 Globe 70 £ ¤ 85 £ ¤ MA R IC OP A COU NT Y 347 § ¦ ¨ V U V U £ ¤ GILA BEND Baseline: 357,823 Low: 345,998 - 428,755= -82,757 (19%) High: 345,998 - 440,191= -94,193 (21%) LOWER GILA Baseline: 504,687 Normal Low: 483,841 - 517,200= -33,360 (7%) High: 483,841 - 535,164= -51,324 (10%) Shortage Low: 483,633 - 517,200= -33,567 (7%) High: 483,633 - 535,164= -51,531 (10%) 177 587 238 PI N AL COU NT Y Gila Bend 8 YU MA COU NT Y V U V U U V 387 V U Casa Grande 84 84 Florence V U 287 V U V U 79 PINAL AMA Baseline: 1,022,762 Normal Low: 667,405 - 981,227= -313,822 (32%) High: 667,405 - 1,016,058= -348,653 (34%) Shortage Low: 617,209 - 981,227= -364,018 (37%) High: 617,209 - 1,016,058= -398,849 (39%) 77 V U 85 Tucson PI M A COU NT Y SAN SIMON WASH Baseline: 1,500 Low: 1,900 - 3,405= -1,505 (44%) High: 1,900 - 3,544= -1,644 (46%) V U 86 § ¦ ¨ 19 V U 83 SAN T A C R UZ COU NT Y Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Maricopa County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 5 10 15 20 25 Miles Maricopa County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Area Split) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\MaricopaCo_2110as.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 99 Water Resources Development Commission Colorado City § ¦ ¨ 15 V U VIRGIN RIVER Baseline: 2,305 Low: 3,132 - 2,705= +427 (None) High: 3,132 - 2,740= +393 (None) 389 KANAB PLATEAU Baseline: 3,627 Normal Low: 4,129 - 5,075= -946 (19%) High: 4,129 - 5,163= -1,033 (20%) Shortage Low: 4,109 - 5,075= -966 (19%) High: 4,109 - 5,163= -1,053 (20%) GRAND WASH Baseline: 2 2 - 0= +2 (None) SHIVWITS PLATEAU Baseline: 2 2 - 2= 0 (7%) Grand Canyon Village V U MEADVIEW Baseline: 145 Low: 145 - 251= -106 (42%) High: 145 - 263= -118 (45%) 64 COCO NI NO COU NT Y COCONINO PLATEAU Baseline: 1,173 Low: 2,540 - 1,596= +944 (None) High: 2,540 - 1,701= +840 (None) DETRITAL VALLEY Baseline: 309 Low: 357 - 410= -54 (13%) High: 357 - 430= -73 (17%) PEACH SPRINGS HUALAPAI VALLEY MOHA VE Baseline: 351 Baseline: 9,109 COU NT Y Low: 10,909 - 14,919= -4,010 (27%) Low: 451 - 810= -359 (44%) High: 10,909 - 15,584= -4,675 (30%) High: 451 - 832= -381 (46%) 180 £ ¤ 93 £ ¤ LAKE MOHAVE Baseline: 47,769 Normal Low: 77,349 - 72,736= +4,613 (None) High: 77,349 - 78,867= -1,518 (2%) Shortage Low: 56,995 - 72,736= -15,742 (22%) High: 56,995 - 78,867= 68 -21,873 (28%) 68 Kingman Bullhead City Peach Springs V U 66 ¤ V £ U Williams § ¦ ¨ 40 Flagstaff BIG SANDY Baseline: 15,028 Lake Mohave Tribal Ag Low: 15,028 - 509= +14,519 (None) Baseline: 68,110 High: 15,028 - 528= +14,500 (None) 103,535 - 68,110= +35,425 (None) SACRAMENTO VALLEY Baseline: 3,765 Low: 4,065 - 20,005= -15,940 (80%) High: 4,065 - 26,067= -22,001 (84%) V U 89a Sedona 89 £ ¤ Cottonwood V U LAKE HAVASU 95 Baseline: 16,130 Normal Low: 40,457 - 31,577= +8,880 (None) High: 40,457 - 32,545= +7,912 (None) Shortage Low: 29,975 - 31,577= -1,602 (5%) High: 29,975 - 32,545= -2,570 (8%) Parker V U 179 YA VA PA I COU NT Y BILL WILLIAMS Baseline: 4,150 Normal Low: 4,579 - 14,298= -9,718 (68%) High: 4,579 - 34,346= -29,766 (87%) Shortage Low: 4,390 - 14,298= -9,908 (69%) High: 4,390 - 34,346= -29,956 (87%) 89a £ ¤ Prescott 69 City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Mohave County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2035 County State Boundary V U 17 260 89 GIL A COU NT Y PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Mohave County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2035 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\MohaveCo_2035.mxd 100 169 V U LA P AZ COU NT Y Legend V § V U U ¦ ¨ Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Colorado City § ¦ ¨ 15 V U VIRGIN RIVER Baseline: 2,305 Low: 3,052 - 2,953= +98 (None) High: 3,052 - 2,998= +53 (None) 389 KANAB PLATEAU Baseline: 3,627 Normal Low: 4,089 - 6,057= -1,968 (32%) High: 4,089 - 6,166= -2,077 (34%) Shortage Low: 4,069 - 6,057= -1,988 (33%) High: 4,069 - 6,166= -2,097 (34%) GRAND WASH Baseline: 2 2 - 0= +2 (None) SHIVWITS PLATEAU Baseline: 2 2 - 3= -1 (29%) Grand Canyon Village V U MEADVIEW Baseline: 145 Low: 145 - 312= -167 (54%) High: 145 - 326= -181 (56%) 64 COCO NI NO COU NT Y COCONINO PLATEAU Baseline: 1,173 Low: 2,523 - 1,917= +605 (None) High: 2,523 - 2,043= +480 (None) DETRITAL VALLEY Baseline: 309 Low: 354 - 511= -156 (31%) High: 354 - 534= -180 (34%) PEACH SPRINGS HUALAPAI VALLEY MOHA VE Baseline: 351 Baseline: 9,109 COU NT Y Low: 10,909 - 18,524= -7,615 (41%) Low: 451 - 916= -465 (51%) High: 10,909 - 19,299= -8,390 (43%) High: 451 - 942= -491 (52%) 180 £ ¤ 93 £ ¤ LAKE MOHAVE Baseline: 47,769 Normal Low: 77,349 - 84,201= -6,852 (8%) High: 77,349 - 92,464= -15,115 (16%) Shortage Low: 56,995 - 84,201= -27,207 (32%) High: 56,995 - 92,464= 68 -35,470 (38%) 68 Kingman Bullhead City Peach Springs V U 66 ¤ V £ U Williams § ¦ ¨ 40 Flagstaff BIG SANDY Baseline: 15,028 Lake Mohave Tribal Ag Low: 15,028 - 635= +14,393 (None) Baseline: 68,110 High: 15,028 - 658= +14,370 (None) 103,535 - 68,110= +35,425 (None) SACRAMENTO VALLEY Baseline: 3,765 Low: 4,065 - 22,996= -18,931 (82%) High: 4,065 - 29,797= -25,732 (86%) V U 89a Sedona 89 £ ¤ Cottonwood V U LAKE HAVASU 95 Baseline: 16,130 Normal Low: 40,457 - 40,113= +344 (None) High: 40,457 - 41,286= -829 (2%) Shortage Low: 29,975 - 40,113= -10,138 (25%) High: 29,975 - 41,286= -11,311 (27%) Parker V U 179 YA VA PA I COU NT Y BILL WILLIAMS Baseline: 4,150 Normal Low: 4,554 - 14,529= -9,975 (69%) High: 4,554 - 34,584= -30,029 (87%) Shortage Low: 4,365 - 14,529= -10,164 (70%) High: 4,365 - 34,584= -30,219 (87%) 89a £ ¤ Prescott 69 City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Mohave County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2060 County State Boundary 169 V U 17 260 V U 89 GIL A COU NT Y LA P AZ COU NT Y Legend V § V U U ¦ ¨ PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Mohave County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2060 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\MohaveCo_2060.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 101 Water Resources Development Commission Colorado City § ¦ ¨ 15 V U VIRGIN RIVER Baseline: 2,305 Low: 3,052 - 3,363= -312 (9%) High: 3,052 - 3,426= -374 (11%) 389 KANAB PLATEAU Baseline: 3,627 Normal Low: 4,089 - 7,943= -3,854 (49%) High: 4,089 - 8,095= -4,006 (49%) Shortage Low: 4,069 - 7,943= -3,874 (49%) High: 4,069 - 8,095= -4,025 (50%) GRAND WASH Baseline: 2 2 - 0= +2 (None) SHIVWITS PLATEAU Baseline: 2 2 - 4= -2 (48%) Grand Canyon Village V U MEADVIEW Baseline: 145 Low: 145 - 431= -286 (66%) High: 145 - 451= -306 (68%) MOHA VE COU NT Y 64 COCO NI NO COU NT Y COCONINO PLATEAU Baseline: 1,173 Low: 2,523 - 2,651= -128 (5%) High: 2,523 - 2,824= -302 (11%) DETRITAL VALLEY Baseline: 309 Low: 354 - 706= -352 (50%) High: 354 - 739= -385 (52%) PEACH SPRINGS HUALAPAI VALLEY Baseline: 351 Baseline: 9,109 Low: 10,909 - 25,612= -14,703 (57%) Low: 451 - 1,151= -700 (61%) High: 10,909 - 26,603= -15,694 (59%) High: 451 - 1,188= -737 (62%) 180 £ ¤ 93 £ ¤ LAKE MOHAVE Baseline: 47,769 Normal Low: 77,349 - 103,795= -26,447 (25%) High: 77,349 - 115,459= -38,110 (33%) Shortage Low: 56,995 - 103,795= -46,801 (45%) High: 56,995 - 115,459= -58,464 (51%) 68 68 Kingman Bullhead City Peach Springs V U 66 ¤ V £ U Williams § ¦ ¨ 40 Flagstaff BIG SANDY Baseline: 15,028 Lake Mohave Tribal Ag Low: 15,028 - 879= +14,149 (None) Baseline: 68,110 High: 15,028 - 910= +14,118 (None) 103,535 - 68,110= +35,425 (None) SACRAMENTO VALLEY Baseline: 3,765 Low: 4,065 - 27,462= -23,396 (85%) High: 4,065 - 35,495= -31,429 (89%) V U 89a Sedona 89 £ ¤ Cottonwood V U LAKE HAVASU 95 Baseline: 16,130 Normal Low: 40,457 - 55,754= -15,296 (27%) High: 40,457 - 57,242= -16,785 (29%) Shortage Low: 29,975 - 55,754= -25,778 (46%) High: 29,975 - 57,242= -27,267 (48%) Parker V U 179 YA VA PA I COU NT Y BILL WILLIAMS Baseline: 4,150 Normal Low: 4,554 - 15,260= -10,705 (70%) High: 4,554 - 35,337= -30,782 (87%) Shortage Low: 4,365 - 15,260= -10,895 (71%) High: 4,365 - 35,337= -30,972 (88%) 89a £ ¤ Prescott 69 City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Mohave County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary V U 17 260 89 GIL A COU NT Y PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Mohave County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Census) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\MohaveCo_2110cs.mxd 102 169 V U LA P AZ COU NT Y Legend V § V U U ¦ ¨ Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Colorado City § ¦ ¨ 15 V U VIRGIN RIVER Baseline: 2,305 Low: 3,052 - 2,083= +969 (None) High: 3,052 - 2,091= +960 (None) 389 KANAB PLATEAU Baseline: 3,627 Normal Low: 4,089 - 8,901= -4,812 (54%) High: 4,089 - 9,074= -4,985 (55%) Shortage Low: 4,069 - 8,901= -4,832 (54%) High: 4,069 - 9,074= -5,005 (55%) GRAND WASH Baseline: 2 2 - 79= -77 (97%) SHIVWITS PLATEAU Baseline: 2 2 - 820= -818 (100%) Grand Canyon Village V U MEADVIEW Baseline: 145 Low: 145 - 70= +75 (None) High: 145 - 73= +72 (None) MOHA VE COU NT Y 64 COCO NI NO COU NT Y COCONINO PLATEAU Baseline: 1,173 Low: 2,523 - 3,063= -540 (18%) High: 2,523 - 3,264= -741 (23%) DETRITAL VALLEY Baseline: 309 Low: 354 - 950= -596 (63%) High: 354 - 995= -641 (64%) PEACH SPRINGS HUALAPAI VALLEY Baseline: 351 Baseline: 9,109 Low: 10,909 - 23,331= -12,422 (53%) Low: 451 - 2,307= -1,856 (80%) High: 10,909 - 24,252= -13,343 (55%) High: 451 - 2,394= -1,942 (81%) 180 £ ¤ 93 £ ¤ LAKE MOHAVE Baseline: 47,769 Normal Low: 77,349 - 100,045= -22,697 (23%) High: 77,349 - 111,560= -34,211 (31%) Shortage Low: 56,995 - 100,045= -43,051 (43%) High: 56,995 - 111,560= -54,565 (49%) 68 68 Kingman Bullhead City Peach Springs V U 66 ¤ V £ U Williams § ¦ ¨ 40 Flagstaff BIG SANDY Baseline: 15,028 Lake Mohave Tribal Ag Low: 15,028 - 3,232= +11,796 (None) Baseline: 68,110 High: 15,028 - 3,347= +11,681 (None) 103,535 - 68,110= +35,425 (None) SACRAMENTO VALLEY Baseline: 3,765 Low: 4,065 - 27,938= -23,873 (85%) High: 4,065 - 35,987= -31,922 (89%) V U 89a Sedona 89 £ ¤ Cottonwood V U LAKE HAVASU 95 Baseline: 16,130 Normal Low: 40,457 - 55,390= -14,933 (27%) High: 40,457 - 56,870= -16,413 (29%) Shortage Low: 29,975 - 55,390= -25,415 (46%) High: 29,975 - 56,870= -26,895 (47%) Parker V U 179 YA VA PA I COU NT Y BILL WILLIAMS Baseline: 4,150 Normal Low: 4,554 - 21,541= -16,986 (79%) High: 4,554 - 41,574= -37,019 (89%) Shortage Low: 4,365 - 21,541= -17,176 (80%) High: 4,365 - 41,574= -37,209 (90%) 89a £ ¤ Prescott 69 City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Mohave County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary 169 V U 17 260 V U 89 GIL A COU NT Y LA P AZ COU NT Y Legend V § V U U ¦ ¨ PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Mohave County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Area Split) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\MohaveCo_2110as.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 103 Water Resources Development Commission V U Page 389 64 £ ¤ 163 £ ¤ MOHA VE COU NTY Kayenta V U 98 89 £ ¤ 160 £ ¤ Grand Canyon Village V U V U 64 264 LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Baseline: 160,823 Low: 195,087 - 218,219= -23,132 (11%) High: 195,087 - 259,566= -64,479 (25%) Kykotsmovi COCO NI NO COU NTY V U 90 Window Rock 180 £ ¤ NA VAJ O COU NTY Williams 118 87 § ¦ ¨ V U 89 77 V U Flagstaff V U V U APA CHE COU NTY V U V U Winslow 40 53 89a Sedona V U Holbrook 487 Cottonwood V U V U 179 89a £ ¤ Prescott YA VA PA I COU NTY V U 17 V VU U 69 377 § ¦ ¨ 65 169 Saint Johns V U 277 V U 61 Show Low Payson Springerville V U V U 260 288 V U GIL A COU NTY 74 V U V U Phoenix V U £ ¤ 188 101 MA R IC OPA COU NTY SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 73 Low: 26,621 - 39,460= -12,838 (33%) High: 26,621 - 55,850= -29,229 (52%) 60 V U 88 V U 143 Globe 191 £ ¤ V U GRE E NL E E COU NTY 170 V U U V V U V U 347 PI N AL COU NTY 587 238 V U 79 70 £ ¤ V U GRA HA M COU NTY 177 Clifton Florence Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Navajo County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2035 County State Boundary V U 78 387 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 10 30 40 50 Miles Navajo County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2035 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\Navajo_2035.mxd 104 20 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission V U Page 389 64 £ ¤ 163 £ ¤ MOHA VE COU NTY Kayenta V U 98 89 £ ¤ 160 £ ¤ Grand Canyon Village V U V U 64 264 LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Baseline: 160,823 Low: 191,762 - 249,821= -58,059 (23%) High: 191,762 - 307,246= -115,484 (38%) Kykotsmovi COCO NI NO COU NTY V U 90 Window Rock 180 £ ¤ NA VAJ O COU NTY Williams 118 87 § ¦ ¨ V U 89 77 V U Flagstaff V U V U APA CHE COU NTY V U V U Winslow 40 53 89a Sedona V U Holbrook 487 Cottonwood V U V U 179 89a £ ¤ Prescott YA VA PA I COU NTY V U 17 V VU U 69 377 § ¦ ¨ 65 169 Saint Johns V U 277 V U 61 Show Low Payson Springerville V U V U 260 288 V U GIL A COU NTY 74 V U V U Phoenix V U £ ¤ 188 101 MA R IC OPA COU NTY SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 73 Low: 26,021 - 40,148= -14,127 (35%) High: 26,021 - 56,630= -30,610 (54%) 60 V U 88 V U 143 Globe 191 £ ¤ V U GRE E NL E E COU NTY 170 V U U V V U V U 347 PI N AL COU NTY 587 238 V U 79 70 £ ¤ V U GRA HA M COU NTY 177 Clifton Florence Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Navajo County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2060 County State Boundary V U 78 387 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Navajo County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2060 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\Navajo_2060.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 105 Water Resources Development Commission V U Page 389 64 £ ¤ 163 £ ¤ MOHA VE COU NTY Kayenta V U 98 89 £ ¤ 160 £ ¤ Grand Canyon Village V U V U 64 264 LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Baseline: 160,823 Low: 191,762 - 292,195= -100,433 (34%) High: 191,762 - 372,121= -180,359 (48%) Kykotsmovi COCO NI NO COU NTY V U 90 Window Rock 180 £ ¤ NA VAJ O COU NTY Williams 118 87 § ¦ ¨ V U 89 77 V U Flagstaff V U V U APA CHE COU NTY V U V U Winslow 40 53 89a Sedona V U Holbrook 487 Cottonwood V U V U 179 89a £ ¤ Prescott YA VA PA I COU NTY V U 17 V VU U 69 377 § ¦ ¨ 65 169 Saint Johns V U 277 V U 61 Show Low Payson Springerville V U V U 260 288 V U GIL A COU NTY 74 V U V U Phoenix V U £ ¤ 188 101 MA R IC OPA COU NTY SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 73 Low: 26,021 - 42,332= -16,311 (39%) High: 26,021 - 59,001= -32,980 (56%) 60 V U 88 V U 143 Globe 191 £ ¤ V U GRE E NL E E COU NTY 170 V U U V V U V U 347 PI N AL COU NTY 587 238 V U 79 70 £ ¤ V U GRA HA M COU NTY 177 Clifton Florence Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Navajo County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary V U 78 387 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 10 30 40 50 Miles Navajo County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Census) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\Navajo_2110cs.mxd 106 20 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission V U Page 389 64 £ ¤ 163 £ ¤ MOHA VE COU NTY Kayenta V U 98 89 £ ¤ 160 £ ¤ Grand Canyon Village V U V U 64 264 LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU Baseline: 160,823 Low: 191,762 - 291,806= -100,044 (34%) High: 191,762 - 371,709= -179,947 (48%) Kykotsmovi COCO NI NO COU NTY V U 90 Window Rock 180 £ ¤ NA VAJ O COU NTY Williams 118 87 § ¦ ¨ V U 89 77 V U Flagstaff V U V U APA CHE COU NTY V U V U Winslow 40 53 89a Sedona V U Holbrook 487 Cottonwood V U V U 179 89a £ ¤ Prescott YA VA PA I COU NTY V U 17 V VU U 69 377 § ¦ ¨ 65 169 Saint Johns V U 277 V U 61 Show Low Payson Springerville V U V U 260 288 V U GIL A COU NTY 74 V U V U Phoenix V U £ ¤ 188 101 MA R IC OPA COU NTY SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 73 Low: 26,021 - 43,971= -17,951 (41%) High: 26,021 - 60,718= -34,697 (57%) 60 V U 88 V U 143 Globe 191 £ ¤ V U GRE E NL E E COU NTY 170 V U U V V U V U 347 PI N AL COU NTY 587 238 V U 79 70 £ ¤ V U GRA HA M COU NTY 177 Clifton Florence Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Navajo County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary V U 78 387 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Navajo County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Area Split) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\Navajo_2110as.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 107 108 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 V U PI M A WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE Baseline: 6 COU NT Y Low: 6 - 6= 0 (7%) High: 6 - 7= -1 (11%) LOWER GILA Baseline: 504,687 Normal 85 Low: 497,868 - 497,669= +198 (None) High: 497,868 - 516,115= -18,247 (4%) Shortage Low: 497,660 - 497,669= -9 (0%) High: 497,660 - 516,115= -18,455 (4%) 8 § ¦ ¨ 347 V U 10 287 60 £ ¤ 387 86 V U PINAL AMA Baseline: 1,022,762 Normal Low: 670,902 - 985,887= -314,985 (32%) High: 670,902 - 1,007,978= -337,076 (33%) Shortage Low: 620,706 - 985,887= -365,181 (37%) High: 620,706 - 1,007,978= -387,272 (38%) 84 £ ¤ 84 587 V U 87 V U § ¦ ¨ V U VCasa Grande U V V U U 238 143 PI N AL COU NT Y SAN SIMON WASH Baseline: 1,500 Low: 1,900 - 2,042= -142 (7%) High: 1,900 - 2,116= -216 (10%) Gila Bend MA R IC OP A COU NT Y £ ¤ 85 V U V U Phoenix 153 17 § ¦ ¨ Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\PimaCo_2035_LS.mxd YU MA COU NT Y LA P AZ COU NT Y 101 V U 79 V U 19 § ¦ ¨ 177 V U 77 70 £ ¤ 170 V U Tucson V U 82 V U CIENEGA CREEK Baseline: 1,101 SAN T A C R UZ Low: 1,201 - 1,755= -554 (32%) COU NT Y High: 1,201 - 2,007= -806 (40%) SANTA CRUZ AMA Baseline: 20,980 Low: 37,291 - 25,541= +11,750 (None) Nogales High: 37,291 - 26,336= +10,956 (None) V U COCH ISE COU NT Y UPPER SAN83PEDRO Baseline: 29,237 90 Low: 33,484 - 39,528= -6,044 (15%) High: 33,484 - 50,520= -17,036 (34%) 80 V U GRA HA M COU NT Y LOWER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 24,622 Low: 25,169 - 20,948= +4,221 (None) High: 25,169 - 37,087= -11,918 (32%) V U Globe GIL A COU NT Y V U TUCSON AMA Baseline: 338,067 Normal Low: 453,030 - 425,148= +27,882 (None) High: 491,064 - 472,395= +18,669 (None) Shortage Low: 421,442 - 425,148= -3,705 (1%) High: 459,477 - 472,395= -12,918 (3%) Florence 88 V U 188 5 10 2035 Projected Demand 15 ¯ Supply - Demand 20 25 Miles Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Pima County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2035 Projected Demands 0 Currently Developed Adjusted Supply PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) State Boundary State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Pima County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2035 County US Highway Interstate City, Town or Place Legend Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 § ¦ ¨ PI M A WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE Baseline: 6 COU NT Y Low: 6 - 8= -2 (26%) High: 6 - 8= -2 (29%) V U LOWER GILA Baseline: 504,687 Normal 85 Low: 483,841 - 490,312= -6,471 (1%) High: 483,841 - 509,041= -25,201 (5%) Shortage Low: 483,633 - 490,312= -6,679 (1%) High: 483,633 - 509,041= -25,408 (5%) 347 V U 238 84 10 287 60 £ ¤ 387 § ¦ ¨ V U VCasa Grande U V V U U 587 V U 87 V U 86 V U 177 V U 79 V U § ¦ ¨ 19 70 £ ¤ 170 V U V U Tucson V U LOWER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 24,622 Low: 25,127 - 22,961= +2,167 (None) High: 25,127 - 39,054= -13,927 (36%) V U ARAVAIPA CANYON Baseline: 1,014 Low: 964 - 1,014= -50 (5%) 77High: 964 - 1,015= -51 (5%) GRA HA M COU NT Y DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH Baseline: 11 Low: 11 - 17= -6 (37%) High: 11 - 19= -8 (43%) Globe GIL A COU NT Y V U Florence DONNELLY WASH Baseline: 19 19 - 0= +19 (None) V U SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204188 Low: 88 26,021 - 40,148= -14,127 (35%) High: 26,021 - 56,630= -30,610 (54%) Sierra Vista SANTA CRUZ AMA Baseline: 20,980 Low: 37,291 - 28,921= +8,371 (None) High: 37,291 - 29,530= +7,761 (None) SAN RAFAEL SAN T A C R UZ Baseline: 22 COU NT Y Low: 22 - 30= -8 (28%) Nogales High: 22 - 32= -10 (31%) 82 V U V U TUCSON AMA Baseline: 338,067 Normal Low: 455,821 - 486,427= -30,606 (6%) High: 495,184 - 535,325= -40,141 (8%) CIENEGA CREEK Shortage 80 Baseline: 1,101 Low: 424,234 - 486,427= -62,193 (13%) Low: 1,201 - 1,968= -767 (39%) High: 463,596 - 535,325= -71,729 (13%) High: 1,201 - 2,232= -1,031 (46%) COCH ISE COU NT Y UPPER SAN83PEDRO Baseline: 29,237 90 Low: 33,262 - 44,660= -11,398 (26%) High: 33,262 - 55,686= -22,425 (40%) PINAL AMA Baseline: 1,022,762 Normal Low: 667,405 - 902,124= -234,719 (26%) High: 667,405 - 925,757= -258,352 (28%) Shortage Low: 617,209 - 902,124= -284,915 (32%) High: 617,209 - 925,757= -308,548 (33%) 84 £ ¤ PI N AL COU NT Y SAN SIMON WASH Baseline: 1,500 Low: 1,900 - 2,440= -540 (22%) High: 1,900 - 2,533= -633 (25%) Gila Bend MA R IC OP A COU NT Y £ ¤ 85 V U V U Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\PimaCo_2060_LS.mxd YU MA COU NT Y § ¦ ¨ 101 V U PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal 17 Low: 2,416,455 - 3,356,261= -939,806 (28%) High: 2,549,545 - 3,489,538= -939,993 (27%) Phoenix 153 Shortage 143 Low: 2,224,638 - 3,356,261= -1,131,623 (34%) High: 2,357,729 - 3,489,538= -1,131,810 (32%) 8 GILA BEND Baseline: 357,823 Low: 345,998 - 390,492= -44,495 (11%) High: 345,998 - 400,591= -54,593 (14%) HARQUAHALA INA Baseline: 136,735 Low: 66,178 - 137,516= -71,338 (52%) High: 66,178 - 137,944= -71,766 (52%) LA P AZ COU NT Y 5 10 2035 Projected Demand 15 ¯ Supply - Demand 20 25 Miles Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Pima County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2060 Projected Demands 0 Currently Developed Adjusted Supply PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) State Boundary State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Pima County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2060 County US Highway Interstate City, Town or Place Legend Water Resources Development Commission 109 110 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 § ¦ ¨ PI M A WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE Baseline: 6 COU NT Y Low: 6 - 11= -5 (47%) High: 6 - 12= -6 (49%) V U LOWER GILA Baseline: 504,687 Normal 85 Low: 483,841 - 502,324= -18,483 (4%) High: 483,841 - 521,304= -37,463 (7%) Shortage Low: 483,633 - 502,324= -18,691 (4%) High: 483,633 - 521,304= -37,670 (7%) 347 V U 238 84 10 287 60 £ ¤ 387 § ¦ ¨ V U VCasa Grande U V V U U 587 V U 87 V U 86 V U 177 V U 79 V U § ¦ ¨ 19 70 £ ¤ 170 V U V U Tucson V U LOWER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 24,622 Low: 25,127 - 24,843= +285 (None) High: 25,127 - 41,023= -15,895 (39%) V U ARAVAIPA CANYON Baseline: 1,014 Low: 964 - 1,020= -56 (6%) 77High: 964 - 1,021= -57 (6%) GRA HA M COU NT Y DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH Baseline: 11 Low: 11 - 24= -13 (54%) High: 11 - 27= -16 (59%) Globe GIL A COU NT Y Florence DONNELLY WASH Baseline: 19 19 - 850= -831 (98%) V U V U SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204188 Low: 88 26,021 - 42,332= -16,311 (39%) High: 26,021 - 59,001= -32,980 (56%) Sierra Vista SANTA CRUZ AMA Baseline: 20,980 Low: 37,291 - 34,906= +2,385 (None) High: 37,291 - 36,116= +1,175 (None) SAN RAFAEL SAN T A C R UZ Baseline: 22 COU NT Y Low: 22 - 42= -20 (48%) Nogales High: 22 - 44= -22 (50%) 82 V U V U TUCSON AMA Baseline: 338,067 Normal Low: 485,926 - 627,088= -141,162 (23%) High: 532,769 - 685,279= -152,509 (22%) CIENEGA CREEK Shortage 80 Baseline: 1,101 Low: 454,339 - 627,088= -172,749 (28%) Low: 1,201 - 2,415= -1,214 (50%) High: 501,182 - 685,279= -184,097 (27%) High: 1,201 - 2,703= -1,502 (56%) COCH ISE COU NT Y UPPER SAN83PEDRO Baseline: 29,237 90 Low: 33,262 - 56,827= -23,565 (41%) High: 33,262 - 68,577= -35,316 (51%) PINAL AMA Baseline: 1,022,762 Normal Low: 667,405 - 983,096= -315,691 (32%) High: 667,405 - 1,015,930= -348,525 (34%) Shortage Low: 617,209 - 983,096= -365,887 (37%) High: 617,209 - 1,015,930= -398,721 (39%) 84 £ ¤ PI N AL COU NT Y SAN SIMON WASH Baseline: 1,500 Low: 1,900 - 3,182= -1,282 (40%) High: 1,900 - 3,311= -1,411 (43%) Gila Bend MA R IC OP A COU NT Y 85 £ ¤ V U V U Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\PimaCo_2110cs_LS.mxd YU MA COU NT Y § ¦ ¨ 101 V U PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal 17 Low: 2,484,097 - 4,279,621= -1,795,524 (42%) High: 2,549,545 - 4,484,942= -1,935,397 (43%) Phoenix 153 Shortage 143 Low: 2,292,280 - 4,279,621= -1,987,341 (46%) High: 2,357,729 - 4,484,942= -2,127,214 (47%) 8 GILA BEND Baseline: 357,823 Low: 345,998 - 404,603= -58,605 (14%) High: 345,998 - 418,574= -72,576 (17%) HARQUAHALA INA Baseline: 136,735 Low: 66,178 - 138,374= -72,196 (52%) High: 66,178 - 138,953= -72,775 (52%) LA P AZ COU NT Y 5 10 2035 Projected Demand 15 ¯ Supply - Demand 20 25 Miles Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Pima County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Census) Projected Demands 0 Currently Developed Adjusted Supply PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) State Boundary State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Pima County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County US Highway Interstate City, Town or Place Legend Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 V U PI M A WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE Baseline: 6 COU NT Y Low: 6 - 123= -117 (95%) High: 6 - 128= -122 (95%) LOWER GILA Baseline: 504,687 Normal 85 Low: 483,841 - 517,200= -33,360 (7%) High: 483,841 - 535,164= -51,324 (10%) Shortage Low: 483,633 - 517,200= -33,567 (7%) High: 483,633 - 535,164= -51,531 (10%) 8 § ¦ ¨ 347 V U 10 287 60 £ ¤ 387 86 V U Florence 88 V U 79 V U 19 § ¦ ¨ 177 V U 77 70 £ ¤ 170 V U Tucson V U V U GRA HA M COU NT Y LOWER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 24,622 Low: 25,127 - 25,666= -538 (2%) High: 25,127 - 42,123= -16,995 (40%) V U Globe GIL A COU NT Y V U 188 SANTA CRUZ AMA Baseline: 20,980 Low: 37,291 - 35,207= +2,084 (None) High: 37,291 - 36,460= +831 (None) SAN T A C R UZ COU NT Y Nogales 82 V U Sierra Vista V U TUCSON AMA Baseline: 338,067 Normal Low: 487,092 - 627,766= -140,674 (22%) High: 532,576 - 684,268= -151,692 (22%) CIENEGA CREEK Shortage 80 Baseline: 1,101 Low: 455,504 - 627,766= -172,262 (27%) Low: 1,201 - 2,195= -994 (45%) High: 500,988 - 684,268= -183,279 (27%) High: 1,201 - 2,471= -1,270 (51%) COCH ISE COU NT Y UPPER SAN83PEDRO Baseline: 29,237 90 Low: 33,262 - 56,252= -22,991 (41%) High: 33,262 - 67,957= -34,696 (51%) PINAL AMA Baseline: 1,022,762 Normal Low: 667,405 - 981,227= -313,822 (32%) High: 667,405 - 1,016,058= -348,653 (34%) Shortage Low: 617,209 - 981,227= -364,018 (37%) High: 617,209 - 1,016,058= -398,849 (39%) 84 £ ¤ 84 587 V U 87 V U § ¦ ¨ V U VCasa Grande U V V U U 238 143 PI N AL COU NT Y SAN SIMON WASH Baseline: 1,500 Low: 1,900 - 3,405= -1,505 (44%) High: 1,900 - 3,544= -1,644 (46%) Gila Bend MA R IC OP A COU NT Y £ ¤ 85 V U V U Phoenix 153 17 § ¦ ¨ Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\PimaCo_2110as_LS.mxd YU MA COU NT Y LA P AZ COU NT Y 101 V U 5 10 2035 Projected Demand 15 ¯ Supply - Demand 20 25 Miles Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Pima County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Area Split) Projected Demands 0 Currently Developed Adjusted Supply PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) State Boundary State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Pima County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County US Highway Interstate City, Town or Place Legend Water Resources Development Commission 111 112 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 347 V U 84 V U 587 V U V U 287 Casa Grande 387 V U 87 V U 86 V U PINAL AMA Baseline: 1,022,762 Normal Low: 670,902 - 985,887= -314,985 (32%) High: 670,902 - 1,007,978= -337,076 (33%) Shortage Low: 620,706 - 985,887= -365,181 (37%) High: 620,706 - 1,007,978= -387,272 (38%) 84 238 V U 143 153 PI N AL COU NT Y £ ¤ § ¦ ¨ 8 51 V U V U V Phoenix U V U 17 § ¦ ¨ 88 V U 177 V U 79 V U DONNELLY WASH Baseline: 19 19 - 0= +19 (None) 188 V U 288 V U 19 § ¦ ¨ 77 83 V U LOWER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 24,622 Low: 25,169 - 20,948= +4,221 (None) High: 25,169 - 37,087= -11,918 (32%) V U DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH Baseline: 11 Low: 11 - 16= -5 (30%) High: 11 - 17= -6 (37%) 170 V U 73 V U 90 80 V U U V COCH ISE COU NT Y ARAVAIPA CANYON Baseline: 1,014 Low: 989 - 1,013= -24 (2%) High: 989 - 1,014= -25 (2%) GRA HA M COU NT Y 70 £ ¤ SAFFORD Baseline: 177,558 Low: 161,032 - 183,181= -22,149 (12%) Globe High: 161,032 - 205,523= -44,490 (22%) GIL A COU NT Y 60 £ ¤ SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26,621 - 39,460= -12,838 (33%) High: 26,621 - 55,850= -29,229 (52%) TUCSON AMA Baseline: 338,067 Normal Low: 453,030 - 425,148= +27,882 (None) High: 491,064 - 472,395= +18,669 (None) Shortage Low: 421,442 - 425,148= -3,705 (1%) High: 459,477 - 472,395= -12,918 (3%) Tucson 10 § ¦ ¨ Florence PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage 101 Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\PinalCo_2035_LS.mxd PI M A COU NT Y MA R IC OP A COU NT Y 74 V U YA VA PA I COU NT Y 186 V U 191 £ ¤ NA VAJ O COU NT Y 10 15 ¯ Supply - Demand 20 25 Miles Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies Pinal County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2035 Projected Demands 5 2035 Projected Demand Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report 0 Currently Developed Adjusted Supply PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) State Boundary State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Pinal County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2035 County US Highway Interstate City, Town or Place Legend Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 8 § ¦ ¨ 51 V U 238 V U 84 V U 587 V U V U 287 Casa Grande 387 V U 87 V U 86 V U PINAL AMA Baseline: 1,022,762 Normal Low: 667,405 - 902,124= -234,719 (26%) High: 667,405 - 925,757= -258,352 (28%) Shortage Low: 617,209 - 902,124= -284,915 (32%) High: 617,209 - 925,757= -308,548 (33%) 84 £ ¤ PI N AL COU NT Y 347 V U 143 153 V U V Phoenix U V U 17 § ¦ ¨ 88 177 V U 79 V U DONNELLY WASH Baseline: 19 19 - 0= +19 (None) 188 V U 288 V U 19 § ¦ ¨ 77 83 V U LOWER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 24,622 Low: 25,127 - 22,961= +2,167 (None) High: 25,127 - 39,054= -13,927 (36%) V U DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH Baseline: 11 Low: 11 - 17= -6 (37%) High: 11 - 19= -8 (43%) 170 V U 73 V U 90 80 V U U V COCH ISE COU NT Y ARAVAIPA CANYON Baseline: 1,014 Low: 964 - 1,014= -50 (5%) High: 964 - 1,015= -51 (5%) GRA HA M COU NT Y 70 £ ¤ SAFFORD Baseline: 177,558 Low: 157,323 - 184,388= -27,065 (15%) Globe High: 157,323 - 206,780= -49,457 (24%) GIL A COU NT Y 60 £ ¤ SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26,021 - 40,148= -14,127 (35%) High: 26,021 - 56,630= -30,610 (54%) TUCSON AMA Baseline: 338,067 Normal Low: 455,821 - 486,427= -30,606 (6%) High: 495,184 - 535,325= -40,141 (8%) Shortage Low: 424,234 - 486,427= -62,193 (13%) High: 463,596 - 535,325= -71,729 (13%) Tucson 10 § ¦ ¨ Florence V U PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,416,455 - 3,356,261= -939,806 (28%) High: 2,549,545 - 3,489,538= -939,993 (27%) Shortage 101 Low: 2,224,638 - 3,356,261= -1,131,623 (34%) High: 2,357,729 - 3,489,538= -1,131,810 (32%) Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\PinalCo_2060_LS.mxd PI M A COU NT Y MA R IC OP A COU NT Y 74 V U YA VA PA I COU NT Y 186 V U 191 £ ¤ NA VAJ O COU NT Y 10 15 ¯ Supply - Demand 20 25 Miles Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies Pinal County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2060 Projected Demands 5 2035 Projected Demand Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report 0 Currently Developed Adjusted Supply PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) State Boundary State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Pinal County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2060 County US Highway Interstate City, Town or Place Legend Water Resources Development Commission 113 114 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 8 § ¦ ¨ 51 V U 238 V U 84 V U 587 V U V U 287 Casa Grande 387 V U 87 V U 86 V U PINAL AMA Baseline: 1,022,762 Normal Low: 667,405 - 983,096= -315,691 (32%) High: 667,405 - 1,015,930= -348,525 (34%) Shortage Low: 617,209 - 983,096= -365,887 (37%) High: 617,209 - 1,015,930= -398,721 (39%) 84 £ ¤ PI N AL COU NT Y 347 V U 143 153 V U V Phoenix U V U 17 § ¦ ¨ 88 177 V U 79 V U 19 § ¦ ¨ 77 V U DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH Baseline: 11 Low: 11 - 24= -13 (54%) High: 11 - 27= -16 (59%) 170 V U 73 V U 83 V U 90 80 V U U V COCH ISE COU NT Y ARAVAIPA CANYON Baseline: 1,014 Low: 964 - 1,020= -56 (6%) High: 964 - 1,021= -57 (6%) GRA HA M COU NT Y 70 £ ¤ SAFFORD Baseline: 177,558 Low: 157,323 - 187,971= -30,648 (16%) Globe High: 157,323 - 210,513= -53,190 (25%) GIL A COU NT Y 60 £ ¤ LOWER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 24,622 Low: 25,127 - 24,843= +285 (None) High: 25,127 - 41,023= -15,895 (39%) DONNELLY WASH Baseline: 19 19 - 850= -831 (98%) 188 V U 288 V U SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26,021 - 42,332= -16,311 (39%) High: 26,021 - 59,001= -32,980 (56%) TUCSON AMA Baseline: 338,067 Normal Low: 485,926 - 627,088= -141,162 (23%) High: 532,769 - 685,279= -152,509 (22%) Shortage Low: 454,339 - 627,088= -172,749 (28%) High: 501,182 - 685,279= -184,097 (27%) Tucson 10 § ¦ ¨ Florence V U PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,484,097 - 4,279,621= -1,795,524 (42%) High: 2,549,545 - 4,484,942= -1,935,397 (43%) Shortage 101 Low: 2,292,280 - 4,279,621= -1,987,341 (46%) High: 2,357,729 - 4,484,942= -2,127,214 (47%) Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\PinalCo_2110acs_LS.mxd PI M A COU NT Y MA R IC OP A COU NT Y 74 V U YA VA PA I COU NT Y 186 V U 191 £ ¤ NA VAJ O COU NT Y 10 15 ¯ Supply - Demand 20 25 Miles Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies Pinal County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Census) Projected Demands 5 2035 Projected Demand Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report 0 Currently Developed Adjusted Supply PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) State Boundary State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Pinal County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County US Highway Interstate City, Town or Place Legend Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 8 § ¦ ¨ 51 V U 238 V U 84 V U 587 V U V U 287 Casa Grande 387 V U 87 V U 86 V U PINAL AMA Baseline: 1,022,762 Normal Low: 667,405 - 981,227= -313,822 (32%) High: 667,405 - 1,016,058= -348,653 (34%) Shortage Low: 617,209 - 981,227= -364,018 (37%) High: 617,209 - 1,016,058= -398,849 (39%) 84 £ ¤ PI N AL COU NT Y 347 V U 143 153 V U V Phoenix U V U 17 § ¦ ¨ 88 177 V U 79 V U 19 § ¦ ¨ GIL A COU NT Y 60 £ ¤ 77 V U DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH Baseline: 11 Low: 11 - 587= -576 (98%) High: 11 - 651= -640 (98%) 83 V U 90 80 V U U V COCH ISE COU NT Y ARAVAIPA CANYON Baseline: 1,014 Low: 964 - 1,098= -134 (12%) High: 964 - 1,105= -141 (13%) GRA HA M COU NT Y 70 £ ¤ SAFFORD Baseline: 177,558 Low: 157,323 - 187,911= -30,588 (16%) High: 157,323 - 210,451= -53,127 (25%) Globe 73 V U SALT RIVER Baseline: 27,204 Low: 26,021 - 43,971= -17,951 (41%) High: 26,021 - 60,718= -34,697 (57%) LOWER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 24,622 Low: 25,127 - 25,666= -538 (2%) High: 25,127 - 42,123= -16,995 (40%) DONNELLY WASH Baseline: 19 19 - 850= -831 (98%) 188 V U 288 V U TUCSON AMA Baseline: 338,067 Normal Low: 487,092 - 627,766= -140,674 (22%) High: 532,576 - 684,268= -151,692 (22%) Shortage Low: 455,504 - 627,766= -172,262 (27%) High: 500,988 - 684,268= -183,279 (27%) Tucson 10 § ¦ ¨ Florence V U PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,465,951 - 4,078,593= -1,612,642 (40%) High: 2,549,545 - 4,291,514= -1,741,968 (41%) Shortage 101 Low: 2,274,134 - 4,078,593= -1,804,459 (44%) High: 2,357,729 - 4,291,514= -1,933,785 (45%) Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\PinalCo_2110bas_LS.mxd PI M A COU NT Y MA R IC OP A COU NT Y 74 V U YA VA PA I COU NT Y 186 V U 191 £ ¤ NA VAJ O COU NT Y 10 15 ¯ Supply - Demand 20 25 Miles Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies Pinal County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Area Split) Projected Demands 5 2035 Projected Demand Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report 0 Currently Developed Adjusted Supply PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) State Boundary State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Pinal County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County US Highway Interstate City, Town or Place Legend Water Resources Development Commission 115 116 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 S AN T A C R UZ COU NT Y 189 V U Nogales SANTA CRUZ AMA Baseline: 20,980 Low: 37,291 - 25,541= +11,750 (None) High: 37,291 - 26,336= +10,956 (None) 19 § ¦ ¨ TUCSON AMA Baseline: 338,067 Normal Low: 453,030 - 425,148= +27,882 (None) High: 491,064 - 472,395= +18,669 (None) Shortage Low: 421,442 - 425,148= -3,705 (1%) High: 459,477 - 472,395= -12,918 (3%) Tucson Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\SantaCruzCo_2035_LS.mxd PI M A COU NT Y 86 V U 210 V U 77 V U SAN RAFAEL Baseline: 22 Low: 22 - 26= -4 (17%) High: 22 - 28= -6 (21%) 82 V U CIENEGA CREEK Baseline: 1,101 Low: 1,201 - 1,755= -554 (32%) High: 1,201 - 2,007= -806 (40%) 83 V U 10 § ¦ ¨ 80 V U 92 V U Sierra Vista UPPER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 29,237 Low: 33,484 - 39,528= -6,044 (15%) High: 33,484 - 50,520= -17,036 (34%) 90 V U COCH IS E COU NT Y 2035 Projected Demand 5 ¯ Supply - Demand 10 Miles Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Santa Cruz County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2035 Projected Demands 0 Currently Developed Adjusted Supply PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) State Boundary State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Santa Cruz County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2035 County US Highway Interstate City, Town or Place Legend Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 S AN T A C R UZ COU NT Y 189 V U Nogales SANTA CRUZ AMA Baseline: 20,980 Low: 37,291 - 28,921= +8,371 (None) High: 37,291 - 29,530= +7,761 (None) 19 § ¦ ¨ TUCSON AMA Baseline: 338,067 Normal Low: 455,821 - 486,427= -30,606 (6%) High: 495,184 - 535,325= -40,141 (8%) Shortage Low: 424,234 - 486,427= -62,193 (13%) High: 463,596 - 535,325= -71,729 (13%) Tucson Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\SantaCruzCo_2060_LS.mxd PI M A COU NT Y 86 V U 210 V U 77 V U SAN RAFAEL Baseline: 22 Low: 22 - 30= -8 (28%) High: 22 - 32= -10 (31%) 82 V U CIENEGA CREEK Baseline: 1,101 Low: 1,201 - 1,968= -767 (39%) High: 1,201 - 2,232= -1,031 (46%) 83 V U 10 § ¦ ¨ 80 V U 92 V U Sierra Vista UPPER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 29,237 Low: 33,262 - 44,660= -11,398 (26%) High: 33,262 - 55,686= -22,425 (40%) 90 V U COCH IS E COU NT Y 2035 Projected Demand 5 ¯ Supply - Demand 10 Miles Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Santa Cruz County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2060 Projected Demands 0 Currently Developed Adjusted Supply PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) State Boundary State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Santa Cruz County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2060 County US Highway Interstate City, Town or Place Legend Water Resources Development Commission 117 118 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 S AN T A C R UZ COU NT Y 189 V U Nogales SANTA CRUZ AMA Baseline: 20,980 Low: 37,291 - 34,906= +2,385 (None) High: 37,291 - 36,116= +1,175 (None) 19 § ¦ ¨ TUCSON AMA Baseline: 338,067 Normal Low: 485,926 - 627,088= -141,162 (23%) High: 532,769 - 685,279= -152,509 (22%) Shortage Low: 454,339 - 627,088= -172,749 (28%) High: 501,182 - 685,279= -184,097 (27%) Tucson 83 V U 10 § ¦ ¨ SAN RAFAEL Baseline: 22 Low: 22 - 42= -20 (48%) High: 22 - 44= -22 (50%) 82 V U CIENEGA CREEK Baseline: 1,101 Low: 1,201 - 2,415= -1,214 (50%) High: 1,201 - 2,703= -1,502 (56%) Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\SantaCruzCo_2110acs_LS.mxd PI M A COU NT Y 86 V U 210 V U 77 V U 80 V U 92 V U Sierra Vista UPPER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 29,237 Low: 33,262 - 56,827= -23,565 (41%) High: 33,262 - 68,577= -35,316 (51%) 90 V U COCH IS E COU NT Y 2035 Projected Demand 5 ¯ Supply - Demand 10 Miles Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Santa Cruz County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Census) Projected Demands 0 Currently Developed Adjusted Supply PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) State Boundary State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Santa Cruz County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County US Highway Interstate City, Town or Place Legend Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 S AN T A C R UZ COU NT Y 189 V U Nogales SANTA CRUZ AMA Baseline: 20,980 Low: 37,291 - 35,207= +2,084 (None) High: 37,291 - 36,460= +831 (None) 19 § ¦ ¨ TUCSON AMA Baseline: 338,067 Normal Low: 487,092 - 627,766= -140,674 (22%) High: 532,576 - 684,268= -151,692 (22%) Shortage Low: 455,504 - 627,766= -172,262 (27%) High: 500,988 - 684,268= -183,279 (27%) Tucson 83 V U 10 § ¦ ¨ SAN RAFAEL Baseline: 22 Low: 22 - 176= -154 (88%) High: 22 - 185= -163 (88%) 82 V U CIENEGA CREEK Baseline: 1,101 Low: 1,201 - 2,195= -994 (45%) High: 1,201 - 2,471= -1,270 (51%) Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\SantaCruzCo_2110bas_LS.mxd PI M A COU NT Y 86 V U 210 V U 77 V U 80 V U 92 V U Sierra Vista UPPER SAN PEDRO Baseline: 29,237 Low: 33,262 - 56,252= -22,991 (41%) High: 33,262 - 67,957= -34,696 (51%) 90 V U COCH IS E COU NT Y 2035 Projected Demand 5 ¯ Supply - Demand 10 Miles Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Santa Cruz County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Area Split) Projected Demands 0 Currently Developed Adjusted Supply PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) State Boundary State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Santa Cruz County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County US Highway Interstate City, Town or Place Legend Water Resources Development Commission 119 Water Resources Development Commission 160 £ ¤ Grand Canyon Village V U V U 264 64 89 £ ¤ PEACH SPRINGS Baseline: 351 Low: 451 - 810= -359 (44%) High: 451 - 832= -381 (46%) Peach Springs 180 £ ¤ COCO NI NO COU NT Y V U 66 Williams MOHA VE COU NT Y Flagstaff BIG SANDY Baseline: 15,028 Low: 15,028 - 509= +14,519 (None) High: 15,028 - 528= +14,500 (None) V U 89a VERDE RIVER Baseline: 44,527 Low: 50,418 - 53,750= -3,332 (6%) High: 50,418 - 58,275= -7,857 (13%) 93 £ ¤ YA VA PA I COU NT Y BILL WILLIAMS Baseline: 4,150 Normal Low: 4,579 - 14,298= -9,718 (68%) High: 4,579 - 34,346= -29,766 (87%) Shortage Low: 4,390 - 14,298= -9,908 (69%) High: 4,390 - 34,346= -29,956 (87%) V U 71 LA P AZ COU NT Y Sedona PRESCOTT AMA Baseline: 21,887 Low: 26,542 - 36,863= -10,321 (28%) High: 26,542 - 38,478= -11,936 (31%) V U 179 § ¦ ¨ V U 17 V V U U 69 487 Cottonwood 89a £ ¤ Prescott V U 65 169 V U 260 V U 89 AGUA FRIA Baseline: 3,602 Low: 3,632 - 4,772= -1,140 (24%) High: 3,632 - 4,888= -1,256 (26%) UPPER HASSAYAMPA Baseline: 3,286 Low: 3,886 - 5,551= -1,664 (30%) High: 3,886 - 5,699= -1,813 (32%) Payson GIL A COU NT Y MCMULLEN VALLEY Baseline: 71,500 Low: 71,500 -60 72,008= -508 (1%) High: 71,500 - 72,062= -562 (1%) £ ¤ V U 288 V U V U 74 72 MA R IC OP A COU NT Y § ¦ ¨ 10 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) V U 188 V U 101 V U V U V U V U Phoenix 87 51 V U 88 153 143 85 £ ¤ YU MA COU NT Y Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Yavapai County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2035 County State Boundary PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies PI N AL COU NT Y ¯ 0 10 30 40 50 Miles Yavapai County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2035 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\YavapaiCo_2035.mxd 120 20 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission 160 £ ¤ Grand Canyon Village V U V U 264 64 89 £ ¤ PEACH SPRINGS Baseline: 351 Low: 451 - 916= -465 (51%) High: 451 - 942= -491 (52%) Peach Springs 180 £ ¤ COCO NI NO COU NT Y V U 66 Williams MOHA VE COU NT Y Flagstaff BIG SANDY Baseline: 15,028 Low: 15,028 - 635= +14,393 (None) High: 15,028 - 658= +14,370 (None) V U 89a VERDE RIVER Baseline: 44,527 Low: 49,593 - 59,459= -9,866 (17%) High: 49,593 - 63,748= -14,155 (22%) 93 £ ¤ YA VA PA I COU NT Y BILL WILLIAMS Baseline: 4,150 Normal Low: 4,554 - 14,529= -9,975 (69%) High: 4,554 - 34,584= -30,029 (87%) Shortage Low: 4,365 - 14,529= -10,164 (70%) High: 4,365 - 34,584= -30,219 (87%) V U 71 LA P AZ COU NT Y Sedona PRESCOTT AMA Baseline: 21,887 Low: 26,438 - 44,762= -18,323 (41%) High: 26,438 - 46,581= -20,143 (43%) V U 179 § ¦ ¨ V U 17 V V U U 69 487 Cottonwood 89a £ ¤ Prescott V U 65 169 V U 260 V U 89 AGUA FRIA Baseline: 3,602 Low: 3,632 - 5,371= -1,739 (32%) High: 3,632 - 5,511= -1,879 (34%) UPPER HASSAYAMPA Baseline: 3,286 Low: 3,886 - 6,685= -2,799 (42%) High: 3,886 - 6,869= -2,983 (43%) Payson GIL A COU NT Y MCMULLEN VALLEY Baseline: 71,500 Low: 71,500 -60 72,220= -720 (1%) High: 71,500 - 72,285= -785 (1%) £ ¤ V U 288 V U V U 74 72 MA R IC OP A COU NT Y § ¦ ¨ 10 PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,416,455 - 3,356,261= -939,806 (28%) High: 2,549,545 - 3,489,538= -939,993 (27%) Shortage Low: 2,224,638 - 3,356,261= -1,131,623 (34%) High: 2,357,729 - 3,489,538= -1,131,810 (32%) V U 188 V U 101 V U V U V U V U Phoenix 87 51 V U 88 153 143 85 £ ¤ YU MA COU NT Y Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Yavapai County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2060 County State Boundary PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies PI N AL COU NT Y ¯ 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Yavapai County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2060 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\YavapaiCo_2060.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 121 Water Resources Development Commission 160 £ ¤ Grand Canyon Village V U V U 264 64 89 £ ¤ PEACH SPRINGS Baseline: 351 Low: 451 - 1,151= -700 (61%) High: 451 - 1,188= -737 (62%) Peach Springs 180 £ ¤ COCO NI NO COU NT Y V U 66 Williams MOHA VE COU NT Y Flagstaff BIG SANDY Baseline: 15,028 Low: 15,028 - 879= +14,149 (None) High: 15,028 - 910= +14,118 (None) V U 89a VERDE RIVER Baseline: 44,527 Low: 49,593 - 71,347= -21,754 (30%) High: 49,593 - 76,836= -27,243 (35%) 93 £ ¤ YA VA PA I COU NT Y BILL WILLIAMS Baseline: 4,150 Normal Low: 4,554 - 15,260= -10,705 (70%) High: 4,554 - 35,337= -30,782 (87%) Shortage Low: 4,365 - 15,260= -10,895 (71%) High: 4,365 - 35,337= -30,972 (88%) V U 71 LA P AZ COU NT Y Sedona PRESCOTT AMA Baseline: 21,887 Low: 26,438 - 60,736= -34,298 (56%) High: 26,438 - 63,463= -37,024 (58%) V U 179 § ¦ ¨ V U 17 V V U U 69 487 Cottonwood 89a £ ¤ Prescott V U 65 169 V U 260 V U 89 AGUA FRIA Baseline: 3,602 Low: 3,632 - 6,738= -3,106 (46%) High: 3,632 - 6,931= -3,299 (48%) UPPER HASSAYAMPA Baseline: 3,286 Low: 3,886 - 8,943= -5,056 (57%) High: 3,886 - 9,197= -5,311 (58%) Payson GIL A COU NT Y MCMULLEN VALLEY Baseline: 71,500 Low: 71,500 - 72,652= -1,152 (2%) 60 High: 71,500 - 72,740= -1,240 (2%) £ ¤ V U 288 V U V U 74 72 MA R IC OP A COU NT Y PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,484,097 - 4,279,621= -1,795,524 (42%) High: 2,549,545 - 4,484,942= -1,935,397 (43%) Shortage 10 Low: 2,292,280 - 4,279,621= -1,987,341 (46%) High: 2,357,729 - 4,484,942= -2,127,214 (47%) V U 188 V U 101 V U V U V U V U Phoenix § ¦ ¨ 87 51 V U 88 153 143 85 £ ¤ YU MA COU NT Y Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Yavapai County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies PI N AL COU NT Y ¯ 0 10 30 40 50 Miles Yavapai County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Census) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\YavapaiCo_2110acs.mxd 122 20 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission 160 £ ¤ Grand Canyon Village V U V U 264 64 89 £ ¤ PEACH SPRINGS Baseline: 351 Low: 451 - 2,307= -1,856 (80%) High: 451 - 2,394= -1,942 (81%) Peach Springs 180 £ ¤ COCO NI NO COU NT Y V U 66 Williams MOHA VE COU NT Y Flagstaff BIG SANDY Baseline: 15,028 Low: 15,028 - 3,232= +11,796 (None) High: 15,028 - 3,347= +11,681 (None) V U 89a VERDE RIVER Baseline: 44,527 Low: 49,593 - 73,058= -23,465 (32%) High: 49,593 - 78,793= -29,200 (37%) 93 £ ¤ YA VA PA I COU NT Y BILL WILLIAMS Baseline: 4,150 Normal Low: 4,554 - 21,541= -16,986 (79%) High: 4,554 - 41,574= -37,019 (89%) Shortage Low: 4,365 - 21,541= -17,176 (80%) High: 4,365 - 41,574= -37,209 (90%) V U 71 LA P AZ COU NT Y Sedona PRESCOTT AMA Baseline: 21,887 Low: 26,438 - 55,423= -28,984 (52%) High: 26,438 - 57,797= -31,359 (54%) V U 179 § ¦ ¨ V U 17 V V U U 69 487 Cottonwood 89a £ ¤ Prescott V U 65 169 V U 260 V U 89 AGUA FRIA Baseline: 3,602 Low: 3,632 - 75,504= -71,872 (95%) High: 3,632 - 71,004= -67,372 (95%) UPPER HASSAYAMPA Baseline: 3,286 Low: 3,886 - 3,461= +425 (None) High: 3,886 - 3,545= +342 (None) Payson GIL A COU NT Y MCMULLEN VALLEY Baseline: 71,500 Low: 71,500 - 73,432= -1,932 (3%) 60 High: 71,500 - 73,562= -2,062 (3%) £ ¤ V U 288 V U V U 74 72 MA R IC OP A COU NT Y PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,465,951 - 4,078,593= -1,612,642 (40%) High: 2,549,545 - 4,291,514= -1,741,968 (41%) Shortage 10 Low: 2,274,134 - 4,078,593= -1,804,459 (44%) High: 2,357,729 - 4,291,514= -1,933,785 (45%) V U 188 V U 101 V U V U V U V U Phoenix § ¦ ¨ 87 51 V U 88 153 143 85 £ ¤ YU MA COU NT Y Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Yavapai County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies PI N AL COU NT Y ¯ 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Yavapai County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Area Split) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\YavapaiCo_2110bas.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 123 Water Resources Development Commission MOHA VE COU NT Y Parker YA VA PA I COU NT Y 93 £ ¤ V U 89 V U 71 V U 95 PARKER Baseline: 26,462 Normal Low: 40,468 - 33,298= +7,170 (None) High: 40,468 - 35,067= +5,401 (None) Shortage Low: 30,879 - 33,298= -2,419 (7%) High: 30,879 - 35,067= -4,189 (12%) V U 72 60 £ ¤ V U 74 RANEGRAS PLAIN Baseline: 29,350 LA P AZ Quartzsite Low: 29,350 - 29,398= -48 (0.16%) COU NT Y High: 29,350 - 29,405= -55 (0.19%) § ¦ ¨ 10 85 £ ¤ MA R IC OP A COU NT Y LOWER GILA Baseline: 504,687 Normal Low: 497,868 - 497,669= +198 (None) High: 497,868 - 516,115= -18,247 (4%) Shortage Low: 497,660 - 497,669= -9 (0%) High: 497,660 - 516,115= -18,455 (4%) Yuma Tribal Ag Baseline: 6,234 17,197 - 6,234= +10,963 (None) Gila Bend § ¦ ¨ 8 YU MA COU NT Y Yuma YUMA Baseline: 852,241 Normal Low: 904,249 - 858,095= +46,154 (None) High: 904,249 - 861,037= +43,212 (None) Shortage Low: 901,035 - 858,095= +42,940 (None) High: 901,035 - 861,037= +39,998 (None) V U 85 WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE Baseline: 6 Low: 6 - 6= 0 (7%) High: 6 - 7= -1 (11%) V U 86 PI M A COU NT Y Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Yuma County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2035 County State Boundary PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 10 30 40 50 Miles Yuma County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2035 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\YumaCo_2035.mxd 124 20 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission MOHA VE COU NT Y 93 £ ¤ Parker YA VA PA I COU NT Y V U 89 V U 71 V U 95 PARKER Baseline: 26,462 Normal Low: 40,468 - 38,242= +2,225 (None) High: 40,468 - 41,130= -662 (2%) Shortage Low: 30,879 - 38,242= -7,364 (19%) High: 30,879 - 41,130= -10,251 (25%) V U 72 60 £ ¤ V U 74 RANEGRAS PLAIN Baseline: 29,350 LA P AZ Quartzsite Low: 29,350 - 29,488= -138 (0.47%) COU NT Y High: 29,350 - 29,498= -148 (0.50%) § ¦ ¨ 10 85 £ ¤ MA R IC OP A COU NT Y Gila Bend Yuma Tribal Ag Yuma Baseline: 6,234 17,197 - 6,234= +10,963 (None) YU MA COU NT Y § ¦ ¨ 8 LOWER GILA Baseline: 504,687 Normal Low: 483,841 - 490,312= -6,471 (1%) High: 483,841 - 509,041= -25,201 (5%) Shortage Low: 483,633 - 490,312= -6,679 (1%) High: 483,633 - 509,041= -25,408 (5%) YUMA Baseline: 852,241 Normal Low: 878,958 - 848,232= +30,725 (None) High: 878,958 - 851,923= +27,035 (None) Shortage Low: 875,852 - 848,232= +27,620 (None) High: 875,852 - 851,923= +23,929 (None) V U 85 V U PI M A COU NT Y 86 WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE Baseline: 6 Low: 6 - 8= -2 (26%) High: 6 - 8= -2 (29%) Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Yuma County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2060 County State Boundary PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Yuma County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2060 Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\YumaCo_2060.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 125 Water Resources Development Commission MOHA VE COU NT Y 93 £ ¤ Parker YA VA PA I COU NT Y V U 89 V U 71 V U 95 PARKER Baseline: 26,462 Normal Low: 40,468 - 43,651= -3,183 (7%) High: 40,468 - 47,440= -6,973 (15%) Shortage Low: 30,879 - 43,651= -12,772 (29%) High: 30,879 - 47,440= -16,562 (35%) V U 72 60 £ ¤ V U 74 RANEGRAS PLAIN Baseline: 29,350 LA P AZ Quartzsite Low: 29,350 - 29,603= -253 (0.85%) COU NT Y High: 29,350 - 29,615= -265 (0.89%) § ¦ ¨ 10 85 £ ¤ MA R IC OP A COU NT Y Gila Bend YU MA COU NT Y Yuma Tribal Ag Baseline: 6,234 17,197 - 6,234= +10,963 (None) Yuma YUMA Baseline: 852,241 Normal Low: 878,958 - 885,215= -6,257 (1%) High: 878,958 - 890,423= -11,465 (1%) Shortage Low: 875,852 - 885,215= -9,362 (1%) High: 875,852 - 890,423= -14,571 (2%) § ¦ ¨ 8 LOWER GILA Baseline: 504,687 Normal Low: 483,841 - 502,324= -18,483 (4%) High: 483,841 - 521,304= -37,463 (7%) Shortage Low: 483,633 - 502,324= -18,691 (4%) High: 483,633 - 521,304= -37,670 (7%) V U 85 Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Yuma County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies 86 ¯ 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Yuma County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Census) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\YumaCo_2110acs.mxd 126 V U PI M A COU NT Y WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE Baseline: 6 Low: 6 - 11= -5 (47%) High: 6 - 12= -6 (49%) Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission MOHA VE COU NT Y 93 £ ¤ Parker YA VA PA I COU NT Y V U 89 V U 71 V U 95 PARKER Baseline: 26,462 Normal Low: 40,468 - 43,321= -2,854 (7%) High: 40,468 - 47,102= -6,635 (14%) Shortage Low: 30,879 - 43,321= -12,443 (29%) High: 30,879 - 47,102= -16,224 (34%) V U 72 60 £ ¤ V U 74 RANEGRAS PLAIN Baseline: 29,350 LA P AZ Quartzsite Low: 29,350 - 29,447= -97 (0.33%) COU NT Y High: 29,350 - 29,456= -106 (0.36%) § ¦ ¨ 10 85 £ ¤ MA R IC OP A COU NT Y Gila Bend Yuma Tribal Ag Baseline: 6,234 17,197 - 6,234= +10,963 (None) YU MA COU NT Y Yuma YUMA Baseline: 852,241 Normal Low: 878,958 - 884,506= -5,548 (1%) High: 878,958 - 889,691= -10,733 (1%) Shortage Low: 875,852 - 884,506= -8,654 (1%) High: 875,852 - 889,691= -13,839 (2%) § ¦ ¨ 8 LOWER GILA Baseline: 504,687 Normal Low: 483,841 - 517,200= -33,360 (7%) High: 483,841 - 535,164= -51,324 (10%) Shortage Low: 483,633 - 517,200= -33,567 (7%) High: 483,633 - 535,164= -51,531 (10%) V U 85 V U PI M A COU NT Y 86 WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE Baseline: 6 Low: 6 - 123= -117 (95%) High: 6 - 128= -122 (95%) Legend City, Town or Place Interstate US Highway State Highway ADWR Groundwater Basin That Intersects With Yuma County Insignificant or No Projected Unmet Demand in 2110 County State Boundary PHOENIX AMA Baseline: 2,170,179 Normal Low: 2,557,931 - 2,985,423= -427,491 (14%) High: 2,586,512 - 3,097,639= -511,128 (17%) Shortage Low: 2,366,114 - 2,985,423= -619,308 (21%) High: 2,394,695 - 3,097,639= -702,944 (23%) Currently Developed Adjusted Supply 2035 Projected Demand Supply - Demand Percentage of Projected Demand Unmet With Currently Developed Supplies ¯ 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles Yuma County Basins Currently Developed & Adjusted Supplies Vs. 2110 (Area Split) Projected Demands Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply & Demand Committee Report Path: U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Supply_Demand\GIS\Maps\mxd\appendicies\YumaCo_2110bas.mxd Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 1 / August 2011 127 Water Resources Development Commission APPENDIX 2 WRDC AGRICULTURE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT 128 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 2 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission WRDC Agricultural Demand Subcommittee Report Subcommittee Chair: Cliff Cauthen, Hohokam Irrigation and Drainage District cliffcauthen@hohokam.tuccoxmail.com Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 2 / August 2011 129 Water Resources Development Commission INTRODUCTION The Agriculture Subcommittee (Ag Sub) has been charged with analyzing the Agriculture (Ag) demands within the State of Arizona in the first stage of the Water Supply and Demand Committee of the Water Resources Development Commission. This portion of the analysis was a huge under-taking when you consider that this group was responsible to consider the demands across the state and come up with an acceptable description of the agriculture demands as they currently exist and then project these areas Ag water demands for the next 25, 50 and 100 years. The task of projecting out 25 years is fairly significant and difficult, to which we feel as though we have accomplished this portion of the assignment with a great deal of surety. The 50 year projection was somewhat more of a trending of the 25 year projections, while the 100 year projection is simply no more than an attempt to classify the possible land uses and resulting water demands – somewhat similar to that of forecasting the weather in Arizona. Nye onto impossible to get this close to being what it will actually look like then. METHODS When you look at the composition of this work you must keep in mind that we used the resources, for the test year 2006, we had at hand; the USGS reports, the DWR resources, including the Water Atlas, BOR input and the various committee member’s knowledge of the areas in question and how the land use was currently being used. Our committee took into consideration all the variables we had knowledge of when putting our material together. There were many discussions regarding the verification of the data presented, some of these discussions were outside the committee meetings with the entities that prepared the initial data. We had numerous presentations from the individuals who helped prepare the supporting data, these presentations helped immensely when it came to understanding how the data was compiled. This committee came to the conclusions, which I will be presenting throughout this paper, after much debate and conferring with the various entities that prepared the reports we are relying upon to make our projections. This was not a simple process, yet the conclusions we reached were acceptable to the group and we feel as they accurately project, to the best of our abilities, the demands for agriculture across the state. However, future agricultural water demand will also be affected by several factors that have not been considered in this project, primarily because of time and resource constraints. Commodity prices, advances in water conservation technology, the timing and location of urban growth and urban growth patterns, and other factors will have an effect on future agricultural water demand in this state. I would like to begin by clarifying a few of our assumptions to begin with while others will be noted at the end of the report. Most of the data we had to work with was assembled by groundwater basin. Our report will be presented by county, thereby removing any misinterpreting of the Ag Sub work. Converting this data from a basin analysis to a county presentation is not simple, in fact there has been liberties taken in determining the correct assignment of a demand from the basin to the county presentation. The resulting document that you receive, although not rocket science, has been determined to be acceptable to the Ag Sub. In reporting on the Ag demands for the state of Arizona we have chosen to break up our presentation of data into three categories: AMA or Active Management Area; Non-AMA or Non Active Management Area and the Yuma and Lower Gila Basin area. 130 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 2 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Non-AMA areas of Arizona This area of the State comprises many counties which have very little Ag land comparatively speaking. However, the Ag land that exists in these areas has been in active production for many generations. Also, this land will continue to be farmed into the future without much interruption and very little infringement by Municipal or Industrial growth. For example, the Willcox basin within Cochise County has historically farmed the same amount of ground in terms of acres farmed. The limiting factor has been, and will always be, the accessibility to groundwater. The potential for this land to be developed exists, but we feel that any growth in this county that does occur on agriculture properties will provide for the water used on that parcel to be used on a different parcel in order to benefit an adjacent property. In other words, any Ag land removed from production for development will provide the ability to apply the water used here to another parcel. The Willcox area has a unique problem when it comes to water availability: This area is isolated from other non-basin inflows; it is an island in the water world within the State of Arizona. In our evaluation of the Verde Valley area, we took the position that the Ag demand there was also going to not increase, nor decrease over time. Much of this area is in the horse farm category of 1-5 acre parcels that the landowner has acquired a right to water use, and this demand will not vary over time. In general, we are proposing that the Non-AMA portions of the State of Arizona, outside of Yuma County, will be flat-lined in the demand for Ag water for all three projections. The 25, 50 and 100 year demand numbers for each county will be the same as they are for the test year, 2006. Yuma and Lower Gila Basin (Yuma County) In determining the need to carve this area out of the mass and present it separately from the Non-AMA areas, the inconsistencies within the data pools was a major contributing factor. The USGS data and the DWR data were inconsistent in the reporting of the historical use and when analyzing this information it was determined that the best case scenario required that we present Yuma County as a separate demand component within the Ag report. The reporting of the demands within this area has been questioned, and answers have been provided so that the Ag Sub is comfortable with our report. Many questions were presented regarding the collecting of the data in the Lower Gila basin due to what appeared as a lack of use/demand for the Wellton Mohawk area. Most of the water use data appeared to come from the upper end of the Lower Gila Basin. When this was questioned and then reviewed, the resulting responses were satisfactorily assigned in the correct area of Yuma County for our purposes. The data assembled from the Yuma Basin also appeared to be misstated and was reviewed with the appropriate agencies. After reviewing this data with DWR, the Ag Sub determined that this area was in need of being addressed in conjunction with the Wellton Mohawk area. Considering all the information gathered, taking into the corrections in the interpretation of this data and looking at past growth as a means to determine future growth; the Ag Subcommittee has reached the conclusion that in forecasting the Ag demands for both the Lower Gila AND the Yuma Basin (Yuma County) that a gradual decline in total water demands over the next 50 years of 7% of the total annual delivery for 2006 should be reflected with the resulting number being displayed each year and specifically for year 25 (2036). Beyond 2062, the total demand should be flat-lined each year. Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 2 / August 2011 131 Water Resources Development Commission Active Management Area’s (AMA’s) Phoenix – There has been much work on this subject matter in each of the 3 AMA Management Plans. The 4th Management Plan is scheduled to start data analysis this summer with a report proposed sometime in 2012, unfortunately not soon enough for inclusion in this report. The 3rd Management Plan reflected the impacts of the economic boom the State of Arizona was experiencing in the mid ‘90’s. This boom never fully materialized and as a result the projections that were sure to occur never fully materialized. Now we are faced with many years of recovery that may lead back to a scheduled growth that mirrors the planned growth rate in the 3rd Management Plan. How far off is this scenario is anyone’s guess. What we do know is that the Maricopa Realtors are strongly suggesting that the current economic conditions indicate that at the earliest we are looking at is 2015 for Maricopa Realty to return back to any resemblance of earlier sales of homes. I have had this discussion with DWR and have reached an accord that the Ag projections for Maricopa County, thus the Phoenix AMA, will in essence slide out to 2015 before we begin any rate of decline in the number of acres used in Ag and therefore see any reduction in the demand for Ag water. So, for the purposes of the Ag Sub report, the Phoenix AMA will reflect a flat-line demand from now until 2015. Beginning with 2015 the Phoenix AMA water demand will begin a decline similar to that projected by the MidRange analysis of the DWR data and resemble the rate of decline in the 3rd Management Plan. This decline will bottom out at 75,000 acres, at whatever period in time it occurs. A corresponding demand rate, as determined by the 2006 demand to acre ratio, shall be applied to these 75,000 acres for the demand rate through the rest of the 100 years. Pinal - There has been much work on this subject matter in each of the 3 AMA Management Plans. The 4th Management Plan is scheduled to start data analysis this summer with a report proposed sometime in 2012, unfortunately not soon enough for inclusion in this report. The 3rd Management Plan reflected the impacts of the economic boom the State of Arizona was experiencing in the mid ‘90’s. This boom never fully materialized and as a result the projections that were sure to occur never fully materialized. Now we are faced with many years of recovery that may lead back to a scheduled growth that mirrors the planned growth rate in the 3rd Management Plan. How far off is this scenario is anyone’s guess. What we do know is that the current economic conditions mirror those in Maricopa County and as such the feeling is that the turn-around may not be felt in Pinal County until 2018. To reflect this projected growth slide I discussed the possibility of sliding any reduction in Ag acres until 2018 with DWR and they were open to this thought process as well. Therefore, in this Ag Sub report, before we begin any rate of decline in the number of acres used in Ag and any reduction in the demand for Ag water, we will show a flat-line demand from 2011 through 2018 in the Pinal AMA. Beginning with 2018 the Pinal AMA water demand will begin a decline similar to that projected by the Mid-Range analysis of the DWR data and resemble the rate of decline in the 3rd Management Plan. This decline will bottom out at 100,000 acres, at whatever period in time it occurs. A corresponding demand rate, as determined by the 2006 demand to acre ratio, shall be applied to the 100,000 acres for the resulting demand rate through the rest of the 100 years. 132 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 2 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission There are assumptions and/or clarification that were applied to various basins and, as such, to the counties as well. The following assumptions/clarifications were made: 1 – Indian Ag use is not discussed, nor reflected in this work. All Ag numbers are reflective of demands for Ag water off any reservation. 2 – Demand for Ag is just that, demand for water without inference that any particular source of water is being used. This determination will be made in our next analysis, Supply of Ag water. 3 – Non AMA Ag is not restricted to the acreage that was in existence at any given time. Thus the ability for Ag, in some basins, to move water from one Ag parcel to another; without violating any rules or regulations. Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 2 / August 2011 133 Water Resources Development Commission RESULTS The results for the agricultural demand projections developed using the methodology described are displayed in Table 1. Tables that show the 2006 test year (baseline demand) and the Colorado River Basin Supply and Demand Study values that were used to project water demands for the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs are provided in the Appendix. Table 1. Projected Agricultural Water Demand by Basin through 2110 BASIN_NAME AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BILL WILLIAMS BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DETRITAL VALLEY DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HARQUAHALA INA HUALAPAI VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU LOWER GILA LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PARKER PEACH SPRINGS PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK TUCSON AMA UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX YUMA STATEWIDE 134 YEAR YEAR YEAR 2035 1,800 1,000 0 2,700 0 14,500 500 0 0 0 48,000 0 7,200 351,500 0 135,500 0 1,100 0 89,000 2060 1,800 1,000 0 2,700 0 14,500 500 0 0 0 48,000 0 7,200 351,500 0 135,500 0 1,100 0 89,000 2110 1,800 1,000 0 2,700 0 14,500 500 0 0 0 48,000 0 7,200 351,500 0 135,500 0 1,100 0 89,000 39,250 481,535 3,700 71,000 0 0 0 643,396 0 307,926 590,540 1,329 29,000 0 179,500 6,900 0 0 500 11,233 0 39,250 464,070 3,700 71,000 0 0 0 643,396 39,250 464,070 3,700 71,000 0 0 0 643,396 147,045 418,152 1,329 29,000 0 179,500 6,900 0 0 500 11,233 0 1,500 66,242 0 8,800 23,700 1,000 147,045 418,152 1,329 29,000 0 179,500 6,900 0 0 500 11,233 0 0 1,500 56,723 0 8,800 23,700 1,000 0 166,000 782,615 0 166,000 754,230 0 166,000 754,230 4,068,466 3,679,827 1,500 56,723 0 8,800 23,700 1,000 3,679,827 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 2 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission APPENDIX Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 2 / August 2011 135 Water Resources Development Commission BASIN_NAME 2006 Agricultural Water Demands (acre-feet) CAP (GSF) CAP AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BILL WILLIAMS BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DETRITAL VALLEY DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HARQUAHALA INA HUALAPAI VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU LOWER GILA LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PARKER PEACH SPRINGS PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK TUCSON AMA UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX YUMA STATEWIDE 136 GW Reclaimed 1,800 0 500 0 0 0 2,700 0 0 0 14,500 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48,000 0 0 0 7,200 0 289,000 0 0 0 65,500 0 0 0 1,100 0 0 0 29,500 0 Reclaimed Recovered (GSF) Reclaimed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56,305 261,598 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,450 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104,640 139,616 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,794 0 0 0 0 8,700 115,000 3,200 71,000 0 0 0 500 0 271,498 327,702 2,065 29,000 0 80,500 500 0 0 500 10,704 0 0 500 63,511 0 4,500 9,900 500 11,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 896 0 30,550 2,325 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42,509 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 166,000 102,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 323,353 263,050 1,728,080 45,071 42,509 782 SW 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62,500 0 70,000 0 0 0 59,500 Total 1,800 1,000 0 2,700 0 14,500 500 0 0 0 48,000 0 7,200 351,500 0 135,500 0 1,100 0 89,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 782 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,250 384,000 500 0 0 0 0 642,000 0 224,523 88,653 0 0 0 99,000 6,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 0 0 4,300 13,800 500 39,250 499,000 3,700 71,000 0 0 0 643,396 0 730,025 819,894 2,847 29,000 0 179,500 6,900 0 0 500 10,704 0 0 1,500 87,755 0 8,800 23,700 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 709,000 0 166,000 811,000 2,385,426 4,788,270 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 2 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study Arizona Demand Study Projected Agricultural Use Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 Phoenix AMA - Revised Pinal AMA - Revised Tucson AMA - Revised 685,185 856,239 85,871 663,810 853,470 84,803 643,012 850,689 83,757 622,759 847,898 82,732 603,025 845,094 81,727 583,784 842,279 80,742 565,010 834,441 79,776 546,684 819,480 78,828 528,782 804,454 77,898 511,287 789,365 76,984 494,180 774,209 76,087 477,985 758,985 75,196 462,122 743,695 74,322 446,580 728,337 73,462 431,345 712,908 72,616 416,405 697,409 71,784 404,114 684,963 71,159 392,169 672,957 70,551 380,546 661,380 69,957 369,231 650,207 69,379 358,207 639,413 68,817 347,558 628,979 68,271 337,213 618,899 67,740 327,164 609,144 67,225 317,404 599,698 66,726 307,926 590,540 66,242 298,724 581,652 65,772 289,791 573,010 65,316 281,122 564,614 64,873 272,711 556,456 64,442 264,553 548,509 64,023 256,644 540,759 63,614 248,979 533,198 63,215 241,555 525,805 62,826 234,366 518,557 62,444 227,409 511,432 62,066 220,682 504,427 61,694 214,179 497,558 61,329 207,899 490,789 60,968 201,839 484,099 60,607 195,996 477,499 60,247 190,367 470,967 59,887 184,950 464,498 59,529 179,744 458,096 59,171 174,745 451,745 58,814 169,795 445,888 58,458 164,965 440,034 58,105 160,280 434,336 57,755 155,734 428,792 57,408 151,324 423,398 57,064 147,045 418,152 56,723 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 2 / August 2011 137 Water Resources Development Commission APPENDIX 3 WRDC INDUSTRIAL DEMAND SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT 138 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission WRDC Industrial Demand Subcommittee Report By: Ron Doba, Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users Association, rdoba@cox.net Subcommittee Chair: Lyn White, Freeport-McMoRan, Lynda_White@FMI.com Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 139 Water Resources Development Commission INTRODUCTION The Industrial Subcommittee was formed as a subcommittee of the Water Supply and Demand Committee to prepare industrial water demand assumptions. Tasks identified in the Water Resources Development Commission Workplan include the following: • Develop economic development and growth methodologies with county and other economic development experts and review existing development plans and strategies with appropriate staff. • Develop demand assumptions based on current or new technology. • Develop a methodology to predict sand and gravel and industrial golf course demand based on population or other approach. Current industrial water demand and future projections were to be identified for the mining, sand and gravel, dairy, feedlot, power, turf, and other industries. Future projections were to be made for the next 25-year (2035), 50-year (2060), and 100-year (2110) periods and incorporated into the report from the Water Supply and Demand Committee. METHODS The Industrial Subcommittee determined it could best complete its tasks by breaking the group into subsectors made up of experts representing each subsector. The subsectors included mining, power, turf, and the sand and gravel industry. The Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) defines dairies and feedlots as industrial users. However, the group determined better assumptions could be made by the Agricultural Subcommittee for these two subsectors. Efforts to increase subsector participation included reaching out to: the Arizona Mining Association (mining); Arizona Rock Products Association (sand and gravel); Arizona Public Service, Tucson Electric Power and Salt River Project (electric power generation and solar development); and the Arizona Golf Industry Association (turf). The assumptions and water demand projections for dairies and feedlots included in this report were provided to the Industrial Subcommittee by the Agricultural Subcommittee. The group reviewed baseline data provided by ADWR which included, with a few exceptions, water that is self-served (not provided by a municipal provider) and is not used for an agricultural purpose. Some subsectors initially projected water demands for low, medium, and high development. Later it was determined that only low and high projections would be used by the Water Supply and Demand Committee for the purposes of their report and the projections were adjusted accordingly. In the final projections an additional category called “other industrial” was created, which included industries such as paper mills and certain, large non-residential water users within the Active Management Areas (i.e. Intel) and accounted for approximately 30,000 AF of current statewide water use. The methodology used by each subsector to determine future water demand projections is discussed separately for each subsector. Baseline Data Baseline data was provided by ADWR for industrial water demands outside AMAs for the period of 1991-2009 and inside AMAs from 1985-2006. Baseline data from outside the AMAs came primarily from the USGS. Water users outside AMAs are not required to report their water use so in some cases the water usage amounts are estimates. AMA baseline data came primarily from the Annual Withdrawal and Use Reports submitted each year to ADWR. Generally, the Industrial Subcommittee decided to use the 2006 industrial water demands for baseline demands because it was the most recent year data was available for both areas. The exception was the power subsector working group that chose to develop a 2010 power plant water baseline demand (using Population Committee forecasts) for use as a starting place for 2035, 2060 and 2110 projections. Baseline data used for the industrial sector can be found in the Appendix. 140 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Mining Subsector The Arizona mining subsector produces different global commodities that are not based on local population or economic conditions within Arizona. Each commodity has its own separate market dynamics that do not uniformly reflect global economic conditions. The industry is cyclical and subject to a high degree of volatility that makes it hard to make long range projections of mine activity and associated water use. As a result of this condition, long-term water demand projections looking at 25, 50 and 100 year timelines should be considered highly speculative and subject to future change. Differences in local climate, geography, production rates, and mineralization types can vary significantly between operations and can influence water demand and conservation potential. Because there is no uniform constant for judging future water demand within the mining industry as a whole, each mining company provided their best current estimates of future demand for each of their Arizona operations and matched those with the basin locations of use. Each company provided a best guess as to the possible low, mid and high range of projected future water demand. In some instances, mines may divert water from one basin or county into another to supply operations. The group determined it would report water demand for the basin in which the water was actually used. Projected demands may also include some commingling of possible future remedial pumping requirements. Due to the uncertain nature of how this water would be recovered and subsequently used (either for mining or other purposes), the group felt that the projected demand for any remedial pumping should be assumed to remain a mining demand within the basin where the related facilities are located. With minor exceptions, the mining demand projections assume constant demand ranges over the three (25, 50, 100 year) projection timelines because it is not currently possible to predict the timing and duration of future mine expansions. No standardized assumptions were made about water use rates or conservation efficiencies because of the distinct geographic nature of each mine operation. Power Subsector The power subsector working group chose to use a simple approach for determining future power plant water consumption that could be linked to the Population Committee’s forecasts. Key statistics utilized include energy production per capita and electric power plant water consumption per unit of energy. Total projected energy production was based on Energy Administration Information data from 2008 and adjusted for 2010. Electric power plant water consumption per unit of energy was based on an average of Arizona Public Service, Salt River Project and Tucson Electric Power values for the years 2000-2009. The percentage of total 2010 Arizona power plant water consumption that occurs in each county and groundwater basin was calculated and some accounting for solar projects in western Arizona (based on pending BLM right of way applications) was factored into the development of projections for 2035, 2060 and 2110. High and low forecasts were developed based on the following two scenarios: Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 141 Water Resources Development Commission Scenario A Lower Power Plant Consumption Forecast Modest Increase: Energy Production Per Person Significant Decrease: Power Plant Water Consumption Per Unit of Energy 1 2 3 142 Target Year Energy Production Per Person 2035 • Energy Production in Arizona is strongly correlated with energy consumption in Arizona • Energy efficiency and renewable energy requirements, plus demand management advancements result in a need for fewer power plants that consume water 2060 2110 Power Plant Water Consumption Per Unit of Energy 0% • Energy efficiency and renewable -20% energy requirements reduce power plant water consumption • Some older power plants retire • All new power plants utilize dry or hybrid cooling technologies • While advancements in new/other consumer uses of electricity do not occur, electric vehicle load becomes significant • Power plants are built for consumers in other states • The offsetting effects of these factors are such that there is no change in energy production per person in this time frame • Increased reliance on electric vehicles +5% • Same as 2035 plus • Advancements in new/other consumer uses of electricity occur • Climate concerns drive power plant water conservation • Increased reliance on electric vehicles • Same as 2035 plus • Climate concerns drive power plant water conservation +3% Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 -10% -20% Water Resources Development Commission Scenario B Higher Power Plant Water Consumption Forecast Sustained Increase: Energy Production Per Person Delayed Decrease: Power Plant Water Consumption Per Unit of Energy 1 2 3 Target Year Energy Production Per Person Power Plant Water Consumption Per Unit of Energy 2035 • • Some new power plants utilize dry 0% or hybrid cooling technologies • Increased power plants in Arizona result in increased water consumption • Electric vehicle and high speed electric train advancements prompt the need for more base loaded electric generating capability (higher power plant water consumption per unit of energy than intermediate or peaking resources) • The offsetting effects of these factors are such that there is no change in power plant water consumption per unit of energy in this time frame • Significant power plant retirements occur • A majority of new power plants utilize dry or hybrid cooling technologies • Same as 2060 2060 2110 +10% Other states become increasingly parochial about use of state resources – Arizona entities withdraw from out-of-state power plants and replace those resources inside Arizona • Relative to today, more power plants are located in Arizona to meet electric needs in other states • Energy production in Arizona is strongly correlated with energy consumption in Arizona • Advancements in known technologies serve to increase energy production intensity (e.g. electric vehicles, high speed electric trains) • Innovation continues – advancements in “unknown” technologies serve to increase energy production intensity • U.S. Economy improves – a greater number of people demand more energy intensive appliances and devices • Same as 2035 • Same as 2035 +10% +10% -10% -20% ± % change equals percent change relative to the prior target year The power subsector chose to round the population numbers used within their equation to determine projected water demands. Subsequent to the report from the power subsector, the Water Supply and Demand Committee compared the results from the various subcommittees with the Central Arizona Water Demand Model developed by Peter Culp for the Phoenix, Tucson and Pinal AMAs. The model used the same methodology to calculate the power demand as the subsector, except that the population numbers within the equation were the actual Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 143 Water Resources Development Commission projections instead of the rounded projections. The model was selected to provide the final demand and supply numbers for the Phoenix, Tucson and Pinal AMAs, resulting in a small difference (<1,000 AF) in the power subsector water demand numbers shown in the final Water Supply and Demand Committee report. The tables included in this report show the water demand projections developed by the subcommittee, not the model. Turf Subsector The turf subsector group projected water use for golf courses not being supplied water by municipalities. They anticipated that beyond the first few years following construction of new golf courses that they will use 80% effluent water, 10% surface water and 10% groundwater. Similar to other industrial subsectors, the turf subsector decided to base water projections on population data. Using Maricopa County data, total rounds of golf per 18-hole equivalent were calculated for 2010 (7,500,000) and divided by the 2009 population estimate (4,023,000) to arrive at 1.86 rounds per capita. An adjustment factor was applied for reduced disposable income and lifestyle changes as follows: Year Adjustment Factor Adjusted Baseline 2010 1.00 1.86 2035 0.70 1.30 2060 0.50 0.93 2110 0.40 0.74 Using the mid population estimates from the population committee and assuming an average of 65,000 rounds per year per 18-hole golf course is required for sustainability (industry standard) the following two scenarios were presented: Scenario 1 (low) Per capita rounds decrease significantly over time Golf course sustainability at 65,000 rounds per year Statistic 2010 2035 2060 2110 2110 6,628,757 10,453,870 13,252,013 18,322,751 18,322,751 1.86 1.30 0.93 0.74 0.74 12,329,488 13,610,939 12,324,372 13,632,127 13,632,127 Sustainable Golf Courses 189.7 209.4 265.4 209.7 209.7 Water Consumption (Acre Feet) 87,129 100,164 129,118 117,040 117,040 Population Rounds Played per Capita Projected Rounds 144 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Scenario 2 (high) Steady decrease in per capita rounds over time Golf course sustainability at 45,000 rounds per year Statistic 2010 2035 2060 2110 2110 6,628,757 10,453,870 13,252,013 18,322,751 18,322,751 1.86 1.49 1.30 1.12 1.12 12,329,488 15,576,267 17,227,617 20,521,481 20,521,481 Sustainable Golf Courses 274.0 346.1 382.8 456.0 315.7 Water Consumption (Acre Feet) 87,129 115,441 129,765 154,115 154,116 Population Rounds Played per Capita Projected Rounds New golf courses and associated water demands were distributed to groundwater basins based on urban areas and areas anticipated to become urban areas. Sand and Gravel Subsector Water use projections were developed for all 51 groundwater basins within the State of Arizona based on relationships established between historical population, historical and recent rock production volumes and recent rock production related water use. Because water use data was more available from producers within the AMAs, the relationship used to establish the projections were developed based on data provided by producers within the AMAs. Population growth and construction activity were determined the main drivers of sand and gravel use. The subsector group provided high, mid and low range water use projections due to the sub-category reflecting significant variability in the amount of water required to produce one ton of material. For example ready mix concrete production typically requires more water use than aggregate mining. These activities were grouped together for the purpose of this report. The low-range projection assumes that a larger proportion of low water use rock production activities occur. The mid-range projection assumes that the present water use requirements driven by regulatory requirements such as dust control remain relatively constant through 2110. The high-range production assumes that a larger proportion of high water use rock production activities occur in the future than at present. The high, mid and low range values are 300, 212 and 125 gallons of water per ton of material produced. The subsector group understands the Water Supply and Demand Committee will only use the low and high demand numbers in its report. The relationship of 13 tons per person was multiplied by population projections provided by the Water Supply and Demand Committee for the years 2035, 2060 and 2110 for each groundwater basin. The result was then multiplied times the high, mid and low range water use values to obtain population correlated rock production water use for each basin. Only the high and low values are shown in this report. Dairies Dairy water demand projections were calculated by the Agriculture Subcommittee and provided to the Industrial Subcommittee for this report. According to data from the United Dairymen of Arizona (UDA) existing dairy use is 105 gallons per cow per day. Increased cow population is 2 cows per 100 people in determining the increase in cow population. The location of dairies is expected to change in the next 25, 50 and 100 years as a result of residential development. Dairy population is projected to reduce to zero within the next ten years in Maricopa County while the dairy population in Pinal County is projected to increase over the next 5 years. With population as the driver for dairies, water demand is projected to increase accordingly over the next 100 years. Dairy water demand projections are shown on Table 1. Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 145 Water Resources Development Commission Table 1. Projected Dairy Demands by Basin 2001 BASIN_NAME DUNCAN VALLEY 92.5 GILA BEND 0 KANAB PLATEAU 27.1 LITTLE COLORADO RIVER 19.5 PLATEAU LOWER GILA 152.1 PHOENIX AMA 11720.99 PINAL AMA 2630 SACRAMENTO 75.7 VALLEY TUCSON AMA 125.98 UPPER 786.4 HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN 42.17 PEDRO WILLCOX 0 Statewide 2002 2003 92.5 0 27.1 92.5 108.1 27.1 2004 92.5 172.9 27.1 19.5 19.5 19.5 246.2 246.2 246.2 12569.32 12143.91 11642.89 3259 4679 5980 20012005 Average Dairy Water Demand 2006 Dairy Water Demand (acre2005 (acre-feet) feet) GW GW 92.5 93 93 172.9 91 173 27.1 27 27 2010 2035 2060 2110 93 724 27 93 5,281 27 93 13,814 27 93 23,782 27 19.5 246.2 10567.8 7584 20 227 11,729 4,826 20 246 10,080 8,400 20 724 7,500 10,980 20 5,281 0 18,480 20 13,814 0 8,000 20 23,782 0 0 75.7 131.6 75.7 114.24 75.7 88.1 75.7 123.62 76 117 76 110 76 110 76 0 76 0 76 0 786.4 786.4 786.4 786.4 786 786 786 786 786 786 42.17 0 42.17 0 42.17 583.7 42.17 583.7 42 233 18,267 42 584 20,637 42 584 21,665 42 584 30,669 42 584 37,255 42 584 49,191 Feedlots Feedlot water demand projections were calculated by the Agriculture Subcommittee and provided to the Industrial Subcommittee for this report. The subcommittee decided to flat line feedlot water use for the next 100 years with the exception of the addition of a large pig feeder that is planned for the Lower Gila Basin in about 10 years (2020). The new pig feeder is projected to include 300,000 pigs at 10 gallons per pig per day. Feedlot water demands are shown in Table 2. Table 2. Projected Feedlot Demands by Basin BASIN_NAME KANAB PLATEAU LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU LOWER GILA PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA WILLCOX 2001-2005 Average Feedlot Water Demand (acre-feet) GW 0.15 526 3,421 132 2,353 130 2006 Feedlot Water Demand (acre-feet) GW 0.15 539.15 3,420.90 58.01 3,033 130.40 6,562 7,181.61 Statewide 2010 0.15 539 3,421 58 3,033 130 7,181.15 2035 2060 2110 0.15 0.15 0.15 539 539 539 6,781 6,781 6,781 58 58 58 3,033 3,033 3,033 130 130 130 10,541.15 10,541.15 10,541.15 Other Industrial Water Demand The “Other Industrial Water Demand” category includes demands not associated with power plants, mining, sand and gravel, turf facilities, feedlots and dairies. Examples could include water demands from paper mills and/or computer chip manufacturing facilities. After compiling the water demands and associated populations for corresponding years it was determined a correlation did not exist between the other industrial water demands and the population number associated with the year the demand occurred. Two different methods were employed to estimate future water demands for this category. First, it was determined that treating the annual demand as a random variable suggested the demand figures were normally distributed and by using statistical analysis, determines an approximate maximum water demand of 35,310 AF/year. Second, total manufacturing/industrial employment for 2005 in three counties (estimated by MAG, PAG, and CAAG) was compared to the average other industrial water demand for 2001-2005 to arrive at a water demand per subsector employee. 146 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Using a projected manufacturing/industrial employment for 2030 of 713,174, water demand was estimated at 39,943 AF using 50 gallons per day per employee. The subcommittee recommendation for the three AMA Other Industrial Demand category is to increase the demand linearly from the 15,210 AF in 2006 to 40,000 AF in 2030 and then hold constant at 40,000 AF/year thereafter. RESULTS The results for the industrial water demand projections developed using the methodology described are di played in Table 3. Detailed tables that include individual subsector demand projections are provided in the Appendix. Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 147 Water Resources Development Commission Table 3. Projected Industrial Water Demand by Basin through 2110 BASIN NAME AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BILL WILLIAMS BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DETRITAL VALLEY DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HARQUAHALA INA HUALAPAI VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU LOWER GILA LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PARKER PEACH SPRINGS PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK TUCSON AMA UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX YUMA STATEWIDE 148 2035 Low Range 2035 High Range 2060 Low Range 2060 High Range 2110 Low Range 2110 High Range 2110 Low Range 2110 High Range Census Split Census Split Census Split Census Split Census Split Census Split Area Split Area Split 83 200 100 240 138 332 8,972 4,472 1 1 1 2 1 2 5 11 13 31 16 39 22 54 82 198 10,034 30,082 10,039 30,094 10,055 30,131 10,409 30,443 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 337 589 346 609 363 651 354 630 75 179 90 215 124 298 143 344 14 33 17 41 24 57 32 76 0 209 1 322 24,440 0 925 324 90 541 15,462 120,446 13,458 14,311 39 8 12,099 9,335 5,965 316 276,128 49,537 2,541 5 12,602 5,667 27,798 0 1 53 1,962 0 0 97 58,987 892 4,502 4,860 907 0 7,753 5,251 688,391 0 711 3 348 31,564 0 1,165 989 177 1,510 21,593 161,794 31,904 30,450 93 20 48,132 12,840 7,735 338 388,554 71,635 4,155 13 18,663 28,008 44,188 1 2 127 2,756 0 0 444 106,239 1,041 15,494 9,385 941 0 10,366 8,193 1,092,688 0 248 1 325 37,320 0 1,663 403 105 687 18,596 141,244 23,058 14,505 47 10 12,102 11,175 10,307 319 326,663 49,293 2,986 7 13,654 5,703 27,900 1 1 67 2,484 0 0 121 63,210 917 4,798 5,616 914 0 9,077 6,349 802,486 0 804 3 355 47,419 0 2,091 1,177 215 1,861 26,859 198,669 41,788 30,598 112 25 48,141 16,100 13,195 345 460,183 72,933 4,806 16 20,455 28,095 44,383 1 3 160 3,093 0 0 501 112,113 1,101 15,825 9,906 959 1 12,719 10,040 1,258,290 39 342 2 333 50,791 0 2,222 557 135 1,243 21,080 157,091 33,852 14,566 63 14 12,113 12,670 13,597 326 353,944 41,915 3,484 8 14,545 5,810 28,039 1 1 92 2,652 0 0 167 65,587 968 5,080 5,970 926 0 10,179 7,574 878,706 95 1,030 4 374 64,762 0 2,801 1,547 286 2,731 32,744 237,016 52,831 30,746 152 34 48,166 19,497 17,387 363 559,149 74,744 6,210 20 22,578 28,352 44,708 2 3 221 3,861 0 0 612 123,775 1,222 16,830 11,460 989 1 15,227 12,782 1,466,837 39 325 46 335 55,333 3 2,566 507 150 1,236 21,031 157,079 35,830 14,593 93 2 12,117 12,667 13,591 362 336,329 41,874 3,319 6 14,557 5,808 28,094 17 6 100 2,660 24 16 231 67,195 846 5,066 6,021 888 4 10,170 7,560 878,706 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 95 989 110 379 66,769 7 3,087 1,428 323 2,716 32,546 236,981 53,794 31,050 223 6 48,177 19,489 17,372 448 549,134 76,700 5,694 15 22,605 28,348 44,841 41 15 239 3,913 57 38 1,004 123,694 929 16,772 11,757 896 9 15,204 12,745 1,466,837 Water Resources Development Commission APPENDIX Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 149 Water Resources Development Commission INDUSTRIAL SECTOR BASELINE WATER DEMAND TABLE 2006 Baseline INDUSTRIAL BASIN NAME TOTAL AGUA FRIA 0 Rock Products 2 0 0 Power Plants1 0 0 Other Industrial 0 ARAVAIPA CANYON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,717 40 0 0 0 0 0 14,757 Mining BIG SANDY Dairy Feedlots Turf 2 BILL WILLIAMS 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 BONITA CREEK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BUTLER VALLEY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CIENEGA CREEK 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 COCONINO PLATEAU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DETRITAL VALLEY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DONNELLY WASH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DOUGLAS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DUNCAN VALLEY 0 0 93 0 0 211 0 304 GILA BEND 0 0 173 0 5,400 0 0 5,573 GRAND WASH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HARQUAHALA INA 0 0 0 0 1,107 0 0 1,107 HUALAPAI VALLEY 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 KANAB PLATEAU 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 27 LAKE HAVASU 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 60 LAKE MOHAVE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU 0 77 0 0 4,000 882 0 4,959 LOWER GILA 1,201 0 331 0 20 246 539 3,421 63,200 0 1,716 0 11,766 0 78,773 3,667 LOWER SAN PEDRO 17,544 423 0 0 0 211 0 18,177 MCMULLEN VALLEY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MEADVIEW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,109 0 0 0 0 75 0 8,184 PARIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PARKER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PEACH SPRINGS 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PHOENIX AMA 0 10,401 10,080 58 69,585 60,632 10,624 161,381 PINAL AMA 0 1,199 8,400 3,033 96 6,286 1,229 20,243 PRESCOTT AMA 0 126 0 0 0 793 567 1,486 RANEGRAS PLAIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 76 0 1,300 0 0 1,465 MORENCI SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD 44 192 0 0 0 423 0 658 15,448 395 0 0 0 211 0 16,054 SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAN RAFAEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAN SIMON WASH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SANTA CRUZ AMA 0 195 0 0 0 1,482 98 1,774 SHIVWITS PLATEAU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TIGER WASH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TONTO CREEK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TUCSON AMA 34,905 3,807 110 0 2,656 8,249 3,357 53,084 SALT RIVER UPPER HASSAYAMPA 0 0 786 0 0 0 0 786 UPPER SAN PEDRO 0 75 42 0 0 1,552 288 1,957 VERDE RIVER 0 1,180 0 0 0 3,087 0 4,267 VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 584 0 0 130 0 0 6,200 882 0 0 0 0 0 882 0 6,914 WILLCOX YUMA STATEWIDE 0 238 0 0 658 441 1,178 2,515 92,256 18,750 20,637 7,182 154,202 87,132 29,108 409,266 1 The power subsector believes 230,000 AF water demand had actually occurred by 2010. ADWR has indicated the 2006 water demand may be 16,000 AF less than actual. 150 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission INDUSTRIAL SECTOR SUMMARY WATER DEMAND PROJECTION TABLES (Note: Small differences between table values may result from rounding) Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 151 Water Resources Development Commission 2035 - WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS (LOW RANGE - CENSUS) INDUSTRIAL BASIN NAME Mining Rock Products Dairy Feedlots Power Plants Turf Other Industrial LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU LOWER GILA LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PARKER PEACH SPRINGS PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK TUCSON AMA UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX YUMA 0 0 0 10,000 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,500 0 14,000 0 0 12,000 0 300 300 15,000 4,000 0 0 8,000 5,000 27,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39,000 0 2,000 1,000 0 0 300 0 83 1 13 34 0 0 37 75 14 0 208 1 18 57 0 7 324 63 541 483 1,871 83 100 39 8 24 3 102 16 32,135 3,366 1,056 5 180 244 167 0 1 53 344 0 0 97 7,136 106 620 773 25 0 83 1,536 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 5,281 0 0 0 27 0 0 20 5,281 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,480 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 786 42 0 0 0 584 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 539 6,781 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 3,033 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 19,102 0 918 0 0 0 14,097 103,034 1,313 0 0 0 0 9,332 5,563 0 127,311 4,153 16 0 4,346 0 420 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 2,925 0 0 0 0 0 6,656 2,061 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 0 0 0 0 0 0 882 1,716 0 211 0 0 75 0 0 0 67,147 12,658 902 0 0 423 211 0 0 0 1,482 0 0 0 8,249 0 1,552 3,087 882 0 0 476 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,766 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34,476 3,847 567 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 1,677 0 288 0 0 0 0 1,178 83 1 13 10,034 0 0 337 75 14 0 209 1 322 24,440 0 925 324 90 541 15,462 120,446 13,458 14,311 39 8 12,099 9,335 5,965 316 276,128 49,537 2,541 5 12,602 5,667 27,798 0 1 53 1,962 0 0 97 58,987 892 4,502 4,860 907 0 7,753 5,251 STATEWIDE 139,700 52,133 30,670 10,541 53,897 688,391 AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BILL WILLIAMS BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DETRITAL VALLEY DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HARQUAHALA INA HUALAPAI VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE 152 TOTAL 301,286 100,164 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission 2060 - WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS (LOW RANGE - CENSUS) INDUSTRIAL BASIN NAME Mining Rock Products Dairy Feedlots Power Plants Turf Other Industrial TOTAL LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU LOWER GILA LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PARKER PEACH SPRINGS PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK TUCSON AMA UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX YUMA 0 0 0 10,000 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,500 0 14,000 0 0 12,000 0 300 300 15,000 4,000 0 0 8,000 5,000 27,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39,000 0 2,000 1,000 0 0 300 0 100 1 16 39 0 0 46 90 17 0 246 1 21 71 0 11 403 78 687 594 2,216 99 161 47 10 27 4 113 19 40,375 5,344 1,295 7 227 280 187 1 1 67 423 0 0 121 8,840 131 735 925 32 0 96 1,882 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 13,814 0 0 0 27 0 0 20 13,814 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,000 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 786 42 0 0 0 584 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 539 6,781 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 3,033 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 23,435 0 1,652 0 0 0 16,874 123,332 2,364 0 0 0 0 11,171 9,894 0 152,391 4,972 19 0 5,351 0 502 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 3,502 0 0 0 0 0 7,967 2,705 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,128 1,870 0 343 0 0 75 0 0 0 84,364 20,097 1,105 0 0 423 211 0 0 0 1,917 0 0 0 10,191 0 1,734 3,691 882 0 0 584 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,766 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34,476 3,847 567 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 1,677 0 288 0 0 0 0 1,178 100 1 16 10,039 0 0 346 90 17 0 248 1 325 37,320 0 1,663 403 105 687 18,596 141,244 23,058 14,505 47 10 12,102 11,175 10,307 319 326,663 49,293 2,986 7 13,654 5,703 27,900 1 1 67 2,484 0 0 121 63,210 917 4,798 5,616 914 0 9,077 6,349 STATEWIDE 139,700 66,087 37,256 10,541 53,897 802,486 AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BILL WILLIAMS BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DETRITAL VALLEY DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HARQUAHALA INA HUALAPAI VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE 366,179 128,826 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 153 Water Resources Development Commission 2110 - WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS (LOW RANGE - CENSUS) INDUSTRIAL BASIN NAME Mining Rock Products Dairy Feedlots Power Plants Turf Other Industrial TOTAL LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU LOWER GILA LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PARKER PEACH SPRINGS PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK TUCSON AMA UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX YUMA 0 0 0 10,000 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,000 0 0 12,000 0 300 300 15,000 4,000 0 0 8,000 5,000 27,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39,000 0 2,000 1,000 0 0 300 0 138 1 22 55 0 0 63 124 24 39 340 2 29 99 0 20 557 108 951 821 3,065 137 223 63 14 38 5 153 26 55,705 7,310 1,790 8 314 387 259 1 1 92 585 0 0 167 12,381 182 1,016 1,279 44 0 132 2,603 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 23,782 0 0 0 27 0 0 20 23,782 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 786 42 0 0 0 584 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 539 6,781 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 3,033 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 26,910 0 2,202 0 0 0 19,131 139,831 3,152 0 0 0 0 12,665 13,144 0 172,777 5,637 22 0 6,155 0 569 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 3,970 0 0 0 0 0 9,033 3,209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 0 0 0 0 0 292 1,128 1,870 0 343 0 0 75 0 0 0 75,927 18,087 1,105 0 0 423 211 0 0 0 1,917 0 0 0 8,560 0 1,734 3,691 882 0 0 584 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,766 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34,476 3,847 567 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 1,677 0 288 0 0 0 0 1,178 138 1 22 10,055 0 0 363 124 24 39 342 2 333 50,791 0 2,222 557 135 1,243 21,080 157,091 33,852 14,566 63 14 12,113 12,670 13,597 326 353,944 41,915 3,484 8 14,545 5,810 28,039 1 1 92 2,652 0 0 167 65,587 968 5,080 5,970 926 0 10,179 7,574 STATEWIDE 138,200 91,374 49,192 10,541 53,897 878,706 AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BILL WILLIAMS BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DETRITAL VALLEY DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HARQUAHALA INA HUALAPAI VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE 154 418,461 117,040 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission 2110 - WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS (LOW RANGE - AREA SPLIT) INDUSTRIAL BASIN NAME TOTAL Mining Rock Products Dairy Feedlots Power Plants Turf Other Industrial LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU LOWER GILA LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PARKER PEACH SPRINGS PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK TUCSON AMA UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX YUMA 0 0 0 10,000 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,000 0 0 12,000 0 300 300 15,000 4,000 0 0 8,000 5,000 27,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39,000 0 2,000 1,000 0 0 300 0 1,863 5 82 184 11 0 54 143 32 39 323 46 31 935 3 139 507 123 944 772 3,052 538 250 93 2 42 2 147 62 52,565 7,270 1,625 6 326 385 314 17 6 100 593 24 16 231 12,357 60 1,003 1,330 6 4 123 2,589 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 23,782 0 0 0 27 0 0 20 23,782 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 786 42 0 0 0 584 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 539 6,781 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 3,033 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 26,910 0 2,202 0 0 0 19,131 139,831 3,152 0 0 0 0 12,665 13,144 0 172,777 5,637 22 0 6,155 0 569 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 3,970 0 0 0 0 0 9,033 3,209 7,109 0 0 225 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 3,706 0 225 0 0 292 1,128 1,870 1,577 343 0 0 75 0 0 0 61,454 18,087 1,105 0 0 423 211 0 0 0 1,917 0 0 0 10,191 0 1,734 3,691 882 0 0 584 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,766 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34,476 3,847 567 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 1,677 0 288 0 0 0 0 1,178 8,972 5 82 10,409 11 0 354 143 32 39 325 46 335 55,333 3 2,566 507 150 1,236 21,031 157,079 35,830 14,593 93 2 12,117 12,667 13,591 362 336,329 41,874 3,319 6 14,557 5,808 28,094 17 6 100 2,660 24 16 231 67,195 846 5,066 6,021 888 4 10,170 7,560 STATEWIDE 138,200 91,374 49,192 10,541 53,897 878,706 AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BILL WILLIAMS BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DETRITAL VALLEY DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HARQUAHALA INA HUALAPAI VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE 418,461 117,040 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 155 Water Resources Development Commission 2035 - WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS (HIGH RANGE - CENSUS) BASIN NAME INDUSTRIAL Mining AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BILL WILLIAMS BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 CIENEGA CREEK Dairy Feedlots 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Power Plants 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turf 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 200 1 31 30,082 0 0 500 89 0 0 0 0 0 589 COCONINO PLATEAU 0 179 0 0 0 0 0 179 DETRITAL VALLEY 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 33 DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS 0 0 0 0 498 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 211 0 0 0 0 0 711 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,500 18,000 30,000 0 0 48,000 0 300 300 25,000 18,000 0 0 44 136 0 18 778 150 1,299 1,160 4,490 200 239 93 20 57 8 245 38 77,125 8,078 2,535 13 93 5,281 0 0 0 27 0 0 20 5,281 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,480 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 539 6,781 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 3,033 0 0 0 26,147 0 1,147 0 0 0 19,383 141,672 1,642 0 0 0 0 12,832 6,979 0 175,052 5,711 22 0 211 0 0 0 211 0 211 1,050 1,806 0 211 0 0 75 0 211 0 76,843 14,486 1,032 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,766 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34,476 3,847 567 0 348 31,564 0 1,165 989 177 1,510 21,593 161,794 31,904 30,450 93 20 48,132 12,840 7,735 338 388,554 71,635 4,155 13 12,000 27,000 43,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74,000 0 12,000 4,000 0 0 300 0 432 585 400 1 2 127 824 0 0 233 17,126 255 1,489 1,855 59 0 200 3,686 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 786 42 0 0 0 584 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 0 5,944 0 577 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 4,022 0 0 0 0 0 9,152 2,784 211 423 211 0 0 0 1,781 0 0 211 9,414 0 1,675 3,530 882 0 0 545 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 1,677 0 288 0 0 0 0 1,178 18,663 28,008 44,188 1 2 127 2,756 0 0 444 106,239 1,041 15,494 9,385 941 0 10,366 8,193 30,670 10,541 DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HARQUAHALA INA HUALAPAI VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU LOWER GILA LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PARKER PEACH SPRINGS PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK TUCSON AMA UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX YUMA STATEWIDE 156 Rock Products 200 1 31 82 0 0 343,900 125,119 413,120 115,441 53,897 1,092,688 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission 2060 - WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS (HIGH RANGE - CENSUS) BASIN NAME INDUSTRIAL BUTLER VALLEY 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 Rock Products 240 2 39 94 0 0 CIENEGA CREEK Mining AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BILL WILLIAMS BONITA CREEK Dairy Feedlots 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Power Plants 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turf 240 2 39 30,094 0 0 500 109 0 0 0 0 0 609 COCONINO PLATEAU 0 215 0 0 0 0 0 215 DETRITAL VALLEY 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 41 DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS 0 0 0 0 590 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 211 0 0 0 0 0 804 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,500 18,000 30,000 0 0 48,000 0 300 300 25,000 18,000 0 0 51 171 0 26 966 188 1,650 1,426 5,319 238 387 112 25 66 9 272 45 96,899 12,826 3,107 16 93 13,814 0 0 0 27 0 0 20 13,814 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 539 6,781 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 3,033 0 0 0 33,434 0 2,065 0 0 0 24,307 177,657 2,955 0 0 0 0 16,091 12,412 0 219,516 7,161 28 0 211 0 0 0 211 0 211 1,126 1,867 0 211 0 0 75 0 211 0 84,234 20,066 1,103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,766 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34,476 3,847 567 0 355 47,419 0 2,091 1,177 215 1,861 26,859 198,669 41,788 30,598 112 25 48,141 16,100 13,195 345 460,183 72,933 4,806 16 12,000 27,000 43,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74,000 0 12,000 4,000 0 0 300 0 545 672 449 1 3 160 1,015 0 0 290 21,217 315 1,764 2,220 77 1 229 4,518 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 786 42 0 0 0 584 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 0 7,623 0 723 0 0 0 66 0 0 0 5,044 0 0 0 0 0 11,476 3,761 211 423 211 0 0 0 1,914 0 0 211 10,175 0 1,731 3,686 882 0 0 583 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 1,677 0 288 0 0 0 0 1,178 20,455 28,095 44,383 1 3 160 3,093 0 0 501 112,113 1,101 15,825 9,906 959 1 12,719 10,040 37,256 10,541 53,897 1,258,290 DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HARQUAHALA INA HUALAPAI VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU LOWER GILA LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PARKER PEACH SPRINGS PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK TUCSON AMA UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX YUMA STATEWIDE 343,900 158,609 524,322 129,765 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 157 Water Resources Development Commission 2110 - WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS HIGH RANGE - CENSUS) BASIN NAME INDUSTRIAL BUTLER VALLEY 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 Rock Products 332 2 54 131 1 0 CIENEGA CREEK Mining AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BILL WILLIAMS BONITA CREEK Feedlots 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Power Plants 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turf 332 2 54 30,131 1 0 500 151 0 0 0 0 0 651 COCONINO PLATEAU 0 298 0 0 0 0 0 298 DETRITAL VALLEY 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 57 DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS 0 0 0 95 816 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 211 0 0 0 0 95 1,030 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,000 30,000 0 0 48,000 0 300 300 25,000 18,000 0 0 70 237 0 48 1,336 259 2,281 1,972 7,355 328 535 152 34 91 13 368 63 133,693 17,545 4,296 20 93 23,782 0 0 0 27 0 0 20 23,782 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 539 6,781 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 3,033 0 0 0 40,743 0 2,753 0 0 0 29,431 215,112 3,940 0 0 0 0 19,484 16,508 0 265,795 8,671 33 0 211 0 0 0 211 0 450 1,341 2,225 0 211 0 0 75 0 211 0 100,127 23,648 1,314 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,766 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34,476 3,847 567 0 374 64,762 0 2,801 1,547 286 2,731 32,744 237,016 52,831 30,746 152 34 48,166 19,497 17,387 363 559,149 74,744 6,210 20 12,000 27,000 43,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74,000 0 12,000 4,000 0 0 300 0 754 929 621 2 3 221 1,404 0 0 401 29,714 436 2,439 3,069 107 1 317 6,246 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 786 42 0 0 0 584 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 0 9,298 0 876 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 6,107 0 0 0 0 0 13,896 4,663 450 423 211 0 0 0 2,280 0 0 211 12,277 0 2,062 4,390 882 0 0 695 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 1,677 0 288 0 0 0 0 1,178 22,578 28,352 44,708 2 3 221 3,861 0 0 612 123,775 1,222 16,830 11,460 989 1 15,227 12,782 49,192 10,541 DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HARQUAHALA INA HUALAPAI VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU LOWER GILA LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PARKER PEACH SPRINGS PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK TUCSON AMA UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX YUMA STATEWIDE 158 Dairy 342,400 219,299 637,393 154,115 53,897 1,466,837 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission 2110 - WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS (HIGH RANGE - AREA SPLIT) BASIN NAME INDUSTRIAL BUTLER VALLEY 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 Rock Products 4,472 11 198 443 25 0 CIENEGA CREEK Mining AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BILL WILLIAMS BONITA CREEK TOTAL Dairy Feedlots 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Power Plants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,472 11 198 30,443 25 0 Turf 500 130 0 0 0 0 0 630 COCONINO PLATEAU 0 344 0 0 0 0 0 344 DETRITAL VALLEY 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 76 DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS 0 0 0 95 775 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 211 0 0 0 0 95 989 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,000 30,000 0 0 48,000 0 300 300 25,000 18,000 0 0 75 2,244 7 334 1,217 296 2,266 1,854 7,326 1,291 600 223 6 102 5 353 148 126,155 17,447 3,900 15 93 23,782 0 0 0 27 0 0 20 23,782 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 539 6,781 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 3,033 0 0 0 40,743 0 2,753 0 0 0 29,431 215,112 3,940 0 0 0 0 19,484 16,508 0 265,795 8,671 33 0 211 0 0 0 211 0 450 1,261 2,219 0 450 0 0 75 0 211 0 97,650 25,702 1,193 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,766 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34,476 3,847 567 0 379 66,769 7 3,087 1,428 323 2,716 32,546 236,981 53,794 31,050 223 6 48,177 19,489 17,372 448 549,134 76,700 5,694 15 12,000 27,000 43,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74,000 0 12,000 4,000 0 0 300 0 781 925 754 41 15 239 1,423 57 38 554 29,657 143 2,407 3,192 14 9 294 6,213 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 786 42 0 0 0 584 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 0 9,298 0 876 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 6,107 0 0 0 0 0 13,896 4,663 450 423 211 0 0 0 2,311 0 0 450 12,253 0 2,035 4,565 882 0 0 691 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 1,677 0 288 0 0 0 0 1,178 22,605 28,348 44,841 41 15 239 3,913 57 38 1,004 123,694 929 16,772 11,757 896 9 15,204 12,745 49,192 10,541 DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HARQUAHALA INA HUALAPAI VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU LOWER GILA LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PARKER PEACH SPRINGS PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK TUCSON AMA UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX YUMA STATEWIDE 342,400 219,299 637,393 154,116 53,897 1,466,837 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 159 Water Resources Development Commission COMMITTEE MEMBERS/AFFILLIATION Lyn White/Freeport McMoRan Corporation Adam Hawkins/Rio Tinto Alan Dulaney/City of Peoria Brad Ross/Resolution Copper Mining Brett Linsey/Salt River Materials Group Brian Munson/ASARCO Chris Howard/Turf Science Chris Payne/Snell & Wilmer Cliff Cauthen/Hohokan Irrigation District Cynthia Chandley/Snell & Wilmer Dave Slick/Salt River Project Dean Trammel/Tucson Water Dennis Rule/Central Arizona Project Dianne Yunker/Arizona Department of Water Resources Don Gross/Arizona Department of Water Resources Doug Toy/City of Chandler Ed McGavok/Errol Montgomery and Associates Eric Bakken/Tucson Electric Power Frank Corkhill/Arizona Department of Water Resources Gregg Capps/City of Chandler Henry Day/Arizona Public Service Company Krishna Parameswaran/ASARCO Laura Grignano/Arizona Department of Water Resources Lauren Neu/Strand Engineering Leslie Meyers/USBR Mark Holmes/City of Mesa Michael Johnson/Arizona Department of Water Resources Rebecca Comstock/Freeport McMoRan Corporation 160 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Rebecca Davidson/Salt River Project Reland Kane/Tucson Electric Power Rhett Billingsley/Ryly Carlock & Applewhite Rich Burtell/Arizona Department of Water Resources Scott Hughes/CalPortland Cement Supervisor Richard Lunt/Greenlee County Sean Ferris/Golf Industry Association Steve Trussel/Salt River Materials Group Tim Gibson/Freeport McMoRan Corporation Tim Skarupa/Salt River Project Tom Collazo/The Nature Conservancy Val Danos, Arizona Municipal Water Users Association Verle Martz/Salt River Materials Group Vivian Gonzales/USBR Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 3 / August 2011 161 Water Resources Development Commission APPENDIX 4 MUNICIPAL DEMAND SUBCOMITTEE REPORT 162 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 4 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission WRDC Municipal Demand Subcommittee Report By: Christine Nunez, City of Surprise, email: Christine.Nunez@surpriseaz.gov Stu Spaulding, Town of Taylor, email: stuspaulding@cableone.net Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 4 / August 2011 163 Water Resources Development Commission INTRODUCTION The Municipal Demand Subcommittee was tasked with providing the following information to the Water Supply and Demand Committee: (1) current municipal demand (2010) by basin with the term “municipal” meaning water (groundwater, surface water or effluent) for people including water delivered for non-residential uses by water providers and domestic use from wells; (2) 25-year municipal demand by basin; (3) 50-year municipal demand by basin; and (4) 100-year municipal demand. METHODS Baseline Data The municipal demand subcommittee had two potential sources of data to utilize for developing baseline municipal demand outside the Active Management Areas (AMA): (1) annual reports filed by Community Water Systems (CWS); and (2) water demand information found within the Arizona Water Atlas (Atlas). The earliest year information is available based on CWS annual reports is 2006 and the last year of data published in the Arizona Water Atlas was 2005. Baseline municipal demand inside the AMAs was available from the Draft Demand and Supply Assessments (Assessment) being compiled for each AMA. Although the final draft Assessments have not been published for all AMAs, historical data for each AMA (through 2006) had been published. The subcommittee decided that a gross gallons per capita per day (GPCD) value would be calculated for each basin. This was not a unanimous decision of the subcommittee, but was a majority decision. The gross GPCD would be calculated using total municipal demand and total population. The subcommittee recognized that more extensive GPCD information was available within the AMAs, however, it was decided that the GPCD calculation would be done the same way for both AMA and non-AMA basins. For the non-AMA areas, subcommittee members analyzed the two available data sets and concluded that the 2005 data from the Atlas would be the best source for obtaining baseline municipal demand and population data to develop GPCD values. Municipal population and demand data for 2005 was obtained from the Assessments. Baseline data for both non-AMA and AMA basins and the gross GPCD calculated from that data is presented in Table 1. 164 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 4 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Table 1. Baseline Demand, Population and Gallons per capita per Day (GPCD) Data Basin Agua Fria Aravaipa Canyon Big Sandy Bill Williams Bonita Creek1,2 Butler Valley Cienega Creek Coconino Plateau Detrital Valley Donnelly Wash Douglas Basin Douglas INA3 Dripping Springs Wash Duncan Valley Gila Bend Grand Wash Harquahala INA Hualapai Valley Joseph City INA4 Kanab Plateau5 Lake Havasu Lake Mohave Little Colorado River Plateau Lower Gila Lower San Pedro McMullen Valley Meadview Morenci Paria Parker Peach Springs Phoenix AMA6 Pinal AMA6 Prescott AMA6 Ranegras Plain Sacramento Valley Safford Salt River San Bernardino Valley 2005 Demand (AF) 2005 Population 2005 GPCD 1,800 14 271 1,250 No data 3 600 1,170 309 19 5,300 11 550 750 2 128 9,100 2,500 16,070 21,920 42,800 2,020 2,750 500 145 2,200 120 4,520 350 1,060,995 30,485 17,550 350 2,300 7,300 4,320 19 10,389 140 1,423 5,482 23 15 4,880 11,525 2,142 185 28,911 186 3,683 6,415 15 780 40,539 8,077 56,192 58,404 274,386 12,594 18,710 3,991 1,000 5,066 547 17,137 2,228 3,650,464 136,130 112,641 978 22,192 45,110 30,299 74 155 89 170 204 140 179 110 91 129 92 164 164 53 133 104 119 147 200 139 276 255 335 139 143 131 112 129 388 196 235 140 260 200 139 319 1837 144 127 229 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 4 / August 2011 165 Water Resources Development Commission Basin San Rafael San Simon Wash Santa Cruz AMA6 Shivwits Plateau Tiger Wash Tonto Creek Tucson AMA6 Upper Hassayampa Upper San Pedro Verde River Virgin River Western Mexican Drainage Willcox Yuma 2005 Demand (AF) 2005 Population 2005 GPCD 22 1,000 8,500 2 2 2,700 185,769 2,500 18,480 16,560 300 6 3,160 44,960 158 7,119 47,424 12 5 9,032 952,670 11,414 87,671 101,898 1,860 38 13,862 181,600 124 125 160 149 357 267 174 196 188 145 144 141 204 221 1 Bonita Creek demand is so small that there was no 2005 Atlas demand value. A GPCD value of 140 was selected by the subcommittee. 2 Water withdrawn in this basin is transported to the Safford Basin and is counted there. 3 In the Atlas, Douglas and the Douglas INA are combined. 4 In the Atlas, the Joseph City INA and the Little Colorado River Plateau are combined. 5 Any deliveries from Utah for municipal use are not included in demand. 6 AMA population and demand data obtained from Assessment. 7 GPCD value adjusted due to transfer nature of water/ pattern of water use in Kingman area. The 2005 Atlas municipal demand data included groundwater, surface water and effluent and included Indian populations and demands, where applicable. The methodology utilized in the Atlas to derive the demand and population data can be found in the Atlas and in Tadayon (2004). The 2005 data obtained from the Assessment historical templates includes municipal demand met by groundwater, surface water and effluent supplies, and also includes Indian populations and demands, where applicable. The methodology utilized in deriving the Assessment data is described in each individual AMA Assessment. The footnotes to Table 1 describe any unique data issues that were encountered. The issue regarding the Sacramento Basin GPCD is further described in Appendix A to this report. Projecting Future Municipal Demand The subcommittee recognized that forecasting municipal, or any other demand, over a 100-year time period is not a simple endeavor. There are many uncertainties and very few variables that can be evaluated with any degree of confidence. The subcommittee discussed the innumerable factors that could impact municipal demand in the future, including but not limited to, the following: water conservation; growth patterns in rural versus more urban areas; conversion of rural areas to areas with more urban characteristics; changing patterns of effluent utilization; structural efficiency improvements; and changes in residential versus the non-residential component of municipal demand. Although the subcommittee recognized that a “one-size-fits-all” approach may be 166 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 4 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission problematic, it was the only one reasonable to be used within the time constraints of this study. Consequently, the subcommittee decided that all basins would be treated equally with respect to the assumptions utilized to project future municipal demand. The analysis method that was selected is not a substitute, and is not intended to be a substitute, for a water provider based analysis that could take into account the following significant variables: present and projected land use; population demographics; future economic and industrial development; weather patterns and climate; and socioeconomic factors. Additionally, the results that are derived from this analysis are not intended to be used for any regulatory purposes. Any use of them in that manner would be contrary to the intent of the subcommittee. The subcommittee considered two different demand constrained projections, however, subcommittee members had a number of issues with the results. Consequently, the subcommittee decided to simply apply the 2005 GPCDs against the mid-range population projection into the future with no modification. For the period 2010-2060, the mid-range Census-Split population projections were used for this purpose. For the period 2060-2110, the mid-range Census-Split was used but an alternative where the 2060-2110 demand based on the mid-range Area-Split population was also developed. RESULTS The results for the municipal demand projections developed using the methodology described above are displayed in Table 2. Table 2. Projected Municipal Demand by Basin through 2110 Basin Agua Fria Aravaipa Canyon Big Sandy Bill Williams Bonita Creek Butler Valley Cienega Creek Coconino Plateau Detrital Valley Donnelly Wash Douglas Basin Douglas INA Dripping Springs Wash Duncan Valley Gila Bend Grand Wash Harquahala INA Hualapai Valley Joseph City INA Kanab Plateau Lake Havasu 2035 Demand (AF) 2060 Demand (AF) 2,888 12 496 1,564 5 0 918 1,521 397 0 668 6,964 14 546 1,332 0 245 14,595 210 3,885 31,036 3,471 14 619 1,790 6 0 1,123 1,827 494 0 766 8,276 16 635 1,672 0 354 18,122 221 4,852 39,425 21101 Demand 21102 Demand (AF) (AF) 4,800 19 856 2,505 8 0 1,552 2,526 682 811 1,059 11,443 22 878 2,312 0 652 25,056 305 6,708 54,511 64,732 93 3,149 8,431 332 0 1,341 2,919 919 811 1,593 10,280 542 942 21,922 77 4,576 22,824 185 7,651 54,153 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 4 / August 2011 167 Water Resources Development Commission Basin Lake Mohave Little Colorado River Plateau Lower Gila Lower San Pedro McMullen Valley Meadview Morenci Paria Parker Peach Springs Phoenix AMA Pinal AMA Prescott AMA Ranegras Plain Sacramento Valley Safford Salt River San Bernardino Valley San Rafael San Simon Wash Santa Cruz AMA Shivwits Plateau Tiger Wash Tonto Creek Tucson AMA Upper Hassayampa Upper San Pedro Verde River Virgin River Western Mexican Drainage Willcox Yuma STATEWIDE TOTAL 168 2035 Demand (AF) 2060 Demand (AF) 36,384 44,715 58,523 2,676 2,937 970 243 2,051 148 5,391 494 1,876,700 151,212 32,994 392 7,403 7,914 4,762 25 25 1,489 12,347 2 0 5,821 278,695 4,659 26,226 25,190 798 6 3,816 76,244 2,693,625 1 Projected demand using the Census-Split Methodology 2 Projected demand using the Area-Split Methodology 69,327 3,184 4,756 1,173 302 2,378 167 5,993 597 2,357,875 240,081 40,447 482 9,342 9,085 5,347 27 29 1,873 15,204 3 0 7,235 345,271 5,768 31,062 30,143 1,039 8 4,366 93,451 3,414,190 21101 Demand 21102 Demand (AF) (AF) 61,825 95,854 4,402 6,576 1,588 417 3,288 231 8,111 825 3,253,190 328,407 55,923 595 12,917 12,561 7,394 37 41 2,590 21,022 4 0 10,003 483,537 7,975 42,947 41,677 1,437 11 6,037 129,209 4,717,032 58,124 95,477 17,301 7,372 2,339 68 3,683 83 7,788 1,945 3,069,776 326,579 50,774 441 13,382 12,503 8,977 889 170 2,805 21,314 796 1,269 13,836 482,607 2,616 42,386 43,336 195 119 5,601 128,514 4,630,352 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 4 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission CONCLUSIONS The Municipal Demand Subcommittee recognizes that time and resources impacted their ability to incorporate other factors that could impact future municipal demand into the projections. To that end, the subcommittee developed a list of bin items. The items listed in the bin are either items that may have provided more refined results had there been information or time available, or recommendations that the subcommittee makes for future areas of research. The bin items are as follows: 1. Additional information regarding tribal populations and tribal demands 2. Effluent use, variability, increasing use in certain areas 3. Need to obtain more accurate, reliable, real-time data for non-AMA areas 4. Development of a database to input new data into 5. Effects of conservation on both existing and new populations 6. Analysis of CWS data and annual reports REFERENCES Tadayon, S. (2004). Water Withdrawals for Irrigation, Municipal, Mining, Thermo-electric Power, and Drainage Uses in Arizona Outside of Active Management Areas, 1991-2000. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5293, 28 p. Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 4 / August 2011 169 Water Resources Development Commission COMMITTEE MEMBERS/AFFILIATION Adam Miller/City of Phoenix Alan Dulaney/City of Peoria Beth Miller/City of Scottsdale Christine Nunez/City of Surprise Cliff Cauthen/Hohokam Irrigation District Dean Trammel/City of Tucson Dennis Rule/Central Arizona Project Dianne Yunker/Arizona Department of Water Resources Frank Corkhill/ Arizona Department of Water Resources Gary Hix/National Groundwater Association Gerry Wildeman/ Arizona Department of Water Resources Jason Baran/Arizona Municipal Water Users Association Jocelyn Gibbon/Environmental Defense Fund Leslie Meyers/United States Bureau of Reclamation Luana Capponi/State Land Department Mark Holmes/City of Mesa Maureen George/Mohave County Water Authority (“MCWA”) Mike Johnson/ Arizona Department of Water Resources Norm DeWeaver/Inter Tribal Council Ray Benally/Navajo Nation Rebecca Davidson/Salt River Project Robert Kirk/Navajo Nation Robin Stinnett/City of Avondale Ron Doba/Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users Association Sandra Rode/City of Goodyear Steve Rossi/City of Phoenix Stu Spaulding/Town of Taylor Tim Skarupa/Salt River Project 170 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 4 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Val Danos/Arizona Municipal Water Users Association Vivian Gonzales/United States Bureau of Reclamation Wade Noble/Yuma Water Users Wally Wilson/City of Tucson Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 4 / August 2011 171 Water Resources Development Commission APPENDIX 5 WRDC WATER SUPPLY SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT 172 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 5 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission WRDC Supply Subcommittee Report Introduction The Supply Subcommittee’s objective was to provide water supply data to the Water Supply and Demand Committee for the years 2035, 2060 and 2110 for groundwater basins and the Active Management Areas (AMAs). The Supply Subcommittee’s task was determining the volume of a baseline supply representing recent conditions that is anticipated to be available in the future. A baseline water supply was determined based on the four categories of water currently available including: (1) Groundwater; (2) Instate Surface Water Diversions; (3) Effluent; and (4) Colorado River and Central Arizona Project (CAP) water. The methodology and assumptions used to determine the volume of each category of water for the baseline conditions and years 2035, 2060, and 2110 are provided. Baseline Supply For Future Projection The Baseline Supply for Future Projection dataset was developed to show the baseline supply for Arizona by sources of water by groundwater basin or AMA. The sources of water include groundwater, instate surface water diversions, effluent, Colorado River and CAP. The values were taken from the Arizona Water Atlas outside the AMAs. Values within the AMAs came from the AMA Assessments. Non-AMA Groundwater Basins, the Santa Cruz and Prescott AMA and the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs were addressed separately. Since some basins utilize only instate supplies while others use Colorado River or CAP supplies, the basins/ AMAs are often grouped in the presentation of supply and demand information by these supply categories. Figure 1 depicts these supply categories as they pertain to the groundwater basins and AMAs. The supply was equivalent to the demand in the baseline condition. In general, the baseline supply was determined by identifying the sources of water used to meet the demand in the baseline condition using the best available data. Non-AMA Groundwater Basins: The Arizona Water Atlas provided the volume of groundwater, surface water and effluent necessary to meet agriculture, municipal, and industrial demands for the baseline condition. However, the volume of Colorado River Water used to meet demands in those basins where entitlements exist was included in the surface water and/or groundwater values in the Arizona Water Atlas. The Colorado River Water supply was treated as a separate supply in this analysis to provide a more accurate representation of the water supply within Arizona. Therefore; individual contract holders’ reported diversions, return flows and consumptive use volumes were reviewed to determine how much of the demand was supplied by water from the Colorado River. Corresponding adjustments were made to the groundwater and instate surface water supplies. Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 5 / August 2011 173 Water Resources Development Commission 174 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 5 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson Active Management Areas (AMAs): The AMA assessments provided the volume of groundwater, surface water, effluent and CAP water necessary to meet agriculture, municipal, and industrial demands for the baseline condition in the Phoenix, Pinal, and Tucson AMAs. The Groundwater InLieu reported in the assessments is actually CAP water applied to agriculture to save groundwater for which a portion of it is considered to replenish the aquifer and create storage credits. Tribal demands in the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs include agriculture, municipal and industrial. Those demands were separated out into their sectors to assure that Tribal supplies are available for only Tribal demands. Due to the complexity of allocating water supplies within the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs, the subcommittee decided to use the Central Arizona Model (CAM). The CAM has the capability to project available surface water, groundwater, effluent and other supply categories based on existing regulations and priorities. It models multiple interrelationships between supply, demand and storage categories to incorporate category-specific restrictions on water use and availability, express demands on CAP pools and project demand for new imported supplies. It can account for earned storage credits, distribute CAP through the major AMAs based on Colorado River assumptions, and insure that Tribal supplies are used exclusively for Tribal demands. The CAM also provided tribal agricultural demand projections within the major AMAs. Therefore, the CAM was used to determine future available supplies within the major AMAs. Due to the complex accounting and assumptions involved, earned storage credits in the AMA’s, stored for nonAMA users, were not included in the supply calculations for the basins where stored. Groundwater: The values used are from 2006 Atlas data which represented the most complete data set with the exception of the Municipal sector where the 2005 Atlas data set was considered the best available data. Where applicable, a mixture of 2005/2006 data are provided due to the Municipal Subcommittee’s choice of 2005 as their baseline year. The subcommittee assumed that the groundwater supply available in the baseline condition will be available in the years 2035, 2060, and 2110 (See Table 1) outside AMAs. In the AMAs, the CAM produced a low and high groundwater supply that corresponded to the low and high industrial demands, however if that value exceeded the baseline volume, the baseline volume was used in this analysis. If the CAM groundwater value was less than the volume of groundwater currently developed, the CAM value was used to incorporate anticipated restrictions on groundwater usage in the AMAs due to the complex regulatory framework. Development of additional groundwater supply is addressed in the unmet demand analysis. Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 5 / August 2011 175 Water Resources Development Commission Table 1. Baseline Groundwater Available in the Future (Acre-Feet) bASIn_nAMe AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BILL WILLIAMS BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DETRITAL VALLEY DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HARQUAHALA INA HUALAPAI VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU LOWER GILA LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PARKER PEACH SPRINGS PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK TUCSON AMA UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX YUMA STATeWIDe GW (c. 2006) 3,602 514 15,028 3,251 0 14,503 1,101 500 159 19 53,300 11 8,054 295,323 2 66,178 9,109 2,799 47 2,007 95,812 110,296 23,677 71,500 145 9,126 120 1,787 351 673,754 431,290 17,679 29,350 3,765 87,958 12,611 19 22 1,500 20,980 2 2 3,000 216,997 3,286 23,957 28,549 1,585 6 175,714 108,570 2,628,916 1. Non-AMA data from 2006/2005 Atlas 2. AMA 2006 Groundwater demand from AMA Assessments (includes all demands identified as “Groundwater”) 176 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 5 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Instate Surface Water Diversion: The baseline instate surface water diversions for future projection represents average diversions from 2001-2006 in the non-AMA basins. Due to the variability inherent in instate surface water diversions, an average value provides a better representation of future availability. The subcommittee decided that the baseline instate surface water diversions should be reduced by 5% in 2035 and 10% in 2060 and 2010 to accommodate for potential stress to surface water diversions due to drought and/or potential climate change (See Table 2). In the AMAs, the instate surface water supplies from the CAM were used in this analysis. Development of additional instate surface water supply is addressed in the unmet demand analysis. Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 5 / August 2011 177 Water Resources Development Commission Table 2. Instate Surface Diversions (Baseline Year, 2035, 2060 and 2110 in Acre-Feet) Baseline For Projection 1: 2001-2006 Six Year Ave BASIN NAME AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH Instate Water Supplies Only HUALAPAI VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PEACH SPRINGS PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX Baseline 2035 (-5%) 2060+ (-10%) 0 500 0 0 0 0 358 0 0 0 9,900 55,417 0 0 833 0 0 1,627 0 0 2,067 0 0 74,183 12,011 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 0 4,450 16,494 1,618 0 475 0 0 0 0 340 0 0 0 9,405 52,646 0 0 792 0 0 1,545 0 0 1,963 0 0 70,474 11,410 0 0 0 0 0 0 950 0 4,228 15,669 1,537 0 450 0 0 0 0 323 0 0 0 8,910 49,875 0 0 750 0 0 1,464 0 0 1,860 0 0 66,765 10,810 0 0 0 0 0 0 900 0 4,005 14,845 1,457 0 0 0 150 143 135 Baseline For Projection 1: 2001-2006 Six Year Ave Inst ate + Instate + CR Lower Mainstem CR Up per Basins Which Receive Part of their Supply from the Colorado River or CAP Baseline 2035 (-5%) 2060+ (-10%) LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU 14,717 13,981 13,246 BILL WILLIAMS 500 50 800 0 0 0 473 0 0 973 0 0 475 48 760 0 0 0 450 0 0 924 0 0 450 45 720 0 0 0 426 0 0 875 0 0 Baseline 2035 (CAM) 2060+ (CAM) 727,402 73,830 506 702,362 66,443 466 665,395 62,946 441 999,860 957,486 907,092 DETRITAL VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) LOWER GILA PARKER Parker (Tribal Ag) YUMA Yuma (Tribal Ag) Instate + CAP HARQUAHALA INA Major Active Management Areas (AMAs) PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA TUCSON AMA STATEWIDE Effluent: The baseline effluent for future availability represents the total amount of effluent generated in 2006. The amount of effluent generated is greater than the amount of effluent used in 2006. However, the subcommittee assumed the amount of effluent generated in 2006 will used in the years 2035, 2060, and 2110 (see Table 3). Development of additional effluent supply is addressed in the unmet demand analysis. 178 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 5 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Table 3. Baseline Effluent Available for Future in Acre-Feet ARIZONA EFFLUENT GENERATION AND USE (c. 2006)1 BASIN Agua Fria Aravaipa Canyon Big Sandy Bill Williams Bonita Creek Butler Valley Cienega Creek Coconino Plateau Detrital Valley Donnelly Wash Douglas Dripping Springs Duncan Valley Gila Bend Grand Wash Harquahala Hualapai Valley Kanab Plateau Lake Havasu Lake Mohave Little Colorado River Lower Gila Lower San Pedro McMullen Valley Meadview Morenci Paria Parker Peach Springs Phoenix AMA Pinal AMA Prescott AMA Ranegras Plain Sacramento Valley Safford Salt River San Bernardino Valley San Rafael San Simon Wash Santa Cruz AMA Shivwits Plateau Tiger Wash Tonto Creek Tucson AMA Upper Hassayampa Upper San Pedro Verde River Virgin River Western Mexican Drainage Willcox Yuma State Total VOLUME GENERATED (acre-feet) 30 NR NR 200 NR NR 100 1,700 NR7 NR 1,400 NR 50 800 NR NR 1,800 500 3,400 3,100 36,100 300 700 NR7 NR 200 NR 2,100 100 315,000 6,900 6,900 NR 300 2,600 2,600 NR NR 400 16,311 NR NR 500 74,235 600 5,300 6,200 10 NR 500 13,500 504,436 DIRECT USE2 (acre-feet) Municipal Industrial Agriculture NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 273 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 2,433 715 3,600 NR 145 NR NR NR NR 220 NR 40,639 800 1,900 NR NR 500 NR6 NR NR NR 0 NR NR 200 15,947 NR 830 980 NR NR 211 460 69,853 NR NR NR 200 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR6 NR NR NR 80,000 1,700 0 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR 900 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 82,800 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR6 NR NR 11,300 NR NR NR NR NR NR 896 NR 73,009 2,300 800 NR NR NR6 NR6 NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR6 NR NR NR NR6 88,305 STORAGE AT PERMITTED RECHARGE FACILITY3 (acre-feet) DELIVERY TO CREATED WETLAND4 (acre-feet) DISCHARGED5 (acre-feet) NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 13,100 600 3,600 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR 300 16,700 NR 2,000 NR NR NR NR NR 36,300 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 2,700 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 1,350 0 0 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR 0 NR NR 426 NR NR NR NR 4,476 30 NR NR NR NR NR 100 1,427 NR NR 1,400 NR 45 800 NR NR 1,800 500 967 2,385 18,500 300 555 NR NR 200 NR 984 100 106,902 1,500 600 NR 300 2,100 2,600 NR NR 400 16,311 NR NR NR 40,688 600 2,470 4,794 10 NR 289 13,040 222,697 EFFLUENT DOMINATED STREAM MILES8 0.16 7.68 3.88 2.15 4.87 43.01 3.54 81.74 23.85 6.54 1.86 5.59 4.72 47.93 56.95 12.18 11.99 318.64 Notes and Sources: 1. Only those facilities with reported effluent generation are listed; the largest facilities typically report and are included here. Data from Volumes 2-8 of the Arizona Water Atlas. 2. The 200 af of industrial use in the Bill Williams Basin is estimated for the Bagdad Mine. Based on the GRIC 2008 annual report, an additional 10,686 af of effluent (through exchange) was used on the reservation in the Phoenix AMA. This additional use is not included here. 3. Amount delivered to managed facilities minus annual recovery, evaporation and cut to the aquifer. The Fort Huachuca recharge facility in the Upper San Pedro River Basin and the Green Valley Park Lakes recharge facility in the Tonto Creek Basin are not permitted facilities, but the estimated volume recharged by these two facilities is listed. Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 5 / August 2011 179 Water Resources Development Commission 4. Created wetlands are accessible to the public and not permitted as a recharge facility. 5. Includes the following disposal methods: watercourse, evaporation pond, discharge to another facility and non-permitted infiltration basins. 6. Demand reportedly exists, however, the amount is unknown. 7. Treatment facilities located in the basin, however, the volume generated is unknown. 8. A composite of the NEMO GIS Dataset 2008-2009 and Arizona Water Atlas (2009-2010). 9. The majority of the Phoenix AMA discharge is from the 91st Avenue WWTP. A portion of the discharge is diverted downstream of the plant as contract effluent, and most of the remainder is diverted for irrigation pursuant to surface water rights. Of note, as of 2011, approximately 20,000 af/yr is now being delivered to the expanded Tres Rios Wetlands at the 91st Ave WWTP. Colorado River Water: The Colorado River Compact of 1922 divided the waters of the Colorado River between the Upper Colorado and Lower Colorado River Basins. Each Basin was allocated 7.5 million acre-feet. In 1928, the Boulder Canyon Project Act (which authorized the construction of Hoover Dam) divided the Lower Basin’s allocation among the Lower Basin States of Arizona, California, and Nevada. The Act gave 2.8 million acre-feet to Arizona, 300,000 acre-feet to Nevada, and the remainder – 4.4 million acre-feet - to California. These amounts are summarized below: California: 4.4 million acre-feet Arizona: 2.8 million acre-feet Nevada: 0.3 million acre-feet Total: 7.5 million acre-feet These amounts represent each state’s basic annual apportionment and are based on consumptive use.1 Under Section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, a contract with the United States Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is required for diversion and use of Colorado River water. Since 1980, the Secretary consults with the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) before making any final decision on a contract. With the exception of the Central Arizona Project (CAP), all other contracts in Arizona quantify the amount of water which can be used, either in terms of a maximum diversion amount, the amount of water required to irrigate a given amount of land (beneficial uses), or consumptive use. The Secretary has adopted a priority system for delivering Arizona’s apportionment. The priorities are listed below: First Priority: Satisfaction of Present Perfected Rights as defined and provided for in the Arizona v. California Decree (2006 Consolidated). Second Priority: Satisfaction of Federal Reservations and Perfected Rights established or effective prior to September 30, 1968. Third Priority: Satisfaction of entitlements pursuant to contracts between the United States and water users in the State of Arizona executed on or before September 30, 1968. 1 The term consumptive use means diversion minus return flows. The definition is found in the decree: Supreme Court of the United States, State of Arizona v. State of California, No. 8 Orig. Entered March 27, 2006, 547 US 150 (2006 Consolidated ). 180 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 5 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Fourth Priority: Satisfaction of entitlements pursuant to: (i) contracts, Secretarial Reservations, and other arrangements between the United States and water users in Arizona entered into or established subsequent to September 30, 1968, for use on Federal, State, or privately owned lands in Arizona (for a total quantity of not to exceed 164,652 acre-feet of diversions annually); and (ii) Contract No. 14-06-W-245 dated December 15, 1972, as amended, between the United States and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District for the delivery of mainstem water for the Central Arizona Project (CAP), including use of mainstem water on Indian lands. Entitlements having a fourth priority as defined in (i) and (ii) are considered coequal. Fifth Priority: Satisfaction of entitlements to any unused Arizona entitlement. Sixth Priority: Satisfaction of entitlements to surplus apportionment water. In a normal year, the CAP is entitled to divert the remainder of Arizona’s 2.8 million acre-feet apportionment, after water is provided to the first through third priority rights and contracts, and mainstem fourth priority contracts (the same priority as the CAP). In general, it is assumed that the non-CAP related contractual entitlements will eventually be fully used. Colorado River Demand Assumptions: In order for the Water Supply and Demand Work Group to estimate the Colorado River water supply available in 2035, 2060, and 2110, the Work Group has made assumptions regarding the future demands for several water use sectors. These assumptions are discussed below. Municipal and Industrial (M & I) Demands: M & I mainstem contractor demand is projected to increase in the future. It has been assumed that in the future M & I contractors will fully use their entitlements. Agricultural Water Supply: Based on the projections made by the Agricultural Demand Subcommittee, it has been assumed that mainstem agricultural demands will not increase in the future. For the Lake Mohave, Havasu, and Parker groundwater basins, the agricultural demand is assumed by constant based on the 2001- 2005 average demand. For the Lower Gila and Yuma Basins, 2001-2005 average agricultural demand is projected to decrease by 7% by 2060 and remain constant thereafter. Based on the above agricultural demand assumptions, Colorado River water that is not used by mainstem agriculture contractors may be available for: 1. Future mainstem M & I demand; 2. Diversion by the CAP; and/or 3. For any other water user. For any transfers, ADWR would require compliance with its transfer policy and the water user would also have to contract with the Secretary. Tribal Water Supply: It is assumed that in the future mainstem Tribal users will fully use their entitlements. Environmental Water Supply: There are three wildlife refuges that have entitlements use Colorado River water. They are the Havasu, Cibola and Imperial National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs). The Cibola NWR was established by a public land order, while the Havasu and Imperial NWRS were established Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 5 / August 2011 181 Water Resources Development Commission by executive orders. Entitlements for the refuges were either established by Secretarial reservation, quantified in the Arizona v. California Decree, or both. It is assumed that the NWRs will fully use their entitlements. The subcommittee decided that both a Normal and Shortage years were possible in the future. Therefore; both Normal and Shortage years’ supplies are provided in the baseline condition and in the future. However, it was decided to only evaluate the first tier shortage because it has the highest probability of occurring. The values for the Colorado River and CAP represent the volume of water that is diverted to meet Arizona’s Colorado River full allocation for both Normal and Shortage years. Normal Colorado River Supply Available when the elevation of Lake Mead is between 1,075-1,145 feet. In this case CAP and Priority Four can use their full entitlements. The first tier shortage of Colorado River Supply available occurs when the elevation of Lake Mead is between 1,050-1,075 feet. In this case CAP and Priority Four consumptive use entitlements are reduced by a total of 320,000 acre-feet. ADWR assumes that the CAP would take 90% of the cut (288,000 acre-feet) and the mainstem basins with Priority Four contracts would take the remaining 10% of the cut (32,000). Table 4 shows the Colorado River/CAP supply for the baseline and for years 2035, 2060, and 2110 for both Normal and Shortage years. Central Arizona Project (CAP) The volume of Colorado River water available for diversion to CAP off the mainstem was calculated as the remainder of Arizona’s 2.8 MAF apportionment after subtracting mainstem uses. A 5% system loss is applied to account for evaporation and transmission losses within the CAP system, with the remaining volume distributed among the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs using the CAM; following projected buildout schedules for the various CAP subcontracts, the CAM allocates available CAP water among the various CAP “pools” according to the priority system that applies within the CAP and current rules governing the allocation of excess water. Based on these same rules, it was assumed that the Harquahala INA ( which lies outside the three AMAs but currently receives CAP water for agricultural use) would no longer receive any CAP water by 2035 (CAP’s agricultural contracts will expire prior to that time). Where available CAP water was insufficient to support model projected AMA demands, the CAM reported this unsatisfied need as unmet demand in the AMA. Generally speaking, 90% is reduced from the CAP and 10% from Priority 4 Mainstem Users or as determined by the Arizona-Nevada Shortage Agreement during times of shortages. Additional water may be available to CAP’s AMA and/or non-AMA users if water is reallocated from current mainstem uses and wheeled via the CAP pursuant to CAP’s contract with the Secretary; however, no such water was assumed to be available for purposes of calculating unmet demand in the AMA. 182 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 5 / August 2011 Table 4. Colorado River/CAP Supply for Baseline year and 2035, 2060, and 2010 in Acre-Feet Water Resources Development Commission Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 5 / August 2011 183 (c. 2006) GW 0 500 0 0 0 0 358 0 0 0 9,900 55,417 0 0 833 0 0 1,627 0 0 2,067 0 0 74,183 12,011 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 0 4,450 16,494 1,618 0 150 (2001-2006 Avg. Diversions) Instate SW 30 0 0 0 0 100 1,700 0 1,400 0 50 800 0 1,800 700 0 0 200 0 100 6,900 0 300 2,600 2,600 0 0 400 16,311 0 0 500 600 5,300 6,200 10 0 500 (Generated c. 2006) Effluent Instate 3,602 514 15,028 0 14,503 1,101 500 19 53,300 11 8,054 295,323 2 9,109 23,677 71,500 145 9,126 120 351 17,679 29,350 3,765 87,958 12,611 19 22 1,500 20,980 2 2 3,000 3,286 23,957 28,549 1,585 6 175,714 Total Instate Supply 3,632 989 15,028 0 14,503 1,201 2,540 19 54,700 11 17,509 348,769 2 10,909 25,169 71,500 145 10,871 120 451 26,542 29,350 4,065 161,032 26,621 19 22 1,900 37,291 2 2 4,450 3,886 33,484 50,418 3,132 6 176,357 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 5 / August 2011 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Colorado River/CAP 3,632 989 15,028 0 14,503 1,201 2,540 19 54,700 11 17,509 348,769 2 10,909 25,169 71,500 145 10,871 120 451 26,542 29,350 4,065 161,032 26,621 19 22 1,900 37,291 2 2 4,450 3,886 33,484 50,418 3,132 6 176,357 Total Supply Baseline Supply for Projection Purposes1 Water Resources Development Commission Results: Tables 5 through 9 show the supply for all categories of water for the baseline conditions, 2035, 2060, 2110 (Census), and 2110 (Area Split) respectively. AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HUALAPAI VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PEACH SPRINGS PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX BASIN NAME Table 5. Baseline Supply For Projection Purposes Instate Water Supplies Only 184 Table 5. Baseline Supply For Projection Purposes (Cont.) Water Resources Development Commission Baseline Supply for Projection Purposes1 Shortage Year3 198,412 4,415 359 4,149 29,975 56,995 198,412 47,570 237 0 25 13,578 24,553 1,782 47,570 0 0 0 0 89 1,782 Shortage Year3 260,780 26,782 376,655 481,403 12,404 0 55,965 417 150 45 23,432 47,689 50,000 Normal Year2 260,645 19,378 375,971 479,086 12,404 0 55,965 299 150 32 16,796 34,285 50,000 Shortage Year3 Colorado River Consumptive Use Normal Year2 51,782 4,604 359 4,169 40,457 77,349 103,535 139,790 348 288,164 320,786 4,793 0 Colorado River Expected Return Flow 51,782 464 150 50 26,528 51,887 103,535 140,045 9,799 290,025 325,095 4,793 0 Total Supply Instate SW (Generated c. 2006) 146,630 654 150 70 37,010 72,242 103,535 511,687 30,879 665,468 926,217 17,197 66,178 Colorado River/CAP Diversions GW (2001-2006 Avg. Diversions) 36,100 3,951 209 4,099 3,447 5,107 103,535 511,894 40,468 666,680 929,540 17,197 66,178 Effluent (c. 2006) 14,717 200 0 500 3,400 3,100 0 400,617 26,992 665,468 803,175 17,197 0 Instate 95,813 500 50 800 0 0 0 400,825 36,581 666,680 806,498 17,197 0 Normal Year2 Shortage Year3 Normal Year2 LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU 3,251 159 2,799 47 2,007 0 111,070 3,887 0 123,042 0 66,178 Total Instate Supply BILL WILLIAMS DETRITAL VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE 0 300 2,100 0 13,500 0 0 Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) 473 0 0 973 0 0 Shortage Year3 0 0 0 0 0.00 Normal Year2 0 61,409 0 864,732 Normal Year2 Shortage Year3 Normal Year2 61,409 0 918,911 Shortage Year3 110,296 1,787 0 108,570 0 66,178 LOWER GILA PARKER Parker (Tribal Ag) YUMA Yuma (Tribal Ag) HARQUAHALA INA Shortage Year3 Effluent Normal Year2 (Generated c. 2006) Total Instate Supply (CAM) Instate SW 2,396,662 622,712 480,240 120,828 1,008,170 to 1,128,998 0 0 7,381,586 0 0 0 0 GW 1,693,083 506,639 291,721 2,588,479 672,908 511,827 122,117 1,281,770 to 1,403,887 0 0 7,701,852 703,579 116,073 188,519 120,828 1,008,170 to 1,128,998 42,930 53,062 2,530,000 (c. 2006) Major Active Management Areas (AMAs) 673,755 431,290 216,996 2. Normal Colorado River Supply Available when the Elevation of Lake Mead = 1,075-1,145. In this case CAP and Priority 4 can use their full entitlements. Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 5 / August 2011 In a First Tier Shortage Year (Lake Mead Elevation between 1,050 and 1,075), AZ CU Entitlements = 2.48MAF, AZ use = 2.48MAF, Balance available equals zero. Arizona will always use its full apportionment. Note: In a Normal Year (Lake Mead Elevation between 1,075 And 1,145), AZ CU Entitlements = 2.8MAF, AZ use =2.8MAF, Balance available equals zero. 6. In the AMAs, a low and high groundwater supply corresponds with low and high industrial demands. If CAM GW Supply > Baseline (c. 2006), the GW Supply is = Baseline (c.2006). If CAM GW Supply < Baseline (c. 2006), the GW Supply = CAM GW Supply. Increased values in future yars correspond to decreased values in the Yuma and Lower Gila Basins based on a projected 7% decrease in non-Indian agriculture demand. 5. The second CAP value in the range represents the addition of water contracted to mainstem contract holders currently utilized by CAP pursuant to CAP's contract with the Secretary. It is divided into the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs for planning purposes in the Supply Vs. Demand tabulation and unmet demand analysis. 4. The first CAP value in the range represents the portion of Arizona's Lower Basin Colorado River Supply that is projected to be available after full on-river use of entitlements occurs. This value includes a 5% system loss expected from the point of diversion and the place of use. 3. The first tier shortage of Colorado River Supply available when the Elevation of Lake Mead = 1,050-1,075. In this case CAP and Priority 4 consumptive use entitlements are reduced by a total of 320,000 acre-feet. 895,395 166,269 220,106 122,117 1,281,770 to 1,403,887 42,930 67,462 2,850,000 727,402 73,830 506 PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA TUCSON AMA Central Arizona Project (CAP) Supply Range4,5 703,579 116,073 188,519 120,828 1,008,170 to 1,128,998 104,339 53,062 3,434,245 Colorado Mainstem Environmental (Not Available For Cultural Supply) CAP System Loss = -5% of Diversion (Not Available For Supply) 4,104,742 999,860 504,436 1. The Baseline Supply for Projection Purposes represents currently developed supplies that are available today and throughout the study period to meet both baseline and, if applicable, future demand. 2,628,917 GW = groundwater Of that 90% is reduced from the CAP and 10% from Priority 4 Mainstem Users. This value will be adjusted in the future scenarios to simulate reductions in water supply due to climate change and other stressors. CR = Mainstem Colorado River Water CAP = Central Arizona Project Instate SW = Other Surface Water Effluent = reclaimed water STATEWIDE 895,395 166,269 220,106 122,117 1,281,770 to 1,403,887 104,339 67,462 3,768,911 315,000 6,900 74,235 Basins Which Receive Part of Supply from the Colorado River or CAP Instate + CR Upper Instate + CR Lower Mainstem Instate + CAP 185 BASIN NAME AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HUALAPAI VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PEACH SPRINGS PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX Table 6. 2035 Supply Instate Water Supplies Only Water Resources Development Commission GW (2001-2006 Avg. Diversions - 5%) Instate SW 30 0 0 0 0 100 1,700 0 1,400 0 50 800 0 1,800 700 0 0 200 0 100 6,900 0 300 2,600 2,600 0 0 400 16,311 0 0 500 600 5,300 6,200 10 0 500 (Generated c. 2006) Effluent 3,632 989 15,028 0 14,503 1,201 2,540 19 54,700 11 17,509 348,769 2 10,909 25,169 71,500 145 10,871 120 451 26,542 29,350 4,065 161,032 26,621 19 22 1,900 37,291 2 2 4,450 3,886 33,484 50,418 3,132 6 176,357 Total Instate Supply 2035 Supply (c. 2006) 0 475 0 0 0 0 340 0 0 0 9,405 52,646 0 0 792 0 0 1,545 0 0 1,963 0 0 70,474 11,410 0 0 0 0 0 0 950 0 4,228 15,669 1,537 0 143 Instate 3,602 514 15,028 0 14,503 1,101 500 19 53,300 11 8,054 295,323 2 9,109 23,677 71,500 145 9,126 120 351 17,679 29,350 3,765 87,958 12,611 19 22 1,500 20,980 2 2 3,000 3,286 23,957 28,549 1,585 6 175,714 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 5 / August 2011 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Colorado River/CAP 3,632 989 15,028 0 14,503 1,201 2,540 19 54,700 11 17,509 348,769 2 10,909 25,169 71,500 145 10,871 120 451 26,542 29,350 4,065 161,032 26,621 19 22 1,900 37,291 2 2 4,450 3,886 33,484 50,418 3,132 6 176,357 Total Supply 186 Table 6. 2035 Supply (Cont) Basins Which Receive Part of Supply from the Colorado River or CAP Water Resources Development Commission 2035 Supply Normal Year1 195,087 Shortage Year2 1,693 Normal Year1 1,693 Shortage Year2 47,500 Normal Year1 47,500 Shortage Year2 Colorado River Consumptive Use Shortage Year2 195,087 Colorado River Expected Return Flow Normal Year1 49,193 Total Supply 49,193 Colorado River/CAP Diversions Instate SW (Generated c. 2006) 145,894 Effluent GW (2001-2006 Avg. Diversions - 5%) 36,100 Instate (c. 2006) 13,981 Total Instate Supply 95,813 299 150 32 16,796 34,285 55,965 251,534 19,378 375,971 464,252 12,404 0 LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU 417 150 45 23,432 47,689 55,965 251,670 26,782 376,655 466,498 12,404 0 Shortage Year2 165 0 18 9,732 17,603 47,570 135,080 7,614 289,498 313,789 4,793 0 Normal Year1 237 0 25 13,578 24,553 47,570 135,152 9,799 290,025 314,757 4,793 0 Shortage Year2 0 0 0 0 0 Normal Year1 4,390 357 4,109 29,975 56,995 103,535 497,660 30,879 665,468 901,035 17,197 66,178 High 4,579 357 4,129 40,457 77,349 103,535 497,868 40,468 666,680 904,249 17,197 66,178 Low 464 150 50 26,528 51,887 103,535 386,614 26,992 665,468 778,041 17,197 0 High 654 150 70 37,010 72,242 103,535 386,822 36,581 666,680 781,255 17,197 0 Low 3,926 207 4,059 3,447 5,107 0 111,046 3,887 0 122,994 0 66,178 Shortage Year2 200 0 500 3,400 3,100 0 300 2,100 0 13,500 0 0 Normal Year1 475 48 760 0 0 0 450 0 0 924 0 0 High 0 61,409 0 888,964 0 0 0 0 3,251 159 2,799 47 2,007 0 110,296 1,787 0 108,570 0 66,178 BILL WILLIAMS DETRITAL VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) LOWER GILA PARKER Parker (Tribal Ag) YUMA Yuma (Tribal Ag) HARQUAHALA INA Low 1,691,116 504,633 270,958 Effluent 1,662,536 504,633 232,924 (Generated c. 2006) 315,000 6,900 74,235 61,409 0 903,591 703,579 116,073 188,519 144,773 1,008,170 to 1,152,943 42,930 53,062 2,527,500 (CAM) GW Low3 GW High3 702,362 66,443 466 2,557,931 2,586,512 2,366,114 2,394,695 670,902 670,902 620,706 620,706 453,030 491,064 421,442 459,477 146,132 146,132 144,773 144,773 1,281,770 to 1,281,770 to 1,008,170 to 1,008,170 to 1,427,903 1,427,903 1,152,943 1,152,943 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,582,776 7,649,391 7,262,549 7,329,163 895,395 166,269 220,106 146,132 1,281,770 to 1,427,903 42,930 67,462 2,847,500 Instate SW Major Active Management Areas (AMAs) 673,755 431,290 196,258 Central Arizona Project (CAP) Supply Range4,5 703,579 116,073 188,519 144,773 1,008,170 to 1,152,943 104,339 53,062 3,416,464 895,395 166,269 220,106 146,132 1,281,770 to 1,427,903 104,339 67,462 3,751,091 1. Normal Colorado River Supply Available when the Elevation of Lake Mead = 1,075-1,145. In this case CAP and Priority 4 can use their full entitlements. Colorado Mainstem Environmental (Not Available For Cultural Supply) CAP System Loss = -5% of Diversion (Not Available For Supply) 957,486 504,436 4,003,485 4,070,100 2,608,178 GW = groundwater 2,541,563 CR = Mainstem Colorado River Water CAP = Central Arizona Project Instate SW = Other Surface Water Effluent = reclaimed water Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 5 / August 2011 2. The first tier shortage of Colorado River Supply available when the Elevation of Lake Mead = 1,050-1,075. In this case CAP and Priority 4 consumptive use entitlements are reduced by a total of 320,000 acre-feet. Of that 90% is reduced from the CAP and 10% from Priority 4 Mainstem Users. 3. In the AMAs, a low and high groundwater supply corresponds with low and high industrial demands. If CAM GW Supply > Baseline (c. 2006), the GW Supply is = Baseline (c.2006). If CAM GW Supply < Baseline (c. 2006), the GW Supply = CAM GW Supply. 4. The first CAP value in the range represents the portion of Arizona's Lower Basin Colorado River Supply that is projected to be available after full on-river use of entitlements occurs. This value includes a 5% system loss expected from the point of diversion and the place of use. It is divided into the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs for planning purposes in the Supply Vs. Demand tabulation and unmet demand analysis. 5. The second CAP value in the range represents the addition of water contracted to mainstem contract holders currently utilized by CAP pursuant to CAP's contract with the Secretary. Increased values in future years correspond to decreased values in the Yuma and Lower Gila basins based on a projected 7% decrease in non-Indian agriculture demand. 6. Positive values for (supply – demand) for Colorado River basins would be available for use by CAP or other Colorado River water users. No water would be left unused in the basin. Note: In a Normal Year (Lake Mead Elevation = 1,075 to 1,145), AZ CU Entitlements = 2.8MAF, AZ use = 2.8MAF, Balance available = zero. In a First Tier Shortage Year (Lake Mead Elevation = 1,050 to 1,075), AZ CU Entitlements = 2.48MAF, AZ use = 2.48MAF, Balance available = zero. Arizona will always use its full apportionment. STATEWIDE 645,174 431,290 158,223 Instate + CR Upper PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA TUCSON AMA Instate + CR Lower Mainstem Instate + CAP 187 BASIN NAME AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HUALAPAI VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PEACH SPRINGS PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX Table 7. 2060 Supply Instate Water Supplies Only Water Resources Development Commission GW (2001-2006 Avg. Diversions -10%) Instate SW 30 0 0 0 0 100 1,700 0 1,400 0 50 800 0 1,800 700 0 0 200 0 100 6,900 0 300 2,600 2,600 0 0 400 16,311 0 0 500 600 5,300 6,200 10 0 500 (Generated c. 2006) Effluent 3,632 964 15,028 0 14,503 1,201 2,523 19 54,700 11 17,014 345,998 2 10,909 25,127 71,500 145 10,790 120 451 26,438 29,350 4,065 157,323 26,021 19 22 1,900 37,291 2 2 4,400 3,886 33,262 49,593 3,052 6 176,349 Total Instate Supply 2060 Supply (c. 2006) 0 450 0 0 0 0 323 0 0 0 8,910 49,875 0 0 750 0 0 1,464 0 0 1,860 0 0 66,765 10,810 0 0 0 0 0 0 900 0 4,005 14,845 1,457 0 135 Instate 3,602 514 15,028 0 14,503 1,101 500 19 53,300 11 8,054 295,323 2 9,109 23,677 71,500 145 9,126 120 351 17,679 29,350 3,765 87,958 12,611 19 22 1,500 20,980 2 2 3,000 3,286 23,957 28,549 1,585 6 175,714 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 5 / August 2011 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Colorado River/CAP 3,632 964 15,028 0 14,503 1,201 2,523 19 54,700 11 17,014 345,998 2 10,909 25,127 71,500 145 10,790 120 451 26,438 29,350 4,065 157,323 26,021 19 22 1,900 37,291 2 2 4,400 3,886 33,262 49,593 3,052 6 176,349 Total Supply 188 Table 7. 2060 Supply (Cont.) Water Resources Development Commission 2060 Supply Effluent 46,604 Normal Year1 464 150 50 26,528 51,887 46,604 Shortage Year2 103,535 4,554 354 4,089 40,457 77,349 191,762 Normal Year1 103,535 4,365 354 4,069 29,975 56,995 191,762 Shortage Year2 47,570 237 0 25 13,578 24,553 1,604 Normal Year1 47,570 165 0 18 9,732 17,603 1,604 Shortage Year2 55,965 417 150 45 23,432 47,689 45,000 Normal Year1 55,965 299 150 32 16,796 34,285 45,000 Shortage Year2 Colorado River Consumptive Use Instate SW (Generated c. 2006) 145,158 654 150 70 37,010 72,242 103,535 Colorado River Expected Return Flow GW (2001-2006 Avg. Diversions - 10%) 36,100 3,901 204 4,019 3,447 5,107 103,535 Total Supply (c. 2006) 13,246 200 0 500 3,400 3,100 0 Colorado River/CAP Diversions 95,813 450 45 720 0 0 0 Instate LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU 3,251 159 2,799 47 2,007 0 Total Instate Supply BILL WILLIAMS DETRITAL VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE 0 242,424 19,378 375,971 449,417 12,404 0 Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) 242,559 26,782 376,655 451,593 12,404 0 Shortage Year2 130,187 7,614 289,498 303,490 4,793 0 Normal Year1 130,259 9,799 290,025 304,419 4,793 0 Shortage Year2 0 0 0 0 0 Normal Year1 483,633 30,879 665,468 875,852 17,197 66,178 High 483,841 40,468 666,680 878,958 17,197 66,178 Low 372,611 26,992 665,468 752,907 17,197 0 High 372,818 36,581 666,680 756,013 17,197 0 Low 111,022 3,887 0 122,945 0 66,178 Shortage Year2 300 2,100 0 13,500 0 0 Normal Year1 426 0 0 875 0 0 High 0 61,409 0 873,683 0 0 0 0 110,296 1,787 0 108,570 0 66,178 LOWER GILA PARKER Parker (Tribal Ag) YUMA Yuma (Tribal Ag) HARQUAHALA INA Low 1,654,150 501,136 275,078 Effluent 665,395 62,946 441 1,521,060 501,136 235,715 61,409 0 888,271 703,579 116,073 188,519 168,718 1,008,170 to 1,176,889 42,930 53,062 2,525,000 (Generated c. 2006) 673,755 431,290 200,402 GW Low3 GW High3 540,665 431,290 161,039 315,000 6,900 74,235 2,416,455 2,549,545 2,224,638 2,357,729 667,405 667,405 617,209 617,209 455,821 495,184 424,234 463,596 170,148 170,148 168,718 168,718 1,281,770 to 1,281,770 to 1,008,170 to 1,008,170 to 1,451,918 1,451,918 1,176,889 1,176,889 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,412,868 7,585,321 7,092,679 7,265,132 895,395 166,269 220,106 170,148 1,281,770 to 1,451,918 42,930 67,462 2,845,000 (CAM) Major Active Management Areas (AMAs) PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA TUCSON AMA Central Arizona Project (CAP) Supply Range4,5 703,579 116,073 188,519 168,718 1,008,170 to 1,176,889 104,339 53,062 3,398,683 1. Normal Colorado River Supply Available when the Elevation of Lake Mead = 1,075-1,145. In this case CAP and Priority 4 can use their full entitlements. Colorado Mainstem Environmental (Not Available For Cultural Supply) CAP System Loss = -5% of Diversion (Not Available For Supply) 907,092 504,436 3,851,397 4,023,850 2,612,322 GW = groundwater 2,439,869 CR = Mainstem Colorado River Water CAP = Central Arizona Project Instate SW = Other Surface Water Effluent = reclaimed water Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 5 / August 2011 2. The first tier shortage of Colorado River Supply available when the Elevation of Lake Mead = 1,050-1,075. In this case CAP and Priority 4 consumptive use entitlements are reduced by a total of 320,000 acre-feet. Of that 90% is reduced from the CAP and 10% from Priority 4 Mainstem Users. 3. In the AMAs, a low and high groundwater supply corresponds with low and high industrial demands. If CAM GW Supply > Baseline (c. 2006), the GW Supply is = Baseline (c.2006). If CAM GW Supply < Baseline (c. 2006), the GW Supply = CAM GW Supply. 4. The first CAP value in the range represents the portion of Arizona's Lower Basin Colorado River Supply that is projected to be available after full on-river use of entitlements occurs. This value includes a 5% system loss expected from the point of diversion and the place of use. It is divided into the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs for planning purposes in the Supply Vs. Demand tabulation and unmet demand analysis. 5. The second CAP value in the range represents the addition of water contracted to mainstem contract holders currently utilized by CAP pursuant to CAP's contract with the Secretary. Increased values in future years correspond to decreased values in the Yuma and Lower Gila basins based on a projected 7% decrease in non-Indian agriculture demand. 6. Positive values for (supply – demand) for Colorado River basins would be available for use by CAP or other Colorado River water users. No water would be left unused in the basin. Note: In a Normal Year (Lake Mead Elevation = 1,075 to 1,145), AZ CU Entitlements = 2.8MAF, AZ use = 2.8MAF, Balance available = zero. In a First Tier Shortage Year (Lake Mead Elevation = 1,050 to 1,075), AZ CU Entitlements = 2.48MAF, AZ use = 2.48MAF, Balance available = zero. Arizona will always use its full apportionment. STATEWIDE 895,395 166,269 220,106 170,148 1,281,770 to 1,451,918 104,339 67,462 3,733,272 Instate SW Basins Which Receive Part of Supply from the Colorado River or CAP Instate + CR Upper Instate + CR Lower Mainstem Instate + CAP 189 BASIN NAME AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HUALAPAI VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PEACH SPRINGS PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX Table 8. 2110 Supply (Census) Instate Water Supplies Only Water Resources Development Commission GW (2001-2006 Avg. Diversions -10%) Instate SW 30 0 0 0 0 100 1,700 0 1,400 0 50 800 0 1,800 700 0 0 200 0 100 6,900 0 300 2,600 2,600 0 0 400 16,311 0 0 500 600 5,300 6,200 10 0 500 (Generated c. 2006) Effluent 3,632 964 15,028 0 14,503 1,201 2,523 19 54,700 11 17,014 345,998 2 10,909 25,127 71,500 145 10,790 120 451 26,438 29,350 4,065 157,323 26,021 19 22 1,900 37,291 2 2 4,400 3,886 33,262 49,593 3,052 6 176,349 Total Instate Supply 2110 Supply (Census) (c. 2006) 0 450 0 0 0 0 323 0 0 0 8,910 49,875 0 0 750 0 0 1,464 0 0 1,860 0 0 66,765 10,810 0 0 0 0 0 0 900 0 4,005 14,845 1,457 0 135 Instate 3,602 514 15,028 0 14,503 1,101 500 19 53,300 11 8,054 295,323 2 9,109 23,677 71,500 145 9,126 120 351 17,679 29,350 3,765 87,958 12,611 19 22 1,500 20,980 2 2 3,000 3,286 23,957 28,549 1,585 6 175,714 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 5 / August 2011 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Colorado River/CAP 3,632 964 15,028 0 14,503 1,201 2,523 19 54,700 11 17,014 345,998 2 10,909 25,127 71,500 145 10,790 120 451 26,438 29,350 4,065 157,323 26,021 19 22 1,900 37,291 2 2 4,400 3,886 33,262 49,593 3,052 6 176,349 Total Supply 190 Table 8. 2110 Supply (Census, Cont.) Water Resources Development Commission 2110 Supply (Census) Effluent 46,604 Normal Year1 464 150 50 26,528 51,887 46,604 Shortage Year2 103,535 4,554 354 4,089 40,457 77,349 191,762 Normal Year1 103,535 4,365 354 4,069 29,975 56,995 191,762 Shortage Year2 47,570 237 0 25 13,578 24,553 1,604 Normal Year1 47,570 165 0 18 9,732 17,603 1,604 Shortage Year2 55,965 417 150 45 23,432 47,689 45,000 Normal Year1 55,965 299 150 32 16,796 34,285 45,000 Shortage Year2 Colorado River Consumptive Use Instate SW (Generated c. 2006) 145,158 654 150 70 37,010 72,242 103,535 Colorado River Expected Return Flow GW (2001-2006 Avg. Diversions - 10%) 36,100 3,901 204 4,019 3,447 5,107 103,535 Total Supply (c. 2006) 13,246 200 0 500 3,400 3,100 0 Colorado River/CAP Diversions 95,813 450 45 720 0 0 0 Instate LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU 3,251 159 2,799 47 2,007 0 Total Instate Supply BILL WILLIAMS DETRITAL VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE 0 Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) Shortage Year2 242,424 19,378 375,971 449,417 12,404 0 Normal Year1 242,559 26,782 376,655 451,593 12,404 0 Shortage Year2 0 0 0 0 0 Normal Year1 130,187 7,614 289,498 303,490 4,793 0 High 130,259 9,799 290,025 304,419 4,793 0 Low 483,633 30,879 665,468 875,852 17,197 66,178 High 483,841 40,468 666,680 878,958 17,197 66,178 Low 372,611 26,992 665,468 752,907 17,197 0 Shortage Year2 372,818 36,581 666,680 756,013 17,197 0 Normal Year1 111,022 3,887 0 122,945 0 66,178 High 0 61,409 0 873,683 0 0 0 0 300 2,100 0 13,500 0 0 Low 1,654,150 501,136 312,663 426 0 0 875 0 0 1,588,701 501,136 265,820 110,296 1,787 0 108,570 0 66,178 LOWER GILA PARKER Parker (Tribal Ag) YUMA Yuma (Tribal Ag) HARQUAHALA INA 315,000 6,900 74,235 Effluent 665,395 62,946 441 61,409 0 888,271 703,579 116,073 188,519 168,718 1,008,170 to 1,176,889 42,930 53,062 2,525,000 (Generated c. 2006) 673,755 431,290 237,987 GW Low3 GW High3 608,306 431,290 191,144 2,484,097 2,549,545 2,292,280 2,357,729 667,405 667,405 617,209 617,209 485,926 532,769 454,339 501,182 170,148 170,148 168,718 168,718 1,281,770 to 1,281,770 to 1,008,170 to 1,008,170 to 1,451,918 1,451,918 1,176,889 1,176,889 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,510,616 7,622,907 7,190,426 7,302,718 895,395 166,269 220,106 170,148 1,281,770 to 1,451,918 42,930 67,462 2,845,000 (CAM) Major Active Management Areas (AMAs) PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA TUCSON AMA Central Arizona Project (CAP) Supply Range4,5 703,579 116,073 188,519 168,718 1,008,170 to 1,176,889 104,339 53,062 3,398,683 1. Normal Colorado River Supply Available when the Elevation of Lake Mead = 1,075-1,145. In this case CAP and Priority 4 can use their full entitlements. Colorado Mainstem Environmental (Not Available For Cultural Supply) CAP System Loss = -5% of Diversion (Not Available For Supply) 907,092 504,436 3,949,144 4,061,436 2,649,908 GW = groundwater 2,537,616 CR = Mainstem Colorado River Water CAP = Central Arizona Project Instate SW = Other Surface Water Effluent = reclaimed water Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 5 / August 2011 2. The first tier shortage of Colorado River Supply available when the Elevation of Lake Mead = 1,050-1,075. In this case CAP and Priority 4 consumptive use entitlements are reduced by a total of 320,000 acre-feet. Of that 90% is reduced from the CAP and 10% from Priority 4 Mainstem Users. 3. In the AMAs, a low and high groundwater supply corresponds with low and high industrial demands. If CAM GW Supply > Baseline (c. 2006), the GW Supply is = Baseline (c.2006). If CAM GW Supply < Baseline (c. 2006), the GW Supply = CAM GW Supply. 4. The first CAP value in the range represents the portion of Arizona's Lower Basin Colorado River Supply that is projected to be available after full on-river use of entitlements occurs. This value includes a 5% system loss expected from the point of diversion and the place of use. It is divided into the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs for planning purposes in the Supply Vs. Demand tabulation and unmet demand analysis. 5. The second CAP value in the range represents the addition of water contracted to mainstem contract holders currently utilized by CAP pursuant to CAP's contract with the Secretary. Increased values in future years correspond to decreased values in the Yuma and Lower Gila basins based on a projected 7% decrease in non-Indian agriculture demand. 6. Positive values for (supply – demand) for Colorado River basins would be available for use by CAP or other Colorado River water users. No water would be left unused in the basin. Note: In a Normal Year (Lake Mead Elevation = 1,075 to 1,145), AZ CU Entitlements = 2.8MAF, AZ use = 2.8MAF, Balance available = zero. In a First Tier Shortage Year (Lake Mead Elevation = 1,050 to 1,075), AZ CU Entitlements = 2.48MAF, AZ use = 2.48MAF, Balance available = zero. Arizona will always use its full apportionment. STATEWIDE 895,395 166,269 220,106 170,148 1,281,770 to 1,451,918 104,339 67,462 3,733,272 Instate SW Basins Which Receive Part of Supply from the Colorado River or CAP Instate + CR Upper Instate + CR Lower Mainstem Instate + CAP 191 AGUA FRIA ARAVAIPA CANYON BIG SANDY BONITA CREEK BUTLER VALLEY CIENEGA CREEK COCONINO PLATEAU DONNELLY WASH DOUGLAS DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DUNCAN VALLEY GILA BEND GRAND WASH HUALAPAI VALLEY LOWER SAN PEDRO MCMULLEN VALLEY MEADVIEW MORENCI PARIA PEACH SPRINGS PRESCOTT AMA RANEGRAS PLAIN SACRAMENTO VALLEY SAFFORD SALT RIVER SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL SAN SIMON WASH SANTA CRUZ AMA SHIVWITS PLATEAU TIGER WASH TONTO CREEK UPPER HASSAYAMPA UPPER SAN PEDRO VERDE RIVER VIRGIN RIVER WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE WILLCOX BASIN NAME Table 9. 2110 Supply (Area Split) Instate Water Supplies Only Water Resources Development Commission GW (2001-2006 Avg. Diversions -10%) Instate SW 30 0 0 0 0 100 1,700 0 1,400 0 50 800 0 1,800 700 0 0 200 0 100 6,900 0 300 2,600 2,600 0 0 400 16,311 0 0 500 600 5,300 6,200 10 0 500 (Generated c. 2006) Effluent 3,632 964 15,028 0 14,503 1,201 2,523 19 54,700 11 17,014 345,998 2 10,909 25,127 71,500 145 10,790 120 451 26,438 29,350 4,065 157,323 26,021 19 22 1,900 37,291 2 2 4,400 3,886 33,262 49,593 3,052 6 176,349 Total Instate Supply 2110 Supply (Area Split) (c. 2006) 0 450 0 0 0 0 323 0 0 0 8,910 49,875 0 0 750 0 0 1,464 0 0 1,860 0 0 66,765 10,810 0 0 0 0 0 0 900 0 4,005 14,845 1,457 0 135 Instate 3,602 514 15,028 0 14,503 1,101 500 19 53,300 11 8,054 295,323 2 9,109 23,677 71,500 145 9,126 120 351 17,679 29,350 3,765 87,958 12,611 19 22 1,500 20,980 2 2 3,000 3,286 23,957 28,549 1,585 6 175,714 Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 5 / August 2011 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Colorado River/CAP 3,632 964 15,028 0 14,503 1,201 2,523 19 54,700 11 17,014 345,998 2 10,909 25,127 71,500 145 10,790 120 451 26,438 29,350 4,065 157,323 26,021 19 22 1,900 37,291 2 2 4,400 3,886 33,262 49,593 3,052 6 176,349 Total Supply 192 Table 9. 2110 Supply (Area Split Cont.) Water Resources Development Commission 2110 Supply (Area Split) Effluent 46,604 Normal Year1 464 150 50 26,528 51,887 46,604 Shortage Year2 103,535 4,554 354 4,089 40,457 77,349 191,762 Normal Year1 103,535 4,365 354 4,069 29,975 56,995 191,762 Shortage Year2 47,570 237 0 25 13,578 24,553 1,604 Normal Year1 47,570 165 0 18 9,732 17,603 1,604 Shortage Year2 55,965 417 150 45 23,432 47,689 45,000 Normal Year1 55,965 299 150 32 16,796 34,285 45,000 Shortage Year2 Colorado River Consumptive Use Instate SW (Generated c. 2006) 145,158 654 150 70 37,010 72,242 103,535 Colorado River Expected Return Flow GW (2001-2006 Avg. Diversions - 10%) 36,100 3,901 204 4,019 3,447 5,107 103,535 Total Supply (c. 2006) 13,246 200 0 500 3,400 3,100 0 Colorado River/CAP Diversions 95,813 450 45 720 0 0 0 Instate LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU 3,251 159 2,799 47 2,007 0 Total Instate Supply BILL WILLIAMS DETRITAL VALLEY KANAB PLATEAU LAKE HAVASU LAKE MOHAVE 0 Lake Mohave (Tribal Ag) Shortage Year2 242,424 19,378 375,971 449,417 12,404 0 Normal Year1 242,559 26,782 376,655 451,593 12,404 0 Shortage Year2 0 0 0 0 0 Normal Year1 130,187 7,614 289,498 303,490 4,793 0 High 130,259 9,799 290,025 304,419 4,793 0 Low 483,633 30,879 665,468 875,852 17,197 66,178 High 483,841 40,468 666,680 878,958 17,197 66,178 Low 372,611 26,992 665,468 752,907 17,197 0 Shortage Year2 372,818 36,581 666,680 756,013 17,197 0 Normal Year1 111,022 3,887 0 122,945 0 66,178 High 0 61,409 0 873,683 0 0 0 0 300 2,100 0 13,500 0 0 Low 1,654,150 501,136 312,470 426 0 0 875 0 0 1,570,555 501,136 266,986 110,296 1,787 0 108,570 0 66,178 LOWER GILA PARKER Parker (Tribal Ag) YUMA Yuma (Tribal Ag) HARQUAHALA INA 315,000 6,900 74,235 Effluent 665,395 62,946 441 61,409 0 888,271 703,579 116,073 188,519 168,718 1,008,170 to 1,176,889 42,930 53,062 2,525,000 (Generated c. 2006) 673,755 431,290 237,794 GW Low3 GW High3 590,160 431,290 192,310 2,465,951 2,549,545 2,274,134 2,357,729 667,405 667,405 617,209 617,209 487,092 532,576 455,504 500,988 170,148 170,148 168,718 168,718 1,281,770 to 1,281,770 to 1,008,170 to 1,008,170 to 1,451,918 1,451,918 1,176,889 1,176,889 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,493,634 7,622,714 7,173,445 7,302,524 895,395 166,269 220,106 170,148 1,281,770 to 1,451,918 42,930 67,462 2,845,000 (CAM) Major Active Management Areas (AMAs) PHOENIX AMA PINAL AMA TUCSON AMA Central Arizona Project (CAP) Supply Range4,5 703,579 116,073 188,519 168,718 1,008,170 to 1,176,889 104,339 53,062 3,398,683 1. Normal Colorado River Supply Available when the Elevation of Lake Mead = 1,075-1,145. In this case CAP and Priority 4 can use their full entitlements. Colorado Mainstem Environmental (Not Available For Cultural Supply) CAP System Loss = -5% of Diversion (Not Available For Supply) 907,092 504,436 3,932,163 4,061,242 2,649,714 GW = groundwater 2,520,635 CR = Mainstem Colorado River Water CAP = Central Arizona Project Instate SW = Other Surface Water Effluent = reclaimed water Water Supply and Demand Working Group / Appendix 5 / August 2011 2. The first tier shortage of Colorado River Supply available when the Elevation of Lake Mead = 1,050-1,075. In this case CAP and Priority 4 consumptive use entitlements are reduced by a total of 320,000 acre-feet. Of that 90% is reduced from the CAP and 10% from Priority 4 Mainstem Users. 3. In the AMAs, a low and high groundwater supply corresponds with low and high industrial demands. If CAM GW Supply > Baseline (c. 2006), the GW Supply is = Baseline (c.2006). If CAM GW Supply < Baseline (c. 2006), the GW Supply = CAM GW Supply. 4. The first CAP value in the range represents the portion of Arizona's Lower Basin Colorado River Supply that is projected to be available after full on-river use of entitlements occurs. This value includes a 5% system loss expected from the point of diversion and the place of use. It is divided into the Phoenix, Pinal and Tucson AMAs for planning purposes in the Supply Vs. Demand tabulation and unmet demand analysis. 5. The second CAP value in the range represents the addition of water contracted to mainstem contract holders currently utilized by CAP pursuant to CAP's contract with the Secretary. Increased values in future years correspond to decreased values in the Yuma and Lower Gila basins based on a projected 7% decrease in non-Indian agriculture demand. 6. Positive values for (supply – demand) for Colorado River basins would be available for use by CAP or other Colorado River water users. No water would be left unused in the basin. Note: In a Normal Year (Lake Mead Elevation = 1,075 to 1,145), AZ CU Entitlements = 2.8MAF, AZ use = 2.8MAF, Balance available = zero. In a First Tier Shortage Year (Lake Mead Elevation = 1,050 to 1,075), AZ CU Entitlements = 2.48MAF, AZ use = 2.48MAF, Balance available = zero. Arizona will always use its full apportionment. STATEWIDE 895,395 166,269 220,106 170,148 1,281,770 to 1,451,918 104,339 67,462 3,733,272 Instate SW Basins Which Receive Part of Supply from the Colorado River or CAP Instate + CR Upper Instate + CR Lower Mainstem Instate + CAP 193 Water Resources Development Commission APPENDIX 6 WRDC TRIBAL WORKING GROUP REPORT 194 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 6 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission The Future of Water Resources in Arizona: A Tribal Report By: John Lewis, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, John.Lewis@itcaonline.com Ray Benally, Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources, rbenally@frontiernet.net Norm DeWeaver, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, norm_deweaver@rocketmail.com Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 6 / August 2011 195 Water Resources Development Commission The Future of Water Resources in Arizona: A Tribal Report “We have made water an insignificant part of our lives. Unless we get back to respect the water as a giver of life, the water problems will continue.” Vincent Randall, Tribal Leader, Yavapai-Apache Nation Invocation, ITCA Water Round Table, November, 2007 INTRODUCTION Water is a life-giving resource for all residents of Arizona. As the first people of this land, Indian people have known this longer than anyone else. For tribes, water is not only a material resource; it is prized for its spiritual value as well. Indian tribes understand the importance of water. Over many centuries, they have seen its scarcity often -- scarcity resulting from acts of nature and from acts of man. Severe drought has destroyed many tribal communities. Upstream diversions and the withdrawal of groundwater from the land underneath tribal homelands have triggered famine and hardship. Tribes are a major force with respect to water resource issues. Tribes hold rights to several million acre-feet of surface water and groundwater, rights which nearly always enjoy an earlier priority date than the rights of others to the same resource. The more than 1.9 million acre-feet in currently quantified and perfected water rights, entitlements and claims listed later in this report are just the most visible of these rights. A number of tribes have yet to quantify their rights through litigation or settlement negotiations. Some tribes have settlements for only a portion of their lands. Other tribes have settlements that confirm rights to amounts of water, including groundwater, which may not be assigned a “quantified” number. In addition, as development occurs over the next 100 years, tribes, like others, may seek additional supplies necessary for tribal communities to grow. The tables in this report and those elsewhere in the Commission’s work focus on numbers, numbers based on the best projections that many experts could develop. However, it is important to understand that these numbers don’t tell the complete story, particularly when it comes to the extent of tribal water rights. Resolving imbalances between future water needs and future water supplies must include tribes as full and equal partners on a local, regional and statewide basis. A precondition of tribal collaboration is that all parties recognize that all the water to which tribes have rights is to be regarded as just that -- tribal water and not water which other parties can assume will be available for their use. This principle prevails whether or not tribal rights are currently quantified and whether or not the use of tribal water may currently be leased to others. Tribes have been active and willing partners in resolving water issues. Negotiations over the settlement of tribal claims customarily involve scores of other users. The successful conclusion of those negotiations has brought certainty to everyone as to what water they can legitimately claim, now and in the future. 196 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 6 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission In addition, tribes have worked together over the years with state agencies, local governments and private developers on joint projects to enable Arizona to grow, to protect the environment and to make the most efficient use of the scarce water resources within the state. METHODS The Origin and History of Tribal Water Rights Tribal rights to water flow from a number of sources. These include: • Aboriginal rights • Treaty rights • Federal reserved rights • Rights confirmed in court decrees • Rights confirmed in federal or state legislation, including legislation ratifying or amending tribal water settlements • Rights established by administrative action • Contract rights Tribes occupied this land and enjoyed the use of water from time immemorial. The right of tribes to use water is one of a bundle of vested property rights included in full beneficial title to their lands. These rights are associated with the use of water resources that traverse, underlie and border tribal lands. These rights are not judicially created, but are pre-existing vested property rights that have been effectively confirmed by judicial, legislative and executive action on the part of the government of the United States and the government of the state of Arizona. Tribes have long asserted their water rights, drawing on their aboriginal and treaty rights and on a US Supreme Court opinion in a case involving the use of the Milk River in north central Montana. In that landmark case, Winters v. US, 207 U.S. 564 (1908), the court found that when the federal government creates an Indian reservation it implicitly reserves the right to use a sufficient amount of water to fulfill the purposes of the reservation. This doctrine of federal reserved water rights for reservation areas was reaffirmed in a number of subsequent court decrees. For the tribes with land in Arizona, the 1963 decision of the US Supreme Court in the case of Arizona v. California is particularly important. In its initial decision in that case, the high court said: “It is impossible to believe that when Congress created the great Colorado River Indian Reservation and when the Executive Department of this Nation created the other reservations they were unaware that most of the lands were of the desert kind - hot, scorching sands - and that water from the river would be essential to the life of the Indian people and to the animals they hunted and the crops they raised.” The Court went on to assert that it would follow the decision in the Winters case, saying “We follow it now and agree that the United States did reserve the water rights for the Indians effective as of the time the Indian Reservations were created.” Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 6 / August 2011 197 Water Resources Development Commission The protection extended to tribal water by the federal reserved water rights doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Arizona Supreme Court, notably in decisions regarding issues raised in the Gila River general stream adjudication. Indian water law, like water law generally, initially evolved around situations related to the rights to surface water. In Arizona, surface water is an essential part of the total water resources. At the same time, groundwater plays an equally or even more important role in many parts of the state. Although in Arizona there are significant legal distinctions between them, the courts have found that groundwater rights, like surface water rights, are part of a tribe’s federal reserved water rights. The Arizona Supreme Court confirmed in 1999 that “federal reserved rights extend to groundwater to the extent groundwater is necessary to accomplish the purpose of a reservation.” (See In Re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System and Source, 195 Ariz. 411, 989 P.2d 739 (1999).) Initially, tribal water rights were commonly confirmed and quantified through litigation. As time went on, precedents grew and the fundamental principles of tribal water rights became better understood. Starting in 1978, a number of the tribes in Arizona whose water rights had not previously been quantified acted to establish their water rights through negotiated settlements. Often taking many years to conclude, these settlements were developed in accordance with two well-established legal standards. One, used in the Arizona v. California decision, considers the amount of “practicably irrigable acreage” on the reservation and quantifies tribal water rights on this basis. The other takes into account the water required for the establishment of a “permanent tribal homeland,” that includes, but is not limited to, current and future water necessary for domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, cultural and religious purposes. The Arizona Supreme Court has confirmed this standard for quantifying tribal water rights as the water necessary to maintain a tribe in its permanent tribal homeland. (See In Re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System and Source, 201 Ariz. 307, 35 P.3d 68 (2001).) Special Characteristics of Tribal Water Rights Under the Winters doctrine, federal reserved water rights involving tribes have a number of distinctive aspects to them. The rights are considered as having been established as of the date the federal government created the reservation involved. This means that tribal rights are nearly always senior to those of most other current users of the same water resource. The rights cannot be forfeited by non-use, as can rights held under state law according to the principle of “prior appropriation.” Although the scope of these rights is often quantified as being the amount of water necessary to support the “practically irrigable acreage” on a reservation, the rights, once quantified, can be used for nonagricultural purposes. The courts have also established the need for tribal water to support permanent tribal homelands as an additional measure of the scope of tribal water rights. Consistent with the idea of permanent tribal homelands, the rights involve the future needs of a reservation, not just present needs. Along with the right to use water on-reservation, tribes also have the right to lease their water off-reservation. 198 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 6 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission However, tribal water settlements confirmed by Congress frequently stipulate the circumstances under which tribes can lease or use water off-reservation. This is generally the situation in Arizona, where use and leasing provisions vary from settlement to settlement. As permitted by law, tribes may lease the use of water to which they hold rights. Tribes may also exchange water to which they hold rights for a different supply. These situations are particularly common among tribes with entitlements to Central Arizona Project (CAP) water. Leases are negotiated only with the consent of the tribal government involved. The leaseholders are subject to the terms and conditions of the lease. It is important to note that tribes cannot sell or permanently relinquish their water rights without the explicit consent of Congress. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Currently Quantified Tribal Water Rights Data showing the currently quantified tribal water rights and entitlements is provided in Table 1., “Summary of Currently Quantified Tribal Water Rights & Entitlements,” in the Appendix. The summary is derived from information on the public record. Three principal sources were used: The tabulations produced by the US Bureau of Reclamation showing the holders of priority rights to the Arizona apportionment of water from the mainstem of the Lower Colorado River. The tabulations were obtained from the Web site for BOR’s Lower Colorado Region, http://www.usbr.gov/lc/ and carry a 2010 date. The portion of the Central Arizona Project Subcontracting Report dated April 1, 2011 covering CAP Indian Contracts, obtained from CAP’s Web site, http://cap-az.com/Operations/Allocations.aspx. Copies of settlement legislation and related documents for the various tribal water settlements ratified by the US Congress involving tribal land within Arizona. Tribal leaders and their representatives also provided supporting information for the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the Tohono O’odham Nation and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. The amounts in the “All Other Quantified/Claimed Sources” column include amounts of in-state surface water, groundwater and effluent that are shown in the settlements. In the cases of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe and YavapaiApache Nation, the amounts include those listed in the Statement of Claimant submitted by the US on behalf of these tribes, or by the tribe itself in the Gila River general stream adjudication. It should be noted, however, that for tribes that have not yet quantified their water rights through litigation or negotiation, the tribe’s Statement of Claimant may be amended in the pending Arizona general stream adjudications. Since the initial claims were submitted in the 1980’s, the Arizona Supreme Court has established clearer standards for the water required to fulfill the “permanent tribal homeland” purposes. Therefore, such claims may be amended in the future, and the numbers presented cannot be completely relied upon as a final statement of projected tribal demands. The amounts shown in Table 1. for mainstem Colorado River water represent amounts from the Arizona apportionment of water from the River. The Colorado River Indian Tribes, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, Navajo Nation and Quechan Indian Tribe also have rights to Colorado River water apportioned to other states. These amounts are not shown in this table. In the case of the Navajo Nation, its rights include potential rights to Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 6 / August 2011 199 Water Resources Development Commission 50,000 acre-feet of water apportioned to Arizona from the Upper Basin. The rights and entitlements belong to tribes for their tribal land. The terms of the decrees or settlements involved do not divide the water by groundwater basins or by county areas. Tribal Water Rights Not Currently Quantified The currently quantified tribal water rights add up to a substantial portion of the water resources in Arizona. Equally important and too easily forgotten are the tribal water rights that are not currently quantified. Simply because there are no final numbers attached to them does not mean that these rights are any less real or that this water is available for the use of others without tribal consent. There are eleven federally recognized tribal governments with land in Arizona whose rights have yet to be fully adjudicated or quantified through settlements. The tribes are: • Havasupai Tribe • Hopi Tribe • Hualapai Tribe • Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians • Navajo Nation • Pascua Yaqui Tribe • San Carlos Apache Tribe • San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe • Tohono O’odham Nation • Tonto Apache Tribe • Yavapai-Apache Nation The current settlements and entitlements of the Hopi Tribe, the San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Tohono O’odham Nation do not cover all portions of their reservations or all of their claims. The White Mountain Apache Tribe has a settlement that has been incorporated into enacted federal legislation, but is not yet completely final. As noted earlier, both federal and state court decisions have clearly affirmed tribal rights to groundwater. The amount of this water has not been quantified except in a limited number of cases. The total amount involved is significant. Tribal land covers 28% of all land within the state of Arizona. Groundwater is commonly used for domestic, commercial, agricultural and other purposes. This means that such water is necessary to accomplish the purposes for which the reservations were created -- a key legal test of the tribal right to groundwater. 200 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 6 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Future Tribal Demand The work of the Water Resources Development Commission is focused on future water needs -- needs extending 25, 50 and 100 years into the future. The needs over this time frame of each water-using sector have been estimated as accurately as possible. Tribal communities, like other communities, are likely to need additional water in the future. Moreover, there are a number of factors unique to tribal lands that make the prediction of future needs particularly difficult. Several of these arise from the deep attachment of tribal people to their homelands. In the municipal sector, tribal needs can be expected to increase as a result of natural population growth. Tribal members living in off-reservation areas may return to their homelands as development efforts produce additional employment opportunities, improved education and better medical care. In those reservation communities where homes do not currently have safe drinking water piped into the house, future hook-ups to municipal water systems are likely to increase per capita daily use to levels that more closely resemble those in off-reservation communities. In the agricultural sector, reservations still have opportunities to put additional land into cultivation. This will require water, with some needs met by water included in current settlements and other needs that may arise in the future requiring additional water. In the industrial and enterprise sector, reservations have potential in many areas. These include exciting opportunities in renewable power, wind in some places, solar in others. Growth in tourism also calls for facilities that need water. Some tribes are struggling to improve the viability of their communities by adding additional land badly needed for both residential and economic development. Even though negotiated settlements try to look far into the future in determining the extent of tribal water needs, they have been and, in all probability, will continue to be subject to revision as previously unforeseen circumstances arise. Any analysis of tribal water needs must fully consider the totality of water rights not currently quantified, together with the likelihood of future needs to support permanent tribal homelands. The Navajo Nation has completed an extensive study of its future water needs. The Western Navajo Hopi Water Supply Needs, Alternatives and Impacts report projects water needs by sector and community at tenyear intervals from the year 2010 through 2100. Those needs for the Arizona portion of the reservation have been provided to the Water Resources Development Commission and are shown in Table 2 of this report. They illustrate the increase in projected use attributable to population growth, economic development and other factors. Additional Considerations Tribal water needs have sometimes been projected using data that has not been supplied or verified by tribes, data that is out of date or incomplete and data that is not consistent with the intent of tribes to use the full amounts of water to which they have rights. The most complete inventory of water data in the state of Arizona is the Arizona Water Atlas. Tribal water use is discussed in a number of the volumes of the Atlas. However, tribes were not contacted individually in collecting the information used, nor were they asked to confirm the data that was used. The Atlas does not take tribal water rights into account. Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 6 / August 2011 201 Water Resources Development Commission The gap between the amount of tribal water use estimated in the Atlas and the amount to which tribes have currently quantified rights is significant. The various volumes of the Atlas show tribal water use at less than 380,000 acre-feet for the AMA Planning Area. In contrast, tribes in that Planning Area have rights to nearly 980,000 acre-feet of water. The Arizona Water Atlas should not be used by the Commission to project tribal water needs. Similarly, existing “build out” schedules and computer models are inappropriate for use in projecting tribal water needs. These schedules do not always reflect the full amounts of water to which tribes have currently quantified rights. Nor do they reflect the amounts of water to which tribes have rights that are yet to be quantified. Projections based on data in the Arizona Water Atlas or on “build out” schedules have the unfortunate effect of mistakenly implying that water to which tribes have rights may be available for use by others without tribal consent. Tribal Collaboration in Water Resource Development Projects Tribes have been strong and constructive partners in projects developing water resources for non-tribal as well as tribal communities. As noted early in this report, the willingness of tribes to negotiate water settlements has benefitted everyone in the state. Negotiated settlements provide certainty and remove the cloud over water used by others that was previously a result of tribal claims. In every case, the amounts agreed to have been less -- sometimes a great deal less -- than the amounts which might have been achieved in court based on aboriginal rights, treaty rights and the doctrine of federal reserved rights. Tribal willingness to work as full partners with others in putting water to good use for the benefit of all Arizonans is long-standing and continues to this day. The following are simply a few of the many examples of this tribal collaboration. The city of Phoenix has operated a water treatment facility on the banks of the Salt River for nearly 50 years. That land is leased for that use by the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community. Treated water from that facility is conveyed across the Community in a pipeline delivering water to households in the city. Following the passage of the first federal tribal water settlement legislation in 1978, the Ak-Chin Indian Community negotiated an agreement to lease a relatively small portion of its water to the Del Webb corporation. Del Webb needed water to build what became the Anthem community north of Phoenix. The terms of the lease provided water for the growth of a non-Indian community, while enabling the tribe to receive compensation for water not needed in the near future on its reservation. Tribes throughout Arizona were the first to care for the environment. Riparian restoration is a prominent goal for tribes that still have water flowing across their lands. A major project has now come to fruition in southwest Arizona, thanks to a partnership between the Quechan Indian Tribe, the City of Yuma and the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area. The reservation side of the project includes the newly opened Anya Nitz Pak (Sunrise Point) Park, complete with an Elder Village to educate local youth about traditional Quechan life ways. The Yuma side of the project includes the Yuma East Wetlands park and trail. Tribes join with other communities and with the state in looking forward to opportunities for collaboration as full partners on future water development projects that serve all Arizona residents. 202 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 6 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Conclusions Indian tribes have prior and paramount rights to the use of a very substantial amount of the water resources allocated to or within the state of Arizona. Some of these rights have been quantified; some remain to be quantified. All water covered by these rights must be included in any baseline estimate of water resources or any projection of future water demands. Water to which tribes have federal reserved or other rights, whether quantified or not, cannot be considered as water available to other users, now or in the future. Tribes, as sovereign nations, must be given the opportunity, independent representation and ability to become fully involved as equal partners in the development of future water legislation as well as studies, research and projections involving water resources in the state of Arizona. Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 6 / August 2011 203 204 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 6 / August 2011 *** Data for Pascua Yaqui Tribe and Yavapai-Apache Nation include water claims. 18,117 All Other Quantified/ Claimed Sources 861,162 550,806 501,785 Water rights not currently quantified, negotiations pending Pending Pending Water rights not currently quantified, adjudication pending Negotiations pending 500 3,520 7,000 6,350 22,000 13,300 87,100 64,145 13,300 Water rights not currently quantified, no adjudication pending 74,000 13,200 128 25,000 27,000 1,200 6,848 500 1,000 ** Data for Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe and Yavapai-Apache Nation include CAP entitlements. * Some data may be approximate. Totals Pascua Yaqui Tribe** *** Pueblo of Zuni Quechan Indian Tribe Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community San Carlos Apache Tribe (partial water settlement) San Juan Southern Paiute Tohono O'odham Nation (partial water settlement) Tonto Apache Tribe** White Mountain Apache Tribe Yavapai-Apache Nation** *** Yavapai-Prescott Tribe 18,233 25,000 Central Arizona Project 328,800 324,700 Water rights not currently quantified, no adjudication pending 6,028 Water rights not currently quantified, no adjudication pending Water rights not currently quantified, no adjudication pending Water rights not currently quantified, no adjudication pending 103,535 50,000 10,847 662,402 Arizona Apportionment Colorado River Mainstem (volumes presented in acre-feet) Summary of Currently Quantified Tribal Water Rights & Entitlements* Ak-Chin Indian Community Cocopah Tribe Colorado River Indian Tribes Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Fort Mojave Indian Tribe Gila River Indian Community Havasupai Tribe Hopi Tribe Hualapai Tribe Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians Navajo Nation - Upper Colorado River Basin (AZ apportion 50,000 af) (see NN water demands - Table 2) Navajo Nation - Lower Colorado River Basin (see NN water demands - Table 2) Navajo Nation - Little Colorado River Basin Tribe Table 1. 1,913,753 87,200 128 52,000 8,048 1,500 4,020 7,000 6,350 122,400 77,445 Pending 6,028 75,000 10,847 662,402 36,350 103,535 653,500 Total of Amounts Shown Water Resources Development Commission 127,412 2020 674 0 0 0 674 2020 116,876 2010 425 0 0 0 425 2010 14,563 53,923 41,347 6,618 116,451 TOTAL Coconino Plateau DCM INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURAL_IRRIGATION MISCELLANEOUS CP subtotal LCR Plateau DCM INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURAL_IRRIGATION MISCELLANEOUS LCR subtotal 145,526 7,018 41,747 62,923 33,838 2030 929 2030 929 0 0 0 146,455 7,018 41,747 62,923 34,767 2030 165,635 7,091 50,688 60,864 46,992 2040 1,261 2040 1,261 0 0 0 166,896 7,091 50,688 60,864 48,253 2040 186,449 7,563 57,863 60,945 60,078 2050 1,569 2050 1,569 0 0 0 188,018 7,563 57,863 60,945 61,647 2050 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 6 / August 2011 Assuming Growth Towards Population Centers, and Ramped-Up Water Usage. 1. Industrial includes Navajo Generating Station use of 34,100 AFA added to the HDR data for LCR Plateau Table 9: Estimate of Annual Navajo M&I Demand (Acre-Feet), Midrange Rates of Population Growth, HDR Engineering Inc., Western-Navajo Hopi Water Supply Needs, Alternatives, and Impacts, Volume 2, Task 4.1, May 2003 126,738 6,618 41,347 54,923 23,850 6,618 6,618 41,347 54,923 MISCELLANEOUS 53,923 INDUSTRIAL (footnote 1) 24,524 41,347 14,988 DCM 2020 Navajo Nation Water Demands (AFA) AGRICULTURAL_IRRIGATION 2010 YEAR Table 2. (June 16,2011) 208,279 7,636 64,734 60,970 74,939 2060 1,912 2060 1,912 0 0 0 210,191 7,636 64,734 60,970 76,851 2060 235,307 8,508 72,634 60,970 93,195 2070 2,339 2070 2,339 0 0 0 237,646 8,508 72,634 60,970 95,534 2070 265,456 8,581 80,017 60,970 115,888 2080 2,871 2080 2,871 0 0 0 268,327 8,581 80,017 60,970 118,759 2080 297,058 9,381 82,608 60,970 144,099 2090 3,531 2090 3,531 0 0 0 300,589 9,381 82,608 60,970 147,630 2090 334,353 9,381 84,834 60,970 179,168 2100 4,352 2100 4,352 0 0 0 338,705 9,381 84,834 60,970 183,520 2100 Water Resources Development Commission 205 Water Resources Development Commission APPENDIX 7 COMMITTEE MEMBERS/AFFILIATION 206 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 7 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission COMMITTEE MEMBERS/AFFILIATION Adam Hawkins/Rio Tinto Adam Miller/ City of Phoenix Alan Dulaney/City of Peoria Amelia Homewytewa/Gila river Indian Community Bas Aja/Arizona Cattle Feeders Association Beth Miller/City of Scottsdale Bill Plummer/City of Page Bill Victor/Errol Montgomery and Associates Bill Wells/Bureau of Land Management Brad Hill/City of Flagstaff Brad Ross/Resolution Copper Mining Brandon Forbes/United States Geological Survey Brenda Burman/The Nature Conservancy Brett Lindsay/Salt River Materials Group Brian Munson/ASARCO Carl Roby/Cochise County Cheryl Lombard/The Nature Conservancy Chip Howard/Turf Science Chip Sherrill/Mohave County Chris Payne/Snell and Wilmer Christine Dawe/United States Forest Service Christine Nunez/City of Surprise Cliff Cauthen/Hohokam Irrigation District Colette Moore/City of Mesa Cynthia Chandley/Snell and Wilmer Cynthia Stefanovic/Arizona State Land Department Dave Slick/Salt River Project David Gomez (Supervisor)/Greenlee County Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 7 / August 2011 207 Water Resources Development Commission Dean Mair/Collie Canyon Dean Trammel/City of Tucson Dee Korich/City of Tucson Dennis Rule/Central Arizona Project Dianne Yunker/Arizona Department of Water Resources Don Gross/Arizona Department of Water Resources Doug Kupel/City of Phoenix Doug Toy/City of Chandler Doyle Wilson/Lake Havasu City Ed McGavock/Errol Montgomery and Associates Eric Duthie/Town of Taylor Eve Halper/United States Bureau of Reclamation Frank Corkhill/Arizona Department of Water Resources Gary Hix/Arizona Water Well Association Gerry Wilderman/Arizona Department of Water Resources Gerry Wildeman/Arizona Department of Water Resources Greg Capps/City of Chandler Henry Day/Arizona Public Service Company Jade Neville/ United States Geological Survey Janet Regner/Husk Partners Jason Baran/Arizona Municipal Water Users Association Jeff Johnson/Town of Taylor Jim Hartdegen/Maricopa Stanfield Irrigation District Jim Kenna/Bureau of Land Management Jim Renthal/Bureau of Land Management Jocelyn Gibbon/Environmental Defense Fund Joe Wilson/United States Bureau of Reclamation John Rasmussen/Yavapai County John Sellers/Yavapai Regional Capital 208 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 7 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Jorge Canaca/Arizona Game and Fish Department Julie Decker/Bureau of Land Management Karen Nally/Law Office of Karen E. Nalley, PLLC on behalf of Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District/Hohokam Irrigation and Drainage District Kathy Rall/Town of Gilbert Kelly Mott-Lacroix/Arizona Department of Water Resources Krishna Parameswaran/ASARCO Laura Grignano/Arizona Department of Water Resources Lauren Neu/Strand Engineering Leslie Meyers/United States Bureau of Reclamation Linda Stitzer/Western Resource Advocates Luana Capponi/Arizona State Land Department Lucius Kyyitan/Gila River Indian Community Lyn White/Freeport McMoran Corporation Mark Holmes/City of Mesa Matt Tsark/Strand Engineering Maureen George/Mohave County Water Authority (“MCWA”) Michael Johnson/Arizona Department of Water Resources Norm DeWeaver/Inter Tribal Council Paul Hendricks/Consultant Peter Culp/Squire, Sanders & Dempsey Phil Bashaw/Arizona Farm Bureau Ralph Marra/City of Tucson Raymond Suazo/Bureau of Land Management Rebecca Comstock/Freeport McMoran Corporation Rebecca Davidson/Salt River Project Reland Kane/Tucson Electric Power Rhett Billingsley/Ryly Carlock & Applewhite Rich Burtell/Arizona Department of Water Resources Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 7 / August 2011 209 Water Resources Development Commission Richard Lunt (Supervisor)/Greenlee County Rick Lavis/Arizona Cotton Growers Association Robert Hardy/City of Cottonwood Robert Shuler/Consultant Robert Wagner/Yavapai Regional Capital Robin Stinnett/City of Avondale Rod Ross/County Supervisors Association Ron Doba/Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users Association Saeid Tadayon/United States Geological Survey Sandra Rode/City of Goodyear Scott Hughes/Cal Portland Cement Sean Ferris/Golf Industry Association Simone Hall/The Nature Conservancy Spencer Kamps/Homebuilders Association of Central Arizona Steve Olson/Arizona Municipal Water Users Association Steve Rossi/City of Phoenix Steve Trussell/Salt River Materials Group Stu Spaulding/Town of Taylor Tim Gibson/Freeport MacMoran Corporation Tim Skarupa/Salt River Project Tom Buschatzke/City of Phoenix Tom Collazo/The Nature Conservancy Tom Davis/Yuma County Water Users Association Val Danos/Arizona Municipal Water Users Association Verle Martz/Salt River Materials Group Vivian Gonzales/Bureau of Reclamation Wade Noble/Noble Law Wally Wilson/City of Tucson Yvonne Pearson/Greenlee County 210 Water Supply and Demand Working Group Report / Appendix 7 / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Water Resources Development Commission Finance Working Group Report Working Group Chair: David Snider, Pinal County Supervisor August 2011 Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 OBJECTIVE 1 Objective 1 1 RESULTS 1 Task 1: For water supplies identified within each region, identify the infrastructure required.  1 Task 2: Develop cost estimates for the required infrastructure. 3 Task 3: Identify potential financing mechanisms based upon differing cost estimates. 9 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION 25 MEMBERS OF THE FINANCE WORKING GROUP 26 TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1. Additional Water Supplies That May Potentially Be Developed 2 Table 2. Cost Estimates for Infrastructure Components 5 Table 3. Estimated Capital Construction Costs in 2006 Dollars 7 Table 4. Estimated Annual Cost for Treatment and Delivery of Water in 2006 Dollars 7 Table 5. Project Cost Comparison Ratios 8 Table 6. Comparison of Financing Sources 10 Table 7. The Fees Assessed for the AMAs in 2008 21 Table 8. Projected Potential Revenue Generating at the Low Rates 22 Table 9. Projected Potential Revenue Generating at the High Rates 22 Figure 1. Location of Appraisal Studies conducted within Arizona 6 APPENDICES Appendix A: Tables and Figures 27 Appendix B: Studies 47 Appendix C: Legislation and Statutes 78 Finance Working Group Report / Table of Contents / August 2011 i Water Resources Development Commission INTRODUCTION In 2010, the Arizona Legislature passed H.B. 2661, which created the Water Resources Development Commission for the purpose of assessing the current and future water needs of Arizona. As a part of this effort the WRDC created four working groups to address specific objectives associated with the assessment. One of those four groups was the Finance Work Group. The Finance Work Group has been tasked with identifying potential mechanisms to finance the acquisition of water supplies and the infrastructure necessary to treat or deliver the projected needed water identified. OBJECTIVE The Water Resources Development Commission (WRDC) assigned the following objective with its associated tasks to the Finance Work Group (FWG): Objective 1 Identify potential mechanisms to finance the acquisition of water supplies and infrastructure necessary to treat or deliver the identified water supplies. Associated with Objective 1 are four tasks that will be addressed in this report. The four tasks are as follows: 1. For the water supplies identified that could be developed within or imported into each basin region, identify the infrastructure required considering any technical issues identified. 2. Develop cost estimates for the required infrastructure. 3. Identify potential financing mechanisms based upon differing cost estimates. 4. Prepare summary of findings of recommendation including needed studies and research by May 31, 2011. RESULTS Task 1: For water supplies identified that could be developed within or imported into each basin region, identify the infrastructure required considering any technical issues identified. The following Table (Table 1) was developed by the Water Supply and Demand Work Group where it was labeled Table 17 and entitled “Additional Water Supplies That May Potentially Be Developed.” It identifies potential sources of supply to be considered for development and the potential infrastructure component requirements associated with each potential source of supply. Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 1 Water Resources Development Commission Table 1. Additional Water Supplies That May Potentially Be Developed Potential Source of Supply Potential Issues Potential Infrastructure Requirements Conservation Costs Lining or Relining Canals, Greywater systems, water use and monitoring equipment, water savings devices and equipment Groundwater (Within Basin) Available GW in Storage Current GW Basin Overdraft Aquifer heterogeneity/productivity Water Quality Land Subsidence and Earth Fissures GW/SW Impacts Colorado River Accounting Surface Impacts Environmental Tribal Rights and Claims Groundwater Right and Well Drilling Rules Costs to Drill Wells and to Pump, Treat and Transport Groundwater Wells Pipelines Storage Facilities Treatment Facilities Groundwater (Import) Same as Above Plus Inter-basin GW Transfer Restrictions Same as Above Surface water (In-state) Physical Availability of SW Physical Availability of New Dam and Reservoir Sites Costs to Construct and Operate New SW Diversion and Transport Infrastructure Water Quality Environmental Costs to Treat SW SW Rights (Acquisition) Tribal Rights and Claims Surface water (Colorado River) Physical Availability of CR Water Water Quality Costs to Treat CR Water Environmental Tribal Rights and Claims Colorado River Entitlements (Acquisition) Diversion Works Pipelines Canals Treatment Facilities CAP Physical Availability of CAP Water Proximity to CAP Canal Tribal Rights and Claims Costs to Treat CAP Water Priorities in Times of Shortage Diversion Works Pipelines Canals Treatment Facilities Effluent Water Quality Treatment and transport costs Sewer systems Lift stations Pipelines WWTPs Mine Drainage GW/SW Impacts Water Quality Treatment and transport costs Same as for GW Agricultural Drainage GW/SW Impacts Water Quality Treatment and transport costs Same as for GW Desalination/Ocean Water International and Interstate Water Transfer Issues Infrastructure and Treatment Costs Ownership of Water Availability of Electric Power Desalination Plants Pipelines Brine Disposal Systems Desalination/Brackish Water Costs Federal Regulations Availability of Electric Power Desalination Plants Pipelines Brine Disposal Systems Weather Modification Technical Feasibility Cost Ground based Silver Iodide Generators Dams Diversion Works Pipelines Canals Treatment Facilities Other Supplies: 2 Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Task 2: Develop cost estimates for the required infrastructure. For infrastructure components identified in Table 1, a range of cost estimates associated with each infrastructure component has been developed and has been included in Table 2. The variability in the range of costs is associated with size and capacity of infrastructure required to facilitate the transfer, treatment and delivery of water. Pipe materials and placement constitute the majority of costs for water conveyance systems, approximately 60% to 70% of the total cost of the system. The remaining 30% to 40% will usually cover all other associated features; pumping plants, pressure reducing stations, vaults, sectionalizing valves, electric power, O&M roads, etc. The acquisition of the identified potential supplies will increase the total cost of water development projects over and above the cost of infrastructure. In addition to the individual infrastructure components, the FWG also identified seven potential infrastructure projects to use as examples for what the potential range in costs for large regional water supply infrastructure projects might be. The specific costs of these projects and others that may be developed in other areas of the state will vary based on the requirements of each individual project. The seven examples of potential water supply projects were developed as part of water supply appraisal studies (Appraisal Study) conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation working in conjunction with the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) and local watershed partnerships. (See Appendix A, Table 1 for a listing of water supply projects previously identified.) As part of the State’s Rural Watershed Initiative Program, instituted in 1999, ADWR has actively pursued completing Appraisal Studies with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and watershed partnerships in areas where additional water supplies were presumed to be needed to meet projected new demands or to supplement local water supplies that are over used (Figure 1). Currently, all water demands are being met, but in some cases the water supplies are being used at an unsustainable rate. Examples of the over-use of groundwater can be found in some of the State’s Active Management Areas (AMAs), which were created specifically to reduce the historical overdraft of groundwater to meet local demands, and in areas that have environmental preservation goals such as the Sierra Vista Subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro Groundwater Basin. Although significant progress has been made to reduce the overdraft of groundwater in the five AMAs groundwater overdraft is still occurring. In the example of the Sierra Vista Subwatershed there is estimated to be around 20 million acre-feet of groundwater in storage and the current overdraft of the groundwater system from pumping and from natural withdrawals resulting from evapotranspiration is estimated to be around 6,000 acre-feet per year (AFY). This volume of overdraft seems rather insignificant in comparison to the volume of groundwater in storage, but continued overdraft of the groundwater system will eventually lower the elevation of the groundwater to a point where it will eventually impact the base flows in the San Pedro River. The watershed/regions where the water supply appraisal studies (Appraisal Study) have been completed are the Coconino Plateau, the Mogollon Highlands, and the Sierra Vista Subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro groundwater basin. A fourth Appraisal Study is currently being conducted in the Verde River Watershed and is due to be complete by the end of 2011. The following Figure 1 identifies the watershed/regions where Appraisal Studies have been completed or are in the process of being completed. An Appraisal Study is very similar in scope to the WRDC’s current statewide water supply and demand assessment effort, except that an Appraisal Study focuses on a specific watershed/region for a shorter time period. The objectives of an Appraisal Study are to: 1) identify the current and projected water supplies and demands for a watershed/region over a 50 year time frame, 2) determine whether or not an unmet water demand is projected to occur over the 50 year time frame, 3) determine if there is at least one potential alternative solution to address any projected unmet water demands, 4) develop cost estimates for the required infrastructure for each alternative solution identified, and 5) determine if there is a nexus between the federal government and Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 3 Water Resources Development Commission the identified alternative solution(s) to warrant a feasibility study being conducted. In the three Appraisal Studies completed thus far a total of 18 alternative water supply projects were initially identified to meet the projected unmet water demands of the three areas. The sources of water identified to be developed for the 18 alternatives included intra-basin groundwater of good quality, brackish groundwater, groundwater within inactive mining districts, groundwater in adjoining groundwater basins, Colorado River water, local surface water, and enhanced recharge through storm water capture. The 18 alternatives were reduced to seven after a thorough evaluation based on the following four criteria: acceptability, effectiveness, efficiency, and completeness. The completion of a feasibility study conducted by the BOR of all seven alternative water supply projects has been recommended by the local watershed partnerships. The volume of water proposed to be developed for each of the seven alternative water supply projects ranges from 1,800 to 30,000 AFY. The sources of water proposed to be developed were Colorado River water, intrabasin groundwater, groundwater from inactive mining districts, and enhanced recharge from storm water capture. Two of the seven alternative water supply projects if developed would have to be supplemented by an additional project in order to meet the total projected unmet water demands for the watershed/region over a 50 year time frame. (See Appendix A, Table 1 for a description of the alternative water supply projects that were identified and recommended in the Appraisal Studies. See Appendix A, Figures 1 thru 6 for maps of the of the six alternative water supply projects identified and recommended in the Appraisal Studies.) 4 Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Table 2. Cost Estimates for Infrastructure Components Infrastructure Components Lining or Relining Canals Wells Pipelines (PVC - 125 psi to 300 psi) Excavation of Trenches for Placement of Pipelines for Conveyance of Water or Wastewater Storage Facilities (steel tanks) Treatment Facilities (conventional) Treatment Facilities (membrane filter)** Dams Canals Sewer Systems Recharge Facilities Desalination Plants*** Brine Disposal Systems*** Silver Iodide Land Based Generators Cost Estimate $31 per square yard (assumes 3.5 inch thick concrete) 10“ diam well, 6-inch casing, 250 feet deep - $120 per foot, MR* 16” diam well, 10-inch casing, 1000 feet deep - $85/foot, MSR* 18” diam well, 10-inch casing, 1200 feet deep - $267/foot MSSL 20” diam well, 16-inch casing, 500 feet deep $286/foot, MSR 3 inch - $18 per foot 24 inch - $200 per foot 48 inch - $580 per foot Common materials (trench with light equipment) - $4/cubic yard Soft rock (excavator or rock trencher required, some dozer ripping) - $20/cubic yard Hard rock (Blasting required) - $60/cubic yard Less than 400,000 gallons - $1/gallon 400,000 to 1,000,000 gallons - $0.85/gallon 1,000,000 gallons and greater - $0.70/gallon Capacity Capital Cost (million gallons/day) ($ Millions) 1.5 $3.18 1.0 $4.45 2.0 $5.90 1.02 $8.90 1.59 $12.71 1.54 $15.44 91.30 $46.31 Capacity Capital Cost (million gallons/day) ($ Millions) 20 $39 40 $59 60 $77 80 $97 No cost estimate available Highly variable and dependent upon size and complexity of system. Pipeline and excavation costs previously identified can be used to estimate costs. 20,000 AFY - $ 8.50 Million 40,000 AFY - $12.22 Million 60,000 AFY - $16.78 Million 91.5 MGD plant - $125.97 Million to $155.56 Million 150 MGD plant - $183.46 Million to $210.81 Million Costs vary based on the size and type of disposal system, which include: discharge to oceans, deep well injection, evaporation ponds, brackish wetlands, etc. For the 91.5 MGD plant identified above the estimated cost for disposal ranged from $47 Million to $266 Million $10,000 to $50,000+ per generator Appraisal level cost estimates for components were developed by the Bureau of Reclamation 2011 (See Appendix A for Summary of Unit Costs for Typical Water Conveyance and Treatment Systems, August 11, 2011). * MR = moderate rock; MSR = moderately soft rock; MSSL = moderately soft sandstone and limestone ** Both treatment costs adjusted to ENR CCI 9080 (July 2011). Membrane costs have been escalated from 2006 costs. ***“Reverse Osmosis Treatment of Central Arizona Project Water”, Appraisal Evaluation, Bureau of Reclamation January, 2004 Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 5 Water Resources Development Commission Figure 1. Location of Appraisal Studies conducted within Arizona Appraisal Studies within Arizona IV IN R ER IA PAR GRAND SHIVW ITS PL ATEAU WAS H G VIR KANAB PLATEAU L DETRITA MEADVIEW COCONINO PLATEAU COCONINO VALL EY MOHAVE HUA PEACH SPRINGS LITTLE COLORADO RIVER PLATEAU A LAP LLE HAVE LAKE MO I VA APACHE Y NAVAJO R SAC AM E BIG SANDY NTO L VAL JOSEPH CITY INA YAVAPAI VERDE RIVER EY PRESCOTT AMA LAKE HAVASU EE K AGUA FRIA MC M TO N PP E U BUTLER VALLEY LA PAZ TO R H A CR SS AY A M PA BILL WILLIAMS UL L AL L EN V EY SALT RIVER GILA TIGER WASH RA HA GR NE PARKER RQ N LA AI HA PL UA AS PHOENIX AMA IN A BO MARICOPA MORENCI NI TA CR EE K GREENLEE DRIPPING SPRINGS WASH DONNELLY WASH R A AV AN VA C A ER YO LL E Y N N N SA PINAL AMA PE YUMA SAFFORD A IP W LO LOWER GILA DUNC GRAHAM A PINAL GILA BEND YUMA DR O TUCSON AMA Groundwater Basin GA CR SAN SIMON WASH CIE NE 2 SANTA CRUZ AMA Mogollon Rim Water Resources Management Sierra Vista Subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro Basin 1. Arizona State Land Department, 1988 2. ADWR & USBR, 2011 0 25 50 DOUGLAS A ± Verde River Watershed SANTA CRUZ L AS IN North Central AZ Water Supply COCHISE DOUG Appraisal Study EE K WILLCOX UPPER SAN PEDRO PIMA WESTERN MEXICAN DRAINAGE County 1 SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY SAN RAFAEL © ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 100 Miles ADWR Hydrology Division 2011 U:\ADWR_Projects\WRDC\Committees\Finance\GIS\Maps\mxd\AZAppraisalStudies_ssm.mxd 6 Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission A detailed cost estimate was developed for all but one of the seven alternative projects that included capital construction and O&M costs. The total estimated cost of construction in 2006 dollars ranged from a low of $34 million to a high of about $650 million. The estimated total cost for construction of each of the seven projects is presented in Table 3. For each alternative water supply project, the estimated cost per acre-foot and cost per 1000 gallons were also determined by dividing the total annual project costs by the annual volume of water proposed to be delivered in acre-feet and gallons. The total annual project cost was based on the present worth value in 2006 dollars. For the Coconino Plateau alternatives, the present worth value was based on a 50 year project life and an interest rate of 5.125 percent. For the Sierra Vista Subwatershed alternatives, the present worth value was based on a 20 year project life and an interest rate of 4 percent. The project’s total present worth included estimated O&M and energy costs. The estimated cost per acre-foot and per 1000 gallons for each project is presented in Table 4. Table 3. Estimated Capital Construction Costs in 2006 Dollars Mogollon Highlands Coconino Plateau Capital Construction Costs Sierra Vista Subwatershed Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (million) (million) (million) (million) (million) (million) (million) $471,000 $621,000 $650,000 $33,862 $41,600 $193,070 NA Table 4. Estimated Annual Cost for Treatment and Delivery of Water in 2006 Dollars Mogollon Highlands Coconino Plateau Cost per Acre-Ft Cost per 1000 Gals. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 1 $1,479 $2,116 $2,265 $1,799 $4.54 $6.50 $6.95 $5.52 Sierra Vista Subwatershed Alternative 1 *$1,635 & $2,397 *$5.02 & $7.36 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 $1,233 $2,675 $3.78 $8.23 * Range of cost based on the development 2,600 and 1,800 AFY (See Appendix A, Table 2 for an example of a detailed listing of the specific infrastructure components associated with the Coconino Plateau Alternative 1 water supply project and the estimated cost of each infrastructure component. See Appendix A, Table 3 for a listing of the Total Project Worth, including the projected O&M costs for the three Alternatives identified for the Coconino Plateau Appraisal Study.) In addition to the seven alternative water supply projects identified in Tables 3 and 4 active planning and supply acquisition has been occurring to transport groundwater from the Big Chino sub-basin area to cities within the Prescott AMA. The estimated cost of a proposed pipeline to deliver 8,068 AFY of groundwater from the Big Chino Sub-basin to the cities of Prescott and Prescott Valley is about $170 million. (See Appendix A, Figure 7 for a map of the proposed project.) There have also been some preliminary discussions of extending any pipeline that might be built to supply water to Flagstaff from Lake Powell into the Verde Valley and to the Prescott AMA cities. Preliminary appraisal cost estimates for a pipeline from Lake Powell to the Verde Valley and tri-cities areas capable of delivering up to 78,000 AFY to the communities on the Coconino Plateau, the tri-cities area in the Prescott AMA and the communities in the Verde Valley is more than $1.2 billion. The estimated cost of $1.2 billion does not include the cost of the water supply, which has yet to be identified. The Water Supply and Demand Work Group has identified other areas of the State, both inside and outside of AMAs, where future water supply development projects may be needed to meet the projected demands. Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 7 Water Resources Development Commission Other long-term projects that have been informally discussed or considered and may eventually be evaluated in more detail include the development of desalination plants along the coasts of California and Mexico (see Appendix B for an example of a desalination project in Mexico). In both cases the water developed by the project would most likely involve a water exchange in order to minimize the costs that would be associated with projects of this type. It is estimated that any project of this size and scope would cost several billion dollars. Even a cursory analysis of the costs of developing water supplies makes it clear that future water supply projects are going to be extremely expensive. The costs of developing water supply projects will vary based on a number of factors, including the region’s geography and size of water needs, as well as the amount and types of infrastructure expansion or development that is required. Water supply development costs may additionally include treatment and distribution infrastructure. As an example, within the CAP service area, in the short-term, the largest cost may be associated with the cost of acquiring additional supplies due to the presence of the CAP transmission system. Projected longterm demands, however, may require modifications to and/or the expansion of the current CAP transmission system to increase the capacity and/or to accommodate other areas within the three county CAP service area. A study on the feasibility of expanding the CAP aqueduct from the Colorado River to the Salt-Gila pumping plant prepared as part of the ADD Water process in 2009 estimated that expanding the aqueduct to 3,600 CFS would cost $230 million. The development of alternative supplies that could potentially involve interstate or international exchanges will also require the construction of treatment and transmission facilities outside of the State to acquire the additional supplies through exchanges. Both of these types of efforts are going to be extremely expensive. The FWG received in-depth presentations on water desalination concept projects, as well as on methods that have the potential to augment the supply of Colorado River water. Outside of the three county CAP service area the costs of developing water supply projects will include both the acquisition costs and the cost of treatment and distribution infrastructure. These projects, too, are likely to be costly. While lower elevations and dense populations make water infrastructure development more cost effective on a per capita basis in central Arizona the low-density population and generally higher elevation in most of Arizona (outside of the three CAP-served counties) increases delivery costs and means that those higher costs are shared by a smaller population. Table 5 presents a comparison of cost ratios for water development projects discussed above. Table 5. Project Cost Comparison Ratios Central Arizona Project People in Service Area at Time of Financing Total Project Cost Total Volume Delivered (af) Cost/person Cost/acre-foot Volume per person (af) 8 Big Chino Water Ranch 2,130,000 (1980) Coconino Alt. #3 79,000 100,000 $3.65 Billion $170 Million $650 Million Sierra Vista Alt. 2 Mogollon Highlands CAP ADD Water Canal Expansion 15,500 4,568,657 (2010) $193 Million $34 Million $230 Million 73,000 1,500,000 8,068 28,000 20,000 3,000 300,000 $1,713 $2,433 $2,162 $21,070 $6,500 $23,214 $2,645 $9,654 $2,194 $11,333 $50.34 $766.66 0.7 0.1 0.28 0.27 0.19 0.065 Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Task 3: Identify potential financing mechanisms based upon differing cost estimates. The cost estimates for developing long-term supplies to meet the projected demands vary widely. For those water providers that can continue to drill a new well to meet their increasing demands, the cost of drilling a water supply well can range in cost from several hundred thousand dollars to several million dollars depending on the size and depth of the well being constructed. Traditional forms of financing available to municipalities and private water providers such as revenue bonds, government obligation bonds, impact fees, standard bank loans and others have been and will continue to be adequate for continuing to develop new wells. However, for those communities that may experience unacceptable impacts from an increase in pumping groundwater; the strategy of simply drilling another well may eventually not be an option. For these communities an alternative solution will most likely involve the importation of a long-term renewable water supply. Such a supply would then be used in conjunction with the currently available local supplies to meet the projected long-term demands. The importation of water to areas outside of the CAP service area will require the construction, operation and maintenance of very costly infrastructure. For this reason, the development of solutions outside of the CAP service area will probably have to be regional in scope, which generally is much more cost effective in the long-term and addresses demands for the entire region. In the past many of the larger water supply development projects, like the Central Arizona Project (CAP) canal, which cost about $3.6 billion to construct, included financing or funding assistance from the federal government. In the example of the CAP, about $1.65 billion will be repaid to the federal government by the users. It appears to the FWG that federal financial assistance for future projects is very limited. With regional water supply projects ranging in cost from $34 million to more than $1 billion, many water users may have difficulty financing these sorts of projects independently through traditional funding and financing mechanisms currently available to them. This leaves the funding and financing of water supply projects up to an individual or a group of water providers, both public and private to identify creative solutions. Some of the traditional forms of funding for water supply infrastructure projects include revenue bonds whose repayment is linked to project-generated cash flow, general obligation bonds of a political entity, general funds of political entities, or loans from the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority (WIFA). A comparison of the traditional sources is presented in the following Table 6. Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 9 Water Resources Development Commission Table 6. Comparison of Financing Sources • • • • • Revenue Bonds Relies on revenues from a specific project Higher cost than GO bonds, but after-tax cost no higher Projects can be sized properly and built rapidly May potentially impact municipality’s credit rating Can’t be used for new project development financing due to need for regular bond payments and no revenues generated during development stage. For an expansion of an existing project where revenues are currently being generated this may be an option • • • • • • General Obligation Bonds Relies on taxes Needs public approval of new taxes. May potentially impact the credit rating and borrowing capability of the municipality Revenue generation dictated by the amount of taxes Can be used for project development normally done by the government entity Cost of GOs fluctuates with the economy and the financial rating of the issuer and as a result may not always be available or economically feasible • • • • • Other Sources U.S. Government or state government loans. This source currently very limited if even available. Generally comes with a 50 year repayment provision and are subject to Congressional approvals BOR funds. Like previously stated these funds are in short supply and are subject to annual appropriations, which can result in delays or the downsizing of a project WIFA financing – limited to water and wastewater treatment projects. Water Supply Development Revolving Fund overseen by WIFA – This fund has yet to be funded, but could be a viable source if funded Private/Public Partnerships - Relies on cash flow from a specific project, after-tax cost equal to municipal bond cost, but requires source of development equity to conduct engineering and due diligence. Water Supply Development Revolving Fund (WSDRF) The Water Supply Development Revolving Fund was established in 2007 with the enactment of H.B. 2692 (see Appendix C for copy of H.B. 2692). For more than two years leading up to the enactment of the H.B. 2692, the Statewide Water Advisory Group (SWAG) met to develop recommendations for addressing identified water resource issues of concern. One of the recommendations identified by SWAG was the establishment of a water resource development fund. The purpose of the WSDRF is to provide a revolving fund, administered by the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority (WIFA), which can provide low cost loans to water providers for the acquisition of water supplies and development of water infrastructure. The authorizing legislation identified six sources of revenue for the WSDRF including: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Monies received from the issuance of water supply development bonds. Monies appropriated by the legislature. Monies received for water supply development purposes from the United States government. Monies received from water providers as loan payments, interest and penalties. Interest and other income received from investing monies in the fund. Gifts, grants and donations received for water supply development from any public or private source. To date the WSDRF has not been funded. If the WSDRF is to be a primary viable source of financing for the acquisition and development of water supply projects, one or more sources of dedicated funding will have to be established. It should be pointed out that currently there are some restrictions on which water providers are eligible to obtain funding from the WSDRF, which may need to be addressed (see Appendix C, A.R.S. § 491273(A), A.R.S. § 49-1273(C), A.R.S. § 42-5301). So how much money is required to make the WSDRF viable source of financing for water supply infrastructure projects and from what source or sources can revenues be utilized by the WSDRF? The Executive Director of WIFA in 2007 made a presentation to SWAG about the Drinking Water and Clean Water revolving loan programs for water and wastewater treatment projects. In that presentation she explained that it took about 10 Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission eight to ten years to accrue enough revenue (> $100 million) to make meaningful loans to meet the needs of the local water providers throughout the State for infrastructure improvements and upgrades. The majority of initial funding to establish these two funds came from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) beginning in the early 1990’s. There were also some state appropriations that went into the building of these two funds. In addition to the interest earned on outstanding loans, WIFA’s Drinking Water and Clean Water revolving fund programs remain dependent on annual federal revenues from the EPA. This funding source has now grown in size to where in 2010 a total of more than $200 million in loans were provided from the Clean Water Revolving Fund and $130 million from the Drinking Water Revolving Fund, for a total of $330 million. As of the end of FY 2010 a little more than $ 1 billion in revolving fund loans were outstanding for the two programs. These funds are used exclusively to assist communities fund the construction and improvement of municipal water and wastewater treatment plants to comply with water and wastewater quality requirements. It is important to note that these two revolving funds benefit from an annual infusion of cash from the Federal government averaging between $27 million and $29 million. The experiences of WIFA indicate that a secure, dependable revenue source will be needed for many years to make WSDRF a viable source of financing for water supply development projects. The completion of the WRDC statewide assessment, the Appraisal Studies, the Water Atlas and other efforts are the first steps in developing estimates for the needed size of the WSDRF. Conducting a needs survey similar to what WIFA does every four years for its two revolving funds has been suggested, but unlike that survey most communities have yet to identify a sustainable source of water for which a project could be developed. Many communities have always assumed their next source of water will entail the development of another well, which for many will be sufficient for many years into the future. For those communities, however, that may experience unacceptable impacts from the increase in groundwater pumping; drilling a new well doesn’t create new water. Because of the Appraisal Study efforts, the Water Atlas effort, and the current efforts of the WRDC many communities are just now starting to realize the standard solution of drilling a new well to increase supplies is not likely to work long-term and are beginning to seek alternatives to ensure the long-term availability of their supplies. Even without a comprehensive statewide effort to identify specific water supply infrastructure projects that may be needed, it is reasonable to assume that within the next five to twenty-five years, significant funding will be required to assist water providers and governments meet their long-term dependable water supply needs if the WSDRF is to be a viable source of financing for these types of projects. With the WSDRF already in place, but with no funding, four conceptual principles have been identified related to selecting potential sources of revenue for that fund and for use in direct funding of water projects. • Dependability and Predictability – The revenue source must be dependable and predictable over a long period of time. This principle is necessary to allow the fund to increase with modest investments over time, be available for projects that will be proposed in the twenty-year or longer time frame, and to create a capacity for revenue bonding. Also, income from these revenue sources should not be subject to large fluctuations so that bonding agencies and communities that are planning water supply projects can be reasonably assured that predicted revenue will be available to meet financial commitments. • Adequate Funding – The revenue sources must generate enough funding so that within 7 to 10 years significant revolving fund loans may be made. • Mix of Revenue Sources – A mix of revenue sources is preferred to keep the size of payments from any source or economic sector low and reasonable. A mix of revenue sources also allows the burden of payment to be spread more equitably. The mix of revenue may include some sources of funds that are broadly based across all sectors, and some sources from parties that will be directly eligible to use or benefit from the fund. Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 11 Water Resources Development Commission • Beneficiaries need to contribute – As closely as possible, a part of the mix of taxes or fees needs to be tied to the benefit received. Several considerations need to be made regarding this principle. The beneficiaries of the projects will eventually pay for the use of the fund because the WSDRF is a revolving fund. Those who help contribute to the creation of the fund may benefit in the future. By continually having funds available for loans over time, a great number of water providers across the state will potentially benefit in the long run. Even where specific water providers may not directly benefit, the citizens of the state may collectively benefit if the fund provides for the development of secure water supplies for other communities. This principle will require consideration of how the benefits and costs might be balanced between regions and economic sectors based on the anticipated requests to access the Water Supply Development Revolving Fund for revolving loans. Potential Funding and Financing Options Federal Grants and Loans Some funding may be available in the future from the Federal Government for water supply related infrastructure, but it is expected that this funding source will be extremely limited. The Federal Government has been gradually reducing its support for reclamation and water supply projects for some time, and is focusing what funding is available on loan guarantees, on programs that provide low-cost loans, and on research and small pilot projects. Some discussion has taken place recently in Washington about a new national infrastructure bank, but again it is likely that assistance will take the form of low-cost loans (e.g. financing mechanisms) rather than outright funding contributions. It is conceivable that some Federal funding could be provided for initial revolving fund initiatives and/or initial cost analysis and project design work. Some funding of water supply efforts may be available for new projects that involve Indian communities or military facilities. However, with the current fiscal situation at the national level, it is highly unlikely that significant Federal funding will be available for major water supply projects anywhere in Arizona. Advantages: • Long history of Federal funding and financing of water supply projects. • Long history of Federal involvement with assessment, design, construction and management of major water supply projects including SRP and CAP. • Often only funding source available for specific users like Indian Communities, military bases, and national forest or park facilities. • Funding may be available at start of project for seed money (initial assessment, design, etc.). • Once granted, funding is usually dependable. Disadvantages: 12 • Funding availability is extremely limited due to fiscal situation of Federal Government. • Can take decades to obtain necessary approvals and votes. • Majority of funding does not come from benefited parties. • Costs to pursue may be significant • May incur significant at-risk compliance costs to go through agency/regulatory approvals necessary to access federal monies Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission General State-Wide Taxes Appropriations from the General Fund Appropriations from the general fund are arguably based on the broadest set of revenues including sales and income taxes. The competition for appropriations from the general fund is also very wide and diverse. In addition, the appropriations from the general fund are subject to cyclical swings related to general swings in the economy. Any single appropriation, especially if it is not encumbered for high priority annual expenditures, is subject to suspension or reappropriation to other legislative priorities. On the other hand, H.B. 2692 specifically authorized appropriations as a source of generating revenues for the Water Supply Development Revolving Fund from the legislature and as such appropriations may be an option. There is some precedent for these types of appropriations, for example, some State general funds have been appropriated to the WIFA revolving funds. Outside of Arizona, the State of Colorado reports that a general appropriation of $10 million was used to start a revolving water development fund and the legislature from time to time has appropriated a small part the revenue from the State Severance Tax Trust Fund to this fund. Advantages: • Central funding source would benefit from economies of scale. • Funding would be based on a diverse range of revenue sources (e.g. income taxes, sales taxes, etc.) instead of only one funding source. Disadvantages: • Current and future economic climate may impact availability. • Majority of funding does not come directly from benefiting parties. • Communities that already have adequate water supplies that they have funded partially or entirely using their own resources will likely oppose significant State-wide taxes to fund specific existing and future water consumers. • If a fund is populated by appropriated monies, it may be subject to budget sweeps. State-Wide Specific Taxes Associated With Water Consumption, Water Infrastructure or Groundwater Use Bottled Water Tax According to statistics published in an article entitled “Bottled Water 2004: U.S. and International Statistics and Development” in the April/May 2005 Bottled Water Reporter, the average American consumes about 90.5 liters of bottled water annually in the U.S. This equates to approximately 153 twenty ounce bottles per person annually. Imposing a tax of two to five cents per bottle has the potential to generate between $20 million and $50 million annually. This type of tax is dependable and predictable and is generated statewide by consumers of water. Assigning a tax to a product that funds the development of additional supplies should be more saleable to the consumer. The impact on the individual user who consumes the average 153 bottles of water annually is also minimal with the average impact ranging from about $3 to $8 annually. Advantages: • The tax rate could be very small and may not change economic behavior. • The revenue source may be relatively dependable in the short and medium terms, but a long-term transition away from bottled water to other beverages could have a significant negative impact on total receipts in the long-term. Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 13 Water Resources Development Commission Disadvantages: • Majority of revenues does not come from the benefiting parties. • No nexus between tax and infrastructure to be funded, unless the product is sourced in Arizona. • Revenues may be small compared to size of needed water projects unless per-bottle tax is high. • May require 2/3 supermajority or public vote for enactment. Transaction Privilege Tax A transaction privilege tax is used by the state to collect taxes on the operation of a business. This type of tax is currently used to provide partial support to the Arizona Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF) that is used to remediate polluted groundwater. The fee that is deposited to the WQARF fund is assessed on the sale of water by municipal utilities. It generally taxes all municipal water users at a rate of $0.0065 per one thousand gallons of water delivered. Payment of the fee is to the Department of Revenue. Enforcement and compliance is by that agency as part of its overall mission. A transaction privilege tax does meet the criteria for being dependable and predictable and has the potential to generate significant revenues statewide. As an example, imposing a transaction privilege tax of $0.05 per thousand gallons on the sale of water by municipal and private water providers has the capability to generate $24 million annually. The impact on the individual family of four with a total monthly use of 10,000 gallons would be about $0.50 per month. There are several drawbacks to the implementation of a transaction privilege tax: 1) it is a tax and as such there will be tremendous opposition to this sort of option, and 2) it only generates revenues from those individuals who are served water by municipal and private water providers. Individuals served water by a private domestic well would be exempt from this tax. With more than 115,000 private domestic wells in Arizona this has the potential for being an issue. Advantages: • Would provide a dependable revenue source because water rate receipts tend to fluctuate less than sales tax, impact fee, or other revenues dependent on the business cycle. • Statewide base for funding source. Disadvantages: • Majority of funding does not come from the benefiting parties, and in some cases parties that benefit the most pay nothing. • No nexus between tax and infrastructure to be funded. • Funding source would be small unless tax rate is high. • May require 2/3 supermajority or election for enactment. New or Existing Well Fees Another revenue source to consider is an impact fee on applications to drill new wells as well as an annual fee for existing wells. Concern has been raised in previous forums about dry lot subdivisions or lot splits and the impact of the proliferation of wells associated with this type of development. If water development impact fees are assessed on proposed subdivisions, there might be a concern that the impact fee could create an incentive for the proliferation of lot splits and associated wells. An impact fee on the application to drill a new well might provide a disincentive to this type of land sales and subsequent development. A modest annual fee assessed on all active wells might substitute or be used in conjunction with a well impact fee and would 14 Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission minimize the issue of the exemption from a transaction privilege tax if it were implemented. The potential revenue generating capability of a well impact fee imposed upon both new and existing wells is modest by comparison to some of the other revenue generating sources. If a $50 impact fee on new wells was imposed as well as a $10 annual fee on existing wells, the potential annual revenue generating capability based upon 3,000 new wells annually and 150,000 existing wells is about $1.65 million. One of the primary issues associated with this option, other than opposition from the well owners directly, is the logistics for who and how a well impact fee could be collected. Advantages: • May provide a relatively dependable revenue source, if applied annually to existing wells. • Reliance on new well applications for revenues would result in fluctuation corresponding to changes in the business cycle and real estate markets. • Statewide geographic base for funding source, if it includes existing wells. Disadvantages: • Depending on type of water supply projects, majority of funding does not come from the benefiting parties, and in some cases parties that benefit the most pay nothing. • Depending on type of water supply projects, no nexus between tax and infrastructure to be funded. • May have equity imbalance if all well types are assessed the same fee. State-Wide New Development Tax In 2003, a study group called the Arizona Water Policy Forum recommended that $500 per lot be assessed to support a revolving loan fund for water supply planning, acquisition and projects. Since this charge would be arbitrarily calculated and there would be no nexus between actual demand for services and the facilities constructed with the revenues, this fee would be a tax rather than an impact fee. Presumably revenues from the tax would be put into dedicated accounts that could only be used for major water supply projects that benefit parts of the state that currently have inadequate water resources. The potential annual revenue generating capability from an impact fee is about $3 million annually based upon a $500 impact fee per lot and 500 lots per month. Advantages: • Revenue levels would be somewhat tied to demands placed on water supply systems and new infrastructure (e.g. high growth – high revenues; slow growth-limited revenues) • Wide geographic base for funding source. • Depending on amount of fee, amount of revenue could be significant. Disadvantages: • Potential inequitable double taxation, if the development already pays a similar resource acquisition charge to a service provider. • Majority of funding does not come from the benefiting parties, and in some cases parties that benefit the most pay nothing. • No nexus between tax and infrastructure to be funded. • Revenue source is very vulnerable to major downturns in economy that result in fall in number of building permits sought. Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 15 Water Resources Development Commission Specific Area Impact Fees County, City and Town Development Impact Fees Many cities and counties assess impact fees on new construction to help pay for water, sewer, transportation and other services or infrastructure costs that are necessary to support new development. These fees vary by city and may be several thousands of dollars per lot. This type of revenue source would be prone to significant fluctuations in the total revenues generated. Although the number of housing starts has declined dramatically in the last three years, Arizona has a demonstrated long-term growth trend, and impact fee revenues in the long run should match necessary infrastructure expenditures. The Arizona Water Policy Forum emphasized that the growth occurring throughout Arizona will require new, dependable water supplies to ensure a secure long-term future for the State and its regions. Assessing a fee on new development for the purposes of acquiring and developing new water supplies is consistent with the concept of providing benefit to the primary payer and is dependable and predictable. Within AMAs, the need will most likely be new development in undeveloped areas outside of the service areas of those water providers with Designations of Assured Water Supplies. It is expected that smaller towns throughout Arizona will also need new water supplies. These areas would be expected to be the primary beneficiaries of the Water Supply Development Revolving Fund over the life of the fund. Because any water providers will potentially have the opportunity to apply for a loan from the Water Supply Development Revolving Fund, charging impact fees on new development to build the loan fund into an adequate size would seem to be a general benefit for persons buying property. The collection of a fee could be facilitated by a city, town or county through the permitting process. Impact fees are charged under the police power and are not taxes, and thus can only be charged to cover the capital cost of new facilities required to serve new development. Eligible costs include design, construction, construction management and financing expenditures, and fees must be aligned to costs. Second, the new statute is very restrictive about the use of fees, especially with regard to the amount of time that can be used for a planning period, so fees have to be collected for projects that can be built and completed in a ten to fifteen year time frame, but changes to the statute could be proposed to better accommodate large water supply projects that would necessarily require very long planning horizons. Third, impact fee revenues are collected at the time when building permits or site plans are issued, so revenues tend to rise and fall with development activity, creating certain benefits and certain problems. When capital investments tend to be relatively incremental in nature, the revenue and expenditure situation is relatively synchronized, so road and smaller transmission main projects only need to be constructed (and paid for) when impact fee revenues are strong because of residential and commercial construction. When capital investments are very large and onetime in nature -- as in the case of major water supply projects -- impact fees can be viewed by the investment community as an unreliable revenue source. For example, it can be difficult to issue bonds worth hundreds of millions of dollars to fund a treatment plant or water supply canal that will take decades to pay off, when bond investors know that a downturn in the economy during that time could eliminate new development and shut off new impact fee revenues, jeopardizing interest and principal payments to bondholders. As a result, borrowing for very large capital projects such as canals or treatment plants must usually be backed by utility water rates, municipal property taxes or federal guarantees even if the anticipated funding source will be impact fees or a similar revenue source The imposition of development impact fees by cities and towns is subject to modifications by the State Legislature as happened in the 2011 legislative session. It should be pointed out that statutes and court decisions require impact fees to bear a proportionate relationship to the impacts of the new development. Impact fees are collected when building permits or site plan approvals are obtained, and are generally paid by 16 Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission home builders or developers. These fees are generally included in the cost of new development along with design, construction, utility and other permit fees. While at least some of the fee is passed on to new residents and businesses in the form of higher prices or lease rates, in certain land markets the impact fee will be partially absorbed by land owners that have to sell properties for less. Advantages: • Revenue levels would be somewhat tied to demands placed on water supply systems and new infrastructure (e.g. high growth – high revenues; slow growth-limited revenues). • Depending on costs of projects, amount of revenue could be significant because developments must pay entire proportion of project costs at time of building permit. • Very close nexus between impact fee and infrastructure costs. • All funding comes from benefiting parties. • Fees can be set by city, town or county governing bodies – no need for establishment of new districts and associated votes of property owners. Disadvantages: • State legislation may have to be amended to allow for very long term-time horizons for infrastructure construction and fee collection (e.g. twenty years +) • Relatively narrow base for revenue production, depending on location of project. • Revenue source is very vulnerable to major downturns in economy that result in fall in number of building permits sought. • Only new development (including additional or larger meters) can be charged impact fees – existing water users cannot be charged. • Some sort of trigger like a building permit, drilling permit, or new meter service is needed to collect impact fees. Specific Area Taxes, Assessments, Levies or Volumetric Charges Community Facility District, Improvement District or Other Special District Assessments and Charges In Arizona special districts can be established to facilitate the collection of revenues to fund various types of infrastructure, if a certain percentage of property owners in the affected area vote to establish new districts. Regular improvement districts are routinely used by municipalities to establish revenue sources from relatively small geographic areas to pay for specific infrastructure improvements like streets and water mains. In these situations, the municipality usually utilizes its own borrowing capacity and ratings to issue bonds to pay for the facilities, and then charges an annual assessment to benefiting properties to fund the principal and interest on the bonds. Community facility districts (CFD) are far more complicated and powerful tools, and involve the establishment of a separate entity that in some ways resembles a mini-municipality that can levy charges, issue debt and construct and maintain infrastructure. CFDs are almost always proposed by one or more very large property owners or developers that are willing to use their own land as collateral against any bonds that are issued by the CFD. While the strict requirements for property owner approval often make the establishment of CFDs difficult to implement, once established these districts have a great deal of flexibility in choosing how the funding of infrastructure will take place. One-time assessments can be levied on home builders and commercial developers as development takes place, in the same manner of impact fees, or assessments can be required annually in the same way as municipal property taxes. CFDs have been successfully used in a number of municipalities in Arizona to hundreds of millions of dollars worth of water, wastewater and street Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 17 Water Resources Development Commission infrastructure, but the establishment of these districts has been heavily concentrated in the western part of Metropolitan Phoenix in cities like Goodyear and Surprise. Conceptually, special districts like community facility districts might turn out to be powerful tools in the funding of water supply projects in all parts of the State, but it is likely that special enabling legislation would be required to deal with the special requirements associated with large geography districts that would serve large areas and have many property owners. The state legislature produced special legislation to deal specifically with the establishment of improvement districts to place large power lines underground (A.R.S. 48620), a relatively obscure infrastructure category, so it would not be unreasonable to assume that the legislature could pass a statute to enable and regulate the creation of specialized districts to fund, finance and construct large water supply infrastructure. Such a statute might potentially allow for multiple revenue sources (volume rates, property assessments, impact-fee-like levies, etc.), special opt-out provisions for property owners that decide to not use the new water resources provided, and for more flexible public-private partnerships, including the establishment of new private or public entities to manage large water projects. Advantages: • Revenue levels would be somewhat tied to demands placed on water supply systems and new infrastructure (e.g. high growth – high revenues; slow growth-limited revenues) • Depending on costs of projects, amount of revenue could be significant because developments must pay entire proportion of project costs at time of building permit. • Assessments could be charged over time if a financing vehicle (e.g. CFD bonds) is available, lessening impact on home builders, developers, home buyers, and new businesses. • Very close nexus between charges and assessments, and infrastructure and financing costs. • All funding comes from benefiting parties. • All properties within boundaries of special districts can be required to pay assessments and fees. • Fees can be established for some operating and maintenance costs as well as initial capital costs. Disadvantages: • Existing enabling legislation may be too restrictive for some water supply projects. • Relatively narrow base (geographic) for revenue production. • Revenue source is very vulnerable to major downturns in economy that result in fall in number of building permits sought, if assessments are paid at building permit stage. • If assessments are paid annually initial tax base may be too low to pay off interest and principal, if development proceeds slower than anticipated. • Special districts are very difficult to form when property ownership is fragmented or when property owners are unfamiliar with uses of special districts. • Property owners are often required to collectively put up property as collateral for infrastructure loans. Public or Private Utility Hook Up and Volumetric Charges An obvious funding source that will not be discussed in detail would be municipal and private water utilities that would charge customers hook-up fees and rates based on the volume of water used. This type of funding source has been widely used in communities across Arizona for many decades. Funding occurs as new customers are enrolled and then water is used and customers are billed. Advantages: • 18 Depending on costs of projects, amount of revenue could be moderate initially because developments must pay part of project costs at time of hook up fee and then rest off over time through water rates. Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission • Water rates could be charged over time if a financing vehicle (e.g. utility bonds) is available, lessening impact on home builders, developers, home buyers, and new businesses. • Very close nexus between charges and assessments, and infrastructure and financing costs. • All funding comes from benefiting parties. • All properties using services of water providers can be required to pay hook-up fees and volume-based water rates. • Water rates can be established to include all operating and maintenance costs as well as initial capital costs. • Revenue source is not as vulnerable in major downturns in economy because water rate revenue is less susceptible to volatile economic and real estate market forces. Disadvantages: • Revenue levels would tend to lag new water supply infrastructure expenditures because development would occur and then majority of costs would be paid off as water is used over time. • Relatively narrow base for revenue production, depending on size of utility. • Water utilities can be difficult and expensive to establish and/or expand, and a considerable amount of capital costs must be incurred. • Rate payers often fight increases in water rates that are tied to new infrastructure to provide additional water resources. • In some cases, increasing rates to pay for new infrastructure will result in reduced demand by, and lower revenues from, existing customers making future demand and revenue difficult to project. Local/Regional Ad Valorem (Property) Taxes Property taxes have been used to finance water projects in many places. As an example, within Arizona, the Central Arizona Project (CAP) has the authority to levy a tax of ten cents per one hundred dollars valuation within Maricopa, Pinal and Pima Counties for the purposes of repayment of the project costs to the federal government and operation and maintenance of the district. At this time, the full amount of the tax authorization is not being assessed because other revenue sources are sufficient to cover annual operating costs and debt services. The CAP is also authorized to collect four cents per hundred dollars valuation in the three counties to assist the Arizona Water Banking Authority (AWBA) with the acquisition, recharge and long-term storage of Colorado River water. Entities that reside outside of the three counties may purchase CAP water, but they must pay in-lieu ad valorem taxes equivalent to the annual tax assessment levied upon property in the three counties. In this way, the tax is “exportable” to entities from other counties or states that participate in interstate banking activities. For example, the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) participates with the AWBA to recharge water in Arizona. The SNWA must pay the in-lieu tax equivalent to the ad valorem taxes of the CAP. Ad valorem taxes are dependable and predictable because, unlike sales taxes, they are not as subject to annual swings in the economy. When used by special districts such as the CAP, the beneficiaries of the district services generally are those that pay. At four cents per one-hundred dollars valuation, the taxes collected to recharge water in Pinal and Pima County have not been an adequate source of revenue. As a result, the lack of sufficient revenues from the ad valorem tax has limited some of the AWBA activities in those counties. In the case of the Water Supply Development Revolving Fund, the direct beneficiaries of the fund will be water providers. Based upon the political climate, it is highly unlikely that an Ad Valorem tax could be successfully passed. Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 19 Water Resources Development Commission Advantages: • Assessments are charged over time, deferring costs for home builders, developers, home buyers, and new businesses. • Partial nexus between charges and assessments, and infrastructure and financing costs. • Funding largely comes from benefiting parties. • All properties within boundaries of special districts can be required to pay assessments. • Revenue source is less volatile than other taxes, but still subject to economic downturns (decreasing property values). • Revenue could be significant if high enough taxes are charged. Disadvantages: • Ad valorem taxes tend to all rely heavily on commercial and industrial uses that may or may not use much water. • Relatively narrow base for revenue production, depending on local/regional tax rolls; some areas of the state have very low valuations and may not be viable for additional property taxation. • May require an election. Water Withdrawal Fee Within Active Management Areas, groundwater right holders must remit an annual withdrawal fee on each acre-foot of water pumped (see Table 7). In 1980, the Groundwater Management Code authorized the following fees to be collected. Up to one dollar per acre foot could be collected to support one half of the administration of the water code. This fee is remitted to the general fund. Up to two dollars could be assessed in the AMAs for water conservation assistance, supply augmentation, monitoring and assessment. Up to two dollars per acre-foot can be assessed after January 2006 to purchase and retire irrigation grandfather rights (IGFR retirement). In 1997, the fee structure changed in the Phoenix, Pinal, and Tucson AMAs to collect funds to operate the AWBA programs. Two dollars and fifty cents per acre-foot was authorized to partially fund the AWBA through 2017. In 2007, this fee was made permanent to provide sufficient revenue to meet AWBA obligations for firming water supplies allocated to Arizona Tribes under the Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act. The 2007 amendments also authorize the Pinal AMA fee to be used to replenish groundwater withdrawals near the Gila River Indian Community southern boundary. With regards to dependability, the withdrawal fees vary somewhat with water use and have been reduced as groundwater use has declined. The revenue from the fees has been fairly easy to predict from year to year. The authorized amount of the fees has not been changed since 1980. As a result, the administration fees have not been adequate to cover one-half of the administration costs of the groundwater code. In contrast, the Conservation and Augmentation fee has been adequate for the purposes of conservation assistance. The conservation assistance programs are tailored to fit within the revenue constraints. The fee supporting the AWBA has not been adequate in the Tucson and Pinal AMAs. There is general agreement that the IGFR Retirement fee was never adequate for the intended purpose. The conservation, augmentation and AWBA fees have to be used in the AMA where collected. For the most part, the citizens who benefit from the programs are paying for the program. Extending a withdrawal fee to areas outside of AMAs is problematic in that there is not an equivalent program for the monitoring, reporting and enforcement of groundwater withdrawals. All community water systems are now required to annually report withdrawals throughout the State and it may be possible through this program to add requirements for 20 Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission payment of withdrawal fees, but this would only capture the withdrawals by the community water systems and would miss the large industrial users. Private domestic well owners would also be exempt from this fee. Because the Water Supply Development Revolving Fund is intended to service the water providers, any withdrawal fee collected for this purpose would be tied directly to the benefit of the fund. To generate enough revenue to create a source of funding for the Water Supply Development Revolving Fund, the fee would have to be higher than that for the AMAs (see Table 7 for a listing of AMA fees authorized and assessed). Table 7. The Fees Assessed for the AMAs in 2008 Groundwater Withdrawal Fee Authorized Assessed Authorized Assessed Authorized Assessed Authorized Assessed Phoenix AMA Tucson AMA Administration $1 $1 $1 $1 AWBA $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 Conservation $.50 $.50 $.50 $.50 IGFR Retirement $2.00 $2.00 $0 $0 Pinal AMA Prescott AMA Santa Cruz AMA $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $2.50 $2.50 $0 -- $0 -- $.50 $.50 $2.00 $1.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $0 $2.00 $0 $2.00 $0 Advantages: • Fees are charged over time, deferring costs for home builders, developers, home buyers, and new businesses. • Close nexus between charges made for water withdrawals, and infrastructure and financing costs associated with water supply projects that could provide water for groundwater recharge or domestic use by customers previously depleting groundwater. • Would provide a relatively dependable revenue source. Disadvantages: • Not a significant source of funding at lower assessment levels. • Would require significant changes to statute to allow the withdrawal fees to be used for this new purpose. Tables 8 and 9 present the projected revenue generating capability of these five revenue generating sources at the low and high ranges presented for 10, 25, 50 and 100 years. Both tables incorporate a 3% return on investment rate for loans made from the fund for water supply projects. Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 21 Water Resources Development Commission Table 8. Projected Potential Revenue Generating at the Low Rates 10 Years 25 Years 50 Years 100 Years (2021) (2036) (2061) (2111) $239 million $759 million $2.3 billion $12.6 billion $285 million $907 million $2.8 billion $15 billion $18 million $19 million $118 million $679 million $56 million $62 million $376 million $2.1 billion $174 million $192 million $1.2 billion $6.7 billion $938 million $1 billion $6.3 billion $34.8 billion Revenue Source Bottled Water Tax (2¢ per bottle) Transaction Privilege Tax (5¢ per 1000 gallons) *Impact Fees **New & Existing Well Fees ***General Fund Appropriation Total *$250 per lot at 6000 lots annually **$50 per new well & $10 for existing well ***Assumes $10 million annual general fund appropriation Table 9. Projected Potential Revenue Generating at the High Rates 10 Years 25 Years 50 Years 100 Years (2021) (2036) (2061) (2111) Revenue Source Bottled Water Tax $596 million $1.9 billion $5.9 billion $31.6 billion $570 million $1.8 billion $5.6 billion $30.2 billion $35 million $39 million $118 million $1.9 billion $113 million $124 million $376 million $4.5 billion $349 million $383 million $1.2 billion $13.4 billion $1.9 billion $2 billion $6.3 billion $73 billion (5¢ per bottle) Transaction Privilege Tax (10¢ per 1000 gallons) *Impact Fees **New & Existing Well Fees ***General Fund Appropriation Total *$500 per lot at 6000 lots annually **$100 per new well & $20 for existing well ***Assumes $10 million annual general fund appropriation 22 Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Potential Financing Options • Federal loans, federal loan guarantees used in conjunction with private lending or state/local/district bond issuance and federal agency debt issued specifically to finance infrastructure provision at the state and local level (e.g. possible national infrastructure bank). • State loans, state revolving funds that serve as infrastructure banks, and state loan guarantees used in conjunction with private lending or local/district bond issuance. • Municipal debt in the form of bonds, or in loans to municipalities from private lenders, including debt issued directly by municipal water utilities and debt issued by municipalities to finance water improvement districts. • Special district debt in form of bonds or in loans to districts from private lenders, including bonds issued by community facility districts with private property being used as collateral. • Private water utility or other corporate and private-sector debt, including short-term paper, bonds, or borrowing from investment banks, commercial banks or private sources. In the future it is likely that more mix and match of funding and financing mechanisms will take place. For example, a possible approach to funding/financing water supply projects in northern or southern Arizona might be to fund new projects using special district assessments, water resource impact fees and private/municipal utility water rates, but to finance those projects partially using federal or state loan guarantees and/or federal or state revolving funds like the existing State Water Supply Development Revolving Fund or the proposed federal infrastructure bank. These opportunities for combined approaches should be considered. Private Public Partnerships (PPPs) The private/public partnership is another way to finance large water supply infrastructure projects that would be separate from the Water Supply Development Revolving Fund, but funds from the Water Supply Development Revolving Fund could be used as seed money or development equity money for a PPP project. Public/private partnership is a term used increasingly loosely in the U.S. for any joint private/public activities (infrastructure or otherwise) that encompasses both groups, including design/build projects with limited risksharing or limited private control/cost containment, or non-project activities with cost-sharing elements. For purposes of this discussion, a specific type of PPP, “Infrastructure Project Finance,” would be more exact, in that it refers only to the development of water supplies and infrastructure through an agreement between the public and private sectors that: • Combines project elements into a single purpose entity whose cash flows will repay the principal and interest required to build and operate the project • Clearly defines the separate roles of the public and private sector by means of a joint venture contract that is specific to the project and its special requirements • Assigns appropriate risks to each group • Predominantly uses private funds and companies to finance, build and often operate projects, but with some public sector assets at risk One of the reasons for the growing interest in PPPs is due to current economic conditions. If municipalities, due to their level of indebtedness, are no longer in a position to directly finance expensive water development projects, PPPs may be an option. Although bonding capacity may be available, the additional debt of water development projects is projected to be many times higher than typical. Even if a community is able to fund an expensive water development project, its bond rating and capacity may potentially be reduced and other community infrastructure services are likely to suffer (roads, parks, etc). Some communities struggle to Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 23 Water Resources Development Commission provide the up-front financing to conduct project planning and design. Based on current economic trends it doesn’t appear likely that this scenario will turn around anytime soon and for this reason the PPP may increasingly become a more viable solution for funding the anticipated large water supply infrastructure projects that are greater than $50 million in cost. The $50 million cost level, although not cast in stone, appears to be the minimum size project that the private sector will consider. Perhaps one of the biggest advantages of the PPP option is that it can significantly reduce the amount of upfront capital required by the public sector. Industry analysts presented to the FWG that there is a tremendous amount of private capital available for “shovel-ready” projects, but few water supply projects utilizing the PPP option have been pursued thus far. Under the PPP option, government would only be required to provide the necessary development equity to allow the private sector to fund initial design and due diligence, and the development equity is fully reimbursable upon initiating the construction of the project. The key project selection criteria required for approval by the private sector are: sufficient economic and financial viability on the part of the benefiting parties and the political will to back the project. Returns on these investments tend to be above the norm for infrastructure investments and the major risk to reimbursement of the development equity capital is that the project does not proceed in a timely manner. Properly conceived/designed PPPs are really joint venture agreements between the public and private sectors. Generally, the private sector leads the project design, due diligence, economic, financial, and engineering analyses, providing financing, construction, operation, and long-term maintenance. Government defines the needed project outputs and can provide project elements it has risk sharing with, such as necessary permits, land acquisition, and right of ways (if applicable). PPPs are not a panacea for financing infrastructure but rather a tool with some potential advantages over traditional procurement methods. Because of the foresight, sacrifice, and perseverance of early leaders at the local, State, and Federal level, Arizona’s residents have sufficient water supplies to sustain their current and projected water demands for the near future. Farmers and ranchers in the Salt River Valley joined together in the early 1900s to create the Salt River Valley Water Users Association (SRP) and pledged their lands as collateral to receive federal loans to have Roosevelt Dam constructed. The completion of the Central Arizona Project came as a result of Arizonans from all walks of life working together for decades to gain access to the state’s share of Colorado River water. In the future, Arizona’s population is projected to increase from its current level of about 6.6 million to more than 18 million over the next 100 years and its sustainable water supplies are limited. Just as early leaders had the foresight to plan for future water supplies, Arizona’s current leaders must begin identifying solutions and allocating funds to plan, acquire and develop additional water resources to ensure a sufficient supply of water is available for Arizona’s future. 24 Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The FWG met more than five times since the beginning of the year and heard presentations from public and private industry leaders. They shared their experiences and expertise in project financing. The committee also discussed the many current and potential mechanisms to finance projects or create revenue streams that might assist in the development of future water supply projects. It also discussed a proposal for a cooperative governance and finance of regional projects. The result of these discussions, as reflected in this report, is an inventory of options that are available for evaluation by decision makers at the state and local levels. The FWG understands that the costs associated with the development of infrastructure and the acquisition of water for delivery are enormous and will become exponentially larger as time passes. Therefore, the FWG recommends that the Commission examine these funding sources and financing mechanisms, including the water resources development fund, to determine what options will best enable water users throughout the State to meet their future water needs taking into consideration the political, fiscal, legal, and hydrological ramifications for the State and for the individual water users. Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 25 Water Resources Development Commission MEMBERS OF THE FINANCE WORKING GROUP: David Snider, Pinal County Supervisor / Working Group Chair Tom Whitmer, Arizona Department of Water Resources / Working Group Liaison Cecilio Flores, City of Tucson Doug Frost, City of Phoenix Doug Kupel, City of Phoenix Gus Lundberg, Town of Taylor Jason Baran, Arizona Municipal Water Users Association Jeff Ehlers, Salt River Project Jim Hartdegen John Munderloh, Prescott Valley John Sellers, Yavapai Regional Capital Group Karen Collins, Salt River Project Karen Nally, representing Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District and Central Arizona Irrigation & Drainage District Lauren Neu, Phoenix-Area Law Firm Nancy Scott, Arizona Corporation Commission Paul Hendricks Richard Siegel, Salt River Project Rob Wagner, Yavapai Regional Capital Group Ron Doba, Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users Association Sharon Morris, Arizona Department of Water Resources Steve Olea, Arizona Corporation Commission Val Danos, Arizona Municipal Water Users Association 26 Finance Working Group Report / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission APPENDIX A TABLES AND FIGURES Finance Working Group Report / Appendix A / August 2011 27 Water Resources Development Commission Table 1 – Potential Water Supply Projects Previously Identified in Other Studies Watershed/Region Water Supply Project Description Quantity of Water Associated With Each Project Alternative 1 • Delivers water from Lake Powell to Cameron to serve the City of Page and the communities and villages located on the western Navajo Nation and Hopi reservation, • Flagstaff receives C-aquifer groundwater from a well field to be developed approximately 35 miles east of Flagstaff, 28,000 AFY • Williams receives Redwall/Muav (RM) aquifer groundwater developed near the City, and • Grand Canyon National Park and the City of Tusayan would receive water from the Bright Angel Creek infiltration gallery located at Phantom Ranch. Alternative 2 Coconino Plateau • Delivers water from Lake Powell to serve the City of Page, the communities and villages located on the western Navajo Nation and Hopi reservation, and the City of Flagstaff, • Williams receives RM-aquifer groundwater developed near the City, and 28,000 AFY • Grand Canyon National Park and the City of Tusayan would receive water the Bright Angel Creek infiltration gallery located at Phantom Ranch. Alternative 3 • Delivers water from Lake Powell to serve the City of Page, the communities and villages located on the western Navajo Nation and Hopi reservation, the cities of Flagstaff, Williams and Tusayan, and the Grand Canyon National Park. Alternative 1 Mogollon Highlands Sierra Vista Subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro groundwater basin • Delivers water from C.C. Cragin Reservoir to supply the City of Payson. Alternative 1 • Delivers groundwater from the Copper Queen mine after treatment to Fort Huachuca, the Cities of Sierra Vista, Bisbee, Naco and to recharge excess water to maintain flows of the San Pedro River Alternative 2 • Delivers water from the terminus of the CAP canal to Fort Huachuca and the city of Sierra Vista, and to recharge water into the basin to offset current pumping. Alternative 3 • Development of an urban runoff collection and recharge system 28 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix A / August 2011 28,000 AFY 3,000 AFY 1,800 AFY to 2,600 AFY 30,000 AFY 1,800 AFY Water Resources Development Commission Summary of Unit Costs for Typical Water Conveyance and Treatment Systems August 11, 2011 The unit costs shown below are provided at the request of Mr. Tom Whitmer, ADWR. These figures should be considered appropriate only for appraisal level estimates to develop order-of-magnitude cost estimates, and comparisons of alternatives. Final engineering cost estimates need to consider, at a minimum, actual specified materials, site specific conditions, locality adjustments, quantities, pricing indexes, economic conditions, materials availability, and construction methods. Most of the unit costs provided below are based on actual contracted prices. Figures listed below are April 2011 prices. 1. Lining or Relining Canals – Assume 3.5-inch thick concrete = $31/square yard 2. Pipe - Pipe materials and placement constitute the majority of costs for water conveyance systems, approximately 60% to 70% of the total cost of the system. The remaining 30% to 40% will usually cover all other associated features; pumping plants, pressure reducing stations, vaults, sectionalizing valves, electric power, O&M roads, etc. Operation and maintenance is not covered in this document because operating costs are largely dependent on lift and water volume. Unit costs shown below are for PVC pipe with nominal pressure ratings of 125 psi. Thicker walled PVC pipe can be rated for pressures up to 300 psi. Wall thickness increases the unit cost, so a mid-range pressure pipe was selected for this summary. Standard PVC pipe sizes are shown. The unit costs below include pipe materials, common excavation, bedding, pipe placement, backfill, and appurtenances. Excavation costs are discussed in more detail below. Steel pipe costs do not vary considerably from PVC, but cathodic protection is usually required for steel pipe. PVC sizes (in) Unit Cost ($/foot) 3 18 4 30 6 50 8 60 10 80 12 105 14 120 16 135 18 150 20 165 24 200 30 290 36 380 42 480 48 580 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix A / August 2011 29 Water Resources Development Commission 3. Pipeline trench excavation – Excavation costs can vary significantly depending on geology. Three categories are provided, with equipment becoming more specialized as the excavation becomes more difficult. Common materials (trench with light equipment) - $4/cubic yard Soft rock (excavator or rock trencher required, some dozer ripping) - $20/cubic yard Hard rock (Blasting required) - $60/cubic yard 4. Wells – Costs for drilling wells are dependent on geology, depth, diameter of well, casing requirements, and equipment and methods. The unit costs provided are associated with specific projects, so important factors of the work are listed. Casing, gravel packing, and concrete well pad costs are included. Costs for pumps, piping, and electrical equipment are not included. 20-inch diam well, 16-inch casing, 500 feet deep, moderately soft rock - $286/foot 18-inch diam well, 10-inch casing, 1,200 feet deep, moderately soft sandstone and limestone - $267/foot 16-inch diam well, 10-inch casing, 1,000 feet deep, moderately soft rock - $85/foot 10-inch diam well, 6-inch casing, 250 feet deep, moderate rock - $120 5. Steel Water Storage Tanks – Dependent on steel prices Less than 400,000 gallons - $1/gallon 400,000 to 1,000,000 gallons - $0.85/gallon 1,000,000 gallons and greater - $0.70/gallon 6. Water Treatment Plants Conventional Water Treatment Plant Capital Cost Plant Capacity Capital Cost (million gallons per day) ($Millions) Cost/capacity ($M/mgd) (mgd) 0.50 0.75 1.0 2.0 2.74 4.11 5.02 9.59 20.54 27.39 42.23 47.93 91.30 3.18 3.81 4.45 5.90 7.17 7.99 8.90 12.71 15.44 18.16 25.88 28.15 46.31 6.33 5.06 4.64 2.84 2.62 1.95 1.77 1.33 0.75 0.66 0.61 0.59 0.51 30 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix A / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Membrane Water Treatment Plant Capital Cost Plant Capacity (million gallons per day) (mgd) 20 40 60 80 Capital Cost ($Millions) Cost/capacity ($M/mgd) 39 59 77 97 1.95 1.47 1.28 1.21 Both costs adjusted to ENR CCI 9080 (July 2011). Costs do not include land acquisition, design or administrative costs. Membrane costs have been escalated from 2006 costs. Current technology and project delivery methods could affect these unit costs. Finance Working Group Report / Appendix A / August 2011 31 Water Resources Development Commission Table 2 - Coconino Plateau Water Supply Alternative 1 Estimated Cost Worksheet Coconino Plateau Alternative 1: Lake Powell Source to Cameron plus Bitter Springs Spur Description Sheet 1 of 2 Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount 3 990 990 3 Each Lin Ft Lin Ft Each $595,000 $1,785,000 Included in item above Included in item above Included in item above 11 88 38,500 Each CY LB $60,000 $660,000 Included in item above Included in item above 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 Each LS LS LS LS LS LS $1,150,000 $1,150,000 $670,000 $920,000 $430,000 $180,000 $160,000 $5,750,000 $1,150,000 $670,000 $920,000 $430,000 $180,000 $160,000 671,000 978,000 652,000 1,166,000 384,000 LBS CY CY CY CY $4.50 $10.00 $4.00 $4.50 $30.00 $3,019,500 $9,780,000 $2,608,000 $5,247,000 $11,520,000 $131,000 $87,000 $39,000 $35,000 $28,000 $46,681,457 $4,988,667 $2,911,701 $1,386,000 $2,708,440 Intakes 330 foot inclined bore 30 inch boreholes with 18 inch casing and 12 inch Carrier Pipe Submersible pump/motor, 3600 Forebay Tank, 10 ft Dia. X 20 Ft High Concrete 11 regulated Total Concrete Total Steel, Reinforcement Pumping Plants 22.51 CFS, 440 Ft Head 22.51 CFS, 387 Ft Head 22.51 CFS, 153 Ft Head 17.42 CFS, 400 Ft Head 17.42 CFS, 82 Ft Head 1.38 CFS, 400 Ft Head 1.38 CFS, 305 Ft Head Air Chamber, Tank, Steel Spherical 20 FT Dia, 10 11 required, Total Weight Excavation Rock (assuming 60%) Excavation Backfill Embedment to O.D. +3”, assumed commercial Furnishing and installing the following diameters of steel pipe (all 500 ft. head class) 30” .1875” Thick, 63 lb/ft 24” .1466” Thick 40 lb/ft 10” .1345” Thick 14.77 lb/ft 8” .1345” Thick 11.89 lb/ft 6” .1345” Thick 9.01 lb/ft 356,347 57,341 74,659 39,600 96,760 624,677 Ft Ft Ft Ft Ft SUBTOTAL OF THIS SHEET 32 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix A / August 2011 $102,555,765 Water Resources Development Commission Table 2 - Coconino Plateau Water Supply Alternative 1 Estimated Cost Worksheet - Continued Coconino Plateau Alternative 1: Lake Powell Source to Cameron plus Bitter Springs Spur Description Sheet 2 of 2 Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount 1 1 1 1 LS LS LS LS $700,000 $2,200,000 $13,000,000 $2,200,000 $700,000 $2,200,000 $13,000,000 $2,200,000 3 Each $80,000 $240,000 3 Each $60,000 $180,000 118 Miles $200,000 $23,600,000 Storage Tanks, Steel Coppermine, 100 ft Dia. X 25 ft. High Bodaway Gap, 200 ft. Dia. X 20 ft. High Tuba City/Moenkopi, 500 ft. Dia. X 25 ft High Cameron, 200 ft. Dia. X 20 ft. High Pressure Reducing Station In-line PRV, 30 inch Dia. Designing, furnishing, and erecting One Steel tank Height: 10 feet Diameter: 20 feet Power Lines SCADA Control Systems (Approx. 1% of construction cost) SUBTOTAL THIS SHEET SUBTOTAL ALL SHEETS $47,950,000 $150,505,765 Mobilization @5% $7,500,000 SUBTOTAL WITH MOBILIZATION Unlisted items @ 15% $158,005,765 $21,994,235 Contract Cost $180,000,000 Contingencies @ 25% $50,000,000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION FIELD COST Finance Working Group Report / Appendix A / August 2011 $230,000,000 33 Water Resources Development Commission Table 2 - Coconino Plateau Water Supply Alternative 1 Estimated Cost Worksheet - Continued Coconino Plateau Alternative 1: Two Guns Well Field and 35 Mile Pipeline to supply C-Aquifer Water to Flagstaff Description Sheet 1 of 2 Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Lin Ft Lin Ft Lin Ft Lin Ft Lin Ft Lin Ft Lin Ft LS $83 $55 $35 $26 $19 $14 $12 $17,500,000 $438,240 $580,800 $184,800 $411,840 $601,920 $443,520 $380,160 $17,500,000 Well Field Gathering System 24” PVC Pipe DR 25 C905 18” PVC Pipe DR 25 C905 14” PVC Pipe DR 25 C905 12” PVC Pipe DR 25 C905 10” PVC Pipe DR 25 C905 8” PVC Pipe DR 25 C905 6” PVC Pipe DR 25 C905 Storage Tank, Steel 500 ft. Dia X 38 ft High (8,835,729 cubic feet) 5,280 10,560 5,280 15,840 31,680 31,680 31,680 1 Wells With Pumps 12 Wells – 1200 ft deep 150 hp submersible pumps 500 gpm 26 EA $360,000 $9,360,000 126,120 84,080 176,244 30,132 CY CY CY CY $10 $4 $4.50 $30 $1,261,200 $336,320 $793,098 $903,960 5 50 17,500 EA CY LB 4 1 EA EA $1,400,000 $520,000 $5,600,000 $520,000 305,000 LB $4.50 $1,372,500 Wellfield: Excavation, Rock (assuming 80%) Excavation Backfill Embedment to O.D.+3”, assume commercial Forebay Tank, 10 Ft. Dia. X 20 Ft High, Concrete 5 required Total Concrete Total Steel, Reinforecement $60,000 $300,000 Included in Item Above Included in Item Above Pumping Plants: 28.43 CFS, 400 Ft Head 28.43 CFS, 42 Ft Head Air Chamber, Tank, Steel Spherical, 20 Ft. Dia. 5 Required, Total Weight SUBTOTAL OF THIS SHEET 34 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix A / August 2011 $40,988,358 Water Resources Development Commission Table 2 - Coconino Plateau Water Supply Alternative 1 Estimated Cost Worksheet - Continued Coconino Plateau Alternative 1: Two Guns Well Field and 35 Mile Pipeline to supply C-Aquifer Water to Flagstaff Description Sheet 2 of 2 Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Pipeline: Excavation, Rock (assuming 100%) 701,000 CY $10 $7, 010,000 Backfill Embedment to O.D. +3”, assumed commercial 449,000 202,000 CY CY $4.50 $30 $2,020,500 $6,060,000 184,694 Ft $202 $37,308,188 Furnishing and installing the following diameters of steel pipe (all 500 ft head class) 38”, 25”, Thick, 100 lb/ft Power Lines 35 Miles 1 LS $3,010,000 $3,010,000 1 LS $1,030,000 $1,030,000 $200,000 $7,000,000 SCADA/Control Systems (3% of Construction Costs) Corrosion Monitoring (1% of construction costs) Subtotal This Sheet Subtotal All Sheets $63,438,688 $104,427,046 Mobilization @5% $5,200,000 Subtotal w/ Mobilization $109,627,046 Unlisted @ 15% $15,372,954 Contract Cost $125,000,000 Contingencies @ 25% $35,000,000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTED FIELD COSTS Finance Working Group Report / Appendix A / August 2011 $160,000,000 35 Water Resources Development Commission Table 2 - Coconino Plateau Water Supply Alternative 1 Estimated Cost Worksheet - Continued Coconino Plateau Alternative 1: Development of R-Aquifer Wellfield to Supply groundwater to Williams Description Sheet 1 of 1 Quantity Unit Unit Price Lin Ft Lin Ft Lin Ft Lin Ft $19 $14 $12 $8 Amount Well Field Gathering System 10” PVC Pipe DR 25 C905 8” PVC Pipe DR 25 C905 6” PVC Pipe DR 25 C905 4” PVC Pipe DR 25 C905 5,280 10,560 10,560 31,680 Storage Tank, Steel 200 ft. Dia. X 28 Ft High (863,136 cubic ft, 2—ft dia X 28 ft High) $2,200,000 $100,320 $147,840 $126,440 $253,440 1 LS $2,200,000 6 EA $5,000,000 $30,000,000 25,200 16,800 38,000 3,000 CY CY CY CY $10 $4 $4.50 $30 $252,000 $67,200 $171,000 $90,000 Wells with Pumps 12” wells – 4000 ft deep (use $5,000,000 per well) 150 Hp Submersible Pumps 250 gpm Excavation, Rock (assuming 60%) Excation Backfill Embedment to O.D.+3”, assume commercial Power Lines Corrosion Monitoring (1% of construction costs) 6 1 Miles LS $200,000 $1,030,000 $1,200,000 $1,030,000 1 LS $1,040,000 $1,040,000 SCADA Control Systems (3% of Construction Cost) Subtotal All Sheets $35,648,520 Mobilization @ 5% $1,800,000 Subtotal w/ Mobilization $37,446,520 Unlisted items @ 15% $5,551,480 Contract Cost $43,000,000 Contingencies @ 25% $11,000,000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTED FIELD COSTS 36 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix A / August 2011 $54,000,000 Water Resources Development Commission Table 2 - Coconino Plateau Water Supply Alternative 1 Estimated Cost Worksheet - Continued Coconino Plateau Alternative 1: Development of Bright Angel Creek infiltration gallery and pipeline to serve Grand Canyon National Park and Tusayan Description Sheet 1 of 2 Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Excavation Pipeline Assume 100% rock, trail 5 ft wide (cover 3’ over pipe 1,858 CY $190 $353,020 Backfill, Pipeline 1,752 CY $130 $227,760 Backfill, Select, Pipeline 96 CY $880 $84,480 Excavation Power Cable 574 CY $640 $367,670 Backfill, Select Power Cable 546 CY $1,000 $546,000 Pipe, Steel 12B100, t=0 1345, 17.64lb/ft 4B200, t=0, 6.14 lb/ft 1,500 4,000 FT FT $100 $35 $150,000 $140,000 15,500 FT $30 $465,000 38,000 CY $4.50 $171,000 Pumping Plant Concrete = 100 CY Excavation = 1,130 CY Backfill, compacted = 785 CY 2 pumps 1=3.36 cfs, H=4938 ft 1 LS $1,800,000 $1,800,000 Infiltration Gallery 36D25 concrete pipe Concrete = 10 CY Uniformly graded gravel = 90 CY Excavation = 290 CY Backfill, Compacted = 50 CY Riprap = 165 CY 1 LS $700,000 $700,000 Conventional Treatment Plant at South Rim Treatment Plant Package at Phantom Ranch Q = 14,000/ day 1 1 LS LS $5,000,000 $50,000 $5,000,000 $50,000 Tank, Storage, Concrete (65,000 gal. 23’ High, 22’ dia) 1 LS $130,000 $!30,000 Power Cable – medium voltage 5Kv line Installed in pipe trench and along existing pipe Trench depth = 2 ft & width=6”, select backfill SUBTOTAL THIS SHEET Finance Working Group Report / Appendix A / August 2011 $10,013,620 37 Water Resources Development Commission Table 2 - Coconino Plateau Water Supply Alternative 1 Estimated Cost Worksheet - Continued Coconino Plateau Alternative 1: Development of Bright Angel Creek infiltration gallery and pipeline to serve Grand Canyon National Park and Tusayan Description Sheet 2 of 2 Quantity Unit Amount SCADA Control Systems Pipeline (3% of construction cost) 1 LS $360,000 $360,000 Power Lines 7 MI $200,000 $1,400,000 Corrosion Monitoring (1% of construction cost) 1 LS $140,000 $140,000 1 8 Each CY 1 LS Grand Canyon To Tusayan Forebay Tank, 10 Ft Dia. X 20 Ft High Concrete 1 Required Total Concrete Total Steel, Reinforcement Pumping Plants 1.17 CFS, 284 FT Head Air Chamber, Tank, Steel, Spherical 20FT Dia. 10 1 required, Total Weight Excavation, Rock (assuming 60%) Excavation Backfill Embedment to O.C.+3” native material 61,000 25,800 17,200 39,000 4,000 LBS CY CY CY CY Furnishing and installing the following diameters Of steel pipe (all 500 ft Head class): 6”, .1345” Thick, 9.01 lb/ft 34,400 FT Subtotal This Sheet $60,000 $60,000 Included in item Above Included in item Above $150,000 $150,000 $4.50 $10 $4 $4.50 $30 $171,000 $274,500 $258,000 $68,800 $175,000 $120,000 $28 $963,200 $3,970,000 Subtotal All sheets Mobilization @ 35% (Helicopter influenced) Subtotal w/Mobilization Unlisted Items @ 15% $13,983,620 $4,900,000 $18,883,620 $3,116,380 Contract Cost Contingencies @ 25% $22,000,000 $5,000,000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION FIELD COSTS 38 Unit Price Finance Working Group Report / Appendix A / August 2011 $27,000,000 Water Resources Development Commission Table 3 – Projected Total Present Worth for Coconino Plateau Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 Item Total Field Construction Cost Pumping plants annual O&M Pumping plants annual energy Pipelines annual O&M Total annual O&M & energy Present worth O&M Project total present worth Alternative 1 $471,000,000 $1,051,973 $3,029,771 $480,000 $4,561,744 $81,695,948 $553,000,000 Alternative 2 $621,000,000 $1,658,346 $63,94,839 $1,425,000 $9,478,185 $169,744,140 $791,000,000 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix A / August 2011 Alternative 3 $650,000,000 $2,023,994 $7,276,020 $1,660,000 $10,960,014 $196,282,110 $846,000,000 39 Water Resources Development Commission Figure 1. Coconino Plateau Alternative 1: City of Page, Hopi, Navajo Demand Center – supplied Colorado River water via Lake Powell pipeline; Flagstaff Demand Center – supplied via pipeline from C-Aquifer pipeline; Williams Demand Center – supplied from local R-M Aquifer wells; Grand Canyon/Tusayan Demand Center – supplied from Roaring Springs via pipeline diverting from Phantom Ranch infiltration gallery. 40 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix A / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Figure 2. Coconino Plateau Alternative 2: Page, Hopi, Navajo, Flagstaff Demand Centers – supplied Colorado River water via Lake Powell pipeline; Williams Demand Center – supplied from local RM Aquifer wells; Grand Canyon/Tusayan Demand Center – supplied from Roaring Springs via pipeline diverting from Phantom Ranch infiltration gallery. Finance Working Group Report / Appendix A / August 2011 41 Water Resources Development Commission Figure 3. Coconino Plateau Alternative 3: Page, Hopi, Navajo, Flagstaff, Williams, Grand Canyon, and Tusayan Demand Centers – supplied Colorado River water via Lake Powell pipeline. 42 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix A / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Figure 4. Mogollon Highlands Alternative: Town of Payson supplied water via pipeline from the C.C. Cragin Reservoir. Finance Working Group Report / Appendix A / August 2011 43 Water Resources Development Commission Figure 5. Sierra Vista Subwatershed Alternative 1: A portion of the water demands of Bisbee, Naco, Sierra Vista and/or Fort Huachuca supplied by a pipeline from the Copper Queen Mine as well as recharged back into aquifer to support the baseflows of the San Pedro River. 44 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix A / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission Figure 6. Sierra Vista Subwatershed Alternative 2: Three potential pipeline routings for pipeline to serve water to Sierra Vista, Fort Huachuca and to also recharge into the basin. The preferred pipeline routing is the I-10/Rte.90 alignment. Finance Working Group Report / Appendix A / August 2011 45 Water Resources Development Commission 0 2.5 5 10 Mile Big Chino Water Ranch Big Chino Pipeline Hwy 89 36" Transmission Main Verde River Paulden Hwy 89 Pump Station Upper Verde Springs 30" Transmission Main Chino Valley Prescott's Chino Valley Pump Station 24" Prescott Valley Transmission Main Intermediate Pump Station Hwy 89A Prescott Prescott Valley FIGURE 7. Proposed Big Chino Pipeline to Deliver Groundwater to the cities of Prescott and Prescott Valley PROJECT ELEMENTS: 9 wells and 2 - 1MG reservoirs 23 miles 36” gravity pipeline from BCWR to new Highway 89 Pump Station (PS Highway 89 PS 7 pumps, 17 MGD capacity 7 miles 30” pipeline to CVWPF Reconstructed CVWPF PS 11 pumps, 23 MGD capacity, 1 additional 5MG reservoir 15 miles 24” pressurized pipeline from CVWPF to Prescott Valley Intermediate Pump Station - 5 pumps, 31 MGD capacity, 3 - 3MG reservoirs (separately budgeted project) 46 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix A / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission APPENDIX B STUDIES Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 47 Water Resources Development Commission BEYOND THE COLORADO RIVER: IS AN INTERNATIONAL WATER AUGMENTATION CONSORTIUM IN ARIZONA’S FUTURE? Karl Kohlhoff∗ & David Roberts∗∗ I. INTRODUCTION In his book Beyond the Hundredth Meridian, Wallace Stegner wrote, “Water is the true wealth in a dry land; without it, land is worthless or nearly so.”1 In Arizona, water is the state’s lifeblood, allowing people, crops, wildlife, and industry to thrive, even in a desert. In order to obtain the highest return on its value, however, the use of water must be carefully and thoughtfully planned, developed, and managed. Current residents of Arizona are the beneficiaries of the state’s past leaders who had the vision to plan for, invest in, develop, and manage, the water resources we depend on today. Arizona’s burgeoning population is reaping the benefits of work by visionaries like George Maxwell, Governor Sidney Osborne, and Senator Carl Hayden, whose pioneering efforts in the first half of the twentieth century, and earlier, allowed this desert state to flourish.2 George Maxwell’s efforts led to the ∗ P.E., B.C.E.E., HDR Engineering. This Article is a revised version of a paper originally presented at the Water Law and Policy Conference hosted by the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law in Tucson, Arizona, on October 6–7, 2006. Articles from the Conference are collected in this symposium issue, Volume 49 Number 2, of the Arizona Law Review. For further information about the data and models presented in this Article, please contact the Authors at karl.kohlhoff@hdrinc.com and dave.roberts@srpnet.com. ∗∗ Manager, Water Rights & Contracts Department, Salt River Project. 1. WALLACE STEGNER, BEYOND THE HUNDREDTH MERIDIAN 226 (Houghton Mifflin 1954). 2. See generally JACK AUGUST, VISION IN THE DESERT: CARL HAYDEN AND HYDROPOLITICS IN THE AMERICAN SOUTHWEST (1999); DONALD J. PISANI, TO RECLAIM A DIVIDED WEST: WATER, LAW, AND PUBLIC POLICY 1848–1902 (1992); Charles A. Esser, Second Session Opened, ARIZ. REPUBLIC, June 19, 1947; Charles A. Esser, Two Water Bills Filed with Solons: Enforcement Control Plans Offered For Consideration, ARIZ. REPUBLIC, Jan. 23, 1948; Groundwater Code Before Lawmakers, ARIZ. TIMES, Jan. 22, 1948; Osborn’s Water Bill, ARIZ. TIMES, Jan. 22, 1948; Revised Groundwater Code Given to Solons for Study, ARIZ. REPUBLIC, Mar. 5, 1948; Sweeping Powers Asked in Ground Water Bill, 48 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission 258 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW [VOL. 49:257 formation of the 1902 Reclamation Act, which provided the means to develop the source of funds to finance the construction of Theodore Roosevelt Dam and to develop the Salt River Project. Governor Osborne had the foresight in the 1940s to recognize and begin the debate over the importance of protecting Arizona’s groundwater supply from excessive pumping. Senator Hayden spent much of his long career of public service securing funding for the Central Arizona Project (“CAP”)—the water supply that sustains much of the current population growth in central Arizona. Because of the foresight of these leaders, and others, Arizona’s residents have sufficient water supplies to sustain their current and projected water demands for the near future. However, Arizona’s population is growing at a tremendous rate and its sustainable water supplies are limited. Further, there is a growing interest in protecting and enhancing Arizona’s unique natural environment that, in many places, is dependent on the availability of water. In order to continue to provide sufficient water supplies for its citizens without negatively impacting Arizona’s ecosystems, leaders must begin allocating funds to plan and develop additional water resources for the future. In this paper, the Authors review the historic, current, and future trends in Arizona’s population growth and water use, and assess whether the state’s current water supplies are adequate to serve its citizens in the future. The analysis indicates that in the majority of the state’s most populous areas—Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Maricopa, Mohave, Pima, Pinal, and Yavapai counties—the current available renewable water supplies are not sufficient to sustain the projected population and preserve the distinctive natural environment in the future. Because additional municipal water supplies will be needed in the future, the Authors evaluate several options for augmenting the state’s water supplies and recommend an approach to initiate planning the development of such supplemental supplies. A review of these options suggests that Arizona will need to go beyond the Colorado River for its next water supply. The most viable option for Arizona appears to be development of an international water augmentation consortium with Mexico. The consortium would seek to develop a new freshwater supply for both Arizona and Mexico created through the desalination of ocean water from the Gulf of California. Developing a water augmentation consortium with Mexico will be a monumental undertaking, not unlike the twentieth-century development of water supplies currently used by the United States and Mexico from the Colorado River. Creating the consortium and the necessary freshwater supplies will require the same farsighted leadership Arizona has benefited from in the development of its past water supplies. Arizona will need a visionary to champion this cause and to inspire the state’s political, business, scientific, and engineering leaders. This multifaceted collaboration is essential to develop the necessary relationships with Mexico, the research and development of technologies to support implementation of a large-scale desalination project, and a plan to manage the financing, PHOENIX GAZETTE, Jan. 22, 1948; Bill Turnbow, Legislators, Gov. Osborn Agree on Call: For Second Time State Water Code Will Be Subject, PHOENIX GAZETTE, Mar. 5, 1948. Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 49 Water Resources Development Commission 2007] CONSORTIUM 259 construction, and operation of the infrastructure needed to create and deliver the freshwater. II. TRENDS IN ARIZONA’S POPULATION For the last half of the twentieth century, Arizona was one of the fastest growing states in the country. Since 1950, Arizona’s population has grown by nearly 600%, more than six times the United States growth rate for the same period (Figure 1). In 1950, the population of Phoenix was slightly more than 100,000. In the most recent census, Phoenix was home to more than 1,300,000 people.3 Nine Arizona cities and towns now have a population greater than 100,000 people.4 700% 600% 500% 400% 300% 200% 100% 0% 1950 1960 1970 Arizona 1980 1990 2000 United States Figure 1. Population growth by percent in Arizona and the United States from 1950 to 2000. Since 2000, Arizona’s population boom has further escalated. In the last six years the state has gained nearly 1,000,000 new residents; its population has now surpassed 6,000,000. Some cities have experienced triple digit growth during this period: Maricopa (561%), Sahuarita (332%), El Mirage (289%), Queen Creek (268%), Surprise (154%), Buckeye (147%) and Goodyear (118%). Phoenix is now the sixth largest city in the United States; Tucson is ranked 32nd.5 Geographically, 3. U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, GCT-PH1. POPULATION, HOUSING UNITS, AREA, AND DENSITY, available at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTSubjectShowTablesServlet?_ lang=en&_ts=193343158694 (select “GCT-PH1. Population, Housing Units, Area, and Density: 2000”) (last visited Mar. 30, 2007). 4. Id. 5. U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, TABLE 1: ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF THE POPULATION FOR INCORPORATED PLACES OVER 100,000, RANKED BY JULY 1, 2005 POPULATION: APRIL 1, 2000 TO JULY 1, 2005 (2006), available at http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUBEST2005.html (follow “Excel” hyperlink after title of report). 50 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission 260 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW [VOL. 49:257 80.9% (4,985,544) of Arizona’s current population resides in Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties (“Three County Area”).6 The next three most populous counties (Yavapai, Yuma, and Mohave) together comprise 9.5% (588,604) of Arizona’s population. Demographic experts forecast that Arizona’s explosive growth will continue. The Arizona Department of Economic Security projects that Arizona will surpass the 10,000,000 mark in 2028 and reach over 13,300,000 by 2055.7 By that time researchers predict that Phoenix and Tucson will have merged, and that the corridor from Prescott south to the Mexican border, including Sierra Vista, will grow into a megapolitan or “super-sized” metropolitan area, referred to as the Arizona Sun Corridor.8 In 2055 Pinal County is expected to have quadrupled in population to more than 1,100,000 people, while the population in four other counties is projected to double (Maricopa, Mohave, Yavapai and Yuma). The Three County Area is expected to become home to 83.3% (11,112,290) of the state’s population. Yavapai, Yuma and Mohave counties will continue to be the next most populous counties, but their proportion of the state’s population is expected to drop slightly to 9%. Still other researchers have projected that Arizona could grow to more than 18,000,000 people by 2100.9 The population is expected to follow the same geographical patterns, although Pinal County is predicted to replace Pima County as the state’s second most populous county (Table 1). 6. U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, TABLE 1: ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF THE POPULATION FOR COUNTIES OF ARIZONA: APRIL 1, 2000 TO JULY 1, 2006 (2007), available at http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2006-01.html (follow “Excel” hyperlink under “Arizona”). 7. ARIZ. DEP’T OF ECON. SEC., ARIZONA POPULATION PROJECTIONS 2006–2055 tbl.1 (2006), available at http://www.workforce.az.gov/?PAGEID=67&SUBID=138 (follow “excel” hyperlink after “Arizona State and County Projections 2006–2055: State of Arizona”). These projections may actually underestimate the number of persons that reside and use water in Arizona as they do not take into account (1) seasonal residents whose principal place of residence is in another state, and (2) undocumented residents who live in Arizona but are not permanent residents. 8. Catherine Reagor, When Phoenix, Tucson Merge, ARIZ. REPUBLIC, Apr. 9, 2006, at 1A. 9. Jim Holway, Peter Newell, and Terri Sue Rossi, Water and Growth: Future Water Supplies for Central Arizona 4 tbl.1 (June 13, 2006) (unpublished manuscript, on file with Global Institute of Sustainability, Arizona State University), available at http://sustainability.asu.edu/gios/waterworkshop.htm (follow “pdf” hyperlink after article title). Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 51 Water Resources Development Commission 2007] CONSORTIUM 261 202010 204011 206012 208013 210014 Apache 86,533 99,190 109,163 119,023 128,883 Cochise 169,717 201,179 225,372 249,936 274,500 Coconino 159,345 186,871 208,076 228,492 248,908 Gila 64,396 74,195 82,750 91,488 100,226 Graham 41,119 47,623 51,544 55,072 58,600 Greenlee 8,189 8,611 9,614 10,682 11,750 La Paz 25,487 29,715 32,382 35,180 37,978 5,276,074 7,009,664 8,209,097 9,347,117 10,485,137 Mohave 281,668 367,952 434,082 500,416 566,750 Navajo 147,045 180,054 204,644 229,022 253,400 Pima 1,271,912 1,585,983 1,831,622 2,075,670 2,319,718 Pinal 609,720 1,081,737 1,529,581 1,979,551 2,429,521 Santa Cruz 61,658 78,526 90,776 102,882 114,988 Yavapai 305,343 390,954 446,814 502,466 558,118 Yuma 271,361 351,299 403,258 454,280 505,302 Total 8,779,567 11,693,553 13,868,772 15,981,274 18,093,776 County Maricopa Table 1. Projected population by county in Arizona. III. TRENDS IN ARIZONA’S WATER SUPPLY AND USE Although Arizona has experienced explosive population growth, sound water management policies have enabled the state to provide adequate water supplies for new residents, while at the same time reducing the state’s dependence on groundwater. Figure 2 shows the percentage of total water use from groundwater withdrawals and surface water diversions in Arizona from 1950 to 2000. 10. ARIZ. DEP’T OF ECON. SEC., ARIZONA POPULATION PROJECTIONS 2006–2055 summary tbl. (2006), available at http://www.workforce.az.gov/?PAGEID= 67&SUBID=138 (follow “excel” hyperlink after “Summary Population Projections 2006– 2055: Projections for State and Counties”). 11 Id. 12. Holway et al., supra note 9, at 4 tbl.1. 13. Id. 14. Id. 52 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission 262 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW [VOL. 49:257 100% Percent 75% 50% 25% 0% 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Groundwater Surface Water Figure 2. Percentage of total water use from groundwater withdrawals and surface water diversions in Arizona from 1950 to 2000.15 From the 1950s until the mid-1980s Arizona relied on groundwater for the majority of its water. During this period the rate of groundwater pumped from underground aquifers far exceeded their recharge, and water levels in wells throughout central Arizona decreased sharply. In addition to the significant loss of the groundwater supply, negative effects such as land subsidence and earth fissuring began to occur as a result of the over pumping. The state’s past overuse of its groundwater system still impacts Arizona today.16 Recognizing that the continued overuse of groundwater supplies was not sustainable, Arizona’s political leaders and water users agreed in 1980 to limit the use of groundwater in the state’s most affected groundwater basins. The passage of the 1980 Groundwater Code (“Code”)17 also improved Arizona’s prospects for receiving federal funding to complete the CAP. Largely as a result of the Code’s limitations on groundwater use, the water use trend reversed in 1985. This new trend continues today, due in large part to the success of both the Code and CAP.18 By the end of 2005, CAP had delivered nearly 20,000,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water into central and southern Arizona. 15. A.D. KONIECZKI & J.A. HEILMAN, U.S. DEP’T OF THE INTERIOR, WATER-USE TRENDS IN THE DESERT SOUTHWEST—1950–2000, SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS REPORT 2004-5148, at 12 tbl.A (2004). 16. Lisa Nicita, Governor Approves Bill to Identify, Map Fissures, ARIZ. REPUBLIC, June 22, 2006, Chandler Republic, at 9; Lisa Nicita, ADOT to Remedy Large Fissure on Route for Freeway, ARIZ. REPUBLIC, July 17, 2006, Valley & State, at 1. 17. Groundwater Management Act, 1980 Ariz. Sess. Laws 4th Spec. Sess., ch. 1, § 86 (codified at ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 45-401 to -704 (2006)). 18. Since 1998, Arizona has been experiencing a nearly statewide drought that has temporarily caused the withdrawals of groundwater to exceed the diversions of surface water. This is reflected in the 2000 data. See supra Figure 2. Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 53 Water Resources Development Commission 2007] CONSORTIUM 263 Percent In addition to the changes in the source of water used in the state, there has also been a shift in how water is used. Figure 3 illustrates the growth in municipal and industrial uses as a result of the significant population growth in the state, and the decline in agricultural uses of water from 1950 to 2000. In 1950, agriculture used 97% of the state’s water. In 2000, agricultural use comprised 80%, while the municipal and industrial sectors used 16% and 3%, respectively.19 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Agriculture Municipal Industrial Figure 3. Percentage of water use by sector in Arizona from 1950 to 2000. The most recent estimate by the Arizona Department of Water Resources puts the state’s water use at 7,826,600 acre-feet per year (Table 2). 20 19. KONIECZKI & HEILMAN, supra note 15, at 9 tbl.2. 20. ARIZ. DEP’T OF WATER RES., 1 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS: INTRODUCTION, at 19 tbl.1-2 (2006) (draft). 54 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission 264 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW [VOL. 49:257 Source of Supply and Amount of Water Used (acre-feet) Water Use Sector Groundwater21 In-State Surface Water Colorado River Water Reclaimed Water Total Agriculture 2,594,500 898,000 2,275,000 74,600 5,822,100 Municipal 662,600 418,200 421,900 94,000 1,596,700 Industrial 317,500 66,700 1,800 21,200 407,200 3,574,600 1,382,900 2,698,70022 189,800 7,826,000 Total Table 2. Estimated water use by sector and water source in Arizona in 2003. As noted earlier, the overall use of surface water continues to exceed the overall use of groundwater. Water use in the municipal sector now comprises 20% of the state’s water use, while agricultural use represents 74%. IV. ARIZONA’S CURRENT WATER SUPPLIES Currently, Arizona’s water supply is derived from four sources: (1) surface water from in-state rivers—the Gila River system and its tributaries (Salt, Verde, Santa Cruz, San Pedro, Agua Fria and Hassayampa), the Little Colorado River system, and the Bill Williams River system; (2) surface water from the Colorado River; (3) groundwater; and (4) effluent or reclaimed water. The long-term average annual supply of surface water from Arizona’s instate rivers is estimated to be about 1,700,000 acre-feet. The vast majority of this water is either diverted and used directly from Arizona’s rivers each year or is stored in reservoirs, e.g., Roosevelt Lake, San Carlos Lake, Bartlett Lake, etc., for use in subsequent years. Currently, on average, about 65% of the water that is diverted or stored each year is used for agricultural purposes and 30% is used for municipal purposes. The remaining 5% is used for industrial purposes. Additionally, about 150,000 acre-feet per year are used on Indian reservations. The vast majority of this water is used for agricultural purposes. Arizona is entitled to use 2,800,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River each year.23 This water has been allocated among various water users under several different priorities. Water users along the mainstem of the Colorado River are projected to consume about 1,300,000 acre-feet. The majority of this 21. Includes pumping for drainage purposes. The majority of the drainage pumping in Arizona (approximately 250,000 acre-feet per year) is associated with agricultural water uses along the Colorado River and is reflected in the figures for agricultural groundwater use. 22. Does not include approximately 400,000 acre-feet of CAP water recharged in central Arizona. 23. 43 U.S.C. § 617c(a) (2000). Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 55 Water Resources Development Commission 2007] CONSORTIUM 265 entitlement carries the highest priority; however, approximately 150,000 acre-feet shares the most junior priority with CAP (see below). Agriculture uses about 90% of the mainstem Colorado River supply. About 800,000 acre-feet of the agricultural water is diverted for use on Indian reservations. The remaining 1,500,000 acre-feet of Arizona’s Colorado River water supplies are allocated to the CAP.24 The CAP entitlement is further allocated among non-Indian and Indian water users. The vast majority of the non-Indian CAP supplies are allocated to municipal and industrial uses and, pending approval of the Gila River Indian Community Water Rights Settlement Agreement, total 747,276 acre-feet. The Indian CAP allocation is 667,724 acre-feet. Of the total Indian allocation, 154,000 acre-feet has been leased to municipal water providers on a long-term basis.25 The entire CAP entitlement (plus the 150,000 acre-foot mainstem allocations—see above) is currently regarded as the most junior Colorado River supply among the seven states who share its supply, and is therefore less likely to be fully available during periods of extended drought in the Colorado River Basin.26 Arizona’s groundwater supply is highly variable and, in certain areas (Active Management Areas or “AMAs”), highly regulated. In the central and southern areas of the state (Phoenix, Pinal, and Tucson AMAs) the groundwater supply is quite extensive; however, its use is limited by the requirements of the Code.27 Northeast Arizona (most of Apache and Navajo counties and parts of Coconino County) also contains significant groundwater reserves. In some parts of the state, groundwater is interconnected with surface water (areas adjacent to perennial and intermittent streams in the Gila, San Pedro, Salt, Verde, Santa Cruz, Bill Williams, Hassayampa, and lower Colorado River watersheds). Consequently, the use of groundwater in these areas may be limited in the future, depending on the actual availability of groundwater and the quantity of stream flow available to surface water users, because most uses of water withdrawn from wells near streams are junior in priority to uses initiated by direct diversion from streams. In still other areas of the state, groundwater is contained in hard rock aquifers and is often difficult to extract in large volumes on a sustained basis. These areas include Payson, Pine, Strawberry, Williams, and Flagstaff. Reclaimed water is produced from the wastewater (effluent) derived from the use of water by people. Currently, it estimated that about 479,000 acre-feet of effluent is produced each year in Arizona. Effluent is treated (reclaimed water) and 24. The actual quantity of CAP water that has been allocated for delivery is 1,415,000 acre-feet. The remaining 85,000 acre-feet is lost through evaporation and seepage during delivery in the CAP aqueduct. 25. See Holway et al., supra note 9, at 17, 22 tbl.5. 26. 43 U.S.C. § 1521(b). 27. Under the assured water supply rules, however, there are several types of authorizations to pump groundwater that are considered renewable for purposes of groundwater regulation: (1) Pre-rules groundwater (about 75,000 acre-feet/year); (2) Incidental recharge (4% of municipal demand); (3) Allowable groundwater use (about 80,000 acre-feet/year); and, (4) AMA water farms/imported groundwater (estimated to be about 123,000 acre-feet/year). See Holway et al., supra note 9, for a more detailed explanation of these renewable groundwater supplies. 56 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission 266 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW [VOL. 49:257 is reused for a variety of purposes, most of which are agricultural or industrial. As the state continues to grow in population, the amount of reclaimed water produced for future uses will increase. It is expected that over time the percentage of effluent reclaimed for future use will increase as the infrastructure to deliver reclaimed water expands into new urban development areas. V. ARIZONA’S FUTURE: MUNICIPAL WATER DEMANDS AND AVAILABLE RENEWABLE WATER SUPPLIES28 Given the state’s projected population growth, one of the most significant issues for Arizona to address will be whether the state has sufficient water supplies to sustain its projected municipal water demands. Determining whether Arizona’s water supplies are sufficient for the future requires an assessment of the future municipal water demands and the amount of water available to supply these demands.29 For purposes of this analysis, we use the population projections in Table 1 (2020 to 2100) and the current representative gallons-per-capita-per-day (GPCD) rates of water providers in each county to estimate future municipal water demands. As previously noted, these population projections likely underestimate the total population using water in Arizona because seasonal and undocumented residents are not included in the state’s population projections.30 Table 2 shows the projected water demands in the municipal sector for each county in 2020, 2040, 2060, 2080, and 2100. Municipal water demand in Arizona is expected to increase by nearly 300%, from 1,596,700 acre-feet today to 4,195,512 acre-feet in 2100. 28. For purposes of this analysis, municipal water demand includes self-supplied domestic uses. 29. For purposes of this analysis, we assume that municipal water demands will be met mostly from renewable water supplies—surface water, renewable groundwater, and reclaimed water, and not mined groundwater. Renewable groundwater is groundwater that is replenished from natural and artificial recharge over a long-term period and is available for use without depleting the overall groundwater supply or discharge to springs and streams. Mined groundwater is groundwater that is not renewable over a long-term period and results in long-term depletions to the overall groundwater supply and discharge to springs and streams. 30. See supra note 7. Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 57 Water Resources Development Commission 2007] CONSORTIUM 267 Projected Municipal Demand Est’d GPCD 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 Apache 150 14,539 16,666 18,342 19,998 21,655 Cochise 175 33,269 39,436 44,179 48,994 53,809 Coconino 150 26,773 31,398 34,961 38,392 41,822 Gila 150 10,820 12,466 13,904 15,372 16,840 Graham 175 8,060 9,335 10,104 10,795 11,487 Greenlee 150 1,376 1,447 1,615 1,795 1,974 La Paz 220 6,281 7,323 7,980 8,669 9,359 Maricopa 220 1,300,192 1,727,403 2,022,981 2,303,425 2,583,870 Mohave 220 69,412 90,675 106,972 123,318 139,665 Navajo 150 24,707 30,253 34,385 38,481 42,577 Pima 175 249,327 310,893 359,044 406,884 454,723 Pinal 200 136,595 242,340 342,670 443,476 544,283 Santa Cruz 175 12,087 15,393 17,794 20,167 22,541 Yavapai 175 59,855 76,637 87,587 98,496 109,405 Yuma 250 75,991 98,376 112,927 127,215 141,503 2,029,283 2,710,042 3,215,444 3,705,478 4,195,512 County Total Table 3. Projected municipal water demands by County from 2020 to 2100. There are several approaches that could be used to derive an estimate of the quantity of renewable water supplies available to supply future municipal water demands. One approach would be to assume that all of the renewable water supplies in Arizona could be used to serve municipal uses. Under this statewide demand versus supply approach, the task would then be as simple as adding up all the supplies described previously and then comparing them to the projected municipal water demand. Table 4 presents these data. With this approach, the projections suggest that Arizona could easily supply its municipal water demands well into the future. 58 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission 268 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW Water Source [VOL. 49:257 Quantity (acre-feet) 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 In-State Surface Water 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 Colorado River Water 2,715,000 2,715,000 2,715,000 2,715,000 2,715,000 Groundwater31 281,171 363,402 406,618 426,219 445,820 Reclaimed Water32 152,196 203,253 482,317 555,822 629,327 Total Renewable Water Supplies 4,848,367 4,981,655 5,303,935 5,397,041 5,490,147 Projected Municipal Water Demands 2,029,283 2,710,042 3,215,444 3,705,478 4,195,512 Surplus (Deficit) 2,819,084 2,271,613 2,088,491 1,691,563 1,294,635 Table 4. Estimated total quantity of renewable water supplies in Arizona by water source and projected municipal water demands. These estimates assume that all renewable supplies are available for use in the municipal sector. However, for several reasons, this type of approach is not realistic. First, a “statewide” analysis of water supply and demand does not consider the geographic variability of the legal entitlements to water supplies available to different parts of the state. While water users have, on occasion, managed to work out arrangements to exchange water supplies in one area of the state for water supplies in another area, the number and size of these exchanges is generally limited by (1) the available supply at the point where the exchange takes place, (2) water rights interests of third parties, and (3) environmental concerns. Consequently, a statewide approach masks the actual legal and physical availability of water to supply future municipal uses in different areas of the state. Second, this approach fails to consider that the amount of precipitation and runoff from the state’s watersheds and from the Colorado River Basin does not provide an average supply of renewable water every year. While the state is fortunate to have a number of large reservoirs to capture water in above average years of runoff, research shows that drought periods can be extensive enough in both length and magnitude to easily deplete the reservoir supplies.33 Groundwater 31. Includes incidental recharge from municipal use (4% of municipal water demand), and AMA renewable groundwater. See supra note 27. 32. Assumes 30% of projected municipal demand will be available as effluent. In 2020 and 2040, we assume 25% of the effluent will be reclaimed and reused for drinking water purposes and after 2040, we assume 50% will be reclaimed and reused for drinking water purposes. 33. See KATHERINE K. HIRSCHBOECK & DAVID M. MEKO, A TREE-RING BASED ASSESSMENT OF SYNCHRONOUS EXTREME STREAMFLOW EPISODES IN THE UPPER COLORADO & SALT–VERDE–TONTO RIVER BASINS 17 (2005), available at Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 59 Water Resources Development Commission 2007] CONSORTIUM 269 is a good short-term backup supply, but it can easily be shortsightedly overused, as Arizona history has demonstrated. Accordingly, projecting the quantity of renewable water to serve future municipal uses must take into account the variability in the availability of surface water supplies. A third shortcoming of this approach is that it does not consider that much of Arizona’s renewable water supplies are used for agricultural purposes in areas of the state that are not projected to grow significantly in population over the next 100 years. The expectation of being able to transfer agricultural water from rural communities to other areas of the state that are predicted to grow significantly in population must take into account the long-established legal, economic, and cultural interests of those who depend on that water, and the political, institutional, geographical, and physical constraints associated with such proposed transfers. For example, in the upper Gila River watershed (Graham and Greenlee counties) there is a significant supply of surface water from the Gila River (approximately 125,000 acre-feet) that is currently used by farmers in the Safford and Duncan Valleys. This quantity of water is much greater than the combined long-term projected municipal water demand in Graham and Greenlee counties (2100: approximately 13,400 acre-feet). If the entire municipal demand in these two counties in 2100 came from the Gila River, the farmers would still have entitlements to approximately 110,000 acre-feet. Legally, culturally, economically, and institutionally this water belongs to the upper Gila River farmers, the surrounding communities, and its businesses. Because of these factors, it is likely that any attempt to transfer this water to another watershed to serve municipal uses would be strenuously resisted by many upper Gila River watershed interests. Additionally, the Gila River Indian Community and the San Carlos Irrigation District would likewise resist the proposed transfer because the water users of both of these entities share an interest in the Gila River water for the San Carlos Irrigation Project. Consequently, while “on paper” there appears to be approximately 110,000 acre-feet of surface water from the upper Gila River watershed available to serve municipal water uses somewhere in the state in the future, because of the factors discussed above, this water will likely remain in the watershed for use by farmers and others. A more reasoned approach to assess whether Arizona has sufficient renewable water supplies to serve its projected municipal water demand would be to identify the renewable water supplies that could reasonably be considered available for future use in the municipal sector. These supplies would include (1) supplies currently used for municipal purposes (surface water, reclaimed water and renewable groundwater), (2) supplies that are under contract but are not currently being fully used for municipal purposes, e.g. CAP water, and (3) supplies that are currently utilized for other purposes but could reasonably be considered for conversion or transfer to municipal uses taking into account the legal, economic, http://fp.arizona.edu/kkh/SRP/ Final.Report/Final.Final.Report.pdf. 60 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission 270 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW [VOL. 49:257 cultural, institutional, political, geographical, and physical constraints associated with such changes in use. To determine this amount of water, however, it is necessary to make certain assumptions about (1) the allocation and management of water in Arizona and how it affects the availability of various water sources that are, or could be, used to serve municipal uses, and (2) future uses of water for municipal, agricultural, industrial and fish and wildlife uses in Arizona. These assumptions are described below. A. Water Allocation and Management Assumptions 1. The water user requirements and water management goals applicable to the groundwater basins regulated by the Groundwater Code will remain in place. Accordingly, municipal water providers in the AMAs will be required to continue to secure renewable water supplies for new urban developments. 2. The Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004 will become effective. Accordingly, the Final Decision of CAP Water Reallocation will become effective.34 3. Arizona’s in-state surface water supplies will be declared fully appropriated and will be adjudicated to those with existing decreed rights and those who lawfully initiated rights to use water under state and federal law. Surface water rights associated with non-Indian agricultural uses will eventually be converted to (1) municipal use as agricultural lands urbanize or (2) fish and wildlife uses. However, some transfers to new locations to serve municipal uses in the watershed of origin will take place in rural areas. Indian entitlements to in-state surface water will be used on their reservations in accordance with settlement agreements. 4. The Arizona Supreme Court’s order regarding subflow will be implemented in the General Stream Adjudications.35 5. The water supplies set forth in the settlement agreements for the AkChin, Ft. McDowell, Salt River, San Carlos, Yavapai-Prescott, Gila River, Tohono O’odham, Zuni, and Quechan Tribes, and the decreed entitlements of the Colorado River, Fort Mojave, and Cocopah Tribes will be sufficient to supply the water uses contemplated on their respective reservations. Accordingly, these Indian Tribes will not need additional water supplies prior to 2100. 6. Indian Tribes legally authorized to lease allocations of Colorado River water will continue to lease more, but not all, of their allocations. B. Water Use Assumptions 1. Given the expected population increases in Arizona, the use of water in the municipal sector will continue to increase. Municipal water providers outside 34. Central Arizona Project (CAP), Arizona; Water Allocations, 71 Fed. Reg. 50,449-02, 50,449–52 (Aug. 25, 2006). 35. In re Gen. Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River Sys. & Source (Gila IV), 9 P.3d 1069 (Ariz. 2000). Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 61 Water Resources Development Commission 2007] CONSORTIUM 271 AMAs currently overlying and dependent on groundwater supplies that are (1) interconnected with surface water or (2) from hard rock aquifers will move toward acquiring legal entitlements to renewable water supplies. Municipal water providers outside AMAs in regions where sufficient groundwater reserves exist, including sufficient natural recharge to the groundwater system, will continue to use groundwater as their primary supply. 2. Overall, agricultural use will continue to decline, although there will be an increase in agricultural use on Indian Reservations as Indian communities begin to use water supplies obtained in their settlement agreements. In some parts of the state—Yuma, La Paz, Graham, and Cochise counties—new non-Indian agricultural land may be developed. However, these new uses will be relatively small and will be supplied by groundwater and, accordingly, will not compete with the municipal sector for renewable water supplies. 3. Self-supplied industrial uses will increase at a modest rate; however, all major industrial users will be supplied by groundwater or surface water in areas with sufficient supplies to satisfy both municipal and industrial demands, or reclaimed water provided by municipal water providers. As a result, industrial users will generally not compete with the municipal sector for renewable water supplies. 4. There will be an increasing interest and an environmental requirement to preserve and enhance stream flows in Arizona’s streams for protection of habitat for fish and wildlife. This will further limit access to interconnected groundwater. Given these assumptions, Table 6 shows a more reasoned projection of the amount of renewable water supplies by water source on a statewide basis, along with the projected municipal water demands. This estimate is derived from an analysis of the availability of the following water sources: 1. In-state surface water supplies available for use in the municipal sector are estimated to be 725,000 acre-feet in 2020 and increase to 1,100,000 acre-feet as surface water rights are converted or transferred to serve municipal uses in response to urbanization in Apache, Maricopa, Pinal, Navajo, Graham, and Yavapai counties. The remaining in-state surface water supplies would not be converted or transferred to the municipal sector. These supplies include: (1) nonIndian water supplies in the Gila, Salt, San Pedro, Bill Williams, Hassayampa and Little Colorado River watersheds that will remain in the agricultural, industrial, and fish and wildlife sectors, and (2) Indian water supplies in the Gila, Salt, and Verde watersheds that will continue to be used on Indian Reservations for agricultural and industrial purposes. 2. Colorado River supplies are estimated to be 1,059,664 acre-feet in 2020 and increase to 1,149,664 acre-feet in 2100. They include the following components: 62 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission 272 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW Colorado River Allocation Components [VOL. 49:257 Quantity (acre-feet) 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 Non-Indian CAP 720,664 720,664 720,664 720,664 720,664 Current CAP Leases 154,000 154,000 154,000 154,000 154,000 Future CAP Leases 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 Mainstem M&I Entitlements 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 Non-Indian Agriculture Conversion 20,000 50,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 1,059,664 1,089,664 1,109,664 1,129,664 1,149,664 Total Table 5. Colorado River supplies projected to be available for municipal purposes from 2020 to 2100. 3. Groundwater supplies are estimated to be 323,781 acre-feet in 2020 and increase to 511,584 acre-feet in 2100. These amounts are slightly higher than the amounts shown in Table 3 and now include additional pumping to serve relatively small amounts of municipal demands in several counties outside of AMAs (Apache, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, and Navajo counties). 4. The reclaimed water supplies are the same as in Table 3. Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 63 Water Resources Development Commission 2007] Water Source CONSORTIUM 273 Quantity (acre-feet) 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 In-State Surface Water 725,000 825,000 950,000 1,050,000 1,100,000 Colorado River Water 1,059,664 1,089,664 1,109,664 1,129,664 1,149,664 Groundwater36 323,781 413,299 461,851 486,718 511,584 Reclaimed Water37 152,196 203,253 482,317 555,822 629,327 Total Renewable Water Supplies 2,260,641 2,531,216 3,003,832 3,222,204 3,390,575 Projected Municipal Water Demands 2,029,283 2,710,042 3,215,444 3,705,478 4,195,512 231,358 (178,826) (211,612) (483,274) (804,937) Surplus (Deficit) Table 6. Revised estimate of the amount of renewable water supplies by source in Arizona. These estimates consider projected uses and limits on the transfer of some water sources. Unlike the previous statewide projections, these projections suggest that Arizona’s municipal water demand will exceed the amount of renewable water supplies available for municipal uses some time between 2020 and 2040. However, even this analysis underestimates the potential municipal water shortfall because it still compares projected statewide water availability with projected statewide municipal demands. In order to determine which areas of the state are projected to have sufficient water supplies to serve their future municipal demand and which do not, an analysis of supplies and demands by smaller regions of the state is necessary. For purposes of this analysis, we analyze water supplies and demands by county. There are some counties in Arizona where a detailed analysis of the currently available water supplies is not necessary because either (1) the available surface water supplies are clearly sufficient to serve the projected demand or (2) the projected demand is significantly less than the combined amount of available renewable water and groundwater supplies. These counties include Apache, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Navajo, and Yuma. As discussed earlier, the surface water supplies available in Graham and Greenlee counties are clearly sufficient to serve the projected municipal demands well into the future. A similar situation 36. Includes incidental recharge from municipal use (4% of municipal water demand), and AMA renewable groundwater. See supra note 27. 37. Assumes 30% of projected municipal demand will be available as effluent. Prior to 2050, we assume 25% of the effluent will be reclaimed and re-used for drinking water purposes and after 2050, we assume 50% will be reclaimed and reused for drinking water purposes. 64 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission 274 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW [VOL. 49:257 occurs in Yuma County, where the quantity of Colorado River water (existing municipal supplies and conversions and/or transfers of agricultural supplies) is more than sufficient to serve the projected municipal demands well into the future. In Apache, La Paz, and Navajo counties the combined amount of surface water and groundwater is sufficient to serve the projected municipal demands in the future.38 In La Paz County the annual municipal water demand in 2100 is projected to be approximately 9,400 acre-feet. The municipal providers in La Paz County have access to mainstem Colorado River water supplies as well as groundwater in sufficient quantities to serve this level of municipal demand, and greater, in the future. As for Apache and Navajo counties, the vast majority of the municipal providers in both counties withdraw groundwater from the C-aquifer, a very large aquifer that covers most of the northwest part of the state and has a very extensive area from which it is recharged. Additionally, in both counties, there are sufficient surface water supplies that could be converted or transferred for use in the municipal sector. We believe these supplies will eventually be used to supplement the groundwater sources and consequently sufficient water should be available in these counties to serve the projected municipal demands through 2100. The remaining counties, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Maricopa, Mohave, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Yavapai, however, warrant a more detailed analysis of supplies and demands given their significant projected population growth and/or their projected limited water supplies. In fact, in three of these counties (Cochise, Mohave and Yavapai) there is significant concern today about whether sufficient water exists to serve the soaring population growth. The Appendix shows the projected municipal water supplies and demands in these nine counties from 2020 to 2100 in table and graph form. A summary of these results are shown in Table 7. 38. There is some uncertainty regarding the supplies available for Indian municipal demands in these counties; however, we believe a portion of the Indian CAP supplies, the Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District water acquired by the Hopi Tribe, and groundwater from the C-, N-, and alluvial aquifers will be sufficient to meet the Tribes’ long-term municipal demands. Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 65 Water Resources Development Commission 2007] CONSORTIUM 275 Quantity of Surplus or (Deficit) in acre-feet County 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 Cochise (14,443) (14,901) (15,785) (19,685) (23,585) Coconino (18,694) (22,788) (23,319) (26,097) (28,876) Gila (5,576) (7,033) (7,262) (8,451) (9,641) Maricopa 128,889 (166,693) (213,556) (390,716) (617,875) Mohave 8,570 4,753 3,353 (9,888) (23,129) Pima 81,179 72,450 43,361 14,675 (14,011) Pinal 22,385 (61,280) (94,145) (160,861) (252,579) Santa Cruz 4,303 6,377 10,587 8,664 6,742 Yavapai (9,972) (19,824) (17,945) (24,282) (33,118) Total 196,641 (208,939) (314,711) (616,641) (996,072) Table 7. Projected surplus or deficit in renewable water supplies available to serve projected municipal water demands. The projections show that a significant supply deficit exists in Cochise, Coconino, Gila, and Yavapai counties beginning in 2020 and continuing in to the future. These significant deficits exist for several reasons. First, except for Yavapai County,39 the amount of groundwater available in each of these counties has been limited to the estimated amount of incidental recharge occurring from the overall use of water in the municipal sector for that county. These amounts are less than what is currently being withdrawn in these counties for municipal use. However, in the major growth areas of each of these counties, there is presently a concern about the long-term sustainability of the region’s groundwater supply. In parts of Coconino and Gila counties (Flagstaff, Williams, Payson, Pine, and Strawberry), the concern is primarily a matter of the physical sustainability of the area’s groundwater supply, while in Cochise and Yavapai counties the concern relates to the legal availability of groundwater because much of the groundwater along the San Pedro River in Cochise County and the Verde River and its tributaries in Yavapai County is interconnected with surface water. The relatively small amount of in-state surface water rights in these counties is another factor that affects the amount of the deficit. In each of these counties the projected amount of in-state surface water is less than 50% of the 39. In Yavapai County we have assumed additional groundwater pumping from the Big Chino Valley for importation into the Prescott AMA, and additional groundwater pumping in the Prescott AMA and Verde Valley equivalent to their current levels of groundwater pumping. 66 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission 276 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW [VOL. 49:257 long-term municipal demand, and in most counties it is less than 30% (see Appendix). Additionally, only one of the municipal providers operating in these counties has an allocation of Colorado River water.40 As a result, the long-term municipal demand in these counties is projected to greatly exceed the available renewable supply. In Maricopa and Pinal counties the projections show that a sufficient water supply exists to serve the estimated municipal demand through 2020. However, in future years, the supply is anticipated to fall below the projected municipal demand. By 2100, the county municipal water supply deficits are substantial: Maricopa County (24% of total annual demand; approximately 620,000 acre-feet/year) and Pinal County (46% of total annual demand; approximately 252,000 acre-feet per year). The projections for Pima County show that sufficient supplies exist through 2080, but by 2100 the municipal demand exceeds the supply by about 3% (14,000 acre-feet/year). In Mohave County, the projections show that the renewable water supplies are nearly equivalent to the estimated municipal demand prior to 2060.41 However, after 2060 the municipal demand is projected to be greater than the supply and by 2100 the supply shortfall is projected to be approximately 23,000 acre-feet per year or about 17% of the County’s municipal water demand. Lastly, the projections for Santa Cruz County show that sufficient renewable water supplies exist in the county to serve the future municipal demands. Most of the available supply is surface water from the Santa Cruz River. Again, the water demand projections used in this analysis are based on population projections and current estimated municipal water provider GPCD rates. In terms of water supplies, the projections consider (1) the changes in the allocations of CAP water embodied in the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004, (2) the limitations on groundwater use in AMAs and apply these principles to counties outside of AMAs where water supply and demand concerns are currently an issue because of population growth (Coconino, Cochise, Gila, Mohave, and Yavapai counties), (3) reasonable assumptions concerning the change in use and location of use of surface water rights currently used for agricultural purposes, and (4) that a full supply of in-state surface water and Colorado River water will be available for use every year. On this last point, however, we know that Arizona’s watersheds and those in the Colorado River Basin are subject to severe and extensive droughts. This is of particular concern for the CAP supply (including a portion of the mainstem Colorado River entitlement) because it is currently regarded as the most junior water entitlement on the Colorado River. While it is difficult to predict the severity of future droughts, Arizona has attempted to plan for shortages in the CAP supply by storing surplus CAP water in underground storage projects for future 40. Brooke Utilities, which operates two small water companies in Pine and Strawberry, has an allocation of 106 acre-feet of CAP water. 41. Of interest, the vast majority of the non-Indian renewable water supplies in Mohave County are mainstem Colorado River entitlements under contract to municipal providers along the Colorado River. Municipal providers who serve the planned high growth areas near Kingman currently do not have Colorado River entitlements. Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 67 Water Resources Development Commission 2007] CONSORTIUM 277 withdrawal. However, even with the water storage program, given the recent research on drought cycles in the Colorado River Basin and the potential for increased water development in the upper Colorado River Basin, there remains some uncertainty about the quantity of CAP water that will be available to Arizona in the long-term. This concern exists for Arizona’s in-state surface water sources as well. While Arizona has specifically planned for supplementing its CAP supplies during shortage years, there is no specific plan in place to augment Arizona’s in-state surface water supplies during extended drought periods. Consequently, the actual water supply deficits could be even more severe than projected in this analysis. In summary, given the assumptions described above, the projections show that in Arizona’s most populous counties there may not be sufficient renewable water supplies to supply the projected municipal water demand beginning as early as 2020. In some counties, the supply deficits are substantial relative to the size of the projected county municipal demand (Coconino, Cochise, Gila, Mohave, and Yavapai counties), while in others the deficits are substantial in terms of overall magnitude (Maricopa and Pinal counties). The total volume of deficit is projected to be 1,000,000 acre-feet per year by 2100. Again, these projections assume that a full supply of surface water is available every year. If the long-term availability of CAP water and the Arizona in-state surface water supplies are negatively impacted by drought and the effects of climate change, and the state’s projected population continues as it has historically, the deficit between the water supply and the water demand could be even higher. While additional conservation and increased groundwater pumping might be acceptable solutions to offset these deficits in the short-term, they are not sustainable in the long-term. In order for Arizona to sustain its projected population in the future, the state will need to significantly augment its water supplies. VI. WATER AUGMENTATION OPTIONS FOR ARIZONA There are essentially two approaches that Arizona could pursue to augment the water supplies used in the eight counties projected to have insufficient renewable water supplies to serve the municipal water demand (“Eight County Area”). One approach would be to identify other supplies in Arizona that could be used for municipal purposes but have not been considered for this use in this analysis (“in-state options”). The other approach would be for Arizona to acquire a water supply from outside the state (“out-of-state options”). In this case the supply could be transferred and delivered directly to the state or it could be delivered to another water user in exchange for a commensurate amount of water delivered to Arizona. A. In-State Options There are two in-state options that could reasonably be considered to augment the water supplies used in the Eight County Area. One option would be to increase the percentage of effluent that could be reclaimed and used by municipal providers for drinking water purposes. Currently, less than 10% of the effluent produced in Arizona is reclaimed and used for drinking water purposes. The 68 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission 278 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW [VOL. 49:257 analysis in this Article assumes that up until 2040, 25% of the effluent produced would be reclaimed and used by municipal providers for drinking water, and after 2040, 50% of the effluent would be reclaimed and used for drinking water. If these rates were increased by an additional 25%, the overall deficit for these counties would be reduced by 75,000 acre-feet in 2040 and by 200,000 to 300,000 acre-feet between 2060 and 2100. If these rates were increased by an additional 50% (assumes 100% of the reclaimed water would be used for drinking water after 2040) the overall deficit would be reduced by 175,000 acre-feet in 2040 and by 450,000 to 550,000 acre-feet between 2060 and 2100. The vast majority of the deficit reductions would occur in Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties. While increased use of reclaimed water for drinking water purposes would reduce the supply deficit, it would not eliminate it entirely. More importantly, however, it is highly unlikely that 100% of the effluent produced in the Eight County Area could actually be reclaimed and used for drinking water purposes. Currently the vast majority of reclaimed water is distributed for agricultural and industrial uses, and as a supply for turf and plants in residential, commercial, and municipal landscaping. In the future, there are likely to be more opportunities to use reclaimed water as a drinking water source through underground recharge and recovery programs. Even so, it is improbable that reclaimed water currently used for existing industrial and landscaping uses will cease or that all of the reclaimed water produced in the future will be used entirely for drinking water. Reclaimed water will continue to be used for agricultural, industrial, and fish and wildlife uses in certain areas of Arizona. Residents of Arizona are likely to expect that turf and other landscaping amenities will continue to be included as part of common areas and open space for residential, commercial, and municipal land developments. These uses would presumably continue to be irrigated with reclaimed water rather than other sources. Furthermore, more expansive landscaping may prove necessary to counteract the heat island effect associated with higher density and more expansive urbanization that will arise with the projected significant population growth within the Arizona Sun Corridor. Additionally, it is reasonable to expect that a portion of the reclaimed water stored underground will be used to firm in-state surface water supplies affected by drought. Consequently, greater use of reclaimed water alone will not provide a long-term solution to the water supply shortfall affecting the Eight County Area. The other in-state option that could be considered to address the water supply shortfall would involve the acquisition of rights to Colorado River entitlements (CAP and/or mainstem entitlements) and the delivery of that water to the Eight County Area. For purposes of this paper it is estimated that an additional 25,000 acre-feet of CAP water would be leased from Indian Tribes on a long-term basis (e.g., 100 years or more), which would be enough to satisfy the state’s assured water supply requirements. This would bring the total amount of CAP water leased under long-term contracts to 179,000 acre-feet or about 27% of the Indian supply. Indian tribes may actually lease more than the 25,000 acre-feet in the future; however, the leases may be shorter in duration to accommodate the Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 69 Water Resources Development Commission 2007] CONSORTIUM 279 tribes’ needs to eventually use CAP water on their reservations for various economic development purposes. Accordingly, the future leases of Indian CAP water would not provide a sufficient amount of water to address the water supply shortfall on a long-term basis. Future Indian CAP leases would, however, provide another option to firm municipal surface water supplies used in the Eight County Area. In terms of mainstem Colorado River entitlements, for the purposes of this paper, it is assumed that none of these supplies would be transferred on a longterm basis for use by municipal water providers in the Eight County Area. The legal authority to transfer mainstem Indian entitlements away from the reservations is unclear, although more definitive authority may be established in the future. The arrangement under which mainstem Indian entitlements would be considered for “transfer” to municipal providers in central Arizona would likely come under a forbearance agreement. A forbearance arrangement would not actually be a permanent transfer, but simply an arrangement for one entity to discontinue use of its legal entitlement to water for a period of time while another entity uses it. Under the arrangement, the municipal provider would obtain access to the water and, assuming an arrangement could be made with CAP, have the water delivered into central Arizona. However, some of the complex legal issues associated with the “out-ofwatershed” transfer of agricultural water from in-state sources may limit the extent to which mainstem Colorado River entitlements are used in central Arizona. For example, in a time of drought, when CAP entitlement holders would normally be authorized to receive a portion of any unused mainstem Indian entitlements, those holders are likely to adamantly object if the water is unavailable to them because of a forbearance arrangement that resulted in the water going to a non-CAP contract user. In anticipation of such problems, it is likely that any forbearance arrangement would contain provisions that required the user of the Indian entitlement to possibly relinquish the use of the water during times of drought. Consequently, most, if not all, mainstem Colorado River forbearance arrangements would not be reliable to sustain future municipal uses in the long-term. However, these arrangements would be useful to firm Arizona’s junior priority Colorado River entitlement and its in-state surface water supplies. In terms of non-Indian mainstem entitlements, there is likely to be significant resistance to permanently transferring these supplies away from the Colorado River region because they will eventually be used in Yuma, La Paz, and Mohave counties to supply future municipal and industrial demands. Additionally, there are unlikely to be large scale programs to transfer conserved non-Indian agricultural mainstem water to central Arizona because of the same legal impediments discussed above that impact arrangements to forbear Indian mainstem entitlements. Thus, non-Indian mainstem entitlements, whether in whole or in part (conserved water), would not be a dependable solution for the water supply deficit in the Eight County Area. Instead, as with Indian forbearance arrangements, conserved water could serve as a source to firm Arizona’s in-state surface water supplies and its junior priority Colorado River entitlements. 70 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission 280 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW [VOL. 49:257 In summary, each of the in-state options individually is insufficient in volume and in reliability to satisfy Arizona’s long-term water supply needs for the Eight County Area. Collectively, with careful management, these supplies might be able to satisfy a good portion of the water supply shortfall anticipated to occur through 2040. Beyond 2040, Arizona would still require additional water sources from outside the state to satisfy its projected municipal demands. B. Out-of-State Options One out-of-state option Arizona could consider to augment the state’s water supply would be to import water from the Columbia River Basin via the Colorado River Basin. There is a significant amount of water that could be imported from the Columbia River Basin into the Colorado River Basin and a favorable climatic pattern to help support the transfer program. Recent research concerning the location of the Polar Jet Stream and Pacific Ocean water temperatures over the last three decades has shown that when the Pacific Northwest is wet—i.e., has abundant precipitation and runoff—the Southwest is dry, at least during the El Niño/La Niña cycle.42 This research also shows that the converse is true. As a result, a water transfer program that would take water from the Pacific Northwest during wet periods (when abundant water is in the Columbia River system) and deliver that water to the Colorado River system during dry periods (when its vast reservoirs are only partially full) would actually result in a more efficient utilization of water in both river systems. Such a program could significantly improve the reliability of Colorado River water supplies. However, there is a myriad of difficult political, environmental, and legal issues that would have to be overcome to make this option viable. Politically, the Columbia River Basin states have historically been staunchly opposed to allowing any diversion of water out of the Columbia Basin. In fact, when the Colorado River Basin Project Act (Basin Project Act) was authorized, Senator Henry Jackson from Washington led an effort to get a moratorium provision added to the Basin Project Act’s authorizing legislation that prevented the study of whether water from the outside the Colorado River Basin could be used to augment the Colorado River’s supplies. While this moratorium has long expired, the views of political leaders and water, power, and environmental interests from the Columbia River Basin have probably not changed. Furthermore, over the last decade, environmental issues associated with the preservation of salmon indigenous to the Columbia River system have placed additional constraints on the use of water in the Columbia River Basin. These constraints are focused on limiting diversions in order to provide more free flowing water in the Columbia River system. As a result, any plan to take water from the Columbia River Basin would now face significant environmental hurdles. 42. See Kelly T. Redmond & Roy W. Koch, Surface Climate and Streamflow Variability in the Western United States and Their Relationship to Large-Scale Circulation Indices, 27 WATER RESOURCES RES. 2381 (1991); Earth System Research Laboratory, Composite ENSO, http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/ENSO/enso.comp.html (last visited Apr. 14, 2007); ENSO Composite U.S. Temperature and Precipitation, http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/ ENSO/enso.comp.std.html (last visited Apr. 14, 2007). Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 71 Water Resources Development Commission 2007] CONSORTIUM 281 Even assuming the political and environmental issues could be addressed, questions would remain about the extent to which Arizona could gain sufficient water from the Columbia River Basin to satisfy its long-term water needs. Central to this uncertainty would be the structure of a compact among the Columbia River Basin states and Colorado River Basin states. Given Arizona’s projected population and limited renewable water supplies compared to other Colorado River Basin states, Arizona’s long-term water deficit is likely much more significant than those of any other Colorado River Basin state. Moreover, given its limited long-term Colorado River supply (its largest Colorado River allocation, CAP water, is currently regarded as the most junior supply on the Colorado River system), Arizona would need a disproportionately larger quantity of water from the Columbia River system than the other states. Arizona’s demand for a proportionately larger allocation of Columbia River Basin water would also likely require it to assume a proportionately larger risk, and cost, associated with the diversion and use of water from the Columbia River system. In summary, the complexity of developing a multi-basin state compact would require a significant negotiation effort among the states. Based on the history of negotiations among the Colorado River Basin states, it is uncertain whether a compact could be reached that would be satisfactory to Arizona. Given all of these factors, it is highly unlikely that Arizona could rely on imported water from the Columbia River Basin to satisfy its long-term water needs. However, a narrowly focused importation program that would take water from the Columbia River during wet periods in the Pacific Northwest when sufficient water was available for both salmon and importation might provide a good solution for the Colorado River Basin states to firm their supplies during drought periods. Another option that could potentially provide Arizona with access to a significant quantity of renewable water would be an exchange arrangement with California involving Pacific Ocean water and Colorado River water. Under this proposal, Arizona would develop a freshwater supply by desalinating Pacific Ocean water for delivery to California—Metropolitan Water District (“MWD”) and San Diego County Water Authority (“SDCWA”)—in exchange for a portion of California’s Colorado River entitlement. Arizona could potentially gain access to as much as 1,000,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water if it could provide a full replacement supply to MWD and SDCWA for their current and recently proposed Colorado River supplies, and also incorporate into the exchange additional quantities of conserved water that MWD and SDCWA are both contemplating developing in the future. The advantages of this proposal are that it is a relatively straightforward concept, it would produce a drought-proof water supply for exchange with California, and it would not impact other states with Colorado River allocations. The potential limitations of this concept are the feasibility of desalinating 1,000,000 acre-feet of ocean water per year along the southern California coast as a supply source to exchange with Arizona, and the interest of California to do the exchange. With respect to the former, at the present time southern California water interests are contemplating developing eight desalination plants with the combined 72 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission 282 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW [VOL. 49:257 capacity to produce nearly 336,000 acre-feet of freshwater per year.43 However, one of the more significant issues that must be addressed in the desalination planning process in California is finding acceptable sites for desalination plants. While the current proposed plants appear to be located in suitable areas, given the interests of southern Californians to preserve their ocean front properties, it may be very difficult to find acceptable locations in the future, especially if the plant is designed to produce water to trade with Arizona. The latter issue, however, is even more problematic. California’s current interest in developing desalination plants along its coastline stems from its immediate need to develop additional water supplies for its growing population, to improve the reliability of its existing water supplies, and to provide water for environmental uses.44 Arizona’s need for additional water is still many years away. Consequently, it is likely that by the time Arizona is prepared to trade desalinated water for a portion of California’s Colorado River entitlement, California will have very little interest in trading because it will have already developed the sites to desalinate seawater along its coastline for its own needs. Additionally, to serve its future population, California will likely develop more plants or expand existing facilities on its own, rather than allowing Arizona to develop or expand plants to trade desalinated water with California for Colorado River water. Lastly, there are no indications that MWD will be interested in shutting down its Colorado River water delivery system to accommodate Arizona’s need for additional water via an exchange for desalinated water. A more promising and farsighted alternative to explore for developing a new source of renewable water would be an exchange of desalinated water with Mexico. Under this arrangement—an Arizona-Mexico Water Augmentation Consortium (“Consortium”)—Arizona, working with the United States and Mexico, would desalinate seawater from the Gulf of California and provide the freshwater to Mexico in exchange for Mexico’s allocation of Colorado River water. Currently, the majority of Mexico’s Colorado River water is used for agricultural purposes. Depending on the location of the desalination plants and the infrastructure to deliver water to Mexico’s agricultural areas, the Consortium could be expanded by exchanging additional desalinated water with California agricultural water users for a portion of their Colorado River entitlements. The Consortium has multiple advantages over other options. Like the Arizona and California water exchange, it is a straightforward alternative that would produce a drought-proof water supply without impacting other Colorado River Basin states. However, unlike California, Mexico would likely have a significant interest in working with the United States and Arizona to facilitate development of desalination plants in the region. Mexico has a strong interest in improving the quality of water used in northern Mexico. At present the quality of Colorado River water provided by the United States to Mexico is a serious concern 43. See HEATHER COOLEY, PETER H. GLEICK & GARY WOLFF, PAC. INST., DESALINATION, WITH A GRAIN OF SALT: A CALIFORNIA PERSPECTIVE 35 (2006). 44. See id. at 2. Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 73 Water Resources Development Commission 2007] CONSORTIUM 283 to Mexico because it adversely impacts farming in northern Mexico. 45 Under this exchange arrangement Mexico would receive better quality water than it now receives from the United States. Another advantage of the exchange is that it would provide Mexico with an opportunity to develop a new source of drinking water for northern Sonora and possibly northern Baja California. In these areas of Mexico, there is a significant need for additional drinking water supplies.46 By working jointly with Mexico, Arizona and the United States could help Mexico solve this critical problem. Still another benefit of the Consortium would be the potential for further regional economic development for Arizona and Mexico. The potential limitation of this desalination/water exchange arrangement is the feasibility of desalinating sufficient freshwater to exchange with Mexico to meet Arizona’s long-term municipal water supply needs. One of the frequent criticisms of desalinating seawater is that it costs more to produce when compared to the costs of existing drinking water supplies. Many factors influence the cost of desalinating seawater to produce freshwater, including (1) plant capacity, (2) feed water quality, (3) pretreatment needs, (4) the type of desalination process, (5) the energy supply, and (6) financing costs.47 In general, because of economies of scale and assuming all factors being equal, larger plants tend to be less expensive to operate than smaller plants.48 With current reverse osmosis technologies, reported costs per acre-foot for smaller plants (<1 million gallons per day or 1,000 acre-feet per year) typically exceed $1,800 per acre-foot, while larger-size plants (>10 million gallons per day or 11,000 acre-feet per year) range from $500 to $1,200 per acre-foot.49 The single largest cost component associated with the desalination process is the cost of energy. By co-locating a power plant and a desalination plant the energy cost for treating seawater would decrease significantly. Additionally, as new treatment technologies are developed, the overall cost to desalinate seawater is expected to decrease even further.50 The cost of desalinating seawater to agricultural use standards is expected to be lower still. While desalinated seawater is more costly than existing drinking water supplies, it is important to remember that the cost of current drinking water supplies are relatively low because they are derived from water sources secured more than 50 to 100 years ago. Given the limited availability of renewable water supplies in the Southwest and the environmental constraints associated with developing those supplies further, the costs for water produced from the next 45. See U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program—Overview, http://www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/crwq.html (last visited March 29, 2007). 46. Dennis Small & Paul Gallagher, Produce Water, or Fight Over It, Is the Real Issue in the West, EXEC. INTELL. REV., Oct. 15, 2004, at 53. 47. SHAHID CHAUDHRY, CAL. ENERGY COMM’N, UNIT COST OF DESALINATION 2, available at http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/recycle/desal/Docs/UnitCostofDesalination.doc (last visited Apr. 25, 2007) (report on meeting with Metropolitan Water District). 48. Id. 49. Id. at 4–5; Shahid Chaudhry, Unit Cost of Desalination 2 (July 30, 2003), available at http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/recycle/desal/Docs/UnitCostDesalination.pdf. 50. See COOLEY ET AL., supra note 43, at 44–45. 74 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission 284 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW [VOL. 49:257 generation of water sources are undoubtedly going to be much greater than current water costs. In effect, Arizona and other southwestern states have already picked the “low-hanging fruit” when it comes to water supplies. In the future, we all will have to go “higher in the tree” for our drinking water supplies. Another area of criticism regarding desalinated water technology is the environmental concern relating to the disposal of the salt brine generated from the desalination process and the possible impingement and entrainment of marine organisms in a desalination plant’s intake pipes.51 While these issues have been mentioned by opponents of desalination plants, there has not been significant research on either issue to fully understand how much they impact the environment, if at all, and further, how the impacts, if any, might be monitored and mitigated. On the other hand, there are several potential environmental benefits to desalinating seawater from the Gulf of California. As discussed previously, under this proposal, the desalinated water would significantly improve the quality of water being used in Mexico for farming. This water is also used for various domestic uses and consequently would be a significant improvement for those uses as well. Additionally, some of the desalinated water could be used to replace the poor quality water being delivered to the Cienega de Santa Clara wetlands. This could improve the wetlands ecosystem and provide the wetlands with a more reliable, consistent quality water supply. In summary, each of the out-of-state options could potentially produce a significant amount of water for Arizona to use to serve the state’s projected population in the long-term. There are advantages and disadvantages of each alternative; however, the Arizona-Mexico Water Augmentation Consortium may be the most viable. While this alternative appears promising, there are still significant economic and environmental feasibility issues that need to be addressed. Fortunately, Arizona has some time to evaluate these issues to determine whether a consortium with Mexico could work. VII. CONCLUSION Because of foresight and planning by Arizona’s past leaders, the quantity of renewable water supplies, including renewable groundwater, across most of Arizona is sufficient to sustain the current population.52 Within twenty years, however, assuming Arizona’s population growth continues as projected, the municipal water demand in most counties of the state will reach or exceed the limit of the available renewable water supplies. Increased levels of water conservation and reuse of reclaimed water, together with increased groundwater pumping and 51. Id. at 6. 52. There are a few locations in several counties—all rural, with increasing population, limited in-state surface water sources, and no current access to Colorado River water—where the currently available renewable water supplies are insufficient to supply the current population. In these areas, municipal providers are pumping groundwater at rates that exceed recharge to make up the shortfall in renewable water sources. In order for these areas to continue to serve their projected population, they will need to obtain additional renewable water supplies in the very near future. Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 75 Water Resources Development Commission 2007] CONSORTIUM 285 some agricultural-to-urban water transfers, will provide a short-term solution to offset the renewable water supply deficit. In the long-term, however, Arizona will need to identify and implement a permanent solution to augment the state’s renewable water supplies to sustain its anticipated long-term population. Similar to the state’s requirements for municipal providers in AMAs, the state’s solution should provide its citizens with an assured water supply for one hundred years or more. Given the state’s potential population growth over the next century, Arizona could need as much as 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 acre-feet of additional water. As might be expected, the alternatives available for developing up to 1,500,000 acre-feet of water over the next one hundred years are limited. The various in-state options include greater use of reclaimed water and transfers of agricultural water rights to urban areas for municipal use. As noted earlier, these options provide a good solution for bridging the renewable water supply shortfall in the short-term, but they are insufficient to sustain the expected municipal demand in the long-term. The out-of-state options include transferring water from the Columbia River Basin into the Colorado River Basin, and trading desalinated ocean water for Colorado River water with either California or Mexico. While importation of Columbia River water could be helpful in firming Colorado River supplies during drought periods, the political, environmental, and legal issues associated with such a transfer are extremely complex, making this option impractical as a long-term solution to augment Arizona’s water supplies. The seawater desalination/water exchange options are more straightforward to implement and would produce a drought-proof water supply. Unfortunately, California’s own long-term water needs and the limited desalination sites along southern California’s coastline make an exchange of desalinated seawater by Arizona for California Colorado River water unworkable. On the other hand, Mexico’s interest in obtaining a better water supply for its agricultural uses and its own needs for drinking water supplies make it a more suitable partner for Arizona to trade for additional Colorado River supplies. While there are questions about the feasibility of desalinating the quantity of water needed by Arizona over the next one hundred years, Arizona and Mexico have time to explore the options and to determine the most feasible method to accomplish the exchange. Additionally, the technology and costs of producing freshwater from seawater, and the methods of minimizing or mitigating environmental concerns, are likely to improve significantly in the near future, and in the long-term, as the interest in desalinating seawater continues to grow and grow. Even though Arizona has time to prepare for its future water needs, past experience shows that large water supply projects, e.g. the CAP, take many years to plan and develop. Accomplishing an exchange with Mexico using desalinated water from the Gulf of Mexico will require a concerted, coordinated effort among Arizona, Mexico, and the United States. The Arizona–Mexico Commission, chaired by the Governors of Arizona and Sonora, Mexico, could provide the forum to initiate these discussions. Concurrently, Arizona will need to identify a method for planning the project—including financing, construction, and management. Given the projected widespread need for water across most of Arizona and the importance of such a program to the state’s future, the best approach might be the 76 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission 286 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW [VOL. 49:257 creation of an Arizona Water Authority to oversee Arizona’s portion of the Consortium. Such an authority would be governed by qualified water resource engineering and business leaders appointed by the Governor and would need broad-based authority to perform all of the necessary functions to deliver water to municipal water providers within Arizona. Today’s Arizonans are the beneficiaries of the vision and thoughtful planning of past leaders. Arizona is one of the fastest growing states in the country. Its climate provides a relatively easy lifestyle and its low risk of natural disasters make it a very desirable place for people to make it home—on both a temporary and permanent basis. To ensure that the quality of life enjoyed by its citizens today is preserved for future generations, Arizona’s current leaders must begin to plan for the development of additional water supplies. Finance Working Group Report / Appendix B / August 2011 77 Water Resources Development Commission APPENDIX C LEGISLATION AND STATUTES 78 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix C / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission State of Arizona House of Representatives Forty-eighth Legislature First Regular Session 2007 HOUSE BILL 2692 AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 41-3014.06, 49-1201, 49-1202, 49-1203, 49-1261, 49-1263, 49-1264, 49-1265 AND 49-1267, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF TITLE 49, CHAPTER 8, ARTICLE 2, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, TO “CLEAN WATER REVOLVING FUND, DRINKING WATER REVOLVING FUND AND HARDSHIP GRANT FUND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS”; AMENDING TITLE 49, CHAPTER 8, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES. BY ADDING ARTICLE 3; RELATING TO THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE PROGRAM; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONAL ENACTMENT. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: Section 1. Section 41-3014.06, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 41-3014.06. Water infrastructure finance authority; termination July 1, 2014 A. The water infrastructure finance authority terminates on July 1, 2014. B. Sections 49-1201 through 49-1204, 49-1224 through 49-1226, 49-1244, 49-1245, 49-1246, and 49-1261 through 49-1268 49-1269 AND 49-1274 THROUGH 49-1282 are repealed on January 1, 2015, if the authority: 1. Has no outstanding contractual obligations with the United States or any United States agency. 2. Has no debts, obligations or guarantees that were issued for the purposes of title 49, chapter 8. 3. Has otherwise provided for paying or retiring such debts or obligations. C. If any debt or obligation listed in subsection B of this section exists and no satisfactory provision has been made to pay or retire the debt or obligation, the authority and statutes shall continue in existence until the debt or obligation is fully satisfied. Sec. 2. Section 49-1201, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 49-1201. Definitions In this article CHAPTER, unless the context otherwise requires: 1. “Authority” means the water infrastructure finance authority of Arizona. 2. “Board” means the board of directors of the authority. 3. “Bonds of a political subdivision” means bonds issued by a political subdivision as authorized by law. 4. “Clean water act” means the federal water pollution control act amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500; 86 Stat. 816), as amended by the water quality act of 1987 (P.L. 100-4; 101 Stat. 7). 5. “COMMITTEE” MEANS THE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT FUND COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 49-1202, SUBSECTION B. 5. 6. “Drinking water facility” means a community water system or a nonprofit noncommunity water system as defined in the safe drinking water act (P.L. 93-523; 88 Stat. 1660; P.L. 95-190; 91 Stat. 1393; P.L. 104-182; 110 Stat. 1613) that is located in this state. For purposes of this article, drinking water facility does not include water systems owned by federal agencies. 6. 7. “Financial assistance loan repayment agreement” means an agreement to repay a loan provided to design, construct, acquire, rehabilitate or improve water or wastewater infrastructure, related property and appurtenances OR A LOAN PROVIDED TO FINANCE A WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. 7. 8. “Indian tribe” means any Indian tribe, band, group or community that is recognized by the United States secretary of the interior and that exercises governmental authority within the limits of any Indian reservation Finance Working Group Report / Appendix C / August 2011 79 Water Resources Development Commission under the jurisdiction of the United States government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent and including rights-of-way running through the reservation. 8. 9. “Nonpoint source project” means a project designed to implement a certified water quality management plan. 9. 10. “Political subdivision” means a county, city, town or special taxing district authorized by law to construct wastewater treatment facilities, drinking water facilities or nonpoint source projects. 10. 11. “Safe drinking water act” means the federal safe drinking water act (P.L. 93-523; 88 Stat. 1660; P.L. 95190; 91 Stat. 1393; P.L. 104-182; 110 Stat. 1613), as amended in 1996. 11. 12. “Technical assistance loan repayment agreement” means EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING: (a) An agreement to repay a loan provided to develop, plan and design water or wastewater infrastructure, related property and appurtenances. The agreement shall be for a term of not more than three years and the maximum amount that may be borrowed is limited to not more than five hundred thousand dollars. (b) AN AGREEMENT TO REPAY A LOAN PROVIDED TO DEVELOP, PLAN OR DESIGN A WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. 12. 13. “Wastewater treatment facility” means a treatment works, as defined in section 212 of the clean water act, that is located in this state and that is designed to hold, cleanse or purify or to prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other polluted waters for purposes of complying with the clean water act. 14. “WATER PROVIDER” MEANS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: (a) A MUNICIPAL WATER DELIVERY SYSTEM AS DEFINED IN SECTION 42-5301, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 3. (b) A MUNICIPAL WATER DELIVERY SYSTEM AS DEFINED IN SECTION 42-5301, PARAGRAPH 2, WHICH HAS ENTERED INTO A PARTNERSHIP WITH A CITY, TOWN OR COUNTY FOR A WATER SUPPLY AUGMENTATION PLAN. (c) A COUNTY WATER AUGMENTATION AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED UNDER TITLE 45, CHAPTER 11. (d) A COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED UNDER TITLE 45, CHAPTER 13. (e) AN INDIAN TRIBE. (f) A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT AS ESTABLISHED BY TITLE 48, CHAPTER 4. 15. “WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT” MEANS EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING: (a) THE ACQUISITION OF WATER OR RIGHTS TO OR CONTRACTS FOR WATER TO AUGMENT THE WATER SUPPLY OF A WATER PROVIDER. (b) THE DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: (i) CONVEYANCE, STORAGE OR RECOVERY OF WATER. (ii) RECLAMATION AND REUSE OF WATER. (iii) REPLENISHMENT OF GROUNDWATER. Sec. 3. Section 49-1202, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 49-1202. Water infrastructure finance authority of Arizona; board; water supply development fund committee; violation; classification A. The water infrastructure finance authority of Arizona is established. A board of directors shall govern the authority. The board of directors consists of: 1. The director of environmental quality, or the director’s representative, who serves as chairman. 2. The director of the department of commerce or the director’s representative. 3. The state treasurer or the treasurer’s representative. 4. One member WHO IS appointed by the governor to represent municipalities with populations of fifty thousand persons or more according to the most recent United States decennial census. 5. One member WHO IS appointed by the governor to represent municipalities with populations of less than 80 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix C / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission fifty thousand persons from a county with a population of less than five hundred thousand persons according to the most recent United States decennial census. 6. One member WHO IS appointed by the governor to represent counties with populations of five hundred thousand persons or more according to the most recent United States decennial census. 7. One member WHO IS appointed by the governor to represent sanitary districts in counties with populations of less than five hundred thousand persons according to the most recent United States decennial census. 8. The director of water resources or the director’s representative. 9. The chairman of the Arizona corporation commission or the chairman’s representative. 10. One member WHO IS appointed by the governor from a public water system that serves five hundred persons or more. 11. One member WHO IS appointed by the governor from a public water system that serves fewer than five hundred persons. 12. One member WHO IS appointed by the governor to represent Indian tribes. B. THE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT FUND COMMITTEE OF THE AUTHORITY IS ESTABLISHED. THE COMMITTEE CONSISTS OF: 1. THE DIRECTOR OF WATER RESOURCES, OR THE DIRECTOR’S REPRESENTATIVE, WHO SERVES AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMITTEE. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, OR THE DIRECTOR’S REPRESENTATIVE, WHO SERVES AS VICE CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMITTEE. 3. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OR THE CHAIRMAN’S REPRESENTATIVE. 4. THE STATE TREASURER OR THE TREASURER’S REPRESENTATIVE. 5. ONE MEMBER WHO IS APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR TO REPRESENT MUNICIPALITIES WITH POPULATIONS OF FIFTY THOUSAND PERSONS OR MORE BUT LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PERSONS. 6. ONE MEMBER WHO IS APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR TO REPRESENT MUNICIPALITIES WITH POPULATIONS OF LESS THAN FIFTY THOUSAND PERSONS FROM A COUNTY WITH A POPULATION OF LESS THAN FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PERSONS. 7. ONE MEMBER WHO IS APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR TO REPRESENT COUNTIES WITH POPULATIONS OF LESS THAN TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PERSONS. 8. ONE MEMBER WHO IS APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR TO REPRESENT COUNTIES WITH POPULATIONS OF TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PERSONS OR MORE BUT LESS THAN ONE MILLION PERSONS. 9. ONE MEMBER WHO IS APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR TO REPRESENT COUNTIES WITH POPULATIONS OF ONE MILLION PERSONS OR MORE. 10. ONE MEMBER WHO IS APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR TO REPRESENT CITIES WITH POPULATIONS OF MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PERSONS IN COUNTIES WITH POPULATIONS OF MORE THAN ONE MILLION PERSONS. 11. ONE MEMBER WHO IS APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR FROM A PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION THAT SERVES ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY PERSONS OR MORE. 12. ONE MEMBER WHO IS APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR FROM A PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM THAT SERVES FEWER THAN ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY PERSONS. 13. ONE MEMBER WHO IS APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR TO REPRESENT INDIAN TRIBES. B. C. Members OF THE BOARD AND THE COMMITTEE WHO ARE appointed by the governor serve at the governor’s pleasure and serve staggered five year terms. Members of the board AND THE COMMITTEE are not eligible to receive compensation for their services but are eligible for reimbursement for travel and other expenses pursuant to title 38, chapter 4, article 2. Members of the board AND THE COMMITTEE are public officers for purposes of title 38, and the authority is a AND THE COMMITTEE ARE public body BODIES for Finance Working Group Report / Appendix C / August 2011 81 Water Resources Development Commission purposes of title 38, chapter 3, article 3.1. C. D. Members of the board shall not have any direct or indirect personal financial interest in any clean water or drinking water project financed under this article. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE SHALL NOT HAVE ANY DIRECT OR INDIRECT PERSONAL FINANCIAL INTEREST IN ANY WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FINANCED UNDER THIS ARTICLE. For THE purposes of this subsection, a member of the board OR THE COMMITTEE who is a full-time employee of a participant in or applicant for a loan does not have a direct or indirect personal financial interest in a project. A violation of this subsection is a class 1 misdemeanor. D. E. The department of environmental quality shall provide clerical support and office and meeting space to the board. F. THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES SHALL PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE COMMITTEE AS REQUESTED BY THE COMMITTEE. Sec. 4. Section 49-1203, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 49-1203. Powers and duties of authority; definition A. The authority is a corporate and politic body and shall have an official seal that shall be judicially noticed. The authority may sue and be sued, contract and acquire, hold, operate and dispose of property. B. The authority, through its board, may: 1. Issue negotiable water quality bonds pursuant to section 49-1261 for the following purposes: (a) To generate the state match required by the clean water act for the clean water revolving fund and to generate the match required by the safe drinking water act for the drinking water revolving fund. (b) To provide financial assistance to political subdivisions, Indian tribes and eligible drinking water facilities for constructing, acquiring or improving wastewater treatment facilities, drinking water facilities, nonpoint source projects and other related water quality facilities and projects. 2. ISSUE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO WATER PROVIDERS FOR WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 49-1274 AND 49-1275. 2. 3. Provide financial assistance to political subdivisions and Indian tribes from monies in the clean water revolving fund to finance wastewater treatment projects. 3. 4. Provide financial assistance to drinking water facilities from monies in the drinking water revolving fund to finance these facilities. 5. PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO WATER PROVIDERS FROM MONIES IN THE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND TO FINANCE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT. 4. 6. Guarantee debt obligations of, and provide linked deposit guarantees through third party lenders to: (a) Political subdivisions that are issued to finance wastewater treatment projects. (b) Drinking water facilities that are issued to finance these facilities. (c) WATER PROVIDERS THAT ARE ISSUED TO FINANCE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. 5. 7. Provide linked deposit guarantees through third party lenders to political subdivisions, and drinking water facilities AND WATER PROVIDERS. 6. 8. Apply for, accept and administer grants and other financial assistance from the United States government and from other public and private sources. 7. 9. Enter into capitalization grant agreements with the United States environmental protection agency. 8. 10. Adopt rules pursuant to title 41, chapter 6 governing the application for and awarding of wastewater treatment facility, drinking water facility and nonpoint source project financial assistance under this article CHAPTER, the administration of the clean water revolving fund and the drinking water revolving fund and the issuance of water quality bonds. 9. 11. Hire a director and staff for the authority. 82 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix C / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission 10. 12. Contract for the services of outside advisors, attorneys, consultants and aides reasonably necessary or desirable to allow the authority to adequately perform its duties. 11. 13. Contract and incur obligations as reasonably necessary or desirable within the general scope of authority activities and operations to allow the authority to adequately perform its duties. 12. 14. Assess financial assistance origination fees and annual fees to cover the reasonable costs of administering the authority and the monies administered by the authority. Any fees collected pursuant to this paragraph constitute governmental revenue and may be used for any purpose consistent with the mission and objectives of the authority. 13. 15. Perform any function of a fund manager under the CERCLA Brownfields cleanup revolving loan fund program as requested by the department. The board shall perform any action authorized under this article on behalf of the Brownfields cleanup revolving loan fund program established pursuant to chapter 2, article 1.1 of this title at the request of the department. In order to perform these functions, the board shall enter into a written agreement with the department. 14. 16. Provide grants, staff assistance or technical assistance in the form of loan repayment agreements and other professional assistance to political subdivisions, any county with a population of less than five hundred thousand persons, Indian tribes and community water systems in connection with the development or financing of wastewater, drinking water, water reclamation or related water infrastructure. Assistance provided under a technical assistance loan repayment agreement shall be in a form and under terms determined by the authority and shall be repaid not more than three years after the date that the monies are advanced to the applicant. The provision of technical assistance by the authority does not create any liability for the authority or this state regarding the design, construction or operation of any infrastructure project. 17. PROVIDE GRANTS, STAFF ASSISTANCE OR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN THE FORM OF LOAN REPAYMENT AGREEMENTS AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE TO WATER PROVIDERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PLANNING OR DESIGN OF WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO SECTION 49-1274. A SINGLE GRANT SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. ASSISTANCE PROVIDED UNDER A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE LOAN REPAYMENT AGREEMENT SHALL BE IN A FORM AND UNDER TERMS DETERMINED BY THE COMMITTEE AND SHALL BE REPAID NOT MORE THAN THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE THAT THE MONIES ARE ADVANCED TO THE APPLICANT. THE PROVISION OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE BY THE AUTHORITY OR THE COMMITTEE DOES NOT CREATE ANY LIABILITY FOR THE AUTHORITY, THE COMMITTEE OR THIS STATE REGARDING THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION OF ANY WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. C. THE AUTHORITY, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMITTEE, MAY: 1. ADOPT RULES PURSUANT TO TITLE 41, CHAPTER 6 GOVERNING THE APPLICATION FOR AND AWARDING OF WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT FUND PROJECT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THIS CHAPTER AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND. 2. APPOINT A TECHNICAL ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE OF NOT MORE THAN FIVE PERSONS WITH EXPERTISE IN WATER RESOURCE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT TO ADVISE THE COMMITTEE REGARDING THE TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. C. D. The board shall deposit, pursuant to sections 35-146 and 35-147, any monies received pursuant to subsection B, paragraph 6 8 of this section in the appropriate fund as prescribed by the grant or other financial assistance agreement. D. E. Disbursements of monies by the water infrastructure finance authority pursuant to a financial assistance agreement are not subject to title 41, chapter 23. E. F. For THE purposes of the safe drinking water act, the department of environmental quality is the state Finance Working Group Report / Appendix C / August 2011 83 Water Resources Development Commission agency with primary responsibility for administration of this state’s public water system supervision program and, in consultation with other appropriate state agencies, is the lead agency in establishing assistance priorities as prescribed by section 49-1243, subsection A, paragraph 6 and section 49-1244, subsection B, paragraph 3. F. G. For THE purposes of this section, “CERCLA” has the same meaning prescribed in section 49-201. Sec. 5. Heading change The article heading of title 49, chapter 8, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, is changed from “FINANCIAL PROVISIONS” to “CLEAN WATER REVOLVING FUND, DRINKING WATER REVOLVING FUND AND HARDSHIP GRANT FUND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS.” Sec. 6. Section 49-1261, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 49-1261. Water quality bonds A. The authority, through the board of directors, may issue negotiable water quality bonds in a principal amount that in its opinion is necessary to provide sufficient monies for financial assistance under this chapter ARTICLE, maintaining sufficient reserves to secure the bonds, to pay the necessary costs of issuing, selling and redeeming the bonds and to pay other expenditures of the authority incidental to and necessary and convenient to carry out the purposes of this article. B. The board must authorize the bonds by resolution. The resolution shall prescribe: 1. The rate or rates of interest and the denominations of the bonds. 2. The date or dates of the bonds and maturity. 3. The coupon or registered form of the bonds. 4. The manner of executing the bonds. 5. The medium and place of payment. 6. The terms of redemption. C. The bonds shall be sold at public or private sale at the price and on the terms determined by the board. All proceeds from the issuance of bonds shall be deposited in the appropriate accounts of the funds administered by the board. D. The board shall publish a notice of its intention to issue bonds under this article for at least five consecutive days in a newspaper published in this state. The last day of publication must be at least ten days before issuing the bonds. The notice shall state the amount of the bonds to be sold and the intended date of issuance. A copy of the notice shall be hand delivered or sent, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the director of the department of administration on or before the last day of publication. E. To secure any bonds authorized by this section, the board by resolution may: 1. Provide that bonds issued under this section may be secured by a first lien on all or part of the monies paid into the appropriate account or subaccount of the funds administered by the authority. 2. Pledge or assign to or in trust for the benefit of the holder or holders of the bonds any part or appropriate account or subaccount of the monies in the funds as is necessary to pay the principal and interest of the bonds as they come due. 3. Set aside, regulate and dispose of reserves and sinking funds. 4. Provide that sufficient amounts of the proceeds from the sale of the bonds may be used to fully or partly fund any reserves or sinking funds set up by the bond resolution. 5. Prescribe the procedure, if any, by which the terms of any contract with bondholders may be amended or abrogated, the amount of bonds the holders of which must consent to and the manner in which consent may be given. 6. Provide for payment from the proceeds of the sale of the bonds of all legal and financial expenses incurred by the board in issuing, selling, delivering and paying the bonds. 7. Do any other matters that in any way may affect the security and protection of the bonds. F. The members of the board or any person executing the bonds are not personally liable for the payment of the 84 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix C / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission bonds. The bonds are valid and binding obligations notwithstanding that before the delivery of the bonds any of the persons whose signatures appear on the bonds cease to be members of the board. From and after the sale and delivery of the bonds, they are incontestable by the board. G. The board, out of any available monies, may purchase bonds, which may be canceled, at a price not exceeding either of the following: 1. If the bonds are then redeemable, the redemption price then applicable plus accrued interest to the next interest payment date. 2. If the bonds are not then redeemable, the redemption price applicable on the first date after purchase on which the bonds become subject to redemption plus accrued interest to that date. Sec. 7. Section 49-1263, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 49-1263. Bond obligations of the authority Bonds issued under this chapter ARTICLE are obligations of the water infrastructure finance authority of Arizona, are payable only according to their terms and are not obligations general, special or otherwise of this state. The bonds do not constitute a legal debt of this state and are not enforceable against this state. Payment of the bonds is not enforceable out of any state monies other than the income and revenue pledged and assigned to, or in trust for the benefit of, the holder or holders of the bonds. Sec. 8. Section 49-1264, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 49-1264. Certification of bonds by attorney general The board may submit any water quality bonds issued under this chapter ARTICLE to the attorney general after all proceedings for their authorization have been completed. On submission the attorney general shall examine and pass on the validity of the bonds and the regularity of the proceedings. If the proceedings comply with this article, and if the attorney general determines that, when delivered and paid for, the bonds will constitute binding and legal obligations of the board, the attorney general shall certify on the back of each bond, in substance, that it is issued according to the constitution and laws of this state. Sec. 9. Section 49-1265, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 49-1265. Water quality bonds as legal investments Water quality bonds issued under this chapter ARTICLE are securities in which public officers and bodies of this state and of municipalities and political subdivisions of this state, all companies, associations and other persons carrying on an insurance business, all financial institutions, investment companies and other persons carrying on a banking business, all fiduciaries and all other persons who are authorized to invest in obligations of this state may properly and legally invest. The bonds are also securities that may be deposited with public officers or bodies of this state and municipalities and political subdivisions of this state for purposes that require the deposit of state bonds or obligations. Sec. 10. Section 49-1267, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 49-1267. Hardship grant fund A. The hardship grant fund is established to be administered by the authority consisting of: 1. Monies received for that purpose from the United States government, including monies that are awarded to this state pursuant to title II of the clean water act and that are no longer obligated to the construction grants program. 2. Gifts, grants and other donations received for that purpose from public or private sources. 3. Monies appropriated by the legislature for the hardship grant program. B. Monies in the fund are continuously appropriated and are exempt from the provisions of section 35-190 relating to lapsing of appropriations. C. The board shall administer the fund pursuant to rule and in compliance with this section and guidance from Finance Working Group Report / Appendix C / August 2011 85 Water Resources Development Commission the United States government. D. Monies in the fund may be used for the following purposes: 1. Providing hardship grants to political subdivisions or Indian tribes to plan, design, acquire, construct or improve wastewater collection and treatment facilities. 2. Providing training and technical assistance related to the operation and maintenance of wastewater systems. E. The board shall use the monies and other assets in the fund only for the purposes authorized by this chapter ARTICLE. F. The board shall establish a hardship grant program account and as many other accounts and subaccounts as required to administer the hardship grant fund. G. All proceeds of hardship grant program monies that are received from the United States shall be deposited in the hardship grant fund and shall be used only to provide grants and technical assistance to political subdivisions or Indian tribes to plan, design, acquire, construct or improve wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Sec. 11. Title 49, chapter 8, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding article 3, to read: ARTICLE 3. WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS 49-1271. Water supply development revolving fund; legislative intent A. THE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND IS ESTABLISHED TO BE MAINTAINED IN PERPETUITY CONSISTING OF: 1. MONIES RECEIVED FROM THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT BONDS UNDER SECTION 49-1278. 2. MONIES APPROPRIATED BY THE LEGISLATURE TO THE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND. 3. MONIES RECEIVED FOR WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES FROM THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. 4. MONIES RECEIVED FROM WATER PROVIDERS AS LOAN REPAYMENTS, INTEREST AND PENALTIES. 5. INTEREST AND OTHER INCOME RECEIVED FROM INVESTING MONIES IN THE FUND. 6. GIFTS, GRANTS AND DONATIONS RECEIVED FOR WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES FROM ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SOURCE. B. MONIES IN THE FUND ARE CONTINUOUSLY APPROPRIATED AND ARE EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35-190 RELATING TO LAPSING OF APPROPRIATIONS. C. THE LEGISLATURE FINDS THAT MANY WATER PROVIDERS IN THIS STATE, PARTICULARLY IN RURAL AREAS, LACK ACCESS TO SUFFICIENT WATER SUPPLIES TO MEET THEIR LONGTERM WATER DEMANDS AND NEED FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO CONSTRUCT WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS AND OBTAIN ADDITIONAL WATER SUPPLIES. IT IS THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE THAT THE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND ESTABLISHED BY THIS SECTION BE USED TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO THESE WATER PROVIDERS UNDER THE TERMS SET FORTH IN THIS ARTICLE. 49-1272. Water supply development revolving fund; administration A. THE BOARD SHALL ADMINISTER THE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND. B. ON NOTICE FROM THE BOARD, THE STATE TREASURER SHALL INVEST AND DIVEST MONIES IN THE FUND AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 35-313, AND MONIES EARNED FROM INVESTMENT SHALL BE CREDITED TO THE FUND. C. MONIES AND OTHER ASSETS IN THE FUND SHALL BE USED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES AUTHORIZED BY THIS ARTICLE. 49-1273. Water supply development revolving fund; purposes; limitation 86 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix C / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission A. MONIES IN THE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND MAY BE USED FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: 1. MAKING WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT LOANS TO WATER PROVIDERS IN THIS STATE UNDER SECTION 49-1274 FOR WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES. 2. MAKING LOANS OR GRANTS TO WATER PROVIDERS FOR THE PLANNING OR DESIGN OF WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. A SINGLE GRANT SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. 3. PURCHASING OR REFINANCING DEBT OBLIGATIONS OF WATER PROVIDERS AT OR BELOW MARKET RATE IF THE DEBT OBLIGATION WAS ISSUED FOR A WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT PURPOSE. 4. PROVIDING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO WATER PROVIDERS WITH BONDING AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE INSURANCE FOR LOCAL BOND OBLIGATIONS INCURRED BY THEM FOR WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES. 5. PAYING THE COSTS TO ADMINISTER THE FUND. 6. PROVIDING LINKED DEPOSIT GUARANTEES THROUGH THIRD PARTY LENDERS BY DEPOSITING MONIES WITH THE LENDER ON THE CONDITION THAT THE LENDER MAKE A LOAN ON TERMS APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE, AT A RATE OF RETURN ON THE DEPOSIT APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE AND THE STATE TREASURER AND BY GIVING THE LENDER RECOURSE AGAINST THE DEPOSIT OF LOAN REPAYMENTS THAT ARE NOT MADE WHEN DUE. B. IF THE MONIES PLEDGED TO SECURE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT BONDS ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 49-1278 BECOME INSUFFICIENT TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON THE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT BONDS GUARANTEED BY THE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND, THE AUTHORITY SHALL DIRECT THE STATE TREASURER TO LIQUIDATE SECURITIES IN THE FUND AS MAY BE NECESSARY AND SHALL APPLY THOSE PROCEEDS TO MAKE CURRENT ALL PAYMENTS THEN DUE ON THE BONDS. THE STATE TREASURER SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE INSUFFICIENCY. THE AUDITOR GENERAL SHALL AUDIT THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE DEPLETION OF THE FUND AND REPORT THE FINDINGS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION AND REPORT THOSE FINDINGS TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE. C. MONIES IN THE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND SHALL NOT BE USED TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO A WATER PROVIDER, OTHER THAN AN INDIAN TRIBE, UNLESS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING APPLIES: 1. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE WATER PROVIDER IS LOCATED HAS ADOPTED THE PROVISION AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 11-806.01, SUBSECTION F. 2. THE WATER PROVIDER IS LOCATED IN A CITY OR TOWN AND THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THE CITY OR TOWN HAS ENACTED THE ORDINANCE AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 9-463.01, SUBSECTION O. 3. THE WATER PROVIDER IS LOCATED IN AN ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREA ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO TITLE 45, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 2. 49-1274. Water supply development revolving fund financial assistance; procedures A. IN COMPLIANCE WITH ANY APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS, A WATER PROVIDER MAY APPLY TO THE AUTHORITY FOR AND ACCEPT AND INCUR INDEBTEDNESS AS A RESULT OF A LOAN OR ANY OTHER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 49-1273 FROM THE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND FOR WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES. IN COMPLIANCE WITH ANY APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS, A WATER PROVIDER MAY ALSO APPLY TO THE AUTHORITY FOR AND ACCEPT GRANTS, STAFF ASSISTANCE OR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE PLANNING OR DESIGN OF A WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. Finance Working Group Report / Appendix C / August 2011 87 Water Resources Development Commission A WATER PROVIDER THAT APPLIES FOR AND ACCEPTS A LOAN OR OTHER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THIS ARTICLE IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM APPLYING FOR AND ACCEPTING A LOAN OR OTHER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THIS CHAPTER OR UNDER ANY OTHER LAW. B. THE AUTHORITY, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMITTEE, SHALL: 1. PRESCRIBE A SIMPLIFIED FORM AND PROCEDURE TO APPLY FOR AND APPROVE ASSISTANCE. 2. ESTABLISH BY RULE CRITERIA BY WHICH ASSISTANCE WILL BE AWARDED, INCLUDING REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCAL PARTICIPATION IN PROJECT COSTS, IF DEEMED ADVISABLE. THE CRITERIA SHALL INCLUDE: (a) A DETERMINATION OF THE ABILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO REPAY A LOAN ACCORDING TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ESTABLISHED BY THIS SECTION. AT THE OPTION OF THE COMMITTEE, THE EXISTENCE OF A CURRENT INVESTMENT GRADE RATING ON EXISTING DEBT OF THE APPLICANT THAT IS SECURED BY THE SAME REVENUES TO BE PLEDGED TO SECURE REPAYMENT UNDER THE LOAN REPAYMENT AGREEMENT CONSTITUTES EVIDENCE REGARDING ABILITY TO REPAY A LOAN. (b) A DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICANT’S LEGAL CAPABILITY TO ENTER INTO A LOAN REPAYMENT AGREEMENT. (c) A DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICANT’S FINANCIAL ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE PROJECT IF IT RECEIVES THE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. (d) A DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICANT’S ABILITY TO MANAGE THE PROJECT. (e) A DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICANT’S ABILITY TO MEET ANY APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY FEDERAL OR STATE AGENCIES. (f) A DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICANT’S ABILITY TO ACQUIRE ANY NECESSARY REGULATORY PERMITS. 3. DETERMINE THE ORDER AND PRIORITY OF PROJECTS ASSISTED UNDER THIS SECTION BASED ON THE MERITS OF THE APPLICATION WITH RESPECT TO WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT ISSUES, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING: (a) EXISTING, NEAR-TERM AND LONG-TERM WATER DEMANDS OF THE WATER PROVIDER COMPARED TO THE EXISTING WATER SUPPLIES OF THE WATER PROVIDER. (b) EXISTING AND PLANNED CONSERVATION AND WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS OF THE WATER PROVIDER. (c) BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT. (d) THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE WATER SUPPLY TO BE DEVELOPED THROUGH THE PROJECT. (e) THE WATER PROVIDER’S NEED FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. (f) THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROJECT. C. THE COMMITTEE SHALL REVIEW ON ITS MERITS EACH APPLICATION RECEIVED AND SHALL INFORM THE APPLICANT OF THE COMMITTEE’S DETERMINATION WITHIN NINETY DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF A COMPLETE AND CORRECT APPLICATION. IF THE APPLICATION IS NOT APPROVED, THE COMMITTEE SHALL NOTIFY THE APPLICANT, STATING THE REASONS. IF THE APPLICATION IS APPROVED, THE COMMITTEE MAY CONDITION THE APPROVAL ON ASSURANCES THE COMMITTEE DEEMS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE WILL BE USED ACCORDING TO LAW AND THE TERMS OF THE APPLICATION. D. ON APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION UNDER THIS SECTION BY THE COMMITTEE, THE AUTHORITY SHALL USE MONIES IN THE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND TO FINANCE THE PROJECT. 49-1275. Water supply development revolving fund financial assistance; terms A. A LOAN FROM THE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND SHALL BE 88 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix C / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission EVIDENCED BY BONDS, IF THE WATER PROVIDER HAS BONDING AUTHORITY, OR BY A FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT, DELIVERED TO AND HELD BY THE AUTHORITY. B. A LOAN UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL: 1. BE REPAID NOT MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS AFTER THE DATE INCURRED. 2. REQUIRE THAT INTEREST PAYMENTS BEGIN NOT LATER THAN THE NEXT DATE THAT EITHER PRINCIPAL OR INTEREST MUST BE PAID BY THE AUTHORITY TO THE HOLDERS OF ANY OF THE AUTHORITY’S BONDS THAT PROVIDED FUNDING FOR THE LOAN. IF THE LOAN IS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES, THE AUTHORITY MAY PROVIDE THAT LOAN INTEREST ACCRUING DURING CONSTRUCTION AND ONE YEAR AFTER COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION BE CAPITALIZED IN THE LOAN. 3. BE CONDITIONED ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DEDICATED REVENUE SOURCE FOR REPAYING THE LOAN. C. THE AUTHORITY, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMITTEE, SHALL PRESCRIBE THE RATE OF INTEREST ON LOANS MADE UNDER THIS SECTION, BUT THE RATE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE FOR SIMILAR TYPES OF LOANS. THE AUTHORITY, UPON RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE, MAY ADOPT RULES WHICH PROVIDE FOR FLEXIBLE INTEREST RATES AND INTEREST FREE LOANS. ALL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS OR BONDS OF A WATER PROVIDER SHALL CLEARLY SPECIFY THE AMOUNT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST AND ANY REDEMPTION PREMIUM THAT IS DUE ON ANY PAYMENT DATE. D. THE APPROVAL OF A LOAN IS CONDITIONED ON A WRITTEN COMMITMENT BY THE WATER PROVIDER TO COMPLETE ALL APPLICABLE REVIEWS AND APPROVALS AND TO SECURE ALL REQUIRED PERMITS IN A TIMELY MANNER. E. A LOAN MADE TO A WATER PROVIDER UNDER THIS SECTION MAY BE SECURED ADDITIONALLY BY AN IRREVOCABLE PLEDGE OF ANY SHARED STATE REVENUES DUE TO THE WATER PROVIDER FOR THE DURATION OF THE LOAN AS PRESCRIBED BY A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE. IF THE COMMITTEE REQUIRES AN IRREVOCABLE PLEDGE OF THE SHARED STATE REVENUES FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE LOAN REPAYMENT AGREEMENTS, THE AUTHORITY SHALL ENTER INTO AN INTERCREDITOR AGREEMENT WITH THE GREATER ARIZONA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO DEFINE THE ALLOCATION OF SHARED STATE REVENUES IN RELATION TO INDIVIDUAL BORROWERS. IF A PLEDGE IS REQUIRED AND A WATER PROVIDER FAILS TO MAKE ANY PAYMENT DUE TO THE AUTHORITY UNDER ITS LOAN REPAYMENT AGREEMENT OR BONDS, THE AUTHORITY SHALL CERTIFY TO THE STATE TREASURER AND NOTIFY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE DEFAULTING WATER PROVIDER THAT THE WATER PROVIDER HAS FAILED TO MAKE THE REQUIRED PAYMENT AND SHALL DIRECT A WITHHOLDING OF STATE SHARED REVENUES AS PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION F OF THIS SECTION. THE CERTIFICATE OF DEFAULT SHALL BE IN THE FORM DETERMINED BY THE AUTHORITY, EXCEPT THAT THE CERTIFICATE SHALL SPECIFY THE AMOUNT REQUIRED TO SATISFY THE UNPAID PAYMENT OBLIGATION OF THE WATER PROVIDER. F. ON RECEIPT OF A CERTIFICATE OF DEFAULT FROM THE AUTHORITY, THE STATE TREASURER, TO THE EXTENT NOT EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED BY LAW, SHALL WITHHOLD ANY MONIES DUE TO THE DEFAULTING WATER PROVIDER FROM THE NEXT SUCCEEDING DISTRIBUTION OF MONIES PURSUANT TO SECTION 42-5029. IN THE CASE OF A CITY OR TOWN, THE STATE TREASURER SHALL ALSO WITHHOLD FROM THE MONIES DUE TO THE DEFAULTING CITY OR TOWN FROM THE NEXT SUCCEEDING DISTRIBUTION OF MONIES PURSUANT TO SECTION 43-206 THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THE CERTIFICATE OF DEFAULT AND SHALL IMMEDIATELY DEPOSIT THE MONIES IN THE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND. THE STATE TREASURER SHALL CONTINUE TO WITHHOLD AND DEPOSIT MONIES UNTIL THE AUTHORITY Finance Working Group Report / Appendix C / August 2011 89 Water Resources Development Commission CERTIFIES TO THE STATE TREASURER THAT THE DEFAULT HAS BEEN CURED. THE STATE TREASURER SHALL NOT WITHHOLD ANY AMOUNT THAT IS NECESSARY TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DEPOSITS THEN DUE FOR THE PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON BONDS OF THE WATER PROVIDER IF SO CERTIFIED BY THE DEFAULTING WATER PROVIDER TO THE STATE TREASURER AND THE AUTHORITY. THE WATER PROVIDER SHALL NOT CERTIFY DEPOSITS AS NECESSARY FOR PAYMENT FOR BONDS UNLESS THE BONDS WERE ISSUED BEFORE THE DATE OF THE LOAN REPAYMENT AGREEMENT AND THE BONDS WERE SECURED BY A PLEDGE OF DISTRIBUTION MADE PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 42-5029 AND 43-206. 49-1276. Enforcement; attorney general THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY TAKE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO ENFORCE THE LOAN CONTRACT AND ACHIEVE REPAYMENT OF LOANS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 49-1274 AND 49-1275. 49-1277. Water supply development bonds A. THE AUTHORITY MAY ISSUE NEGOTIABLE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT BONDS IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NECESSARY TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT MONIES FOR THOSE PROJECTS APPROVED UNDER THIS ARTICLE AND INCLUDING SUCH ITEMS AS MAINTAINING SUFFICIENT RESERVES TO SECURE THE BONDS, TO PAY THE NECESSARY COSTS OF ISSUING, SELLING AND REDEEMING THE BONDS AND TO PAY OTHER EXPENDITURES OF THE AUTHORITY INCIDENTAL TO AND NECESSARY AND CONVENIENT TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE. THE BOARD SHALL ISSUE THE BONDS PURSUANT TO SUBSECTIONS C AND D. B. THE BOARD SHALL AUTHORIZE THE BONDS BY RESOLUTION. THE RESOLUTION SHALL PRESCRIBE: 1. THE RATE OR RATES OF INTEREST AND THE DENOMINATIONS OF THE BONDS. 2. THE DATE OR DATES OF THE BONDS AND MATURITY. 3. THE COUPON OR REGISTERED FORM OF THE BONDS. 4. THE MANNER OF EXECUTING THE BONDS. 5. THE MEDIUM AND PLACE OF PAYMENT. 6. THE TERMS OF REDEMPTION. C. THE BONDS SHALL BE SOLD AT PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SALE AT THE PRICE AND ON THE TERMS DETERMINED BY THE BOARD. ALL PROCEEDS FROM THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS SHALL BE DEPOSITED IN THE APPROPRIATE ACCOUNTS OF THE FUNDS ADMINISTERED BY THE AUTHORITY. D. THE BOARD SHALL PUBLISH A NOTICE OF ITS INTENTION TO ISSUE BONDS UNDER THIS ARTICLE FOR AT LEAST FIVE CONSECUTIVE DAYS IN A NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED IN THIS STATE. THE LAST DAY OF PUBLICATION MUST BE AT LEAST TEN DAYS BEFORE ISSUING THE BONDS. THE NOTICE SHALL STATE THE AMOUNT OF THE BONDS TO BE SOLD AND THE INTENDED DATE OF ISSUANCE. A COPY OF THE NOTICE SHALL BE HAND DELIVERED OR SENT, BY CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION ON OR BEFORE THE LAST DAY OF PUBLICATION. E. TO SECURE ANY BONDS AUTHORIZED BY THIS SECTION, THE BOARD BY RESOLUTION MAY: 1. PROVIDE THAT BONDS ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION MAY BE SECURED BY A FIRST LIEN ON ALL OR PART OF THE MONIES PAID INTO THE APPROPRIATE ACCOUNT OR SUBACCOUNT OF THE FUNDS ADMINISTERED BY THE AUTHORITY. 2. PLEDGE OR ASSIGN TO OR IN TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE HOLDER OR HOLDERS OF THE BONDS ANY PART OR APPROPRIATE ACCOUNT OR SUBACCOUNT OF THE MONIES IN THE FUNDS AS IS NECESSARY TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST OF THE BONDS AS THEY COME DUE. 3. SET ASIDE, REGULATE AND DISPOSE OF RESERVES AND SINKING FUNDS. 90 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix C / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission 4. PROVIDE THAT SUFFICIENT AMOUNTS OF THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THE BONDS MAY BE USED TO FULLY OR PARTLY FUND ANY RESERVES OR SINKING FUNDS SET UP BY THE BOND RESOLUTION. 5. PRESCRIBE THE PROCEDURE, IF ANY, BY WHICH THE TERMS OF ANY CONTRACT WITH BONDHOLDERS MAY BE AMENDED OR ABROGATED, THE AMOUNT OF BONDS THE HOLDERS OF WHICH MUST CONSENT TO AND THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT MAY BE GIVEN. 6. PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT FROM THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE BONDS OF ALL LEGAL AND FINANCIAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE BOARD IN ISSUING, SELLING, DELIVERING AND PAYING THE BONDS. 7. DO ANY OTHER MATTERS THAT IN ANY WAY MAY AFFECT THE SECURITY AND PROTECTION OF THE BONDS. F. ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD, ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE OR ANY PERSON EXECUTING THE BONDS IS NOT PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE BONDS. THE BONDS ARE VALID AND BINDING OBLIGATIONS NOTWITHSTANDING THAT BEFORE THE DELIVERY OF THE BONDS ANY OF THE PERSONS WHOSE SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE BONDS CEASE TO BE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. FROM AND AFTER THE SALE AND DELIVERY OF THE BONDS, THEY ARE INCONTESTABLE BY THE BOARD AND THE COMMITTEE. G. THE BOARD, OUT OF ANY AVAILABLE MONIES, MAY PURCHASE BONDS, WHICH MAY BE CANCELED, AT A PRICE NOT EXCEEDING EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. IF THE BONDS ARE THEN REDEEMABLE, THE REDEMPTION PRICE THEN APPLICABLE PLUS ACCRUED INTEREST TO THE NEXT INTEREST PAYMENT DATE. 2. IF THE BONDS ARE NOT THEN REDEEMABLE, THE REDEMPTION PRICE APPLICABLE ON THE FIRST DATE AFTER PURCHASE ON WHICH THE BONDS BECOME SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION PLUS ACCRUED INTEREST TO THAT DATE. 49-1278. Water supply development bonds; purpose A. WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT BONDS MAY BE ISSUED TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THIS ARTICLE AND TO INCREASE THE CAPITALIZATION OF THE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSES STATED IN SECTION 49-1273. THESE BONDS MAY BE SECURED BY ANY MONIES RECEIVED OR TO BE RECEIVED IN THE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND. AMOUNTS IN THE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND MAY BE USED TO CURE DEFAULTS ON LOANS MADE FROM THE WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND TO THE EXTENT OTHERWISE PERMITTED BY LAW. B. ANY PLEDGE MADE UNDER THIS ARTICLE IS VALID AND BINDING FROM THE TIME WHEN THE PLEDGE IS MADE. THE MONIES PLEDGED AND RECEIVED TO BE PLACED IN THE APPROPRIATE FUND ARE IMMEDIATELY SUBJECT TO THE LIEN OF THE PLEDGE WITHOUT ANY FUTURE PHYSICAL DELIVERY OR FURTHER ACT, AND ANY SUCH LIEN OF ANY PLEDGE IS VALID OR BINDING AGAINST ALL PARTIES HAVING CLAIMS OF ANY KIND IN TORT, CONTRACT OR OTHERWISE AGAINST THE BOARD REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PARTIES HAVE NOTICE OF THE LIEN. THE OFFICIAL RESOLUTION OR TRUST INDENTURE OR ANY INSTRUMENT BY WHICH THIS PLEDGE IS CREATED, WHEN PLACED IN THE BOARD’S RECORDS, IS NOTICE TO ALL CONCERNED OF THE CREATION OF THE PLEDGE, AND THOSE INSTRUMENTS NEED NOT BE RECORDED IN ANY OTHER PLACE. C. THE BONDS ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION, THEIR TRANSFER AND THE INCOME THEY PRODUCE ARE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION BY THIS STATE OR BY ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE. 49-1279. Bond obligations of the authority BONDS ISSUED UNDER THIS ARTICLE ARE OBLIGATIONS OF THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE Finance Working Group Report / Appendix C / August 2011 91 Water Resources Development Commission FINANCE AUTHORITY OF ARIZONA, ARE PAYABLE ONLY ACCORDING TO THEIR TERMS AND ARE NOT GENERAL OBLIGATIONS, SPECIAL OBLIGATIONS OR OTHERWISE OF THIS STATE. THE BONDS DO NOT CONSTITUTE A LEGAL DEBT OF THIS STATE AND ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THIS STATE. PAYMENT OF THE BONDS IS NOT ENFORCEABLE OUT OF ANY STATE MONIES OTHER THAN THE INCOME AND REVENUE PLEDGED AND ASSIGNED TO, OR IN TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF, THE HOLDER OR HOLDERS OF THE BONDS. 49-1280. Certification of bonds by attorney general THE BOARD MAY SUBMIT ANY WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT BONDS ISSUED UNDER THIS ARTICLE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AFTER ALL PROCEEDINGS FOR THEIR AUTHORIZATION HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. ON SUBMISSION, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL EXAMINE AND PASS ON THE VALIDITY OF THE BONDS AND THE REGULARITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS. IF THE PROCEEDINGS COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE, AND IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DETERMINES THAT, WHEN DELIVERED AND PAID FOR, THE BONDS WILL CONSTITUTE BINDING AND LEGAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE BOARD, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL CERTIFY ON THE BACK OF EACH BOND, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT IT IS ISSUED ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THIS STATE. 49-1281. Water supply development bonds as legal investments WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT BONDS ISSUED UNDER THIS ARTICLE ARE SECURITIES IN WHICH PUBLIC OFFICERS AND BODIES OF THIS STATE AND OF MUNICIPALITIES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE, ALL COMPANIES, ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHER PERSONS CARRYING ON AN INSURANCE BUSINESS, ALL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, INVESTMENT COMPANIES AND OTHER PERSONS CARRYING ON A BANKING BUSINESS, ALL FIDUCIARIES AND ALL OTHER PERSONS WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO INVEST IN OBLIGATIONS OF THIS STATE MAY PROPERLY AND LEGALLY INVEST. THE BONDS ARE ALSO SECURITIES THAT MAY BE DEPOSITED WITH PUBLIC OFFICERS OR BODIES OF THIS STATE AND MUNICIPALITIES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE FOR PURPOSES THAT REQUIRE THE DEPOSIT OF STATE BONDS OR OBLIGATIONS. 49-1282. Agreement of state THIS STATE PLEDGES TO AND AGREES WITH THE HOLDERS OF THE BONDS THAT THIS STATE WILL NOT LIMIT OR ALTER THE RIGHTS VESTED IN THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AUTHORITY OF ARIZONA OR ANY SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO COLLECT THE MONIES NECESSARY TO PRODUCE SUFFICIENT REVENUE TO FULFILL THE TERMS OF ANY AGREEMENTS MADE WITH THE HOLDERS OF THE BONDS, OR IN ANY WAY IMPAIR THE RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF THE BONDHOLDERS, UNTIL ALL BONDS ISSUED UNDER THIS ARTICLE, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, INCLUDING INTEREST ON ANY UNPAID INSTALLMENTS OF INTEREST, AND ALL COSTS AND EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDINGS BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE BONDHOLDERS, ARE FULLY MET AND DISCHARGED. THE BOARD AS AGENT FOR THIS STATE MAY INCLUDE THIS PLEDGE AND UNDERTAKING IN ITS RESOLUTIONS AND INDENTURES SECURING ITS BONDS. Sec. 12. Initial terms of members of the water supply development fund committee A. Notwithstanding section 49-1202, Arizona Revised Statutes, as amended by this act, the initial terms of water supply development fund committee members appointed by the governor are: 1. One term ending January 31, 2009. 2. Two terms ending January 31, 2010. 3. Two terms ending January 31, 2011. 4. Two terms ending January 31, 2012. 5. Two terms ending January 31, 2013. 92 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix C / August 2011 Water Resources Development Commission B. The governor shall make all subsequent appointments as prescribed by statute. Sec. 13. Conditional enactment This act does not become effective unless Senate Bill 1575, forty-eighth legislature, first regular session, relating to water adequacy provisions, becomes law. APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR MAY 24, 2007. FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE MAY 24, 2007. Finance Working Group Report / Appendix C / August 2011 93 Water Resources Development Commission A.R.S. § 49-1273. Water supply development revolving fund; purposes; limitation A. Monies in the water supply development revolving fund may be used for the following purposes: 1. Making water supply development loans to water providers in this state under section 49-1274 for water supply development purposes. 2. Making loans or grants to water providers for the planning or design of water supply development projects. A single grant shall not exceed one hundred thousand dollars. 3. Purchasing or refinancing debt obligations of water providers at or below market rate if the debt obligation was issued for a water supply development purpose. 4. Providing financial assistance to water providers with bonding authority to purchase insurance for local bond obligations incurred by them for water supply development purposes. 5. Paying the costs to administer the fund. 6. Providing linked deposit guarantees through third party lenders by depositing monies with the lender on the condition that the lender make a loan on terms approved by the committee, at a rate of return on the deposit approved by the committee and the state treasurer and by giving the lender recourse against the deposit of loan repayments that are not made when due. B. If the monies pledged to secure water supply development bonds issued pursuant to section 49-1278 become insufficient to pay the principal and interest on the water supply development bonds guaranteed by the water supply development revolving fund, the authority shall direct the state treasurer to liquidate securities in the fund as may be necessary and shall apply those proceeds to make current all payments then due on the bonds. The state treasurer shall immediately notify the attorney general and auditor general of the insufficiency. The auditor general shall audit the circumstances surrounding the depletion of the fund and report the findings to the attorney general. The attorney general shall conduct an investigation and report those findings to the governor and the legislature. C. Monies in the water supply development revolving fund shall not be used to provide financial assistance to a water provider, other than an Indian tribe, unless one of the following applies: 1. The board of supervisors of the county in which the water provider is located has adopted the provision authorized by section 11-823, subsection A. 2. The water provider is located in a city or town and the legislative body of the city or town has enacted the ordinance authorized by section 9-463.01, subsection O. 3. The water provider is located in an active management area established pursuant to title 45, chapter 2, article 2. A.R.S. § 42-5301. Definition of municipal water delivery system In this article, unless the context otherwise requires "municipal water delivery system" means an entity that distributes or sells potable water primarily through a pipeline delivery system which is owned by either: 1. A city or town incorporated or chartered under the constitution and laws of this state. 2. A private entity which is regulated as a public service corporation by the Arizona corporation commission under a certificate of public convenience and necessity. 3. A special taxing district established under title 48, chapter 6. 4. An entity which is regulated as a water supply system by the department of environmental quality. 94 Finance Working Group Report / Appendix C / August 2011 WRDC Legislative Recommendations Working Group Report Working Group Chair: Supervisor Pat Call, Cochise County By: John Munderloh, Vice-Chair, Town of Prescott Valley INTRODUCTION In 2010, the Arizona Legislature passed H.B. 2661 that created the Water Resources Development Commission (WRDC) for the purpose of assessing the current and future water needs of Arizona. As a part of this effort the WRDC created five committees (Population, Water Supply & Demand, Environmental, Finance and Report committees) to address specific objectives associated with the assessment. In April of 2011 the WRDC formed an additional working group, the Legislative Recommendations Working Group. The Legislative Recommendations Working Group was directed to focus their efforts on the task outlined in H.B. 2661(D) that specifies that the WRDC is to include “…recommendations for suggested legislation” in its report to the Governor, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the President of the Senate. Prior to the formation of the Legislative Recommendations Working Group, this task was previously identified in the work plan for the Report Committee. The working group was directed to submit its final report by August 15, 2011. OBJECTIVE Specifically, the task outlined by the WRDC for the Legislative Recommendations Work Group was to determine if the results from the other study tasks outlined in H.B. 2661 would require legislative action, and if so, to develop legislative proposals. In the simplest terms, the WRDC committees determined that significant additional water supplies will be needed to meet projected new demands in certain areas of the state, development of new water supplies should consider and not impact environmental needs, and that substantial financial commitment will be required to accomplish these two objectives. METHODS The Legislative Recommendations Working Group met on 4/25/2011, 5/16/2011, 6/13/2011 and 8/8/2011. During the course of its meetings, presentations were received on two issues, the Water Resources Development Revolving Fund and a “strawman” proposal for a statewide or regional water augmentation authority. The focus on the Water Resources Development Revolving Fund was that though it exists, it has no funds to provide for water resources development. Information was provided on potential alternative revenue sources including: Ad Valorem Taxes Water Withdrawal Fees Transaction Privilege Tax Bottle Water Tax Permit Fees General Fund Appropriations In addition, information was provided to the working group on how much revenue could be anticipated from each potential revenue source. The “strawman” proposal for a statewide water augmentation authority had been developed by representatives from the Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users Association in response to the Central Arizona Project’s Just Water proposal and had been receiving input from several other water providers, including the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association, City of Phoenix, City of Tucson, Mohave County Water Authority, Upper San Pedro Watershed, Central Arizona Project and Salt River Project. The “Strawman” proposal helped frame some the water resource development and water infrastructure challenges facing areas outside of the three-county CAP service area and put forward a recommendation to form a statewide water augmentation authority. One issue highlighted by this proposal is that multiple water stakeholders need mechanisms that let them form legal partnerships to jointly acquire water rights and build water infrastructure projects. The Legislative Recommendations Work Group examined a number of existing governance mechanisms that could help develop and finance joint water supply projects. These included special districts, intergovernmental agreements, other contractual arrangements and the joint powers legislation (A.R.S. §11-952.02). The working group concluded that all have certain drawbacks. Specific improvements have yet to be worked through by the group. Another item of discussion for the working group was whether a statewide or regional entity made up of various water stakeholders could legally access the Water Supply Development Revolving Fund (A.R.S. § 49-1271). ISSUES AND CONCERNS A number of issues and concerns were noted by the working group members during discussion: 1. Should the water supply development entity be statewide or several regional entities? There are typically three main components to a water supply project: 1) Acquiring water rights through development or purchase, 2) Financing and building infrastructure, 3) Operation and maintenance of the project. a. Will multiple regional entities increase competition for limited water rights? b. Since water supply infrastructure, by nature, will have a limited service area, a regional entity makes sense for financing, infrastructure development and repayment. i. Does or should the State of Arizona participate in the regional entities as a stakeholder? ii. Can the State of Arizona lend its financial credibility to project financing without having financial obligations? 2. Can private entities, such as private water companies and mines, be part of the regional or statewide water development entity? a. Current legislation in A.R.S. § 11-952 would exclude private entities. 3. Is a regional or statewide water development entity eligible to access the Water Supply Development Revolving Fund? a. Currently this fund is limited to water providers defined in A.R.S. § 491201(14). b. Currently only water providers that are within Active Management Areas or have adopted Adequate Water Supply rules can access this fund. Adequate Water Supply rules only apply to community water providers, not mines or agriculture. RECOMENDATIONS The H.B. 2661 that establishes the WRDC has set a due date for its report to the Governor and Legislature of October 1, 2011. The Legislative Recommendations Working Group will not be able to fully consider the outlined issues and suggest legislative changes (if necessary) by that time. The WRDC does not sunset until September 30, 2012 in accordance with H.B. 2661. The Legislative Recommendations Work Group recommends the WRDC direct the Legislative Recommendations Working Group to continue consideration and develop final recommendations regarding legislation (if necessary) for funding the Water Supply Development Fund and enabling formation of a state or regional water augmentation authority. The Working Group recommends a deadline be given to provide a full report to the WRDC by August 1, 2012.