Arizona Department of Water Resources June 2009 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS Volume 3 Southeastern Arizona Planning Area ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Herbert Guenther Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources Karen Smith Deputy Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources Tom Carr Assistant Director, Statewide Water Conservation and Strategic Planning Sandra Fabritz-Whitney Assistant Director, Water Management Atlas Team Linda Stitzer, Rich Burtell – Project Managers Phyllis Andrews Carol Birks Kelly Mott Lacroix Joe Stuart Major Contributors John Fortune Leslie Graser William H. Remick Saeid Tadayon-USGS Other Contributors Patrick Brand Matt Beversdorf Jenna Gillis Roberto Chavez Pam Nagel (Volume 8) Laura Grignano (Volume 8) Kenneth Seasholes (Volume 8) Mark Preszler Larri Tearman Jeff Tannler (Volume 8) Dianne Yunker Climate Gregg Garfin - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Ben Crawford - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Casey Thornbrugh - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Michael Crimmins – Department of Soil, Water and Environmental Science, University of Arizona The Atlas is wide in scope and it is not possible to mention all those who helped at some time in its production, both inside and outside the Department. Our sincere thanks to those who willingly provided data and information, editorial review, production support and other help during this multi-year project. Special note about the Atlas Team Completion of the Atlas would not have been possible without the dedicated professionals that compose the Atlas Team. Most have been involved with the project from its inception in 2003 and their contributions to the success of the project cannot be overstated. Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 CONTENTS Preface SECTION 3.0 Overview of the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area 3.0.1 Geography 3.0.2 Hydrology Groundwater Hydrology Surface Water Hydrology  3.0.3 Climate  3.0.4 Environmental Conditions Vegetation Arizona Water Protection Fund Program Instream Flow Claims Threatened and Endangered Species National Parks, Monuments and Memorials, Wildlife Refuges, National Conservation Areas, Wilderness Areas and Other Protected Areas Unique Waters 3.0.5 Population Population Growth and Water Use 3.0.6 Water Supply Surface Water Groundwater Effluent Contamination Sites 3.0.7 Cultural Water Demand  Tribal Water Demand Municipal Demand Agricultural Demand Industrial Demand 3.0.8 Water Resource Issues in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Watershed Groups Planning, Management and Studies Issue Surveys 3.0.9 Groundwater Basin Water Resource Characteristics REFERENCES SECTION 3.1 Water Resource Characteristics of the Aravaipa Canyon Basin 3.1.1 Geography of the Aravaipa Canyon Basin 3.1.2 Land Ownership in the Aravaipa Canyon Basin 3.1.3 Climate of the Aravaipa Canyon Basin 3.1.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Aravaipa Canyon Basin 3.1.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the 1 1 3 5 5 15 19 22 22 26 27 28 31 35 35 36 39 40 44 46 47 51 52 53 58 62 65 65 66 69 70 73 81 82 84 86 88 i Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Aravaipa Canyon Basin 3.1.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Aravaipa Canyon Basin 3.1.7 Water Quality of the Aravaipa Canyon Basin 3.1.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Aravaipa Canyon Basin 3.1.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Aravaipa Canyon Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 3.2 Water Resource Characteristics of the Bonita Creek Basin 3.2.1 Geography of the Bonita Creek Basin 3.2.2 Land Ownership in the Bonita Creek Basin 3.2.3 Climate of the Bonita Creek Basin 3.2.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Bonita Creek Basin 3.2.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Bonita Creek Basin 3.2.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Bonita Creek Basin 3.2.7 Water Quality of the Bonita Creek Basin 3.2.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Bonita Creek Basin 3.2.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Bonita Creek Basin  References and Supplemental Reading  SECTION 3.3 Water Resource Characteristics of the Cienega Creek Basin 3.3.1 Geography of the Cienega Creek Basin  3.3.2 Land Ownership in the Cienega Creek Basin 3.3.3 Climate of the Cienega Creek Basin 3.3.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Cienega Creek Basin 3.3.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Cienega Creek Basin 3.3.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Cienega Creek Basin 3.3.7 Water Quality of the Cienega Creek Basin 3.3.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Cienega Creek Basin 3.3.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Cienega Creek Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 3.4 Water Resource Characteristics of the Donnelly Wash Basin 3.4.1 Geography of the Donnelly Wash Basin 3.4.2 Land Ownership in the Donnelly Wash Basin 3.4.3 Climate of the Donnelly Wash Basin 3.4.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Donnelly Wash Basin 3.4.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Donnelly Wash Basin 3.4.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Donnelly Wash Basin 3.4.7 Water Quality of the Donnelly Wash Basin ii 90 93 98 100 103 104 109 110 112 114 116 120 122 126 126 129 130 133 134 136 138 140 145 148 153 157 161 164 169 170 172 174 176 178 180 185 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.4.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Donnelly Wash Basin 3.4.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Donnelly Wash Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 3.5 Water Resource Characteristics of the Douglas Basin 3.5.1 Geography of the Douglas Basin 3.5.2 Land Ownership in the Douglas Basin 3.5.3 Climate of the Douglas Basin 3.5.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Douglas Basin 3.5.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Douglas Basin 3.5.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Douglas Basin 3.5.7 Water Quality of the Douglas Basin 3.5.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Douglas Basin 3.5.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Douglas Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 3.6 Water Resource Characteristics of the Dripping Springs Wash Basin 3.6.1 Geography of the Dripping Springs Wash Basin 3.6.2 Land Ownership in the Dripping Springs Wash Basin 3.6.3 Climate of the Dripping Springs Wash Basin 3.6.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Dripping Springs Wash Basin 3.6.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Dripping Springs Wash Basin 3.6.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Dripping Springs Wash Basin 3.6.7 Water Quality of the Dripping Springs Wash Basin 3.6.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Dripping Springs Wash Basin 3.6.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Dripping Springs Wash Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 3.7 Water Resource Characteristics of the Duncan Valley Basin 3.7.1 Geography of the Duncan Valley Basin 3.7.2 Land Ownership in the Duncan Valley Basin 3.7.3 Climate of the Duncan Valley Basin 3.7.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Duncan Valley Basin 3.7.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Duncan Valley Basin 3.7.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Duncan Valley Basin 3.7.7 Water Quality of the Duncan Valley Basin 3.7.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Duncan Valley Basin 3.7.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Duncan Valley Basin References and Supplemental Reading 187 189 191 195 196 198 201 204 208 210 216 220 224 227 231 232 234 236 239 243 245 250 250 253 254 257 258 260 262 265 269 271 276 279 283 285 iii Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 SECTION 3.8 Water Resource Characteristics of the Lower San Pedro Basin 3.8.1 Geography of the Lower San Pedro Basin 3.8.2 Land Ownership in the Lower San Pedro Basin 3.8.3 Climate of the Lower San Pedro Basin 3.8.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Lower San Pedro Basin 3.8.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Lower San Pedro Basin 3.8.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Lower San Pedro Basin 3.8.7 Water Quality of the Lower San Pedro Basin 3.8.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Lower San Pedro Basin 3.8.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Lower San Pedro Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 3.9 Water Resource Characteristics of the Morenci Basin 3.9.1 Geography of the Morenci Basin 3.9.2 Land Ownership in the Morenci Basin 3.9.3 Climate of the Morenci Basin 3.9.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Morenci Basin 3.9.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Morenci Basin 3.9.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Morenci Basin 3.9.7 Water Quality of the Morenci Basin 3.9.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Morenci Basin 3.9.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Morenci Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 3.10 Water Resource Characteristics of the Safford Basin 3.10.1 Geography of the Safford Basin 3.10.2 Land Ownership in the Safford Basin 3.10.3 Climate of the Safford Basin 3.10.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Safford Basin 3.10.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Safford Basin 3.10.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Safford Basin 3.10.7 Water Quality of the Safford Basin 3.10.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Safford Basin 3.10.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Safford Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 3.11 Water Resource Characteristics of the San Bernardino Valley Basin 3.11.1 Geography of the San Bernardino Valley Basin iv 289 290 292 295 298 303 307 313 317 321 324 331 332 334 336 339 345 348 353 356 360 363 369 370 372 375 378 385 390 398 403 408 411 417 418 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.11.2 Land Ownership in the San Bernardino Valley Basin 3.11.3 Climate of the San Bernardino Valley Basin 3.11.4 Surface Water Conditions in the San Bernardino Valley Basin 3.11.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the San Bernardino Valley Basin 3.11.6 Groundwater Conditions of the San Bernardino Valley Basin 3.11.7 Water Quality of the San Bernardino Valley Basin 3.11.8 Cultural Water Demand in the San Bernardino Valley Basin 3.11.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the San Bernardino Valley Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 3.12 Water Resource Characteristics of the San Rafael Basin 3.12.1 Geography of the San Rafael Basin 3.12.2 Land Ownership in the San Rafael Basin 3.12.3 Climate of the San Rafael Basin 3.12.4 Surface Water Conditions in the San Rafael Basin 3.12.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the San Rafael Basin 3.12.6 Groundwater Conditions of the San Rafael Basin 3.12.7 Water Quality of the San Rafael Basin 3.12.8 Cultural Water Demand in the San Rafael Basin 3.12.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the San Rafael Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 3.13 Water Resource Characteristics of the Upper San Pedro Basin 3.13.1 Geography of the Upper San Pedro Basin 3.13.2 Land Ownership in the Upper San Pedro Basin 3.13.3 Climate of the Upper San Pedro Basin 3.13.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Upper San Pedro Basin 3.13.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Upper San Pedro Basin 3.13.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Upper San Pedro Basin 3.13.7 Water Quality of the Upper San Pedro Basin 3.13.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Upper San Pedro Basin 3.13.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Upper San Pedro Basin References and Supplemental Reading SECTION 3.14 Water Resource Characteristics of the Willcox Basin 3.14.1 Geography of the Willcox Basin 3.14.2 Land Ownership in the Willcox Basin 3.14.3 Climate of the Willcox Basin 3.14.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Willcox Basin 420 422 424 427 429 434 436 438 439 441 442 444 446 449 453 455 460 463 465 466 469 470 472 475 478 483 486 496 501 506 517 531 532 534 537 540 v Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.14.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Willcox Basin 3.14.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Willcox Basin 3.14.7 Water Quality of the Willcox Basin 3.14.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Willcox Basin 3.14.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Willcox Basin References and Supplemental Reading APPENDIX A: Arizona Water Protection Fund Projects in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area through 2008 APPENDIX B: Community Water System Annual Report Data 2006-2007 and Submitted Plans APPENDIX C: Surface Water Rights and Adjudication Filings APPENDIX D: Watershed Partnerships in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area (2008) vi 544 547 556 560 564 567 573 577 585 593 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 FIGURES Figure 3.0-1 Figure 3.0-2 Figure 3.0-3 Figure 3.0-4 Figure 3.0-5 Figure 3.0-6 Figure 3.0-7 Figure 3.0-8 Figure 3.0-9 Figure 3.0-10 Figure 3.0-11 Figure 3.0-12 Figure 3.0-13 Figure 3.0-14 Figure 3.0-15 Figure 3.0-16 Figure 3.0-17 Figure 3.0-18 Figure 3.1-1 Figure 3.1-2 Figure 3.1-3 Figure 3.1-4 Figure 3.1-5 Figure 3.1-6 Figure 3.1-7 Figure 3.1-8 Figure 3.1-9 Figure 3.1-10 Figure 3.2-1 Arizona Planning Areas 2 Southeastern Arizona Planning Area 3 Physiographic Regions of Arizona 4 Surface Geology of the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area  5 Southeastern Arizona Planning Area USGS Watersheds  15 Average Monthly Precipitation and Temperature in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area, 1930-2002 19 Average Annual Temperature and Total Annual Precipitation in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area from 1930-2002  20 Winter (November-April) Precipitation Departures from Average, 1000-1988, Reconstructed from Tree Rings Arizona NOAA Climate Division 7 21 Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Biotic Communities and Ecoregions 23 Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Location of Major Wildfires 2002-2006  26 Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Instream Flow Applications 29 Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Protected Areas 32 Average Annual Water Supplies Utilized in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet)  39 Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Registered Wells and Surface Water Diversion Points 43 Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Contamination Sites 50 Average Annual Cultural Water Demand by Sector in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area 2001-2005, in acre-feet 51 Average Annual Cultural Water Demand by Basin in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area 2001-2005, in acre-feet 52 Average Annual Agricultural Demand (2001-2005) in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area by Basin, in acre-feet 59 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Geographic Features 83 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Land Ownership 85 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation 87 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Surface Water Conditions 89 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs 92 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Groundwater Conditions 95 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 96 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Well Yields 97 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Water Quality 99 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Cultural Water Demand 102 Bonita Creek Basin Geographic Features 111 vii Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.2-2 Figure 3.2-3 Figure 3.2-4 Figure 3.2-5 Figure 3.2-6 Figure 3.2-7 Figure 3.2-8 Figure 3.3-1 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 3.3-4 Figure 3.3-5 Figure 3.3-6 Figure 3.3-7 Figure 3.3-8 Figure 3.3-9 Figure 3.3-10 Figure 3.3-11 Figure 3.4-1 Figure 3.4-2 Figure 3.4-3 Figure 3.4-4 Figure 3.4-5 Figure 3.4-6 Figure 3.4-7 Figure 3.4-8 Figure 3.4-9 Figure 3.4-10 Figure 3.5-1 Figure 3.5-2 Figure 3.5-3 Figure 3.5-4 Figure 3.5-5 Figure 3.5-6 Figure 3.5-7 Bonita Creek Basin Land Ownership Bonita Creek Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Bonita Creek Basin Surface Water Conditions Bonita Creek Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Bonita Creek Basin Groundwater Conditions Bonita Creek Basin Well Yields Bonita Creek Basin Cultural Water Demand Cienega Creek Basin Geographic Features Cienega Creek Basin Land Ownership Cienega Creek Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Cienega Creek Basin Surface Water Conditions Cienega Creek Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10gpm) Springs Cienega Creek Basin Groundwater Conditions Cienega Creek Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Cienega Creek Basin Well Yields Cienega Creek Basin Water Quality Conditions Cienega Creek Basin Cultural Water Demand Cienega Creek Basin Adequacy Determinations Donnelly Wash Basin Geographic Features Donnelly Wash Basin Land Ownership Donnelly Wash Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Donnelly Wash Basin Surface Water Conditions Donnelly Wash Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10gpm) Springs Donnelly Wash Basin Groundwater Conditions Donnelly Wash Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Donnelly Wash Basin Well Yields Donnelly Wash Basin Water Quality Conditions Donnelly Wash Basin Adequacy Determinations Douglas Basin Geographic Features Douglas Basin Land Ownership Douglas Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Douglas Basin Surface Water Conditions Douglas Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10gpm) Springs Douglas Basin Groundwater Conditions Douglas Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells viii 113 115 119 121 124 125 128 135 137 139 144 147 150 151 152 156 160 163 171 173 175 177 179 182 183 184 186 190 197 200 203 207 209 212 213 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.5-8 Figure 3.5-9 Figure 3.5-10 Figure 3.5-11 Figure 3.6-1 Figure 3.6-2 Figure 3.6-3 Figure 3.6-4 Figure 3.6-5 Figure 3.6-6 Figure 3.6-7 Figure 3.6-8 Figure 3.6-9 Figure 3.7-1 Figure 3.7-2 Figure 3.7-3 Figure 3.7-4 Figure 3.7-5 Figure 3.7-6 Figure 3.7-7 Figure 3.7-8 Figure 3.7-9 Figure 3.7-10 Figure 3.7-11 Figure 3.8-1 Figure 3.8-2 Figure 3.8-3 Figure 3.8-4 Figure 3.8-5 Figure 3.8-6 Figure 3.8-7 Figure 3.8-8 Figure 3.8-9 Figure 3.8-10 Douglas Basin Well Yields Douglas Basin Water Quality Conditions Douglas Basin Cultural Water Demand Douglas Basin Adequacy Determinations Dripping Springs Wash Basin Geographic Features Dripping Springs Wash Basin Land Ownership Dripping Springs Wash Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Dripping Springs Wash Basin Surface Water Conditions Dripping Springs Wash Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10gpm) Springs Dripping Springs Wash Basin Groundwater Conditions Dripping Springs Wash Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Dripping Springs Wash Basin Well Yields Dripping Springs Wash Basin Cultural Water Demand Duncan Valley Basin Geographic Features Duncan Valley Basin Land Ownership Duncan Valley Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Duncan Valley Basin Surface Water Conditions Duncan Valley Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10gpm) Springs Duncan Valley Basin Groundwater Conditions Duncan Valley Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Duncan Valley Basin Well Yields Duncan Valley Basin Water Quality Conditions Duncan Valley Basin Cultural Water Demand Duncan Valley Basin Adequacy Determinations Lower San Pedro Basin Geographic Features Lower San Pedro Basin Land Ownership  Lower San Pedro Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Annual Flows (in acre-feet) at Aravaipa Creek near Mammoth (Station # 9473000) Water Years 1932 - 2007 Lower San Pedro Basin Surface Water Conditions Lower San Pedro Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10gpm) Springs Lower San Pedro Basin Groundwater Conditions Lower San Pedro Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Lower San Pedro Basin Well Yields Lower San Pedro Water Quality Conditions 215 219 223 226 233 235 238 242 244 247 248 249 252 259 261 264 268 270 273 274 275 278 282 284 291 294 297 299 302 306 309 310 312 316 ix Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.8-11 Figure 3.8-12 Figure 3.9-1 Figure 3.9-2 Figure 3.9-3 Figure 3.9-4 Figure 3.9-5 Figure 3.9-6 Figure 3.9-7 Figure 3.9-8 Figure 3.9-9 Figure 3.9-10 Figure 3.9-11 Figure 3.9-12 Figure 3.10-1 Figure 3.10-2 Figure 3.10-3 Figure 3.10-4 Figure 3.10-5 Figure 3.10-6 Figure 3.10-7 Figure 3.10-8 Figure 3.10-9 Figure 3.10-10 Figure 3.10-11 Figure 3.10-12 Figure 3.11-1 Figure 3.11-2 Figure 3.11-3 Figure 3.11-4 Figure 3.11-5 Figure 3.11-6 Figure 3.11-7 Figure 3.11-8 Lower San Pedro Cultural Water Demand Lower San Pedro Adequacy Determinations Morenci Basin Geographic Features Morenci Basin Land Ownership Morenci Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Annual Flows (in acre-feet) at San Francisco River at Clifton (Station # 9444500) Water Years 1914-2007 Morenci Basin Surface Water Conditions Morenci Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10gpm) Springs Morenci Basin Groundwater Conditions Morenci Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Morenci Basin Well Yields Morenci Basin Water Quality Conditions Morenci Basin Cultural Water Demand Morenci Basin Adequacy Determinations Safford Basin Geographic Features Safford Basin Land Ownership Safford Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Annual Flows (in acre-feet) at Gila River River at Calva (Station # 9466500) Water Years 1930-2007 Safford Basin Surface Water Conditions Safford Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Safford Basin Groundwater Conditions Safford Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Safford Basin Well Yields Safford Basin Water Quality Conditions Safford Basin Cultural Water Demands Safford Basin Adequacy Determinations San Bernardino Valley Basin Geographic Features San Bernardino Valley Basin Land Ownership San Bernardino Valley Basin Meteorologic Stations and Annual Precipitation San Bernardino Valley Basin Surface Water Conditions San Bernardino Valley Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs San Bernardino Valley Basin Groundwater Conditions San Bernardino Valley Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells San Bernardino Valley Basin Well Yields x 320 323 333 335 338 340 344 347 350 351 352 355 359 362 371 374 377 379 384 389 392 393 397 402 407 410 419 421 423 426 428 431 432 433 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.11-9 Figure 3.12-1 Figure 3.12-2 Figure 3.12-3 Figure 3.12-4 Figure 3.12-5 Figure 3.12-6 Figure 3.12-7 Figure 3.12-8 Figure 3.12-9 Figure 3.13-1 Figure 3.13-2 Figure 3.13-3 Figure 3.13-4 Figure 3.13-5 Figure 3.13-6 Figure 3.13-7 Figure 3.13-8 Figure 3.13-9 Figure 3.13-10 Figure 3.13-11 Figure 3.13-12 Figure 3.14-1 Figure 3.14-2 Figure 3.14-3 Figure 3.14-4 Figure 3.14-5 Figure 3.14-6 Figure 3.14-7 Figure 3.14-8 Figure 3.14-9 Figure 3.14-10 Figure 3.14-11 Figure C-1 Figure C-2 San Bernardino Valley Basin Water Quality Conditions San Rafael Basin Geographic Features San Rafael Basin Land Ownership San Rafael Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation San Rafael Basin Surface Water Conditions San Rafael Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10gpm) Springs San Rafael Basin Groundwater Conditions San Rafael Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells San Rafael Basin Well Yields San Rafael Basin Water Quality Conditions Upper San Pedro Basin Geographic Features Upper San Pedro Basin Land Ownership Upper San Pedro Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Annual Flows (in acre-feet) at San Pedro River at Charleston (Station # 9471000) Water Years 1905-2007 Upper San Pedro Basin Surface Water Conditions Upper San Pedro Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10 gpm) Springs Upper San Pedro Basin Groundwater Conditions Upper San Pedro Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Upper San Pedro Basin Well Yields Upper San Pedro Basin Water Quality Conditions Upper San Pedro Basin Cultural Water Demands Upper San Pedro Basin Adequacy Determinations Willcox Basin Geographic Features Willcox Basin Land Ownership Willcox Basin Meteorological Stations and Annual Precipitation Willcox Basin Surface Water Conditions Willcox Basin Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major (>10gpm) Springs Willcox Basin Groundwater Conditions Willcox Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Willcox Basin Well Yields Willcox Basin Water Quality Conditions Willcox Basin Cultural Water Demand Willcox Basin Adequacy Determinations General Stream Adjudications in Arizona Registered Wells and Surface Water Points of Diversion in Arizona 435 443 445 448 452 454 457 458 459 462 471 474 477 479 482 485 488 489 495 500 505 516 533 536 539 543 546 549 550 555 559 563 566 589 591 xi Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 TABLES Table 3.0-1 Table 3.0-2 Table 3.0-3 Table 3.0-4 Table 3.0-5 Table 3.0-6 Table 3.0-7 Table 3.0-8 Table 3.0-9 Table 3.0-10 Table 3.0-11 Table 3.0-12 Table 3.0-13 Table 3.0-14 Table 3.0-15 Table 3.1-1 Table 3.1-2 Table 3.1-3 Table 3.1-4 Table 3.1-5 Table 3.2-1 Table 3.2-2 Table 3.2-3 Table 3.2-4 Table 3.2-5 Table 3.3-1 Table 3.3-2 Table 3.3-3 Table 3.3-4 Instream flow applications in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area  Listed threatened and endangered species in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Wilderness areas in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area 2000 Census population of basins and Indian reservations in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Communities in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area with a 2000 Census population greater than 1,000 Water adequacy determinations in the Southeastern Arizona Planing Area as of 12/2008 Inventory of surface water right and adjudication filings in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Contamination sites in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Average annual municipal water demand in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area (2001-2005) in acre-feet Water providers serving 450 acre-feet or more per year in 2006 in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Golf course demand in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area (c.2008) Agricultural demand in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Active irrigation acres, percentage of crops grown and irrigation method in selected basins in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area, 2007 Industrial Demand in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area  Water resource issues ranked by survey respondents in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Aravaipa Canyon Basin Springs in the Aravaipa Canyon Basin Groundwater Conditions in the Aravaipa Canyon Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Aravaipa Canyon Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Aravaipa Canyon Basin Streamflow Data for the Bonita Creek Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Bonita Creek Basin Springs in the Bonita Creek Basin Groundwater Data for the Bonita Creek Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Bonita Creek Basin Streamflow Data for the Cienega Creek Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Cienega Creek Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Cienega Creek Basin Springs in the Cienega Creek Basin xii 27 30 34 36 37 38 42 49 53 54 58 60 61 63 69 88 91 94 98 101 117 118 120 123 127 141 142 143 146 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.3-5 Table 3.3-6 Table 3.3-7 Table 3.3-8 Table 3.3-9 Table 3.4-1 Table 3.4-2 Table 3.4-3 Table 3.4-4 Table 3.4-5 Table 3.4-6 Table 3.5-1 Table 3.5-2 Table 3.5-3 Table 3.5-4 Table 3.5-5 Table 3.5-6 Table 3.5-7 Table 3.5-8 Table 3.5-9 Table 3.6-1 Table 3.6-2 Table 3.6-3 Table 3.6-4 Table 3.6-5 Table 3.6-6 Table 3.6-7 Table 3.7-1 Table 3.7-2 Table 3.7-3 Table 3.7-4 Table 3.7-5 Table 3.7-6 Table 3.7-7 Table 3.7-8 Table 3.7-9 Table 3.7-10 Table 3.8-1 Table 3.8-2 Table 3.8-3 Table 3.8-4 Table 3.8-5 Table 3.8-6 Table 3.8-7 Groundwater Data for the Cienega Creek Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Cienega Creek Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Cienega Creek Basin Effluent Generation in the Cienega Creek Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Cienega Creek Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Donnelly Wash Basin Springs in the Donnelly Wash Basin Groundwater Data for the Donnelly Wash Basin Water Quality Exceedences for the Donnelly Wash Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Donnelly Wash Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Donnelly Wash Basin Climate Data in the Douglas Basin Streamflow Data in the Douglas Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Douglas Basin Springs in the Douglas Basin Groundwater Data in the Douglas Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Douglas Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Douglas Basin Effluent Generation in the Douglas Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Douglas Basin Climate Data for the Dripping Springs Wash Basin Streamflow Data for the Dripping Springs Wash Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Dripping Springs Wash Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Dripping Springs Wash Basin Springs in the Dripping Springs Wash Basin Groundwater Data for the Dripping Springs Wash Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Dripping Springs Wash Basin Climate Data for the Duncan Valley Basin Streamflow Data for the Duncan Valley Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Duncan Valley Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Duncan Valley Basin Springs in the Duncan Valley Basin Groundwater Data for the Duncan Valley Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Duncan Valley Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Duncan Valley Basin Effluent Generation in the Duncan Valley Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Duncan Valley Basin Climate Data for the Lower San Pedro Basin Streamflow Data for the Lower San Pedro Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Lower San Pedro Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Lower San Pedro Basin Springs in the Lower San Pedro Basin  Groundwater Data for the Lower San Pedro Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Lower San Pedro Basin 149 154 158 159 162 176 178 181 185 188 189 202 205 206 208 211 217 221 222 225 237 240 240 241 243 246 251 263 266 266 267 269 272 277 280 281 283 296 300 301 301 304 308 314 xiii Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.8-8 Table 3.8-9 Table 3.8-10 Table 3.9-1 Table 3.9-2 Table 3.9-3 Table 3.9-4 Table 3.9-5 Table 3.9-6 Table 3.9-7 Table 3.9-8 Table 3.9-9 Table 3.9-10 Table 3.10-1 Table 3.10-2 Table 3.10-3 Table 3.10-4 Table 3.10-5 Table 3.10-6 Table 3.10-7 Table 3.10-8 Table 3.10-9 Table 3.10-10 Table 3.11-1 Table 3.11-2 Table 3.11-3 Table 3.11-4 Table 3.11-5 Table 3.12-1 Table 3.12-2 Table 3.12-3 Table 3.12-4 Table 3.12-5 Table 3.12-6 Table 3.12-7 Table 3.13-1 Table 3.13-2 Table 3.13-3 Table 3.13-4 Table 3.13-5 Table 3.13-6 Table 3.13-7 Cultural Water Demand in the Lower San Pedro Basin Effluent Generation in the Lower San Pedro Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Lower San Pedro Basin Climate Data for the Morenci Basin Streamflow Data for the Morenci Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Morenci Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Morenci Basin Springs in the Morenci Basin Groundwater Data for the Morenci Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Morenci Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Morenci Basin Effluent Generation in the Morenci Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Morenci Basin Climate Data for the Safford Basin Streamflow Data for the Safford Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Safford Basin Reservoirs and Stock Ponds in the Safford Basin Springs in the Safford Basin Groundwater Data for the Safford Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Safford Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Safford Basin Effluent Generation in the Safford Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Safford Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the San Bernardino Valley Basin Springs in the San Bernardino Valley Basin Groundwater Data for the San Bernardino Valley Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the San Bernardino Valley Basin Cultural Water Demand in the San Bernardino Valley Basin Climate Data for the San Rafael Basin Streamflow Data for the San Rafael Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the San Rafael Basin Springs in the San Rafael Basin Groundwater Data for the San Rafael Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the San Rafael Basin Cultural Water Demand in the San Rafael Basin Climate Data for the Upper San Pedro Basin Streamflow Data for the Upper San Pedro Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Upper San Pedro Basin Springs in the Upper San Pedro Basin Groundwater Data for the Upper San Pedro Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Upper San Pedro Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Upper San Pedro Basin xiv 318 319 322 337 341 342 343 346 349 354 357 358 361 376 380 381 382 386 391 399 404 405 409 425 427 430 434 437 447 450 451 453 456 461 464 476 480 481 484 487 497 502 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.13-8 Table 3.13-9 Table 3.14-1 Table 3.14-2 Table 3.14-3 Table 3.14-4 Table 3.14-5 Table 3.14-6 Table 3.14-7 Table 3.14-8 Table 3.14-9 Table 3.14-10 Table C-1 Effluent Generation in the Upper San Pedro Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Upper San Pedro Basin Climate Data for the Willcox Basin Streamflow Data for the Willcox Basin Flood ALERT Equipment in the Willcox Basin Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Willcox Basin Springs in the Willcox Basin Groundwater Data for the Willcox Basin Water Quality Exceedences in the Willcox Basin Cultural Water Demand in the Willcox Basin Effluent Generation in the Willcox Basin Adequacy Determinations in the Willcox Basin Surface Water Rights and Adjudication Filings by Planning Area 503 507 538 541 541 542 545 548 557 561 562 565 592 xv Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 xvi Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS VOLUME 3 - SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA PLANNING AREA Preface Volume 3, the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area, is the third in a series of nine volumes that comprise the Arizona Water Atlas. The primary objectives in assembling the Atlas are to present an overview of water supply and demand conditions in Arizona, to provide water resource information for planning and resource development purposes, and help to identify the needs of communities. The Atlas also indicates where data are lacking and further investigation may be needed. The Atlas divides Arizona into seven planning areas (Figure 3.0-1). There is a separate Atlas volume for each planning area, an executive summary volume composed of background information, and a resource sustainability volume. “Planning areas” are an organizational concept that provide for a regional perspective on supply, demand and water resource issues. A complete discussion of Atlas organization, purpose and scope is found in Volume 1. Also included in Volume 1 is general background information for the state, a description of data sources and methods of analysis for the tables and maps presented in the Atlas, and appendices that provide information on water law, management and programs, and Indian water rights claims and settlements. entirely contained in the planning area as well as portions of seven other counties: Apache (0.1%), Gila (22%), Graham (95%), Greenlee (92%), Pima (6%), Pinal (27%) and Santa Cruz (44%) counties. Most of the San Carlos Apache Reservation, the fourth largest reservation in Arizona, is located within the planning area in parts of six basins: Aravaipa Canyon, Bonita Creek, Dripping Springs Wash, Lower San Pedro, Morenci and Safford basins. The 2000 Census planning area population was approximately 188,300. Basin population ranged from 21 in the Bonita Creek Basin to over 78,000 in the Upper San Pedro Basin. Sierra Vista is the largest metropolitan area with about 44,900 residents in the incorporated area and an additional 16,500 residents in the unincorporated area southeast of the city in 2006. An average of 515,100 acre-feet of water (including effluent) is used annually in the planning area for agricultural, municipal and industrial uses (cultural water demand). Of this total, approximately 84% is groundwater. There are additional, more detailed data available to those presented in this volume. These data may be obtained by contacting the Arizona Department of Water Resources (Department). Section 3.0 Overview of the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area The Southeastern Arizona Planning Area is composed of 14 groundwater basins that vary significantly in size. Elevation ranges from 10,713 feet to 1,830 feet. Cochise County is Agriculture in the Safford Basin. The agricultural demand sector is the largest in the Planning Area with significant agricultural water use in the Douglas, Safford and Willcox Basins. Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 1 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 2 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 The agricultural water use sector is the largest user by far with an average annual demand of approximately 440,000 acre-feet. There is significant agricultural use in the Douglas, Safford and Willcox basins, with over 88% of the total agricultural demand. Most of the Douglas Basin contains an area designated as the Douglas Irrigation Non-expansion Area (INA). INAs were established in areas determined to have insufficient groundwater to provide a reasonably safe supply for irrigation. Average annual municipal demand in the planning area is approximately 40,500 acre-feet per year (AFA) and industrial demand is approximately 34,550 AFA. 3.0.1 Geography The Southeastern Arizona Planning Area encompasses 16,072 square miles (sq. mi.) of geographically diverse groundwater basins in the southeastern corner of Arizona. Groundwater basins include: Aravaipa Canyon, Bonita Creek, Cienega Creek, Donnelly Wash, Douglas, Dripping Springs Wash, Duncan Valley, Lower San Pedro, Morenci, Safford, San Bernardino Valley, San Rafael, Upper San Pedro and Willcox. Basin boundaries, counties and prominent cities, towns, and places are shown in Figure 3.0-2. Figure 3.0-2 Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 3 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 The planning area is bounded on the east by New Mexico, on the south by the international boundary with the state of Sonora, Mexico, on the west by the Active Management Area (AMA) Planning Area (Phoenix, Pinal, Santa Cruz and Tucson AMAs) and on the north by the Central Highlands Planning Area and a small portion of the Eastern Plateau Planning Area. The planning area includes parts of 5 watersheds, which are discussed in Section 3.0-2. Most of the 2,900 sq. mi. San Carlos Apache Reservation, (83.1% or about 2,400 sq. mi.), is located in the north central part of the planning area. basin boundary and the Chiricahua Mountains along the southern Willcox and Safford basin boundary. The planning area transitions to one of Arizona’s major mountain ranges, the White Mountains, along the northeastern boundary. The planning area includes drainages of the San Pedro River and Upper Gila River (Figure 3.0-5). The Gila River originates in western New Mexico and enters Arizona near Duncan in the Duncan Valley Basin. The river generally flows west through the Safford Basin. The San Pedro River flows north from Mexico through the Upper and Lower San Pedro Basins and joins the Gila River near Hayden. Surface water in the planning area flows into the Gila River except for the Willcox Basin, a “closed basin” with internal drainage, and several basins where drainage flows south into Mexico. These basins are the Douglas, San Rafael and San Bernardino Valley basins. The Santa Cruz River originates in the San Rafael Basin, flows south into Mexico, turns north and enters the Santa Cruz AMA east of Nogales. The majority of the planning area is within the Mexican Highland section of the Basin and Range physiographic province, which is characterized by northwest-southeast trending mountain ranges separated by broad alluvial valleys (see Figure 3.0-3). The Mexican Highland section is a higher elevation area of the province with valleys ranging from 2,500 to 4,000 feet above sea level and mountains and valleys covering about equal areas. The extreme northern portion of the planning area falls within the Central Highlands transition zone, Figure 3.0-3 Physiographic Regions of which is characterized by rugged mountains of Arizona igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. The average elevation in the planning area is 4,500 feet. Elevation ranges from 10,713 feet at Mount Graham in the Pinaleño Mountains in the Safford Basin to 1,830 feet near Kearny where the Gila River exits the planning area in the Lower San Pedro Basin. A unique feature of the planning area is mountain ranges that are isolated from each other by valleys of desert grasslands and desert scrub. These “sky islands” are part of a unique complex of about 27 mountain ranges in Arizona, New Mexico, and the Mexican States of Sonora and Chihuahua. The southwestern sky island complex extends from subtropical to temperate latitudes, a condition found nowhere else. (Warshall, 2006) The highest elevation sky islands are the Pinaleño Mountains found along the Safford/Willcox/Aravaipa Canyon Data source: Fenneman and Johnson, 1946 4 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.0.2 Hydrology1 Groundwater Hydrology The Southeastern Arizona Planning Area is generally characterized by alluvial basins with relatively large reserves of groundwater in gently sloping valleys separated by mountain ranges. (See Figure 3.0-4) Anderson, Freethy and Tucci (1992) divided the alluvial basins of south-central Arizona into five groups based on similar hydrologic and geologic characteristics. One of these, the “Southeast Basins”, covers most of the planning area. The principal water-bearing deposits in southeast basins are moderately thick sediments deposited prior to the formation of the Basin and Range structure and an overlying layer of lower basin fill that can reach over 1,000 feet thick, derived from the subsequent partial erosion of the ranges. Lower basin fill sediments are composed of fine-grained to moderately finegrained materials. Upper basin-fill deposits average about 300 feet thick and are generally Figure 3.0-4 Surface Geology of the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area (Based on Reynolds, 1988) 1 Except as noted, information in this section is taken from the Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Volume II, ADWR, August 1994. Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 5 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 composed of sands, gravels, silts, clays and some limestones. Aquifers in this region often consist of two or more water-bearing units separated by a fine-grained unit that forms a leaky confining layer over the lower basin fill. Thin layers of sand and gravel along major streams make up the stream alluvium. Groundwater generally flows from the margins to the central axis of the basin where most groundwater discharge occurs. Confined groundwater (artesian conditions) can occur within the lower basin fill. Artesian conditions occur in a number of locations in the planning area including: the vicinity of Artesia south of Safford; washes and terraces at the base of the Pinaleño Mountains; the vicinity of St. David; the San Bernardino Valley Basin; and the Lower San Pedro Basin. The major groundwater inflow components are mountain front recharge and stream infiltration with some underflow from adjacent up-gradient basins. Outflow consists of evapotranspiration, pumpage, discharge to streams as baseflow and some underflow to down-gradient basins, including into Mexico. Each groundwater basin in the planning area is discussed briefly below. They are grouped Artesian well in the San Bernardino Valley Basin. Artesian conditions also occur in the vicinity of Artesia south of Safford, washes and terraces at the base of the Pinaleno Mountains, the Lower San Pedro Basin and in the vicinity of St. David in the Upper San Pedro Basin. 6 into geographic areas according to their general location and similar hydrologic characteristics. North/Northeastern Portion Groundwater basins located in the north and northeastern portion of the planning area are Bonita Creek, Dripping Springs Wash, Duncan Valley, Morenci and Safford. The Safford Basin aquifers are primarily stream alluvium and basin fill, while the other basins also contain aquifers composed of volcanic rock or sedimentary rock (Gila Formation). Groundwater flow is toward the Gila River drainage and the Bonita Creek, Duncan Valley and Morenci basins contribute underflow to the Safford Basin. Bonita Creek Basin The portion of the Bonita Creek Basin located within the San Carlos Indian Reservation is characterized by a broad valley bordered by the Nantac Rim and the Gila Mountains. The valley consists of basin fill material with volcanic intrusions where most wells are drilled. The lower part of the basin is characterized by volcanic flows, agglomerates and tuffs interbedded with small sedimentary lenses. In this part of the basin, alluvial deposits along the creek are the main aquifer. Groundwater flow is toward the southeast. Groundwater recharge has been estimated at 9,000 AFA and groundwater in storage estimates vary from 1 to 2 million acre-feet (maf). The reported median well yield from 14 wells is over 1,100 gpm. (Table 3.2-4). Water levels are relatively shallow in the few wells measured in the basin, and all are located near the southern boundary. Water quality data are lacking. The City of Safford operates an infiltration galley along Bonita Creek and conveys water to Safford for municipal use. Dripping Springs Wash Basin Dripping Springs Wash is a mountainous basin containing small sediment-filled valleys with relatively little groundwater in storage. The largest valley is north of the Gila River and drained by Dripping Springs Wash. Water Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 producing units consist of younger alluvium and the Gila Conglomerate, with the younger alluvium along Dripping Springs Wash and its tributaries the major water producer. These deposits are reportedly less than 150 feet thick. Consolidated rocks compose the surrounding mountains and contain minor amounts of groundwater. Groundwater flow is towards the Gila River which bisects the basin (Figure 3.3-6). Groundwater recharge has been estimated at 3,000 to 9,000 AFA and groundwater in storage at less than 1maf. Well yields vary widely with a median well yield of about 394 gpm reported (Table 3.6-6). Recent water quality data are San Francisco River at Clifton. In the Morenci lacking. Basin groundwater is found primarily in alluvial deposits along major water courses Duncan Valley Basin The Duncan Valley Basin consists of an elongate valley filled with sediments, drained by the Gila River and surrounded by low permeability rocks. Younger alluvial deposits along the Gila River and its tributaries are the principal source of groundwater. These deposits are up to 170 feet thick in some locations. Wells also tap the underlying Gila Formation composed of poorly consolidated sand, silt and gravel. The older basin fill contains only minor amounts of groundwater. Groundwater flow is toward the north and west along the Gila River drainage. Groundwater recharge estimates range from 6,000 to 14,200 AFA and groundwater storage estimates range from 9 to 19 maf. The median well yield reported for 165 large diameter wells was 850 gpm (Table 3.7-6). Water levels in measured wells varies from 24 feet to over 500 feet below land surface (bls), with slight water level declines observed from 1990-1991 to 2003-2004 (Figure 3.7-6). Arsenic and fluoride concentrations exceeding drinking water standards have been measured at a number of wells in this basin. of volcanic rocks (rhyolite and agglomerates overlain by basalt flows). Groundwater is found primarily in alluvial deposits along major water courses and groundwater flow is to the south along the San Francisco River drainage. Groundwater recharge has been estimated at 15,000 AFA and groundwater in storage at 3 maf. Water level change data in the Morenci Basin are available only for the area near Alpine where the measured depth to water is less than 80 feet bls and water levels rose over 15 feet in one well from 1990-1991 to 2003-2004 (Figure 3.9-7). Water quality data shows metal contamination in the vicinity of the Morenci Mine. Safford Basin The Safford Basin is a relatively large, alluvial filled depression bordered by elongated mountain ranges. Basin fill is the major aquifer in all three sub-basins of the Safford Basin. Sub-basin delineations are shown in Figures 3.10-7 and 3.10-9. In the San Simon Valley Sub-basin a clay deposit, known as the Blue Clay unit, separates the upper and lower basinfill aquifers and may be as much as 600 feet Morenci Basin thick. Groundwater is found under artesian The Morenci Basin is characterized by steep conditions in the lower aquifer and is generally canyons, mesas and mountains with numerous unconfined in the upper aquifer. Groundwater streams and washes. The basin consists mainly flow in the sub-basin is toward the north along Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 7 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 the San Simon River drainage but also flows toward agricultural pumping centers. The principal aquifer in the Gila Valley Sub-basin, located in the middle part of the Safford Basin, is the upper basin fill, underlain by the Blue Clay unit. Groundwater is also utilized from the lower basin fill, which generally is found under artesian conditions and where well discharges may be quite high. Groundwater flow is from south to north along the Gila River drainage. The main water-bearing unit in the San Carlos Valley Sub-basin, located in the northern part of the Safford Basin, is the upper basin fill, which is found under unconfined conditions. As with the other sub-basins, groundwater in the lower basin fill is generally found under artesian conditions. Groundwater flow in the sub-basin is toward the Gila River drainage. Groundwater recharge for the entire basin is estimated at 105,000 AFA. Groundwater discharge is to agricultural and municipal pumping, primarily in the Gila Valley Subbasin, and to spring discharge. Estimates of groundwater in storage range from more than 27 maf to 69 maf (Table 3.10-6). Depth to water is relatively shallow in wells measured near the Gila River, while water levels are generally deeper in wells in the San Simon Valley Sub-basin, the southernmost sub-basin. Water levels declined in most wells in the basin that were measured in 1990-1991 and 2003-2004, with the most significant declines south of San Simon where water levels declined by more than 30 feet during this time period (Figure 3.10-7). Water levels exceed 600 feet bls at two wells along the western boundary of the San Carlos Valley Sub-basin, the northernmost sub-basin. In one of these wells, water levels declined over 60 feet between 1990 and 2004 (Figure 3.10-7). Most of the groundwater development in the Safford Basin is in the Gila Valley Sub-basin, the central sub-basin, which contain the basin’s major population and agricultural centers. The median well yield reported on registration forms 8 for almost 1,500 large (>10-inch) diameter wells was 600 gpm. As shown on Figure 3.10-9, high yield (>2000 gpm) wells are found along the Gila and San Simon river drainages and in the vicinity of Bowie. Water quality conditions vary in the basin although fluoride and arsenic concentrations consistently exceed drinking water standards. In the San Simon Valley Sub-basin the upper aquifer generally contains elevated total dissolved solids (TDS) and fluoride concentrations. Groundwater in both the upper and lower basin fill of the Gila Valley Sub-basin may also be high in TDS. In the San Carlos Valley Sub-basin, elevated levels of TDS have been measured in stream alluvium. Western Portion On the western side of the planning area are a group of basins that are tributary to the San Pedro and Gila rivers; Aravaipa Canyon, Donnelly Wash, Lower San Pedro and Upper San Pedro. Groundwater is found in stream alluvium and basin fill sediments in these basins. Aravaipa Canyon Basin The sparsely populated Aravaipa Canyon Basin is characterized by a relatively flat northwesttrending valley in the southern half of the basin and an incised valley, Aravaipa Canyon that cuts through the Galiuro Mountains, in the northern half. The principal aquifers are the unconfined stream alluvium, which is the major source of groundwater, and a confined basin fill aquifer. Water level records suggest that the confined aquifer leaks into the unconfined aquifer. The thickness of the younger alluvium decreases to the south. (Holmes, 2003) Groundwater flow is similar to the surface water runoff pattern; northwest along the central axis of the valley. Groundwater flows towards the head of Aravaipa Canyon where its flow path is geologically restricted, resulting in the perennial portion of Aravaipa Creek (Holmes, 2003). Groundwater recharge is from infiltrating precipitation and Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 runoff and is estimated to range from 7,000 to 16,700 AFA (Table 3.1-3). Groundwater discharge is to Aravaipa Creek from springs and baseflow, with small discharge to wells. Freethey and Anderson (1986) estimated 5 maf of water in storage in the basin. Depth to water within the basin fill varies from 25 feet bls where the younger alluvium is thin to over 500 feet bls in the uplands in the southern part of the basin (Holmes, 2003). Two recent water level measurements in the central valley were 64 and 39 feet bls (Figure 3.1-6). Arsenic is the water quality parameter that most frequently exceeds drinking water standards in wells measured in the basin (Table 3.1-4), but groundwater is generally of good chemical quality (Holmes, 2003). of the basin. The rest of the basin is composed of hardrock that surrounds and underlies the basin fill (Overby, 2000). A 16-mile reach of the Gila River flows east to west through the basin, which is also drained by Donnelly Wash and Box O Wash located on the south side of the Gila River. In general, groundwater flow follows surface water drainage patterns, flowing toward the Gila River. Aquifer recharge is from the mountain fronts and streambed infiltration. Groundwater is discharged from the alluvium into the Gila River and from domestic and stock wells. Storage estimates for the basin range from 140,000 acre-feet to 2.0 maf. (Table 3.4-3) Depth to water in the basin fill varies from about 150 feet in the north, 256 feet in the center, and about 370 feet in the south. Water levels are more shallow in wells located in Donnelly Wash Basin the hardrock areas (Overby, 2000). Elevated Donnelly Wash Basin is a relatively small basin fluoride concentrations were measured in two with few inhabitants. The principal aquifer is a springs in the basin (Table 3.4-4). Eleven water strip of basin fill that covers about 30 percent samples collected by the Department in 1996 and 1997 did not find elevated fluoride levels in groundwater in either the alluvium or the hardrock (Overby, 2000). Aravaipa Creek. Groundwater flows toward the head of Aravaipa Canyon where its flow path is geologically restricted, resulting in the perennial portion of Aravaipa Creek Lower San Pedro Basin The Lower San Pedro Basin consists of the northwest-trending San Pedro River Valley bordered by mountains ranging in elevation from 6,000 to over 8,000 feet in elevation. There are two sub-basins; the Mammoth Subbasin and the smaller Camp Grant Wash Subbasin (Figure 3.8-7). The two major water bearing units are stream alluvium and basin fill. Most mining, industrial and domestic/municipal wells are located in the regional basin fill aquifer while most irrigation wells are located in the stream alluvium. The stream alluvium along the San Pedro River and tributaries can be quite permeable with high well yields but this aquifer is often less than 50 feet thick south of Redington (USGS, 2006a). Groundwater in the alluvium is unconfined. The hydrologic characteristics of the basin fill aquifer vary widely due to the amount of cementation and occurrence of fine- Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 9 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Upper San Pedro Basin The Upper San Pedro Basin consists of the northwest trending San Pedro River Valley and surrounding mountains that range from 5,000 to almost 10,000 feet in elevation. The basin contains two sub-basins: the Sierra Vista and the small Allen Flat sub-basin. Basin fill is the principal aquifer although the stream alluvium is also utilized. Groundwater in the basin fill aquifer is found in both unconfined and confined conditions. Artesian conditions exist near Palominas, Hereford, and more extensively near Benson and Saint David. These conditions San Pedro River in the Lower San Pedro Basin. supported modest groundwater discharges for The streambed alluvium along the San Pedro River irrigation use primarily in the Benson-Pomerene and tributaries is very permeable with high well area. An interesting feature is a limestone aquifer yields. in the Whetstone Mountains that contains a grained layers. Both confined and unconfined “live” or wet cave, Kartchner Caverns, a state conditions exist. Artesian conditions exist park. The water level in the cavern is about 700 from about five miles north to ten miles south feet higher than that of the underlying alluvial of Mammoth in wells drilled deeper than 500 aquifer (ADWR, 2005a). feet. Groundwater flow direction is from the mountains toward the valley floor and to the north. The estimated groundwater recharge ranges from 24,000 to 29,000 AFA (Table 3.8-7) from mountain front recharge, streambed infiltration and underflow from the Aravaipa Canyon and Upper San Pedro basins. Groundwater is discharged by pumpage, evapotranspiration, evaporation from streams, and springs and seeps. The estimated volume of groundwater in storage ranges from 11 maf to more than 27 maf (Table 3.8-7). Water level change data between 19901991 and 2003-2004 for 16 wells shows relatively stable water levels in most wells (Figure 3.8-6). (A water level sweep was conducted in winter 2006-2007 and a hydrologic map series report is expected to be completed by fall 2009). Water quality data from selected sites show that fluoride was the parameter that most frequently exceeded drinking water standards, with elevated levels of cadmium found in the vicinity of Hayden and Dudleyville (Table 3.8-7). 10 Groundwater flow direction is from the mountain fronts toward the central valley and to the north. A cone of depression has formed in the Sierra Vista area that has altered flow direction (Figure 3.13-6). Groundwater recharge is approximately 35,700 AFA from the mountain fronts, underflow from Mexico and streambed infiltration. Two effluent recharge projects in the basin also recharge the aquifer. The most populous basin in the planning area, major Allen Flat, Upper San Pedro Basin. The basin contains two sub-basins: the Sierra Vista and the small Allen Flat sub-basin. Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 discharge is from municipal and agricultural pumpage and from riparian evapotranspiration. (ADWR, 2005a) The most recent estimate of groundwater in storage is 19.8 to 26.1 maf although estimates of up to 59 maf exist (Table 3.13-5). Basin, (the southern part of the Sulphur Springs Valley), contains its main aquifer, basin fill, which supplies most of its large-capacity wells. The basin fill is composed of sand and gravel lenses interbedded with silt and clay lenses. The sand and gravel lenses are the main source of groundwater. Groundwater is primarily unconfined although artesian conditions were reported locally in the upper alluvial deposits in the early 1950s prior to the start of heavy groundwater pumping (Rascona, 1993). Groundwater is also found in the mountain bedrock which provides relatively small amounts of water for stock and domestic use. In and adjacent to the City of Douglas, groundwater is pumped from basin fill with interbedded volcanic rock. Groundwater flow is generally from north to south although agricultural pumpage has altered flow directions in the vicinity of Elfrida where a cone of depression has developed. As shown in Figure 3.13-6, water levels declined in most wells measured in 1990-1991 and 20032004. Additional data show annual declines of 0.9 to 2.9 feet in some wells in the BisbeeNaco area and rises of up to 0.6 feet per year in the Pomerene area north of Benson (ADWR, 2005a). The Department measured water levels in the basin in 2006 and these data are expected to be released in a water level change map series report in 2009. Preliminary data show water levels decreasing in most wells in the Bisbee and Naco area; about seven feet in five years from 2001 to 2006. In the Benson area, water levels have declined the most in wells west of the San Pedro River. Groundwater recharge occurs mainly in washes and along mountain fronts (Rascona, 1993) and Groundwater quality is generally suitable for is estimated at 15,500 to 22,000 AFA (Table most uses. Arsenic and fluoride were the water 3.5-5). Incidental recharge may also come from quality parameters that most frequently exceed- infiltration of agricultural irrigation (USGS, ed drinking water standards in wells sampled in 2006b). Groundwater discharge is primarily the basin. Localized contamination near St. Da- from groundwater pumping of almost 53,000 vid is being remediated as part of the Superfund Program (See Table 3.0-8). Southern Portion Groundwater from three basins in the southern portion of the planning area flows south into Mexico. These basins are the Douglas and San Bernardino Valley basins in the southeastern part of the planning area and the San Rafael Basin in the southwest corner. Douglas Basin The Douglas Basin occupies the southern portion of a northwest-southeast trending structural trough that extends from the central part of the Aravaipa Canyon Basin, through the Willcox Basin, to the northeastern part of Sonora, Mexico. The long alluvial valley in the Douglas Agriculture near Elfrida, Douglas Basin. The basin has been severely over-drafted since the late 1940s and much of the basin is designated as an Irrigation Non-Expansion Area to restrict agricultural expansion. Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 11 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 AFA. Groundwater in storage estimates range from 26 to 32 maf. The basin has been severely over-drafted since the late 1940s and much of the basin was designated as an Irrigation NonExpansion Area in 1980 to restrict agricultural expansion. Concerns about the future availability of water in the basin is a subject of an investigation to compile hydrologic data and information (USGS, 2006b). Between 19901991 and 2003-2004, water levels declined in most wells measured in the basin, particularly in the Elfrida area and north of Douglas (Figure 3.5-6). Groundwater quality is generally suitable for most uses although elevated fluoride concentrations have been measured in a number of wells (Table 3.5-6). San Bernardino Valley The San Bernardino Valley Basin is covered by volcanic flows and cinder cones with some relatively thin alluvial deposits. Groundwater is obtained from sand and gravel interbedded with basalt flows or from shallow alluvium. Springs and artesian wells support wetlands designated as the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge adjacent to the international border. Groundwater flow is from the mountains toward the valley center and south to Mexico. Estimated groundwater recharge is 9,000 AFA and groundwater storage estimates range from 1.6 to 2.0 maf (Table 3.11-3). Most wells in the basin are located immediately north of the international border where water levels are generally less than 100 feet bls. The depth to water increases to the north and toward the mountains along the basin margins on the west, north and east. Little groundwater or water quality data are available for the basin. Elevated nitrate levels were found in two wells measured in the basin (Table 3.11-4). San Rafael Valley, San Rafael Basin. stream alluvium and in basin fill along the Santa Cruz River and its major tributaries. Basin fill occupies most of the valley and is composed of clay, silt, sand and gravel. The basin fill has been estimated to be as much as 1,900 feet deep based on well logs. Bultman (1999) estimated that the San Rafael basin may contain an aquifer up to approximately 1,000 feet thick over a substantial area consisting of upper basin fill. Groundwater flow is from the mountains toward the Santa Cruz River and then south. Groundwater recharge is from mountain front recharge and infiltration of runoff in stream channels. Groundwater recharge is estimated at 5,000 AFA (Table 3.12-5). Estimated groundwater in storage ranges from 4 to 5 maf. Water levels are relatively shallow (25 feet bls or less) in the streambed alluvium and generally at levels over 100 feet bls in the basin fill. Well yields San Rafael Basin are generally higher in the streambed alluvium. The San Rafael Basin consists of a broad There is little water quality data available for north-trending valley surrounded by block- the basin but drinking water exceedences of fault mountains and drained by the Santa Cruz arsenic, antimony, lead and radionuclides have River whose headwaters are in the northern been detected in wells in the western part of the portion of the valley. Groundwater is found in basin, an area of historic mining activity. 12 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Other Basins Two basins, Cienega Creek and Willcox, have hydrogeologic conditions that are unique in the planning area. The Cienega Creek Basin has three groundwater sections based on the presence of distinctive aquifers and groundwater flows to the north and to the southwest. Groundwater in the Willcox Basin is generally isolated from surrounding basins, with groundwater flow primarily to the center of the basin, the Willcox Playa. to 90-feet thick. Wells drilled in the basin fill are generally low yielding. Groundwater flow follows the surface water flow direction with flow toward the northeast, north of Sonoita, and to the south, south of Sonoita. Groundwater recharge comes from mountain front recharge and streambed infiltration along Cienega and Sonoita creeks and their tributaries. Groundwater recharge estimates vary from 8,500 to 25,500 AFA, although this estimate does not include the Sonoita Creek subarea (TaCienega Creek Basin ble 3.3-5). Estimates of groundwater in storage The Cienega Creek Basin consists of a narrow range from 5.1 to 11 maf. Water level trends are northeast trending alluvial valley, drained by generally stable with some declines noted near Cienega and Sonoita creeks, and surrounded Patagonia and east of Sonoita (Figure 3.3-6). by fault-block mountains. There is a surface Groundwater quality is generally good although water divide southwest of Sonoita, with Cien- cadmium and copper concentrations exceeding ega Creek flowing northeast and Sonoita Creek drinking water standards have been measured in flowing to the south and west. Hydrogeologic several wells in the vicinity of Patagonia. conditions in the basin are complex. The basin has been divided into three subareas based on Willcox Basin the presence of a distinctive aquifer or set of The Willcox Basin occupies the northern part of aquifers: upper Cienega Creek, lower Cienega the Sulphur Springs Valley and is hydrologicalCreek and Sonoita Creek. ly separate from the southern part of the valley, the Douglas Basin. Groundwater in the Willcox “The Narrows” (T18S, R18E, S6), where Basin is found in alluvial deposits consisting of bedrock outcrops on both sides of the Cienega stream and lake-bed deposits. The stream deCreek channel, divides the lower and upper posits are the most productive water-bearing Cienega Creek subareas (Bota, 1997). The unit. The clay-rich lake bed deposits outcrop in upper Cienega Creek subarea includes most of the Willcox Playa. There they create localized the basin’s central valley. The main aquifer is artesian conditions. Where the coarse-grained basin fill, which is deepest in the southern part stream deposits are underlain by the lake-bed of the subarea between Sonoita and Elgin. To deposits, perched groundwater conditions may the north, the lower Cienega Creek subarea occur. A playa is a nearly level area at the botextends to the northern basin boundary. It tom of a closed desert basin, sometimes tempocontains three aquifers: stream alluvium, rarily covered by water. basin fill and the Pantano formation. The main aquifer in this subarea is stream alluvium. The The Willcox Basin has internal surface water basin-fill alluvium is a relatively poor aquifer drainage and groundwater flow is thought to in this subarea with relatively low well yields have mirrored surface drainage under predeveland interbedded clay layers that create leaky opment conditions; moving from the outer marconfined and artesian aquifer conditions. gins toward the Willcox Playa (Oram, 1993). The southwestern part of the basin is the However, groundwater flow conditions have Sonoita Creek subarea where the main aquifer been altered significantly due to groundwais stream alluvium that forms the floodplain of ter pumping for agriculture. Several relatively Sonoita Creek and its tributaries and may be up large cones of depression have developed in the Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 13 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Report (No. 1) in 2008 summarizing depth to water measurements taken at 578 wells in the Willcox Basin in November/December 1999 and November/December 2005. Most of the wells (549 of 578 or 95%) showed a water level decline. Forty had declines of more than 40 feet and most of these were located in the area southeast of the Willcox Playa in a predominantly agricultural area (Jacobson and others, 2008). A summary of the water level changes and a water level change contour map from the Declines in groundwater levels (in excess of map series report are shown in the graphic be200 feet measured in nine wells between 1954 low. As shown, most water levels declined beand 1975), may have caused land subsidence in tween 0.5 and 20.4 feet. the basin (USGS, 2006b). Figure 3.14-6 shows groundwater level changes between 1990-1991 Well yields are relatively high in the basin with and 2003-2004. A number of declines of greater A median well yield of 750 gpm was reported than 30 feet were measured in wells in the from over 1,000 large (>10 inch) diameter wells (Table 3.14-6). central part of the basin during this period. Concerns about groundwater level declines and future availability of water for all uses has led Elevated TDS concentrations exist in some areas to an investigation of the geology and hydrol- and fluoride and arsenic concentrations above ogy of the Willcox and Douglas basins (USGS, drinking water standards have been reported in 2006b). As part of this effort, the Department a number of wells (Table 3.14-7). released a Water Level Change Map Series basin including one southeast of the Willcox Playa and another north of the City of Willcox (Figure 3.14-6). Groundwater recharge has been estimated at 15,000 to 47,000 AFA primarily from mountain front recharge and also from agricultural irrigation and stream channel runoff (USGS, 2006b). Groundwater discharge is primarily from groundwater pumping of more than 176,000 AFA. Estimates of groundwater in storage range from 42 to 59 maf (Table 3.14-6). Excerpt from ADWR Water Level Change Map Series Report No. 1 on the Willcox Basin (Jacobson and others, 2008) 14 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Surface Water Hydrology The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) divides and subdivides the United States into successively smaller hydrologic units based on hydrologic features. These units are classified into four levels. From largest to smallest these are: regions, subregions, accounting units and cataloging units. A hydrologic unit code (HUC) consisting of two digits for each level in the system is used to identify any hydrologic area (Seaber et al., 1987). A 6-digit code corresponds to accounting units, which are used by the USGS for designing and managing the National Water Data Network. There are portions of five watersheds in the planning area at the accounting unit level: Middle Gila River; Rio de Bavispe; San Pedro River-Willcox; Santa Cruz River; and the Upper Gila River (Figure 3.0-5). More detailed information on stream flow, springs, reservoirs and general surface water characteristics are found in the individual basin sections. Middle Gila The Middle Gila Watershed extends west from Coolidge Dam to the confluence of the Gila and Salt rivers in the Phoenix AMA. The San Pedro River is the major tributary to this watershed Figure 3.0-5 Southeastern Arizona Planning Area USGS Watersheds (Data Source: USGS 2005) Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 15 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. Dripping Springs Wash, Donnelly Wash and the northernmost part of the Lower San Pedro basins are included in the Watershed. Below Coolidge Dam, flow in the Gila River is from releases from the San Carlos Reservoir and flood flow from the San Pedro River (ADWR, 1994). Perennial streams include the Gila River, and portions of the San Pedro River and Mineral Creek in the Lower San Pedro Basin, Box Canyon in the Donnelly Wash Basin and Mescal Creek in the Dripping Springs Wash Basin (see Figures 3.8-6, 3.5-5 and 3.6-5). Since 1936, an average of 260,000 AFA of reservoir storage and inflows have been released to the river below Coolidge Dam (ADWR, 2006). There are three streamgages in the watershed. The highest annual flow was recorded at the Kelvin gage located downstream of the confluence of the San Pedro and Gila rivers where a flow of 2.375 maf was measured in 1993. Annual median flow at this gage is approximately 324,300 acre-feet (see Table 3.8-2). There are two major (10 gpm or greater) springs in the watershed, both located in the Dripping Springs Wash Basin. Both are warm springs with measured discharges of 200 gpm (Mescal Warm Spring) and 165 gpm (Coolidge Dam Warm Spring). These measurements were taken during or prior to 1982 and may not be indicative of current conditions. Gila River, Donnelly Wash Basin. 16 Ten miles of Mineral Creek, located northwest of Kearny, are impaired due to elevated concentration of copper and selenium. Rio de Bavispe The Rio de Bavispe Watershed drains south and extends into New Mexico and Mexico. Major drainages in Arizona are Whitewater Draw and Black Draw, which are tributary to the Rio de Bavispe in Mexico. The Rio de Bavispe joins the Rio Yaqui which discharges into the Gulf of California. The watershed includes most of the Douglas Basin, the southernmost portion of the Willcox Basin, and the entire San Bernardino Valley Basin. Whitewater Draw is the major drainage in the Douglas Basin. Black Draw is the main surface water drainage in the San Bernardino Valley Basin and becomes perennial just north of the international boundary. In this basin, artesian wells and springs support wetlands near the border. In addition to Black Draw, perennial streams in the watershed include reaches of Rucker Canyon in the Willcox Basin, and Leslie Creek in the Douglas and Willcox basins (see Figures 3.5-5 and 3.14-5). There are two active streamgages in the watershed. The gage at Whitewater Draw near Douglas recorded a maximum annual flow of approximately 22,300 acre-feet in 1955 with a median annual flow of 5,960 acre-feet. The other operating gage is on Leslie Creek near McNeal with a median annual flow of approximately 750 acre-feet. There are no major springs in the watershed. San Pedro-Willcox Watershed The Arizona portion of the San Pedro-Willcox Watershed is contained entirely within the planning area. Approximately 696 square miles of the Watershed extends into Mexico. In Arizona, the Watershed includes all of the Aravaipa Canyon and Upper San Pedro basins, most of the Lower San Pedro and Willcox basins and relatively small portions of the Cienega Creek, Douglas and San Rafael basins. A few tributaries to the San Pedro River begin on the Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.1-5 and 3.8-5). Other perennial streams are found in the Lower San Pedro, Upper San Pedro and Willcox basins (Figures 3.8-5, 3.13-5 and 3.14-5). San Pedro River at Charleston, Upper San Pedro Basin. The largest annual flow ever measured in the watershed, 152,798 acre-feet, was recorded at this gage in 1914. There are 12 active streamgages in the watershed; two in the Lower San Pedro Basin and 10 in the Upper San Pedro Basin. The gage on the San Pedro River at Charleston has been in operation since 1904. The largest annual flow ever measured in the watershed, (152,798 acrefeet), was recorded at this gage in 1914. More recently, in 1984, a maximum annual flow of 102,107 acre-feet was measured at the gage on the San Pedro River near Tombstone. Median annual flow at these gages is 33,203 acre-feet and 29,654 acre-feet, respectively. southwest slopes of the Huachuca Mountains in the San Rafael Basin and drain into Mexico. (ADWR, 2005a) The San Pedro River enters the U.S. from Mexico near Palominas (see Figure 3.13-1) and flows north to its confluence with the Gila River. Major tributaries are the Babocomari River and Aravaipa Creek. The only major springs in the watershed are found in the Lower San Pedro and Upper San Pedro basins. There are 14 major springs in the Lower San Pedro Basin. The largest, Cooks Lake Spring located downstream of the confluence of Aravaipa Creek and the San Pedro River, had a discharge rate of 1,000 gpm when last With the exception of Whitewater Draw in the measured in 1951. Twelve major springs have extreme southern end of the basin that drains been identified in the Upper San Pedro Basin. into the Douglas Basin, most of the surface The largest is Garden Canyon No. 1 in the Huawater drainage in the Willcox Basin is to the chuca Mountains with a discharge of 134 gpm Willcox Playa. The playa occupies about 50 measured in 1963. Most of the spring measuresquare miles in the center of the basin and is ments in both basins date from before 1980 and a remnant of Pleistocene-age Lake Cochise. may not be indicative of current conditions (see (Oram, 1993) Tables 3.8-5 and 3.13-4). Some stretches of the San Pedro River are perennial, although recent drought and delay of the summer monsoon has affected some previously perennial stretches for short periods of time, most notably at Charleston in the Upper San Pedro Basin. The Babocomari River, in the Upper San Pedro Basin, is perennial in its upper reach and near its confluence with the San Pedro River. Aravaipa Creek is perennial within Aravaipa Canyon above its confluence with the San Pedro River as are three of its tributaries in the Aravaipa Canyon Basin (see Figures Fifteen miles of the San Pedro River in the Lower San Pedro Basin, from Aravaipa Creek to the Gila River, are impaired due to elevated concentrations of E. coli and selenium (Table 3.8-7). In the Upper San Pedro Basin, water quality standards were exceeded in three reaches of the San Pedro River for a total of 53 miles. These reaches are impaired due to elevated levels of E. coli, nitrate and copper (Table 3.13-6). Santa Cruz Watershed The Santa Cruz Watershed includes most of Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 17 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Creek Basin. The largest of the seven major springs is Monkey Spring southwest of Sonoita with a discharge rate of 430 gpm. A measurement date is lacking for this spring (Table 3.3-5). There are several impaired waters in the Santa Cruz Watershed. Parker Canyon Lake in the San Rafael Basin contains elevated levels of mercury. In the Cienega Creek Basin, a total of 20 miles of impaired stream reaches occur on Alum Gulch, Harshaw Creek, Humboldt Canyon and on an unnamed tributary to Harshaw Creek. These waters contain concentrations of cadmium, copper, zinc or pH that exceed standards (Table 3.3-6). Upper Gila Watershed The Upper Gila Watershed drains about 7,400 square miles in the planning area above Coolidge Dam and contains the Bonita Creek, Santa Cruz River near the headwaters, San Duncan Valley, Morenci, and Safford basins. Rafael Basin. Major tributaries include the San Francisco the Cienega Creek and San Rafael basins and River, Eagle Creek, Bonita Creek, San Simon extends south into Mexico and west to include Creek and the San Carlos River. the Santa Cruz AMA and most of the Tucson and Pinal AMAs. The Santa Cruz River originates An average of about 160,000 AFA of Gila River in the San Rafael Valley and flows southward water flows into Arizona from New Mexico and to Mexico before turning north and reentering over 40% of this flow typically occurs in the the U.S. east of Nogales, Arizona. Surface winter. Tributary inflows from the San Francisco water in the Cienega Creek Basin drains west River are significant, typically over 150,000 to the Santa Cruz River from Sonoita Creek and AFA. Inflow to the San Carlos Reservoir from north to tributaries of the Santa Cruz River from the Gila and San Carlos Rivers averages about 310,000 AFA (ADWR, 2006). There are three Cienega Creek. active streamgages on the Gila River. The The Santa Cruz River is perennial in the plan- maximum annual flow recorded was at a gage ning area. In the Cienega Creek Basin there are near Solomon with a flow of 1.56 maf in 1993. perennial reaches of Cienega Creek, Sonoita Median flow at this gage is approximately Creek and Red Rock Canyon. The only stream- 273,000 AFA (see Table 3.10-2). gage on the Santa Cruz River is near Lochiel with a maximum annual flow of 12,600 acre- The San Francisco River is perennial with a feet measured in 1955. Median annual flow number of hot springs located above Clifton. at this gage is 1,410 acre-feet. The only other The Gila River has a 35-mile perennial stretch streamgage in the watershed is a gage on Cien- about 20 miles northwest of the New Mexico border. Flow in this stretch is maintained by ega Creek near Sonoita (see Table 3.3-1). tributary inflow and springs, including hot Major springs are located only in the Cienega springs (ADWR, 1994). Flow in the Gila River 18 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 becomes intermittent farther downstream due to Valley Basin is impaired due to elevated irrigation diversions and seasonal variations in selenium concentrations (Table 3.7-7). flow (ADWR, 2006). In the Safford Basin, a 6-mile reach of the Gila The largest spring in the planning area is River exceeded the water quality standard for located in the Safford Basin. Warm Springs, E.coli and turbidity and a 8-mile reach of Cave with a measured discharge of almost 3,400 gpm Creek exceeded the standard for selenium (Table is located at the headwaters of the San Carlos 3.10-7). In the Morenci Basin, water quality River. There are also a number of large springs standards were exceeded at Luna Lake and in downstream of Pima near the Gila River (USGS, a 13-mile reach of the San Francisco River near 2006c). In total, there are 22 major springs in the Alpine (Table 3.9-7). Safford Basin. Other major springs are found in the Bonita Creek Basin (1 spring), Duncan 3.0.3 Climate2 Valley Basin (2), and Morenci Basin (9). Most of the spring measurements shown on the Annual average precipitation in the planning springs tables in sections 3.2, 3.7, 3.9 and 3.10 area is 14.7 inches, with over 52% coming in were taken between 1940 and 1982 and may not July, August, and September (Figure 3.0-6). This be indicative of current conditions. planning area receives the highest percentage of summer precipitation in the state because of its A 15-mile reach of the Gila River in the Duncan proximity to the core monsoon region in Mexico. Figure 3.0-6 Average Monthly Precipitation and Temperature in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area, 1930-2002 Data are from selected Western Regional Climate Center cooperative weather observation stations. Figure author: CLIMAS. Information in this section was provided by the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS), University of Arizona, October, 2006. 2 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 19 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.0-7 Average Annual Temperature and Total Annual Precipitation in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area from 1930-2002 Horizontal lines are average temperature (61.6 °F) and precipitation (14.7 inches), respectively. Light lines are yearly values and highlighted lines are 5-year moving average values. Data are from selected Western Regional Climate Center cooperative weather observation stations. Figure author: CLIMAS. The monsoon is strongest in northwestern Mexico, and Arizona usually only receives the northernmost fringes of precipitation. Pool and Coes (1999) noted that trends in seasonal precipitation at four stations in the southern half of the Upper San Pedro Basin showed a general trend of increasing winter precipitation and decreasing wet-season (summer) precipitation during the period 1956-1997. temperatures result in high evaporation rates. About 35% of planning area precipitation occurs during winter months (November – April), mostly from frontal storm systems. At higher elevations, this precipitation falls as snow. Slow water release from high elevation spring snowmelt and low evaporation rates make winter precipitation more hydrologically efficient because there is less runoff and greater gain to streams. Summer precipitation from thunderstorms is less hydrologically efficient than winter As in other areas of Arizona, precipitation is precipitation, because monsoon storm cells extremely variable, both spatially and from year are spatially discontinuous and high summer to year. For example, during the 2005-2006 20 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.0-8 Winter (November-April) precipitation departures from average, 10001988, reconstructed from tree rings - Arizona NOAA Climate Division 7 Arizona NOAA Climate Division 7 (Southeastern Arizona) includes Graham, Greenlee, Cochise, Santa Cruz, and Pima counties. Data are presented as a 20-year moving average to show variability on decadal time scales. Values shown for each year are centered on a 20 year period. The average winter precipitation for 1000-1988 is 4.9 inches. Data: Fenbiao Ni, University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research and CLIMAS. Figure author: CLIMAS winter, the planning area received 6.3 inches less precipitation than during the 2004-2005 winter. This variability can also be observed on longer time scales. The 1950s were a relatively dry decade with an average annual precipitation deficit of -1.46 inches, while the 1980s were a relatively wet decade with an average annual precipitation surplus of 1.86 inches (Figure 3.0-7). Annual average temperature in the planning area is 61.6° F, compared to the statewide average of 59.9° F. As in other parts of Arizona, temperatures have been increasing the past several decades. Temperature observations are consistent with global temperature trends; however, some warming may be attributed to changes in land-cover resulting from population growth. Winter precipitation records dating to 1000 A.D. reconstructed from tree rings show extended periods of above and below average precipitation in every century (Figure 3.0-8) in the area encompassed in Climate Division 7, which includes the planning area and parts of others. A climate division is a region within a state that is generally climatically homogeneous. Arizona has been divided into seven climate divisions. These decadal and shorter time period shifts are related to circulation changes in the Pacific Ocean. On time scales of 10-30 years, precipitation variability is likely related to shifts in Pacific Ocean circulation patterns, such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). On time scales of 2-7 years, the ENSO, Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 21 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 with its phases of El Niño and La Niña, is associated with precipitation variations in the region, most notably during winter months (November-April). During El Niño episodes, there are greater chances for above-average winter precipitation, while La Niña conditions are usually associated with below-average winter precipitation. However, El Niño winters can also produce below-average precipitation. Generally, La Niña conditions are associated with drought in the region. The ENSO phases also impact precipitation and monsoon strength in the region. 3.0.4 Environmental Conditions Environmental conditions reflect the impacts of geography, climate and cultural activities and may be a critical consideration in water resource management and supply development. The sky island ecosystems of the planning area are relatively isolated from each other, and as a result there are a large number of endemic species in the planning area mountain ranges. These ecosystems are of major interest to resource managers due to their biological diversity and distinct biogeography. (Warshall, 2006) Discussed in this section is vegetation, riparian protection through the Arizona Water Protection Fund Program, instream flow claims, threatened and endangered species, public lands protected from development as national parks, monuments, memorials, wildlife refuges, national conservation areas, wilderness areas and other protected areas, and unique waters. Desert region may have grown by as much as a third in the last few hundred years due to human activities including poor agricultural practices that have eroded grasslands (CDRI, 2008). Because of the wide elevation range in the planning area, many biotic communities are represented, ranging from subalpine forests at the highest elevations in the Pinaleño, Chiricahua and White mountains to Arizona Uplands Sonoran desertscrub. As shown in Figure 3.0-9, high elevation subalpine and montane conifer forests, consisting of dense stands of fir, spruce and aspen trees, are found at the highest elevations in the planning area, primarily in the Morenci Basin. These areas receive much of their annual precipitation as snow. Because of the forest density, sunlight reaches the ground and snow Vegetation3 Four of Arizona’s six ecoregions are included in the planning area: the Arizona Mountains Forests along the northern boundary; the Chihuahuan Desert, interspersed with Sierra Madre Occidental Pine-oak Forests, which covers most of the planning area; and the easternmost extension of the Sonoran Desert in the northwest. (Figure 3.0-9) The Chihuahuan 3 Blue River, Morenci Basin. Conifer woodlands, consisting of primarily of ponderosa pine, occur at elevations between 6,000 and 9,000 feet that receive about 18 to 26 inches of annual precipitation. Except as noted, information in this section is from Brown, D, 1982 and from AZGF, 2004. 22 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.0 Overview 23 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 melts slowly, releasing snowmelt gradually to streams. Annual precipitation amounts are about 25 to over 30 inches a year in these areas. Great Basin conifer woodlands consisting primarily of ponderosa pine occur at elevations between 6,000 and 9,000 feet that receive about 18 to 26 inches of annual precipitation. Piñonjuniper woodlands cover large areas below the ponderosa pine forest at elevations between 5,500 and 7,000 feet that receive 12 to 20 inches of precipitation. Plains and Great Plains grasslands occur in several locations in the planning area at elevations between 5,000 and 7,000 feet that receive between 11 and 18 inches of annual precipitation. These areas are located primarily in the Bonita Creek, Cienega Creek, San Rafael and Upper San Pedro basins. The piñon-juniper woodland and madrean evergreen woodland is often intermixed with this grassland in the planning area. Madrean evergreen woodlands are found in almost every basin in the planning area. The largest area of this community is in the mountain ranges that create the boundary between the Willcox and Safford basins. The woodland consists of evergreen oaks, alligator bark and one-seed junipers and Mexican piñon pine, and transitions to semidesert grassland at lower elevations. Cacti of the semidesert grassland may extend into the woodland. Chihuahuan desertscrub in the Upper San Pedro Basin. The planning area contains the only Chihuahuan desertscrub community in Arizona. Semi-desert grasslands are found in all planning area basins except the San Rafael basin, occurring in valleys between the desert and woodlands or chaparral at elevations between 3,500 and 5,000 feet that receive annual precipitation At lower elevations (4,000-6,000 feet), interior of 10 to 15 inches. This community is particuchaparral is found in areas that receive 13 to larly predominant in the Douglas and Willcox 23 inches of annual precipitation. Chaparral basins. Desert grasslands often contain a mixconsists of dense shrubs that grow around the ture of grasses, shrubs and small trees. same height with occasional taller shrubs or small trees. Chaparral communities typically The planning area contains the only are a mix of several shrubby species such Chihuahuan desertscrub community in Arizona. as mountain mahogany, shrub live oak, and Found primarily in northeastern Mexico, its manzanita and commonly include cactus, agave, easternmost extension occurs extensively in the and yucca. Chaparral plants are well adapted to Duncan Valley, Safford, and Upper San Pedro drought conditions. This community is found basins, with smaller areas in the Cienega Creek, in the northwestern part of the planning area. Douglas, Lower San Pedro and San Bernardino Valley basins. In Arizona, this community 24 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 occupies plains, low hills and bajadas generally above 4,000 feet in elevation. Precipitation averages range from about 8 inches to more than 12 inches, much of which falls during the summer. Prominent plant species include creosotebush, lechuguilla, sotol, yucca, ocotillo, acacia and mesquite. (CDRI, 2008) the planning area by Coolidge Dam and farming activities. However, groundwater levels along the river remain high. Floods have had significant impacts on riparian vegetation at a number of locations. Cottonwood has increased in narrow reaches of the river and in bedrock canyons but has decreased in the wide valleys where it once was common due to channel-widArizona Uplands Sonoran desertscrub extends ening floods in the early part of the 20th century. into the northwestern portion of the planning Tamarisk and mesquite species have increased area below about 3,500 feet, in Aravaipa Canyon, since the middle of the twentieth century, and Dripping Springs, Donnelly Wash, Lower San large floods in the last third of the 20th century Pedro and Safford basins. Typical vegetation did not significantly reduce tamarisk. (Webb, et includes palo verde, mesquite, creosote, and al 2007) cacti, including Saguaro cacti. The San Pedro River was a broad river of There are extensive reaches of riparian cienegas (marshes) when first observed by vegetation in some locations in the planning area. Spanish expeditions in the 1600s and 1700s. The general location of riparian vegetation is Stream entrenchment began in the 1880s and by shown in Figure 3.0-11. Cultural water use has the early 1890s had spread along the length of lowered groundwater levels and surface water the river. The San Pedro River channel began diversions and impoundments have impacted to stabilize during the 1950s (ADWR, 2005a). streamflow in a number of areas. On Bonita Riparian vegetation has generally increased Creek, woodcutting for mines, overgrazing, along the river north of the international border beaver trapping and a water conveyance system despite notable floods in 1983 and 1993. Gallery to Safford has reportedly reduced topsoil as cottonwood forests exist along the upper San much as 50% and down cut the creek as much Pedro River, at scattered locations between as 12 feet (Tellman, et al, 1997). Benson and San Manuel and near its confluence with the Gila River (Webb, et al., 2007). The Gila River, which once was perennial for most of its length in Arizona has been altered in Historically, the San Simon River was a broad intermittent stream that meandered through the San Simon Valley. Settlers channelized the river in the 1880s to control flooding and direct its flow until it eventually became a 60 mile long, 600 to 800 foot wide river, 10 to 30 feet deep. Restoration efforts began in the 1930s and numerous erosion control structures have been built on the river. (Tellman, et al, 1997) Since then, riparian vegetation, primarily tamarisk, has increased while mesquite have increased on channel banks. Downstream, near Solomon, native riparian species are increasing including Fremont cottonwood and black willow. (Webb, Gila River, Dripping Springs Wash Basin. Tamarisk et al., 2007) and mesquite species have increased since the middle of the twentieth century on the Gila River. Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 25 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.0-10 Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Location of Major Wildfires 2002-2006 (Data Source: USFS 2007a) Several large fires have occurred in the planning area since 2002 as shown in Figure 3.0-10. The largest were the Nutall Complex fire in the Pinaleño Mountains, the Ryan Fire in the Huachuca Mountains and surrounding grasslands, and the Bullock and Aspen fires in the Santa Catalina Mountains. The Nutall Complex fire burned over 29,400 acres and threatened the Large Binocular Telescope Observatory on Mount Graham. The Aspen Fire burned for a month and destroyed much of the community of Summerhaven in the Tucson AMA. 26 Arizona Water Protection Fund Program Forty-five riparian restoration projects in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area have been funded by the Arizona Water Protection Fund Program (AWPF) through FY 2008. The objective of the AWPF program is to provide funds for protection and restoration of Arizona’s rivers and streams and associated riparian habitats. There are funded projects in ten of the fourteen planning area basins. Most projects have been funded in the Safford, Upper San Pedro, CieneSection 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 ga Creek and Lower San Pedro basins. Many of these projects were for the purpose of fencing, often in conjunction with water development, and for research. A list of projects and types of projects funded in the planning area through FY 2008 is found in Appendix A. A description of the program, a complete listing of all projects funded, and a reference map is found in Volume 1. and wildlife use. Thirty-four applications for instream flow claims have been filed in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area as of August 2008. They are listed in Table 3.0-1 and shown on Figure 3.0-11. Claims have been filed in nine of the fourteen planning area basins. Certificates have been issued for claims on Aravaipa Creek in the Aravaipa Canyon and Lower San Pedro basins; Bass Canyon in the Lower and Upper San Pedro basins; Hot Springs Canyon and Wildcat Canyon in the Lower San Instream Flow Claims Pedro Basin; Leslie Creek in the Douglas Basin; An instream flow right is a non-diversionary Mescal Creek in the Dripping Springs Wash appropriation of surface water for recreation Basin; and O’Donnell Creek, Ramsey Canyon Table 3.0-1 Instream flow applications in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Table 3.0-1 Instream flow applications in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area as of 09/2008 Map Key Stream Applicant Application No. Permit No. Certificate No. Filing Date 1 Aravaipa Creek BLM (Phoenix) 33-87114.0 87114 87114 6/1/1981 2 Aravaipa Creek The Nature Conservancy 33-95488.0 95488 95488 10/31/1990 3 Aravaipa Creek 33-95489.0 95489 95489 10/31/1990 4 Aravaipa Creek 33-95490.0 95490 95490 10/31/1990 5 Aravaipa Creek 33-95771.0 95771 95771 10/31/1990 6 Babocomari River BLM (Safford) 33-95487.0 Pending Pending 10/2/1990 7 Babocomari River BLM (Safford) 33-96167.0 Pending Pending 2/3/1992 8 Bass Canyon BLM (Safford) 33-94371.0 94371 94371 12/1/1988 9 Bass Canyon The Nature Conservancy 33-96278.0 96278 96278 12/1/1988 10 Bonita Creek BLM (Safford) 33-90250.0 Pending Pending 10/21/1985 11 Buehman Canyon 33-90249.1 Pending Pending 10/21/1985 12 Buehman Creek 33-96545.0 Pending Pending 3/4/1997 13 Gila River BLM (Safford) 33-94379.0 Pending Pending 12/14/1988 14 Hot Springs Canyon BLM (Safford) 33-94372.0 94372 94372 12/1/1988 15 Hot Springs Canyon 33-96279.0 96279 96279 12/1/1988 16 Leslie Creek 33-96176.0 96176 96176 3/20/1992 The Nature Conservancy The Nature Conservancy The Nature Conservancy Arizona State Land Department The Nature Conservancy The Nature Conservancy U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 27 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.0-1 Instream flow applications in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area (Cont) Map Key Stream Applicant Application No. Permit No. Certificate No. Filing Date 17 Mescal Creek BLM (Phoenix) 33-90252.0 90252 90252 10/21/1985 18 Miller Canyon Draw Coronado National Forest 33-95366.0 Pending Pending 12/29/1989 19 Oak Grove Canyon BLM (Safford) 33-96811.0 Pending Pending 7/21/2005 20 O’Donnell Creek 33-78421.0 78421 78421 6/27/1979 21 O’Donnell Creek 33-96449.0 96449 96449 2/21/1991 22 Peppersauce Creek Murray, William L. 33-96564.0 Pending Pending 8/6/1997 23 Ramsey Creek The Nature Conservancy 33-78419.0 78419 78419 6/27/1979 24 Redfield Canyon BLM (Safford) 33-94369.0 Pending Pending 12/1/1988 25 San Francisco River BLM (Safford) 33-90251.0 Pending Pending 10/21/1985 26 San Francisco River Phelps Dodge Corporation 33-96759.0 Pending Pending 6/3/2004 27 San Pedro River BLM (Safford) 33-90103.1 90103 90103 8/12/1985 28 San Pedro River BLM (Safford) 33-95780.0 Pending Pending 1/8/1991 29 San Pedro River BLM (Safford) 33-95789.0 Pending Pending 4/1/1991 30 San Pedro River BLM (Safford) 33-96126.1 Pending Pending 8/6/1991 31 San Pedro River BLM (Safford) 33-96127.1 Pending Pending 8/6/1991 32 Spring Canyon Spring BLM (Safford) 33-96799.0 Pending Pending 6/13/2005 33 Wet Canyon Coronado National Forest 33-96681.0 Pending Pending 10/6/2000 34 Wildcat Canyon BLM (Safford) 33-95454.0 95454 95454 6/6/1990 The Nature Conservancy The Nature Conservancy Source: ADWR 2008a Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as of 2008 are shown in Table 3.0-2. Presence of a listed species may be a critical consideration in water resource management and supply development in a particular area. The USFWS should be Threatened and Endangered Species4 contacted for details regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA), designated critical habitat A number of listed threatened and endangered and current listings. species may be present in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. Those listed by the U.S. and the San Pedro River in the Upper San Pedro Basin. Other basins with instream flow applications are Bonita Creek, Duncan Valley, Morenci and Safford. An “endangered species” is defined by USFWS as “an animal or plant species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” while a threatened species” is “an animal or plant species likely to become endangered within the forseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range 4 28 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 29 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.0-2 Listed threatened and endangered species in the Southeastern Arizona Table Area 3.0-2 Threatened and endangered species in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Planning Common Name Apache Trout Threatened Endangered X Elevation/Habitat >5,000 ft./cold mountain streams Arizona Cliff-rose X <4,000 ft./white soils of tertiary limestone lakebed deposits Arizona hedgehog cactus X 3,700-5,200 ft./ecotone between interior chaparral and madrean evergreen woodland Bald Eagle X Varies/large trees or cliffs near water California Brown Pelican X Varies/lakes and rivers Canelo Hills ladies’- tresses X 5,000 ft./finely grained, highly organic, saturated soils of cienegas Chiricahua Leopard Frog X 3,300-8,900 ft./streams, rivers, backwaters, ponds stock tanks Cochise pincushion cactus X >4,200 ft./ semidesert grassland with small shrubs, agave, cacti, grama grass Desert pupfish X <5,000 ft./shallow springs, small streams and marshes. Tolerates saline and warm water Gila Chub X 2,000-5,500 ft./pools, springs, cienegas and streams Gila topminnow X <4,500 ft./small streams, springs and cienegas vegetated shallows Gila trout X 5,000-10,000 ft./small, high mountain streams Huachuca water umbel X 3,500-6,500 ft./cienegas, perennial low gradient streams, wetlands Jaguar X 1,600->9,000 ft./Sonoran desertscrub through subalpine conifer forest Lesser long-nosed bat X <6,000 ft./desert scrub with agave and columnar cacti Loach Minnow X Mexican Gray Wolf Mexican Spotted Owl X 4,000-12,000 ft. /chaparral, woodland, forests 4,100-9,000 ft./canyons, dense forests with multi-layered foliage structure X Mount Graham red squirrel New Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake <8,000 ft./benthic species of small to large perennial streams X X >8,000 ft./montane upper elevation mature to old-growth conifer forest 5,000-6,600 ft./canyon bottoms in pine-oak communities Nichol’s Turk’s head cactus X 2,400-4,100 ft./Sonoran desertscrub Northern aplomado falcon X 3,500-9,000 ft./grassland and savannah Ocelot X <8,000 ft./humid tropical and sub-tropical forests, savannahs and semi-arid thornscrub Pima pineapple cactus X 2,300-5,000 ft./Sonoran desertscrub or semi-desert grassland Razorback sucker X <6,000 ft./riverine and lacustrine areas, not in fast moving water Sonora tiger salamander X 4,000-6,300 ft./stock tanks and impounded cienegas Southwestern Willow Flycatcher X <8,500 ft./cottonwood-willow and tamarisk along rivers and streams 30 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.0-2 Listed threatened and endangered species in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area (Cont) Common Name Threatened Endangered Elevation/Habitat Spikedace X <6,000 ft./moderate to large perennial streams with gravel cobble substrates Yaqui catfish X 4,000-5,000 ft./moderate to large streams with slow current Yaqui chub X 4,000-6,000 ft./deep pools of small streams or ponds near undercut banks Yaqui topminnow X <4,500 ft./small to moderate sized streams, springs, cienegas in shallows Source: AGFD 2008, USFWS 2008 National Parks, Monuments and Memorials, Wildlife Refuges, National Conservation Areas, Wilderness Areas and other Protected Areas Protected areas are shown in Figure 3.0-12. There are parts of one national park, a national monument, a national memorial, a national conservation area, two national riparian conservation areas, two wildlife refuges and fifteen wilderness areas in the planning area. An almost 9,000-acre portion of the Rincon Mountain District of Saguaro National Park extends into the Lower San Pedro Basin. The park was established as a national monument in 1933 to protect Saguaro cactus forests, and it achieved national park status in 1994. Much of the Rincon Mountain District is wilderness area. The planning area contains Chiricahua National Monument and Coronado National Memorial. The monument, located almost entirely in the Willcox Basin, was created in 1924 to protect its unique rock formations. In 1976, 87% of the monument’s approximately 12,000 acres were designated as wilderness to further preserve the geologic formations and unique plants and animals. (NPS, 2006) Coronado National Memorial, located primarily in the Upper San Pedro Basin adjacent to the Mexican border, commemorates the significance of Francisco Vásquez de Coronado’s expedition of 1540-1542. The Me- morial was created in 1941 and has two sister parks in Mexico. (NPS, 2007) The two National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) in the planning area are the San Bernardino NWR in the San Bernardino Valley Basin and Leslie Canyon NWR located in the Douglas and Willcox Basins. Both refuges were established in the 1980s to protect water resources and habitat for endangered native fishes and rare velvet ash-cottonwood-black willow gallery forest. (USFWS, 2006) The only two Riparian National Conservation Areas in the nation are found in the planning area: the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (SPRNCA) and the Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area. The SPRNCA was established in November 1988 and contains about 40 miles of riparian area along the San Pedro River in the Upper San Pedro Basin. It includes over 58,000 acres of land between the international border with Mexico and the community of St. David south of Benson. The primary purpose for the designation is to protect and enhance the desert riparian ecosystem (BLM, 2006a). The 22,000 acre Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area was established in November 1990 to “conserve, protect, and enhance” the riparian and associated values of the area. The conservation area is located within the Bonita Creek, Duncan Valley, Morenci and Safford basins. Portions of four perennial waterways, the Gila River (23 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 31 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.0-12 Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Protected Areas miles), Bonita Creek (15 miles), Eagle Creek, the Upper San Pedro Basin. The conservation and the San Francisco River are contained in the area was designated to protect aquatic, wildlife, conservation area (BLM, 2006b). vegetative and riparian resources. Livestock grazing and recreation are allowed to continue The Las Cienegas National Conservation Area in “appropriate” areas. Goals include protectwas established in December 2000 and encom- ing water quality and water quantity (BLM, passes about 45,000 acres. Most of the conser- 2006c). vation area is located between the Empire and Whetstone mountain ranges generally north All or portions of 15 wilderness areas, with a of Sonoita within the Cienega Creek Basin. A combined area of 318,797 acres, are located small part of the conservation area extends into in the planning area. Wilderness Areas are 32 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 San Pedro Basin. Other TNC preserves include the Ramsey Canyon Preserve in the Huachuca Mountains in the Upper San Pedro Basin, and the Patagonia-Sonoita Creek Preserve in the Cienega Creek Basin. The Muleshoe Ranch Cooperative Management Area is a 49,000 acre preserve established to preserve native fish and grassland located in the Lower San Pedro, Upper San Pedro and Willcox Basins. This area is managed cooperatively by the TNC, BLM and U.S. Forest Service (USFS). (TNC, 2006) Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuge in the Douglas Basin. designated under the 1964 Wilderness Act to preserve and protect the designated area in its natural condition. Designated wilderness areas, their size, basin location and a brief description of the area are listed in Table 3.0-3. A notable wilderness area, Aravaipa Canyon, is located in the Aravaipa Canyon Basin. Administered by the Bureau of Land Management, it was designated in 1984 and includes 19,700 acres along the 10-mile long central gorge of the canyon, which cuts through the northern end of the Galiuro Mountains. The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) Aravaipa Canyon Preserve, consisting of about 7,000 acres, includes lands at both the east and west ends of Aravaipa Canyon as well as lands on the canyon’s south rim (TNC, 2006). In 2007, the 1,250-acre Cobra Ranch near the east end of the canyon was donated to the TNC. Cobra Ranch contains Stowe Gulch, a drainage area estimated to contribute nearly half of the groundwater flowing to the headwaters of Aravaipa Creek (TNC, 2007). The Nature Conservancy has acquired a number of properties in the planning area for habitat protection, particularly in the Lower San Pedro Basin. In addition to the Aravaipa Canyon Preserve, TNC preserves include Buehman Canyon Preserve and the San Pedro River Preserve near Winkelman, located in the Lower In addition to preserves, the TNC has acquired properties to establish conservation easements that retire irrigated agriculture and reduce groundwater pumping along the San Pedro River. These include the 2,150 acre Three Links Farm located about 15 miles north of Benson in the Lower San Pedro Basin that contains more than six miles along the river, and a property near the San Pedro River Preserve. Other TNCfacilitated areas with conservation easements are the 18,500 acre San Rafael Ranch Natural Area in the San Rafael Basin and the 909 acre Sylvester Ranch at Palominas in the Upper San Pedro Basin. (TNC, 2008) Pima County has acquired two ranches in the Lower San Pedro Basin as part of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan; the A-7 Ranch located in the northeast corner of Pima County and the northwest corner of Cochise County, and the Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness Area. The wilderness area includes 19,700 acres along the 10-mile long central gorge of the Canyon Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 33 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.0-3 Wilderness areas in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Acres in the Planning Area Basin Aravaipa Canyon 19,410 Aravaipa Canyon Chiricahua* 87,700 Willcox, Safford Dos Cabezas Mountains 11,700 Safford Steep mountain slopes, granite outcroppings and vegetated canyon floors. Escudilla 1,330 (Partial) Morenci Mountain meadows and Escudilla Mountain (10,912 ft). Fishhooks 10,500 Safford Pinon pine forest, grassland, chaparral and canyons. Galiuro 76,317 Miller Peaks 20,190 Mount Wrightson 9,730 (Partial) Wilderness Area Description 11-mile long Aravaipa Canyon, surrounding tablelands and nine side canyons. Sharp ridges, high peaks, including Chiricahua Peak (9,797 ft), and deep canyons. Largest mountain range of the sky islands. Aravaipa Canyon, Lower Douglas-fir, big tooth maple and aspen trees, canyons San Pedro, Upper San and peaks. Pedro, Willcox Sheer cliffs, summits and deep canyons. Habitats ranging San Rafael, Upper San from desert grassland to mixed conifer and aspen forest. Pedro Cienega Creek Deep canyons, ridges and peaks surrounded by semiarid hills and grasslands. Ponderosa pine, douglas fir and montane Mexican plants that grow nowhere else north of the border Needles Eye 8,760 North Santa Teresa 5,800 Safford Peloncillo Mountains 19,440 Duncan Valley, Safford Redfield Canyon 6,600 Lower San Pedro, Upper Galiuro escarpment, canyons and perennial streams. San Pedro Saguaro* 8,740 (Partial) Cienega Creek, Upper Vegetation varies with elevation and includes desert San Pedro, Lower San scrub, desert grassland, oak woodland, pine-oak woodland, pine forest and mixed conifer forest. Pedro Santa Teresa 26,780 Safford, Aravaipa Canyon White Canyon 5,800 Donnelly Wash Total Dripping Springs Wash Gila River, Needle's Eye canyon and riparian areas. Contains the Black Rock, a 1,000 ft high rhyolitic plug, desert and mountain shrub, grassland and riparian vegetation. Desert shrub grasslands to oak juniper woodlands in the higher reaches of the Peloncillo Mountains. Deep canyons, rocky outcrops and bald summits. Vegetation is predominantly chaparral with forests of ponderosa pine on high ridges. Box Canyon stream, White Canyon, Sonoran desert and chaparral. 318,797 Source: BLM 2008, USFS 2007b *A portion of these wilderness areas are within the boundaries of a National Monument or National Park 34 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Six-Bar Ranch located ten miles south of San Manuel west of the San Pedro River. These two conservation preserves total over 10,000 acres (Pima County, 2006). The County also owns the Bingham Cienega Preserve in the Lower San Pedro Basin where it is restoring riparian and grassland ecosystems. In the Lower San Pedro Basin, the Salt River Project and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR) have acquired, or are proposing to acquire, lands for Southwestern Willow Flycatcher habitat along the San Pedro River. The USBOR has also completed an Environmental Assessment as part of the acquisition of lands for Southwestern Willow Flycatcher habitat in the Safford Basin. (USBOR, 2006) • • Creek (Chiricahua Mountains), from the headwaters to the Coronado National Forest boundary (Safford Basin) Cienega Creek, from its confluence with Gardner Canyon and Spring Water Canyon to the USGS gaging station in Pima County (Cienega Creek Basin) KP Creek, from its headwaters to its confluence with the Blue River (Morenci Basin) 3.0.5 Population Census data for 2000 show about 188,300 residents in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) population projections forecast about 294,600 residents by 2030. Historic, Kartchner Caverns State Park is located south- current (2006) and projected basin populations west of Benson in the Whetstone Mountains. A are shown in the cultural water demand tables wet cave, it is supported by a limestone aquifer for each basin in Sections 3.1-3.14. Projections that is recharged by infiltration from ephemeral may not accurately reflect the most recent washes. There is concern about the impact proposed developments. on this hydrologic system from impending development in the area. The 2000 Census populations for each basin and Indian reservation, listed from highest to Unique Waters lowest, are shown in Table 3.0-4. The most populous basins reported in the 2000 census are Six “unique waters”, designated by the the Upper San Pedro (78,013), Safford (42,281), Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Douglas (26,220), Lower San Pedro (15,515), (ADEQ) pursuant to A.C.C. R18-11-112, as and Willcox (12,354) basins. As shown on having exceptional recreational or ecological Table 3.0-4, six basins in the planning area are significance and/or providing habitat for sparsely populated, with less than 200 residents. threatened or endangered species, have been The 2000 Census population of the entire San identified in the planning area. These include: Carlos Apache Reservation, which extends • Aravaipa Creek from its confluence with into the Central Highlands Planning Area, was Stowe Gulch to the downstream boundary 9,385, an increase of over 2,000 residents since of Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness Area the 1990 census. (Aravaipa Canyon and Lower San Pedro basins) Shown in Table 3.0-5 are incorporated and un• Bonita Creek, tributary to the upper Gila incorporated communities in the planning area River (Bonita Creek and Safford basins) with 2000 Census populations greater than 1,000 • Buehman Canyon Creek from its headwaters and growth rates for two time periods. Commuto approximately 9.8 miles downstream nities are listed from highest to lowest popula(Lower San Pedro Basin) tion in 2000. As shown, there are several rapidly • Cave Creek and the South Fork of Cave growing communities with double digit growth Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 35 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.0-4 2000 Census population of basins and Indian reservations in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area tion growth and water supply. A legislative attempt to link growth and water management planning is the Growing Smarter Plus Act of 2000 (Act) which requires that counties with a 2000 Census Basin/Reservation population greater than 125,000 (2000 Census) Population include planning for water resources in their 78,013 Upper San Pedro comprehensive plans. None of the counties in 42,281 Safford the planning area fit this population criterion. San Carlos Apache 8,270 Douglas 26,220 However, Cochise County has incorporated Lower San Pedro 15,515 water resource planning into its comprehensive 12,354 Willcox plan, has adopted water use guidelines in cerMorenci 5,141 tain area plans and has adopted a Water ConCienega Creek 4,355 servation and Management Policy Plan for the Duncan Valley 3,757 Sierra Vista sub-watershed portion of the basin. Dripping Springs Wash 175 Its goal is to “sustain an adequate, safe water Donnelly Wash 165 147 San Rafael supply through water conservation measures, Aravaipa Canyon 135 policies, incentive programs, education, conser66 San Bernardino Valley vation and enhancement of natural recharge arBonita Creek 21 eas, and cooperative, multi-jurisdictional planSan Carlos Apache 21 ning”. (Cochise County, 2006a) The Act also rates between 2000 and 2006 including Sierra requires that twenty-three communities outside Vista and adjacent areas, Douglas, Thatcher, AMAs include a water resources element in San Carlos, Whetstone and Swift Trail Junction their general plans. In the Southeastern Arisouth of Safford. The largest municipality in the zona Planning Area this includes the commuplanning area is Sierra Vista with a 2000 Census nities of Benson, Douglas, Safford and Sierra population of 37,775, or 20% of the planning Vista. Plans must consider water demand and area population. The population of the Sierra water resource availability in conjunction with Vista subwatershed (roughly the southern half growth, land use and infrastructure. References of the basin), contained about 37% of the plan- to completed plans are listed in basin references ning area population in 2000. Approximately in this volume. half the population of the San Carlos Apache Reservation resides in the communities of Peridot and San Carlos (the 10th largest community in the planning area (2000) and the tribal headquarters). Some communities including Clifton and Morenci have lost population between 2000 and 2006 due to declines or closures of mining operations. Between 1990 and 2000, the population living in smaller communities and rural areas grew faster than the population living in communities with 1,000 or more residents. Population Growth and Water Use Arizona has limited mechanisms to address the connections between land use, popula36 Fort Huachuca, with Sierra Vista in the background, in the Upper San Pedro Basin. Sierra Vista is the largest municipality in the planning area. The Sierra Vista Subwatershed contained about 37% of the planning area population in 2000. Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.0-5 Communities in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area with a 2000 Census population greater than 1,000 Communities Sierra Vista Basin USP Percent 2006 Pop. 1990 Census 2000 Census Change 1990 Pop. Pop. Estimate1 2000 Percent Change 20002006 Projected 2030 Pop. 32,983 37,775 14.5 44,870 18.8% 67,264 Sierra Vista SE USP 9,237 14,348 55.3 16,551 15.4% 23,398 Douglas DOU 13,137 14,312 8.9 17,660 23.4% 28,685 Safford SAF 7,359 9,232 25.5 9,835 6.5% 9,953 Bisbee USP/DOU 6,288 6,090 -3.1 6,355 4.4% 8,483 Benson USP 3,824 4,711 23.2 4,820 2.3% 4,856 San Manuel LSP 4,009 4,375 9.1 NA -- 5,102 Thatcher SAF 3,763 4,022 6.9 4,970 23.6% 6,994 Willcox WIL 3,122 3,733 19.6 3,910 4.7% 4,491 San Carlos SAF 2,918 3,716 2.7 4,918 32.4% 6,074 Oracle2 LSP 3,043 3,563 17.1 NA -- NA Clifton MOR 2,840 2,596 -8.6 2,485 -4.3% 2,526 Whetstone USP 1,289 2,354 82.6 2,810 19.4% 4,228 Kearny LSP 2,262 2,249 -0.6 2,270 0.9% 3,740 Swift Trail Jct. SAF 1,203 2,195 82.5 2,558 16.5% 3,878 Pima SAF 1,725 1,989 15.3 2,080 4.6% 2,529 Morenci MOR 1,799 1,879 4.4 1,821 -3.1% 1,828 Mammoth LSP 1,845 1,762 -4.5 1,805 2.4% 2,228 Huachuca City USP 1,782 1,751 -1.7 1,825 4.2% 2,145 St. David USP 1,468 1,744 18.8 1,862 6.8% 2,229 Tombstone USP 1,220 1,504 23.3 1,655 10.0% 2,032 Dudleyville LSP 1,356 1,323 -2.4 NA -- 2,769 Peridot SAF 957 1,266 32.3 NA -- NA Total >1,000 109,429 128,489 17.4 NA -- >195,431 Remainder of Planning Area 46,236 59,793 29.3 NA -- <99,197 Total 155,665 188,282 20.9 NA -- 294,628 Sources: ADOC 2006, U.S. Census 2006 2006 population shown is the 2006 estimate for incorporated areas and the 2006 projection for unincorporated areas. 2 The community of Oracle is located in the Lower San Pedro Basin but its water supply comes from wells at Oracle Junction in the Tucson AMA. USP = Upper San Pedro, DOU = Douglas Basin, SAF = Safford Basin, WIL = Willcox Basin, LSP = Lower San Pedro Basin MOR = Morenci Basin 1 Beginning in 2007, all community water systems in the state were required to submit Annual Water Use Reports and System Water Plans. The reports and plans are intended to reduce community water systems’ vulnerability to drought, and to promote water resource planning to ensure that water providers are prepared to respond to water shortage conditions. In addition, the information will allow the State to provide regional planning assistance to help communities prepare for, mitigate and respond to drought. An Annual Water Use Report must be submitted each year by the systems that includes information on water pumped, diverted and received, water delivered to customers, and effluent used or received. The System Water Plan must be updated and submitted every five years and consist of three components, a Wa- Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 37 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 thorizes a county board of supervisors to adopt a provision, by unanimous vote that requires a new subdivision to have an adequate water supply in order for the subdivision to be approved by the platting authority. If adopted, cities and towns within the county may not approve a subdivision unless it has an adequate water supply. If the county does not adopt the provision, the legislation allows a city or town to adopt a local adequacy ordinance that requires a demonstraThe Department’s Water Adequacy Program tion of adequacy before the final plat can be apalso relates water supply and demand to growth proved. The Cochise County Board of Supervito some extent, but does not control growth. sors was the first in the state to adopt the proDevelopers of subdivisions outside of AMAs visions of SB 1575 in March, 2008. The Town are required to obtain a determination of wheth- of Patagonia, located in Santa Cruz County, has er there is sufficient water of adequate quality also adopted the provision since Santa Cruz available for 100 years. If the supply is inad- County has not adopted the new standards. equate, lots may still be sold, but the condition of the water supply must be disclosed in Subdivision adequacy determinations (Water promotional materials and in sales documents. Adequacy Reports), including the reason for Legislation adopted in June 2007 (SB 1575) au- the inadequate determination, are provided in ter Supply Plan, a Drought Preparedness Plan and a Water Conservation Plan. By January 1, 2008, all systems were required to submit plans and by the end of 2008, plans were submitted by 61 community water systems in the planning area. Almost all of the larger systems submitted plans and were used to prepare this document. Annual water report information and a list of water plans are found in Appendix B. Table 3.0-6 Water Water adequacy determinations the Southeastern Table 3.0-5 Adequacy Determinations in theinSoutheastern ArizonaArizona PlanningPlaning Area Area as of 12/2008 as of 12/2008 Number of Subdivisions Number of Lots1 Lots w/Adequate Detrm. Lots w/Inadequate Detrm. Approx. Percent Inadequate Aravaipa Canyon none none none none none Bonita Creek none none none none none Cienega Creek 13 >1,023 867 >156 15% Donnelly Wash 1 59 0 59 100% Douglas 8 433 83 350 81% none none none none none Duncan Valley 3 >268 61 >207 77% Lower San Pedro 12 >1,211 1,195 >16 1% Morenci 11 >1,859 >1,825 34 2% Safford 23 >905 139 >766 85% San Bernardino Valley none none none none none San Rafael none none none none none Upper San Pedro 202 >24,923 >18,218 >6,705 27% Willcox 20 >1577 989 >588 37% TOTAL 293 >32,258 >23,377 >8,881 28% Basin Dripping Springs Wash Source: ADWR 2008b Notes: 1 Data on number of lots are missing for some subdivisions, actual number is larger 38 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 basin tables and maps and are summarized in Table 3.0-6. Also shown in the basin sections are approved applications for an Analysis of Adequate Water Supply (AAWS). This application is typically associated with large, master planned communities. As of December, 2008, AAWS applications had been approved in three basins for a total of 10,357 lots: Cienega Creek Basin, 189; Lower San Pedro Basin, 2,948; and Upper San Pedro Basin, 7,220. (See Tables 3.3-9, 3.8-10 and 3.13-9) Six water providers in the planning area are designated as having an adequate water supply for their entire service area. A service area designation exempts subdivisions from demonstrating water adequacy if served by the provider. Designation information and the general location of the service area are also shown in basin maps and tables. As of December, 2008, designated providers included: • City of Benson • City of Douglas • City of Safford • City of Willcox • Empirita Water Company (West of Benson, Cienega Creek Basin) • Bachmann Springs Utility Company (Bachman Springs Development near Tombstone) 3.0.6 Water Supply Local aquifers are the primary water supply for the planning area for municipal, industrial and agricultural use as shown in Figure 3.0-13. Approximately 15% of the cultural water demand is served by surface water. Most of the surface water is for agricultural use, and includes diversion from the San Pedro River, Aravaipa Creek and the Gila River. Gila River diversions are substantial, accounting for 92% of all surface water diversions in the planning area during the period 2001-2005. Small amounts of surface water are diverted for municipal use in the Morenci, Upper San Pedro and Willcox Basins and Figure 3.0-13 Average Annual Water Supplies Utilized in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area, 2001-2005 (in acre-feet) Surface Water 78,800 Effluent 1,200 Groundwater 434,600 Total Water Demand = 514,000 af for industrial use in the Morenci Basin. Some communities utilize effluent for golf course irrigation and for groundwater recharge. Sites of environmental contamination may impact the availability of water supplies in some locations. Legal availability of water supplies is an issue in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. The right to use Gila River water is governed by the Globe Equity Decree (described below). The Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-45) includes settlement of the Gila River Indian Community’s water rights claims in Title II of the Act. This settlement affects the volume and utilization of groundwater and surface water upstream from the Community in parts of the planning area (See ADWR, 2006). Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 39 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Surface Water Surface water is a municipal supply for the City of Tombstone in the Upper San Pedro Basin, for the town of Morenci in the Morenci Basin and Fort Grant in the Willcox Basin. The City of Safford uses water collected in an infiltration gallery along Bonita Creek in the Bonita Creek Basin, and for the purposes of this report the water is considered groundwater. The City of Tombstone began using surface water from springs in the Huachuca Mountains west of Tombstone in 1881 and currently diverts water from Miller and Carr Springs. This water is conveyed through a more than 25-mile, gravity fed, seven-inch diameter steel pipeline to Tombstone. (ADWR 2005a) Surface water is diverted from several rivers in the planning area for agricultural irrigation. This supply may not always be available when needed. For example, surface water from the San Pedro River in the vicinity of St. David is typically only available during the period from November to May. In addition to diversions from the San Pedro River in the Lower and Upper San Pedro Basins, there are small surface water diversions from Aravaipa Creek in the Lower San Pedro and Aravaipa Canyon basins, and larger diversions from the Gila River. Water diverted from the Gila River is delivered to agricultural lands in the Safford and Duncan Valley Basins. When sufficient surface water is not available, the shortfall is made up by additional groundwater withdrawals. This shortfall may be dramatic. For example, the percentage of surface water used in the Safford and Duncan Valley Basins in 2000 was 27% compared to 60% in 1999. Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc (formerly Phelps Dodge Corporation) provides water to the Morenci Mine Complex and the town of Morenci in part through complex exchange agreements involving several water sources, some of which are located outside the 40 planning area. Currently, Freeport-McMoRan utilizes exchange credits from both Horseshoe Reservoir on the Verde River and the Central Arizona Project through lease agreements with the San Carlos Apache Tribe, to divert water from the Black River at the Black River Pump Station in the Salt River Basin. This water is pumped over the watershed divide into Willow and Eagle Creeks where it is transported about 51 miles before being commingled with water from Freeport-McMoRan’s Upper Eagle Creek Well Field. Freeport-McMoRan also uses water from Eagle Creek, Chase Creek and the San Francisco River (ADWR, 2005b). Historically, Phelps Dodge also had water exchange agreements involving Show Low Lake and Blue Ridge Reservoir in the Little Colorado River Basin. It relinquished its certificated rights to both water sources in 2005. Legal availability of a surface water supply is an important consideration. As described in detail in Appendix C, the legal framework and process under which surface water right applications and claims are administered and determined is complex. Rights to surface water are subject to the doctrine of prior appropriation which is based on the tenet “first in time, first in right”. Upper Gila River near Three Way in the Duncan Valley Basin. Water diverted from the Gila River is delivered to agricultural lands in the Safford and Duncan Valley Basins. When sufficient surface water is not available, the shortfall is made up by additional groundwater withdrawals. Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 This means that the person who first put the water to a beneficial use acquires a right that is superior to all other surface water rights with a later priority date. Under the Public Water Code, beneficial use is the basis, measure and limit to the use of water. Each type of surface water right filing is assigned a unique number as explained in Appendix C and shown in Table 3.0-7. A Certificate of Water Right (CWR) may be issued if the terms of the permit to appropriate water (3R, 4A, or 33, and in certain cases 38), are met. CWRs retain the original permit application number. However, the act of filing a statement of claim of right to use public waters (36) does not in itself create a water right. Surface water rights may also be determined through judicial action in state or federal court in which the court process establishes or confirms the validity of the rights and claims and ranks them according to priority. Court decreed rights are considered the most certain surface water right. There are several court determinations in the planning area including the Doan and Jenkes decrees involving landowners, canal companies and irrigation water users in the Safford Valley, the Ling Decree in the San Francisco River Valley and Duncan Valley, and the Globe Equity No.59 Decree. In 1935 the U.S. District Court entered a consent decree (Globe Equity No. 59) for all diversions of the mainstem of the Gila River from its confluence with the Salt River to the headwaters in New Mexico, including the Gila River and San Carlos Apache reservations, and non-Indian landowners below and above Coolidge Dam. It awarded rights to use water on lands within the Gila River Indian Reservation with a priority date of “time immemorial” and also awarded rights to the San Carlos Apache Tribe with a priority date of 1846. Rights and priority dates were established for non-Indian land in the San Carlos Project area including the Safford Valley, the Duncan Valley and the Winkelman Valley (Pearce, 2002). The Gila Water Commissioner is appointed by the U.S. District Court to administer the Decree. Each year the Commissioner issues a report on the distribution of waters of the Gila River. Arizona has two general stream adjudications in progress to determine the nature, extent and priority of water rights across the entire river systems of the Gila River and the Little Colorado River. Pertinent to the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area, the Gila River Adjudication is being conducted in the Superior court of Arizona in Maricopa County. The Gila Adjudication was initiated by petitions filed by several parties in the 1970’s, including Salt River Project, Phelps Dodge Corporation and the Buckeye Irrigation Company. The petitions were consolidated in 1981 into a single proceeding. The Gila Adjudication includes seven adjudication watersheds; Upper Salt, San Pedro, Agua Fria, Upper Gila, Lower Gila, Verde, and Upper Santa Cruz. The entire Upper Gila and San Pedro adjudication watersheds and part of the Upper Santa Cruz watershed are within the planning area boundaries. (See Figure 3.0-14) These watersheds do not coincide with the 6-digit HUC watersheds discussed previously and shown in Figure 3.0-5. The Willcox, Douglas and San Bernardino Valley basins are not included within the adjudication boundary. The entire Gila Adjudication includes over 24,000 parties. All parties who claim to have a water right within the river system are required to file a statement of claimant or SOC (39), or risk loss of their right. This includes reserved water rights for public lands and Indian reservations, of which only some have not been quantified or prioritized. Results from the Department’s investigation of surface water right and adjudication filings are presented in Hydrographic Survey Reports (HSRs). Within the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area, an HSR has been published for the San Pedro River Watershed (ADWR, 1991). In conjunction with the Gila Adjudication, a subflow zone Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 41 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 delineation for the San Pedro River Watershed points reflect the large number of stockponds was published in June 2009. and reservoirs that have been constructed in the planning area as well as diversions from streams Table 3.0-7 summarizes the number of surface and springs. Locations of registered wells, many water right and adjudication filings in the of which are referenced as the basis of claim in planning area. The methodology used to SOCs are also shown in Figure 3.0-14. query the Department’s surface water right and SOC registries is described in Appendix The location of surface water resources are C. Of the 36,483 filings that specify surface shown on surface water condition maps and maps water diversion points and places of use in the showing perennial and intermittent streams and planning area, 2,766 CWRs have been issued to major springs for each basin, and in basin tables date. Figure 3.0-14 shows the location of surface that contain data on streamflow, flood ALERT water diversion points listed in the Department’s equipment, reservoirs, stockponds and springs. surface water rights registry. The numerous Table ofof surface water right andand adjudication filings in the Table3.0-7 X.X-xInventory Inventory Surface Water Right Adjudication Filings inSoutheastern the 1 Arizona Planning Area Southeastern Planning Area Type of Filing Basin 3R3 4A3 333 364 385 396 Aravaipa Canyon 0 37 37 67 586 316 1,063 2,106 Bonita Creek 0 2 15 10 13 17 55 112 Cienega Creek 0 14 19 47 472 432 2,123 3,107 Donnelly Wash 0 9 23 25 117 100 237 511 Douglas 0 24 16 26 272 245 0 583 Dripping Springs Wash 0 13 63 21 237 82 340 756 Duncan Valley 161 38 22 33 347 402 1,113 2,116 Lower San Pedro 0 62 115 91 1,329 711 2,320 4,628 Morenci 33 16 136 62 1,408 711 2,273 4,639 Safford 289 51 141 244 1,269 1,345 4,408 7,747 San Bernardino Valley 0 12 4 21 150 167 0 354 San Rafael 0 4 6 76 268 235 639 1,228 Upper San Pedro 0 56 44 75 1,212 967 4,717 7,071 Willcox Total 0 483 57 395 75 716 100 898 608 8,288 685 6,415 0 19,288 1,525 36,483 Notes: 1 Total BB2 Based on a query of ADWR's surface water right and adjudication registries in February 2009 . A file is only counted in this table if it provides sufficient information to allow a Point of Diversion (POD) and/or Place of Use (POU) to be mapped within the basin. If a file lists more than one POD or POU in a given basin, it is only counted once in the table for that basin. Several surface water right and adjudication filings are not counted here due to unsufficient locational information. However, multiple filings for the same POD/POU are counted. 2 Court decreed rights; not all of these rights have been identified and/or entered into ADWR's surface water rights registry. 3 4 Application to construct a reservoir, filed before 1972 (3R); application to appropriate surface water, filed before 1972 (4A); and application for permit to appropriate public water or construct a reservoir, filed after 1972 (33). Statement of claim of right to use public waters of the state, filed pursuant to the Water Rights Registration Act of 1974. 5 Claim of water right for a stockpond and application for certification, filed pursuant to the Stockpond Registration Act of 1977. 6 Statement of claimant, filed in the Gila or LCR General Stream Adjudications. 42 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.0 Overview 43 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Groundwater Groundwater is the major water supply in the planning area, meeting 85% of the total demand, 92% of the municipal demand, 83% of the agricultural demand and 97% of the industrial demand during the period 2001-2005. The location of registered exempt and non-exempt wells is shown in Figure 3.0-14. Groundwater is the sole water supply utilized in Bonita Creek, Cienega Creek, Donnelly Wash, Douglas, Dripping Springs Wash, San Bernardino Valley and San Rafael Valley basins. Major aquifers supplying groundwater are basin fill, sedimentary rock (Gila Conglomerate), volcanic rock and recent stream alluvium. Groundwater is relatively abundant and well yields are high in most basins. Gila River drainage. Well yields are generally high with a median well yield of 600 gpm reported from almost 1,500 wells. Groundwater in storage may be as high as 69 maf in the basin. While surface water is an important agricultural water supply in the basin, groundwater is now the largest supply utilized, with over 121,000 acre-feet pumped annually from the basin during the period 2001-2005, particularly from the Gila Valley sub-basin, which contain the basin’s population and agricultural centers. Basins located on the western side of the planning area (Aravaipa Canyon, Donnelly Wash, Cienega Creek and Lower and Upper San Pedro), yield groundwater from the stream alluvium and basin fill. Most irrigation wells are located in the stream alluvium while most industrial and municipal wells are located in the basin fill. Stream alluvium aquifers support stock, agricultural and domestic uses in the northern and southwestern parts of the Cienega Creek Basin, while basin fill is the principal aquifer in the central valley. In the north and northeastern portion of the planning area (Bonita Creek, Dripping Springs Wash, Duncan Valley and Morenci basins), groundwater development is primarily from wells that tap the younger basin fill or the Gila Conglomerate. Median well yields from large (>10 inch diameter) wells ranges from 395 gpm in Dripping Springs Wash Basin to over 1,100 gpm in the southern part of Bonita Creek Basin. As shown in the groundwater data tables for Estimated groundwater in storage ranges from each basin, median well yields range from 62 as low as 150,000 acre-feet in Dripping Springs Wash Basin to as high as 19 maf in the Duncan Basin. Groundwater is a stock and domestic supply in the Bonita Creek and Dripping Springs Wash basins. In the Duncan Valley Basin groundwater meets about half (10,000 acre-feet) of the agricultural demand and supplies all the municipal and industrial water. Groundwater from a volcanic rock aquifer is the primary water supply for mining and municipal uses in the Morenci Basin. The Safford Basin contains almost 5,000 registered wells completed in basin fill, the major aquifer, and in streambed alluvium along the Agriculture in the Safford Basin. In this basin over 121,000 acre-feet of groundwater was pumped annually from during the period 2001-2005, particularly from the Gila Valley sub-basin, which contain the basin’s population and agricultural centers. Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 44 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 gpm in the Donnelly Wash Basin to as high as 1,000 gpm in the Lower San Pedro Basin. Groundwater in storage estimates range from as low as 140,000 acre-feet in the relatively undeveloped Donnelly Wash Basin to as high as 26.1 maf in the populous Upper San Pedro Basin. Groundwater supplies the domestic and about half of the small scale farming demands in the Aravaipa Canyon Basin. Historically, mining and grazing activities were also important land and water uses. Groundwater is the sole water supply available for domestic uses in the Donnelly Wash Basin and for municipal, agricultural and industrial purposes in the Cienega Creek Basin. All of the industrial demand, the largest demand sector in the Lower San Pedro Basin (almost 16,000 AFA), is met by groundwater, which is also the primary water supply for agricultural and municipal purposes. In the Upper San Pedro Basin, groundwater meets almost all the municipal demand (17,300 AFA) and the majority of the agricultural demand. Almost all the water supply available for agricultural, municipal and industrial purposes ASARCO Hayden Smelter, Lower San Pedro Basin. All of the industrial demand, the largest demand sector in the Lower San Pedro Basin (almost 16,000 AFA), is met by groundwater, which is also the primary water supply for agricultural and municipal purposes 45 APECO Power Plant, Willcox Basin. Almost all the water supply for this basin is found in basin fill deposits. in the Willcox Basin is groundwater found primarily in basin-fill deposits. Median well yield is 750 gpm with as much as 59 maf of groundwater in storage (Table 3.14-6). Groundwater has been heavily utilized for agricultural purposes for many years and there are concerns about the future availability of this water supply, prompting recent water level monitoring investigations (USGS, 2006b). The three basins with groundwater outflow to Mexico have differing groundwater supply conditions. In the San Bernardino Valley Basin, groundwater is obtained from thin units of sand and gravel interbedded with basalt flows or from shallow alluvium. There are only 12 registered wells with a pump capacity greater than 35 gpm in the basin with a yield of 22 to 600 gpm reported for three of them. Groundwater is the water supply for stock and domestic uses. The main aquifer in the Douglas Basin is basin fill, which is used to support extensive agricultural irrigation. As with the Willcox Basin, there are concerns about the long-term pumpage of groundwater from the basin aquifers and future groundwater supply availability. Protection of the groundwater supply from agricultural expansion was first initiated in 1965 when the area was designated as a Critical Groundwater area and its subsequent designation as an Irrigation Non-expansion Area in 1980. In the vicinity of Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 the Douglas area, groundwater is pumped from basin fill with interbedded volcanic rock. Median well yield in the Douglas basin is 600 gpm (Table 3.5-5). In the San Rafael Basin, where ranching is the primary activity, groundwater is obtained from stream alluvium and basin fill and median well yields are about 145 gpm from large diameter wells (Table 3.12-5). Typically, index wells are visited once each year by the Department’s field staff to obtain a long-term record of groundwater level fluctuations. Approximately 200 of the GWSI sites are designated as Automated Wells. These systems measure water levels four times daily and store the data electronically. Automated Wells are established to better understand the water supply situation in areas of the state where data The Department’s Groundwater Site Inven- are lacking. These devices are located based on tory (GWSI) database, the main repository for areas of growth, subsidence, type of land use, statewide groundwater well data, is available on proximity to river/stream channels, proximity the Department’s website (www.azwater.gov/). to water contamination sites or areas affected The GWSI database contains of over 42,000 re- by drought. cords of wells and over 210,000 groundwater level records statewide. GWSI contains spa- Volume 1 of the Atlas shows the location of Intial and geographical data, owner information, dex and Automated wells as of January 2009. At well construction and well log data, and historic that time there were a total of 250 Index Wells groundwater data including water level, water and 9 Automated Wells in the Southeastern Ariquality, well lift and pumpage records. Includ- zona Planning Area. The Automated Wells are ed are hydrographs for statewide Index Wells located at Bowie, Sunizona, Kansas Settlement, and Automated Groundwater Monitoring Sites near Sierra Vista, south of Safford, Benson (3) (Automated Wells), which can be searched and and in the vicinity of the San Pedro River near downloaded to access local information for plan- the southern boundary of the Lower San Pedro ning, drought mitigation and other purposes. Basin. The most updated maps of well locations may be viewed at the Department’s website. Approximately 1,700 wells are designated as Index Wells statewide out of over 43,700 GWSI Information on major aquifers, well yields, sites (GWSI sites are primarily wells but include estimated natural recharge, estimated water in other types of sites such as springs and drains). storage, aquifer flow direction and water level changes are found in groundwater data tables, groundwater conditions maps, hydrographs and well yield maps for each basin in the basin sections. Effluent Automated Well, Upper San Pedro Basin Effluent is utilized as a water supply in the Lower San Pedro, Morenci, Safford, Upper San Pedro and Willcox basins for golf course irrigation, industrial processes and groundwater recharge. An average of approximately 1,700 acre-feet of effluent was used annually for golf course irrigation, and an unknown quantity was used for mining purposes at the Morenci Mine during the period 2001-2005. Effluent is recharged to the Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 46 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 basin-fill aquifer in the Upper San Pedro Basin. Over 10,600 acre-feet of effluent is estimated to be produced annually in the Planning Area, with about half of it generated in the Upper San Pedro Basin. In the Upper San Pedro Basin, about 800 acre-feet of effluent from the Fort Huachuca and Benson Wastewater Treatment Plants was delivered for golf course irrigation and approximately 2,380 acre-feet of effluent was recharged to the aquifer beneath Fort Huachuca and the Sierra Vista Recharge Facility in 2005 (USGS, 2007a). By 2007, over 10,700 acre-feet had been recharged at the Sierra Vista Facility. Beginning in 2009, the Turquoise Valley Golf Course will receive approximately 100 AFA of effluent from the City of Bisbee San Jose Wastewater Treatment Facility. Any unused effluent from this facility will be discharged to Greenbush Draw. Elsewhere, effluent is used to irrigate the Mt. Graham Golf Course in the Safford Basin, the Kearny Golf Course in the Lower San Pedro Basin and the Twin Lakes Golf Course in the Willcox Basin. At some treatment plants, for example the Safford WWTF, wastewater is applied to pasture as a disposal method. There are two effluent treatment wetlands located in the Upper San Pedro Basin. A wetland at the Apache Nitrogen Products facility was constructed as part of the Superfund clean-up and a wetland at the Sierra Vista Treatment Plant is operated in conjunction with the recharge facility. Contamination Sites Sites of environmental contamination may impact the availability of water supplies. An inventory of Department of Defense (DOD), Superfund (Environmental Protection Agency designated sites), Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF, state designated sites), Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) and Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites was conducted for the planning area. Recharge basins at Fort Huachuca, Upper San Pedro Basin. Approximately 2,380 acre-feet of effluent were recharged to the aquifer at the Fort Huacucha and Sierra Vista Recharge facilities in 2007. 47 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.0-8 lists the DOD, Superfund, VRP and WQARF sites, the contaminant and affected media and the basin location of the site. In addition, there are 203 active LUST sites in the planning area, most of which are located in the Safford Basin (38), the Upper San Pedro Basin (81) and the Willcox Basin (32). The location of all contamination sites is shown on Figure 3.0-15. There are nine active VRP sites in the planning area. All sites in the Douglas and Morenci basins are associated with mining-related activities. The only other site is a fuel oil contamination site at San Simon in the Safford Basin. The VRP is a state administered and funded voluntary cleanup program. Any site that has soil and/or groundwater contamination, provided that the site is not subject to an enforcement action by another program, is eligible to participate. To encourage participation, ADEQ provides an expedited process and a single point of contact for projects that involve more than one regulatory program. (Environmental Law Institute, 2002) Morenci Mine, Morenci Basin. There are nine active VRP sites in the planning area. All sites in the Douglas and Morenci basins are associated with mining-related activities. The Klondyke Tailings WQARF site consists of two piles of mine tailings adjacent to Aravaipa Creek approximately 4.5 miles upstream of the Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness Area. ADEQ has completed several studies, groundwater and soil sampling and geophysical surveys to identify the presence of buried tanks or drums at the site. In response to significant flooding in July The Apache Powder Superfund site located 2006, ADEQ conducted a floodplain analysis about 2.5 miles southwest of Saint David in and installed erosion protection and capping of the Upper San Pedro Basin is the only Super- the upper tailings pile in 2008. (ADEQ, 2008) fund site in the planning area. Apache Nitrogen Products (ANP) Inc., formerly known as DOD Installation Restoration Program fundApache Powder Company, owns and operates ing has supported environmental cleanup of a fertilizer and nitric acid manufacturing plant contaminated soils at Fort Huachuca in the Upat the site. Soil, groundwater and surface water per San Pedro Basin. Groundwater monitoring contamination has occurred due to past manu- wells have been installed at the South Range facturing and disposal practices. Sampling has Landfill and East Range Mine Shaft to monitor identified a nitrate plume affecting both ground- contamination. Groundwater contamination has water and a short reach of the San Pedro River. not been identified. These sites are part of the Additional contaminants of concern include ar- Comprehensive Environmental Response Comsenic, fluoride, perchlorate and metals. Cleanup pensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) cleanup efforts to date include removal of waste barrels program. (ADWR, 2005a) and contaminated soils and construction of a treatment wetland. A future cleanup schedule has been developed by ANP and remedial activities are being coordinated with the EPA and ADEQ. (ADWR, 2005a) Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 48 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.0-8 Contamination sites in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area SITE NAME MEDIA AFFECTED AND CONTAMINANT GROUNDWATER BASIN Department of Defense (DOD) Sites Fort Huachuca Groundwater and soil – leaking underground storage tanks and solid waste disposal Upper San Pedro Safford Military Range Soil-lead Safford Federal National Priority List (Superfund Sites) Apache Powder Groundwater-arsenic, fluoride, nitrate, perchlorate Surface water-dinitoglycerine (DNT) Upper San Pedro Soil – arsenic, barium, metals, nitrate, vanadium pentoxide, trinitroglycerine (TNT) Voluntary Remediation Sites Arizona Copper Co Soil – metals and solvents Morenci Bisbee Smelter Soil and groundwater – metals Douglas Soil - smelter fallout metals Morenci Soil – arsenic and copper Douglas Firebird Fuel Spill Soil - Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl Benzene, Xylene (BTEX) Douglas Jobbing Warehouse Soil – arsenic, lead and copper Douglas Phelps Dodge American Avenue Soil – metals Douglas Shannon Hills Smelter Soil – mine tailings, arsenic and copper Morenci Union Pacific Railroad San Simon Depot Bunker C fuel oil Safford Clifton School – Phelps Dodge Douglas Parcel 40818-025C WQARF Sites Klondyke Tailings Groundwater, surface water and soil - metals Aravaipa Canyon Sources: ADEQ 2002, ADEQ 2006a, ADEQ 2006b 49 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.0 Overview 50 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.0.7 Cultural Water Demand Total cultural water demand in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area averaged approximately 515,100 AFA in the period from 2001-2005. The agricultural demand sector is by far the largest water demand sector with over 440,000 acre-feet of annual demand (see Figure 3.0-16). This is primarily due to agricultural demand in four basins Willcox, Safford, Duncan Valley and Douglas, which account for 410,600 acrefeet, or 95% of the agricultural demand. About one-fifth of the agricultural demand is met with surface water. The volume of municipal water demand and industrial water demand is similar. Municipal demand was approximately 40,500 AFA of primarily groundwater demand during the period from 2001-2005.5 Only about 1,200 acrefeet of surface water was reported for municipal purposes. Industrial demand, primarily from mining, is about 34,600 AFA. Of this, about 1,100 acre-feet of surface water is used. The demand sector composition varies substantially from basin to basin as shown in the basin cultural demand tables. For example, there is no agricultural irrigation in six of the basins and total demand ranges from less than 300 acre- feet in several basins to almost 205,000 AFA in the Safford Basin as shown in Figure 3.0-17. Provisions of the Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act of 2004 have implications for water use in the planning area. Under Title II of the Act, Congress authorized a 2003 Settlement Agreement concerning the Gila River Indian Community’s (GRIC) water rights. The 2003 Settlement Agreement was amended to conform to the Settlement Act and became enforceable on December 31, 2007. The Settlement Agreement established an Upper Gila River Watershed Maintenance Program that was incorporated into state law in 2005 (H.B. 2728). The program defines a Gila River Maintenance Area that covers much of the planning area except for the Willcox, Douglas and San Bernardino Valley basins and portions of other basins in Cochise County. There are certain restrictions within the area, subject to specific exemptions, including construction of new dams or enlargement of existing dams and irrigation of land is prohibited unless the land was previously irrigated between January 1, 2000 and August 12, 2005. (ADWR, 2006) Figure 3.0-16 Average Annual Cultural Water Demand by Sector in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area 2001-2005, in acre-feet Surface Water 76,500 Effluent 1,600 Surface Water 1,200 Surface Water 1,100 Groundwater 33,450 Industrial 34,600 Groundwater 37,650 Groundwater 363,500 Municipal 40,500 Agricultural 440,000 The demand by the community of Oracle in the Lower San Pedro Basin is not included in this total since its water supply is groundwater withdrawn in the Tucson AMA and transported to Oracle. 5 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 51 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.0-17 Average Annual Cultural Water the Department. The current reservation popDemand by Basin in the Southeastern Arizo- ulation in the planning area is approximately 8,300, primarily residing in the communities na Planning Area 2001-2005, in acre-feet of San Carlos/Peridot and Bylas/Calva. There Bonita Creek 3,200 Morenci 10,500 Other is a golf course, hotel and casino complex 2,000 Duncan Valley 25,400 (Apache Gold) west of the community of San Lower San Pedro Carlos. Principal economic activities on the 29,000 reservation include cattle ranching, forestry, Upper San Pedro recreation and gemstone mining (San Carlos 39,050 Apache Nation, 2006). Farming has historiSafford cally been important. Total cultural water use 204,900 in the Gila River drainage portion of the resDouglas ervation was estimated at 4,120 acre-feet in 52,500 a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) report from the early 1970s (BIA, 1974). With population increases since the BIA estimate, construction Willcox of the casino complex and assuming that ag175,650 ricultural, livestock and industrial uses have remained constant, it is estimated that current demand is approximately 5,300 AFA. The settlement agreement also established “Safe Harbor” areas within which the Gila River Indian Community, the San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District and the United States “agree not to exercise their rights to challenge, object to or call certain water users based on their normal flow rights and stored water rights under the Globe Equity Decree”. The Safe Harbor provisions establish three Impact Zones with specific conditions for each. The impact zones are: 1) the San Pedro Ag and New Large Industrial Use Impact Zone, 2) the San Pedro M&I and Domestic Purposes Impact Zone, and 3) the Gila River Impact Zone. These zones are in proximity of the Gila and San Pedro Rivers and include named tributaries. For information on these provisions, refer to the Settlement Agreement and to the Technical Assessment of the Gila River Indian Community Water Rights Settlement. (ADWR, 2006) Tribal Water Demand Detailed current information on San Carlos Apache Tribe water demand was not available to 52 Municipal demand on the Reservation is assumed to be relatively small. Community water systems serve the San Carlos-Peridot community and Bylas-Calva, all in the Safford Basin (BIA, 1974). Based on population, a reasonable municipal demand estimate is 1,000 to 1,250 AFA. According to a CLIMAS report, several hundred acres of hay irrigation are occurring on the Talkalai Lake, San Carlos Apache Reservation. Principal economic activities on the reservation include cattle ranching, forestry, recreation, and gemstone mining Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 San Carlos Apache Reservation and the tribe has plans for expansion. Farming has been a culturally important activity and was economically important during the early years of the reservation (CLIMAS, 2004). A total of 1,900 acres were historically irrigated although flooding and inundation of lands by filling of the San Carlos Reservoir reduced the amount of irrigable acres (BIA 1974). Most of the irrigable acreage was located along the San Carlos and Gila Rivers and irrigated with surface water, supplemented with well water (Bookman-Edmonston Engineering, Inc., 1979). The Gila Commissioner 2007 Annual Report showed 225 acres planted (Allred, 2007). In October 2008, Department staff observed two cotton fields along the San Carlos River between San Carlos and Highway 70. period 2001-2005 is summarized by groundwater basin in Table 3.0-9. There is little population or municipal demand in a number of basins including Aravaipa Canyon, Bonita Creek, Donnelly Wash, Dripping Springs Wash, San Bernardino Valley and San Rafael. As shown, almost half of the municipal demand in the planning area is in the Upper San Pedro Basin. Only 13 water providers in the planning area served 450 acre-feet or more in 2006. These providers and their demand in selected years are shown in Table 3.0-10 and discussed below. Municipal gallon per capita per day (gpcd) rates are estimated to be about 125 gpcd in San Manuel, 157 gpcd in the Benson area, 168 gpcd in the Sierra Vista area, 177 gpcd in Safford, and 225 gpcd in Douglas. Most of the population in the planning area is served by private water companies. Municipal Groundwater is the primary water supply for water utilities have more flexibility in setting municipal use throughout the planning area. Av- water rates than private water companies, which erage annual municipal water demand for the are regulated by the Arizona Corporation ComMunicipal Demand Table 3.0-9 Average annual municipal water demand in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area (2001-2005) in acre-feet Effluent1 Basin Groundwater Surface Water Aravaipa Canyon <300 0 0 Bonita Creek2 <300 0 0 Cienega Creek 600 0 0 Donnelly Wash <300 0 0 Douglas 5,500 0 0 Dripping Springs Wash <300 0 0 Duncan Valley 600 0 0 Lower San Pedro3 2,300 300 145 Morenci 1,400 600 0 2 Safford 6,500 0 500 San Bernardino Valley <300 0 0 San Rafael <300 0 0 Upper San Pedro 17,300 <300 830 Willcox 2,700 <300 211 Total Municipal 37,800 <1,500 1,686 Source: USGS 2007a Notes: Volumes <300 acre-feet assumed to be 150 acre-feet for computation purposes. 1 Data on effluent demand is taken from effluent use for golf courses in 2005/2006. Total 150 150 600 150 5,500 150 600 2,745 2,000 7,000 150 150 18,280 3,061 40,686 2 Shown on Table 3.0-9 is water utilized within the basin. The Cultural Demand Table for Bonita Creek (Table 3.2-5) reflects water withdrawn in the basin. Most of the approximately 3,200 acre-feet withdrawn in the Bonita Creek Basin is conveyed to the Safford Basin. 3 Water demand by the community of Oracle is not included since its water supply is groundwater witdrawn in the Tucson AMA Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 53 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.0-10 Water providers serving 450 acre-feet or more per year in 2006 in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area City of Douglas The border community of Douglas has a population of about 17,700 residents and served 3,880 acre1991 2000 2006 Basin /Water Provider feet of groundwater in 2006. It was (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) Douglas founded as a site for a smelter to treat the copper ore mined at BisDouglas Water Department 2,999 3,621 3,880 bee. Agriculture, ranching and inDuncan Valley ternational commerce are important Town of Duncan 176 529 628 economic activities. Agua Prieta, Lower San Pedro Sonora is located directly south of Arizona Water Company 855 743 646 San Manuel Douglas and has a population of Town of Kearny 483 648 483 over 110,000 residents. Douglas is Morenci served by a municipal water utility Morenci Water and Electric 773 1,180 793 that operates eight wells. In 2006 it delivered about 3,560 acre-feet Safford 1 to more than 5,000 residential conGila Resources - Safford 3,748 3,836 4,720 nections and 320 acre-feet to about Upper San Pedro Arizona Water Company 450 commercial connections. The 962 1,003 1,131 Bisbee Douglas WWTF treats about 1,400 Arizona Water Company acre-feet of wastewater to second862 1,109 1,262 Sierra Vista ary standards. The wastewater is Bella Vista Water Company 2,907 3,208 3,594 discharged to Whitewater Draw just Sierra Vista north of the international boundary City of Benson 545 728 876 Pueblo del Sol Water and flows south into Mexico where 360 1,136 1,501 Company - Sierra Vista it is used for agricultural irrigation. Willcox There are no plans to utilize effluent City of Willcox NA NA 1,111 in Douglas due to the quality of the Source: USGS 2007a, Community Water System 2006 Annual Reports water and the historic commitment 1 Includes 120 acre-feet delivered to Arizona State Prison - San Jose to deliver the effluent to Mexico. mission. In addition, municipal utilities have the authority to enact water conservation ordinances. Northeast of Douglas, the Bisbee-Douglas InternaThese authorities enable municipal utilities to tional Airport Water system serves about 400 acrebetter manage water resources within water ser- feet of groundwater withdrawn from 2 wells to the vice areas. Water provider issues are discussed in Arizona State Prison Complex-Douglas. The facility housed approximately 2,300 inmates in DecemSection 3.0.8. ber, 2008 (ADC, 2008). Provisions of the Settlement Agreement described above include individual agreements with the City Town of Duncan of Safford and with the Towns of Duncan, Kearny Duncan, with a population of about 800 residents, and Mammoth to resolve disputes regarding use is located along the Gila River just west of the of water for municipal and industrial purposes. New Mexico border. Primary economic activities These agreements set limits on future annual wa- in the area are farming, cattle ranching and ter use although actual use can exceed these limits mining. Duncan is served by a municipal provider under certain conditions and/or by implementing consisting of two systems; Town of Duncan and Town of Duncan-Hunter Water. In 2006 it withdrew mitigation measures. (ADWR, 2006) 54 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 a combined total of 628 acre-feet from three wells. Withdrawals are estimated from electrical records and are much higher than the amount of water reported as delivered on Community Water System Reports; 125 acre-feet. Town of San Manuel San Manuel, in the Lower San Pedro Basin, is an unincorporated community built in 1953 as a company town to serve the San Manuel copper mine, mill and smelter complex. Both the mine and smelter were permanently closed in 2003. Approximately 4,400 residents resided in San Manuel in 2000. The town is now considered a bedroom community with some commercial businesses (ADOC, 2007a). Arizona Water Company receives water from BHP Copper Company to serve approximately 1,500 residential and 70 non-residential connections. In 2006 it received 646 acre-feet from BHP Copper and delivered 582 acre-feet to customers. Santec Corporation operates Coronado Utilities WWTP that serves the community. Approximately 291 AFA is generated at the facility and discharged to infiltration basins. The 9-hole San Manuel Golf Course uses water pumped from a facility well, not from Arizona Water Company. Kearny Golf Course. In 2006 the Town of Kearny delivered 145 acre-feet of effluent to the Golf Course. the 9-hole Kearny Golf Course and 45 acre-feet to a wetland. Towns of Clifton/Morenci Morenci Water and Electric serves the communities of Clifton and Morenci, which were established in the late 1880’s as mining towns. These communities had a combined population of 4,306 in 2006 and population is declining due to a decrease in mining activity, the principal economic activity in the area. In 2006, Morenci Water and Electric withdrew 274 acre-feet of groundwater and diverted 519 acre-feet of surface water from Eagle Creek. About three-quarters of its deliveries (559 acre-feet) were to residential customers. Both Town of Kearny Located in the northern part of the Lower San communities are served by treatment plants but Pedro Basin, Kearny was a planned commu- data from the Morenci WWTF was not available nity built in 1958 for workers at the Kennecott (Table 3.9-9). Copper Company open pit mine and reduction plant, now operated by the American Smelt- Safford/Thatcher/Pima ing and Refining Company (ASARCO), which These incorporated towns along the Gila Rivalso operates smelters at Kearny and Hayden. er were established in the 1870s and 1880s as The Town had a population of 2,270 in 2006. farming communities. Agriculture remains the It withdrew 126 acre-feet of groundwater and primary economic activity although retail, edudiverted 357 acre-feet of surface water from the cation, retirement and mining are also important. Gila River pursuant to the Globe Equity Decree Safford is the Graham County seat and Thatcher in 2006. In that year it delivered 435 acre-feet is the location of Eastern Arizona College. The of water to 821 residential and 71 commercial City of Safford Water Utility (formerly Gila Reconnections. The Kearny Water Reclamation sources) serves both Safford and Thatcher. In Facility generated 190 acre-feet of effluent in 2006, it withdrew 4,720 acre-feet of groundwa2006. Of this, 145 acre-feet was delivered to ter from nine wells, of which almost 3,300 acre- Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 55 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 from four wells. Approximately 70% of water deliveries are to residential customers. San Jose is also the location of an updated and expanded wastewater treatment plant that consolidated three separate systems (Old Bisbee, Warren and San Jose) in 2006. Prior to consolidation, effluent from Old Bisbee (approximately 130,000 gpd) had been discharged into the Douglas Basin via Mule Gulch. Approximately 4,900 acre-feet of effluent is treated annually at the plant. The Bisbee sewer collection system is also undergoing Town of Clifton. In 2006 Morenci Water and Electric withdrew 274 acre-feet of groundwater and improvements and a substantial number of diverted 519 acre-feet of surface water from Eagle residents on septic systems will be connected Creek for the Towns of Clifton and Morenci. to the sewer system. Bisbee effluent is slated feet was groundwater imported from the Bonita to be delivered to the Turquoise Valley Golf Creek Basin, and served 2,521 residential and Course in 2009 and the remainder discharged 1,180 non-residential connections. The City of to Greenbush Draw. The Turquoise Valley Golf Safford WWTP generated 1,226 acre-feet of Course is an industrial facility. effluent in 2006 and delivered 483 acre-feet to the Mt. Graham Municipal Golf Course. Gra- City of Sierra Vista/Fort Huachuca ham County Utilities operates two systems; one Sierra Vista is the population center of southserves the small community of Fort Thomas and eastern Arizona with an economy closely tied the other serves the community of Pima (pop. to Fort Huachuca, with more than 11,000 mili2,080). In 2006 the Pima system withdrew 416 tary and civilian employees (ADOC, 2007b). acre-feet of groundwater, of which 62 acre-feet Three large private water companies, as well was delivered to Eden Utilities. Ninety-two per- as several small systems, serve Sierra Vista. cent of the Pima system deliveries are to resi- The large systems are Arizona Water Company dential customers. (AWC)-Sierra Vista, Bella Vista Water Company and Pueblo del Sol (PDS) Water Company. City of Bisbee The 2006 population of Sierra Vista, which inArizona Water Company serves the community of Bisbee, the Cochise County seat located in the Mule Mountains that straddles the border of the Upper San Pedro and Douglas basins. A former mining town, Bisbee is a well-known artist’s community with preserved historic architecture that makes it a popular tourist destination. Bisbee consists of historic Old Bisbee, Warren, Lowell and San Jose with a combined 2006 population of 6,355. San Jose is located on the southern side of the Mule Mountains and is the location of the Arizona Water Company well field that serves the community. In 2006 Arizona Water Old Bisbee. Bisbee consists of Old Bisbee, WarCompany withdrew 1,131 acre-feet of water ren, Lowell and San Jose. 56 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 cludes Fort Huachuca within its city limits, was 44,870 but the area population is much larger with more than 16,500 residents in the Sierra Vista SE CDP in 2006 (Table 3.0-5). Bella Vista is the largest water provider, consisting of two systems, Bella Vista City and Bella Vista South. The City system withdrew 3,399 acre-feet of groundwater from 18 wells in 2006 and delivered 1,756 acre-feet to residential customers and 1,456 acre-feet to non-residential connections. The South system withdrew 195 acre-feet from 12 wells and delivered 176.5 acre-feet to primarily residential customers. PDS serves primarily residential customers (90% of deliveries) and delivered a small amount of water (11 acre-feet) to the Pueblo del Sol Golf Course in 2006. Most of the irrigation needs at this course are met by facility wells, therefore it is considered an industrial facility. In 2006 PDS withdrew 1,501 acre-feet of groundwater from four wells. AWC –Sierra Vista withdrew 1,262 acrefeet of water from seven wells and delivered almost 1,000 acre-feet to residential customers in 2006. Another 175 acre-feet was delivered to non-residential customers. City of Sierra Vista recharge facility. Between 2002 and 2007 a total of approximately 10,700 acre-feet of effluent was recharged at the Sierra Vista facility. effluent in 2007 and delivered 318 acre-feet for landscape and golf course irrigation (Chaffee Parade Field and Mountain View Golf Course) and recharged the remaining 343 acre-feet in a constructed recharge facility. Fort Huachuca and the City of Huachuca City have entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement in which the Fort has agreed to accept wastewater from Huachuca City and to recharge it to the aquifer (USPP, 2007). The annual volume of effluent produced at Huachuca City is approximately 150 acre-feet. The City of Sierra Vista Water Reclamation Facility currently produces approximately 2,800 AFA. The facility was permitted in August 2001 to store up to 4,149 acre-feet of effluent per year for 20 years. Located east of the City, recharge is intended to mitigate any impact of groundwater pumping in the Sierra Vista area on the flow of the San Pedro River. Between 2002 and 2007 a total of approximately 10,700 acre-feet of effluent was recharged at the Sierra Vista facility. City of Benson The City of Benson, founded in 1880, began as a transportation center, with a Butterfield Overland Stage station house on the San Pedro River in the 1870s and construction of rail lines that linked Benson to Mexico, California and the East. Copper and silver from the mines at Bisbee and Tombstone were shipped from the Southern Pacific Railroad station in Benson (City of Benson, 2009). When mining declined and the rail center moved to Tucson, ranching became the Fort Huachuca is a large military installation predominant industry. Benson is now a growing located at the base of the Huachuca Mountains. community and has expanded its city limits and Established in 1877, it has a fluctuating water service area to serve large master-planned population, averaging about 8,400. In 2007, residential developments to the southwest. 1,414 acre-feet of groundwater was withdrawn from eight wells to serve the residential and The City of Benson, with a 2006 population of non-residential needs of the installation. The approximately 4,800, is served by a municipal Fort Huachuca WWTP treated 661 acre-feet of utility that withdrew 876 acre-feet of groundSection 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 57 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 water from five wells that year. Table 3.0-11 Golf course demand in the Southeastern Most of its deliveries were Arizona Planning Area (c.2008) to non-residential customers # of Demand Facility Basin Water Supply (401 acre-feet), with 361 acreHoles (acre-feet) feet delivered to residences. Douglas Municipal Golf Douglas 18 440 Groundwater The City of Benson WWTP Course Duncan 9 211 Groundwater treated 762 acre-feet of efflu- Greenlee Country Club* Lower San ent in 2006 and delivered 470 Hayden Golf Course 9 211 Groundwater Pedro acre-feet of effluent to the 18Lower San 9 145 Effluent Kearny Golf Course hole San Pedro Golf Course. Pedro San Manuel Golf Club* Lower San 9 211 Groundwater Pedro City of Willcox Alpine Country Club* Morenci 18 75 Groundwater Willcox is an agricultural and Safford 18 423 Groundwater ranching center established in Apache Stronghold Golf* Mt. Graham Municipal 1880 and incorporated in 1915. Safford 18 483 Effluent Golf Course It is served by a municipal waMountain View Golf Upper San 18 370 Effluent ter utility that withdrew wa- Course Pedro ter from one potable well for Pueblo del Sol Country Upper San 18 475 Groundwater Pedro domestic deliveries and from Club (Sierra Vista)* Effluent/ Upper San several non-potable wells for San Pedro Golf Course 18 460/90 Groundwater Pedro other uses in 2006. One of the Turquoise Hills Country Upper San 18 500 Groundwater non-potable wells is used for Club (Benson)* Pedro construction purposes due to Turquoise Valley Country Upper San 18 577 Groundwater Pedro high fluoride levels. Another Club (Naco)* Twin Lakes Municipal Willcox 9 211 Effluent well is used for cemetery irri- Golf Course gation and the third is located Source: ADWR 2008c close to effluent-dependent * These golf courses are served by their own wells and, therefore, are considered Cochise Lake and is used to to be industrial users. maintain water levels for migratory birds (City of Willcox, 2006). In 2006, not available, estimates were made that account 856 acre-feet of water was withdrawn from the for the elevation of the facility and duration of potable well and 148 acre-feet was withdrawn the irrigation season. This demand is included from the non-potable wells. Of the total potable in the municipal demand total. Also shown in and non-potable withdrawals, 394 acre-feet was Table 3.0-11 are golf courses served by their delivered to residential customers, 547 acre-feet own wells and classified as industrial users. to commercial customers and 22 acre-feet to turf. Agricultural Demand The City of Willcox WWTP produced 492 acre- Agriculture is the largest water demand sector feet of effluent in 2006, of which 197 acre-feet and an important segment of the economy in was delivered to the Twin Lakes Golf Course. the planning area, particularly in the Safford, Willcox, Douglas and Duncan Valley basins There are seven golf courses in the planning area (Figure 3.0-18). Relatively recent declines that are served from a municipal water supply. in irrigated acreage have occurred in some They are listed in Table 3.0-11 with estimated planning area basins, including the Lower San demand and source of water. If actual demand was Pedro Basin due in part to land conservation 58 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 efforts, and in the Upper San Pedro Basin due to leading to increased well pumpage in both basins. the establishment of the SPRNCA, conservation In the Willcox Basin, agricultural demand has deeasements, urbanization and economic factors. clined significantly from the early 1970s when over 300,000 AFA was used. However, demand Conditions of the GRIC Water Rights Settlement is now increasing. In 2007 the USGS conducted affect agricultural water use in the Duncan agricultural surveys of some of the basins in the Valley and Safford basins. Several provisions planning area. Information on the number of acof the Upper Valley Districts (UVD) Agreement tive irrigated acres, percentage of crop grown and affect upper valley irrigators in several basins irrigation method is summarized in Table 3.0-13. (including those in New Mexico) and could As shown, crop type and irrigation method varies potentially impact flows in the Gila River significantly between basins. Following is a brief description of agricultural areas, which are listed (ADWR, 2006). generally in descending order of water demand. Historic and recent agricultural demand is shown in Table 3.0-12. While demand has diminished Safford Basin in several basins, demand has expanded in the In the Safford Basin, agricultural irrigation ocWillcox and Douglas basins over the last 15 curs along the Gila River where cotton and wheat years, and overall, demand has increased. In are the predominant crops and in the San Simon the Safford and Duncan Valley basins, agricul- Valley in the southern part of the basin where pretural water demand has decreased since 1991, dominant crops include cotton, alfalfa, corn and and the proportion of surface water available nut orchards. The Gila Valley Irrigation District for use appears to have declined due to drought, (GVID), incorporated in 1923, encompasses about 35,500 acres along the Gila River from the San Figure 3.0-18 Average Annual AgriculCarlos Apache Reservation boundary to about 12 tural Demand in the Southeastern Arizo- miles east of Safford. There are ten canal compana Planning Area (2001-2005) by Basin, nies within the GVID that deliver water to farmin acre-feet ers who also irrigate using privately owned wells. Surface water use in the Safford area is pursuant Lower San to the Gila River Decree (Globe Equity No. 59 Upper San Pedro Decree) and when surface water is limited it is alOther 8,000 Pedro located to downstream users and not available for 1,500 14,200 irrigation in the area. During the period of 2001Duncan 2005, an average of 120,400 acre-feet of groundValley 19,900 water and 61,300 acre-feet of surface water were used annually in the Safford Basin. In 2007 the Douglas USGS found 28,300 active irrigated acres in the 47,300 basin. As shown in Table 3.0-13, cotton is by far Safford the predominant crop and almost all agricultural 181,700 lands are flood irrigated. Willcox 167,400 Willcox Basin There is significant irrigation throughout the Sulphur Springs Valley in the Willcox Basin. North of the Town of Willcox, extensive orchards of apples and other fruits including U-pick orchards and vegetable farms exist. One of Arizona’s few Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 59 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.0-12 Agricultural demand in the Southeastern Douglas Basin Most of the Douglas Basin was desigArizona Planning Area nated as an Irrigation Non-Expansion 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 Area (INA) in 1980, and as a result, (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) Aravaipa Canyon agricultural irrigation is restricted to Surface Water <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 lands that were irrigated during the Groundwater <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 five-year period preceding designaTotal 1,000 1,000 1,000 tion. A requirement within an INA is Cienega Creek that groundwater withdrawals for irGroundwater 500 500 500 rigation on more than ten acres must Douglas Groundwater 32,800 37,100 47,300 be measured and annually reported to Duncan Valley the Department. These reports indiSurface Water 21,500 18,500 9,900 cate that from 1984 to 2000, annual Groundwater 5,900 8,300 10,000 groundwater withdrawals fluctuated Total 27,400 26,800 19,900 between about 30,000 AFA to about Lower San Pedro 45,000 AFA. However, demand is Surface Water <1,000 <1,000 <1,000 Groundwater 12,800 11,100 7,500 increasing with an annual average of Total 13,300 11,600 8,000 47,300 acre-feet withdrawn during Safford the period 2001-2005. Groundwater Surface Water 117,000 99,500 61,300 withdrawals for agricultural irrigation Groundwater 86,000 91,500 120,400 have resulted in significant declines in Total 203,000 191,000 181,700 groundwater levels and a large cone of Upper San Pedro Surface Water 4,300 4,300 4,300 depression has formed in the northern Groundwater 16,500 15,100 9,900 part of the basin (USGS, 2006b). IrTotal 20,800 19,400 14,200 rigated acreage is located primarily in Willcox the central and northern part of the ba123,600 123,600 167,400 Groundwater sin in the Sulfur Springs Valley. CurTotal 422,400 411,000 440,000 rently, approximately 13,150 acres of Source: USGS 2007a, ADWR 2005c predominantly corn and alfalfa are Notes: Volume <1,000 acre-feet assumed to be 500 acre-feet for computation purposes. being irrigated. Center-pivot irrigation is the main irrigation method in hydroponic tomato nurseries, Eurofresh Farms, a the basin (Table 3.0-13). large, year-round producer of greenhouse tomatoes, is located in the northern part of the basin (AZDA, Duncan Valley Basin 2005). South of the Town of Willcox, irrigation is Duncan Valley Basin agricultural irrigation is loprincipally for alfalfa and corn. As in the Douglas cated southeast of the Town of Duncan in the DunBasin, groundwater withdrawals for agricultural ircan Valley and northwest of Duncan in the York rigation in the Willcox Basin have resulted in large Valley area. Principal crops include alfalfa, cotton, declines in groundwater levels. These groundwacorn and sorghum. The Franklin Irrigation Dister level declines may have caused land subsidence trict, also known as the Duncan Valley Irrigation and surface fissures south of the Town of Willcox District, serves farmers in the Duncan Valley. The (USGS, 2006b). Approximately 50,600 acres are district boundaries extend into New Mexico and currently irrigated, with an annual average of about irrigation wells in Arizona and New Mexico are 167,000 acre-feet of groundwater demand during used to irrigate lands in both states (Upper Gila the period 2001-2005. The crop mix is relatively Watershed Partnership, 2004). The District was diversified as shown in Table 3.0-13. formed in 1922 and encompasses about 4,700 acres 60 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.0-13 Active irrigation acres, percentage of crops grown and irrigation method in selected basins in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area, 2007 3,450 acres Upper San Pedro 1,000 acres Lower San Pedro 600 acres 52% 1% 10% 27% 2% 7% NA 1% 15% 6% NA 54% 24% NA 1% NA 1% NA 15% 78% NA NA NA 6% NA 38% NA 54% 8% NA NA NA 85% 6% 8% 1% 2% 98% NA NA 2% 63% 25% 10% 17% 33% 33% 17% Basin Willcox Safford Douglas Duncan 2007 Irrigated Acreage Crop Type Corn Cotton Orchard Pasture (Alfalfa, Hay) Sorghum Vegetables Wheat Other Irrigation Type Center Pivot Flood Drip Sprinkler 50,600 acres 41,300 acres 13,150 acres 38% 2% 10% 28% 3% 10% 1% 8% <1% 58% 9% 29% <1% 1% 2% <1% 79% 16% 2% 3% 21% 74% 3% 2% Source: USGS 2009 of Gila River bottom land. Surface water rights for use within this district are also specified in the Globe Equity Decree (ADWR, 1998). An average of 10,000 acre-feet of groundwater and 9,900 acre-feet of surface water were used annually during the period 2001-2005. The USGS found 3,450 irrigated acres in 2007 of predominantly pasture and sorghum, almost all flood irrigated (Table 3.0-13). delivered surface water from the San Pedro River: the Saint David Irrigation District (SDID) and the Pomerene Water Users Association (PWUA). Approximately 39% of the irrigated lands in the Benson area were served by one of these two districts in 2005. When insufficient surface water is available, SDID delivers groundwater pumped from two district wells (ADWR, 2005a). The PWUA diversion structure suffered repeated damage Upper San Pedro Basin over the years from flooding and significant Almost all the remaining agriculture is in the repairs were last preformed in 2003. Subsequent Benson area in the Upper San Pedro Basin. In flooding damaged the diversion gate and eroded 2002, an estimated 2,200 acres in the Benson the banks. Diversions and canal maintenance area and 800 acres in the Palominas area were have since ceased. The Arizona Corporation irrigated with a demand of about 9,900 acre-feet Commission administratively dissolved the of groundwater and 4,300 acre feet of surface PWUA in 2005 for failure to file an annual water. In 2006, approximately 500 acres of ir- report. The PWUA did not operate groundwater rigation in the Palominas area were taken out of wells to supplement the surface water supply production. When the USGS surveyed the ba- although members used the canal system to sin in 2007, they found only 1,000 acres being deliver their own pumped water to their fields. actively irrigated. Pasture was by far the pre- It is not known if this is still the case. dominant crop grown with smaller amounts of orchard, grapes and corn. Flood irrigation is the Lower San Pedro Basin predominant irrigation method with drip irriga- Agricultural demand in the Lower San Pedro tion of grapes and pecans observed. Basin averaged about 8,000 AFA during the period 2001-2005. Irrigated acreage is located Two irrigation providers in the Benson area along the San Pedro River throughout the length Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 61 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 activities in the Lower San Pedro and Morenci basins. Vineyard in the Cienega Creek Basin. of the basin but primarily in the northern and southern portions. The USGS estimated that approximately 600 acres were irrigated in 2007. Groundwater is the primary water supply for irrigation. Surface water diversions from the San Pedro River account for less than 1,000 AFA of the total water supply. In 2007, approximately 600 acres of primarily pasture and cotton were irrigated. A variety of irrigation methods are used including the highest percentage of drip irrigation in the planning area (Table 3.0-13). Cienega Creek Basin Irrigation in the Cienega Creek Basin is limited but expanding and is largely vineyards under drip irrigation. These lands are located east of Sonoita in the Elgin area. Based on an informal survey conducted by ADWR in 2008, it is estimated that between 200 and 300 acres are under cultivation. Industrial Demand Industrial water demand in the planning area includes mining, electrical power generation, dairies and feedlots, and golf course irrigation served by a facility water system. This demand is summarized in Table 3.0-14 for selected years. Mining is the largest industrial water user in the planning area averaging about 25,800 AFA during the period 2001-2005, primarily due to 62 The Morenci Mine in the Morenci Basin is North America’s largest producer of copper and one of the largest open pit mines in the world. The mine property covers about 60,000 acres and includes five pits, three of which are currently in operation, and SX/EW (solution extraction/ electrowinning) facilities. During the 20012005 time period, approximately 9,200 AFA was used. Reportedly, almost all of the water used at Morenci is recycled, some of it many times (InfoMine, 2006). Most of the water utilized by the mine and by the Morenci Water & Electric Company (a subsidiary of FreeportMcMoRan Copper & Gold Inc, formerly Phelps Dodge Corporation) is diverted from the Black River in the Salt River Basin and transported into the basin, or is from the Upper Eagle Creek Well Field. Water diverted from Gila River tributaries typically accounts for about 10% of the total (ADWR, 2005c). Freeport-McMoRan has a 50-year lease agreement with the San Carlos Apache Tribe pursuant to the San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 1992, as amended in 1997, to lease up to 14,000 AFA of its allocation of CAP water by means of an exchange at the Black River. Under the 1944 Horseshoe Exchange Agreement, Freeport-McMoRan also is entitled to a total diversion of up to 250,000 acre-feet from the Black River (ADWR, 2005c). As of the beginning of 2009, Freeport-McMoRan had used almost 102,500 acre-feet of Horseshoe Reservoir credits (SRP, personal communication, 2009). Water from recovery wells installed in the mine area for dewatering purposes is also used at the mine, as is effluent from the Morenci Water & Electric Company. In the Lower San Pedro Basin, the ASARCO Ray Complex includes a 250,000 ton/day open pit mine northwest of Kearny, a SX/EW operation and a smelter at Hayden. Approximetly 15,700 AFA of groundwater was used during the 2001- Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.0-14 Industrial Demand in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 Water Use (acre-feet) Type/Basin Mining Total 48,195 47,085 25,831 Cienega Creek Groundwater <300 <300 <300 Lower San Pedro Groundwater 30,800 26,100 15,700 Morenci Surface Water 2,425 2,105 1,141 Groundwater 13,700 17,800 8,100 Safford Groundwater 650 500 370 Upper San Pedro Groundwater 170 200 210 Willcox Groundwater 300 230 160 Power Plant Total 6,000 5,200 5,700 Willcox Groundwater 6,000 5,200 5,700 Golf Course Total 1,596 1,806 2,316 Duncan Valley Groundwater 210 210 210 Lower San Pedro Groundwater 211 211 211 Morenci Groundwater 75 75 75 Safford Groundwater 0 210 420 Upper San Pedro Groundwater 1,100 1,100 1,400 Dairy/Feedlot Total 262 272 502 Duncan Valley Groundwater 100 100 100 Upper San Pedro Groundwater 42 42 42 Willcox Groundwater 120 130 360 Other Total 290 290 290 Upper San Pedro Groundwater 290 290 290 Total 56,343 54,653 34,639 Sources: ADWR 2008d, USGS 2007a Notes: Volume <300 acre-feet assumed to be 150 acre-feet for computation purposes. early 2002 and underground mining at the site ceased in August 1999. In February 2002, Pima County approved BHP’s request to redesignate some of its property for uses other than mining. (ADWR, 2006) The Copper Queen mine in the Upper San Pedro and Douglas basins currently consists of a small dump leaching and precipitation operation at the Lavender pit (Arizona Mining Association, 2006). Open pit mining started in 1917 and continued, with some interruptions, at the Sacramento pit and Lavender pit until 1974. All active mining stopped in 1984. Considerable dewatering of the mine workings was necessary with long-term groundwater production of about 4,000 AFA (Southwest Ground-water Consultants, Inc., 2004). Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. began full operation of a large open-pit mining operation in the Safford Basin in 2008. Located eight miles north of the town of Safford, the 3,400 acre Safford (Dos Pobres) operation includes two open pits, one heap leach pad, one process solution pond, one evaporation pond, a SX/ EW process plant and other infrastructure and support facilities (InfoMine, 2008; ADEQ, 2006c). As of early 2009 the mine was producing at half-capacity due to market conditions. (Freeport-McMoRan, 2009). Average annual groundwater demand by the mine is projected to be about 5,500 AFA (ADWR, 2006). The only power plant in the planning area is the Arizona Electric Power Cooperative 2005 time period in the Lower San Pedro Basin. (AEPCO) Apache Station Generation Plant located in the Willcox Basin in Cochise, southwest of Two large copper mines in the planning area are Willcox. The plant is a gas-fired combined cycle currently out of production. The BHP Billiton Base plant built in 1963 that generates 520 megawatts Metals in-situ copper leaching operations at San of electric energy for its cooperative members Manuel in the Lower San Pedro Basin closed in located throughout Arizona and California Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 63 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 proximately 350-animal dairy north of Benson in the Upper San Pedro Basin (Cliff’s Dairy), a large dairy of about 5,400 animals near Kansas Settlement (Faria Dairy) in the Willcox Basin that began operation in 2004, and an approximately 855-animal dairy in the Duncan Basin (Lunt’s Dairy). Demand was about 42 acre-feet, 588 acre-feet and 120 acre-feet respectively in 2005. There are also two feedlots in the Willcox Basin with a combined total of about 4,000 animals and a demand of about 130 acre-feet in 2005. Development of dairies and feedlots typically results in increased agricultural irrigation for feed. The Apache Nitrogen Products facility is an ammonium nitrate manufacturing plant located south of Benson in the Upper San Pedro Basin. The facility has made efforts to reduce its water consumption, and in 2005 used an estimated 289 acre-feet of groundwater, a reduction of about 250 acre-feet since 1991. A number of sand and gravel facilities are located throughout the planning area. Some of these Ray Mine, Lower San Pedro Basin. Mining is the are identified on the cultural demand maps for largest industrial user in the planning area, primarily due to activities in the Lower San Pedro and each basin. However, not all are identified in the Morenci basins. source data used for the maps. Water is used for aggregate washing, dust control, vehicle wash(AEPCO, 2006). Average annual demand during ing and equipment cooling. Typically, there is the period 2001-2005 was slightly lower than the relatively little water consumed at these sites average annual demand during the priod 1991since most facilities recycle wash water. The 1995 but annual demand can vary considerably, from a low of 4,100 acre-feet in 1996 to a high of 6,600 acre-feet in 1991. There are seven industrial golf courses in the planning area, which are defined as those courses with their own facility water supply. They are shown in Table 3.0-11, along with municipally served golf courses, with estimated demand and source of water. Total industrial golf course demand is approximately 2,300 acre-feet. Three dairies and two feedlots have been identi- Faria Dairy, Willcox Basin. There are three dairies fied in the planning area. There is a small, ap- and two feedlots in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area 64 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Department estimated that a typical sand and • Desire to maintain rural setting, including gravel facility in the Upper San Pedro Basin agriculture, at current levels in Gila Valley uses less than 50 AFA (ADWR, 2005a). Water Supplies and Demand: • Limited groundwater data 3.0.8 Water Resource Issues in the • Pumping impacts by Mexico on the San Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Pedro River and downstream users • Large volume of overdraft in Willcox Population growth and associated concerns Basin about sustainable water supplies, water level • Increased agricultural production in some declines, increased agricultural demand and enbasins vironmental protection activities have resulted Legal: in groundwater studies, regional planning ac- • Unresolved Indian water rights settletions, establishment of conservation easements ments and other activities in the planning area. • Unresolved surface water adjudication • Potential impact of adjudication court Water resource issues have been identified by subflow definition community watershed groups, through the dis• Interbasin transfer prohibition tribution of surveys and from other sources. Pri• Mandatory water adequacy required for all mary issues identified are the lack of sufficient new subdivisions in Cochise County data to make informed water management deci- Water Quality: sions, legal issues related to surface water avail- • Poor quality groundwater and surface ability and the legal nature of water supplies, water in some areas Endangered Species Act implications, and con- • Ability to meet new arsenic standard cerns about whether there will be sufficient wa• Concern about Superfund site and poor ter supplies to meet future demand. A number quality groundwater conditions of water systems have reported concerns about Environmental: aging infrastructure and the lack of financial re• Endangered Species Act (ESA) issues, sources to make capital improvements. critical habitat designation and mitigation efforts Watershed Groups • Impact of invasive species (tamarisk) on surface water supply Several watershed groups have formed in the • Lawsuits from environmental groups planning area to address water resource con• Potential impacts on riparian areas by cerns. Groups currently active within the plancontinuation of current pumping ning area are the Middle San Pedro Watershed Funding: Partnership, the Eagle Creek Partnership, the • Limited funding resources for planning, Gila Watershed Partnership, the Lower San projects, infrastructure and studies Pedro Watershed Partnership, the Upper San • Extremely high cost of water augmentation Pedro Partnership and the Willcox Playa Waterprojects shed Group. A complete description of partici- Drought: pants, activities and issues is found in Appendix • Drought impacts on surface water supplies, D. Primary issues identified by these groups are agriculture and cattle ranching summarized as follows: Other: Growth: • Different perceptions of issues and goals • Excessive growth in some areas in Benson community • Unregulated lot splits Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 65 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 • • • • • • • • Difficulty in getting principle players to the table to discuss water Several high hazard unsafe dams in Gila Valley area Regular flooding in the Duncan-Virden area Opposition to government assistance to obtain groundwater information Potential loss of Fort Huachuca due to water/ESA issues Federal mandate to achieve sustainability by 2011 in the Sierra Vista subwatershed Political obstacles to potential water augmentation projects Potential for subsidence Two of the partnerships in the planning area, the Gila Watershed Partnership in the Safford, Duncan Valley and part of the Morenci basin and the Upper San Pedro Partnership (USPP) in the Upper San Pedro Basin, have been organized for a number of years and have completed many projects. The Gila Watershed Partnership initiated a Fluvial Geomorphology Study of the Upper Gila River that was funded through the Department’s Water Protection Fund Program (98-054WPF), Graham County and the Bureau of Reclamation. The study area was of the Gila River from the boundary of the San Carlos Apache Reservation to the New Mexico Border. Its purpose was to demonstrate ways to manage the river, taking into account the geomorphic processes that dominate the fluvial systems (USBOR, 2004). It also produced a study on current and projected water demand for the watershed. Vista portion of the Basin. In addition, beginning in 2004, the Partnership must annually prepare a report (referred to as the “321 Report”) on water use management and conservation measures that have been implemented and are needed to restore and maintain the sustainable yield of the regional aquifer by September 30, 2011 (Public Law 108-136). Planning, Management and Studies The USPP and its members have initiated many conservation programs including the Water Wise program, a toilet rebate program and water conservation ordinances. Cochise County has a Water Conservation Office and Sierra Vista and Bisbee have incorporated water conservation into their zoning codes, which are as strict, or stricter than those required by Cochise County. Fort Huachuca, a partnership member, has implemented aggressive conservation efforts at the Fort that have reduced on-post water A number of water management practices have been implemented in the Sierra Vista subwatershed portion of the Upper San Pedro Basin by the USPP. These include groundwater recharge, direct effluent use, water conservation San Pedro River. Water management practices ordinances, municipal conservation programs, such as groundwater recharge, direct effluent water management and land use policies. use, water conservation ordinances and municipal The USPP annually adopts and updates a water management and conservation plan for the Sierra 66 conservation programs have been implemented in the Sierra Vista subwatershed portion of the Upper San Pedro Basin. Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 consumption by almost 45% since 1993. The USPP is also evaluating water augmentation options including the costs and feasibility of constructing a pipeline to transport Central Arizona Project Water to the area. In 2006, Congress passed the U.S.- Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Act (U.S. Public Law 109-448) that authorized $50M over 10 years for the study of four transboundary aquifers including the Santa Cruz and San Pedro aquifers in Arizona. Plans are underway to On March 21, 2006 the Cochise County Board identify and pursue scientific and informational of Supervisors adopted the Sierra Vista Sub-wa- studies, in particular the creation of a physicallytershed Water Conservation and Management based hydrologic model of each binational Policy Plan (Plan) to guide development in basin. the unincorporated areas of the subwatershed.6 According to the Plan, development density Because the Upper San Pedro groundwater will be no greater than one unit per acre unless basin extends into Mexico, the Partnership is the subdivider incorporates water saving mea- pursuing research and cooperative efforts with sures that mitigate any increase in usage over Mexico. Conservation efforts in the Mexican the current zoning, and effluent is recharged or portion of the basin have been underway, densities are transferred from elsewhere in the including establishment of the Ajos-Bavispe subwatershed. The Plan also prohibits increas- National Forest and Wildlife Refuge and a ing densities within two miles of the SPRNCA. 10,000 acre private reserve in the watershed (USGS, 2007) Many of the Plan’s policies are (Sierra Vista Herald, 2006). (See the Upper San carried out through the Sierra Vista Sub-water- Pedro Partnership website for more information shed Overlay District and other changes to the at www.usppartnership.com.) code that went into effect on January 5, 2007. The overlay district provides water use restric- In response to concerns of water planners, tions, in addition to those already required in local citizens and environmental groups about the county, on new development within the the impacts of groundwater development, subwatershed; it does not change the underly- the Department, in collaboration with the ing zoning.7 (Cochise County Code § 1802.2) USGS and funding from local partners, began Concurrent with the passage of the overlay dis- conducting hydrogeologic investigations in trict, the Cochise County zoning regulations 2005 to improve the understanding of water were amended to encourage transfer of devel- resources in two areas within the planning area: opment rights from the area within two miles 1) the middle San Pedro Basin, which includes of the SPRNCA boundary and one mile of the the Benson subwatershed and a portion of the Babocomari River to other portions of Cochise Lower San Pedro Basin and 2) the Willcox County. (Cochise County Code § 2208.3) In and Douglas basins. These investigations will addition to the Plan, the Babocomari Area Plan assess the existing data collection networks and adopted in 2005 indicates that future upzoning examine the current state of knowledge of the should not increase groundwater withdrawals groundwater system, quantify the water budget beyond the current assumed impact of one unit for the area, including total water in storage, per four acres. The plan also discourages new and establish a hydrologic monitoring network wells in the 100-year floodplain of the Baboco- for on-going assessment of the aquifer. The mari River. (Cochise County, 2006b) San Pedro investigation was expected to take seven years and result in a groundwater flow The Cochise County Comprehensive Plan also includes a Water Conservation Goal and Policies section. This portion of the Comprehensive Plan is almost identical to elements within the Sierra Vista Sub-watershed Water Conservation and Management Policy Plan, however, the Comprehensive Plan applies to all Cochise County. 7 Examples of the overlay conservation requirements include: gray water plumbing in all new construction, humidity sensors on any new installation or replacement of outdoor sprinkler systems and a moratorium on decorative water features not fed solely by rainwater. 6 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 67 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 sufficient information and analysis to generate an appraisal of the conservation needs of the watershed as well as serve other uses. (Reports are available online at http://www.az.nrcs.usda. gov/technical/rwa.html). Arizona NEMO (Non-point Education for Municipal Officials) has produced watershed based plans for the Middle and Lower San Pedro Watershed and for the Upper Gila Watershed. These plans characterize and classify watershed features. The goal of NEMO is to educate landuse decision makers to make choices and take actions that will lessen nonpoint source pollution and protect natural resources. (Plans are available online at http://www.srnr.arizona.edu/ nemo/). Santa Cruz River, San Rafael Basin. In 2006, Congress passed the U.S.- Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Act that authorized $50M over 10 years for the study of four transboundary aquifers including the Santa Cruz and San Pedro aquifers in Arizona. As mentioned previously, all community water systems in Arizona are required to submit a water system plan as part of the State’s Drought Preparedness Plan. The system water plan includes a water supply plan, water conservation plan, and drought preparedness plan. Water promodel. The Willcox/Douglas investigations viders are required to develop the plan to ensure were scheduled for three years and include they reduce their vulnerability to drought and establishment of a monitoring network for each prepare to respond to potential water shortage basin, an inventory of agricultural groundwater conditions. pumpage in each basin, and a preliminary assessment of subsidence in the Willcox Basin As part of implementation of the State Drought (USGS, 2006b). Recent State budget cuts will Plan, Local Drought Impact Groups (LDIGs)are delay completion of these studies. In 2008, the being formed, as necessary, at the county level. Department produced a Water Level Change LDIGs are voluntary groups that will coordinate Map report for the Willcox Basin as part of the drought public awareness, provide impact asWillcox/Douglas study. sessment information to local and state leaders The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has produced a rapid watershed assessment (RWA) for two watersheds in the planning area. These are the San Simon River and the Pantano Wash-Rillito River Watersheds. Only part of the Pantano Wash-Rillito River watershed is within the planning area. An RWA is a concise report containing information on natural resource conditions and concerns at the 8-digit HUC level. They are intended to provide 68 and implement and initiate local drought mitigation and response actions. These groups are coordinated by local representatives of Arizona Cooperative Extension and County Emergency Management and supported by ADWR’s Statewide Drought program. Finally, state legislation passed in 2007 (HB 2300) authorizes formation of an Upper San Pedro Water District whose purpose is to maintain the aquifer and base-flow conditions Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 needed to sustain the upper San Pedro River and to help meet the water supply needs and water conservation requirements for the communities within the district. The legislation allows the District and a District Board to be established if approved by qualified voters of the District. A District Organizing Board has been formed to prepare organizational, financial and election plans for the District. If approved, the District could acquire water supplies and water rights and operate augmentation projects. It could issue revenue bonds, impose fees and other taxes and receive loans or grants from the State Water Infrastructure Finance Authority to finance necessary projects. The date of the election has not yet been scheduled. impacts for incorporation into the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan, adopted in 2004. Questionnaires were sent to almost 600 water providers, jurisdictions, counties and tribes. The Department completed a report of the findings from the survey in 2004 (ADWR, 2004). There were 29 water provider and jurisdiction respondents in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area and 14 numerically ranked issues. Respondents were asked to rank eighteen issues. Infrastructure issues, including well capacity problems and inadequate capital to pay for infrastructure improvements, were ranked among the top five issues by half of respondents. Future water supply concerns also ranked relatively high (Table 3.0-15). In a separate question, about half of respondents noted at least Issue Surveys one drought impact. Primary drought impacts The Department conducted a rural water noted were increased demand, increased peak resources survey in 2003 to compile information demand and lowered groundwater levels. for the public and help identify the needs of growing communities. This survey was also The Department conducted another, more intended to gather information on drought concise survey of water providers in 2004. Table 3.0-15 Water resource issues ranked by survey respondents in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Issue Inadequate storage capacity to meet peak demand Percent of 2003 respondents Percent of 2004 respondents that ranked issue as one of the reporting issue was a moderate top 5 (of 18) or major concern 21% 34% Inadequate well capacity to meet peak demand 50 25 Inadequate water supplies to meet current demand 14 20 Inadequate water supplies to meet future demand 36 32 Infrastructure in need of replacement 36 41 Inadequate capital to pay for infrastructure improvements 50 61 Drought related water supply problems 29 39 Source: ADWR 2004 Note: 2003 respondents consist of 12 water providers and 2 jurisdictions. 2004 respondents included 44 water providers Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 69 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 This was done to supplement the information gathered in the previous year in support of developing the Arizona Water Atlas, and to reach a wider audience by directly contacting each water provider. Through this effort, 55 water providers in the planning area, with a total of approximately 46,900 service connections, were willing to participate and provide information on water supply, demand, infrastructure and to rank a list of seven issues. Water providers were asked to rank issues from 0 to 3 with 0 = no concern, 1 = minor concern, 2 = moderate concern and 3 = major concern. Of the 55 water providers that responded to the survey, 44 ranked issues. These respondents include many of the largest water providers in the planning area including Bella Vista Water Company (Sierra Vista), City of Benson, City of Douglas, Gila Resources/Safford, Town of Kearny, Pueblo del Sol Water Company (Sierra Vista) and the City of Willcox. Although responses to the 2003 questionnaire are not directly comparable to the 2004 survey due to differences in the form and wording of the surveys, responses to issues are somewhat similar as shown in Table 3.0-15. The 2004 responses indicate that inadequate capital for infrastructure improvements is an overwhelming concern in the planning area. Other infrastructure issues and drought also ranked high. 3.0.9 Groundwater Basin Water Resource Characteristics through 3.14. Geographic Features Geographic feature maps are included to provide general orientation to principal land features, roads, counties and cities, towns and places in the groundwater basin. Land Ownership The distribution and type of land ownership in a basin has implications for land and water use. Large amounts of private land typically translate into opportunities for land development and associated water demand, whereas public lands are typically maintained for a specific purpose or multi-use with little associated water use. State owned land may be sold or traded, and is often leased for grazing and farming. The State Enabling Act of 1910 and the Act that established the Territory of Arizona in 1863 set aside sections 2, 16, 32 and 36 in each township to be held in trust by the state for specified purposes, which are identified for each basin (ASLD, 2006). Climate Climate data including temperature, rainfall, evaporation rates and snow are critical components of water resource planning and management. Averages and year to year variability, seasonality of precipitation and longterm trends are all important factors in demand and supply planning. Surface Water Conditions Depending on physical and legal availability, surface water may be an important water supply in some basins. Stream gage, flood gage, reservoir, stockpond and runoff contour data provide information on physical availability of this supply. Seasonal flow information is relevant to seasonal supply availability. Annual flow volumes provide an indication of potential volumetric availability. Sections 3.1 through 3.14 present data and maps on water resource characteristics of the fourteen groundwater basins in the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. A description of the data sources and methods used to derive this information is found in Appendix A of Volume 1 of the Atlas. This section briefly describes general information that applies to all of the basins and the purpose of the information. This information is organized in the order in which Criteria for including stream gage stations in the characteristics are discussed in Sections 3.1 the basin table are that there is at least one year 70 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 of record, and annual streamflow statistics are included only if there are at least three years of record. There are different types of stations and those that only serve repeater functions were not included. are indicative of the aquifer’s potential to yield water to a well. However, many factors can affect well yields including well design, pump size and condition and the age of the well. Reported well yields are only a general indicator of aquifer productivity and specific information Flood gage information is presented to direct is available from well measurements conducted the reader to areas where flooding has been as part of basin investigations. or may be a problem. Large reservoir storage information includes data on the amount of Natural recharge is typically the least well surface water stored in large reservoirs, its known component of a water budget. Many uses and ownership. The number and capacity of the estimates in the Atlas are derived from of small reservoirs is also provided as well as studies of larger geographic areas and all the number of stockponds in each basin. The deserve further study. Similarly, estimates number of stockponds is a general indicator of of storage are based on rough estimates and small-scale surface water capture and livestock considerably more studies are needed in most demand. Runoff contours reflect the average basins. Components of storage include aquifer annual runoff that can be expected in tributary depth and specific yield. streams over a particular area. Water level data is from measured wells, usually Perennial and Intermittent Streams and Major collected during the period when the wells were Springs not actively being pumped or only minimally A map of perennial and intermittent streams pumped. Depth to water measurements are shown is provided for each basin. For some basins, on mapped wells if there was a measurement more than one source of information was used. taken during 2003-2004. The basin hydrographs Stream designations may not reflect current show water-level trends for selected wells over conditions in some cases. Spring data was the 30-year period from January 1975 to January compiled from a number of sources in an effort 2005. Not all basins have a sufficient number of to develop as comprehensive a list as possible. representative hydrographs. Spring data is important to many researchers and to the environmental community due to The flow directions that are shown generally their importance in maintaining habitat, even reflect long-term, regional aquifer flow in the from small discharges. basin and are not meant to depict temporary or local-scale conditions. However, flow directions Groundwater Conditions in some basins indicate how localized pumping Several indicators of groundwater conditions has altered regional flow patterns. are presented for the basin. Aquifer type can be a general indicator of aquifer storage potential, Water Quality accessibility of the supply, aquifer productivity, Water quality conditions impact the availability water quality and aquifer flux. Well yield of water supplies. Water quality data was information for large diameter wells is provided compiled from a variety of sources as described and is generally measured when the well is in Volume 1, Appendix A. The data indicate drilled and reported on completion reports. It areas where water quality exceedences have was assumed that large diameter wells were previously occurred, however additional areas of drilled to produce a maximum amount of water concern may currently exist where water quality and, therefore, their reported pump capacities samples have not been collected or sample Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 71 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 results were not reviewed by the Department (e.g. samples collected in conjunction with the ADEQ Aquifer Protection Permit programs). It is important to note also that the exceedences presented may or may not reflect current aquifer or surface water conditions. necessary information to the Department. Briefly, developers of subdivisions outside of AMAs are required to obtain a determination of whether there is sufficient water of adequate quality available for 100 years. If the supply is determined to be inadequate, lots may still be sold, but the condition of the water supply must Cultural Water Demand be disclosed in promotional materials and in Cultural water demand is an important component sales documents. of a water budget. However, without mandatory metering and reporting of water uses, accurate In addition to these subdivision determinations demand data is difficult to acquire. Municipal for which a water adequacy report is issued, demand includes water company and domestic water providers may apply for adequacy (self-supplied) demand estimates. Basin demand designations for their entire service area. If a information is from several sources in order to subdivision is to be served water from one of prepare as accurate an estimate as possible. these water providers, then a separate adequacy Annual demand estimates have been averaged determination is not required. (See Section over a specific time period. This provides 3.0-5) general trend information without focusing on potentially inaccurate annual demand estimates Developers of large, master-planned commundue to incomplete data. ities outside of AMAs may apply for an Analysis of Adequate Water Supply (AAWS). This type Locations of major cultural water uses are of application is generally used to prove that primarily from a 2004 USGS land cover study water will be physically available for the masterusing older satellite imagery that may not planned community. AAWS are issued based represent recent changes. The cultural demand on the development plan or plat. If an AAWS maps provide only general information about is issued for groundwater, it reserves a specific the location of water users. volume of water for 10 years (for purposes of further adequacy reviews) only for the specific Effluent generation data was compiled from property that is the subject of the AAWS. several sources to provide an estimate of how much of this renewable resource might be available for use. However, effluent reuse is often difficult both logistically and economically since a potential user may be far from the wastewater treatment plant. Water Adequacy Determinations Information on water adequacy and inadequacy determinations for subdivisions, with the reason for the inadequacy determination provides information on the number and status of subdivision lots. Listing the reason for the inadequacy identifies which subdivisions have a demonstrated physical or legal lack of water or may have elected not to provide the 72 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 REFERENCES Allred, J.W., 2007, Seventy-second Annual Report, Distribution of Waters of the Gila River by the Gila Water Commissioner to the United States District Court Anderson, T.W., Freethey, G.W. and Tucci, P, 1992, Geohydrology and Water Resources of Alluvial Basins in South-Central Arizona and Parts of Adjacent States-Regional AquiferSystem Analysis: USGS Professional Paper 1406.B. Arizona Department of Agriculture (AZDA), 2005, Agriculture in Cochise County and Graham County: Accessed September 2006 at: www.azda.gov Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC), 2007a, San Manuel Community Profile: Accessed March, 2009 at http://www.azcommerce.com/Home _____, 2007b, Sierra Vista Community Profile: Accessed March, 2009 at http://www. azcommerce.com/Home _____, 2006, 2006-2055 Commerce Population Projections: Accessed March 2009 at http:// www.azcommerce.com/EconInfo/Demographics/Population+Projections.htm Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC), 2008, ASPC-Douglas: Accessed April, 2009 at http://www.azcorrections.gov/adc/prisons/douglas.asp Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2008, Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund 2008 Annual Registry; Report EQR 08-041 _____, 2006a, Active DOD, Superfund, WQARF, and LUST contamination sites in Arizona: GIS cover, received February 2006. _____, 2006b, Brownfield Tracking System: Accessed June 2006 at www.azdeq.gov/ databases/ brownsearch.html. _____, 2006c, Aquifer Protection Program: Accessed October 2006 at www.azdeq.gov _____, 2006c, Active DOD, Superfund, WQARF and LUST contamination sites in Arizona: GIS cover, received February 2006. _____, 2002, The Status of Water Quality in Arizona - 2002: Volume 1: Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(b) Listing Report. Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a, Instream flow applications, 08/2008. _____, 2008b, Water Databases of Assured and Adequate water supply determination: ADWR Office of Assured and Adequate Water Supply. Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 73 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 _____, 2008c, Water use by golf courses in rural Arizona: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Regional Strategic Planning. _____, 2008d, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2006, Technical Assessment of the Gila River Indian Community Water Rights Settlement In re The General Adjudication of the Gila River System and Source. _____, 2005a, Upper San Pedro Basin Active Management Area Review Report. _____, 2005b, Supplemental Contested Case Hydrographic Survey Report in Re Phelps Dodge Corporation (Show Low Lake) Volume I. _____, 2005c, Agricultural surface water use estimates: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2004, Rural Water Resources Study-Rural Water Resources 2003 Questionnaire Report. _____, 1998 Water Service Organizations in Arizona. _____, 1994, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II Hydrologic Summary. _____, 1991, Hydrographic Survey Report for the San Pedro River Watershed, Volume 1: General Assessement In Re The General Adjudication of the Gila River System and Source. Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, 2006 (AEPCO), About Us: Accessed September 2006 at www.aepco.coop Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF), 2008, Arizona Heritage Data Management System, accessed in 2008 at: http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml _____, 2004, Explore Arizona: Accessed January 2007 at http://explore.azgfd.gov _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005, Land Ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html Arizona Mining Association, 2006, Phelps Dodge Corporation Mines: Accessed September 2006 at www.azcu.org. Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), 2006, Historical overview-Land Grand and Designation of Beneficiaries: Accessed February 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/ history.htm. 74 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Bookman-Edmonston Engineering, Inc. 1979, Evaluation of Potential Water Requirements San Carlos Indian Reservation. Bota, L., 1997, Modeling of Groundwater Flow and Surface/Groundwater Interaction for Upper Cienega Creek Basin Browne, D., ed., 1982, Biotic Communities of the Southwest-United States and Mexico, Special Issue of Desert Plants, Volume 4, Numbers 1-4. Published by the University of Arizona for the Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum, 342 pp. Browne and Lowe, 1980, Biotic Communities of the Southwest: GIS cover. Bultman, M.W., 1999, Geometry, structure, and concealed lithology of the San Rafael Basin, southeastern Arizona, USGS Open File Report 99-399. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 1974, Multiple Objective Water Resources Study and Inventory Program Fort Apache, San Carlos, and Camp Verde-Yavapai Indian Reservations, Arizona. Phase 1 Report on Water Supply and Demand Interdisciplinary Framework Study. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2008, Arizona Wilderness Areas: Accessed September 2008 at www.blm.gov/az/wildarea.htm ______, 2006a, San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area: Accessed October 2006 at: http://www.blm.gov/az/nca/spnca/spnca-info.htm _____, 2006b, Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area: Accessed October 2006 at: http://www.blm.gov/az/nca/gila_box/gila.htm _____, 2006c, Las Cienegas National Conservation Area: Accessed October 2006 at: http://www.blm.gov/az/nca/lascienegas/lascieneg.htm Chihuahuan Desert Research Institute (CDRI), 2008, The Chihuahuan Desert Region, an Overview: Accessed September, 2008 at http://www.cdri.org/Desert/index.html City of Benson, 2009, Benson History: Accessed March 2009 at http://www.cityofbenson.com City of Willcox, 2006, Operational Drought Plan: System Water Plan Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS), 2004, CLIMAS assesses climate vulnerability of tribe, farmers in Upper Gila River Valley in CLIMAS Update, Volume 7, Numbers 2-3, October 2004. Cochise County, 2006a, Sierra Vista Sub-Watershed Water Conservation and Management Policy Plan, Adopted by the Board of Supervisors March 21, 2006 Resolution 06-21. Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 75 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 _______, 2006b, Comprehensive plan and area and neighborhood plans: Accessed October, 2006 at http://www.co.cochise.az.us/P&Z. Eastern Arizona Courier, 2005, Subdivisions could cause boom in Gila Valley. Newspaper article by Lindsey Stockton dated October 13, 2005. Environmental Law Institute, 2002, An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50 State Study, 2001 Update. Eurofresh Farms, 2006, About Us: Accessed September 2006 at www.eurofresh.com Fenneman, N.M., and Johnson, D.W., 1946, Physiographic divisions of the conterminous U. S.: GIS cover. Freethey, G.W. and Anderson, T.W., 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-664 Freeport-McMoRan, 2009, Safford Mine, accessed June 2009 at: http://www.fcx.com/ operations/USA_Safford.htm Holmes, M., 2003, Aravaipa Canyon Basin Hydrologic Map Series No.33, Pinal and Graham Counties. Arizona Department of Water Resources InfoMine, 2008, Safford (Dos Pobres) Mine: Accessed December 2008 at www.infomine.com _______, 2006, Morenci Mine: Accessed October 2006 at www.infomine.com Jacobson, J., Davis, T., Hinckley, A., Schmerge, D., and Flora, S., 2008, Water Level Change Map Series (WLCMS) No. 1 - Maps showing water level change from 1999 to 2005 in the Willcox Basin, Graham and Cochise counties Arizona. ADWR, May, 2008 National Atlas of the United States, 2005, Federal Lands: GIS cover accessed in 2008 at http:// nationalatlas.gov/maplayers.html National Park Service (NPS), 2007, Coronado National Memorial; Mission and Significance; Accessed October, 2008 at http://www.nps.gov/coro/ ______, 2006, Chiricahua National Monument, Nature and Science: Accessed October, 2008 at http://www.nps.gov/chir/. Olson, D. M, Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E.D., Burgess, N.D., Powell, G.V.N., Underwood, E.C., D’amico, J.A., Itoua, I., Strand, H.E., Morrison, J.C., Loucks, C.J., Allnutt, T.F., Ricketts, T.H., Kura, Y., Lamoreux, J.F., Wettengel, W.W., Hedao, P. & Kassem, K.R., 2001. Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth. BioScience 51:933-938 76 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Oram, Paul, 1993, Maps Showing Groundwater Conditions in the Willcox Basin, Graham and Cochise Counties, Arizona-1990; Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series Report Number 25 Overby, A., 2000, Donnelly Wash Basin ADWR Hydrographic Map Series Report No. 32, Pinal County, Arizona 1996-1997 Pearce, M.J., 2002, Chapter 3.2 Water Law, In Arizona Environmental Law Manual, State Bar of Arizona Pima County, 2006, Ranch Conservation: Accessed October 2006 at www.pima.gov/sdcp Pool, D.R. and Coes, A.L., 1999, Hydrogeologic investigations of the Sierra Vista subwatershed of the upper San Pedro Basin, Cochise County, southeast Arizona, USGS WaterResources Investigations Report No. 99-4197 Rascona, S.J., 1993, Maps Showing Groundwater Conditions in the Douglas Basin, Cochise County, Arizona-1990, Arizona Department of Water Resources Hydrologic Map Series Report Number 26 Reynolds, S.J., 1988, Geologic Map of Arizona: Arizona Geologic Survey Map 26. San Carlos Apache Nation, 2006, Economic activities: Accessed October, 2006 at www. sancarlosapache.com. Seaber, P.R., Kapinos, F.P., and Knapp, G.L., 1987, Hydrologic Unit Maps; U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294, 63 pp. Sierra Vista Herald, 2006, Down Mexico way: Efforts to preserve river in Sonora flowing along. Newspaper article by Jonathan Clark dated August 8, 2006. Southwest Ground-water Consultants, 2004, Water Supply Potential Phelps Dodge Copper Queen Mine for Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite. Tellman, B., Yarde, R., and Wallace, M., 1997, Arizona’s changing rivers: How people have affected rivers: Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona The Nature Conservancy (TNC), 2008, Conservation Easements in Arizona: Accessed October, 2008 at www.nature.org/aboutus/howwework. _____, 2007, Donation of Historic Ranch helps preserve the San Pedro River: Accessed March, 2009 at www.nature.org/wherewework _____, 2006, Preserves in the San Pedro Region: Accessed September 2006 at: www.nature.org Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 77 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Upper Gila Watershed Partnership, 2004, Current and Projected Water Demands on the Upper Gila Watershed Through Year 2050: Available at www.azwater.gov. Upper San Pedro Partnership (USPP), 2007, Project Summaries-Huachuca City: Accessed December, 2008 at www.usppartnership.com. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR), 2006, Reports, Studies and Environmental Impact Statements and Assessments: Accessed October 2006 at: http://www.usbr.gov/lc/phoenix/ _____, 2004, Upper Gila River Fluvial Geomorphology Study.: Available at www.azwater.gov. U.S. Census Bureau, 2006, on-line data files: Accessed January 2006 at www.census.gov U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008, Endangered Species List by County: Accessed in September 2008 at www.fws.gov/arizonaes/documents/countylists and www.fws.gov/ ifw2es/endangered species/lists/default.cfm. _____, 2006, San Bernardino and Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuges: Accessed August 2006 at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/arizona/sanbernardino.html U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 2007a, Wildland fire perimeters (Southwest Region): GIS Datasets accessed in 2007 at http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/gis/datasets.shtml _____, 2007b, Wilderness areas: Accessed 2007 at www.fs.fed.us/rs/ U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2009, Preliminary Data from 2008 Agricultural Ground Truthing in Select Basins: GIS data cover. ______, 2007a, Water Management of the Regional Aquifer in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Arizona---2006 Report to Congress ______, 2007b, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas 1991-2005, Data file received November 2007. ______, 2006a, Hydrologic Investigation of the Middle San Pedro Watershed, Southeastern Arizona: A Project of the Rural Watershed Initiative, USGS Fact Sheet No. 2006-3034. ______, 2006b, Investigation of the Hydrologic Monitoring Network of the Willcox and Douglas Basins of Southeastern Arizona: A Project of the Rural Watershed Initiative, USGS Fact Sheet No. 2006-2055. ______, 2006c, Database of springs and spring discharges: Received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. 78 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 ______, 2005, 1:2,000,000-Scale Hydrologic Unit Boundaries: GIS Cover, accessed in 2007 at http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html?openChapters=chpwater#chpwater Warshall, P., 2006, Southwestern Sky Island Ecosystems: Accessed August 2006 at http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/frame/r119.htm Webb, R.H., Leake, S.A., and Turner, R. M., 2007, The Ribbon of Green Change in Riparian Vegetation in the Southwestern United States; University of Arizona Press, 462 pp. Western Regional Climate Center, 2005, Precipitation and temperature station data: Accessed December 2005 at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmaz.html Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview 79 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 80 Section 3.0 Southeastern Arizona Overview Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin 81 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.1.1 Geography of the Aravaipa Canyon Basin The Aravaipa Canyon Basin is a relatively small, 517 square mile basin in the center of the planning area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 3.1-1. The basin is characterized by medium-elevation mountain ranges, canyons and valleys. Vegetation is primarily semi-desert grassland with smaller areas of Great Basin conifer woodland, madrean evergreen woodland, interior chaparral and Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub. (see Figure 3.0-9) Riparian vegetation includes cottonwood/willow, mesquite and mixed broadleaf along Aravaipa Creek and cottonwood/willow and mixed broadleaf along Turkey Creek. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 3.1-1 are: o Aravaipa Creek, which runs north-south through Klondyke and turns west north of Klondyke where it enters Aravaipa Canyon o Galiuro Mountains along the southwest basin boundary, which contain the highest point in the basin at 7,540 feet (Kennedy Peak) o Aravaipa Valley south of Klondyke o Santa Teresa Mountains on the northwestern basin boundary o The lowest point at 2,400 feet where Aravaipa Creek exits the basin ­ 82 Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin 83 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.1.2 Land Ownership in the Aravaipa Canyon Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Aravaipa Canyon Basin is shown in Figure 3.1-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the large amount of federal land holdings and state trust lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 3.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. State Trust Land • 38.3% of the land is held in trust for the public schools and 10 other beneficiaries under the State Trust Land system. • Most state trust land is in two bands flanking the Klondyke and Klondyke-Bonita roads and extending to national forest boundaries. • Primary land use is grazing. National Forest • 25.6% of the land is federally owned and managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS). • All forest lands in the basin are in the Safford Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest. • The westernmost national forest land contains a portion of the Galiuro Wilderness Area and a small portion of the Santa Teresa Wilderness east of Klondyke. (see Figure 3.0-12) • Land uses include resource conservation, recreation and grazing. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 20.6% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Safford Field Office of the BLM. • Just over a quarter of the BLM land in the basin, 18,970 acres, is managed as the Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness located in T6S and T7S, R18E. (see Figure 3.0-12) • Land uses include recreation and grazing. Private • 14.2% of the land is private. • Primary land uses are domestic, ranching and farming. Indian Reservations • 1.3% of the land is under ownership of the San Carlos Apache Tribe located in a small strip along the northern boundary of the basin. • Primary land use is grazing. 84 Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin 85 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.1.3 Climate of the Aravaipa Canyon Basin The Aravaipa Canyon Basin does not contain any NOAA/NWS Co-op Network, Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. Figure 3.1-3 shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 3.0.3. A description of climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 3.1-3 • Average annual precipitation is as high as 28 inches in the Galiuro Mountains in the southwestern portion of the basin and as low as 14 inches in the Aravaipa Canyon area in the northwestern portion of the basin. 86 Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin 87 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.1.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Aravaipa Canyon Basin There are no streamflow data or flood ALERT equipment in this basin. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 3.1-1. USGS runoff contours are shown on Figure 3.1-4. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 3.1-1. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in four small reservoirs. • There are 349 registered stockponds in the basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 3.1-4. • Average annual runoff varies from 0.5 inches per year, or 26.6 acre-feet per square mile, along Aravaipa Creek to one inch per year, or 53.3 acre-feet per square mile, in the southwestern portion of the basin. Table 3.1-1 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Aravaipa Canyon Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE JURISDICTION USE JURISDICTION None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) MAXIMUM OWNER/OPERATOR SURFACE AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 2 Total maximum storage: 117 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)1 Total number: 2 Total surface area: 38 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 349 (from water right filings) Notes: Capacity data not available to ADWR 1 88 Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin 89 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.1.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Aravaipa Canyon Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 3.1-2. The locations of major springs and perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 3.1-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • • There are four perennial streams including, Aravaipa Canyon, Parsons Creek, Turkey Creek and Virgus Canyon. All perennial streams are located in the northeastern portion of the basin. A number of intermittent streams are located in the Galiuro Mountains along the southern boundary and on the eastern boundary of the basin. There are seven major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. The largest discharge rate is 100 gpm at Hanging Spring. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 3.1-2. There are 15 minor springs identified in this basin. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. For example, some springs have variable discharge and recent measurements for two major springs, Jackson and Saltuna, were less than 10 gpm. The total number of springs identified by the USGS varies from 87 to 116, depending on the database reference. 90 Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.1-2 Springs in the Aravaipa Canyon Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) 325507 1102620 100 Location Map Key Name 1 Hanging Date Discharge Measured 04/1987 2 Goat 325250 1102743 30 11/2002 3 Jackson 325121 1102618 2 11/1999 4 3 Saltuna 325439 1102715 2 15 04/1987 5 Warm 325901 1102224 15 11/1/2002 6 McRae 325230 1102704 10 11/1/1999 324921 1102944 10 08/1986 7 4 Sycamore Saddle 30 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Name Brandi3,4 Date Discharge Measured 325052 1102624 6 02/2004 325512 1102648 6 04/1987 325524 1102918 5 07/1986 Red Basalt 324859 1102734 4 06/1986 3,4 Janette 325540 1102627 4 04/1991 3,4 325833 1102511 3 11/2002 324839 1102714 3 03/2000 Oak Grove 325053 1102624 3 02/2004 3,4 325940 1102047 2 04/1996 3,4 324736 1102730 2 11/1951 330009 1102100 2 04/1996 325856 1102524 5 1 12/1979 324805 1102657 1 04/2001 324926 1102832 1 01/2001 325253 1102610 1 06/2001 3,4 Natural Boundary 3,4 East Booger 3,4 #2 3,4 Wait a Minute Bush 3,4 Willow Walnut Cammie 3,4 3,4 Upper Boulder 3,4 Jed 3,4 Parsons Grove 3,4 Turkey Creek Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 87 to 116 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Discharge measurements vary. Shown is greatest measured discharge; most recent measurement < 10 gpm 3 Spring not displayed on current USGS topo map 4 Location approximated by ADWR 5 Discharge measurements vary. Shown is greatest measured discharge; most recent measurement < 1 gpm 1 Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin 91 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 92 Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.1.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Aravaipa Canyon Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 3.1-3. Figure 3.1-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 3.1-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 3.1-6. Figure 3.1-8 shows well yields in four yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 3.1-3 and Figure 3.1-6. • Major aquifers in the basin are recent stream alluvium and basin fill; the recent stream alluvium is the primary source of groundwater in the basin. • Flow direction is generally from southeast to northwest. Well Yields • Refer to Table 3.1-3 and Figure 3.1-8. • As shown on Figure 3.1-8 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gpm to 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 36 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 350 gpm. • The highest reported well yields in the basin are located in unconsolidated sediments in the vicinity of the Klondyke and Klondyke-Bonita Roads. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 3.1-3. • Natural recharge estimates range from 7,000 acre-feet per year (AFA) to 16,700 AFA. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 3.1-3. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 5.0 million acre-feet (maf) to 5.1 maf to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 3.1-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures three index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for these three wells are shown in Figure 3.1-7. • There are two wells with water depth reported in 2003-2004. The wells are located along the Klondyke and Klondyke-Bonita Roads and measure 39 feet and 64 feet to water. Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin 93 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.1-3 Groundwater Data for the Aravaipa Canyon Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 517 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Recent Stream Alluvium Basin Fill Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Range 2-1,500 Median 350 (36 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) 1,500 ADWR (1994b) Range 0 - 2,500 Anning and Duet, USGS (1994) 7,000 - 16,700 ADWR (1994b) 7,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 5,000,000 - 5,100,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1990 and 1994b) 5,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) Current Number of Index Wells: 3 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1996 (60 wells measured) Notes: Predevelopment Estimate 1 6/22/2009 94 Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin 95 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.1-7 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 0 A WELL DEPTH: 150 ft USE: IRRIGATION recent stream alluvium D-07-20 21BDB 50 100 1975 0 50 75 125 1985 B WELL DEPTH: 140 ft USE: IRRIGATION 1975 1985 C 1975 1995 2005 recent stream alluvium D-08-21 18DAA 1995 WELL DEPTH: 278 ft USE: STOCK 2005 recent stream alluvium D-09-22 19DCC 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 96 Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin 97 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.1.7 Water Quality of the Aravaipa Canyon Basin Sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s) (DWS), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 3.1-4A. There are no data on impaired lakes and streams in this basin. Figure 3.1-9 shows the location of water quality exceedences keyed to Table 3.1-4A. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 3.1-4A. • Eight measured wells have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards. • The parameter most frequently equaled or exceeded in the sites measured was arsenic. Other parameters equaled or exceeded included nitrates, beryllium, cadmium, copper, lead and fluoride. Table 3.1-4 Water Quality Exceedences in the Aravaipa Canyon Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 6 South 6 South 7 South 7 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 17 East 17 East 20 East 20 East 20 East 21 East 22 East 22 East 26 26 6 6 33 10 21 21 NO3 NO3 As, Be, Cd, Cu, Pb As, Be, Cd, Pb F As As As Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name Length of Area of Impaired Designated Use Impaired Stream Standard Lake (in acres) Reach (in miles) Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard None identified at this time Notes: Because of map scale feature locations may appear different than the location indicated on the table 1 Water quality samples collected between 1989 and 2004. 2 As = Arsenic Be = Beryllium Cd = Cadmium Cu = Copper F = Fluoride Pb = Lead NO3 = Nitrates 98 Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin 99 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.1.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Aravaipa Canyon Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 3.1-5. There is no recorded effluent generation in this basin. Figure 3.1-10 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 3.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 3.1-5 and Figure 3.1-10. • Population increased from 74 to 135 people from 1980 to 2000. • Groundwater pumping is decreasing with an average of less than 1,300 AFA in the period from 2001 – 2005. Municipal and industrial demand is minimal, less than 300 AFA. • Information on surface water diversions is only available for the period of 1991 – 2005. During this time all surface water diversions have been for agriculture and were less than 1,000 AFA. • The only agricultural lands shown on the map are located along the Klondyke Bonita Road in T9S, R21E. Agricultural lands also historically existed in small pastures scattered along Aravaipa Creek. • As of 2005 there were 192 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 50 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. 100 Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.1-5 Cultural Water Demand in the Aravaipa Canyon Basin 1 Year Estimated and Projected Population 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm 1312 74 79 85 90 96 101 107 112 118 123 129 129 130 131 131 132 133 133 134 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 144 151 159 TOTALS: Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 3,000 NR 3,000 NR Data Source 322 ADWR (1994b) 10 3 2,000 NR 9 8 2,000 NR 16 4 <300 NR <1,000 NR NR <1,000 15 1 <300 NR <1,000 NR NR <1,000 11 2 <300 NR <1,000 NR NR <1,000 192 50 USGS (2007) ADWR (2005a) Notes: NR - Not reported 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs, or effluent 2 Includes all wells through 1980. Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin 101 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 102 Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.1.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Aravaipa Canyon Basin There are no water adequacy applications on file with the Department as of December 2008 for the Aravaipa Canyon Basin. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin 103 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 ARAVAIPA CANYON References and Supplemental Reading References A Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file received June 2004. (Water Quality Table/Map) Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2005a, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005b, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005c, Wells55 database. _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. _____, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January 16, 1990. Arizona Game & Fish, 2005, Arizona Waterways, data file: Received April 2005. ____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. _____, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/ alris/index. html. _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us /alris/ index.html. B Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2005, Springs in the Safford region: Data file, received January 2005. (Springs Table and Map) D Diroll, M. and D. Marsh, 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report. (Water Quality Table/Map) F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ 104 Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 wrdmeta/runoff.htm. (Surface Water Conditions Map) O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 1998, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism. P Pope, G.L., P.D. Rigas and C.F. Smith, 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225. U United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 2000-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd. usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges through 2005: Data set, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study-land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/ swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. V Valencia, R.A., J.A. Wennerlund, R.A. Winstead, S. Woods, L. Rile, E. Swanson and S. Olson, 1993, Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project: Arizona Game and Fish. (Peren nial/Intermittent Streams and Springs Map) W Wahl, C.R., S.R. Boe, J.A. Wennerlund, R.A. Winstead, L.J. Allison and D.M. Kubly, 1997, Remote sensing mapping of Arizona intermittent stream riparian areas: Arizona Game and Fish Technical Report 112. (Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Springs Map) Supplemental Reading Anderson, T.W., 1995, Summary of the Southwest alluvial basins, regional aquifer-system analysis, south-central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1406-A, p. A1-A33. Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin 105 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Anderson, T.W., G.W. Freethey and P. Tucci, 1992, Geohydrology and water resources of alluvial basins in south-central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1406-B, p. Anning, D.W., 2003, Assessment of selected inorganic constituents in streams in the central basins study area, Arizona and northern New Mexico, through 1998: USGS Water Resource Investigations Report 03-4063. Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-476, 2 sheets, scales 1:1,000,000 and 1:2,500,000. Bureau of Reclamation, 1990, Upper Gila water supply analyses and sizing studies: Arizona Projects Office, draft report, April 1990. Cordy, G.E., D.J. Gellenbeck, J.B. Gebler, D.W. Anning, A.L. Coes, R.J. Edmonds, J.A. Rees and H.W. Sanger, 2000, Water quality in the central Arizona basins, Arizona, 1995-1998: USGS Circular 1213. Eastoe, C.I. and A. Long, 1994, Tritium-placed constraints on water-flow dynamics in fractured volcanic rocks, Galiuro Mountains, Arizona: Meeting of American Geophysical Union, May 1994, Baltimore, MD, Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 75; 16, p.143. Gebler, J.B., 2000, Organochlorine compounds in streambed sediment and in biological tissue from streams and their relations to land use, Central Arizona: USGS Water Investigations Report 00-4041. Holmes, M.A., 2003, Maps showing groundwater conditions in Aravaipa Canyon Basin, Pinal and Graham Counties, Arizona, 1996: ADWR, Hydrologic Map Series #33. Levick, L.R., M. Reed, E. vanderLeeuw, D.P. Guertin and K. Uhlman, 2006, NEMO Watershed Based Plan Middle and Lower San Pedro Watershed, University of Arizona. Morfin, O., 2003, The use of Pb isotopes to characterize the fate and transport of Pb in an interrupted stream, Aravaipa Creek, Graham County, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of ground-water in alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico, and California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1406-C, p. C1-C90. Sobczak, R.V., 1994, Confusion where ground and surface waters meet: Gila River general adjudication, Arizona and the search for subflow: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. 106 Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Tellman, B., R. Yarde and M.G. Wallace, 1997, Arizona’s Changing Rivers: How People Have Affected the Rivers. Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona. Webb, R.H., C.S. Magirl, P.G. Griffiths and D.E. Boyer, 2008, Debris Flows and Floods in South eastern Arizona from Extreme Precipitation in July 2006 - Magnitude, Frequency, and Sediment Delivery: United States Geological Survey, Open File Report 2008-1274 Webb, R.H., S.A. Leake and R.M. Turner, 2007, The Ribbon of Green: Change in Riparian Vegetation in the Southwestern United States, University of Arizona Press. Wittler, R. J., J.E. Klawon and K.L Collins, 2004, Upper Gila River fluvial geomorphology study: Bureau of Reclamation final report. Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin 107 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 108 Section 3.1 Aravaipa Canyon Basin Section 3.2 Bonita Creek Basin 109 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.2.1 Geography of the Bonita Creek Basin The Bonita Creek Basin is a relatively small, 457 square mile basin in the northeast portion of the planning area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 3.2-1. The basin is characterized by medium-high elevation plains and mountain ranges. Vegetation is primarily Plains and Great Basin grassland with smaller areas of Great Basin conifer forest, madrean evergreen woodland, semi-desert grassland and Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub (see Figure 3.0-9). Riparian vegetation includes mixed broadleaf, strand and mesquite on Bonita Creek. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 3.2-1 are: o Ash Flat, a medium-high elevation plain north of Arsenic Tubs o Bonita Creek, which runs north-south through Bonita Camp o South Fork Ash Creek west of Arsenic Tubs and Park Creek, a tributary to Bonita Creek o The Gila Mountains along the southern basin boundary o Nantac Rim along the northern boundary, with the highest point in the basin at 7,292 feet. o The lowest point in the basin at 3,800 feet where Bonita Creek exits the basin 110 Section 3.2 Bonita Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.2 Bonita Creek Basin 111 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.2.2 Land Ownership in the Bonita Creek Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership by category, for the Bonita Creek Basin is shown in Figure 3.2-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the large amount of San Carlos Apache tribal land, the largely solid portion of U.S. Bureau of Land Management lands in the south and the lack of diversity in land ownership types. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 3.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. Indian Reservation • 88.5% of the land in this basin is under ownership of the San Carlos Apache Tribe. • Primary land uses are domestic and grazing. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 11.0% of the land is federally owned and managed by the Safford Field Office of the BLM. • The majority of the BLM land is in the southern portion of the basin, however, there are a few very small portions of BLM land along the western boundary of the basin in T2S, R23E; T3S, R24E; and T4S, R25E. • The basin contains a portion of the Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area as shown. • Primary land use is grazing. Private • 0.5% of land is private. • All private lands are in-holdings within BLM land. • Primary land uses are domestic and grazing. 112 Section 3.2 Bonita Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.2 Bonita Creek Basin 113 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.2.3 Climate of the Bonita Creek Basin The Bonita Creek Basin does not contain any NOAA/NWS Co-op Network, Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. Figure 3.2-3 shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 3.0.3. A description of climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 3.2-3 • Average annual precipitation is as high as 24 inches along the Nantac Rim in the northeastern part of the basin and as low as 10 inches at the southern tip of the basin where the Gila Mountains meet the San Simon Valley. 114 Section 3.2 Bonita Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.2 Bonita Creek Basin 115 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.2.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Bonita Creek Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 3.2-1. The basin does not contain flood ALERT equipment. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area of large reservoirs and type of use of the stored water, are shown in Table 3.2-2 The location of streamflow gages, identified by USGS number, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 3.2-4. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 3.2-1. • Data from one station located at Bonita Creek are shown on the table and on Figure 3.2-4. • Αverage seasonal flow is highest in the winter (January-March), with over half the annual flow, and lowest in the spring (April-June). • The maximum annual flow was 60,395 acre-feet in 1993 and minimum annual flow was 2,129 acre-feet in 2000. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 3.2-2. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in one large and 16 small reservoirs. • There are 24 registered stockponds in the basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 3.2-4. • Average annual runoff is 0.5 inches per year, or 26.6 acre-feet per square mile. 116 Section 3.2 Bonita Creek Basin 302 Bonita Creek near Morenci 9447800 Section 3.2 3,500 8/1981-current (real time) Gage Elevation Period of Record (in feet) 58 Winter 8 Spring 14 Summer Bonita Creek Basin 20 Fall Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Notes: Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding. Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals November 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for the statistics was retrieved in 2005 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 Drainage Area (in sq. miles) USGS Station Name Station Number Table 3.2-1 Streamflow Data for the Bonita Creek Basin 2,129 (2000) Minimum 5,424 Median 9,553 Mean 60,395 (1993) Maximum Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) 21 Years of Annual Flow Record 117 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.2-2 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Bonita Creek Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE JURISDICTION None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater)1 MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) USE2 JURISDICTION 1 Big Bonita (#1,2,3,& 4) San Carlos Apache Tribe 59 F,S Tribal Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 2 Total maximum storage: 289 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)1 Total number: 14 Total surface area: 121 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 24 (from water rights filings) Notes: Capacity data not available to ADWR 2 F=fish & wildlife pond; S=water supply 1 118 Section 3.2 Bonita Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.2 Bonita Creek Basin 119 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.2.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Bonita Creek Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 3.2-3. The locations of major springs and perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 3.2-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • There is one perennial stream, Bonita Creek, located in the southern portion of the basin. The basin contains one major spring located on the northeastern boundary of the basin with a measured discharge of 20 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 3.2-3B. There are four minor springs identified in this basin. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. The measurement for the major spring was taken in 1951 and only one of the four minor spring measurements post-date 1984. The total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by the USGS varies from 37 to 41, depending on the database reference. Table 3.2-3 Springs in the Bonita Creek Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name 1 Tule Location Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) 332036 1095338 20 Date Discharge Measured 3/20/1951 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Cottonwood2,3 Location Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured 325956 1093130 8 12/1981 330014 1093143 3 08/1984 Hackberry 330016 1093110 3 04/1980 Farrell 330117 1093231 2 01/1991 2,3 Lion Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 37 to 41 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring not displayed on current USGS topo map 3 Location approximated by ADWR 1 120 Section 3.2 Bonita Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.2 Bonita Creek Basin 121 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.2.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Bonita Creek Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 3.2-4. Figure 3.2-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 3.2-7 shows well yields in three yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields, are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 3.2-4 and Figure 3.2-6. • Major aquifers in the basin include recent stream alluvium, basin fill and volcanic rock. • Flow direction is generally from the northwest to the southeast. Well Yields • Refer to Table 3.2-4 and Figure 3.2-7. • As shown on Figure 3.2-7 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gpm to 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 14 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 1,144.5 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 3.2-4. • The only natural recharge estimate for this basin is 9,000 acre-feet per year (AFA). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 3.2-4. • There are three storage estimates for this basin, ranging from 1.0 million acre-feet (maf) to 2.0 maf. The most recent estimate, from a 1994 ADWR study, indicates the basin has 1.3 maf in storage to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 3.2-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • There are no index wells in this basin or recorded well sweeps • There are three wells with water depth reported in 2003-2004. Water level change data is not available. All registered wells are near Bonita Creek in the extreme southern end of the basin with depth to water ranges from four feet to 12 feet. 122 Section 3.2 Bonita Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.2-4 Groundwater Data for the Bonita Creek Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 457 Name and/or Geologic Units Recent Stream Alluvium Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill Volcanic Rock Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Range 3-1,426 Median 1,144.5 (14 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) 280 ADWR (1994b) Range 0-500 Anning and Duet, USGS (1994) 9,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 1,300,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994b) 1,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 2,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current Number of Index Wells: 0 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: NA Notes: NA = Not Applicable 1 Predevelopment Estimate Section 3.2 Bonita Creek Basin 6/22/2009 123 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 124 Section 3.2 Bonita Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.2 Bonita Creek Basin 125 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.2.7 Water Quality of the Bonita Creek Basin Data on drinking water standard exceedences in wells, springs and mine sites and impaired lakes and streams are not available for this basin. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. 3.2.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Bonita Creek Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 3.2-5. There is no recorded effluent generation in this basin. Figure 3.2-8 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 3.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 3.2-5 and Figure 3.2-8. • Population in this basin is very small with 21 residents in 2000. • Overall groundwater pumping is relatively constant between 1971 and 2005 with an average of 3,200 AFA in the period from 2001-2005. Almost all groundwater demand in the basin is water collected in infiltration galleries near Bonita Creek and delivered to the Safford Basin for municipal use. This water is considered to be groundwater in the Atlas. • There are no recorded surface water diversions in the basin. • The only municipal demand center according to the USGS Gap Analysis Program (2004) is located near Highway 8 in T1S, R23E. However, there is also municipal demand at Arsenic Tubs. • As of 2005 there were 12 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 15 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. This is the smallest number of registered wells in a planning area basin. 126 Section 3.2 Bonita Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.2-5 Cultural Water Demand in the Bonita Creek Basin 1 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 Estimated and Projected Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm 2 10 5 7 8 10 11 13 14 16 17 19 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 23 24 26 28 WELL TOTALS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 3,1003 NR 3,1003 NR Data Source 2 15 0 0 3,100 3 NR 0 0 3,1003 NR 0 0 2,700 NR NR NR 1 0 3,300 NR NR NR 1 0 3,200 NR NR NR 12 15 USGS (2007) Notes: NR = Not reported 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs, or effluent 2 Includes all wells through 1980. 3 Estimated based on average demand 1991-2005. Note: <300 acre-feet of groundwater is used in the basin. Most water withdrawn is delivered to the Safford Basin for municipal use. Section 3.2 Bonita Creek Basin 127 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 128 Section 3.2 Bonita Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.2.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Bonita Creek Basin There are no water adequacy applications on file with the Department as of December 2008 for the Bonita Creek Basin. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Section 3.2 Bonita Creek Basin 129 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 BONITA CREEK BASIN References and Supplemental Reading References A Anning, D.W. and N.R Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2005a, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005b, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005c, Wells55 database. _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. _____, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us /alris/index.html. _____, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index. html. _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az. us/alris/index.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. B Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2005, Springs in the Safford region: Data file received January 2005. (Springs Table/Map) Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1999, National Conservation Areas: GIS Cover, accessed September 2006 at http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/maps/gis_files.html. F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. (Surface Water Conditions Map) 130 Section 3.2 Bonita Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 1998, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism. P Pope, G.L., P.D. Rigas and C.F. Smith, 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225. U United States Geological Survey, 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 & December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 2000-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu / swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. V Valencia, R.A., J.A. Wennerlund, R.A. Winstead, S. Woods, L. Rile, E. Swanson and S. Olson, 1993, Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project: Arizona Game and Fish. (Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Springs Map) W Wahl, C.R., S.R. Boe, J.A. Wennerlund, R.A. Winstead, L.J. Allison and D.M. Kubly, 1997, Remote sensing mapping of Arizona intermittent stream riparian areas: Arizona Game and Fish Technical Report 112. (Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Springs Map) Supplemental Reading Ajami, H., D. P Guertin, L.R. Levick and K. Uhlman, 2005, NEMO Watershed Based Plan Upper Gila Watershed, University of Arizona. Section 3.2 Bonita Creek Basin 131 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Baker, D. L. and K.A. King, 1994, Environmental contaminant investigation of water quality, sediment and biota of the upper Gila River basin, Arizona: US Fish and Wildlife service, Project No. 22410-1130-90-2-053, 53 p. Baldys, S., III, L.K. Ham and K.D. Fossum, 1995, Summary statistics and trend analysis of water quality data at sites in the Gila River Basin, New Mexico and Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4083 86 p. Baldys, S. and J.A. Bayles, 1990, Flow characteristics of streams that drain the Ft.Apache and San Carlos Indian Reservations, east central Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 90-4053. Bureau of Reclamation, 1990, Upper Gila water supply analyses and sizing studies: Arizona Projects Office, draft report, April 1990. Sobczak, R.V., 1994, Confusion where ground and surface waters meet: Gila River general adjudication, Arizona and the Search for subflow: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Tellman, B., R. Yarde and M.G. Wallace, 1997, Arizona’s Changing Rivers: How People Have Affected the Rivers. Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona. Wittler, R. J., J.E. Klawon and K.L. Collins, 2004, Upper Gila River fluvial geomorphology study: Bureau of Reclamation final report. 132 Section 3.2 Bonita Creek Basin Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin 133 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.3.1 Geography of the Cienega Creek Basin Cienega Creek is a small, 606 square mile basin in the southwest portion of the planning area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 3.3-1. The basin is characterized by a series of mid- to high-elevation mountain ranges, grasslands and woodlands. Vegetation includes Plains and Great Basin and semi-desert grasslands, Chiuahuan desertscrub, madrean evergreen woodland and a small portion of Rocky Mountain and madrean montane conifer forest. (see Figure 3.0-9) Riparian vegetation includes mixed broadleaf and strand on Red Rock Canyon and mixed broadleaf, mesquite and strand on Sonoita and Cienega Creeks. • 134 Principal geographic features shown on Figure 3.3-1 are: o Cienega Creek, beginning in T21S, R17E and flowing north toward Interstate 10 o Sonoita Creek flowing along Highway 82 in the southern portion of the basin o Redrock Canyon north of Patagonia o Gardner Canyon north of Sonoita o Empire Mountains in the northwest, Whetstone Mountains in the northeast and Patagonia Mountains on the western boundary o Santa Rita Mountain range along the southwestern boundary, which include Mt. Wrightson, the highest point in the basin at 9,453 feet o The lowest point at 3,200 feet where Cienega Creek exits the basin Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin 135 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.3.2 Land Ownership in the Cienega Creek Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership in each category, is shown for the Cienega Creek Basin in Figure 3.3-2. Principal features of land ownership are the national forest lands along the boundaries of the basin and relatively large portions of contiguous private and state trust lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 3.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. National Forest • 40.7% of land is federally owned and managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS). • All forest lands in the basin, although they are not contiguous, are in the Coronado National Forest. There are two ranger districts in the basin, Nogales Ranger District and Sierra Vista Ranger District. • A portion of the Mt. Wrightson Wilderness area is located in T19S and T20S, R15E. (see Figure 3.0-12) • Primary land uses are grazing, recreation and timber production. Private • 24.2% of land is private. • Most private land in the basin is contiguous and located in the vicinity of the three principal basin communities of Sonoita, Patagonia and Elgin. • A number of private land in-holdings exist in national forest land in the Nogales Ranger District west of Patagonia and in the southern portion of the Sierra Vista Ranger District east of Patagonia. • Primary land uses are domestic, ranching and farming. State Trust • 23.3% of land in this basin is held in trust for public schools, penitentiaries and state charitable penal reform. • The majority of the state land ownership is contiguous, but there are a number of small isolated parcels in the southern portion of the basin. • Primary land use is grazing. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 11.8% of land is federally owned and managed by the Safford Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management. • The majority of the BLM land in this basin is within the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area, a 42,000 acre area north and east of Sonoita along Cienega Creek. • Primary land uses are recreation and grazing. 136 Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin 137 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.3.3 Climate of the Cienega Creek Basin The Cienega Creek Basin does not contain any NOAA/NWS Co-op Network, Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. Figure 3.3-3 shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 3.0.3. A description of this and other climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 3.3-3 • Precipitation data shows average annual rainfall is as high as 40 inches in the vicinity of McCleary Peak in the Santa Rita Mountains and as low as low as 14 inches at the Mescal Arroyo north of Interstate 10. 138 Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin 139 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.3.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Cienega Creek Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 3.3-1. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown on Table 3.3-2. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 3.3-3. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 3.3-4. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 3.3-1 • Data from two stations, one discontinued and one real-time, located at Cienega Creek are shown on the table and on Figure 3.3-4. • The average seasonal flow for the discontinued Pantano station is highest in the Summer (July-September) and lowest in the Spring (April-June) and the Fall (October-December). As of 2005 a full three years of data were not available for the other station, therefore no statistics were run. • Maximum annual flow was 4,496 acre-feet in 1974 and minimum annual flow was 608 acre-feet in 1969 at the station near Pantano. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 3.3-2. • There are seven stations in the basin as of October 2005, all but one is located in Pima County. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 3.3-3. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in four small reservoirs in the basin. • There are 426 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 3.3-4. • Average annual runoff is two inches per year, or 106.6 acre-feet per square mile in the northwestern portion of the basin and decreases to 0.5 inches per year, or 26.65 acre-feet per square mile, in the central and southern part of the basin. 140 Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin NA 289 Cienega Creek near Sonoita Cienega Creek near Pantano 9484550 9484560 3,560 4,180 3/1968-9/1975 (discontinued) 10/2001- current (real time) Gage Elevation (in Period of Record feet) 5 Winter 1 Spring Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin Fall Minimum 93 1 608 (1969) 1,408 Median 1,919 Mean 4,496 (1974) Maximum Annual Flow (in acre-feet/year) No statistics run, less than 3 years data Summer Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Notes: NA= Not available Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding. Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals November 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for the statistics was retrieved in 2005 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 Drainage Area 2 (in mi ) USGS Station Name Station Number Table 3.3-1 Streamflow Data for the Cienega Creek Basin 6 2 Years of Annual Flow Record 141 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.3-2 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Cienega Creek Basin Station ID Station Name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 2520 Sonoita Creek @ Casa Blanca Canyon Precipitation 10/16/2001 ADWR 4270 Salcido Place Precipitation 3/1/1993 Pima County FCD 4280 Cienega I-10 Precipitation/Stage 3/1/1993 Pima County FCD 4290 Mescal Precipitation 3/1/1993 Pima County FCD 4300 Doppler Tower Weather Station 9/1/1997 Pima County FCD 4320 Empire Mountain Repeater Repeater/Precipitation 3/1/1993 Pima County FCD 4410 Haystack Mountain Precipitation 3/1/1993 Pima County FCD Source: ADWR 2005b Notes: ADWR = Arizona Department of Water Resources FCD = Flood Control District 142 Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.3-3 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Cienega Creek Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE JURISDICTION USE JURISDICTION None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 2 Total maximum storage: 68 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)1 Total number: 2 Total surface area: 10 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 426 (from water right filings) Notes: Capacity data not available to ADWR 1 Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin 143 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 144 Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.3.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Cienega Creek Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 3.3-4. The locations of major springs as well as perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 3.3-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • • There are four streams with perennial reaches, Sonoita Creek, Cienega Creek, Redrock Canyon and Big Casa Blanca Canyon. There are a number of intermittent streams as well as intermittent reaches of perennial streams in the basin. There are eight major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. The largest discharge rate is 430 gpm at Monkey Spring. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 3.3-4B. There are two minor springs identified in this basin. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. All of the spring measurements in the basin were taken prior to 1983. The total number of springs identified by the USGS is 78. Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin 145 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.3-4 Springs in the Cienega Creek Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Map Key Name Date Discharge Measured 1 Monkey 313803 1104212 430 NA 2 Cottonwood 313910 1104225 150 3/18/1982 3 Apache 314310 1104450 90 04/1941 4 Unnamed 313158 1104553 70 4/1/1982 5 Unnamed 314716 1103820 40 3/25/1982 6 Unnamed 313135 1104740 14 4/1/1982 7 Barrell 315203 1104054 13 3/31/1981 8 Scholefield 315144 1104311 10 NA B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured Apache 315012 1102926 4 3/24/1982 Bootlegger 315424 1103252 3 12/23/1981 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 78 Notes: NA = Not Available 1 Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 146 Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin 147 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.3.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Cienega Creek Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 3.3-5. Figure 3.3-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 3.3-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 3.3-6. Figure 3.3-8 shows well yields in four yield categories. Descriptions of aquifer and well data sources and methods, including waterlevel changes and well yields, are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 3.3-5 and Figure 3.3-6. • Major aquifers in the basin include recent stream alluvium and basin fill. • In the central valley the principal aquifer is the basin-fill alluvium. • From “the Narrows” south of Interstate 10 there are three aquifers: stream alluvium, basin fill and the Pantano formation. The main aquifer in this section is the stream alluvium. • In the southwestern portion of the basin the main aquifer is the stream alluvium that forms the floodplain of Sonoita Creek and its tributaries. • Flow direction south of Sonoita is generally from north to southwest and north of Sonoita it is from the southwest to the northeast. Well Yields • Refer to Table 3.3-5 and Figure 3.3-8. • As shown on Figure 3.3-8 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gpm to 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 35 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 250 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 3.3-5. • Natural recharge estimates range from 8,500 acre-feet per year (AFA) to 25,500 AFA. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 3.3-5. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 5.1 million acre-feet (maf) to 11 maf to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 3.3-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 14 index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for two index wells (B and C) and one other well are shown in Figure 3.3-7. • The deepest recorded water level in 2003-2004 is 207 feet in Sonoita and the shallowest is 21 feet in the vicinity of Elgin. 148 Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.3-5 Groundwater Data for the Cienega Creek Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 606 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Recent Stream Alluvium Basin Fill Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Range 25-600 Median 250 (35 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 2-1,500 ADWR (1994b) Range 0-2,500 Anning and Duet, USGS (1994) 8,500 - 25,500 (does not include Sonoita Creek section) ADWR (1994b) 11,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 5,100,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994b) 6,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 11,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current Number of Index Wells: 14 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2005 (117 wells measured) Notes: Predevelopment Estimate 1 Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin 6/22/2009 149 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 150 Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 CIENEGA CREEK BASIN HYDROGRAPHS SHOWING DEPTH Figure 3.3-7 TO WATER IN SELECTED Cienega Creek BasinWELLS Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface -50 0 200 250 125 175 A 1975 B 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 341 ft USE: DOMESTIC 1975 C basin fill D-19-17 17BBD WELL DEPTH: 845 ft USE: STOCK basin fill D-20-16 24DAD2 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 230 ft USE: STOCK 1975 2005 2005 basin fill D-20-17 24CDD 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin 151 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 152 Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.3.7 Water Quality of the Cienega Creek Basin Sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s) (DWS), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 3.3-6A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired stream reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 3.3-6B. Figure 3.3-9 shows the location of exceedences and impairment keyed to Table 3.3-6. All community water systems are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and treat water supplies to meet drinking water standards. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 3.3-6A. • Forty-six sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded DWS. • Frequently equaled or exceeded parameters include cadmium and copper. Almost all of these sites are in the vicinity of Patagonia. • Other parameters commonly equaled or exceeded in the sites measured in this basin were arsenic, fluoride and lead. Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 3.3-6B. • Water quality standards were equaled or exceeded in two reaches of Alum Gulch, the entire length of Harshaw Creek, a tributary of the Endless Mine tributary and Humbolt Canyon. • The parameters exceeded in every stream were copper and pH levels. Other parameters exceeded include cadmium and zinc. • Ηarshaw Creek and Alum Gulch are part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. The TMDL report for both streams was accepted by the EPA in 2003. USFS has completed remediation of the World’s Fair and Humboldt Canyon mines on Alum Gulch and a draft TMDL Implementation Plan is available from ADEQ. Effluent Dependent Reaches • Refer to Figure 3.3-9. • There is one small portion of Sonoita Creek in the vicinity of Patagonia that is effluent dependent. Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin 153 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.3-6 Water Quality Exceedences in the Cienega Creek Basin 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Well Well Well Well Well 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 NR NR NR Well NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Township Range Section 17 South 18 South 18 South 19 South 19 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 23 South 23 South 23 South 23 South 23 South 23 South 23 South 23 South 23 South 19 East 16 East 17 East 17 East 18 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 17 32 26 3 29 9 12 12 14 14 14 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 9 14 20 20 20 20 20 20 26 27 27 28 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 3 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard 2 (DWS) F Rad As, Cu, Pb As Rad NO3 As As Cd Cd Cd As Cd, Cu, Pb Cd, Cu, Pb As Cd, Cu, Pb Cd, Cu, Pb As As, F, Pb Cd, Cu Cd, F Cd, Cu Cd, Cu Cd, Cu Cd, Cu Cd, Cu F As Cd Cd, Tl Cd, Cu, Pb Cd, F As, Cd, Cu, F, Pb Cd, F, Pb Cd, Cu, F, Pb Cd, Cu, Pb As, Cd, Cu, Pb As As Cd, Cu, Pb Cd, Cu Cd, Cu Cd, Pb Cd, Cu Cd, Cu Cd, Cu Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others 154 Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.3-6 Water Quality Exceedences in the Cienega Creek Basin (Cont) 1 B. Lakes and Streams Designated Parameter(s) Exceeding Use 3 Use Standard2 Standard Site Type Site Name Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) Area of Impaired Lake (in acres) Stream Alum Gulch (headwaters to Latitude 312820, Longitude 1104351) 1 NA A&W, AgL, PBC Cd, Cu, pH, Zn b Stream Alum Gulch (Latitude 312820, Longitude 1104351 to Latitude 312917, Longitude 1104425) 1 NA A&W, AgL, FBC, FC Cd, Cu, pH, Zn c Stream 14 NA A&W, AgL, PBC Cu, pH d Stream 2 NA A&W, PBC Cu, pH e Stream 2 NA A&W, FBC, FC Cd, Cu, pH, Zn Map Key a Harshaw Creek (headwaters to Sonoita Creek) Headwaters of unnamed tributary of Harshaw Creek to Endless Chain Mine tributary Humbolt Canyon Source: ADEQ 2005b Notes: NR = Information not available to ADWR NA = Not applicable Because of map scale feature locations may appear different than the location indicated on the table 1 Water quality samples collected between 1982 and 2001. 2 As = Arsenic Cd = Cadmium Cu = Copper F= Fluoride Pb = Lead Hg = Mercury pH = Measurement of acidity or alkalinity NO3 = Nitrate Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium Tl = Thallium Zn = Zinc 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife AgL = Agricultural Livestock Watering FBC = Full Body Contact FC = Fish Consumption PBC = Partial Body Contact Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin 155 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 156 Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.3.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Cienega Creek Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 3.3-7. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown on Table 3.3-8. Figure 3.310 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 3.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 3.3-7 and Figure 3.3-10. • Population in this basin is small but has more than doubled since 1980, increasing from 1,695 in 1980 to 4,355 in 2000. • Overall groundwater pumping is estimated to be comparable to historic pumping with an annual average of about 1,400 AFA from 2001-2005. • All water use in this basin is groundwater, there are no recorded surface water diversions. • Most concentrations of municipal and industrial demand are either around Patagonia or along Interstate 10 along the Cochise County line. • Both municipal and industrial groundwater demand has remained fairly constant since 1991, with municipal demand about 550 AFA and industrial demand less than 300 AFA. • Agricultural demand has also remained relatively constant since 1992 with less than 500 AFA. The only agricultural demand center shown on the map is located along Highway 82 in T21S, R16E. • In addition to the agricultural demand center shown on the map there are approximately 170 acres of vineyards in this basin. Most vineyards are located in the Elgin area and all are irrigated with groundwater. • As of 2005 there were 1,874 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 169 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 3.3-8. • There is one wastewater treatment facility, the Patagonia Wastewater Treatment Facility, located at Patagonia. • 945 people are served by this facility. • 73 acre-feet of effluent per year is generated by the facility and discharged into Sonoita Creek. Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin 157 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.3-7 Cultural Water Demand in the Cienega Creek Basin1 Estimated and Projected Population Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 Q < 35 gpm 7592 1,695 1,792 1,888 1,985 2,082 2,178 2,275 2,372 2,468 2,565 2,662 2,831 3,000 3,170 3,339 3,508 3,678 3,847 4,016 4,186 4,355 4,460 4,565 4,670 4,775 4,880 5,404 6,672 7,820 WELL TOTALS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Q > 35 gpm Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 1,200 NR 1,200 NR Data Source 912 136 15 1,200 NR 249 22 1,200 NR 226 17 500 <300 500 ADWR (1994a) USGS (2007) NR 247 6 550 <300 500 NR 256 18 600 <300 500 NR 1,874 169 USGS (2007) ADWR (2005a) ADWR (2008b) Notes: NR = Not reported 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs, or effluent 2 Includes all wells through June 1980. 158 Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin Ownership Patagonia City/Location Served Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin 945 Population Served Notes: Year of Record is for the volume of effluent treated/generated NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTF: Wastewater Treatment Facility Adv. Tr. l: Advance Treatment Level l Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others Patagonia WWTF Town of Patagonia Facility Name 123 Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Sonoita Creek Watercourse Evaporation Pond 6/4/2009 Golf Irrigation Course/Turf/ Landscape Wildlife Area Discharge to Industrial Infiltration Another Use Basins Facility Disposal Method Table 3.3-8 Effluent Generation in the Cienega Creek Basin Other Adv.Tr. I Current Adv.Trt.I Projected Treatment Level NA Population Not Served 159 2003 Year of Record Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 160 Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.3.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Cienega Creek Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 3.3-9A and B for water reports and analysis of adequate water supply. Designated water provider information is shown in Table 3.3-9C with date of application, date the designation was issued and projected or annual estimated demand. Figure 3.3-11 shows the locations of subdivisions and designated providers keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • • Thirteen water adequacy determinations have been made in this basin through December 2008. Eight determinations of inadequacy have been made, all in the vicinity of Sonoita and Patagonia. All eight determinations of inadequacy were because of the applicant chose not to submit necessary information and/or available hydrologic data were insufficient to make a determination. One inadequacy determination was also due to poor water quality. There is one analysis of adequate water supply for 189 lots. There is one designated water provider, Empirita Water Company, with a projected or annual estimated demand of 427 acre-feet. The number of lots receiving a water adequacy determination, by county, are: Section 3.3 County Number of Subdivision Lots Number of Lots Determined to be Adequate Percent Adequate Cochise 269 269 100 Santa Cruz >767 598 ~77% Cienega Creek Basin 161 Sonoita Hills 9 Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Cochise Three Canyons 12 County Santa Cruz Cochise Empirita Water Company a 41-401435.0001 Designation No. 22 South Township 22 South 21 South 20 South 20 South 20 South 20 South 17 South 22 South 22 South 20 South 17 South 22 South 17 South Township 91 6/28/2006 43-401865 ADWR File .2 No 427 189 No. of Lots 53-501599 53-401928 53-501457 53-501439 53-501438 53-501437 53-400866 53-501289 NA 53-300122 53-500205 53-500971 53-400432 ADWR File .2 No Date Application Received 17, 20, 21, 29, 30, 32 Section 11 198 17, 20, 21, 29, 30, 32 24 400 24 31 NA 61 33 44 13 117 NA 20 25 20, 29, 32 25 7 5, 8 7,18 19, 20 7, 8 7, 18 19 Section No. of Lots Projected or Annual Estimated Demand (af/yr) 16 West Range Location 15 West 16 West 17 West 16 West 17 West 17 West 19 West 16 West 16 East 17 West 19 West 16 West 19 West Range Location Three Canyons Domestic Water Improvement District Water Provider at the Time of Application A1,C A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 Reason(s) for Inadequacy 3 Determination 12/10/2008 2024 Date Application Year of Projected or Issued Annual Demand 12/19/2005 Date of Determination Inadequate Adequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate ADWR Adequacy Determination 10/16/1980 12/19/2005 8/6/1979 4/11/1984 10/10/1994 12/18/1989 1/24/2003 7/7/1982 4/1/1981 3/22/1996 8/21/1973 6/22/1989 12/8/2000 Date of Determination Subdivision Wells Three Canyons Domestic Water Improvement District Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Mescal Lakes Water System Redrock Acres Homeowners Association Unformed Homeowners Association Dry Lot Subdivision Verde Utilities Dry Lot Subdivision Anderson Water Company Water Provider at the Time of Application 162 Section 3.3 Notes: 1 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA= Data not currently available to ADWR Source: ADWR 2008a County Water Provider Name Map Key C. Designated Adequate Water Supply Subdivision Name Map Key B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Valley of Thousand Oaks Sonoita Estates 8 14 Rolling Hills Subdivision Lots 161 7 Three Canyons Red Rock Acres 6 13 Cochise Red Mountain Mesas Development 5 Sonoita Meadows Santa Cruz Ranch Oasis 4 Starr View Estates Santa Cruz Mescal Lakes #4,5 3 11 Santa Cruz Mesa, The 2 10 Cochise Empirita Highlands at the J-6 Ranch 1 Santa Cruz County Subdivision Name Map Key A. Water Adequacy Reports Table 3.3-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Cienega Creek Basin 1 Cienega Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin 163 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 CIENEGA CREEK BASIN References and Supplemental Reading A Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Map) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005a, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. (Water Quality Map) _____, 2005b, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. (Water Quality Map) _____, 2005c, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. (Water Quality Table/Map) _____, 2003, Status of Water Quality in Arizona in 2002, Vol. 2. (Water Quality Map/Table) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2008b, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005a, Agricultural Surface Water Use Estimates: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005b, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. _____, 2005d, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005e, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. _____, 2005f, Wells55 database. _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. _____, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. _____, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index. html. _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us /alris/ index.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. 164 Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 B Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1999, National Conservation Areas: GIS Cover, accessed September 2006 at http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/maps/gis_files.html. D Diroll, M., and D. Marsh, 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report. (Water Quality Table/Map) F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. (Surface Water Conditions Map) M Montgomery & Assoc., 1999, Hydrological investigations of groundwater movement and sources of base flow to Sonoita Creek near Patagonia Arizona, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. Murphy, B.A. and J.D. Hedley, 1984, Map showing groundwater conditions in the Upper Santa Cruz Basin area, Pima, Santa Cruz, Pinal, and Cochise counties Arizona 1982: ADWR Hydrologic Map Series # 11. O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 1998, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism. P Pope, G.L., P.D. Rigas and C.F. Smith, 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225. U United States Geological Survey, 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 & December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 2000-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin 165 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/ swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. V Valencia, R.A., J.A. Wennerlund, R.A. Winstead, S. Woods, L. Rile, E. Swanson and S. Olson, 1993, Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project: Arizona Game and Fish. (Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Springs Map) W Wahl, C.R., S.R. Boe, J.A. Wennerlund, R.A. Winstead, L.J. Allison and D.M. Kubly, 1997, Remote sensing mapping of Arizona intermittent stream riparian areas: Arizona Game and Fish Technical Report 112. (Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Springs Map) Supplemental Reading Anderson, T.W. and G.W. Freethey, 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2007, TMDL Implementation Plan for Cadmium, Copper, Zinc and Acidity: Alum Gulch, ADEQ OFR 07-03. _____, 2003, Total Maximum Daily Load For: Upper Harshaw Creek, Sonoita Creek Basin, Santa Cruz River Watershed, Coronado National Forest, near Patagonia, Santa Cruz County, Arizona, ADEQ OFR 07-09. _____, 2003, Total Maximum Daily Load For: Upper Alum Gulch, Sonoita Creek Basin, Santa Cruz River Watershed, Coronado National Forest near Patagonia, Santa Cruz County, Arizona, ADEQ OFR 07-08. Arizona Geological Survey, 1996, Refinement of geologic model, lower Cienega basin, Pima County, Arizona: Arizona Water Protection Fund Project 95-016. Blomgren, N.F., 1999, Water Law and Policy in the Sonoita Creek Basin: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Bota, L., 1997, Modeling of Groundwater Flow and Surface/Groundwater Interaction for Upper Cienega Creek Basin: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Bureau of Reclamation, 1990, Upper Gila water supply analyses and sizing studies: 166 Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Arizona Projects Office, draft report, April 1990. Chong-Diaz, D., 1995, Modeling of Stream Aquifer Interaction in Lower Cienega Creek Basin Using a Finite Element Technique: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Ellett, W.J., 1994, Geologic Controls on the Occurrence and Movement of Water in the Lower Cienega Creek Basin: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Fluid Solutions, 2005, Hydrologic Study - Smith Ranch Master Planned Community. Haley & Aldrich Inc., 2000, Hydrologic Study, Empirita Highlands at the J-6 Ranch, Cochise/Pima County Arizona. Gangadean, D., 1999, Storm Response of Sonoita Creek Watershed: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Gebler, J. B., 1998, Water quality of selected effluent dependent stream reaches in southern Arizona as indicated by concentrations of periphytic chlorophyll a and aquatic invertebrate communities: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4199, 12 p. Grahn, H.L., 1995, A Hydrogeochemical Evaluation of the Lower Cienega Creek SubBasin, Pima County, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Hess, G.S., C.L. Zucker, C.A. Karrer, G.F. Kusher and G.B. Radtke, 1998, Groundwater and streamflow monitoring in the Cienega Creek Nature Preserve, Pima County, Arizona: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p. 92. Huth, H.J., 1997, Hydrogeochemical Modeling of Western Mountain Front Recharge, Upper Cienega Creek Sub-Basin, Pima County, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Kennard, M., A.E. Johnson and T.W. Perry, 1988, Preliminary Report on the Hydrology of the Cienega Creek Groundwater Basin: Arizona Department of Water Resources Division of Hydrology, Special Studies. Knight, E.L., 1996, A Water Budget and Land Management Recommendations for Upper Cienega Creek Basin: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Matt, C.E., 1995, Water Resource Administration of Lower Cienega Creek near Tucson: University of Arizona, M. S. thesis. Megdal, S., K. Mott Lacroix, and A. Schwarz, 2006, Projects to Enhance Arizona’s Environment: An Examination of their Functions, Water Requirements and Public Benefits: University of Arizona, Water Resources Research Center. Morton, E.S., 2001, Arid lands, watersheds, and mining: Sonoita Creek watershed: Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin 167 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 In Proceedings from the 14th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2001, Tucson, Arizona, p. 119. Nature Conservancy, 1999, Hydrogeologic investigation of groundwater movement and sources of base flow to Sonoita Creek and implementation of long term monitoring program: Arizona Water Protection Fund Project 96-0006. Roudebush, E.M., 1996, The Influence of Bedrock on Perennial Stream flow in the Upper Cienega Creek Basin, Pima County, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Williams, M.D., 1996, Evapotranspiration in Southeast Arizona Semi-Arid Watersheds: Walnut Gulch and Cienega Creek: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Wittler, R. J., J.E. Klawon and K.L. Collins, 2004, Upper Gila River fluvial geomorphology study: Bureau of Reclamation final report. Zucker, C., 2004, Geologic influences on the hydrology of Cienega Creek: in The Value of Water; Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2004, Tucson Arizona. 168 Section 3.3 Cienega Creek Basin Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin 169 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.4.1 Geography of the Donnelly Wash Basin The Donnelly Wash Basin is a small, 293 square mile basin in the northwestern portion of the planning area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 3.4-1. The basin is characterized by low elevation hills, washes and canyons. Vegetation is primarily Arizona Sonoran desertscrub with a smaller area of semi-desert grassland. (see Figure 3.0-9). • 170 Principal geographic features shown on Figure 3.4-1 are: o Gila River, runing east-west through Cochran o Box Canyon and Walnut Canyon entering from the north and terminating at the Gila River o Donnelly Wash, Cottonwood Wash and Box Wash, which run roughly parallel to each other south of Cochran o Ninety-Six Hills along the southwest boundary, which include the highest point in the basin at 4,420 feet o The lowest point at 1,600 feet at Price where the Gila River exits the basin Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin 171 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.4.2 Land Ownership in the Donnelly Wash Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership in each category, is shown for the Donnelly Wash Basin in Figure 3.4-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the significant amount of state trust land, a band of Bureau of Reclamation land and scattered Bureau of Land Management lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 3.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. State Trust • 50.5% of land in this basin is held in trust predominantly for public schools and to a lesser extent the hospital for disabled miners. • The southern portion of the basin contains a sizeable contiguous portion of state owned land. • The center and northern portion of the basin contain trust lands that are in more of a checkerboard pattern among Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of Reclamation lands. • Primary land use is grazing. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 30.2% of land is federally owned and managed by the Safford Field Office of the BLM. • Primary land use is grazing Other (Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation Lands) • 11.5% of land is federally owned and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation. • This land flanks the Gila River and extends south of Cochran. • Primary land use is for water delivery. Private • 6.2% of land is private. • Private land is scattered in small parcels throughout the basin, with a few in-holdings in BLM lands in the northern portion of the basin. • Primary land uses are domestic and ranching. National Forest • 1.6% of the land is federally owned and managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS). • The basin includes the Globe Ranger District in the Tonto National Forest. • Primary land uses are grazing and recreation. 172 Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin 173 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.4.3 Climate of the Donnelly Wash Basin The Donnelly Wash Basin does not contain any NOAA/NWS Co-op Network, Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. Figure 3.4-3 shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 3.0.3. A description of this and other climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 3.4-3 • Precipitation data shows average annual precipitation as high as 22 inches at the northeastern-most tip of the basin and in the southeast portion of the basin and as low as 10 inches in the vicinity of the Gila River. 174 Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin 175 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.4.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Donnelly Wash Basin There are no streamflow data or flood ALERT equipment in this basin. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 3.4-1. The USGS annual runoff contours as well as stream channels are shown on Figure 3.4-4. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 3.4-1. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in two small reservoirs in the basin. • There are 89 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 3.4-4. • Average annual runoff is 0.5 inches per year, or 26.65 acre-feet per square mile, in this basin. Table 3.4-1 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Donnelly Wash Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP Key ReSeRVOIR/LAKe nAMe (name of dam, if different) OWneR/OPeRATOR MAXIMUM STORAGe (AF) USe JURISDICTIOn USe JURISDICTIOn None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP Key ReSeRVOIR/LAKe nAMe (name of dam, if different) MAXIMUM OWneR/OPeRATOR SURFACe AReA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)1 Total number: 2 Total surface area: 10 acres e. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 89 (from water right filings) notes: Capacity data not available to ADWR 1 176 Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin 177 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.4.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Donnelly Wash Basin The locations of perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 3.4-5. There are no identified major or minor springs in this basin. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • There are two perennial streams in this basin, the Gila River and Box Canyon. Flow in the Gila River is controlled by releases from Coolidge Dam to meet legal obligations. There are a number of intermittent streams in the northern portion of the basin. The total number of springs identified by the USGS varies from 12 to 14, depending on the database reference. Table 3.4-2 Springs in the Donnelly Wash Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key name Location Discharge Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): name Location Discharge Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 12 to 14 178 Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin 179 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.4.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Donnelly Wash Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 3.4-3. Figure 3.4-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 3.4-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 3.4-6. Figure 3.4-8 shows well yields in three yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 3.4-3 and Figure 3.4-6. • The major aquifer in the basin is a narrow strip of basin fill. • Flow direction is from the southeast to the northwest. Well Yields • Refer to Table 3.4-3 and Figure 3.4-8. • As shown on Figure 3.4-8 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) to 1,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on four reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 62.5 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 3.4-3. • The natural recharge estimate for this basin is 3,000 acre-feet per year (AFA). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 3.4-3. • There are three storage estimates for this basin, ranging from 140,000 acre-feet to 2.0 million acre-feet to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 3.4-6. Water level is shown for a well measured in 2003-2004. • The only 2003-2004 recorded water level in the basin is 35 feet northwest of Beehive Tank. A hydrograph corresponding to this well is shown in Figure 3.4-7. 180 Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.4-3 Groundwater Data for the Donnelly Wash Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 293 Major Aquifer(s): estimated natural Recharge, in acre-feet: estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: name and/or Geologic Units Basin Fill Range 3 - 2,600 Median 62.5 (4 wells reprted) Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 0 - 500 Anning and Duet, USGS (1994) 3,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 140,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994b) <1,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 2,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current number of Index Wells: 0 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1996 (25 wells measured) notes: Predevelopment Estimate 1 Section 3.4 6/22/2009 Donnelly Wash Basin 181 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 182 Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.4 DONNELLY WASH Figure 3.4-7BASIN HYDROGRAPH SHOWING DEPTH Donnelly Wash Basin TO WATER INDepth SELECTED Hydrographs Showing to WaterWELLS in Selected Wells 0 50 A 1975 WELL DEPTH: 26.6 ft USE: UNUSED 1985 recent stream alluvium D-06-12 04ADA1 YEAR 1995 Donnelly Wash Basin 2005 183 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 184 Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.4.7 Water Quality of the Donnelly Wash Basin Sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s) (DWS), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 3.4-4A. There are no data on impaired lakes and streams in this basin. Figure 3.4-9 shows the location of exceedences keyed to Table 3.4-4A. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 3.4-4A. • Five sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded DWS. • Equaled or exceeded parameters include arsenic, fluoride and nitrates. Table 3.4-4 Water Quality exceedences in the Donnelly Wash Basin 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 Parameter(s) Concentration has equaled or exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 Township Range Section Well 3 South 12 East 24 As 2 Spring 4 South 12 East 31 F 3 Spring 4 South 13 East 9 F 4 Well 5 South 13 East 7 NO3 5 Well 7 South 14 East 5 NO3 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site name Length of Impaired Area of Impaired Lake Stream Reach (in (in acres) miles) Designated Use Standard Parameter(s) exceeding Use Standard None identified by ADWR at this time notes: Because of map scale feature locations may appear different than the location indicated on the table 1 Water quality samples collected between 1996 and 2000. 2 As = Arsenic F = Fluoride NO3 = Nitrate Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin 185 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 186 Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.4.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Donnelly Wash Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 3.4-5. There is no recorded effluent generation in this basin. The USGS National Gap Analysis Program, the source of cultural demand map data, showed no demand centers for this basin. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 3.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 3.4-5. • Population in this basin is small, with 165 residents in 2000. • Groundwater pumping remained constant from 1971 to 2005 with less than 300 AFA. • All water use in this basin is groundwater, there are no recorded surface-water diversions. • Municipal demand is the only water demand in this basin. • As of 2005 there were 140 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and six wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin 187 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.4-5 Cultural Water Demand in the Donnelly Wash Basin1 year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 estimated and Projected Population Q < 35 gpm 852 27 35 43 52 60 68 76 85 93 101 109 115 120 126 132 137 143 148 154 159 165 169 173 177 181 185 205 245 285 WELL TOTALS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Q > 35 gpm Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural <300 NR <300 NR Data Source 32 13 2 <300 NR 3 1 <300 NR 8 0 <300 NR NR NR 15 0 <300 NR NR NR 16 0 <300 NR NR NR 140 6 ADWR (1994a) USGS (2007) USGS (2007) notes: NR = Not reported 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs, or effluent 2 Includes all wells through June 1980. 188 Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin Western Sky Airpark 1 Pinal County 5 South Township 13 East Range Location 17 Section 59 no. of Lots 22-400718 ADWR File .2 no Inadequate ADWR Adequacy Determination D Reason(s) for Inadequacy 3 Determination 07/07/02 Date of Determination Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin 189 Mescal Lakes Water Systems, Inc. Water Provider at the Time of Application notes: 1 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records Source: ADWR 2008 Subdivision name Table 3.4-6 Adequacy Determinations in the Donnelly Wash Basin1 One water adequacy determination for 59 lots has been made in this basin through December 2008. The reason for a determination of inadequacy is unknown at this time because the Department was unable to locate records. Map Key • • Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 3.4-6. Figure 3.4-10 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. 3.4.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Donnelly Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 190 Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Donnelly Wash Basin References and Supplemental Reading A Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2008, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005a, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005b, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005c, Wells55 database. _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. _____, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. _____, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us/ alris/index. html. _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state. az.us/ alris/index.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. B Brown, D.E., N.B. Carmony and R.M. Turner, 1981, Drainage map of Arizona showing perennial streams and some important wetlands: Arizona Game and Fish Department. F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. (Surface Water Conditions Map) O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 1998, Average annual Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin 191 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism. U United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/ swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. Supplemental Readings Anning, D., 1998, Sources of nitrogen and phosphorus in drainage basins of central Arizona: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law, and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p. 8. Bureau of Reclamation, 1990, Upper Gila water supply analyses and sizing studies: Arizona Projects Office, draft report, April 1990. Brown, S. L., S.K. Yu and B.E. Munson, 1996, The impact of agricultural runoff on the pesticide contamination of a river- a case study on the middle Gila River: ADEQ Open File Report 96-1. Cullom, C. R., 1994, Technical assessment of subflow: an update: in Approaching the Millennium - Evolving Perspectives in Water Resources: Proceedings from the 7th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1994, Scottsdale, Arizona, p.159165. Glennon, R.J. and T. Maddock, 1994, In search of subflow-Arizona’s futile effort to separate groundwater from surface water: in Approaching the Millennium-Evolving Perspectives in Water Resources: Proceedings from the 7th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1994, Scottsdale, Arizona, p. 167-168. Huckleberry, G., 1996, Historical geomorphology of the Gila River: AZGS Open File Report 96-14, 31 p. Konieczki, A.D. and S.R. Anderson, 1990, Evaluation of recharge along the Gila River as a result of the October 1983 flood: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 89-4148, 30 p. 192 Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Overby, A., 2000, Maps Showing Groundwater Conditions in Donnelly Wash Basin, Pinal County, Arizona 1996-1997: ADWR, Hydrologic Map Series #32. Sobczak, R.V., 1994, Confusion Where Ground and Surface Waters Meet: Gila River General Adjudication, Arizona and the Search for Subflow: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Tellman, B., R. Yarde and M.G. Wallace, 1997, Arizona’s Changing Rivers: How People Have Affected the Rivers. Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona. Wittler, R. J., J.E. Klawon and K.L. Collins, 2004, Upper Gila River fluvial geomorphology study: Bureau of Reclamation final report. Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin 193 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 194 Section 3.4 Donnelly Wash Basin Section 3.5 Douglas Basin 195 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.5.1 Geography of the Douglas Basin The Douglas Basin is a medium-size, 949 square mile basin located in the southern portion of the planning area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 3.5-1. The basin is characterized by a large valley, the Sulphur Springs Valley, running north-south down the center of the basin. Vegetation is primarily semi-desert grassland with smaller areas of Chihuahuan desertscrub. (see Figure 3.0-9) Riparian vegetation includes cottonwood/willow along Leslie Creek. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 3.5-1 are: o Whitewater Draw running north-south down the center of the basin to Douglas o Mule Mountains along the southwestern basin boundary near Bisbee o Perilla Mountains east of Douglas and the Swisshelm Mountains east of Elfrida o The southern end of the Dragoon Mountains are northwest of Elfrida, which include the highest point in the basin at 6,986 feet o The lowest point in the basin at 4,100 feet in the Sulphur Springs Valley located near Pirtleville. 196 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin 197 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.5.2 Land Ownership in the Douglas Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership in each category, is shown for the Douglas Basin in Figure 3.5-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the significant amount of private land interspersed with state trust lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 3.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. Private • 62.6% of the land is held privately. • The largest concentration of private land is along Highway 191, the major route through the basin. • This basin contains the largest percentage of private land ownership of any basin in the planning area. • Primary land uses are farming, domestic, commercial and mining. State Trust • 32.1% of the land in this basin is held in trust for public schools and 13 other beneficiaries under the State Trust Land system. • State land ownership in this basin is relatively fragmented. • Primary land use is grazing. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 3.8% of land is federally owned and managed by the Safford Office of the BLM. • BLM lands are interspersed throughout the private and state owned lands in this basin and there is little continuity. • Primary land use is grazing. National Forest • 0.7% of land is federally owned and managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS). • All forest lands in the basin are in the Douglas Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest. • Primary land uses are recreation, grazing and timber production. Wildlife Refuge • 0.4% of land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). • All USFWS lands are within the Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge also includes private and state trust lands. • Primary land uses are wildlife protection and recreation. Other • 0.4% of land is state owned and managed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. 198 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 • • All Game and Fish lands are within the Whitewater Draw Wildlife Area. Primary land uses are wildlife protection and recreation. U.S. Military • 0.1% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Military. • Primary land use is for military activities. Section 3.5 Douglas Basin 199 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 200 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.5.3 Climate of the Douglas Basin Climate data from NOAA/ NWS Co-op Network stations are complied in Table 3.5-1 and their locations are shown on Figure 3.5-3. Figure 3.5-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Douglas Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 3.0.3. A description of climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 3.5-1. • There are four NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate stations in the basin. The average monthly maximum temperature occurs in July and ranges from 76.5°F at Bisbee to 80.4°F at Douglas Smelter. The average monthly minimum occurs in December and is about 46°F for all four stations. • Highest average seasonal rainfall occurs in the summer (July - September). For the period of record used, the highest annual rainfall is 22.75 inches at Bisbee and the lowest is 13.76 inches at Douglas FAA AP. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 3.5-3 • Additional annual precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 26 inches at the Mule Mountains, north of the town of Bisbee, and as low as 10 inches at the Sulphur Springs Valley in the vicinity of Elfrida. Section 3.5 Douglas Basin 201 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.5-1 Climate Data for the Douglas Basin A. nOAA/nWS Co-op network: Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Station name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record used for Averages Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Bisbee 5,350 1892-19851 76.5/Jul 45.8/Jan 4.94 1.66 10.54 5.62 22.75 Douglas 4,040 1948-2004 1 79.3/Jul 45.9/Dec 2.16 1.56 8.51 3.12 15.36 Douglas FAA AP 4,100 1971-2000 79.0/Jul 45.8/Jan 1.85 1.16 7.65 3.10 13.76 Douglas Smelter 3,970 1903-1973 1 80.4/Jul 45.5/Jan 1.43 1.28 8.09 3.47 14.27 Annual Source: WRCC, 2005 notes: FAA AP = Federal Aviation Administration Airport 1 Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 B. Evaporation Pan: Station name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record used for Averages Avg. Annual Evap (in inches) None C. AZMET: Station name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages ) None D. SnOTEL/Snowcourse: Station name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None 202 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin 203 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.5.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Douglas Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 3.5-2. This basin does not contain Flood ALERT equipment. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 3.5-3. The location of streamflow gages, using the USGS number, and USGS runoff contours are shown on Figure 3.5-4. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 3.5-2. • Data from one real-time station located at Whitewater Draw are shown on the table and on Figure 3.5-4. • The average seasonal flow is highest in the Summer (July-September) and lowest in the Winter (January-March) and Spring (April-June). • Maximum annual flow was 22,304 acre-feet in 1955 and minimum annual flow was 232 acre-feet in 1980. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 3.5-3. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in three small reservoirs in the basin. • There are 254 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 3.5-4. • Average annual runoff varies from 0.2 inches per year, or 10.66 acre-feet per square mile, east and north of Whitewater Draw to one inch per year, or 53.3 acre-feet per square mile, west of Whitewater Draw. 204 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin Section 3.5 1,023 Whitewater Draw near Douglas, AZ 9537500 3,909 Gage Elevation (in feet) 1/1912-current (real time) Period of Record 2 Winter 2 Spring 89 Summer Douglas Basin 7 Fall Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) notes: Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals November 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for the statistics was retrieved in 2005 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 Drainage Area 2 (in mi ) uSGS Station name Station number Table 3.5-2 Streamflow Data for the Douglas Basin 232 (1980) Minimum 5,960 Median 6,533 Mean 22,304 (1955) Maximum Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) 46 Years of Annual Flow Record 205 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.5-3 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Douglas Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE nAME (name of dam, if different) OWnER/OPERATOR MAXIMuM STORAGE (AF) uSE JuRISDICTIOn uSE JuRISDICTIOn None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE nAME (name of dam, if different) OWnER/OPERATOR MAXIMuM SuRFACE AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)1 Total number: 3 Total surface area: 28 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 254 (from water right filings) notes: Capacity data not available to ADWR 1 206 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin 207 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.5.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Douglas Basin Minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 3.5-4. There are no major springs in this basin. The locations of perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 3.5-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • There is one perennial stream in this basin, Leslie Creek, located on the eastern boundary of the basin. There are six minor springs in the basin. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. All of the spring measurements were taken prior to 1982 and most were taken in 1951. The total number of springs identified by the USGS varies from six to ten, depending on the database reference. This is the smallest number of springs in a basin in the planning area. Table 3.5-4 Springs in the Douglas Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Location Discharge Latitude Longitude (in gpm) name Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) name Date Discharge Measured Unnamed2 312923 1095603 4 9/20/1951 Walnut #1 314908 1095343 2 09/1951 Unnamed2 313149 1095604 2 9/19/1951 Unnamed2 313035 1095438 2 9/20/1951 2 312940 1095344 2 9/20/1951 314025 1095405 1 During or prior to 1982 Unnamed Antelope Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by uSGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and uSGS, 2006a): 6 to 10 notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring not displayed on current USGS topo map 1 208 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin 209 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.5.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Douglas Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 3.5-5. Figure 3.5-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 3.5-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 3.5-6. Figure 3.5-8 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 3.5-5 and Figure 3.5-6. • The major aquifers in the basin are basin fill and basin fill with interbedded volcanic rock in the Douglas area. • As seen on Figure 3.5-6, in the vicinity of Elfrida, groundwater flow directions have been altered due to agricultural pumpage. • Flow direction is generally from north to south. Well Yields • Refer to Table 3.5-5 and Figure 3.5-8. • As shown on Figure 3.5-8 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) to more than 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 656 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 600 gpm. • In general, the highest well yields are north of Elfrida and west of Pirtleville. All well yields in the vicinity of Bisbee are less than 100 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 3.5-5. • The principal source of recharge for this basin is mountain-front precipitation. • Natural recharge estimates range from 15,500 acre-feet per year (AFA) to 22,000 AFA. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 3.5-5. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 26 million acre-feet (maf) to 32 maf to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 3.5-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 27 index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for six index wells are shown in Figure 3.5-7. • The Department measures water levels four times daily at one automated groundwater monitoring site in the basin. • The deepest recorded water level in 2003-2004 is 337 feet north of Elfrida and the shallowest is 65 feet northwest of Pirtleville. 210 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.5-5 Groundwater Data for the Douglas Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 949 name and/or Geologic units Major Aquifer(s): Basin Fill Basin Fill with Interbedded Volcanic Rock (city of Douglas area) Range 144 - 1,068 Median 717.5 (64 wells measured) Range 3 - 2,600 Median 600 (656 wells reported) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 50 - 2,000 ADWR (1990 and 1994b) Range 0 - 2,500 Anning and Duet, USGS (1994) Range <1,000-1,600 Rascona, ADWR (1993) 15,500 Anderson and Freethey (1995) 22,000 ADWR (1994b) 20,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 32,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994b) 30,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 26,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current number of Index Wells: 27 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2004 (356 wells measured) notes: Predevelopment Estimate 1 Section 3.5 6/22/2009 Douglas Basin 211 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 212 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.5-7 DOUGLAS BASIN Douglas Basin DEPTH HYDROGRAPHS SHOWING Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells TO WATER IN SELECTED WELLS 125 A WELL DEPTH: 390 ft USE: DOMESTIC basin fill D-18-26 28AAA2 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 175 225 250 1975 B 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 400 ft USE: DOMESTIC 2005 basin fill D-19-26 23DAA 300 350 75 125 1975 C 1975 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 124.5 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill D-21-26 02BAA 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 3.5 Douglas Basin 213 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 DOUGLAS BASIN Figure 3.5-7 (Cont) HYDROGRAPHS SHOWING DEPTH Douglas Basin TO WATER IN Depth SELECTED WELLS Hydrographs Showing to Water in Selected Wells 25 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 75 150 D 1975 E WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: DOMESTIC basin fill D-22-26 29BCC1 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 350 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill D-23-27 22DDA2 200 250 200 1975 F 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: STOCK 2005 basin fill D-23-28 31CCC 250 300 350 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 214 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin 215 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.5.7 Water Quality of the Douglas Basin Sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s) (DWS), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 3.5-6A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired stream reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 3.5-6B. Figure 3.5-9 shows the location of exceedences and impairment keyed to Table 3.5-6. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 3.5-6A. • Forty-nine sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded DWS. • Frequently equaled or exceeded parameters include fluoride, arsenic and nitrate. Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 3.5-6B. • Water quality standards were exceeded in three reaches of Mule Gulch and one reach of Brewery Gulch. • The parameter exceeded in every reach was copper. Other parameters exceeded included cadmium, zinc and pH levels. • All impaired stream reaches in this basin are part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. In all four stream reaches modeling has been completed, but additional sampling is needed to create the final TMDL report. Effluent Dependent Reaches • See Figure 3.5-9 • In 2005 Mule Gulch, in the vicinity of Bisbee was an effluent dependent reach. Currently effluent is treated at the San Jose WWTP and discharged to Greenbrush Draw. 216 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.5-6 Water Quality Exceedences in the Douglas Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Site Location Township Range Section 18 South 18 South 18 South 18 South 18 South 18 South 18 South 18 South 18 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 19 South 20 South 20 South 20 South 20 South 21 South 21 South 21 South 21 South 21 South 21 South 21 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 22 South 23 South 24 South 24 South 24 South 24 South 24 South 24 South 24 South 24 South 25 East 25 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 24 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 27 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 27 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 27 East 27 East 27 East 24 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 27 East 27 East 27 East 29 East 2 26 25 32 33 33 34 35 35 25 3 3 3 4 5 7 7 8 8 8 8 18 18 25 6 6 25 9 9 18 19 19 19 19 29 3 4 8 5 25 34 11 3 3 5 10 10 13 6 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 As, F F F F F F F F F NO3 NO3 F F F F F As, F F F F F F F F F F NO3 F As, F F As, Be As As F F F F As F As As NO3 As As NO3 As As As As Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others Section 3.5 Douglas Basin 217 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.5-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Douglas Basin (Cont)1 B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type a Stream b Stream c Stream Stream d Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) Area of Impaired Lake (in acres) Designated use Standard3 Parameter(s) Exceeding use Standard2 1 NA A&W Cu 1 NA A&W Cu, pH Mule Gulch (Bisbee WWTP to Hwy 80 bridge) 4 NA A&W Cd, Cu, pH, Zn Mule Gulch (headwaters to above Lavender Pit) 4 NA A&W Cu Site name Brewery Gulch (headwaters to Mule Gulch) Mule Gulch (above Lavender Pit to Bisbee WWTP) Source: ADEQ 2005e notes: Because of map scale feature locations may appear different than the location indicated on the table NA = Not applicable 1 Water quality samples collected between 1978 and 2002. 2 As = Arsenic Be = Beryllium Cd = Cadmium Cu = Copper F= Fluoride NO3 = Nitrate pH = Measurement of acidity or alkalinity Zn = Zinc 3 A&W = Aquatic & Wildlife 218 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin 219 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.5.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Douglas Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 3.5-7. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown on Table 3.5-8. Figure 3.510 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 3.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 3.5-7 and Figure 3.5-10. • Population increased by an average of 500 people per year between 1980 and 2000. • All water use in this basin is groundwater and over three-fourths of the water demand in this basin is for agriculture. Total groundwater use decreased significantly in this basin from 1971 to 1990. From 1990 to 2003, however, total groundwater has increased although not to the same level as in 1971. • The highest concentration of municipal and industrial demand is found near Douglas and Pirtleville with smaller centers north of Pirtleville along Highway 191, north of Elfrida and west of Douglas along Highway 80. • The majority of the agricultural demand in the basin is in the vicinity of Highway 191 and north of Elfrida. • There are large mine facilities, including the Copper Queen Mine and the Paul Spur Quarry located along Highway 80. There is, however, no recorded industrial water use in this basin after 1990. • As of 2005 there were 1,666 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 899 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 3.5-8. • There is one wastewater treatment facility, the Douglas Wastewater Treatment Facility, located at Douglas. • About 18,000 people are served by this facility. Almost 1,400 acre-feet of effluent per year is generated by the facility and discharged to Mexico where it is used for agricultural irrigation. 220 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Tables 3.5-7 Cultural Water Demand in the Douglas Basin 1 Year Estimated and Projected Population 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 16,600 1981 17,359 1982 18,119 1983 18,878 1984 19,637 1985 20,397 1986 21,156 1987 21,915 1988 22,674 1989 23,434 1990 24,193 1991 24,396 1992 24,598 1993 24,801 1994 25,004 1995 25,207 1996 25,409 1997 25,612 1998 25,815 1999 26,017 2000 26,220 2001 26,758 2002 27,296 2003 27,834 2004 28,372 2005 28,911 2010 31,609 2020 37,790 2030 41,800 WELL TOTALS: number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm 9072 Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 110,000 NR 90,000 NR Data Source 7952 ADWR (1994a) 107 42 61,000 NR 134 22 38,000 NR 116 17 5,400 NR 32,800 NR 187 8 6,200 NR 37,100 NR 215 15 5,500 NR 47,300 NR 1,666 899 USGS (2007) notes: NR = Not reported 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs, or effluent 2 Includes all wells through June 1980. Section 3.5 Douglas Basin 221 Douglas Water & Sewer Douglas WWTF Douglas 222 notes: Year of Record is for the volume of effluent treated/generated NA: No data currently available to ADWR WWTF: Wastewater Treatment Facility 18,044 City/Location Population Served Served Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others Ownership Facility name 1,367 Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Mexico Watercourse Golf Evaporation Irrigation Course/Turf/ Pond Landscape Wildlife Area Discharge Industrial to Another use Facility Disposal Method Table 3.5-8 Effluent Generation in the Douglas Basin Infiltration Basins Other NA Section 3.5 Secondary Douglas Basin 1996 Current Population Year of Treatment not Served Record Level Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin 223 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.5.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Douglas Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 3.5-9A. Designated water provider information is shown in Table 3.5-9B with date of application, date the designation was issued and projected demand. Figure 3.5-11 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • All subdivisions receiving an adequacy determination are in Cochise County. Eight water adequacy determinations for 433 lots have been made in this basin through December 2008. Eighty-three lots, or 19%, were determined to be adequate. All determinations of inadequacy were because the applicant chose not to submit necessary information and/or available hydrologic data were insufficient to make a determination. There is one designated water provider, City of Douglas, which does not have a total projected or annual estimated demand. 224 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin Harbour Property 3 Sunsites Ranches Unit 4 The 400 Club 7 8 Cochise Cochise Cochise City of Douglas a 27 East 20 South Designation no. Cochise 40-900001.0000 County 27 East 19 South NA 53-700398 53-300157 53-300037 53-400051 53-501214 53-500774 53-700231 53-500477 No amount designated 6 314 26 10 10 33 12 22 ADWR File no.2 Date Application Received 8 1,13,24,25 28,29,30,31, 32 4,5,6,7,9,18, 29 14, 22, 24 15 7 2 9 35 Section no. of Lots Projected or Annual Estimated Demand 24 East 26 East 23 South 24 East 19 South 28 East 24 South 18 South 24 East 26 East 24 East 27 East Range 23 South 21 South 23 South 23 South Township Location 5/17/1973 Date Application Issued Adequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate ADWR Adequacy Determination Year of Projected or Annual Demand No data, hydrologic study needed A1 A1 A1 Reason(s) for Inadequacy 3 Determination 11/19/2007 2/14/1996 7/28/1995 4/21/1999 2/4/1988 2/4/1982 3/22/2007 8/11/1981 Date of Determination AWC-Bisbee system Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision Dry Lot Subdivision AWC-Bisbee system Dry Lot Subdivision AWC-Bisbee system Dry Lot Subdivision Water Provider at the Time of Application Section 3.5 Douglas Basin Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records 1 notes: Source: ADWR 2008a Water Provider name Map Key B. Designated Adequate Water Supply Sunsites Ranches Pueblo Court Cochise Condominiums Rancho Alegre Estates, 1Cochise 10 6 5 4 Cochise El Dorado Suites ( A Condominium Project) 2 Cochise Cochise Cochise Industrial Park 1 County Subdivision name Map Key A. Water Adequacy Reports Table 3.5-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Douglas Basin1 225 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 226 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Douglas Basin References and Supplemental Reading A Anderson, T.W. and G.W. Freethey, 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D. Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005a, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005b, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005c, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005d, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. (Water Quality Map) _____, 2005e, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006.(Water Quality Map) _____, 2005f, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2004, Water providers with arsenic concentrations in wells over 10ppb: Data file, received August 2004. (Water Quality Table/Map) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2008b, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005a, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit. _____, 2005b, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005c, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005d, Wells55 database. _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. _____, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. _____, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state. az.us/alris/index. html. _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state. az.us/ alris/index.html. Section 3.5 Douglas Basin 227 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. D Diroll, M., and Marsh, D., 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report. (Water Quality Map/Table) E Environmental Protection Agency, 2003, Wastewater systems improvements project environmental assessment, City of Bisbee, Cochise County Arizona. (Effluent Generation Table) F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. (Surface Water Conditions Map) O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 1998, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism. P Pope, G.L., P.D. Rigas and C.F. Smith, 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225. R Rascona, S.J., 1993, Maps showing groundwater conditions in the Douglas basin, Cochise County, Arizona 1989: ADWR Hydrologic Map Series Number 26. T Towne, D., 1999, Ambient groundwater quality in the Douglas basin: A 1995-1996 baseline study: ADEQ Open File Report 99-11. (Water Quality Table/Map) U United States Geological Survey, 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 & December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, 228 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/ swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. W Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. Supplemental Reading Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2000, Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Douglas Basin: An ADEQ 1995-1996 Baseline Study, ADEQ Fact Sheet 00-08. City of Douglas, 2002, General Plan Water Resources Element, adopted September 2002. Gebler, J. B., 1998, Water quality of selected effluent dependent stream reaches in southern Arizona as indicated by concentrations of periphytic chlorophyll a and aquatic invertebrate communities: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 984199, 12 pp. Jacobs, K.L. and L.S. Stitzer, 2006, Water supply and management in rural Arizona, in Arizona Water Policy: Management Innovations in an Urbanizing Arid Region, Resources for the Future Press. L.R. Levick, M. Reed, E. vanderLeeuw, D.P. Guertin and K. Uhlman, 2006, NEMO Watershed Based Plan Middle and Lower San Pedro Watershed, University of Arizona. Littin, G. R., 1987, Groundwater resources of the Bisbee-Naco area, Cochise County, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 87-4103. Norman, L.M., D.D Hirsch, A.W. Ward eds, 2008, Proceedings of a USGS Workshop on Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges Along the U.S.-Mexico Border - Monitoring, Modeling, and Forecasting Change Within the Arizona-Sonora Transboundary Watersheds: United States Geological Survey, Circular 1322. Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of groundwater in alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California: USGS Professional Paper 1406-C, 87 pp. Section 3.5 Douglas Basin 229 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Santec Consulting and JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc., 2000, Small and minor watercourses analysis for Cochise County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. Weiskopf, T., P. Axelrod and G. Savci, 2001, Remediation strategy along the Mule Gulch channel in the Warren Mining District: Proceedings from the 14th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2001, Tucson, Arizona, p.83. . 230 Section 3.5 Douglas Basin Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin 231 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.6.1 Geography of the Dripping Springs Wash Basin The Dripping Springs Wash Basin is a small, 378 square mile basin in the northwestern portion of the planning area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 3.6-1. The basin is characterized by a mid-elevation mountain range and Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub, interior chaparral, semi-desert grassland and madrean evergreen woodland vegetation. (see Figure 3.0-9) Riparian vegetation includes strand and mesquite on the Gila River and cottonwood/willow, strand and mixed broadleaf on Mescal Creek. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 3.6-1 include: o Deer Creek and Ash Creek running roughly parallel to one another southeast of Christmas o Dripping Springs Wash northwest of Christmas, a tributary of the Gila River o Gila River, running east-west creating the boundary between Pinal and Gila counties o Dripping Springs Mountains to the west, which include the highest point in the basin at 5,515 feet. o The lowest point at approximately 1,900 feet where the Gila River exits the basin 232 Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin 233 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.6.2 Land Ownership in the Dripping Springs Wash Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership in each category, is shown for the Dripping Springs Wash Basin in Figure 3.6-2. Principal features include a significant amount of tribal lands and scattered state owned, Bureau of Land Management and private lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 3.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. Indian Reservations • 57.8% of the land is under ownership of the San Carlos Apache Tribe. • Primary land use is grazing. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 22.0% of land is federally owned and managed by the Safford Field Office of the BLM. • BLM land is located primarily in the northern portion of the basin and is interspersed with state owned and private lands. • Primary land uses are grazing and mining. State Trust • 11.5% of land in this basin is held in trust for public schools. • The majority of the state owned land, including a sizable contiguous parcel, is in the northwestern portion of the basin. • Primary land use is grazing. Private • 7.4% of land is private. • Private land is scattered in small parcels throughout the basin with a number of inholdings within the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation. • Primary land uses are mining, domestic and grazing. National Forest • 1.3% of land is federally owned and managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS). • The portion of national forest in this basin is in the Tonto National Forest, Globe Ranger District. • Primary land uses are grazing and recreation. 234 Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin 235 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.6.3 Climate of the Dripping Springs Wash Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network and Evaporation Pan stations are complied in Table 3.6-1 and their locations are shown on Figure 3.6-3. Figure 3.6-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Dripping Springs Wash Basin does not contain AZMET and SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 3.0.3. A description of climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 3.6-1A • There is one NOAA/NWS Coop network climate station in the basin at San Carlos Reservoir. The average monthly maximum temperature is 86.6°F and average minimum temperature is 46.4°F. • Winter, summer and fall season precipitation is relatively similar; 5.36 inches, 5.07 inches and 4.36 inches respectively. • The dry season is in the spring (April-June) when an average of 1.08 inches is recorded. Evaporation Pan • Refer to Table 3.6-1B • There is one site in the basin at San Carlos Reservoir, located at 2,530 feet with an average annual evaporation of 91.45 inches. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 3.6-3 • Other precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 30 inches at the northernmost tip of the basin in the Pinal Mountains, and as low as 12 inches in the vicinity of Christmas. 236 Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.6-1 Climate Data for the Dripping Springs Wash Basin A.nOAA/nWS Co-op network: Station name Elevation (in feet) Period of record Used for Averages San Carlos Reservoir 2,530 Station name San Carlos Reservoir Average Temperature range (in F) Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 1971-2000 86.6/Jul 46.4/Jan 5.36 1.08 5.07 4.36 15.87 Elevation (in feet) Period of record Used for Averages Avg. Annual Evap (in inches) 2,530 1948 - 2002 91.45 Elevation (in feet) Period of record Source: WRCC, 2005. B. Evaporation Pan: Source: WRCC, 2003. C. AZMET: Station name Average Annual reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) None D. SnOTEL/Snowcourse: Station name Elevation (in feet) Period of record Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin 237 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 238 Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.6.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Dripping Springs Wash Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 3.6-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown on Table 3.6-3. Reservoir and stockpond data are shown in Table 3.6-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment and USGS runoff contours are shown on Figure 3.6-4. Descriptions of stream, flood ALERT, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 3.6-2. • Data from one real-time station located at the Gila River below Coolidge Dam are shown on the table and on Figure 3.6-4. • The average seasonal flow is similar in most seasons due to controlled releases from Coolidge Dam. • Maximum annual flow was 1,681,500 acre-feet in 1993 and minimum annual flow was 27,590 acre-feet in 1929. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 3.6-3. • There is one station in the basin as of October 2005. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 3.6-4. • There are no reservoirs in this basin. • There are 79 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 3.6-4. • Average annual runoff is 0.5 inches, or 26.65 acre-feet per square mile, in this basin. Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin 239 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.6-2 Streamflow Data for the Dripping Springs Wash Basin Station number USGS Station name Drainage Area 2 (in mi ) Gage Elevation (in feet) Period of record 9469500 Gila River below Coolidge Dam 12,886 2,309 7/1899-current (real time) Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Annual Flow (in acre-feet/year) Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum 29 28 31 12 27,590 (1929) 231,731 270,458 1,681,500 (1993) Years of Annual Flow record 90 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 notes: Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals November 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for the statistics was retrieved in 2005 Table 3.6-3 Flood ALErT Equipment in the Dripping Springs Wash Basin Station ID Station name Station Type Install Date responsibility 905 Downstream Coolidge Dam, Gila River Precipitation/Stage NA Gila County FCD Source: ADWR 2005a notes: NA = Not available FCD = Flood Control District 240 Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.6-4 reservoirs and Stockponds in the Dripping Springs Wash Basin A. Large reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY rESErVOIr/LAKE nAME (name of dam, if different) OWnEr/OPErATOr MAXIMUM STOrAGE (AF) USE JUrISDICTIOn USE JUrISDICTIOn None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY rESErVOIr/LAKE nAME (name of dam, if different) OWnEr/OPErATOr MAXIMUM SUrFACE ArEA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area) Total number: 0 Total surface area: 0 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 79 (from water right filings) Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin 241 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 242 Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.6.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Dripping Springs Wash Basin Major springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 3.6-5. The locations of major springs as well as perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 3.6-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. There are two perennial streams, the Gila River and Mescal Creek. The Gila River is controlled by releases from Coolidge Dam to meet legal obligations. There are two major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. The largest discharge is 200 gpm at Mescal Warm spring. There are no minor springs identified at this time. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. Both of the major spring measurements were taken prior to 1985. The total number of springs identified by the USGS varies from 76 to 99, depending on the database reference. • • • • • Table 3.6-5 Springs in the Dripping Springs Wash Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Discharge Date Discharge 1 Measured Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Map Key name 1 Mescal Warm 330918 1103815 200 2 Coolidge Dam Warm 331016 1103139 165 During or prior to 1982 During or prior to 1982 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): name Location Discharge Date Discharge Measured Latitude Longitude (in gpm) None identified by ADWR at this time Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALrIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 76 to 99 notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 1 Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin 243 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 244 Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.6.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Dripping Springs Wash Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 3.6-6. Figure 3.6-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 3.6-7 shows a hydrograph for a selected well shown on Figure 3.6-6. Figure 3.6-8 shows well yields in four yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 3.6-6 and Figure 3.6-6. • The major aquifers in the basin are recent stream alluvium, consisting of mostly sand and silt, and Gila Conglomerate sedimentary rock. The recent stream alluvium is the principal water-producing unit. • Flow direction is generally from the northwest to the southeast. Well Yields • Refer to Table 3.6-6 and Figure 3.6-8. • As shown on Figure 3.6-8 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gpm to 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 12 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 394.5 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 3.6-6. • Natural recharge estimates range from 3,000 acre-feet per year (AFA) to 9,000 AFA. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 3.6-6. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 150,000 acre-feet to less than 1.0 million acrefeet to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 3.6-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures two index wells in this basin. A hydrograph for one of these wells is shown in Figure 3.6-7. • There were only two water levels recorded in this basin during 2003-2004. The wells are close to each other and measure 87 feet and 98 feet to water. Water levels in both declined one to 15 feet between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin 245 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.6-6 Groundwater Data for the Dripping Springs Wash Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 378 name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Recent Stream Alluvium Sedimentary Rock (Gila Conglomerate) Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated natural recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Range 12 - 1,200 Median 394.5 (12 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) <2 ADWR (1994b) Range 0 - 500 Anning and Duet (1994) 3,000 ADWR (1994b) 9,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 150,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994b) <1,000,0001 Freethey and Anderson (1986) Current number of Index Wells: 2 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1996 (34 wells measured) notes: Predevelopment Estimate 1 246 6/22/2009 Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin 247 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.6-7 Dripping Springs Wash Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells A 25 WELL DEPTH: 300 ft USE: UNUSED basin fill D-03-15 29AAB 75 125 1975 248 1985 YEAR 1995 Section 3.6 2005 Dripping Springs Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin 249 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.6.7 Water Quality of the Dripping Springs Wash Basin Data on drinking water standard exceedences in wells, springs and mine sites and impaired lakes and streams are not available for this basin. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. 3.6.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Dripping Springs Wash Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 3.6-7. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 3.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 3.6-7 and Figure 3.6-9. • Population decreased between 1980 and 2005. • All water use in this basin is groundwater and is pumped to meet municipal demand. Groundwater pumping has decreased since 1971 and remained constant from 1990 to 2005, with less than 300 AFA during this time. • High intensity municipal and industrial demand is found in the vicinity of Highway 77. • There are several inactive mines including the Christmas Mine, New Year Mine and the San Bernardo Jr. Mine in the vicinity of Christmas. • As of 2005 there were 119 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 40 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. 250 Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.6-7 Cultural Water Demand in the Dripping Springs Wash Basin1 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 Estimated and Projected Population Q < 35 gpm 732 329 318 307 295 284 273 262 251 239 228 217 213 208 204 200 196 192 188 183 179 175 177 179 182 184 186 197 220 288 WELL TOTALS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) number of registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Q > 35 gpm 21 Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Municipal Industrial Agriculture Municipal Industrial Agriculture <1,000 NR <1,000 NR Data Source 2 ADWR (1994a) 17 2 <1,000 NR 3 2 <1,000 NR 11 3 <300 NR NR NR 10 3 <300 NR NR NR 5 7 <300 NR NR NR 119 40 USGS (2007) notes: NR = Not reported 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs or effluent. 2 Includes all wells through June 1980. Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin 251 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 252 Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.6.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Dripping Springs Wash Basin There are no water adequacy applications on file with the Department as of December 2008 for the Dripping Springs Wash Basin. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin 253 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Dripping Springs Basin References and Supplemental Reading A Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2005a, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit. _____, 2005b, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. _____, 2005c, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005c, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. _____, 2005d, Wells55 database. _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. _____, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. _____, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state. az.us/alris/index. html. _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/ alris/ index.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. B Brown, D.E., N.B. Carmony and R.M. Turner, 1981, Drainage map of Arizona showing perennial streams and some important wetlands: Arizona Game and Fish Department. F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. (Surface Water Conditions Map) O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 1998, Average annual 254 Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism. P Pope, G.L., P.D. Rigas and C.F. Smith, 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225. U United States Geological Survey, 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 & December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/ swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. W Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Pan evaporation stations: Data file accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgiwin/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. _____, 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. Supplemental Readings Anning, D., 1998, Sources of nitrogen and phosphorus in drainage basins of central Arizona: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law, and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p. 8. Baldys, S. and J.A. Bayles, 1990, Flow characteristics of streams that drain the Ft. Apache and San Carlos Indian Reservations, east central Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 90-4053. Brown, S. L., S.K. Yu, and B.E. Munson, 1996, The impact of agricultural runoff on the pesticide contamination of a river-a case study on the middle Gila River: ADEQ Open File Report 96-1. Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin 255 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Bureau of Reclamation, 1990, Upper Gila water supply analyses and sizing studies: Arizona Projects Office, draft report, April 1990. Cordy, G.E., D.J. Gellenbeck, J.B. Gebler, D.W. Anning, A.L. Coes, R.J. Edmonds, J.A. Rees, and H.W. Sanger, 2000, Water quality in the central Arizona basins, Arizona, 19951998: USGS Circular 1213. Huckleberry, G., 1996, Historical geomorphology of the Gila River: AZGS Open - File Report 96-14, 31 p. Konieczki, A.D. and S.R. Anderson, 1990, Evaluation of recharge along the Gila River as a result of the October 1983 flood: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 89-4148, 30 p. Levick, L.R., M. Reed, E. vanderLeeuw, D.P. Guertin and K. Uhlman, 2006, NEMO Watershed Based Plan Middle and Lower San Pedro Watershed, University of Arizona. Sobczak, R.V., 1994, Confusion Where Ground and Surface Waters Meet: Gila River General Adjudication, Arizona and the Search for Subflow: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Tellman, B., R. Yarde and M.G. Wallace, 1997, Arizona’s Changing Rivers: How People Have Affected the Rivers. Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona. Wittler, R. J., J.E. Klawon and K.L. Collins, 2004, Upper Gila River fluvial geomorphology study: Bureau of Reclamation final report. 256 Section 3.6 Dripping Springs Wash Basin Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin 257 c Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.7.1 Geography of the Duncan Valley Basin The Duncan Valley Basin is a relatively small, 550 square mile basin on the eastern edge of the planning area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 3.7-1. The basin is characterized by mid-elevation mountain ranges and Chihuahuan desertscrub, semi-desert grassland and madrean evergreen woodland vegetation. (see Figure 3.0-9) Riparian vegetation includes tamarisk and mesquite on the Gila River. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 3.7-1 are: o Gila River, flowing north from New Mexico in the vicinity of Duncan and exiting the basin west of Guthrie o Cold Creek, Linden Creek, Apache Creek and Bitter Creek northeast of Duncan o The Peloncillo Mountains west of Duncan along the basin boundary o Big Lue Mountains along the northern boundary, which include the highest point in the basin, Maverick Hill 7,488 feet o The lowest point at approximately 3,400 feet where the Gila River exits the basin 258 Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin 259 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.7.2 Land Ownership in the Duncan Valley Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership in each category, is shown for the Duncan Valley Basin in Figure 3.7-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the two contiguous sections of State Trust Lands and a significant amount of Bureau of Land Management lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 3.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. State Trust • 44.5% of land in this basin is held in trust for public schools and to a lesser extent the University of Arizona and the hospital for disabled miners. • State land ownership in this basin consists of two largely contiguous parcels, north and south of Duncan. • Primary land use is grazing. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 37.8% of land is federally owned and managed by the Safford Office of the BLM. • There are two protected areas in the basin; the Gila Box National Conservation Area in the northwest corner of the basin and the Peloncillo Mountains Wilderness area in T12S, R32E. (See Figure 3.0-12) • Primary land uses are grazing and recreation. Private • 11.9% of land ownership is private. • The majority of private land in this basin is around the town of Duncan and along State Highway 75. • There are a few private land in-holdings within BLM and national forest lands. • Primary land uses are domestic, commercial and ranching. National Forest • 5.8% of land is federally owned and managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS). • All national forest land in this basin is in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, Clifton Ranger District. • Primary land uses are timber production and recreation. 260 Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin 261 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.7.3 Climate of the Duncan Valley Basin Climate data from a NOAA/NWS Co-op Network station is complied in Table 3.7-1 and the location is shown on Figure 3.7-3. Figure 3.7-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Duncan Valley Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan, AZMET and SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate is found in Section 3.0.3. A description of climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 3.7-1A. • There is one NOAA/NWS Co-op network station in the basin at Duncan located at 3,660 feet. The average maximum temperature at the station is 80.2°F and average minimum temperature is 41.3°F. • The highest seasonal precipitation at this station, 5.50 inches, occurs in the summer (JulySeptember) and the lowest, 1.00 inches, occurs in the spring (April-June). SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 3.7-3 • Other precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 20 inches in the Peloncillo Mountains and as low as 10 inches in the vicinity of Duncan. • This basin contains the smallest variation in precipitation in the planning area, only 10 inches separates the areas of highest average annual precipitation from the lowest. 262 Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.7-1 Climate Data for the Duncan Valley Basin A. nOAA/nWS Co-op network: Station name elevation (in feet) Period of Record used for Averages Duncan 3,660 Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 1971-2000 80.2/Jul 41.3/Dec 2.52 1.00 5.50 3.26 12.28 Period of Record used for Averages Avg. Annual evap (in inches) Source: WRCC, 2005. B. evaporation Pan: Station name elevation (in feet) None C. AZMeT: Station name elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) None D. SnOTeL/Snowcourse: Station name elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin 263 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 264 Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.7.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Duncan Valley Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 3.7-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown on Table 3.7-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area of large reservoirs and type of use of the stored water, are shown in Table 3.7-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 3.7-4. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 3.7-2. • Data from two real-time stations located at the Gila River are shown on the table and on Figure 3.7-4. • As of 2005 only the Gila River near Clifton station had more than three years of annual flow record. At this station, maximum annual flow was 480,118 acre-feet in 1915 and minimum annual flow was 17,670 acre-feet in 1956. Average seasonal flow is highest in the Winter (January-March) and lowest in the Spring (April-June). Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 3.7-3. • There is one station in the basin as of October 2005. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 3.7-4. • There is one large reservoir and two small reservoirs in this basin. • The large reservoir has a maximum surface area of 124 acres. This reservoir is used for fire protection or is a stock/farm pond. • There are 373 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 3.7-4. • Average annual runoff varies from 0.5 inches, or 26.65 acre-feet per square mile, at the northern tip of the basin to 0.2 inches, or 10.66 acre-feet per square mile, in the southern portion of the basin. Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin 265 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.7-2 Streamflow Data for the Duncan Valley Basin Station number uSGS Station name Gage Drainage Area elevation (in Period of Record 2 (in mi ) feet) 9439000 Gila River at Duncan NA 3,663 9442000 Gila River near Clifton 4,010 3,336 Annual Flow (in acre-feet/year) Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Winter 11/2002-current (real time) 11/1910-current (real time) Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum 1 No statistics run, less than 3 years data 39 16 23 22 17,670 (1956) 114,417 years of Annual Flow Record 1 147,837 480,118 (1915) 69 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 notes: NA=Not available Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals November 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for the statistics was retrieved in 2005 1 Year 2003 was the only year with 12 months of data Table 3.7-3 Flood ALeRT equipment in the Duncan Valley Basin Station ID Station name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 595 Duncan City Hall Precipitation 12/3/1996 Town of Clifton Source: ADWR 2005a 266 Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.7-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Duncan Valley Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP Key ReSeRVOIR/LAKe nAMe (name of dam, if different) OWneR/OPeRATOR MAXIMuM STORAGe (AF) uSe JuRISDICTIOn uSe2 JuRISDICTIOn P Landowner None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater)1 MAP Key ReSeRVOIR/LAKe nAMe (name of dam, if different) 1 Lost MAXIMuM OWneR/OPeRATOR SuRFACe AReA (acres) AZ Land Dept. 124 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)1 Total number: 2 Total surface area: 38 acres e. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 373 (from water right filings) notes: Capacity data not available to ADWR 2 P=fire protection, stock or farm pond 1 Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin 267 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 268 Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.7.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Duncan Valley Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 3.7-5. The locations of major springs as well as perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 3.7-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • • There is one perennial stream, the Gila River, in the northern portion of the basin. Several intermittent streams are located in the northeastern portion and along the western boundary of the basin. The Gila River is also an intermittent stream through a portion of the basin. There are two major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. The largest discharge rate was 30 gpm at Gillard Hot Spring. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 3.7-5. There is one minor spring identified in this basin. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. Most of the measurements were taken prior to 1982. The total number of springs identified by the USGS varies from 30 to 36, depending on the database reference. Table 3.7-5 Springs in the Duncan Valley Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Discharge Date Discharge 1 Measured Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Map Key name 1 Gillard Hot 325823 1092059 30 03/1981 2 Bert's Shack 325654 1090347 15 04/1981 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location name Discharge Date Discharge 1 Measured Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Zwan2 325708 1091655 6 07/1992 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by uSGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and uSGS, 2006a): 30 to 36 notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Location approximated by ADWR 1 Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin 269 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 270 Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.7.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Duncan Valley Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 3.7-6. Figure 3.7-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 3.7-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 3.7-6. Figure 3.7-8 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 3.7-6 and Figure 3.7-6. • The major aquifers in the basin are recent stream alluvium, consisting of gravel and sand underlain by clay, and Gila Formation sedimentary rock, consisting of poorly consolidated sand, silt and gravel. • The principal source of groundwater is the recent stream alluvium. • Flow direction is generally from the south to the northwest. Well Yields • Refer to Table 3.7-6 and Figure 3.7-8. • As shown on Figure 3.7-8 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gpm to more than 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 160 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 850 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 3.7-6. • Natural recharge estimates range from 6,000 acre-feet per year (AFA) to 14,200 AFA. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 3.7-6. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 9.0 million acre-feet (maf) to 19 maf to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 3.7-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 11 index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for three of these wells are shown in Figure 3.7-7. • Depth to water varies in this basin, with the deepest recorded water level measured during 2003-2004 at 503 feet at the northwestern basin boundary and the shallowest at 19 feet in the vicinity of Duncan. • All recorded wells in this basin have declined between one and 15 feet between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin 271 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.7-6 Groundwater Data for the Duncan Valley Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 550 name and/or Geologic units Major Aquifer(s): Recent Stream Alluvium Sedimentary Rock (Gila Formation) Well yields, in gal/min: estimated natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Range 4 - 4,000 Median 850 (165 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range few - 2,350 ADWR (1994b) Range 0 - 2,500 Anning and Duet, USGS (1994) 14,200 ADWR (1994b) 6,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 8,000 Arizona Water Commission (1975) 19,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1994b) 9,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 19,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current number of Index Wells: 11 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1987 (182 wells measured) notes: Predevelopment Estimate 1 272 6/22/2009 Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin 273 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.7-7 Duncan Valley Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 475 525 0 50 0 50 274 A 1975 B 1975 C 1975 WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: STOCK 1985 WELL DEPTH: 75ft USE: IRRIGATION 1985 basin fill D-05-30 17ABA 1995 recent stream alluvium D-07-31 04BCC 1995 WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: STOCK 1985 2005 2005 basin fill D-08-32 18CCD 1995 2005 Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin 275 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.7.7 Water Quality of the Duncan Valley Basin Sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s) (DWS), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 3.7-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired stream reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 3.7-7B. Figure 3.7-9 shows the location of exceedences and impairment keyed to Table 3.7-7. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 3.7-7A. • Thirty-seven sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded DWS. • The most frequently equaled or exceeded parameter was arsenic. • Other parameters commonly equaled or exceeded in the sites measured in this basin were nitrate, total dissolved solids, mercury, cadmium and radionuclides. Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 3.7-7B. • Water quality standards were exceeded in one 15 mile reach of the Gila River. • The parameter exceeded in this reach was selenium. • This reach is part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. The draft TMDL report is underway. 276 Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 1 Table 3.7-7 Water Quality exceedences in the Duncan Valley Basin A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Site Location Township Range Section 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 7 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 12 South 29 East 30 East 30 East 30 East 30 East 30 East 30 East 30 East 31 East 32 East 31 East 32 East 32 East 32 East 32 East 32 East 32 East 32 East 32 East 31 East 32 East 32 East 32 East 32 East 32 East 32 East 32 East 32 East 32 East 32 East 32 East 32 East 32 East 31 East 32 East 32 East 32 East 27 10 10 10 10 24 1 2 19 8 28 8 17 17 18 19 19 21 29 2 3 4 4 5 8 9 9 9 15 19 28 28 34 35 21 21 14 Parameter(s) Concentration has equaled or exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 F As As As As Hg As F As As Cd As As As F As As As, NO3 F As, F As, TDS As As, F As, F F F F As, F As, F F F F F As, NO3 F As, F Rad Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site name Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) Area of Impaired Lake (in acres) Designated use Standard3 Parameter(s) exceeding use Standard2 a Stream Gila River (Skully Creek-San Francisco River) 15 NA A&W Se Source: ADEQ 2005d notes: Because of map scale feature locations may appear different than the location indicated on the table NA = Not applicable 1 Water quality samples collected between 1986 and 2004. 2 As = Arsenic Cd = Cadmium F= Fluoride Pb = Lead Hg = Mercury NO3 = Nitrate Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium Se = Selenium Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin 277 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 278 Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.7.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Duncan Valley Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 3.7-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown on Table 3.7-9. Figure 3.710 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 3.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 3.7-8 and Figure 3.7-10. • Population increased only minimally between 1980 and 2000. • Total groundwater use has fluctuated between 1971 and 2005. The highest average annual groundwater use in this basin was from 1976 to 1980 at 24,000 AFA. • Surface water diversions have also fluctuated between 1971 and 2005. The highest average annual surface water diversions were from 1981 to 1985 at 22,000 AFA. • Years with lower surface water diversions coincide with years of increased groundwater use. • All surface water demand between 1991 and 2005 has been for agriculture. • The majority of agricultural demand is in the vicinity of Duncan with other small blocks of agricultural demand along Highway 75. • The highest concentration of municipal and industrial demand, including a golf course, is along Highway 75 near the small town of York. • Industrial demand in this basin is comparable to historic levels with an average of 300 AFA for the period from 1991-2005. • Municipal demand has remained relatively constant as well, with an average of 600 AFA for the period from 2001-2005. • As of 2005 there were 866 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 325 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 3.7-9. • There is one wastewater treatment facility, the Duncan Wastewater Treatment Facility, located at Duncan. • 600 people are served by the facility, which generates 45 acre-feet of effluent per year and disposes it in as overland flow. Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin 279 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.7-8 Cultural Water Demand in the Duncan Valley Basin1 year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) estimated and number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Projected Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Data Population Q < 35 gpm Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural Source 6352 3,225 3,210 3,195 3,181 3,166 3,151 3,136 3,122 3,107 3,092 3,077 3,145 3,213 3,281 3,349 3,417 3,458 3,553 3,621 3,689 3,757 3,742 3,727 3,713 3,698 3,683 3,609 3,610 3,655 WELL TOTALS: 21,000 13,000 24,000 16,000 2762 ADWR (1994a) 53 11 12,000 22,000 33 10 7,000 20,000 49 7 650 300 5,900 NR NR 21,500 47 12 800 300 8,300 NR NR 18,500 3683 9 600 300 10,000 NR NR 9,900 866 325 USGS (2007) Gila Water Commissioner (2006) ADWR (2008b) notes: NR=Not reported 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs or effluent. 2 Includes all wells through June 1980. 280 Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.7-9 effluent Generation in the Duncan Valley Basin Facility name Ownership City/Location Served Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Duncan WWTF Town of Duncan Duncan 600 45 Disposal Method Water course evaporation Pond Golf Irrigation Course/Turf/ Landscape Wildlife Area Industrial use Discharge to Another Facility Infiltration Basins Other Current Treatment Level Population not Served year of Record X Secondary NA 2000 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others notes: Year of Record is for the volume of effluent treated/generated NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTF: Wastewater Treatment Facility Section 3.7 281 Duncan Valley Basin 6/4/2009 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 282 Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.7.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Duncan Valley Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 3.7-10. Figure 3.7-11 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • All subdivisions receiving an adequacy determination are in Greenlee County. Three water adequacy determinations for 263 lots have been made in this basin through December 2008. Sixty-one lots, or 23%, were determined to be adequate. The one determination of inadequacy was made because the applicant chose not to submit necessary information and/or available hydrologic data was insufficient to make a determination. Table 3.7-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Duncan Valley Basin1 Location Map Key no. of Lots ADWR File no.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Subdivision name County 1 Gila Vista # 1 Greenlee 8 South 32 East 8 29 Adequate 2 Greenlee Mountain Ranchettes Greenlee 5 South 4 South 31 East 31 East 6 29, 31 NA 207 Inadequate 3 Hunter Estates # 2 Greenlee 8 South 32 East 8 32 Adequate Township Range Section Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 A1 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 11/07/79 Dry Lot Subdivision 05/10/84 Dry Lot Subdivision 07/18/80 Dry Lot Subdivision Source: ADWR 2008a notes: 1 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA= Data not currently available to ADWR Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin 283 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 284 Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Duncan Valley Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005a, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005b, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005c, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005d, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. (Water Quality Map) _____, 2005e, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2004a, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. (Water Quality Table/Map) _____, 2004b, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us. (Cultural Water Demand Map) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2008b, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005a, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. _____, 2005b, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005c, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005d, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005e, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005f, Wells55: Database. _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. _____, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state. az.us/alris/index.html. Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin 285 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 _____, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az. us/alris/index. html. _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state. az.us/alris/index.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. B Brown, D.E., N.B. Carmony and R.M. Turner, 1981, Drainage map of Arizona showing perennial streams and some important wetlands: Arizona Game and Fish Department. Bureau of Land Management, 2005, Springs in the Safford region: Data file received January 2005. (Springs Table/Map) E Environmental Protection Agency, 2005a, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005b, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/ cwns/index.htm. (Effluent Generation Table) F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. (Surface Water Conditions Table) Gila Water Commissioner, 2006, Distribution of Waters of the Gila River, Annual Report No. 70 (year 2005), prepared for the U.S. District Court. O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 1998, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism. P Pope, G.L., P.D. Rigas and C.F. Smith, 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225. U United States Geological Survey, 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 & December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and 286 Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/._ _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Regional Gap Analysis - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/ swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. V Valencia, R.A., J.A. Wennerlund, R.A. Winstead, S. Woods, L. Rile, E. Swanson and S. Olson, 1993, Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project: Arizona Game and Fish. (Peren nial/Intermittent Streams and Springs Map) W Wahl, C.R., S.R. Boe, J.A. Wennerlund, R.A. Winstead, L.J. Allison and D.M. Kubly, 1997, Remote sensing mapping of Arizona intermittent stream riparian areas: Arizona Game and Fish Technical Report 112. (Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Springs Map) Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. Supplemental Reading Baker, D. L. and K.A. King, 1994, Environmental contaminant investigation of water quality, sediment and biota of the upper Gila River basin, Arizona: US Fish and Wildlife service, Project No. 22410-1130-90-2-053, 53 p. Baldys, Stanley, III, L.K. Ham and K.D. Fossum, 1995, Summary statistics and trend analysis of water quality data at sites in the Gila River Basin, New Mexico and Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4083, 86 p. Brown, S. L., S.K. Yu and B.E. Munson, 1996, The impact of agricultural runoff on the pesticide contamination of a river- a case study on the middle Gila River: ADEQ Open File Report 96-1. Bureau of Land Management, 1999, Gila Box riparian and water quality improvement project: Arizona Water Protection Fund Project WPF 95-014. Harris, R.C., 1997, Distribution of evaporates and implications for water quality in the San Carlos-Safford-Duncan non-point source management zone: AZGS Open-File Report 973, 56 p. Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin 287 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 _____, 1996, Distribution of uranium in rocks and radon levels in water in the San CarlosSafford-Duncan non-point source management zone: AZGS Open-File Report 96-28, 10 p. Huckleberry, G., 1996, Historical geomorphology of the Gila River: AZGS Open –File Report 96-14, 31 p. Konieczki, A.D. and S.R. Anderson, 1990, Evaluation of recharge along the Gila River as a result of the October 1983 flood: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 89-4148, 30 p. Richard, S.M., 1998, Map showing the orientation of layering and faults in the San Carlos – Safford - Duncan non-point source management areas: AZGS Open – File Report 98-8 4 p. Tellman, B., R. Yarde and M.G. Wallace, 1997, Arizona’s Changing Rivers: How People Have Affected the Rivers. Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona. Trapp, R.A. and R.C. Harris, 1996, Bibliography of the San Carlos-Safford-Duncan non-point source management zone: AZGS Open-File Report 96-20, 58 p. 288 Section 3.7 Duncan Valley Basin Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin 289 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.8.1 Geography of the Lower San Pedro Basin The Lower San Pedro Basin is a medium-size, 1,624 square mile basin on the western side of the planning area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 3.8-1. The basin is characterized by high-elevation mountain ranges and washes. Vegetation is primarily Arizona uplands Sonoran desertscrub and semi-desert grassland with smaller areas of Chihuahuan desertscrub, madrean evergreen woodland, Rocky Mountain and madrean montane conifer forest and interior chaparral. (see Figure 3.0-9) Riparian vegetation includes strand and mesquite on the San Pedro River and Aravaipa Creek. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 3.8-1 are: o San Pedro River running northward from south of Cascabel to Winkleman where it joins the Gila River o Gila River in the vicinity of Kearny and Hayden o Peppersauce, Hot Springs, Buehman, Redfield and Kielberg Canyons south of San Manuel o Tortilla Mountains to the west of Kearny and Hayden o Santa Catalina Mountains to the west and southwest of San Manuel o Dripping Springs Mountains to the northeast, Galiuro Mountains to the southeast and the Rincon Mountains along the southwestern boundary, which include the highest point in the basin at 7,960 feet o The lowest point at approximately 1,800 feet where the Gila River exits the basin 290 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin 291 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.8.2 Land Ownership in the Lower San Pedro Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership in each category, is shown for the Lower San Pedro in Figure 3.8-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin include the large variety of land ownership types, seven total, and the high proportion of state trust lands. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 3.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. State Trust • 51.9% of land in this basin is held in trust for public schools and 13 other beneficiaries under the State Trust Land system. • The majority of the land in state ownership is contiguous and located throughout the basin. • Primary land use is grazing. Private • 20.9% of land ownership is private. • Private land is largely fragmented in this basin with one nearly continuous strip running along the two highways in the region, 177 and 77, and the San Pedro River. A sizable portion of private land ownership also exists around the town of San Manuel. • There are a few private land in-holdings in the Coronado National Forest and U.S. Bureau of Land Management lands. • Primary land uses are farming, mining, domestic and commercial. National Forest • 15.3% of the land is federally owned and managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS). • The basin contains two forest districts and three ranger districts, the Tonto National Forest, Globe Ranger District and the Coronado National Forest, Santa Catalina Ranger District in the west and the Safford Ranger District in the east. • The basin contains portions of two wilderness areas, the Rincon Mountain Wilderness area, which surrounds Saguaro National Park and the Galiuro Wilderness area in the Safford Ranger District. (see Figure 3.0-12) • Primary land uses are recreation, grazing and timber production. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 9.3% of land is federally owned and managed by the Safford Field Office of the BLM. • BLM ownership is dispersed in small parcels throughout most of the basin. • The Redfield Canyon Wilderness area, managed by the BLM, is located in T11S, R20E. (see Figure 3.0-12) • Primary land uses are grazing and recreation. Indian Reservations • 1.6% of land is under ownership of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, located east of 292 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 • Dudleyville. Primary land use is grazing. National Park Service (NPS) • 0.8% of land is federally owned and managed by the NPS. • A small portion of Saguaro National Park is in the southwestern corner of the basin. • Primary land uses are resource protection and recreation. Other (Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation Lands) • 0.2% of land is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation • This land is not visible on the map but is located in T4S, R14E. • Primary land use is for water delivery. Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin 293 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 294 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.8.3 Climate of the Lower San Pedro Basin Climate data from NOAA/ NWS Co-op Network stations are complied in Table 3.8-1 and their locations are shown on Figure 3.8-3. Figure 3.8-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Lower San Pedro Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan, AZMET and SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 3.0.4. A description of climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 3.8-1A • There are six NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate stations in the basin. The average monthly maximum temperature occurs in July and ranges from 64.9°F at Palisade Ranger Station to 86.4°F at Winkleman 6 S. The average monthly minimum temperature occurs in January and December and ranges from 34.5°F at Palisade Ranger Station to 47.6°F at Cascabel. • Highest average seasonal rainfall occurs in the summer (July-September). For the period of record used, highest annual rainfall is 32.24 inches at Palisade Ranger Station and the lowest is 14.33 inches at Cascabel. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 3.8-3 • Additional precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 38 inches at the Santa Catalina Mountains southwest of San Manuel and as low as 12 inches at the San Pedro River Valley in the vicinity of Dudleyville. Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin 295 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.8-1 Climate Data for the Lower San Pedro Basin A. nOAA/nWS Co-op network: Station name elevation (in feet) Period of record Used for Averages Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Cascabel 3,140 1971-2000 82.5/Jul 47.6/Dec 3.41 1.08 6.56 3.28 14.33 Oracle 2 SE 4,510 1971-2000 79.5/Jul 45.5/Dec 7.59 1.93 9.31 6.09 24.92 Palisade Ranger Station 7,960 1 64.9/Jul 34.5/Jan 9.26 2.80 12.31 7.88 32.24 1 83.3/Jul 47.3/Jan 3.76 1.56 6.51 3.25 14.75 1 81.2/Jul 45.2/Jan 2.86 1.67 5.79 5.46 15.77 1 86.4/Jul 46.9/Dec 4.48 1.54 5.43 4.76 16.22 San Manuel 3,460 Willow Springs Ranch 3,690 Winkelman 6 S Average Temperature range (in F) 1965-1981 1954-2004 1949-1978 2,080 1942-1980 Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Source: WRCC, 2005 notes: Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 1 B. evaporation Pan: Station name elevation (in feet) Period of record Avg. Annual evap Used for (in inches) Averages None C. AZMeT: Station name Average Annual reference evaportranspiration, in inches elevation Period of record (Number of years to calculate averages ) (in feet) None D. SnOTeL/Snowcourse: Station name elevation Period of record (in feet) Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None 296 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin 297 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.8.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Lower San Pedro Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 3.8-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown on Table 3.8-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 3.8-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment and USGS runoff contours are shown on Figure 3.8-5. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 3.8-2. • Data from 11 stations on four watercourses are shown on the table and on Figure 3.8-5. Eight stations have been discontinued and the remaining three are real-time stations. • The average seasonal flow for most stations is highest in the Summer (July-September) and lowest in the Spring (April-June). • Maximum annual flow in this basin was 2,375,969 acre-feet in 1993 on the Gila River and minimum annual flow was 17 acre-feet in 1969 on the Peck Canyon tributary. • Figure 3.8-4 is a stream hydrograph showing long-term flow at Aravaipa Creek near Mammoth. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 3.8-3. • There are four stations in the basin as of October 2005. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 3.8-4. • There are seven small reservoirs in this basin. • There are 648 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 3.8-5. • Average annual runoff varies from 0.5 inches per year, or 26.65 acre-feet per square mile, in the vicinity of the San Pedro River to one inch per year, or 53.3 acre-feet per square mile, on the eastern and western boundaries of the basin. 298 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.8-4 Annual Flows (in acre-feet) at Aravaipa Creek near Mammoth (Station # 9473000) Water Years 1932 - 2007 Annual Flow, in af 100,000 80,000 60,000 Average Annual Flow 40,000 20,000 0 1932 1937 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin 299 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.8-2 Streamflow Data for the Lower San Pedro Basin Gage Drainage Area elevation (in 2 (in mi ) feet) Station number USGS Station name 9470000 Gila River at Winkelman 13,268 1,922 9472000 San Pedro River near Redington 2,927 9472050 San Pedro River at Redington Bridge near Redington 9472100 Period of record Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Years of Annual Flow record Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum 9/1917-7/2004 (discontinued) 30 31 32 7 43,522 (1953) 237,525 282,922 2,203,619 (1993) 47 2,940 6/1943-9/1995 (discontinued) 19 2 64 16 297 (1997) 21,399 31,033 131,073 (1955) 50 3,096 2,820 7/1998-current (real time) 2 0 57 41 2,325 (2002) 13,451 19,491 48,736 (2000) 4 Peck Canyon Tributary near Redington 8 2,850 10/1967-9/1972 (discontinued) 0 3 90 8 17 (1969) 71 78 152 (1971) 4 9472500 San Pedro River near Mammoth 3,583 2,307 5/1931-6/1941 (discontinued) 12 1 78 9 17,520 (1933) 43,149 43,406 73,846 (1940) 9 9473000 Avavaipa Creek near Mammoth 537 2,345 5/1931-current (real time) 42 11 19 28 6,756 (1976) 18,901 24,768 120,211 (1983) 46 9473020 Avavaipa Creek near Fieldman 557 NA 5/1919-9/1921 (discontinued) 9473100 San Pedro River below Aravaipa Creek near Mammoth 4,343 2,125 10/1979-9/1983 (discontinued) 60 6 28 6 17,086 (1981) 18,679 20,706 26,352 (1980) 3 9473400 San Pedro River near Winkelman 4,430 NA 4/1962-12/1965 (discontinued) 13 2 50 35 43,294 (1963) 66,099 62,045 76,742 (1965) 3 9473500 San Pedro River at Winkelman 4,453 1,925 1/1966-12/1978 (discontinued) 22 2 41 35 8,615 (1975) 35,764 37,803 109,321 (1978) 13 9474000 Gila River at Kelvin 18,011 1,745 1/1911-current (real time) 31 23 23 14 56,398 (1961) 324,351 370,675 2,375,969 (1993) 93 No statistics run, less than 3 years of data 2 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 notes: Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals November 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for the statistics was retrieved in 2005 NA= Not available 300 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.8-3 Flood ALerT equipment in the Lower San Pedro Basin Station ID Station name Station Type Install Date responsibility 700 Alder Canyon Wash Precipitation/Stage NA ADWR 1030 Oracle Ridge Precipitation 3/1/1983 Pima County FCD 1140 Dan Saddle Precipitation NA Pima County FCD 6760 Signal Peak Repeater Repeater/Precipitation 5/18/1993 ADWR Source: ADWR 2005a notes: NA = Not available ADWR = Arizona Department of Water Resources FCD = Flood Control District Table 3.8-4 reservoirs and Stockponds in the Lower San Pedro Basin A. Large reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KeY reSerVOIr/LAKe nAMe (name of dam, if different) OWner/OPerATOr MAXIMUM STOrAGe (AF) USe JUrISDICTIOn USe JUrISDICTIOn None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KeY reSerVOIr/LAKe nAMe (name of dam, if different) OWner/OPerATOr MAXIMUM SUrFACe AreA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 4 Total maximum storage: 360 acre-feet D. Other Small reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)1 Total number: 3 Total surface area: 33 acres e. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 648 (from water right filings) notes: Capacity data not available to ADWR 1 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin 301 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 302 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.8.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Lower San Pedro Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 3.8-5. The locations of major springs as well as perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 3.8-6. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • • A number of perennial and intermittent streams are located throughout the basin. The San Pedro River is perennial south of Dudleyville and in its southern reach in the planning area. There are 13 major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. The largest discharge is 1,000 gpm at Cooks Lake spring. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 3.8-5. There are 30 minor springs identified in this basin. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. Most of the measurements were taken prior to 1990 and many of the major spring measurements were taken in the 1950s. Only four minor spring measurements post-date 1990. The total number of springs identified by the USGS varies from 203 to 209, depending on the database reference. Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin 303 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.8-5 Springs in the Lower San Pedro Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Map Key name 1 Cooks Lake 325144 1104301 1,000 2/9/1951 2 Bingham2 322724 1102910 494 4/18/1968 324847 1104206 150 2/15/1951 2 Date Discharge Measured 3 VS 4 Putnam 324931 1104510 112 6/16/1978 5 Unnamed 321548 1101623 40 03/1946 6 Unnamed2 322026 1101438 35 11/1950 7 Unnamed2 321535 1101739 25 03/1936 8 2 Unnamed 321527 1101508 20 2/24/1951 9 Unnamed2 322019 1102507 15 10/1950 2 322000 1101956 15 11/17/1950 325901 1104333 15 2/14/1951 322537 1102027 11 1/18/1989 322609 1101709 104 06/1984 10 Unnamed 11 Piper 12 13 2 Upper Walnut Swamp Spring Canyon2,3 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) name Horse Camp 324154 1102631 8 NA Unnamed 324319 1103000 7 03/1950 Copper Creek 324522 1102844 6 10/2002 Unnamed 324416 1103104 5 11/27/1972 Unnamed 322722 1103824 5 7/10/1952 Red 325328 1103746 4 04/1951 Carrizo2 325326 1103631 4 2/13/1951 Peasley 322913 1104017 4 10/1949 322558 1102251 4 01/1951 322624 1101542 4 04/1986 Stratton 322757 1104439 3 10/1949 Unnamed2 322807 1104337 3 NA Alder Box 322748 1104211 3 10/1949 Lost Trail2,3 322604 1101732 3 11/2002 Unnamed2 Barrel Hoop 304 Date Discharge Measured 2,3 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.8-5 Springs in the Lower San Pedro Basin (Cont) B. Minor Springs: name Location Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured Unnamed 325745 1103935 2 06/1950 Carrico 325334 1103723 2 02/1951 Oak 325029 1103158 2 04/1951 Red Horse 322951 1104047 2 08/1951 5 08/1986 Tio Cruz 322457 1101527 2 Miller2,3 322737 1101708 2 09/1993 Buddy Opic 322809 1104005 2 10/1949 Old Ranch2,3 322750 1101721 2 01/1993 Norton 324344 1102640 2 NA Rock Wall 322951 1104225 1 11/1949 Juan 322821 1104017 1 10/1949 Addington 324338 1103114 1 04/1951 Unnamed2 324724 1103211 1 04/1950 322552 1102018 1 01/1989 322549 1101541 1 NA 1102655 5 Walnut 2,3 Rim Slope3 Roble 321610 1 01/1951 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALrIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 203 to 209 notes: NA = Not Available 1 Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring not displayed on current USGS topo map 3 Location approximated by ADWR 4 Discharge measurements vary. Shown is greatest measured discharge; most recent measurement is < 10 gpm 5 Discharge measurements vary. Shown is greatest measured discharge; most recent measurement is < 1 gpm Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin 305 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 306 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.8.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Lower San Pedro Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 3.8-6. Figure 3.8-7 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 3.8-8 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 3.8-7. Figure 3.8-9 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 3.8-6 and Figure 3.8-7. • The major aquifers in the basin are basin fill and recent stream alluvium. • Artesian conditions exist about five miles north to ten miles south of Mammoth in wells drilled deeper than 500 feet. • Flow direction is generally from southeast to northwest. • There are two groundwater sub-basins; Camp Grant Wash and Mammoth. Well Yields • Refer to Table 3.8-6 and Figure 3.8-9. • As shown on Figure 3.8-9 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gpm to more than 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 181 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 1,000 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 3.8-6. • Principal sources of recharge in this basin are mountain-front recharge and streambed infiltration. • Natural recharge estimates range from 24,000 acre-feet per year (AFA) to 29,000 AFA. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 3.8-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 11 million acre-feet (maf) to more than 27 maf to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 3.8-7. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 19 index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for six of these wells are shown in Figure 3.8-8. • Depth to water varies in this basin with the deepest recorded water level in 2003-2004 at 503 feet south of Mammoth and the shallowest at 17 feet north of Mammoth. Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin 307 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.8-6 Groundwater Data for the Lower San Pedro Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 1,624 name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Recent Stream Alluvium Basin Fill Well Yields, in gal/min: estimated natural recharge, in acre-feet/year: estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Range 628 - 1,910 Median 1,295 (10 wells measured) Range 1 - 4,000 Median 1,000 (181 wells reported) Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 70 - 2,700 ADWR (1994b) Range 0 - 2,500 Anning and Duet (1994) 29,000 Anderson and Freethey (1995) 25,000 ADWR (1994b) 24,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 12,000,000 - 25,600,000 (to 1,200 ft/not given) ADWR (1990 and 1994b) 11,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) >27,000,000 Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current number of Index Wells: 19 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2006 (205 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate 308 6/24/2009 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin 309 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.8-8 Lower San Pedro Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 0 50 50 100 450 A 1975 B 1975 C WELL DEPTH: 119 ft USE: IRRIGATION recent stream alluvium D-06-16 08CBB1 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 105 ft USE: STOCK 2005 basin fill D-08-15 24ABA 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 2145 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill D-08-16 25DCD 500 550 310 1975 1985 YEAR 1995 2005 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.8-8 (Cont) Lower San Pedro Basin Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 225 275 0 D 1975 E recent stream alluvium D-10-17 15BBB WELL DEPTH: 285 ft USE: STOCK 1985 1995 2005 recent stream alluvium D-12-19 19ABD WELL DEPTH: 80 ft USE: UNUSED 50 100 100 150 1975 F 1975 1985 1995 2005 basin fill D-14-20 34CAA1 WELL DEPTH: 145 ft USE: STOCK 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin 311 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 312 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.8.7 Water Quality of the Lower San Pedro Basin Sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s) (DWS), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 3.8-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired stream reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 3.8-7B. Figure 3.8-10 shows the location of exceedences and impairment keyed to Table 3.8-7. All community water systems are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and treat water supplies to meet drinking water standards. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 3.8-7A. • Fifty-six sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded DWS. • The parameter most frequently equaled or exceeded was fluoride. • Other parameters commonly equaled or exceeded in the sites measured in this basin were cadmium, arsenic, nitrates, total dissolved solids, lead, antimony, beryllium and radionuclides. Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 3.8-7B. • Water quality standards were exceeded in one reach of Mineral Creek and in one reach of the San Pedro River. • The parameters exceeded in Mineral Creek included copper and selenium. • The parameters exceeded in the San Pedro River were E. coli and selenium. • Both reaches are part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. The TMDL report for Mineral Creek is not yet complete, however, cleanup by the mining company ASARCO is ongoing. Investigation is underway for the impaired portion of the San Pedro River in this basin. Effluent Dependent Reaches • Refer to Figure 3.8-10 • There is one small portion of an unnamed tributary to Alder Creek that is effluent dependent. The source of the effluent is from the Summerhaven wastewater treatment facility located in the Tucson AMA. Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin 313 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.8-7 Water Quality exceedences in the Lower San Pedro Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Site Location Township range Section 1 South 1 South 1 South 1 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 4 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 5 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 6 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 7 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 8 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 9 South 10 South 10 South 10 South 11 South 13 South 13 South 13 South 13 South 14 South 15 South 13 East 13 East 13 East 14 East 14 East 14 East 14 East 14 East 14 East 14 East 14 East 14 East 14 East 15 East 15 East 15 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 16 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 18 East 18 East 15 East 16 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 17 East 18 East 18 East 18 East 18 East 18 East 18 East 18 East 18 East 19 East 20 East 20 East 21 East 18 East 12 12 14 21 6 11 11 11 23 23 27 35 2 23 25 25 6 8 29 33 34 10 22 22 22 36 6 18 18 19 30 30 31 32 32 14 23 35 31 4 14 24 24 31 32 32 3 8 8 26 6 30 21 31 19 11 Parameter(s) Concentration has equaled or exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 NO3 NO3 NO3 Cu NO3 Cd Cd As, Cd Cd Cd Cd NO3 F As, F Hg Hg F F F F TDS Sb F As, F As, F F Pb Be Be As, F As, Be, F F As, F As, F As, F, Pb As As NO3 F, Rad As, F F As, F, Pb As, F, Pb As As, F As F Sb, F As, F As Rad, TDS As As As F TDS Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others 314 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.8-7 Water Quality exceedences in the Lower San Pedro Basin (Cont)1 B. Lakes, rivers and Streams Designated Use Standard3 Parameter(s) exceeding Use Standard2 NA A&W Cu, Se NA A&W E.coli, Se Length of Area of Impaired Stream Impaired Lake reach (in miles) (in acres) Map Key Site Type Site name a Stream Mineral Creek (Devil's Canyon Gila River) 10 b Stream San Pedro (Aravaipa Creek Gila River) 15 Source: ADEQ 2005e notes: Because of map scale, feature locations may appear different than the location indicated on the table NA = Not applicable 1 Water quality samples collected between 1980 and 2004. 2 Sb = Antimony As = Arsenic Be = Beryllium Cd = Cadmium Cu = Copper F= Fluoride Pb = Lead Hg = Mercury NO3 = Nitrate Se = Selenium Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium TDS = Total Dissolved Solids 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin 315 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 316 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.8.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Lower San Pedro Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 3.8-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown on Table 3.8-9. Figure 3.811 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 3.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 3.8-8 and Figure 3.8-11. • Population decreased in this basin 1980 to 2000. Projections suggest a minimal growth through 2030. • Total groundwater demand has decreased from 1971 to 2005 with an average of 25,700 AFA pumped in the period from 2001-2005. • Surface water diversions have also decreased from 1971 to 2005 with approximately 1,000 AFA diverted in the period from 1991 – 2005 for agricultural and municipal uses. • The majority of agricultural demand is along Highway 177, Highway 77 in Pinal County and along the San Pedro River in Pima and Cochise Counties. • The largest single demand for groundwater is industrial with an average of 15,900 AFA pumped in the period from 2001-2005. • There are numerous mines in the basin. The active Ray Mine north of Kearny, a small inactive mine in the vicinity of Hayden and numerous inactive mines including the Mammoth Mine and San Manuel Mine in the vicinity of Mammoth. • Municipal demand has remained relatively constant with an average of 2,300 AFA pumped in the period from 2001-2005. The town of Oracle is located at the western boundary of the basin. Wells associated with this town are in the Tucson Active Management Area at Oracle Junction. • As of 2005 there were 1,630 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 398 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 3.8-9. • There are six known wastewater treatment facilities in the basin. • Over 12,000 people are served by these facilities. • 708 acre-feet of effluent per year are generated in this basin. • One facility, the Kearny Wastewater Treatment Facility, discharges wastewater to a golf course and two facilities recharge the aquifer through an unlined impoundment. These facilities are not permitted by the Department as Underground Storage Facilities. Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin 317 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 1 Table 3.8-8 Cultural Water Demand in the Lower San Pedro Basin Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 estimated and Projected Population Q < 35 gpm 1,0282 19,300 18,960 18,620 18,279 17,939 17,599 17,259 16,919 16,578 16,238 15,898 15,860 15,821 15,783 15,745 15,707 15,668 15,630 15,592 15,553 15,515 16,154 16,793 17,432 18,071 18,710 21,905 29,180 34,736 WELL TOTALS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) number of registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Q > 35 gpm Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial 56,000 6,000 56,000 6,000 Agricultural Data Source 2972 ADWR (1994a) 92 21 47,000 6,000 118 28 40,000 6,000 147 25 2,500 31,000 12,800 500 NR <1,000 100 8 2,500 26,300 11,100 400 NR <1,000 145 19 2,300 15,900 7,500 300 NR <1,000 1,630 398 USGS (2007) ADWR (2008b) Gila Water Commiss ioner Annual Reports (19912005) notes: NR=Not reported 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs or effluent 2 Includes all wells through June 1980. 318 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.8-9 effluent Generation in the Lower San Pedro Basin Facility name Ownership City/Location Served Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Disposal Method Watercourse evaporation Pond Coronado Utilities WWTP Santec Corp. San Manuel 4,100 291 Hayden Collection Systems Town of Hayden Hayden 910 NA Kearny STP Town of Kearny Kearny 2,550 190 Mammoth WWTF Town of Mammoth Mammoth 1,700 99 X Oracle WWTF Oracle SD Oracle 1,551 90 X Winkleman WWTP Town of Winkleman Winkleman 1,210 38 12,021 708 Total Golf Irrigation Course/Turf/ Landscape Wildlife Area Industrial Use Discharge to Infiltration Another Basins Facility Other X Tertiery Winkleman WWTP X X NA NA X X X Gila River Current Population Treatment not Served Level Year of record 2008 2003 Adv. Trt. II & Nutrient Removal NA 2007 Secondary NA 2004 Secondary NA 2004 Secondary NA 2004 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others notes: Year of Record is for the volume of effluent treated/generated NA: Data currently not available to ADWR WWTF: Wastewater Treatment Facility WWTP: Wastewater Treatment Plant SD: Sanitation District STP: Sewage Treatment Plant Adv. Tr. ll: Advance treatment level ll Section 3.8 319 Lower San Pedro Basin 6/24/2009 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 320 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.8.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Lower San Pedro Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 3.8-10A and B for water reports and analysis of adequate water supply. Figure 3.8-12 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Eleven water adequacy determinations have been made in this basin through December 2008. • Three determinations of inadequacy have been made. These determinations are scattered throughout the basin. • All determinations of inadequacy were because the applicant chose not to submit necessary information and/or available hydrologic data was insufficient to make a determination. • One analysis of adequate water supply for 2,948 lots has been issued in this basin. • The number of lots receiving a water adequacy determination, by county, are: • County Cochise Gila Graham Pima Pinal Section 3.8 Number of Subdivision Lots Number of Lots Determined to be Adequate Percent Adequate 0 7 0 0 >1,204 0 7 0 0 1,188 NA 100% NA NA ~98% Lower San Pedro Basin 321 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.8-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Lower San Pedro Basin 1 A. Water Adequacy reports Location Map Key Subdivision name County 1 Aravaipa #1 2 Cherry Valley no. of Lots ADWr File no.2 Township range Section Pinal 7 South 16 West 9, 10 24 53-500282 Pinal 10 South 16 West 6 26 53-500452 reason(s) for Inadequacy 3 Determination Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Adequate 1/27/1975 Aravaipa Water Company Adequate 10/24/1977 ADWr Adequacy Determination 6/19/1979 Arizona Water Company Oracle System John W. Galbreath Development Corp. 4 Kearney Subdivision #12 Pinal 4 South 14 West 22 13 53-500838 Adequate 5 Mammoth, Town of Pinal 8 South 17 West 19 16 53-500933 Inadequate A1 4/11/1988 Town of Mammoth 6 Mountain Valley Pinal 1 South 13 West 13 NA 53-501025 Inadequate A1 3/30/1981 Dry Lot Subdivision 7 Oracle Mountain View Estates Pinal 9 South 15 West 36 NA 53-501076 Inadequate A1 1/2/1982 8 Oracle Ranch Estates #2 Pinal 9 South 15 West 26, 27 38 53-501077 Adequate 8/16/1979 9 Rancho Robles Pinal 9 South 15 West 35 17 53-501269 Adequate 8/9/1979 10 San Manuel, Townsite Pinal 9 South 17 West 31,32 1,050 53-500201 Adequate 7/7/1988 11 Two O'Clock Hill Pinal 9 South 15 West 35 20 53-501587 Adequate 10/15/1974 12 Winkelman Terrace Gila 5 South 15 West 13 7 53-300508 Adequate 8/25/1998 B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply Map Key Subdivision name County 3 Cielo Pinal Location Township range Section no. of Lots ADWr File 2 no. Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 9 South 15 West 12, 13, 24, 25 2,948 43-401716 6/27/2005 Town of Mammoth Arizona Water Company Oracle System Arizona Water Company Oracle System Arizona Water Company Oracle System Arizona Water Company Arizona Water Company Oracle System Arizona Water Company & Community Wells Source: ADWR 2008a notes: 1 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA= Data not currently available to ADWR 322 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin 323 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Lower San Pedro Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anderson, T.W. and G.W. Freethey, 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D. Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005a, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005b, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005c, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005d, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. (Water Quality Map) _____, 2005e, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. (Water Quality Map) _____, 2005f, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. (Water Quality Table/Map) Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us. (Cultural Water Demand Map) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2008b, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005a, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit. _____, 2005b, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. _____, 2005c, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005d, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. _____, 2005e, Wells55 database. _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. _____,1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January, 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state. az.us/alris/index.html. 324 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 _____, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state. az.us/alris/index. html. _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us /alris/index.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. B Brown, D.E., N.B. Carmony and R.M. Turner, 1981, Drainage map of Arizona showing perennial streams and some important wetlands: Arizona Game and Fish Department. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2005, Springs in the Safford region: Data file received January 2005. (Springs Table/Map) D Diroll, M. and D. Marsh, 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report. (Water Quality Table/Map E Environmental Protection Agency, 2005a, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005b, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/ cwns/index.htm. (Effluent Generation Table) F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. (Surface Water Conditions Map) Gila Water Commissioner, 1991-2005, Distribution of Waters of the Gila River, Annual Reports. O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 1998, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism. P Pima County DOT GIS Division, 2005, Intermittent Streams with 300 Foot Buffer Special Element Data Layer. _____, 2000, Perennial Streams with 300 Foot Buffer Special Element Data Layer. Pope, G.L., P.D. Rigas and C.F. Smith, 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin 325 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225. T Towne, D., 2002, Lower San Pedro basin ambient groundwater quality report, Lower San Pedro Basin: a 2000 baseline study: ADEQ Open file report 02-01. (Water Quality Table/’ Map) U United States Geological Survey, 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 & December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu / swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. W Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. Supplemental Reading Anning, D., 1998, Sources of nitrogen and phosphorus in drainage basins of central Arizona: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law, and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p. 8. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2007, Upcoming Lower San Pedro River Total Maximum Daily Load, ADEQ Fact Sheet 07-11. ______, 2002, Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Lower San Pedro Basin: An ADEQ 2000 Baseline Study: ADEQ Fact Sheet 02-09 Baird, K.J., M.J. Ronayne and Maddock, T., III, 1997, Preliminary vegetation and hydrologic analyses for Bingham Cienega: The University of Arizona, Department of Hydrology and Water Resources Technical Report HWR 97-040,194 p. 326 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Baillie, M.N., J.F. Hogan, B. Ekwurzel, A.K. Wahi and C.J. Eastoe, 2007, Quantifying water sources to a semiarid riparian ecosystem, San Pedro River, Arizona using geochemical tracers, J. Geophys. Res. – Biogeosciences, 112(G3). Blakemore, T.E., 2005, Trends in streamflow of the San Pedro River, southeastern Arizona: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Brooks, P.D and K. Lohse, 2009, Water quality in the San Pedro River, in Integrating Science and Policy for Water Management, ed. by J.C. Stromberg and B.J. Tellman, Tucson, University of Arizona Press. Bureau of Reclamation, 1990, Upper Gila water supply analyses and sizing studies: Arizona Projects Office, draft report, April 1990. Clear Creek Associates, 2005, Hydrogeologic Study- Coronado Reserve, Oracle, Arizona. Cordy, G.E., D.J. Gellenbeck, J.B. Gebler, D.W. Anning, A.L. Coes, R.J. Edmonds, J.A. Rees and H.W. Sanger, 2000, Water quality in the central Arizona basins, Arizona, 1995-1998: USGS Circular 1213. Eastoe, C.I. and A. Long, 1994, Tritium-placed constraints on water-flow dynamics in fractured volcanic rocks, Galiuro Mountains, Arizona: Annual conference for the American Geophysical Union, May 1994, Baltimore, MD, Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 75; 16, p.143. Haney, J., 2002, Hydrology and biodiversity conservation-San Pedro River, Arizona: in Water Transfers: Past, Present and Future: Proceedings from the 15th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2002, Flagstaff, Arizona. Harris, R.C., 1996, Uranium distribution in sediments of the lower San Pedro Valley, southeastern Arizona, and implications for indoor radon: AZGS Open-File Report 96-2, 10 p. Hereford, R. and J.L Betancourt, 1993, Historic geomorphology of the San Pedro River: archival and physical evidence: in The First Arizonans: Clovis Occupation of the San Pedro Valley, eds. Haynes, C.V., and Huckell, B. Huckleberry, G., 1996, Historic channel changes on the San Pedro River, southeastern Arizona, AZGS Open-File Report 96-95, 35 p. Jahnke, P., T. Maddock III and D.P. Braun, 1995, Modeling of groundwater flow and surface/ groundwater interactions for the San Pedro river basin from Fairbank to Redington, Arizona. University of Arizona, Department of Hydrology and Water Resources HWR95-010. Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin 327 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 King, K. A., D.L. Baker and W.G. Kepner, 1992, Organochlorine and trace element concentrations in the San Pedro River basin, Arizona: United States Fish and Wildlife Service unnumbered report, 17 p. Konieczki, A.D. and S.R. Anderson, 1990, Evaluation of recharge along the Gila River as a result of the October 1983 flood: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 89-4148, 30 pp. Levick, L.R., M. Reed, E. vanderLeeuw, D.P. Guertin and K. Uhlman, 2006, NEMO Watershed Based Plan Middle and Lower San Pedro Watershed: University of Arizona. Lawler, D., 2002, Using the streambed temperature sensors to monitor flow events in the San Pedro River, Southeast Arizona and North-Central Sonora, Mexico: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Lawler, D., S.A. Leake, and P.A. Ferre, 2002, Using streambed temperature to identify the onset and duration of ephemeral streamflow in the San Pedro River: in Sustainability of Semiarid Hydrology and Riparian Areas: 2nd annual meeting, February 2002, Tucson Arizona. Megdal, S., K. Mott Lacroix and A. Schwarz, 2006, Projects to Enhance Arizona’s Environment: An Examination of their Functions, Water Requirements and Public Benefits: University of Arizona, Water Resources Research Center. Phillips, W.M., F.N. Robertson, L. Wirt and J. Fonseca, 1994, Origin of water to springs in Bingham Cienega, Lower San Pedro basin, Arizona: in Riparian Conservation in the 1990’s: Program and abstracts from the 8th annual meeting of the Arizona Riparian Council, May 1994, Phoenix Arizona, p.12. Pima Association of Governments (PAG), 2001, Bingham Cienega Source Water Study: Final report, Pima County Flood Control District. Rice, G.F., 1991, The use of environmental tracers to determine relationships among aquifers in the Lower San Pedro River basin, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of groundwater in alluvial basins of Arizona, and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California: USGS Professional Paper 1406-C. Ronayne, M.J. and T. Maddock III. 1996. Flow model for the Bingham Cienega area, San Pedro Basin, Arizona: a management and restoration tool, HWR No. 96-050. Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Schulte, M.A., 1997, Dilution gauging as a method to quantify groundwater base flow fluctuations in Arizona’s San Pedro River: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Sobczak, R.V., 1994, Confusion where ground and surface waters meet: Gila River general adjudication, Arizona and the search for subflow: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. 328 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Stromberg, J.C. and B. Tellman, eds, 2009, Ecology and Conservation of the San Pedro River: University of Arizona Press. Tellman, B., R. Yarde and M. Wallace, 1997, Arizona’s changing rivers: How people have affected rivers: Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. United States Geological Survey, 2005, Hydrogeologic investigations of the middle San Pedro, Detrital and Willcox basins, Arizona: USGS draft report, 55 p. Vionnet, L.B., 1992, Modeling of groundwater flow and surface water/groundwater interactions of the San Pedro River basin, Cochise County, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Volunteers for Outdoor Arizona, 2000, Bingham Cienega Natural Preserve Restoration Plan: http://www.dgcenter/orgvoa/BCNP_Plan.htm. Webb, R.H., S.A. Leake, and R.M. Turner, 2007, The Ribbon of Green: Change in Riparian Vegetation in the Southwestern United States, University of Arizona Press. Weber, M., 2004, Joy of immersion: Recreation value of Aravaipa Creek, tributary of the San Pedro River, Arizona: in The Value of Water: Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson Arizona. Whitaker, M.P.L., 2000, Estimating bank storage and evapo-transpiration using soil, physical and hydrological techniques in a gaining reach of the San Pedro River, Arizona: University of Arizona, Ph. D. dissertation. Wittler, R. J., J.E. Klawon and K.L Collins, 2004, Upper Gila River fluvial geomorphology study: Bureau of Reclamation final report. Wood, M.L., 1998, Historic channel changes along the Lower San Pedro River, southeastern Arizona: AZGS Open File Report 97-21, 44 p. Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin 329 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 330 Section 3.8 Lower San Pedro Basin Section 3.9 Morenci Basin 331 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.9.1 Geography of the Morenci Basin The Morenci Basin is a medium-size, 1,599 square mile basin in the northeast portion of the planning area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 3.9-1. The basin is characterized by high-elevation mountain ranges and a diversity of biotic communities including Rocky Mountain and madrean montane conifer forest, Great Basin conifer forest, madrean evergreen woodland, Plains and Great Basin grassland, interior chaparral, Chihuahuan desertscrub and semi-desert grassland vegetation. (see Figure 3.0-9) Riparian vegetation includes: wet meadow and mountain scrub on the San Francisco River near Alpine; 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 mesquite and mixed broadleaf on Eagle Creek and the San Francisco River north of Clifton. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 3.9-1 are: o San Francisco River running from west to east in Apache County and from east to south near Clifton o Blue River south of the Apache County line, which flows south through the basin and joins the San Francisco River o Eagle Creek in the vicinity of the boundary between Graham and Greenlee counties o The lowest point at approximately 3,600 feet where the San Francisco River exits the basin o The Mogollon Rim, which includes the highest point in the basin at 9,346 feet 332 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin 333 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.9.2 Land Ownership in the Morenci Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership in each category, is shown for the Morenci Basin in Figure 3.9-2. Primary land ownership features are the large block of national forest land, a significant amount of tribal land and the relatively large contiguous portion of private land around Morenci used predominantly for mining activities. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 3.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. National Forest • 67.6% of the land is federally owned and managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS). • All national forest land in the basin is in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in two ranger districts, the Alpine Ranger District in the northern portion of the basin and the Clifton Ranger District in the southern portion of the basin. • A portion of the Escudilla Wilderness is located at the northernmost tip of the basin. (see Figure 3.0-12) • Primary land uses are recreation, wildlife protection and timber production. Indian Reservations • 21.7% of the land is under ownership of the San Carlos Apache Tribe. • Primary land use is grazing. Private • 5.8% of land is private. • The majority of private land is surrounding Morenci. • Private in-holdings are scattered throughout the National Forest lands. • Primary land uses are mining, domestic and commercial. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 3.3% of land is federally owned and managed by the Safford Field Office of the BLM. • The basin contains a small portion of the Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area in T5S, R29E. • All BLM land is in the southern-most tip of the basin and is interspersed with private and state trust lands. • Primary land use is grazing. State Trust • 1.6% of land in this basin is held in trust for public schools and to a lesser extent the University of Arizona, hospital for disabled miners and the Arizona Hospital. • All state owned land is in the southernmost-tip of the basin and is interspersed with BLM and private lands. • Primary land use is grazing. 334 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin 335 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.9.3 Climate of the Morenci Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network and SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations are complied in Table 3.9-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 3.9-3. Figure 3.9-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Morenci Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan and AZMET stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 3.0.3. A description of climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 3.9-1A. • There are four NOAA/NWS Co-op Network stations in the basin. The average monthly maximum temperature occurs in July at all stations and ranges from 61.6°F in Alpine to 84.7°F in Clifton. The average monthly minimum temperature occurs in December or January and ranges from 29.1°F in Alpine to 45.8°F in Clifton. • Highest average seasonal rainfall occurs primarily in the summer (July-September) or in the fall (October – December). For the period of record used, the highest annual rainfall is 21.66 inches at Alpine and the lowest is 13.29 inches at Morenci. SNOTEL/Snowcourse • Refer to Table 3.9-1D. • The Morenci Basin is the only basin in the planning area with SNOTEL/Snowcourse data. • There are five SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations in the basin; from are currently active. • The highest average monthly snowpack at most stations is in March. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 3.9-3 • Additional precipitation information shows rainfall as high as 32 inches along the Mogollon Rim near Highway 191 and as low as 12 inches in the vicinity of Clifton. 336 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.9-1 Climate Data for the Morenci Basin A. nOAA/nWS Co-op network: Station name elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Alpine 8050 Blue Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 1971-2000 61.6/Jul 29.1/Jan 3.94 2.24 10.31 5.17 21.66 5420 1971-2000 70.5/Jul 36.0/Dec 4.37 1.86 9.82 5.09 21.14 Granville 6800 1 1955-1975 70.2/Jul 34.7/Jan 3.03 3.25 5.73 6.47 17.19 Clifton 3480 1971-2000 84.7/Jul 45.8/Dec 3.00 1.10 5.77 3.42 13.29 Source: WRCC, 2005 notes: Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 1 B. evaporation Pan: Station name elevation (in feet) Period of Record Avg. Annual evap Used for (in inches) Averages None C. AZMeT: Station name Average Annual Reference evaportranspiration, in inches elevation Period of Record (Number of years to calculate averages) (in feet) None D. SnOTeL/Snowcourse: Station name elevation Period of Record (in feet) Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June Beaverhead 8,000 1938 - current 1.4 (27) 2.7 (67) 2.8 (68) 1.1 (64) 0.4 (1) 0 (0) Coronado Trail 8,350 1938 - current 1.3 (29) 2.8 (69) 2.9 (69) 1.0 (65) 0 (1) 0 (0) Coronado Trail SNOTEL 8,400 1983 - current 1.8 (24) 3.2 (24) 3.1 (24) 0.4 (23) 0 (24) 0 (24) Hannagen Meadows 9,090 1964 - 2000 (discontinued) 4.5 (23) 7.3 (36) 9.8 (36) 9.3 (36) 8.1 (2) 0 (0) Nutrioso 8,500 1938 - current 0.9 (29) 1.8 (69) 1.78 (69) 0.5 (69) 0 (1) 0 (0) Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin 337 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 338 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.9.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Morenci Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 3.9-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown on Table 3.9-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area of large reservoirs and type of use of the stored water, are shown in Table 3.9-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 3.9-5. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 3.9-2. • Data from six stations on four watercourses are shown on the table and on Figure 3.9-5. Three stations have been discontinued; those remaining are real-time stations. • The average seasonal flow at most stations is highest in the Winter (January-March) and lowest in the Spring (April-June) or Summer (July-September). • Maximum annual flow in this basin was 678,755 acre-feet in 1915 on the San Francisco River, see Figure 3.9-4, and minimum annual flow was 724 acre-feet in 1964 on Willow Creek. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 3.9-3. • There are seven stations in the basin as of October 2005. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 3.9-4 • There are four large and 16 small reservoirs in this basin. • The largest reservoir, the Silver Basin, has a maximum storage capacity of 5,200 acrefeet. • The reservoirs are used for irrigation, recreation and other purposes. • There are 673 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 3.9-5. • Average annual runoff increases from 0.5 inches, or 26.65 acre-feet per square mile, in the vicinity of Clifton and Morenci to two inches, or 106.6 acre-feet per square mile toward the Mogollon Rim. Section 3.9 Morenci Basin 339 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.9-4 Annual Flows (in acre-feet) at San Francisco River at Clifton (Station # 9444500) Water Years 1914-2007 700,000 Annual Flow, in af 600,000 500,000 400,000 Average Annual Flow 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 1914 340 1937 1947 1957 1967 1977 1987 1997 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.9-2 Streamflow Data for the Morenci Basin Station number USGS Station name Drainage Area 2 (in mi ) 9444200 Blue River near Clifton 506 4,160 9444500 San Francisco River at Clifton 2,766 9445500 Willow Creek near Point of Pines near Morenci 9446000 Willow Creek near Double Circle Ranch near Morenci 9446500 9447000 Eagle Creek near Double Circle Ranch near Morenci Eagle Creek above Pumping Plant near Morenci Gage elevation Period of Record (in feet) Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Annual Flow (in acre-feet/year) Years of Annual Flow Record Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum 11/1967-current (real time) 39 22 14 25 9,487 (2002) 38,091 50,373 176,695 (1983) 30 3,436 10/1910-current (real time) 41 20 16 22 30,415 (1951) 91,606 146,532 678,755 (1915) 79 102 5,804 8/1944-9/1967 (discontinued) 26 27 27 20 724 (1964) 7,855 8,433 19,403 (1965) 22 149 4,969 8/1944-9/1967 (discontinued) 27 22 29 22 2,013 (1964) 8,688 9,929 28,018 (1965) 22 377 4,722 8/1944-9/1967 (discontinued) 33 19 26 22 8,181 (1953) 14,914 18,906 48,579 (1965) 22 622 3,673 4/1944-current (real time) 49 14 15 22 12,311 (1953) 34,398 48,850 405,530 (1993) 58 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 notes: Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals November 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for the statistics was retrieved in 2005 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin 341 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.9-3 Flood ALeRT equipment in the Morenci Basin Station ID Station name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 510 Sardine Saddle Precipitation 11/15/1993 Town of Clifton 515 Maverick Hill Precipitation NA Town of Clifton 525 Blue River Precipitation/Stage 1/1/1993 Town of Clifton 560 Clifton Precipitation/Stage NA Town of Clifton 575 Blue Vista Precipitation 1/1/1996 Town of Clifton 580 Escudilla Mountain Precipitation 10/23/1996 Town of Clifton 610 Clifton ADOT Weather Station Weather Station 8/31/2001 ADWR Source: ADWR 2005a notes: NA = Not available ADOT = Arizona Department of Transportation ADWR = Arizona Department of Water Resources 342 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.9-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Morenci Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KeY ReSeRVOIR/LAKe nAMe (name of dam, if different) OWneR/OPeRATOR MAXIMUM STORAGe (AF) USe1 JURISDICTIOn 1 Silver Basin Phelps Dodge-Morenci 5,200 O State 2 Luna Luna Irrigation 1,800 I State 3 Columbine Phelps Dodge-Morenci 5222 O State B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater)3 MAP KeY ReSeRVOIR/LAKe nAMe (name of dam, if different) OWneR/OPeRATOR MAXIMUM SURFACe AReA (acres) USe1 JURISDICTIOn 4 Dry San Carlos Apache Tribe 229 R Tribal Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 4 Total maximum storage: 1,327 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)3 Total number: 12 Total surface area: 138 acres e. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 673 (from water right filings) notes: I=irrigation; O=other; R=recreation 2 Normal capacity < 500acre-feet 3 Capacity data not available to ADWR 1 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin 343 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 344 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.9.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Morenci Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 3.9-5. The locations of major springs as well as perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 3.9-6. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • • There are many perennial stream reaches located throughout the basin. Some of these streams are the San Francisco River, Blue River, Grant Creek, Strayhorse Creek, KP Creek, Willow Creek, Cienega Creek and Eagle Creek. Numerous intermittent streams are also located throughout the basin. There are nine major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. The largest discharge rate was 200 gpm at an unnamed spring along the San Francisco River. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 3.9-5. There are eight minor springs identified in this basin. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. The most recent measurement was in 1992; seven springs were measured before 1982 and one has no date. The total number of springs identified by the USGS varies from 308 to 358, depending on the database reference. Section 3.9 Morenci Basin 345 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.9-5 Springs in the Morenci Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Discharge Date Discharge 1 Measured Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Map Key name 1 Unnamed2 331603 1091053 200 6/16/1978 2 Unnamed2 331922 1091123 100 NA 3 Unnamed 331735 1091603 100 6/16/1978 4 Eagle Creek Hot 330249 1092623 50 5 Hannah 332401 1090907 50 6 KP Cienega (multiple) 333428 1092116 50 6/26/1973 7 Rock Basin 331302 1090748 20 During or prior to 1982 8 Smuggler2 325653 1092041 20 07/1992 9 Unnamed2 334448 1090404 10 6/14/1978 During or prior to 1982 During or prior to 1982 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): name Location Discharge Date Discharge 1 Measured Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Coronado 331002 1092202 5 6/17/1978 Gulch2,3 331000 1092109 3 04/1980 Sycamore Gulch2,3 330854 1091837 3 12/1981 2,3 331047 1092050 2 04/1980 Judges2,3 330919 1092249 2 12/1991 Strayhorse 332638 1092131 2 6/26/1978 Sycamore2,3 330026 1091857 1 04/1980 Burnt Corral 333124 1091808 1 6/26/1978 Metcalf Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 308 to 358 notes: NA = Not Available 1 Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring not displayed on current USGS topo map 3 Location approximated by ADWR 346 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin 347 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.9.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Morenci Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 3.9-6. Figure 3.9-7 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 3.9-8 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 3.9-7. Figure 3.9-9 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 3.9-6 and Figure 3.9-7. • The major aquifers in this basin are recent stream alluvium and volcanic rock. • Flow direction is generally from north to south. Well Yields • Refer to Table 3.9-6 and Figure 3.9-9. • As shown on Figure 3.9-9 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gpm to more than 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 53 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 600 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 3.9-6. • The only natural recharge estimate in this basin is 15,000 acre-feet per year (AFA). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 3.9-6. • The only storage estimate is 3.0 million acre-feet to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 3.9-7. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures four index wells in this basin. A hydrograph for one of these four wells is shown in Figure 3.9-8. • The deepest recorded water level in the basin in 2003-2004 is 78 feet and the shallowest is eight feet. All recorded water level changes are in the vicinity of Alpine. 348 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.9-6 Groundwater Data for the Morenci Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 1,599 name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Recent Stream Alluvium Volcanic Rock Well Yields, in gal/min: estimated natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Range 2 - 5,900 Median 600 (53 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 0 - 2,500 Anning and Duet (1994) 15,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 3,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) Current number of Index Wells: 4 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1978 (6 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate Section 3.9 Morenci Basin 6/22/2009 349 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 350 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.9 Figure BASIN 3.9-8 MORENCI Morenci Basin DEPTH HYDROGRAPH SHOWING Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells TO WATER IN SELECTED WELLS 75 A WELL DEPTH: 262 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY volcanic rocks A-05-30 13DBC 125 175 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Morenci Basin 351 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 352 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.9.7 Water Quality of the Morenci Basin Sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s) (DWS), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 3.9-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired stream reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 3.9-7B. Figure 3.9-10 shows the location of exceedences and impairment keyed to Table 3.9-7. All community water systems are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and treat water supplies to meet drinking water standards. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 3.9-7A. • Three sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded DWS. • Parameters equaled or exceeded include beryllium, cadmium, copper, fluoride, arsenic, lead and nitrates Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 3.9-7B. • Water quality standards were exceeded in one lake, Luna Lake, and one reach of the San Francisco River. • The parameters exceeded in Luna Lake included dissolved oxygen and pH levels. • The parameter exceeded in the San Francisco River was sediment. • Luna Lake has been evaluated under the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. The TMDL report for Luna Lake was accepted by the EPA in 2000 and implementation of the water quality improvement plan is underway. There are no TMDL reports for the impaired reach of the San Francisco River. Section 3.9 Morenci Basin 353 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.9-7 Water Quality exceedences in the Morenci Basin 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 Well Well Well Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has equaled or exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 4 South 4 South 4 South 29 East 29 East 32 East 2 20 18 Be, Cd, Cu, F As, Pb NO3 Site Location Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Length of Area of Impaired Designated Use Impaired Stream Lake (in acres) Standard3 Reach (in miles) Parameter(s) exceeding Use Standard2 Map Key Site Type Site name a Lake Luna NA 120 A&W, AgL, FBC DO, pH Stream San Francisco River (headwaters to New Mexico border) 13 NA A&W Sediment b Source: ADEQ 2005d notes: Because of map scale, feature locations may appear different than the location indicated on the table NA = Not applicable 1 Water quality samples collected between 1996 and 2004. 2 As = Arsenic Be = Beryllium Cd = Cadmium Cu = Copper DO = Dissolved oxygen F= Fluoride Pb = Lead NO3 = Nitrate pH = Measurement of acidity or alkalinity 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife AgL = Agricultural Livestock Watering FBC = Full Body Contact 354 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin 355 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.9.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Morenci Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 3.9-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown on Table 3.9-9. Figure 3.911 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 3.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 3.9-8 and Figure 3.9-11. • Population decreased from 1980 to 2000. • Total groundwater use has increased from 1991 to 2005 with an average of 9,600 AFA in the period from 2001-2005. • Pre-1991 surface-water diversions are not available for this basin however, surface water diversions have decreased from 1991 to 2005 with 1,700 AFA in the period from 2001 – 2005. All surface-water diversions between 1991 and 2005 were for municipal and industrial uses • Almost all municipal and industrial demand is in the vicinity of Clifton and Morenci, including the Morenci and Clifton area is the active Morenci Mine. • There is no agricultural demand reported in this basin. • As of 2005, there were 505 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 145 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 3.9-9. • There are three wastewater treatment facilities in the basin. • Two of these facilities serve communities, effluent at the third facility is generated by the copper mining process and used for industrial purposes. • Over 3,500 people are served by the two municipal facilities. • 186 acre-feet of effluent per year is generated by municipal facilities in this basin and discharged into either an evaporation pond or a watercourse. 356 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.9-8 Cultural Water Demand in the Morenci Basin1 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 estimated and Projected Population number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Q < 35 gpm 239 8,620 8,284 7,948 7,612 7,276 6,940 6,604 6,268 5,932 5,596 5,260 5,248 5,236 5,224 5,212 5,200 5,186 5,177 5,165 5,153 5,141 5,126 5,111 5,096 5,081 5,066 4,990 5,021 5,113 WELL TOTALS: 2 Q > 35 gpm Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions 3,900 NR 4,700 NR Data Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural Source 592 66 16 5,100 NR 47 24 6,400 NR 35 13 1,000 13,700 NR 600 2,400 ADWR (1994a) ADWR (2005f) NR 46 24 1,000 17,900 NR 600 2,100 NR 72 9 1,400 8,200 NR 600 1,100 NR USGS (2007) ADWR (2008b) ADWR (2008c) 505 145 notes: NR = Not reported 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs, or effluent 2 Includes all wells through June 1980. Section 3.9 Morenci Basin 357 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.9-9 effluent Generation in the Morenci Basin Facility name Ownership City/Location Served Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Alpine WWTF Alpine SD Alpine 570 46 Clifton WWTF Town of Clifton Clifton 3,010 140 Morenci WWTF Phelps DodgeMorenci Water & Electric Co. Morenci Total NA 3,580 Disposal Method Watercourse Golf evaporation Irrigation Course/Turf/ Pond Landscape Industrial Use Wildlife Area Discharge to Another Facility Infiltration Basins Other X X Current Treatment Level Population not Served Year of Record Secondary 70 2000 Secondary 25 1999 NA X 186 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others notes: Year of Record is for the volume of effluent treated/generated NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTF: Wastewater Treatment Facility SD: Sanitation District 358 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin 359 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.9.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Morenci Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 3.9-10. Figure 3.9-12 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • All subdivisions receiving an adequacy determination are in Apache County in the vicinity of Alpine. Eleven water adequacy determinations have been made in this basin through December 2008. One determination of water inadequacy has been made because the applicant failed to demonstrate the legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider’s legal authority. Of the 1,859 lots in 10 subdivisions for which lot information was available, approximately 1,825 lots, or 98%, were determined to be adequate. 360 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.9-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Morenci Basin1 Location no. of Lots ADWR File no.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination 8 53-500257 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Adequate 7/18/1984 Alpine Country Club HOA 53-402277 Adequate 10/17/2006 Turner Ranches Water Co. 53-500259 Adequate 2/28/1978 NA Adequate 3/16/1988 66 53-500262 Adequate 12/16/1993 14 NA 53-500263 Adequate 7/16/1985 31 East 19 29 53-500313 Adequate 3/29/1982 Becker Estates HOA 30 East 12 24 53-500344 Adequate 7/11/1989 Alpine Water System 5 North 31 East 18 34 53-500819 Inadequate 1/7/1987 Jackson Spring Estates HOA Apache 5 North 31 East 18 36 53-501153 Adequate 8/3/1983 Pine Ridge Estates HOA Apache 5 North 31 East 7, 18 35 53-700372 Adequate 8/20/2007 Alpine Domestic Water Improvemnt District Map Key Subdivision name County 1 Alpine Country Club Apache 2 Alpine Forest Estates Apache 5 North 30 East 11 75 3 Alpine Highlands Apache 5 North 30 East 13 47 4 Alpine Village Acres Apache 5 North 30 East 11, 14 1505 5 Alpine Village Acres 2 Apache 6 North 31 East 11, 15 6 Alpine Village East Apache 5 North 30 East 7 Becker Estates Apache 5 North 8 Blue Spruce Apache 5 North 9 Jackson Spring Estates Apache 10 Pine Ridge Estates 11 The Ranch at Alpine, Amended Township Range Section 5 North 31 East 19, 20 B Alpine Highlands Water Company Mountain Springs Water Company Mountain Springs Water Company Mountain Springs Water Company Source: ADWR 2008a notes: NA = Not Available 1 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records Section 3.9 Morenci Basin 361 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 362 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Morenci Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005a, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005b, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005c, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005d, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. (Water Quality Map) _____, 2005e, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2004a, Water providers with arsenic concentrations in wells over 10ppb: Data file, received August 2004. (Water Quality Table/Map) _____, 2004b, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. (Water Quality Table/Map) Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us. (Cultural Water Demand Map) Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2008a, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2008b, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2008c, Municipal surface water demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005a, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. _____, 2005b, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005c, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety.(Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005d, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005e, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005f, Supplemental Contested Case Hydrographic Survey Report in Re Phelps Dodge Corporation (Show Low Lake) Volume I. _____, 2005g, Wells55: Database. _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. _____, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. Section 3.9 Morenci Basin 363 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state .az.us/alris/index.html. _____, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state .az.us/alris/index. html. _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us/ alris/ index.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. B Bureau of Land Management, 2005, Springs in the Safford region: Data file received January 2005. (Springs Table/Map) _____, 1999, National Conservation Areas: GIS Cover, accessed September 2006 at http://www. blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/maps/gis_files.html. E Environmental Protection Agency, 2005a, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005b, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/ cwns/index.htm. (Effluent Generation Table) F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. (Surface Water Conditions Map) N Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2006, SNOTEL (Snowpack Telemetry) stations: Data file, accessed December 2007 at http://www3.wcc.nrcs. usda.gov/nwcc/ sntlsites.jsp?state=AZ. _____, 2005, Snow Course stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www.wcc.nrcs. usda.gov/nwcc/snow-course-sites.jsp?state=AZ O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 1998, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism. 364 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 P Pope, G.L., P.D. Rigas, and C.F. Smith, 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225. U United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/ nid/ webpages/nid.cfm (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) United States Geological Survey, 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 & December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu / swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. V Valencia, R.A., J.A. Wennerlund, R.A. Winstead, S. Woods, L. Riley, E. Swanson, and S. Olson, 1993, Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project: Arizona Game and Fish Department. (Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Springs Map) W Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. Supplemental Reading Ajami, H., D.P. Guertin, L.R. Levick and K. Uhlman, 2005, NEMO Watershed Based Plan Upper Gila Watershed, University of Arizona. Anderson, T.W. and G.W. Freethey, 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2008, Septic Systems Permitting in Luna Lake/ Alpine - Summer 2008: ADEQ Fact Sheet available at http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/ water/assessment/download/lunafact.pdf Section 3.9 Morenci Basin 365 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Arizona Geological Survey, 1998, Tritium as a tracer of groundwater sources and movement in the upper Gila Drainage: Arizona Water Protection Fund Project 98-052. Arizona Geological Survey, 1997, Stable Isotopes as tracers of water quality constituents in the upper Gila River: Arizona Water Protection Fund Project 97-036. Avery, C.C., E.S. Soles and M.S. Silbert, 2002, An Eco-hydrological assessment of a wet meadow and perennial headwater stream in the White Mountains, Arizona: in Water Transfers: Past, Present and Future: Proceedings from the 15th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2002, Flagstaff, Arizona. Baker, D. L. and K.A. King, 1994, Environmental contaminant investigation of water quality, sediment and biota of the upper Gila River basin, Arizona: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Project No. 22410-1130-90-2-053, 53 p. Baldys, S., L.K. Ham and K.D. Fossum, 1995, Summary statistics and trend analysis of water quality data at sites in the Gila River Basin, New Mexico and Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4083, 86 p. Baldys, S. and J.A. Bayles, 1990, Flow characteristics of streams that drain the Ft. Apache and San Carlos Indian Reservations, east central Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 90-4053. Bureau of Land Management, 1996, Final Environmental Impact Statement- Morenci Land Exchange, Greenlee County, Arizona: US Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation, 1990, Upper Gila water supply analyses and sizing studies: Arizona Projects Office, draft report, April 1990. Graham County, 1998, Fluvial geomorphology study and demonstration projects to enhance and restore riparian habitats on the Gila River from the New Mexico border to the San Carlos Nation: Arizona Water Protection Fund Project 98-054. Hjalmarson, H.W., 1990, Flood of 1983 and the history of flooding along the San Francisco River, Clifton, Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 85-4225-B, 42 p. SFC Engineering Co., 1997, Arizona Stream Navigability Study for the upper Gila River (Safford to the state line) and the San Francisco River (Gila River Confluence to the state boundary): Arizona State Land Department Final Report. Tellman, B., R. Yarde and M. Wallace, 1997, Arizona’s changing rivers: How people have affected rivers: Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona United States Geological Survey, 1997, Stage discharge rating curve for the Gila River, near Clifton, AZ: USGS Water Resources Unpublished report, Tucson, AZ. 366 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Vinson, J., B. Jones, M. Milczarek, D. Hammermeister, G. Donaldson, and J. Word, 1998, Monitoring seepage at tailings reclamation sites in southern Arizona copper mines: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p.170. Webb, R.H., S.A. Leake and R.M. Turner, 2007, The Ribbon of Green: Change in Riparian Vegetation in the Southwestern United States, University of Arizona Press. Wittler, R. J., J.E. Klawon and K.L. Collins, 2004, Upper Gila River fluvial geomorphology study: Bureau of Reclamation final report. Section 3.9 Morenci Basin 367 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 368 Section 3.9 Morenci Basin Section 3.10 Safford Basin 369 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.10.1 Geography of the Safford Basin The Safford Basin is the largest basin in the planning area at 4,747 square miles. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 3.10-1. The basin is characterized by valleys, high-elevation mountain ranges and a variety of vegetation types including: Arizona uplands Sonoran and Chihuahuan desertscrub, semi-desert grassland, interior chaparral, 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. (see Figure 3.0-9) Riparian vegetation includes: mesquite and tamarisk on the Gila River; conifer oak, mixed broadleaf and mesquite on Ash Creek; conifer oak and mesquite on Frye Canyon; and conifer oak and mixed broadleaf on Deadman Canyon and Cave Creek and its tributaries. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 3.10-1 are: o Gila River running northwest from Greenlee County to the San Carlos Reservoir o San Simon Creek running through the San Simon Valley south of Safford o Gila Mountains northeast of Pima, Dos Cabezas Mountains on the southeastern basin boundary and Chiricahua Mountains along the southeastern and southern basin boundary o Pinaleño Mountains west of Swift Trail Junction, which include the highest point in the basin and planning area, Mt. Graham at 10,712 feet o The lowest point at approximately 2,500 feet where the Gila River exits the basin 370 Section 3.10 Safford Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.10 Safford Basin 371 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.10.2 Land Ownership in the Safford Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership in each category, for the Safford Basin is shown in Figure 3.10-2. A principal feature of land ownership is the diversity of land ownership types, eight total. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 3.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. Indian Reservations • 29.5% of land is under ownership of the San Carlos Apache Tribe. • Tribal lands are located in the northern quarter of the basin. • The basin contains the San Carlos Apache tribal headquarters in San Carlos and the San Carlos Apache cultural center in Peridot. • Primary land uses are domestic, commercial, farming, grazing and mining. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 29.0% of land is federally owned and managed by the Safford Field Office of the BLM. • Most of the BLM land occurs in a wide band along the eastern portion of the basin. • The basin contains the entire Dos Cabezas Mountain Wilderness, North Santa Teresa, and Fishooks Wilderness areas. (see Figure 3.0-12) • Portions of the Peloncillo Wilderness Area and Gila Box National Conservation Area are also in the basin. • Primary land uses are grazing and recreation. State Trust Land • 16.3% of land in this basin is held in trust for public schools and 13 other beneficiaries under the State Trust Lands system. • Many of the state owned lands in this basin are fragmented, however, significant contiguous portions exist east of Swift Trail Junction, in a band surrounding the Coronado National Forest west of Safford, and north and south of Interstate 10. • Primary land use is grazing. National Forest • 12.6% of land is federally owned and managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS). • The basin includes two national forests and three ranger districts: the Tonto National Forest, Globe Ranger District in the north; and the Coronado National Forest, Safford Ranger District east of Safford, and the Douglas Ranger District in the south. • Two wilderness areas are located within national forest lands. Most of the Santa Teresa Wilderness is located in the northern portion of the Safford Ranger District and a portion of the Chiricahua Wilderness is located in the Douglas Ranger District. (see Figure 3.012) • Primary land uses are grazing, recreation and timber production. Section 3.10 Safford Basin 372 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Private • 12.0% of land is private. • Small parcels of private land are scattered throughout the basin. • The largest continuous blocks of private land are along Highway 70 in the vicinity of Safford, along Interstate 10 and around Highway 80 in the southern portion of the basin. • Primary land uses are farming, domestic, commercial and mining. Other (Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation) • 0.3% of land is state owned and managed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. • The basin contains two wildlife areas, the May Memorial Wildlife Area in T17S, R31E and the Cluff Ranch Wildlife Area T7S, R24E. • Primary land uses are wildlife protection and recreation. U.S. Military • 0.2% of the land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Military. • A U.S. Military Reserve is located near Swift Trail Junction in T7S, R25E. • Primary land use is military activities. National Park Service (NPS) • 0.1% of the land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service (NPS). • The basin contains two NPS units, the Fort Bowie National Historic Site in T15S, R28E and a very small portion of the Chiricahua National Monument in T16S, R30E. • Primary land uses are recreation and resource protection. 373 Section 3.10 Safford Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.10 Safford Basin 374 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.10.3 Climate of the Safford Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network, Evaporation Pan and AZMET stations are complied in Table 3.10-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 3.10-3. Figure 3.10-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Safford Basin does not contain SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 3.0.3. A description of climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 3.10-1A. • There are nine NOAA/NWS Co-op Network climate stations in the basin. The average monthly maximum temperature occurs in July at all stations and ranges between 70.4°F at Portal 4 SW to 84.4°F at San Carlos. The average monthly minimum temperature occurs in December or January and ranges between 37.8°F at Paradise to 46.0°F at Bowie. • Highest average seasonal rainfall occurs in the summer (July – September). For the period of record used, the highest annual rainfall is 21.56 inches at Portal 4 SW and the lowest is 9.34 inches at San Carlos. Evaporation Pan • Refer to Table 3.10-1B. • There is one site at the Safford Agricultural Center. • This site, at 2,950 feet, has an annual pan evaporation rate of 98.05 inches. AZMET • Refer to Table 3.10-1C. • There are two AZMET stations in the basin at Safford and Bowie. • Average annual evaporation at the Bowie site, located at 4,416 feet, is 60.64 inches. • Average annual evaporation at the Safford site, located at 2,956 feet, is 76.50 inches. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 3.10-3 • Additional precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 44 inches near Chiricahua Peak, elevation 9,760 feet, and as low as 8 inches in the areas surrounding San Simon and Safford. Section 3.10 Safford Basin 375 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 A. nOAA/nWS Co-op network: Table 3.10-1 Climate Data for the Safford Basin Station name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Bowie 3,770 1971-2000 82.6/Jul 46.0/Dec 2.52 1.17 5.28 3.37 12.34 Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Paradise 5,430 1906-1937 72.6/Jul 37.8/Dec 3.59 1.58 9.88 3.97 19.04 Portal 5,000 1914-1955 75.1/Jul 41.2/Jan 3.08 1.57 9.08 3.64 17.38 Portal 4 SW 5,390 1971-2000 70.4/Jul 38.2/Jan 3.64 2.14 10.43 5.35 21.56 Safford 2,900 1898-1973 1 84.2/Jul 45.0/Jan 1.34 0.65 4.75 3.23 9.95 Safford Ag. Ctr. 2,950 1971-2000 83.2/Jul 44.4/Dec 2.13 0.80 4.29 2.57 9.79 San Carlos 2,640 1948-1977 1 84.4/Jul 44.2/Jan 1.98 0.79 3.63 2.95 9.34 San Simon 3,610 1971-2000 80.5/Jul 42.7/Jan 1.94 0.65 4.98 3.09 10.66 San Simon 9 ESE 3,880 1962-19861 81.9/Jul 44.4/Jan 1.96 0.81 5.59 2.50 10.85 Source: WRCC, 2005 notes: Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 1 B. Evaporation Pan: Station name Period of Elevation (in Record Used feet) for Averages Safford Agricultural Center Avg. Annual Evap (in inches) 2,950 1948 - 2002 98.05 Station name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) Bowie 4,416 2004 - current 60.64 (4) Safford 2,956 1999 - current 76.50 (9) Source: WRCC, 2005 C. AZMET: Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2007 D. SnOTEL/Snowcourse: Station name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None 376 Section 3.10 Safford Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.10 Safford Basin 377 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.10.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Safford Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 3.10-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown on Table 3.10-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area of large reservoirs and type of use of the stored water, are shown in Table 3.10-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 3.10-5. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 3.10-2. • Data from 18 stations on eight water courses are shown on the table and on Figure 3.10-4. Fourteen stations have been discontinued and the remaining four are real-time stations. • The average seasonal flow for many of the stations is highest in the Winter (January-March) and lowest in the Spring (April-June). • Maximum annual flow in this basin was 1,732,915 acre-feet in 1993 on the Gila River at Calva, see Figure 3.10-4, and minimum annual flow was 56 acre-feet in 1969 on Frye Creek. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 3.10-3. • There are eight stations in the basin as of October 2005. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 3.10-4 • Surface water is stored or could be stored in 12 large and 57 small reservoirs in this basin. • The largest reservoir, San Carlos Lake, has a maximum storage capacity of 1,073,000 acre-feet. San Carlos Lake is created by Coolidge Dam, built in 1929. This is the largest reservoir in the planning area and the only large storage dam on the Gila River. Its uses are for hydroelectric generation, irrigation and recreation. • Other large reservoirs and used for irrigation, water supply, flood control and recreation. • There are 1,429 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 3.10-5 • Average annual runoff increases from 0.2 inches, or 10.6 acre-feet per square mile, in the vicinity of Safford and Thatcher along the Gila River and in the southeastern part of the basin, to five inches, or 266.6 acre-feet per square mile, in the Chiricahua Mountains along the southwestern boundary. Section 3.10 Safford Basin 378 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.10-4 Annual Flows (in acre-feet) at Gila River River at Calva (Station # 9466500) Water Years 1930-2007 1,800,000 1,600,000 Annual Flow, in af 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 Average Annual Flow 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 1930 379 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008 Section 3.10 Safford Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.10-2 Streamflow Data for the Safford Basin Drainage Area (in mi2) Gage Elevation (in feet) Period of Record 9448500 Gila River at head of Safford Valley near Solomon 7,896 3,060 9451000 Gila River near Solomon 7,950 Station number USGS Station name Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum 10/1920-current (real time) 41 18 20 22 48,953 (1956) 273,008 337,069 1,559,116 (1993) 77 NA 4/1914-9/1951 (discontinued) 40 18 23 18 18,461 (1956) 162,170 198,406 58,780 (1941) 34 17 11 32 40 1,028 (1922) 4,720 4,842 9,122 (1923) 5 17 35 26 23 586 (1922) 767 898 1,361 (1923) 5 Cave Creek near Paradise 39 4,950 9455000 Cave Creek near Paradise 39 NA 10/1919-9/1925 (discontinued) 9456000 9456200 8/1919-9/1925 (discontinued) 8/1919-6/1941 (discontinued) 8 NA 814 NA 1,400 NA 11/1955-6/1959 (discontinued) 22 13 42 23 1 6 86 8 1 2 96 1 9456800 San Simon River near Tanque 1,953 NA 7/1957-6/1959 (discontinued) 9457000 San Simon River near Solomon 2,192 2,960 6/1931-9/1982 (discontinued) 9458050 Marijilda Wash near Safford NA 5/1971-9/1978 (discontinued) 9458200 Deadman Creek near Safford 5 NA 11/1966-4/1995 (discontinued) 36 40 9458500 Gila River at Safford 10,459 2,880 6/1940-9/1965 (discontinued) 45 14 5,850 10/1989-current (real time) NA 2/1963-2/1973 (discontinued) 53 13 48 15 9460150 9460200 Frye Creek near Thatcher Frye Creek at Thatcher 11 4 24 9466300 Gila River near Bylas 11,380 NA 10/1965-9/1970 (discontinued) 9466500 Gila River at Calva 11,470 2,517 10/1929-current (real time) NA 10/1964-9/1970 (discontinued) 2,542 4/1914-current (real time) 9467100 Gila River near Calva 9468500 San Carlos River near Peridot 11,550 1,026 Years of Annual Flow Record Spring 9454500 9455500 Annual Flow/Year (in acre-feet) Winter 8/1919-9/1925 (discontinued) East Turkey Creek at Paradise San Simon River near San Simon San Simon River below Fandrop Detention Dam near Bowie Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) 80 (1922) 335 (1937) 710 (1956) 1,071 835 2,621 3,943 13,104 9,214 1,433 (1921) 14,842 (1921) 13,828 (1957) No statistics run, less than 3 years of data 1 35 26 2 33 61 2 40 44 3 5 5 1,275 (1980) 16 586 (1977) 9 15 232 (1989) 800 24 17 69,719 (1946) 133,574 16 59 (2002) 14 56 (1969) 14 20 54,733 (1969) 14 23 10 14 81 43 13 13 3 2 7 90 5 5,648 1,951 8,411 27,953 (1954) 46 2,687 6,610 (1973) 6 1,124 2,730 (1991) 14 206,504 847,778 (1941) 14 1,031 1,890 (1991) 8 286 1,231 (1967) 10 284,161 288,433 53,068 (1968) 4 7,386 (1956) 165,833 271,929 1,732,915 (1993) 73 19 28,163 (1970) 86,877 98,244 179,691 (1967) 3 21 4,070 (2002) 28,677 43,480 296,181 (1993) 73 927 159 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 notes: Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding. Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals November 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for the statistics was retrieved in 2005 NA=Not available Section 3.10 Safford Basin 380 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.10-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Safford Basin Station ID 591 620 Station name Heliograph Peak Repeater Portal Fire/Rescue Station Station Type Install Date Responsibility Repeater/Precipitation 10/1/2001 ADWR Precipitation 10/1/2001 ADWR 630 Jacobson Canyon Precipitation 10/1/2001 ADWR 631 Emerald Park Precipitation 7/29/2004 ADWR 632 Pinaleno Park Precipitation 7/29/2004 ADWR 640 Marijilda Canyon Precipitation/Stage 7/25/2004 ADWR 647 Noon Creek Precipitation/Stage 7/30/2004 ADWR 900 Upstream Coolidge Dam, Gila River Precipitation/Stage NA Gila County FCD Source: ADWR 2005c notes: ADWR = Arizona Department of Water Resources FCD = Flood Control District NA = Not available 381 Section 3.10 Safford Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.10-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Safford Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE nAME (name of dam, if different) OWnER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTIOn 1 2 San Carlos (Coolidge Dam) Bureau of Reclamation 1,073,000 H,I,R Federal Talkalai (Elgo) San Carlos Apache Tribe 13,000 R,S Tribal 3 Foote Wash Graham County 5,500 C State 4 Graveyard Wash City of Safford 2,360 C State 5 Billingsley Graham Canal Co. 2,175 C State 6 Cheslkey-Wamslee Graham Canal Co. 2,160 C State 7 San Jose Private 1,734 C Landowner 8 Freeman Wash Graham County 9602 C State 9 Tufa Stone San Carlos Apache Tribe 8502 I Tribal 10 No Name Wash Graham County 646 C State B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater)3 MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE nAME (name of dam, if different) OWnER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) USE1 JURISDICTIOn 11 Parks Private 426 U Landowner 12 Dry4 Private 75 P Landowner Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 25 Total maximum storage: 3,862 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)3 Total number: 32 Total surface area: 328 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 1429 (from water right filings) notes: C=flood control; H=hydroelectric; I=irrigation; P=fire protection, stock or farm pond R=recreation; S=water supply; U=unknown 2 Normal capacity < 500 acre-feet 3 Capacity data not available to ADWR 4 Dry Lake 1 Section 3.10 Safford Basin 382 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 383 Section 3.10 Safford Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.10 Safford Basin 384 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.10.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Safford Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 3.10-5. The locations of major springs as well as perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 3.10-6. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • • • There are numerous perennial stream reaches located primarily along the western boundary of the basin, as well as the San Carlos River and the Blue River in the northern part of the basin. Numerous intermittent streams occur primarily along the western boundary of the basin. The Gila River is predominantly an intermittent stream through the basin, with perennial reaches shown on Figure 3.10-6. There are 24 major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. The largest discharge rate is 3,398 gpm at Warm Spring. This is the largest recorded discharge in the planning area. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 3.10-5. There are 30 minor springs identified in this basin. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. Most of the measurements were taken prior to 1990 and many measurements date from the 1940’s and 1950’s. Three major and two minor spring measurements post-date 1990. The total number of springs identified by the USGS varies from 379 to 387, depending on the database reference. Section 3.10 Safford Basin 385 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.10-5 Springs in the Safford Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm)1 Date Discharge Measured Warm 332623 1101244 3,398 During or prior to 1982 2 Cold #1 330024 1095409 449 5/10/1940 3 Cold #2 330024 1095409 449 5/10/1940 4 Indian Hot 325954 1095351 150 5/10/1940 5 Unnamed Map Key Name 1 330007 1095359 75 5/10/1940 6 Unnamed 2 325432 1094910 50 9/1/1941 7 Unnamed2 330116 1095534 44 09/1941 8 Unnamed 2 325631 1095350 40 NA 9 Unnamed2 315916 1091543 35 8/1/1946 10 Cassadore 333043 1102400 35 3/13/1951 11 Cold #3 330023 1095409 30 5/10/1940 12 Unnamed2 325625 1094833 30 9/15/1960 13 Unnamed 2 325205 1094525 30 NA 14 Ash Creek 324910 1095024 20 During or prior to 1982 15 Unnamed2 324747 1094709 20 3/10/1940 16 Spring Canyon2,3 325046 1093120 154 07/2000 17 Simon Springs 325515 1095332 13 04/2002 18 Upper Fishook 331341 1095817 11 04/2002 19 Unnamed2 325654 1095353 10 09/1941 20 Unnamed 2 325526 1095107 10 9/12/1941 21 Unnamed2 325110 1095739 10 1/8/1941 22 Unnamed 2 324625 1094510 10 7/31/1940 23 Unnamed2 323535 1092031 10 7/31/1940 24 Unnamed 330420 1095914 10 During or prior to 1982 386 Section 3.10 Safford Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.10-5 Springs in the Safford Basin (Cont) B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): name Section 3.10 Location Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured Unnamed2,3 331349 1100225 6 05/1980 Unnamed2 325546 1095107 5 9/12/1941 Tom Niece 330410 1095840 5 During or prior to 1982 Big 325619 1094818 5 07/1981 Lower Sam Canyon2,3 331523 1100233 3 05/1981 Apache 320843 1092624 3 11/20/2002 Indian Hot 325954 1095352 3 4/20/1942 Bigler2 330017 1095312 2 04/1995 Unnamed2 330226 1095659 2 9/12/1941 Eden 325832 1095237 2 NA Unnamed2 325226 1094828 2 11/15/1940 Unnamed2 325222 1094828 2 11/15/1940 George Hill2,3 325525 1092550 2 12/1981 Delia2,3 325258 1092902 2 09/1982 Bill2,3 325607 1092654 2 08/1984 Ward 2 322138 1090633 2 04/1990 Spring Branch-Ranch Creek2,3 331539 1104123 2 5/8/1951 Cold at Warm Springs 2,3 332625 1101241 2 3/2/1951 Unnamed2 325945 1095352 2 4/20/1942 #132,3 320839 1092328 2 04/1989 Fisher2,3 325601 1101343 1 09/1981 Unnamed 330009 1095401 1 05/1940 Safford Basin 387 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.10-5 Springs in the Safford Basin (Cont) B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location name Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Turkey 321238 1093418 1 05/1984 Unnamed2 325425 1095109 1 11/1940 Unnamed2 324711 1094605 1 7/20/1941 Upper Bear 321510 1093250 1 11/1989 Elefante 321437 1093019 1 07/1985 Indian 321337 1092954 1 07/1985 Alamo 321312 1093034 1 07/1985 Cowboy Swimming Hole 321631 1093242 1 04/1990 Date Discharge Measured Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 379 to 387 notes: NA = Not Available 1 Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring not displayed on current USGS topo map 3 Location approximated by ADWR 4 Discharge measurements vary. Shown is greatest measured discharge; most recent measurement < 10 gpm 388 Section 3.10 Safford Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.10 Safford Basin 389 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.10.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Safford Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 3.10-6. Figure 3.10-7 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 3.10-8 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 3.10-7. Figure 3.10-9 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 3.10-6 and Figure 3.10-7. • The basin is composed of three sub-basins • The southernmost sub-basin, the San Simon Valley sub-basin, consists of recent stream alluvium and contains artesian conditions in the lower aquifer. • The middle sub-basin, the Gila Valley sub-basin, contains older and younger basin fill. The principal aquifer is the younger basin fill. • The northern sub-basin, the San Carlos Valley sub-basin, consists of younger stream alluvium and basin fill. The principal water-bearing unit is the younger stream alluvium. • Flow direction is generally from south to north, however, the flow is from north to south in the vicinity of San Carlos. Flow directions have been altered due to pumping south of Interstate 10. Well Yields • Refer to Table 3.10-6 and Figure 3.10-9. • As shown on Figure 3.10-9, well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gpm to more than 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 1,494 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 600 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 3.10-6. • The only estimate for natural recharge in this basin is 105,000 acre-feet per year (AFA). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 3.10-6. • Storage estimates for this basin range from more than 27 million acre-feet (maf) to 69 maf to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 3.10-7. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 50 index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for thirteen wells are shown in Figure 3.10-8. • The Department measures water levels daily at two automated groundwater monitoring site in the basin. • Water levels are as deep as 517 feet in the vicinity of Interstate 10 and as shallow as 21 feet in the Safford, Pima and Thatcher area. Section 3.10 Safford Basin 390 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.10-6 Groundwater Data for the Safford Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 4,747 name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Recent Stream Alluvium Basin Fill Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Range 70 - 1,683 Median 771.5 (52 wells measured) Range 1 - 7,000 Median 600 (1,494 wells reported) Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 50 - 2,500 ADWR (1990 and 1994b) Range 0 - 2,500 Anning and Duet (1994) 105,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 66,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1990) 1 69,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) >27,000,000 Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current number of Index Wells: 50 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 1997 (559 wells measured); 2007 (338 wells measured in San Simon Valley Sub-basin 1 Predevelopment Estimate 391 6/22/2009 Section 3.10 Safford Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.10 Safford Basin 392 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.10-8 SAFFORD BASIN Safford Basin HYDROGRAPHS SHOWING DEPTH Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells TO WATER IN SELECTED WELLS 550 A Gila Conglomerate D-01-16 09CBC UNSURV WELL DEPTH: 1142 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 1975 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 600 650 0 1975 B 50 100 1985 1995 basin fill D-05-23 02DBC WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: UNUSED 1985 C 2005 1995 2005 recent stream alluvium D-05-24 25BBC WELL DEPTH: 229 ft USE: UNUSED 150 200 1975 1985 YEAR 1995 2005 In Hydrograph A UNSURV indicates there is no land survey for the area the well is in, and the coordinates are projected based on latitude and longitude. Section 3.10 Safford Basin 393 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 SAFFORD BASIN Figure 3.10-8 (Cont) DEPTH HYDROGRAPHS SHOWING Basin TO WATERSafford IN SELECTED WELLS Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 225 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 275 0 D 1975 E basin fill D-06-26 08CCD WELL DEPTH: 1162 ft USE: UNUSED 1985 1995 2005 basin fill D-07-27 02ADD WELL DEPTH: 700 ft USE: IRRIGATION 50 100 0 1975 F 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 400 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill D-08-26 33CDC1 50 100 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 394 Section 3.10 Safford Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 SAFFORD BASIN Figure 3.10-8 (Cont) HYDROGRAPHS DEPTH SaffordSHOWING Basin TO WATER SELECTED WELLS Hydrographs Showing IN Depth to Water in Selected Wells G 600 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 650 H 200 1985 1995 2005 basin fill D-12-28 25DCC WELL DEPTH: 1700 ft USE: UNUSED 250 300 1975 1985 I WELL DEPTH: 660 ft USE: UNUSED 175 1975 1985 J WELL DEPTH: 185 ft USE: UNUSED 1975 1985 125 25 75 Section 3.10 1975 basin fill D-10-26 25CBA WELL DEPTH: 850 ft USE: STOCK 1995 2005 basin fill D-13-29 28BBB 1995 2005 basin fill D-13-31 29DDA YEAR 1995 Safford Basin 2005 395 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 SAFFORD BASIN Figure 3.10-8 (Cont) HYDROGRAPHS SHOWING DEPTH Safford Basin TO WATER IN SELECTED WELLS Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells K 125 basin fill D-14-31 35BCC WELL DEPTH: 800 ft USE: IRRIGATION Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 175 225 1975 L 100 1985 1995 2005 basin fill 27S 21W 17 124 WELL DEPTH: 220 ft USE: IRRIGATION 150 200 1975 100 M 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 385 ft USE: IRRIGATION 2005 basin fill 29S 22W 11 243A 150 200 1975 1985 1995 2005 YEAR 396 Section 3.10 Safford Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.10 Safford Basin 397 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.10.7 Water Quality of the Safford Basin Sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s) (DWS), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 3.10-7A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired stream reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 3.10-7B. Figure 3.10-10 shows the location of exceedences and impairment keyed to Table 3.10-7. All community water systems are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and treat water supplies to meet drinking water standards. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 3.10-7A. • One hundred and thirty-five sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded DWS. • Frequently equaled or exceeded parameters include fluoride and arsenic. • Other parameters commonly equaled or exceeded in the sites measured in this basin were total dissolved solids, nitrates and lead. Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 3.10-7B. • Water quality standards were exceeded in one reach of Cave Creek and one reach of the Gila River. • The parameter exceeded at Cave Creek was selenium. • The parameters exceeded at the Gila River included E. coli and sediment load. • The impaired portion of the Gila River in this basin is part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. A draft TMDL report is underway. Effluent Dependent Reaches • Refer to Figure 3.10-10. • This basin contains two effluent dependent reaches, Bennett Wash in the vicinity of Safford and an unnamed wash in the vicinity of Highway 60. Bennett Wash receives effluent from the Arizona Department of Corrections Safford WWTF and the unnamed wash near Highway 60 receives effluent from the Arizona Department of Corrections Globe WWTF. Section 3.10 Safford Basin 398 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.10-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Safford Basin 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or number of Sampling Sites Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 Map Key Site Type 1 Well 1 North 18 East 17 1 As 2 Well 1 South 18 East 12 1 As 3 Well 3 South 19 East 11 1 As 4 Well 3 South 22 East 18 1 TDS 5 Well 3 South 22 East 30 1 TDS 6 Spring 4 South 23 East 7 1 TDS 7 Well 4 South 23 East 18 1 As 8 Well 4 South 23 East 20 1 NO3 9 Spring 4 South 23 East 36 1 As, F 10 Well 5 South 21 East 36 1 F Spring 5 South 24 East 17 2 F Spring 5 South 24 East 17 1 As, Cd, F, TDS 12 Well 5 South 24 East 29 2 NO3 13 Well 5 South 24 East 31 1 As, Pb, TDS As, F 11 Township Range Section 14 Well 6 South 23 East 3 2 15 Well 6 South 24 East 5 1 Pb 16 Well 6 South 24 East 12 1 NO3, TDS 17 Spring 6 South 25 East 5 1 F 18 Well 6 South 25 East 16 1 F 19 Well 6 South 25 East 17 1 As, F, TDS 20 Well 6 South 25 East 19 1 As, F 21 Well 6 South 25 East 23 1 As, F, TDS As, F 22 23 Well 6 South 25 East 26 2 Well 6 South 25 East 26 1 F Well 6 South 25 East 28 1 NO3 24 Well 6 South 25 East 30 2 As 25 Well 6 South 25 East 33 1 NO3 NO3 26 Well 6 South 25 East 34 1 27 Well 6 South 25 East 35 1 NO3 28 Well 6 South 25 East 36 1 As, F, TDS 29 Well 6 South 26 East 35 1 F 30 Well 6 South 27 East 34 2 As Well 7 South 23 East 1 1 As Well 7 South 23 East 1 1 F, Pb Well 7 South 23 East 1 9 F Well 7 South 23 East 5 1 As Well 7 South 24 East 8 1 As, F Well 7 South 24 East 8 3 As Well 7 South 24 East 14 2 As Well 7 South 25 East 2 1 As 31 32 33 34 35 Well 7 South 25 East 2 2 NO3 36 Well 7 South 25 East 7 1 As, Cd, F, Pb, TDS 37 Well 7 South 25 East 11 1 NO3 38 Well 7 South 25 East 27 1 As, F, TDS 39 Well 7 South 26 East 4 1 As, F, TDS 40 Well 7 South 26 East 15 1 As, F, TDS 41 Well 7 South 26 East 21 1 As 42 Well 7 South 26 East 23 1 As 43 Well 7 South 26 East 24 4 As 44 Well 7 South 26 East 28 1 TDS Well 7 South 27 East 2 3 As, F Well 7 South 27 East 2 2 F Well 7 South 27 East 2 1 As Well 7 South 27 East 3 1 As, F 45 46 399 Section 3.10 Safford Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.10-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Safford Basin (Cont)1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 47 48 49 50 51 52 Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or number of Sampling Sites Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 Township Range Well 7 South 27 East 8 1 As Well 7 South 27 East 11 1 As, F Well 7 South 27 East 16 2 F Well 7 South 27 East 16 1 As Well 7 South 27 East 18 1 As Well 7 South 27 East 20 1 As Well 7 South 27 East 20 1 As, F Well 8 South 26 East 6 1 As, F Well 8 South 26 East 7 1 As, F, TDS Well 8 South 26 East 7 1 Pb Well 8 South 26 East 7 1 As Well 8 South 26 East 7 2 F 54 Well 8 South 26 East 8 2 F 55 Well 8 South 26 East 15 1 F 56 Well 8 South 26 East 17 2 F 57 Well 8 South 26 East 18 4 F 58 Well 8 South 26 East 20 1 F 59 Well 8 South 26 East 28 1 As, F 53 60 Well 8 South 26 East 32 1 F 61 Well 8 South 27 East 23 1 As, F 62 Well 8 South 28 East 22 1 F 63 Well 8 South 28 East 29 1 As, F Pb 64 Well 8 South 29 East 22 1 65 Well 9 South 26 East 5 1 F 66 Well 9 South 26 East 6 1 As 66 Well 9 South 26 East 6 1 As, F 67 Well 9 South 28 East 31 1 As, F 68 Well 9 South 30 East 33 1 As 69 Well 10 South 27 East 28 1 F 70 Well 10 South 28 East 7 1 Se As, F 71 Well 10 South 28 East 36 1 72 Well 11 South 26 East 23 1 F 73 Well 11 South 28 East 28 1 As, NO3 NO3 74 75 Well 11 South 28 East 31 1 Well 11 South 29 East 1 2 F Well 11 South 29 East 1 1 As, F 76 Well 11 South 29 East 10 1 F 77 Well 11 South 29 East 14 1 As, F 78 Well 11 South 29 East 36 2 F 79 Well 11 South 30 East 1 1 F As, F 80 Well 11 South 30 East 31 1 81 Well 12 South 28 East 14 1 NO3 82 Well 12 South 28 East 34 1 NO3 83 Well 12 South 29 East 1 1 F 84 Well 12 South 29 East 16 1 As, F 85 Well 12 South 30 East 28 1 F 86 Well 13 South 26 East 10 1 Rad 87 Well 13 South 29 East 18 1 F 88 Well 13 South 29 East 21 1 F 89 90 Section 3.10 Well 13 South 29 East 25 2 As Well 13 South 29 East 25 1 NO3 Well 13 South 30 East 3 1 F Safford Basin 400 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.10-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Safford Basin (Cont)1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key 91 Site Type Township Range Section Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or number of Sampling Sites Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 Well 13 South 30 East 15 1 F Well 13 South 30 East 15 1 As 92 Well 13 South 30 East 24 1 F 93 Well 13 South 30 East 25 2 F 94 Well 13 South 31 East 6 2 F 95 Well 13 South 31 East 17 1 F 96 Well 13 South 31 East 18 1 F 97 Well 13 South 31 East 20 1 F 98 Well 13 South 31 East 22 1 F 99 Well 13 South 31 East 28 1 F 100 Well 13 South 31 East 30 1 F 101 Well 13 South 31 East 31 1 F 102 Well 13 South 31 East 34 1 F 103 Well 14 South 31 East 3 1 NO3,TDS 104 105 106 Well 14 South 31 East 6 1 F Well 14 South 31 East 9 1 Pb, NO3 Well 14 South 31 East 9 1 F, NO3, TDS Well 14 South 31 East 9 1 NO3, TDS Well 14 South 31 East 9 2 F Well 14 South 31 East 10 2 F, NO3 NO3, TDS 106 Well 14 South 31 East 10 1 107 Well 14 South 31 East 16 1 As, F 108 Well 14 South 31 East 19 1 As, F Pb 109 Well 14 South 31 East 23 1 110 Well 14 South 31 East 35 1 F 111 Well 14 South 32 East 20 1 NO3 112 Well 15 South 29 East 4 1 F 113 Well 15 South 32 East 34 1 Pb 114 Well 18 South 32 East 26 1 F Area of Impaired Lake (in acres) Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site name Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) a Stream Cave Creek (headwaters to South Fork of Cave Creek) 8 NA A&W Se b Stream Gila River (Bonita Creek to Yuma Wash) 6 NA A&W, FBC E. coli, sediment Designated Use Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 Standard3 Source: ADEQ 2005e notes: Because of map scale, feature locations may appear different than the location indicated on the table NA = Not applicable 1 2 3 Water quality samples collected between 1975 and 2004. As = Arsenic Cd = Cadmium F= Fluoride Pb = Lead NO3 = Nitrate Se = Selenium Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium TDS = Total Dissolved Solids A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife FBC = Full Body Contact 401 Section 3.10 Safford Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.10 Safford Basin 402 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.10.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Safford Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 3.10-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown on Table 3.10-9. Figure 3.1011 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 3.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 3.10-8 and Figure 3.10-11. • Population has increased by about 600 people a year on average from 1980 to 2000. • Total groundwater use decreased from 1971 to 1990 and then increased again from 1991 to 2005. An average of 124,500 AFA in the period from 2001-2005. • Surface water diversions increased from 1971 to 1985 and have decreased from 1986 to 2005, with 61,300 AFA diverted on average in the period from 1991 – 2005. All surface water diversions between 1991 and 2003 were for agriculture. • Approximately 98% of the total water demand in this basin is for agriculture. • Large tracks of agricultural lands are located along Highway 70 and the Gila River in the vicinity of Pima, Thatcher and Safford and in Cochise County south of Interstate 10. • Current municipal and industrial demand is comparable to historic use with 3,300 AFA of municipal water demand and 800 AFA of industrial water demand in the period from 20002005. • As of 2005 there were 2,698 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 2,278 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 3.10-9. • There are 13 wastewater treatment facilities in the basin. • Almost 29,000 people are served by these facilities. • More than 2,500 acre-feet of effluent per year are generated in this basin. • Three facilities discharge wastewater for irrigation. • Discharge from one facility, the Peridot Heights Wastewater Treatment Facility, recharges the aquifer through an unlined impoundment. This facility is not permitted by the Department as an Underground Storage Facility. • One facility, the Safford Wastewater Treatment Facility, discharges water for golf course irrigation. Section 3.10 Safford Basin 403 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.10-8 Cultural Water Demand in the Safford Basin 1 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 Estimated and Projected Population Q < 35 gpm 1,4732 27,638 27,969 28,300 28,631 28,962 29,293 29,624 29,955 30,286 30,617 30,948 32,081 33,214 34,348 35,481 36,614 37,748 38,881 40,014 41,148 42,281 42,847 43,412 43,978 44,544 45,110 47,938 52,282 56,570 WELL TOTALS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Q > 35 gpm Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 180,000 84,000 184,000 86,000 Data Source 1,8542 ADWR (1994a) 244 111 113,000 125,000 222 99 71,500 118,000 192 64 3,200 700 86,000 NR NR 117,000 299 60 3,400 700 91,500 NR NR 99,500 268 90 3,300 800 120,400 NR NR 61,300 2,698 2,278 USGS (2007) Gila Water Commis sioner Annual Reports ADWR (2008b) notes: NR=Not reported 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoir, or effluent 2 Includes all wells through June 1980. Note: Groundwater withdrawn in the Bonita Creek Basin is delivered to the Safford Basin for municipal use. These withdrawals are not included in the table 404 Section 3.10 Safford Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.10-9 Effluent Generation in the Safford Basin Facility name Ownership City/Location Served Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Disposal Method Watercourse Golf Evaporation Irrigation Course/Turf Pond Irrigation Wildlife Area AZ St. Industrial School Arizona Department of Corrections Prison 673 90 NA Bylas San Carlos Apache Tribe Bylas 1,480 79 NA 3,002 258 NA 625 22 Daley Estates Private Thatcher Gilson Wash San Carlos Apache Tribe San Carlos Peridot Heights San Carlos Apache Tribe Peridot Heights Pima WWTF Town of Pima Pima 1,918 119 Gila Resources Safford 10,500 963 Safford WWTF #1 Arizona Department of Corrections Ft. Grant 286 34 San Carlos Regional Sewer San Carlos Apache Tribe San Carlos 5,500 560 Skill Center San Carlos Apache Tribe NA 111 11 106 11 San Carlos Apache Tribe Soda Canyon Thatcher WWTF Town of Thatcher Thatcher 4,429 411 Upper Seven Mile San Carlos Apache Tribe San Carlos 254 11 28,884 2,569 Total Infiltration Basins Other Current Population not Year of Treatment Record Served Level Secondary NA 2001 2001 NA Safford WWTF Soda Canyon Discharge Industrial to Another Use Facility X X X Bennett Wash Mt. Graham X X X NA X NA Secondary NA 2001 Secondary 700 2000 Secondary NA 2000 Secondary NA 2000 Secondary NA 2001 Secondary NA 2000 Secondary NA 2000 Secondary NA 2000 Adv. Trt. I 400 2000 Secondary NA 2000 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others notes: Year of Record is for the volume of effluent treated/generated NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTF: Wastewater Treatment Facility Adv. Tr. l: Advance treatment level l Section 3.10 Safford Basin 405 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 406 Section 3.10 Safford Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.10 Safford Basin 407 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.10.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Safford Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 3.10-10. Figure 3.10-12 shows the locations of subdivisions keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • Twenty-three water adequacy determinations have been made in this basin through December 2008. Seventeen determinations of inadequacy have been made; the most common reason for an inadequacy determination was because the applicant chose not to submit necessary information and/or available hydrologic data was insufficient to make a determination. The number of lots receiving a water adequacy determination, by county, are: County Cochise Gila Graham Greenlee Pinal 408 Number of Subdivision Lots 80 >154 >671 0 0 Number of Lots Determined to be Adequate 0 38 76 0 0 Percent Adequate 0 ~25 ~11 NA NA Section 3.10 Safford Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.10-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Safford Basin1 Map Key Subdivision name County 1 Alder Heights Graham 2 Apache Peaks Dev., Plat A Gila 3 Arizona Sky Village Cochise 4 Buena Vista Ranches Graham Gila 5 6 7 8 9 10 Copper Canyon Ranches #1B Copper Canyon Ranches #2 Copper Canyon Ranches Unit III Desert Hills Ranchettes Desert Hills Ranchettes #3 Desert Hills Ranchettes #4 Township Range Section no. of Lots ADWR File no.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 6 South 25 East 29, 32 63 53-700407 Inadequate A1 9/17/2007 Graham Co. Utilities Cooperative 1 North 16 East 13, 14 38 53-500275 Adequate 4/20/1981 Apache Peaks Utilities 17 South 32 East 19 80 53-400785 Inadequate A1 10/28/2002 Dry Lot Subdivision 8 South 26 East 29 25 53-300236 Adequate 12/17/1996 Dry Lot Subdivision 1 North 15.5 East 29 NA NA Inadequate A1 10/16/1990 Dry Lot Subdivision Location Gila 1 North 16 East 10, 14, 15 65 53-500505 Inadequate A1, A2, C 2/2/1995 Dry Lot Subdivision Gila 1 North 15 East 10 51 53-400246 Inadequate A1 1/20/1998 Dry Lot Subdivision Graham 8 South 26 East 6 49 53-500563 Inadequate C 4/6/1976 Dry Lot Subdivision Graham 7 South 26 East 31 66 53-500564 Inadequate A1, C 4/11/1983 Dry Lot Subdivision Graham 7 South 8 South 25 East 25 East 1 36 NA 53-500565 Inadequate A1, C 5/21/1985 Dry Lot Subdivision 11 Fred Webb Park Graham 5 South 24 East 20 92 53-700236 Inadequate A1 3/15/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision 12 Galeyville Subdivision Cochise 17 South 31 East 18 71 53-400763 Inadequate A2 8/5/2002 Dry Lot Subdivision 13 High Mesa Air Park Graham 8 South 26 East 2 NA 53-500788 Inadequate D 6/21/1988 Dry Lot Subdivision 14 Los Alamos Hills #1 Graham 7 South 24 East 4 24 53-500916 Inadequate A1 6/19/1985 Dry Lot Subdivision 15 Maloy High Chaparral Estates Graham 8 South 26 East 2 64 53-400078 Inadequate A1, C 5/21/1999 Dry Lot Subdivision 16 Mountain Air Estates Graham 8 South 26 East 9 28 53-501017 Inadequate C 3/6/1974 Dry Lot Subdivision 17 Mountain Breeze Graham 8 South 26 East 7 4 53-501018 Inadequate C 6/16/1976 Dry Lot Subdivision 18 Orchard Park Graham 6 South 26 East 23 19 53-500099 Inadequate A1 3/6/2007 Dry Lot Subdivision 19 Pima South Estates Graham 6 South 25 East 30 27 53-501146 Adequate 11/30/1976 City Utilities Co 20 Pima South Estates #1 Graham 6 South 25 East 30 24 53-501147 Adequate 5/17/1994 General Utilities 21 Pima South Estates #2 Graham 6 South 25 East 30 6 53-501148 Adequate 10/18/1979 Graham County Utilities 22 Siesta Hot Springs Graham 6 South 24 East 6 90 53-300003 Inadequate 23 Sundown Graham 5 South 23 East 3 19 53-501495 Adequate A1,C 4/21/1998 Dry Lot Subdivision 7/16/1979 Dry Lot Subdivision Source: ADWR 2008a notes: 1 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA= Data currently not available to ADWR Section 3.10 Safford Basin 409 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.10 Safford Basin 410 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Safford Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Tables) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005a, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005b, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005c, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005d, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. (Water Quality Map) _____, 2005e, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. (Water Quality Map) _____, 2005f, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. (Water Quality Table/Map) Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http://www.admmr.state.az.us. (Cultural Water Demand Map) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2008b, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2006, Statement of claimants filed by the Indian tribes or the United States on their behalf in the Gila and Little Colorado River adjudications: Data files, ADWR Office of Planning and Adjudications Support. _____, 2005a, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit. _____, 2005b, 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: Data files, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005c, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. _____, 2005d, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005e, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005f, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005g, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005h, Wells55: Database. _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. Section 3.10 Safford Basin 411 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 _____, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az. us/alris/index.html. _____, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state. az.us/alris/index. html. _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us /alris/index.html. Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2007, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation date, accessed December 2008 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/locate.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. B Brown, D.E., N.B. Carmony and R.M. Turner, 1981, Drainage map of Arizona showing perennial streams and some important wetlands: Arizona Game and Fish Department. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2005, Springs in the Safford region: Data file received January 2005. (Springs Table/Map) D Diroll, M., and D. Marsh, 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report. (Water Quality Table/Map) E Environmental Protection Agency, 2005a, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005b, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/ cwns/index.htm. (Effluent Generation Table) F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. (Surface Water Conditions Map) Gila Water Commissioner, 1991-2005, Distribution of Waters of the Gila River, Annual Report, prepared for the U.S. District Court. 412 Section 3.10 Safford Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 H Harris, R.C.A, 1999, Bibliography and review of water quality studies in the upper Gila watershed, Arizona: AZGS Open File Report 99-25. (Water Quality Table/Map) O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 1998, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism. P Pope, G.L., P.D. Rigas and C.F. Smith, 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225. T Towne, D., 2004, Ambient groundwater quality of the San Simon sub basin: a 2002 baseline study: ADEQ Open File Report 04-02. (Water Quality Table/Map) U United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 and 2005, National Inventory of Dams: Arizona Dataset, accessed November 2004 to April 2005 at http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/wepages/ nid.cfm (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) United States Geological Survey, 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 & December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu / swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. W Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Pan evaporation stations: Data file accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. _____, 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http:// www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. Section 3.10 Safford Basin 413 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Supplemental Reading Ajami, H., D.P. Guertin, L.R. Levick and K. Uhlman, 2005, NEMO Watershed Based Plan Upper Gila Watershed, University of Arizona. Anderson, T.W. and G.W. Freethey, 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D. Anning, D.W., 1999, Concentrations and stream loads of nitrogen and phosphorus in surface water resources of central Arizona: in Water Issues and Partnerships for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from 12th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1999, Pinetop, Arizona. _____, 1998, Sources of nitrogen and phosphorus in drainage basins of central Arizona: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law, and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p. 8. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2007, Upper Gila River Total Maximum Daily Load, ADEQ Fact Sheet 07-01. ______, 2004, Ambient Groundwater of the San Simon Sub-Basin: An ADEQ 2002 Baseline Study, October 2004, ADEQ Fact Sheet 04-06. Baker, D. L. and K.A. King, 1994, Environmental contaminant investigation of water quality, sediment and biota of the upper Gila River basin, Arizona: US Fish and Wildlife service, Project No. 22410-1130-90-2-053, 53 p. Baldys, S., L.K. Ham and K.D. Fossum, 1995, Summary statistics and trend analysis of water quality data at sites in the Gila River Basin, New Mexico and Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4083 86 p. Baldys, S. and J.A. Bayles, 1990, Flow characteristics of streams that drain the Ft.Apache and San Carlos Indian Reservations, east central Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 90-4053. Brown, S. L., S.K. Yu and B.E. Munson, 1996, The impact of agricultural runoff on the pesticide contamination of a river- a case study on the middle Gila River: ADEQ Open File Report 96-1. Bureau of Reclamation, 1990, Upper Gila water supply analyses and sizing studies: Arizona Projects Office, draft report, April 1990. City of Safford, General Plan Water Resources Element, adopted November 2003. 414 Section 3.10 Safford Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Cordy, G.E., D.J. Gellenbeck, J.B. Gebler, D.W. Anning, A.L. Coes, R.J. Edmonds, J.A. Rees, and H.W. Sanger, 2000, Water quality in the central Arizona basins, Arizona, 1995-1998: USGS Circular 1213. Dickens, C. M., 2002, Hydrologic Study, Galeyville Subdivision, Cochise County, Arizona. Gebler, J. B., 1998, Water quality of selected effluent dependent stream reaches in southern Arizona as indicated by concentrations of periphytic chlorophyll a and aquatic invertebrate communities: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4199, 12 p Gookin, T.A., 2005, The Turner study in Safford Valley: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Halpenney, L.C. and P.C. Halpenny, 1994, Beyond adjudication: de facto conjunction of surface and ground water: in Approaching the Millennium-Evolving Perspectives in Water Resources: Proceedings from the 7th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1994, Scottsdale, Arizona, 149-158. Haney, J., 2005, Evaluation of the ecological implications of altered flows on the Upper Gila River: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Harris, R.C., 2000, Tritium as a tracer of groundwater sources and movement in the Safford basin, Graham County Arizona: AZGS Open File Report 00-10, 9 p. _____, 1997, Distribution of evaporates and implications for water quality in the San Carlos-Safford-Duncan non point source management zone: AZGS Open-File Report 97-3, 56 p. _____, 1996, Distribution of uranium in rocks and radon levels in water in the San Carlos-Safford-Duncan non point source management zone: AZGS Open-File Report 9628, 10 p. Huckleberry, G., 1996, Historical geomorphology of the Gila River: AZGS Open – File Report 96-14, 31 p. Konieczki, A.D. and S.R. Anderson, 1990, Evaluation of recharge along the Gila River as a result of the October 1983 flood: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 89-4148, 30 pp. Matlock, G.W., 1995, Management conflicts involving surface and ground water law: a Gila River example: in Water Use in Arizona: Cooperation or Conflict?: Proceedings from the 8th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1995, Tucson, Arizona, p. 81-82. Section 3.10 Safford Basin 415 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Richard, S.M., 1998, Map showing the orientation of layering and faults in the San Carlos – Safford - Duncan non point source management areas: AZGS Open – File Report 98-8 4 p. Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of groundwater in alluvial basins in Arizona, and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California: USGS Professional Paper 1406-C, 90 p. Santec Consulting and JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc., 2000, Small and minor watercourses analysis for Cochise County, Arizona: Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. Tellman, B., R. Yarde, and M. Wallace, 1997, Arizona’s changing rivers: How people have affected rivers: Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona Trapp, R.A. and R.C. Harris, 1996, Bibliography of the San Carlos-Safford-Duncan Non point source management zone: AZGS Open-File Report 96-20, 58 p. United States Geological Survey, 1997, Stage discharge rating curve for the Gila River, at the head of Safford Valley, near Solomon, AZ: USGS Water Resources unpublished report, Tucson, AZ. Webb, R.H., S.A. Leake and R.M. Turner, 2007, The Ribbon of Green: Change in Riparian Vegetation in the Southwestern United States, University of Arizona Press. Wittler, R. J., J.E. Klawon and K.L. Collins, 2004, Upper Gila River fluvial geomorphology study: Bureau of Reclamation final report. 416 Section 3.10 Safford Basin Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin 417 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.11.1 Geography of the San Bernardino Valley Basin The San Bernardino Valley Basin is a small, 387 square mile basin in the southeastern corner of the planning area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 3.11-1. The basin is characterized by a valley flanked by two mountain ranges. Vegetation is primarily semidesert grassland with smaller areas of madrean evergreen woodland and Chihuahuan desertscrub. (see Figure 3.0-9) Riparian vegetation includes mesquite and cottonwood/willow along Black Draw. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 3.11-1 are: o San Bernardino Valley in the center of the basin o Black Draw east of Bernardino running north-south to the Mexico border o Peloncillo Mountains to the east o Pedregosa Mountains on the northwest basin boundary o Perilla Mountains to the west, which include the highest point in the basin at 6,391 feet o The lowest point at approximately 3,700 feet where Black Draw exits the basin 418 Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin 419 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.11.2 Land Ownership in the San Bernardino Valley Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership in each category, is shown for the San Bernardino Valley Basin in Figure 3.11-2. The principal feature of land ownership in this basin is the significant amount of State Trust Land, the largest of any basin in the planning area. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 3.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. State Trust • 63.2% of land in this basin is held in trust for public schools and nine other beneficiaries under the State Trust Land system. • Much of the state owned land in this basin is contiguous but interspersed with parcels of privately owned and Bureau of Land Management lands. • Primary land use is grazing. Private • 24.3% of land is private. • Most private land is interspersed with state owned land. • The largest portions of contiguous private land are near the communities of Cazador, Bernardino and Chiricahua. • Primary land uses are domestic and grazing. National Forest • 7.3% of land is federally owned and managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS). • All forest land, although not contiguous, is in the Coronado National Forest, Douglas Ranger District. • Primary land uses are grazing, recreation and timber production. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 4.3% of land is federally owned and managed by the Safford Field Office of the BLM. • The majority of BLM land in this basin is in the east along the boundary with New Mexico. • Primary land use is grazing. Wildlife Refuge • 0.9% of land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). • All USFWS land is in the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge. • Primary land uses are wildlife protection and recreation. 420 Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin 421 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.11.3 Climate of the San Bernardino Valley Basin The San Bernardino Valley Basin does not contain any NOAA/NWS Co-op Network, Evaporation Pan, AZMET or SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. Figure 3.11-3 shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 3.0.3. A description of this and other climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 3.11-3 • Precipitation data shows average annual rainfall as as high as 22 inches at the Pedregosa Mountains in the northwest portion of the basin and in the northeast corner at the New Mexico border, and as low as 10 inches at the San Bernardino Valley along the border with Mexico. 422 Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin 423 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.11.4 Surface Water Conditions in the San Bernardino Valley Basin There are no streamflow data or flood ALERT equipment in this basin. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area of large reservoirs and type of use of the stored water, are shown in Table 3.11-1. The location of USGS runoff contours, large reservoirs and stream channels are shown on Figure 3.11-4. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 3.11-1 • Surface water is stored or could be stored in one large and five small reservoirs in the basin. • Total maximum surface area in the large reservoir is 401 acres. The use of this reservoir is unknown. • There are 151 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 3.11-4. • Average annual runoff varies from 0.2 inches per year, or 10.6 acre-feet per square mile, in the middle part of the basin to 2 inches per year, or 106.6 acre-feet per square mile, at the northern boundary. 424 Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.11-1 reservoirs and Stockponds in the San Bernardino Valley Basin A. Large reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP Key reSerVOIr/LAKe nAMe (name of dam, if different) OWner/OPerATOr MAXIMUM STOrAGe (AF) USe JUrISDICTIOn None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater)1 MAP Key reSerVOIr/LAKe nAMe (name of dam, if different) OWner/OPerATOr MAXIMUM SUrFACe AreA (acres) USe2 JUrISDICTIOn 1 Dry3 AZ Land Dept. 401 U State Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 1 Total maximum storage: 45 acre-feet D. Other Small reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)1 Total number: 4 Total surface area: 22 acres e. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 151 (from water right filings) notes: Capacity data not available to ADWR 2 U=unknown 3 Dry Lake 1 Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin 425 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 426 Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.11.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the San Bernardino Valley Basin Minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 3.11-2. There are no major springs identified in this basin. The locations of perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 3.11-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • There is one perennial stream, Black Draw, located near the border with Mexico. A number of intermittent streams are located on the eastern boundary of the basin. There is one minor spring in the basin, House Spring. The listed discharge rate may not be indicative of current conditions. The total number of springs identified by the USGS varies from 6 to 10, depending on the database reference. Table 3.11-2 Springs in the San Bernardino Valley Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key name Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): name House Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm)1 312012 1091642 3 Date Discharge Measured 3/1/1985 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALrIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 6 to 10 notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 1 Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin 427 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 428 Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.11.6 Groundwater Conditions of the San Bernardino Valley Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 3.11-3. Figure 3.11-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 3.11-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 3.11-6. Figure 3.11-8 shows well yields in three yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 3.11-3 and Figure 3.11-6. • The major aquifers in the basin are recent stream alluvium and volcanic rock. • Artesian wells and springs support wetlands in this basin near the border with Mexico. • Flow direction is generally from the north to the south. Well Yields • Refer to Table 3.11-3 and Figure 3.11-8. • As shown on Figure 3.11-8 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) to 1,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on three reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 450 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 3.11-3. • The natural recharge estimate for this basin is 9,000 acre-feet per year (AFA). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 3.11-3. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 1.6 million acre-feet (maf) to 2.0 maf to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 3.11-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures four index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for two of these wells are shown in Figure 3.11-7. • Depth to water was measured for three wells in this basin in 2003-2004 and varies from 612 feet in the north central portion of the basin to 30 feet along the border with Mexico. Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin 429 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.11-3 Groundwater Data for the San Bernardino Valley Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 387 name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Recent Stream Alluvium Volcanic Rock Range 22 - 600 Median 450 (3 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells (Wells 55) Range 0 - 2,500 Anning and Duet, USGS (1994) 9,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 1,600,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1990) 2,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) Well yields, in gal/min: estimated natural recharge, in acre-feet/year: estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Current number of Index Wells: 4 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2007 (70 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate 430 6/22/2009 Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin 431 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY BASIN Figure 3.11-7 San Bernardino Valley Basin HYDROGRAPHS SHOWING DEPTH Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells TO WATER IN SELECTED WELLS 600 650 432 0 50 A 1975 B 1975 basin fill D-22-30 13CBD WELL DEPTH: 809 ft USE: UNUSED 1985 1995 2005 volcanic rocks D-24-30 16CCC WELL DEPTH: 100 ft USE: STOCK 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin 433 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.11.7 Water Quality of the San Bernardino Valley Basin Sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s) (DWS), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 3.11-4A. There are no data on impaired lakes and streams in this basin. Figure 3.11-9 shows the location of exceedences keyed to Table 3.11-4A. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 3.11-4A. • Two sites have nitrate concentrations that have equaled or exceeded DWS. Table 3.11-4 Water Quality exceedences in the San Bernardino Valley Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 2 Parameter(s) Concentration has equaled or exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 Township range Section Well 24 South 29 East 11 NO3 Well 24 South 32 East 6 NO3 Length of Impaired Stream reach (in miles) Area of Impaired Lake (in acres) Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site name Designated Use Standard Parameter(s) exceeding Use Standard None identified by ADWR at this time Source: ADEQ 2005f notes: Because of map scale, feature locations may appear different than the location indicated on the table 1 Water quality samples collected between 1974 and 2002. 2 NO3 = Nitrate 434 Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin 435 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.11.8 Cultural Water Demand in the San Bernardino Valley Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 3.11-5. There is no recorded effluent generation in this basin. The USGS National Gap Analysis Program, the source of cultural demand map data, showed no demand centers for this basin. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 3.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 3.11-5. • Population increased between 1980-1990 and decreased between 1990-2000 but there was an overall increase in population. • All water use in this basin is groundwater; pumping has decreased from 1971- 2005 with less than 300 AFA in the period from 1991 - 2005. All demand in this basin is for municipal (domestic) use. • As of 2005 there were 164 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 12 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. 436 Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.11-5 Cultural Water Demand in the San Bernardino Valley Basin1 year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 estimated and Projected Population Q < 35 gpm 1112 20 26 33 39 45 51 58 64 70 76 83 81 79 78 76 74 73 71 69 68 66 68 69 71 72 74 82 95 105 WELL TOTALS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) number of registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Q > 35 gpm Well Pumpage Municipal Industrial Surface-Water Diversions Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural <500 NR <500 NR Data Source 2 7 ADWR (1994a) 11 0 <500 NR 21 1 <500 NR 7 2 <300 NR NR NR 8 0 <300 NR NR NR 6 2 <300 NR NR NR 164 12 USGS (2007) notes: NR = Not reported 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs, or effluent 2 Includes all wells through June 1980. Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin 437 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.11.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the San Bernardino Valley Basin There are no water adequacy applications on file with the Department as of December 2008 for the San Bernardino Valley Basin. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. 438 Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 San Bernardino Valley Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. (Water Quality Table/Map) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2005a, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005b, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005c, Wells55 database. _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. _____, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. _____, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state. az.us/alris/index. html. _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az. us/alris/index.html. F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. (Surface Water Conditions Map) L Longsworth, S.A., 1991: Geohydrology and chemical quality of groundwater, San Bernardino NWR, Arizona: USGS Open File Report 90-4190, 28 pp. (Water Quality Table/Map) Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin 439 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 1998, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism. U United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2003, Leslie Canyon Wildlife Refuge Land Ownership Status Boundary, accessed September 2006 at http://www.fws.gov /data/r2gis/ landstatus.htm United States Geological Survey, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. Supplemental Reading Anderson, T.W. and G.W. Freethey, 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D. Biggs, T.H., R.S. Leighty, S.J. Skotnicki, P.A. Pearthree, 1999, Geology and geomorphology of the San Bernardino Valley, southeastern Arizona: AZGS Open File Report 99-19, 20 pp. Davis, L.A., T. Maddock and R.D. Mac Nish, 1997, Groundwater flow and interaction with surface water in San Bernardino Valley, Cochise County, Arizona and Sonora Mexico: University of Arizona Technical-Report HWR 97-030, 207 pp. L.R. Levick, M. Reed, E. vanderLeeuw, D.P. Guertin and K. Uhlman, 2006, NEMO Watershed Based Plan Middle and Lower San Pedro Watershed, University of Arizona. Santec Consulting and JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc., 2000, Small and minor watercourses analysis for Cochise County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. 440 Section 3.11 San Bernardino Valley Basin Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin 441 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.12.1 Geography of the San Rafael Basin The San Rafael Basin is a small, 229 square mile basin in the southwest corner of the planning area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 3.12-1. The sparsely populated basin is characterized by a high-elevation mountain range, a valley and plains and Great Basin grassland and madrean evergreen woodland vegetation. (see Figure 3.0-9) Riparian vegetation includes cottonwood/willow and strand along the Santa Cruz River. • • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 3.12-1 are: o The Santa Cruz River east of Lochiel o Parker Canyon west of Sunnyside o Huachuca Mountains along the eastern basin boundary, which include the highest point in the basin about 9,400 feet o The lowest point at 4,600 feet at Lochiel where the Santa Cruz River exits the basin Not indicated on Figure 3.12-1 is the San Rafael Valley flanking the Santa Cruz River 442 Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin 443 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.12.2 Land Ownership in the San Rafael Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership in each category, is shown for the San Rafael Basin in Figure 3.12-2. Principal features of land ownership are the lack of diversity in land ownership, 99% of land is under federal or private ownership, and the large portion of land managed by the National Forest Service. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 3.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. National Forest • 73.1% of land is federally owned and managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS). • Forest land is in the Coronado National Forest, Sierra Vista Ranger District. • The basin includes most of the Miller Peak Wilderness area. (see Figure 3.0-12) • Primary land uses are recreation, grazing and timber production. Private • 26.3% of land is private. • There is a large concentration of private land in the Santa Cruz County portion of the basin. • Private land in-holdings are located throughout the national forest lands in the basin. • Primary land uses are domestic and grazing. State Trust Lands • 0.3% of land is held in trust for public schools through the Arizona State Trust Land system. • Primary land use is grazing. National Park Service (NPS) • 0.2% of land is federally owned and managed by the National Park Service. • All park lands are within the small portion of Coronado National Memorial in the basin. • Primary land use is recreation. U.S. Military • 0.1% of land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Army. • All military lands are part of Fort Huachuca. • Primary land use is military activities. 444 Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin 445 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.12.3 Climate of the San Rafael Basin Climate data from a NOAA/NWS Co-op Network station are complied in Table 3.12-1 and the location is shown on Figure 3.12-3. Figure 3.12-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The San Rafael Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan, AZMET and SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 3.0.3. A description of climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 3.12-1A • There is one NOAA/NWS Coop network climate station in the basin at San Rafael Ranch with an average monthly maximum temperature of 74.1°F and average minimum temperature of 42.6°F. • Annual average precipitation is 17.26 inches and most precipitation, 10.60 inches on average, occurs in the summer season. Summer precipitation is more than three times that of any other season. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 3.12-3 • Other precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 38 inches at the Huachuca Mountains along the eastern basin boundary and as low as 18 inches in the San Rafael Valley. 446 Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.12-1 Climate Data for the San Rafael Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages San Rafael Ranch 4,740 1892-1968 Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 74.1/Jul 42.6/Jan 2.81 1.16 10.60 2.70 17.26 Source: WRCC, 2005 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Avg. Annual Evap Used for (in inches) Averages None C. AZMET: Station Name Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches Elevation Period of Record (Number of years to calculate averages) (in feet) None D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Elevation Period of Record (in feet) Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin 447 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 448 Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.12.4 Surface Water Conditions in the San Rafael Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 3.12-2. The basin does not contain flood ALERT equipment. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area of large reservoirs and type of use of the stored water, are shown in Table 3.12-3. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 3.7-4. There were no runoff contours for this basin. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 3.12-2. • Data from one real-time station located at the Santa Cruz River are shown on the table and on Figure 3.12-4. • The average seasonal flow is highest in the Summer (July-September) and lowest in the Spring (April-June). • Maximum annual flow was 12,600 acre-feet in 1955 and minimum annual flow was 123 acre-feet in 1962. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 3.12-3. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in one large reservoir and one small reservoir in the basin. • The large reservoir is used for recreation and has a total maximum storage of 4,400 acrefeet. • There are 258 registered stockponds in this basin. Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin 449 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.12-2 Streamflow Data for the San Rafael Basin Station Number USGS Station Name Drainage Area 2 (in mi ) Gage Elevation (in feet) Period of Record 9480000 Santa Cruz River near Lochiel 82.2 4,620 1/1949-current (real time) Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Annual Flow (in acre-feet/year) Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum 6 2 84 9 123 (1962) 1,419 2,388 12,600 (1955) Years of Annual Flow Record 21 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 Notes: Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals November 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for the statistics was retrieved in 2005 450 Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.12-3 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the San Rafael Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE1 JURISDICTION 1 Parker Canyon AZ Game & Fish 4,400 R State USE JURISDICTION B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME (Name of dam, if different) OWNER/OPERATOR MAXIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 0 Total maximum storage: 0 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)2 Total number: 1 Total surface area: 6 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 258 (from water right filings) Notes: R=recreation 2 Capacity data not available to ADWR 1 Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin 451 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 452 Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.12.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the San Rafael Basin Minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 3.12-4. There are no major springs identified in this basin. The locations of perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 3.12-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. There is one perennial stream, the Santa Cruz River, located east of Lochiel. This reach is the headwaters of the Santa Cruz River. Several intermittent streams are located in the eastern portion of the basin. There is one minor spring in the basin. The unnamed spring was last measured in 1981 and its listed discharge rate may not be indicative of current conditions. The total number of springs identified by the USGS varies from 23 to 24, depending on the database reference. • • • • • Table 3.12-4 Springs in the San Rafael Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Name Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Unnamed Location Latitude Longitude Discharge (in gpm)1 312726 1102350 1 Date Discharge Measured 10/22/1981 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 23 to 24 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 1 Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin 453 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 454 Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.12.6 Groundwater Conditions of the San Rafael Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 3.12-5. Figure 3.12-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 3.12-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 3.12-6. Figure 3.12-8 shows well yields in three yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 3.12-5 and Figure 3.12-6. • The major aquifers in the basin are recent stream alluvium, composed of well-sorted silt, sand and gravel, and basin fill, consisting of clay, silt, sand and gravel. • The streambed alluvium and the basin fill are hydrologically connected. • Flow direction is generally from north to south. Well Yields • Refer to Table 3.12-5 and Figure 3.12-8. • As shown on Figure 3.12-8 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm) to 1,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 12 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 145 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 3.12-5 • Principal sources of recharge in this basin are mountain-front recharge and infiltration from runoff in washes. • The natural recharge estimate for this basin is 5,000 acre-feet per year (AFA). Water in Storage • Refer to Table 3.12-5. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 4.0 million acre-feet (maf) to 5.0 maf to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 3.12-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 10 index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for two of these wells are shown in Figure 3.12-7. • The deepest recorded water level in 2003-2004 was 205 feet northwest of Lochiel and the shallowest was six feet northeast of Lochiel. Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin 455 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.12-5 Groundwater Data for the San Rafael Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 229 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Recent Stream Alluvium Basin Fill Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Range 7 - 700 Median 145 (12 wells reported) Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells Range 3 - 465 ADWR (1994b) Range 0 - 2,500 Anning and Duet (1994) 5,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 5,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 4,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current Number of Index Wells: 10 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2005 (36 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate 456 6/22/2009 Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin 457 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 SAN RAFAEL BASIN HYDROGRAPHS DEPTH FigureSHOWING 3.12-7 San Basin WELLS TO WATER INRafael SELECTED Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells 75 125 100 150 A 1975 B 1975 WELL DEPTH: 280 ft. USE: UNUSED basin fill D-22-17 31ADA 1985 1995 2005 basin fill D-23-17 33DBC UNSURV WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: STOCK 1985 1995 2005 YEAR In Hydrograph B UNSURV indicates there is no land survey for the area the well is in, and the coordinates are projected based on latitude and longitude. 458 Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin 459 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.12.7 Water Quality of the San Rafael Basin Sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s) (DWS), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 3.12-6A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired stream reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 3.12-6B. Figure 3.12-9 shows the location of exceedences and impairment keyed to Table 3.12-6. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 3.12-6A. • Six sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded DWS. • Frequently equaled or exceeded parameters include arsenic and lead. • Other parameters equaled or exceeded in the sites measured in this basin were radionuclides, cadmium and antimony. Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 3.12-6B. • Water quality standards for mercury were equaled or exceeded in Parker Canyon Lake. • Parker Canyon Lake is part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. Sampling to create a TMDL report is ongoing. 460 Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.12-6 Water Quality Exceedences in the San Rafael Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Township Range Section NR 23 South 16 East 21 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 As NR Well 23 South 23 South 16 East 16 East 22 22 As Rad Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 NR 23 South 16 East 34 Cd 5 Well 23 South 19 East 18 Pb 6 Well 24 South 16 East 2 Pb, Sb Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site Name Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) a Lake Parker Canyon NA Area of Designated Use Impaired Lake Standard3 (in acres) 123 FC Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 Hg Source: ADEQ 2005 Notes: Because of map scale, feature locations may appear different than the location indicated on the table NR = Information not available to ADWR NA = Not applicable 1 Water quality samples collected in 2002. 2 As = Arsenic Sb = Antimony Cd = Cadmium Pb = Lead Hg = Mercury Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium 3 FC = Fish Consumption Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin 461 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 462 Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.12.8 Cultural Water Demand in the San Rafael Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 3.12-7. There is no recorded effluent generation in this basin. The USGS National Gap Analysis Program, the source of cultural demand map data, showed no demand centers for this basin. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 3.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 3.12-7. • Population remained almost unchanged from 1980 to 2005. • Groundwater pumping remained constant from 1971 to 2005 at less than 300 AFA. • All water use in this basin is groundwater, there are no recorded surface water diversions. • Municipal demand is the only use in this basin and is minimal, less than 300 AFA. This includes domestic and stock watering use. • As of 2005 there were 224 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 26 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin 463 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.12-7 Cultural Water Demand in the San Rafael Basin 1 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 Estimated and Projected Population Q < 35 gpm 2 173 143 142 142 141 141 140 140 139 138 138 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 149 151 154 156 158 169 177 182 WELL TOTALS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Q > 35 gpm Well Pumpage Municipal Industrial Surface-Water Diversions Data Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural Source <300 NR <300 NR 2 24 5 1 <300 NR 17 1 <300 NR 14 0 <300 NR NR NR 5 0 <300 NR NR NR 10 0 <300 NR NR NR 224 26 ADWR (1994a) USGS (2007) USGS (2007) Notes: NR=Not reported 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs, or effluent 2 Includes all wells through June 1980. 464 Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.12.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the San Rafael Basin There are no water adequacy applications on file with the Department as of December 2008 for the San Rafael Basin. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin 465 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 San Rafael Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demands Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. (Water Quality Map) _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. (Water Quality Map) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2005a, Inspected dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005b, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005c, Non-jurisdictional dams: Database, ADWR Office of Dam Safety. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005d, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005e, Wells55 database. _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. _____, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. _____, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state. az.us/alris/index. html. _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az.us /alris/index.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. M Montgomery & Assoc., 1999, Hydrological investigations of groundwater movement and sources 466 Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 of base flow to Sonoita Creek near Patagonia Arizona, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 1998, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism. T Towne, D., 2003, Ambient groundwater quality report, San Rafael Basin, a 2002 Baseline Study: ADEQ Open File Report 03-01, 42 pp. (Water Quality Table/Map) U United States Geological Survey, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. W Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. Supplemental Reading Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2006, Parker Canyon Lake Total Maximum Daily Load, ADEQ Fact Sheet 06-15. ______, 2003, Ambient Groundwater Quality of the San Rafael Basin: An ADEQ 2002 Baseline Study, ADEQ Fact Sheet 03-03. Bultman, M.W., 1999, Geometry, structure, and concealed lithology of the San Rafael basin, southeastern Arizona: USGS Open File Report 99-399. Cordy, G.E., H.W. Sanger and D.J Gellenbeck, 2000, Radon in groundwater in central and southern Arizona: in A cause for concern?: Symposium on Environmental Technologies for the 21st Century: Proceedings from the 13th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2000, Phoenix, Arizona, p. 21. Hadley, D. and T. Sheridan, 1995, Land use history of the San Rafael Valley, Arizona (1540- Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin 467 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 1960): USDA Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, CO, General Technical Report RM-GTR-269. Nemecek, E.A., 2003, Sustainability of Arizona’s few remaining perennial streams: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the Arizona Hydrological Society16th annual symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Scott, R.L., 1999, Riparian and rangeland soil-vegetation-atmosphere interactions in Southeastern Arizona: University of Arizona, Ph. D. dissertation. Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of groundwater in alluvial basins in Arizona, and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California: USGS Professional Paper 1406-C, 90 pp. 468 Section 3.12 San Rafael Basin Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 469 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.13.1 Geography of the Upper San Pedro Basin The Upper San Pedro Basin is a medium-size, 1,825 square mile basin in the southwestern portion of the planning area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 3.13-1. The basin is characterized by a large valley flanked by a series of mountain ranges. Vegetation is primarily semi-desert grassland and Chihuahuan desertscrub with smaller areas of madrean evergreen woodland, plains and Great Basin grasslands and Rocky Mountain and madrean montane conifer forest. (see Figure 3.0-9) 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. • Principal geographic features shown on Figure 3.13-1 are: o San Pedro River, which flows north through the San Pedro Valley east of Sierra Vista and Benson o Babocomari River north of Sierra Vista o Garden and Ramsey canyons southwest of Sierra Vista o Tres Alamos Wash northeast of Benson o Greenbrush Draw north of the Mexico border in the vicinity of Naco o Huachuca Mountains southwest of Sierra Vista o Whetstone Mountains southwest of Whetstone o Canelo Hills west of Canleo o Mule Mountains east of Bisbee o Dragoon Mountains along the eastern boundary of the basin east of St. David o Allen Flat in the northern part of the basin o The highest point in the basin, 9,466 feet, at T23S, R20E in the Huachuca Mountains o The lowest point at approximately 3,000 feet where the San Pedro River exits the basin 470 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 471 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.13.2 Land Ownership in the Upper San Pedro Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership in each category, is shown for the Upper San Pedro Basin in Figure 3.13-2. Principal features of the land ownership in this basin are the relatively large amounts of state owned lands and private lands as well as the Fort Huachuca Military Base. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 3.0.4. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. State Trust • 39.1% of land in this basin is held in trust for public schools and five other beneficiaries under the State Trust Land system. • State owned land is fragmented in most of the basin, however, large contiguous parcels exist north of Interstate 10 and Highway 82, and east of Highway 90. • Primary land use is grazing. Private • 33.3% of land is private. • Much of the private land is interspersed with state owned land and, to a lesser extent, Bureau of Land Management lands. • Contiguous private lands exist southeast of Sierra Vista, north of Fort Huachuca, southeast of Benson and in the vicinity of Benson. • Primary land uses are domestic, commercial, industrial and farming. National Forest • 11.6% of land is federally owned and managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS). • All forest lands, although not contiguous, are in the Coronado National Forest in four ranger districts: the Safford Ranger District at the northern tip of the basin; the Santa Catalina Ranger District north of Interstate 10 adjacent to Saguaro National Park; the Douglas Ranger District south of Interstate 10 on the eastern basin boundary; and the Sierra Vista Ranger District in the southern part of the basin adjacent to Fort Huachuca and south of Interstate 10 on the western basin boundary. • This basin contains portions of the Miller Peak Wilderness area and the Rincon Mountain Wilderness area. (see Figure 3.0-12) • Primary land uses are grazing, recreation and timber production. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 8.9% of land is federally owned and managed by the Safford Field Office of the BLM. • The majority of the BLM land in this basin is within the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. • This basin contains a portions of the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area and the Redfield Canyon Wilderness. (see Figure 3.0-12) • Primary land uses are recreation and grazing. Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 472 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 U.S. Military • 6.8% of land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Military. • All military lands are within Fort Huachuca, which was established during the Indian Wars in 1877 and has existed as a military outpost, with varied missions, since that time. • Primary land use is military activities. National Park Service (NPS) • 0.3% of land is federally owned and managed by the NPS. • All park lands are within the Coronado National Memorial and Saguaro National Park. • Primary land uses are recreation and resource protection. 473 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 474 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.13.3 Climate of the Upper San Pedro Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network stations is complied in Table 3.13-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 3.13-3. Figure 3.13-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Upper San Pedro Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan, AZMET and SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 3.0.3. A description of climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 3.13-1A • There are seven NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate stations in the basin. The average monthly maximum temperature occurs in July at all stations and ranges between 74.6°F at Canelo 1 NW to 81.0°F at Benson. The average monthly minimum temperature occurs in December or January and ranges between 43.3°F at Canelo 1 NW to 47.8°F at Tombstone. • Highest average seasonal rainfall occurs in the summer (July – September). For the period of record used, the highest annual rainfall is 21.18 inches at Coronado N.M. and 12.34 inches at Benson. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 3.13-3 • Additional precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 38 inches at the Huachuca Mountains south of Sierra Vista and as low as 12 inches in the southcentral part of the basin. Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 475 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.13-1 Climate Data for the Upper San Pedro Basin A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual Apache Powder Co. 3,690 1971-2000 80.3/Jul 45.5/Dec 2.16 1.01 8.38 2.66 14.21 3,670 1 81.0/Jul 45.9/Jan 1.23 0.74 8.01 2.37 12.34 Benson 1894-1975 1 Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Bisbee 2 5,020 1961-1997 77.6/Jul 46.6/Jan 2.74 1.22 8.39 3.10 15.44 Canelo 1 NW 5,010 1971-2000 74.6/Jul 43.3/Jan 3.68 1.32 9.17 3.87 18.04 Coronado N.M. 5,240 1971-2000 75.4/Jul 45.3/Jan 4.71 1.41 10.02 5.04 21.18 Fort Huachuca 4,670 1 1900-1981 77.3/Jul 46.3/Jan 2.44 1.13 7.89 2.91 14.35 Tombstone 4,610 1971-2000 79.9/Jul 47.8/Jan 2.48 1.13 7.43 3.06 14.10 Source: WRCC, 2005 Notes: Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 1 B. Evaporation Pan: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Used for Averages Avg. Annual Evap (in inches) None C. AZMET: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages) None D. SNOTEL/Snowcourse: Station Name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None 476 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 477 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.13.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Upper San Pedro Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 3.13-2. This basin does not contain Flood ALERT equipment. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area, are shown in Table 3.13-3. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number and USGS runoff contours are shown on Figure 3.13-5. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 3.13-2. • Data from 13 stations on seven watercourses are shown on the table and on Figure 3.13-5. Three stations have been discontinued and 10 are real-time stations. • The average seasonal flow for almost all the stations is highest in the Fall (Oct.-Dec.) of the Summer (July-September) and lowest in Spring (April-June). • Maximum annual flow was 102,107 acre-feet in 1984 at the San Pedro River near Tombstone and minimum annual flow was 0 acre-feet at Greenbush Draw near Palominas in 2001. The oldest operating gage is the San Pedro River at Charleston. A hydrograph of this gage is found in Figure 3.13-4. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 3.13-3. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in four small reservoirs in the basin. • There are 974 registered stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 3.13-5. • Average annual runoff is 0.5 inches, or 26.65 acre-feet per square mile, in this basin. 478 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.13-4 Annual Flows (in acre-feet) at San Pedro River at Charleston (Station # 9471000) Water Years 1905-2007 160,000 Annual Flow, in af 140,000 120,000 100,000 Average Annual Flow 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 1905 1922 1936 1946 1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 479 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.13-2 Streamflow Data for Upper San Pedro Basin Station Number 9470500 9470520 9470700 9470750 USGS Station Name San Pedro River near Palominas Greenbush Draw near Palominas Banning Creek near Bisbee Ramsey Canyon near Sierra Vista Drainage Area 2 (in mi ) Gage Elevation (in feet) 737 4,188 NA 4,280 NA 4,767 NA 5,525 Annual Flow (in acre-feet/year) Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Period of Record 5/1930-current (real time) 6/2000-9/2004 (discontinued) 2/2001-current (real time) 5/2000-current (real time) Winter Spring Summer Fall 10 2 70 17 0 11 35 54 Minimum 4,403 (1962) 0 (2001) Median Mean 16,659 22,873 76 76 Maximum 65,464 (2000) 152 (2003) No statistics run, less than 3 years of data 10 8 9 73 24 (2003) 43 Years of Annual Flow Record 44 3 2 145 369 (2001) 3 9470800 Garden Canyon near Fort Huachuca 8 5,400 10/1959-current (real time) 39 11 35 15 71 (1997) 1,043 990 2,086 (1995) 11 9471000 San Pedro River at Charleston 1,234 3,954 3/1904-current (real time) 14 5 65 16 6,778 (2002) 33,203 38,636 152,798 (1914) 84 9471300 Huachuca Canyon near Fort Huachuca 3 NA 10/1961-9/1964 (discontinued) 9471310 Huachuca Canyon near Fort Huachuca NA 5,600 10/2000-current (real time) 11 7 9 73 7 (2002) 62 88 195 (2001) 3 NA 5,500 7/2000-current (real tme) 16 9 28 47 1,433 (2003) 2,331 2,669 4,243 (2003) 3 NA 3,980 25 8 24 43 862 (2003) 1,028 1,028 1,195 (2001) 3 1,672 NA 9471380 9471400 9471500 9471550 9471800 Upper Babocomari River near Huachuca City Babocomari River near Tombstone San Pedro River at Fairbanks San Pedro River near Tombstone San Pedro River near Benson 1,740 3,780 2,490 3,310 3/2000-current (real time) 10/1926-9/1928 (discontinued) 4/1967-current (real time) 3/1966-current (real time) No statistics run, less than 3 years of data 2 No statistics run, less than 3 years of data 19 4 49 28 5 1 87 8 7,314 (2002) 8,618 (1973) 1 29,654 36,950 28,966 23,447 102,107 (1984) 44,463 (1971) 24 9 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 Notes: Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals November 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for the statistics was retrieved in 2005 NA=Not available Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 480 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.13-3 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Upper San Pedro Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME OWNER/OPERATOR (Name of dam, if different) MAXIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE JURISDICTION USE JURISDICTION None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater) MAP KEY MAXIMUM RESERVOIR/LAKE NAME OWNER/OPERATOR SURFACE AREA (Name of dam, if different) (acres) None identified by ADWR at this time Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 2 Total maximum storage: 247 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)1 Total number: 2 Total surface area: 13 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 974 (from water right filings) Notes: Capacity data not available to ADWR 1 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 481 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 482 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.13.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Upper San Pedro Basin Major and minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 3.13-4. The locations of major springs as well as perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 3.13-6. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • • • There are numerous perennial stream reaches in this basin, primarily in the southern portion of the basin. A number of intermittent stream reaches are located throughout most of the basin. The San Pedro River is intermittent through most of this basin with a perennial reach in the southern portion of the basin. There are 12 major springs with a measured discharge of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) or greater at any time. The largest discharge rate is 134 gpm at Garden Canyon No. 1. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gpm are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 3.13-4. There are four minor springs identified in this basin. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. All but two of the measurements were taken prior to 1982. The total number of springs identified by the USGS varies from 79 to 91, depending on the database reference. Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 483 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.13-4 Springs in the Upper San Pedro Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Location Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Map Key Name Date Discharge Measured 1 Garden Canyon No. 1 312807 1102132 134 2/11/1963 2 Huachuca Canyon 313103 1102318 1083 1958-1963 3 Unnamed2 313044 1102327 100 4/3/1941 4 Miller Canyon2 312516 1101554 973 1973-1977 5 Garden Canyon No. 2 312728 1102155 76 1/8/1963 6 Lewis North 313456 1100819 45 6/30/2005 7 Hooker's Hot 322018 1101421 40 During or prior to 1982 8 Murray 313425 1101023 26 6/30/2005 9 Spring No. 3A2 313028 1102441 10 4/19/1960 10 Tree Root2 313029 1102442 10 4/19/1960 11 Spring No. 1 313102 1102315 10 4/3/1941 12 Unnamed (multiple) 322050 1101422 10 During or prior to 1982 B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Name Location Discharge 1 Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Date Discharge Measured Unnamed2 330436 1095904 7 Kiper 320309 1102340 5 During or prior to 1982 5/17/1951 Kino 313340 1102631 4 3/30/1960 Unnamed 320316 1102233 2 10/12/1950 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 79 to 91 Notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring not displayed on current USGS topo map 3 Average discharge 1 484 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 485 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.13.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Upper San Pedro Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 3.13-5. Figure 3.13-7 shows aquifer flow direction, water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004 and recharge sites. Figure 3.13-8 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 3.13-7. Figure 3.13-9 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 3.13-5 and Figure 3.13-7. • The major aquifers in the basin are basin fill, consisting of younger basin fill, older basin fill and basal conglomerate, and recent stream alluvium. • The basin fill is the principal aquifer although the stream alluvium is also utilized. • Artesian conditions exist primarily in the vicinity of Benson. • Flow direction is generally from south to north. • The basin contains two sub-basins, the Allen Flat Sub-basin in the northern portion and the Sierra Vista Sub-basin. Well Yields • Refer to Table 3.13-5 and Figure 3.13-9. • As shown on Figure 3.13-9 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gpm to more than 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 353 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 600 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 3.13-5. • The principal sources of recharge for this basin are mountain-front recharge and streambed infiltration. • The estimate of natural recharge in this basin is 35,750 acre-feet per year (AFA). Recharge Sites • Refer Figure 3.13-7. • There are two facilities in this basin that recharge effluent to the aquifer. • The City of Sierra Vista Storage Facility is a permitted Underground Storage Facility (USF) by the Department (permit no. 73-583024). Under the permit the facility’s maximum annual storage is 4,149 acre-feet. • The Fort Huachuca Recharge Facility is not a permitted facility. • In 2005, a total of 2,380 acre-feet of effluent was recharged by both facilities. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 3.13-5. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 19.8 million acre-feet (maf) to 59 maf to a depth Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 486 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 3.13-7. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 59 index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for 15 index wells and five other wells are shown in Figure 3.13-7. Index well hydrographs are: A-C, E-I, K-M,P,Q, S and T. • The Department measures water levels daily at four automated groundwater monitoring site in the basin. • Deep water levels are found in the vicinity of Sierra Vista with water levels as deep as 585 feet measured in 2003-2004. Shallow water levels are found near the Mexico border in the vicinity of Highway 92 with levels as shallow as 10 feet in 2003-2004. Table 3.13-5 Groundwater Data for the Upper San Pedro Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 1,825 Name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Recent Stream Alluvium Basin Fill Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated Natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Range 14 - 981 Median 335 (39 wells measured) Range 3 - 3,800 Median 600 (353 wells reported) Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 100 - 2,800 ADWR (1994b) Range 0 - 2,500 Anning and Duet (1994) 35,750 ADWR (2005f) 21,000,000 - 59,000,000 (to 1,200 ft/not given) ADWR (1990 and 1994b) 35,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 48,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) 19,800,000 - 26,100,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (2005f) Current Number of Index Wells: 59 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2006 (688 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate 487 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 488 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 UPPER SAN PEDRO Figure 3.13-8 BASIN Upper San Pedro BasinDEPTH HYDROGRAPHS SHOWING Hydrographs ShowingIN Depth to Water WELLS in Selected Wells TO WATER SELECTED 350 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 400 50 100 525 575 200 250 A 1975 B 1975 C 1975 D 1975 basin fill D-14-22 34BDC WELL DEPTH: 430 ft USE: STOCK 1985 1995 2005 recent stream alluvium D-16-20 34ACB WELL DEPTH: 156 ft USE: IRRIGATION 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 670 ft USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill D-17-19 14ACA 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 270 ft USE: STOCK 2005 basin fill D-17-21 05CCA 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 489 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.13-8 (Cont) UPPERFigure SAN PEDRO BASIN Upper San Pedro Basin HYDROGRAPHS SHOWING DEPTH Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells TO WATER IN SELECTED WELLS E 500 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 550 1975 0 50 575 625 200 250 F 1975 G basin fill D-17-22 17DAA WELL DEPTH: 600 ft USE: STOCK 1985 1995 recent stream alluvium D-18-21 06AAB2 WELL DEPTH: 60 ft USE: DOMESTIC 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: UNUSED 1975 1985 H WELL DEPTH: 253 ft USE: STOCK 1975 1985 2005 2005 basin fill D-18-23 32DBB 1995 2005 basin fill D-19-21 12DBB2 1995 2005 YEAR 490 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 UPPER SAN PEDRO BASIN Figure 3.13-8 (Cont.) HYDROGRAPHS SHOWING DEPTH Upper San Pedro Basin TO WATER IN Depth SELECTED WELLS Hydrographs Showing to Water in Selected Wells 200 I WELL DEPTH: 300 ft USE: DOMESTIC 1975 1985 J WELL DEPTH: 807 ft USE: UNUSED 1975 1985 basin fill D-20-20 07BDB Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 250 275 325 250 K 1995 2005 basin fill D-21-20 16AAC1 1995 WELL DEPTH: 620 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 basin fill D-21-21 31BDC 300 350 1975 375 425 L 1975 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 795 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 2005 basin fill D-22-20 24AAA2 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 491 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.13-8 (Cont) UPPER SAN PEDRO BASIN Upper San Pedro Basin HYDROGRAPHS SHOWING DEPTH Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells TO WATER IN SELECTED WELLS 100 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 150 0 50 100 M 1975 N 1975 O 150 1975 200 250 basin fill D-22-21 23CBA WELL DEPTH: 180 ft USE: DOMESTIC 1985 1995 2005 recent stream alluvium D-22-22 06AAA1 UNSURV WELL DEPTH: 34.5 ft USE: UNUSED 1985 1995 2005 basin fill D-23-21 12DDC WELL DEPTH: 185 ft USE: DOMESTIC 1985 P WELL DEPTH: 220 ft USE: UNUSED 1975 1985 1995 2005 basin fill D-23-22 02AAB YEAR 1995 2005 In Hydrograph N UNSURV indicates there is no land survey for the area the well is in, and the coordinates are projected based on latitude and longitude. 492 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure (Cont) UPPER SAN 3.13-8 PEDRO BASIN Upper San Pedro Basin HYDROGRAPHS SHOWING DEPTH Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells TO WATER IN SELECTED WELLS 50 Q basin fill D-23-22 16BDD WELL DEPTH: 795 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 100 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 1975 0 50 0 50 200 250 Section 3.13 R 1975 S 1985 1995 recent stream alluvium D-23-22 33DCD2 WELL DEPTH: 91.5 ft USE: MONITORING 1985 1995 1985 T WELL DEPTH: 250 ft USE: DOMESTIC 1975 1985 2005 basin fill D-24-22 20BBA WELL DEPTH: 272 ft USE: UNUSED 1975 2005 1995 2005 basin fill D-24-23 06AAA1 YEAR 1995 Upper San Pedro Basin 2005 493 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 494 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 495 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.13.7 Water Quality of the Upper San Pedro Basin Sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s) (DWS), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 3.13-6A. Impaired lakes and streams with site type, name, length of impaired stream reach, area of impaired lake, designated use standard and parameter(s) exceeded is shown in Table 3.13-6B. Figure 3.13-10 shows the location of exceedences and impairment keyed to Table 3.13-6. All community water systems are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and treat water supplies to meet drinking water standards. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 3.13-6A. • Sixty-seven sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded DWS. • Frequently equaled or exceeded parameters include arsenic and fluoride. • Other parameters commonly equaled or exceeded in the sites measured in this basin were cadmium, lead, nitrates, beryllium, mercury and total dissolved solids. Lakes and Streams with impaired waters • Refer to Table 3.13-6B. • Water quality standards were exceeded in three reaches of the San Pedro River. • The parameter exceeded was different for each reach; E. coli, nitrates and copper. • Two of the three impaired stream reaches, San Pedro River from the Mexican border to Charleston and from Babocomari to Dragoon Wash, are part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. Sampling to create a TMDL report is ongoing. Effluent Dependent Reaches • See Figure 3.13-10 • There is one effluent dependent reach, Walnut Gulch, in the vicinity of Tombstone. Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 496 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.13-6 Water Quality Exceedences in the Upper San Pedro Basin 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well 497 Site Location Township Range Section 13 South 13 South 13 South 13 South 15 South 16 South 16 South 16 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 18 South 18 South 18 South 18 South 18 South 18 South 18 South 18 South 18 South 18 South 18 South 18 South 18 South 18 South 18 South 18 South 19 South 19 South 21 East 21 East 21 East 22 East 20 East 20 East 20 East 22 East 20 East 20 East 20 East 20 East 20 East 20 East 20 East 20 East 20 East 20 East 20 East 20 East 20 East 20 East 20 East 20 East 20 East 20 East 21 East 21 East 21 East 21 East 19 East 20 East 21 East 21 East 21 East 21 East 21 East 21 East 21 East 21 East 21 East 21 East 21 East 21 East 21 East 23 East 21 East 22 East 6 6 6 33 31 34 34 15 2 4 9 9 11 11 13 15 16 16 17 22 22 22 23 36 36 36 20 29 31 31 2 1 6 7 7 7 7 8 9 10 10 16 17 21 28 32 36 27 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 As As As As, Cd, Pb As, F As As F TDS As As As As, F F F As As As As As, F As As, F F NO3 F As F F As, F NO3 F As As, F As, Be, F As, Be, F As, Be, F F F As As, F As, F F F F As F As As Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.13-6 Water Quality Exceedences in the Upper San Pedro Basin (Cont) 1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Map Key Site Type 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Site Location Township Range Section 19 South 19 South 20 South 20 South 20 South 20 South 20 South 20 South 21 South 21 South 21 South 22 South 22 South 23 South 23 South 23 South 23 South 23 South 24 South 22 East 22 East 19 East 20 East 20 East 22 East 22 East 22 East 20 East 20 East 21 East 19 East 20 East 21 East 21 East 21 East 21 East 22 East 24 East 27 27 24 6 7 1 1 11 16 22 33 14 12 7 7 18 18 33 4 Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 As As Pb Hg Hg As As As, NO3 Pb Pb NO3 Pb Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Pb TDS Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type a Stream b Stream c Stream Site Name San Pedro River (Babocomari Creek to Dragoon Wash) San Pedro River (Dragoon Wash to Tres Alamos Wash) San Pedro River (Mexico border to Charleston) Length of Area of Impaired Designated Use Impaired Stream Lake (in acres) Standard3 Reach (in miles) Parameter(s) Exceeding Use Standard2 9 NA FBC E. coli 16 NA A&W NO3 28 NA A&W Cu Source: ADEQ 2005e Notes: Because of map scale, feature locations may appear different than the location indicated on the table NA = Not applicable 1 Water quality samples collected between 1977 and 2004. 2 As = Arsenic Be = Beryllium Cd = Cadmium Cu = Copper F= Fluoride Pb = Lead Hg = Mercury NO3 = Nitrate TDS = Total Dissolved Solids 3 A&W = Aquatic and Wildlife FBC = Full Body Contact Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 498 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 499 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 500 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.13.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Upper San Pedro Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 3.13-7. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown on Table 3.13-8. Figure 3.1311 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 3.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 3.13-7 and Figure 3.13-11. • Population has increased by about 1,200 residents a year from 1980 to 2000. • This basin includes the largest population as well as the fastest growing population in the planning area. • Total groundwater use increased from 1971 to 1985 and remained relatively constant until 2000. Groundwater use has recently declined with an average of 29,100 AFA in the period from 2001-2005. • Total current surface water diversions are estimated to be comparable to historic diversion volumes with approximately 4,300 AFA diverted in the period from 1991 – 2005. However, actual diversions have not been consistently reported. • Over 90% of the surface water diversions are for agriculture, however, over 75% of the agricultural water supply is groundwater. • The majority of agricultural lands are in the vicinity of Benson. • Most high intensity municipal and industrial demand is found near the population centers of Sierra Vista, Benson, Tombstone and Bisbee. • Municipal demand constitutes over half the total groundwater use in the period from 19962005. • There is one large inactive mine, the Copper Queen, in the vicinity of Bisbee, and at least two sand and gravel pits in the vicinity of Sierra Vista. All industrial water supply is groundwater. • As of 2005 there were 5,021 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 1,106 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 3.13-8. • There are nine wastewater treatment facilities in the basin. • Eight of these facilities serve communities and one is used for industrial purposes. • The three former Bisbee wastewater facilities were recently consolidated into one new facility at San Jose. This new treatment facility has the capacity to treat 0.81 million gallons of wastewater per day. • Over 56,000 people are served by these facilities, which generate more than 5,200 acre-feet of effluent per year. • Two facilities discharged wastewater for irrigation in 2002 or 2003 but recent treatment facility consolidations in Bisbee will affect disposal methods. Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 501 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 • • Three facilities discharge wastewater for golf course irrigation. Discharge from two facilities recharges the aquifer. Both are designed for the purpose of groundwater recharge. The Sierra Vista facility is permitted by the Department as an Underground Storage Facility and the Fort Huachuca Facility is not. Table 3.13-7 Cultural Water Demand in the Upper San Pedro Basin1 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 Estimated and Projected Population Q < 35 gpm 1,7852 50,999 52,215 53,431 54,647 55,863 57,079 58,295 59,511 60,727 61,943 63,159 64,645 66,130 67,615 69,101 70,586 72,071 73,557 75,042 76,528 78,013 79,945 81,876 83,808 85,739 87,671 97,329 113,044 125,700 WELL TOTALS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) Number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Q > 35 gpm Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 40,500 4,500 53,500 4,500 Data Source 6532 474 130 55,500 4,500 501 77 35,500 4,500 592 95 15,600 1,600 16,500 <300 NR ADWR (1994a) ADWR (2005a) 4,300 765 76 17,400 1,600 15,000 <300 NR 4,300 904 75 17,300 1,900 9,900 <300 NR 4,300 5,021 1,106 USGS (2007) ADWR (2005a) ADWR (2008b) ADWR (2008c) Notes: NR = Not reported. 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs, or effluent. 2 Includes all wells through June 1980. 502 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.13-8 Effluent Generation in the Upper San Pedro Basin Facility Name Ownership City/Location Served Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) Disposal Method Watercourse Evaporation Pond Golf Irrigation Course/Turf Irrigation Apache Nitrogen Products Private Industrial Facility NA NA Benson WWTF Town of Benson Benson 3,505 560 San Pedro Fort Huachuca WWTP US Army Ft.Huachuca 8,4141 1,053 Mountain View Huachuca City City of Huachuca City Huachuca City 600 150 X Naco WWTF Naco SD Naco 846 83 X San Jose WWTF 2 City of Bisbee Bisbee 4,900 438 Sierra Vista WWTP City of Sierra Vista Sierra Vista 36,000 2,800 Southland Sanitation Private Sierra Vista 282 63 Tombstone WWTP City of Tombstone Tombstone 1,465 112 56,012 5,259 Total Wildlife Area Discharge Industrial to Another Use Facility Infiltration Basins Other Current Treatment Level X X X Turquoise Valley3 X X Walnut Gulch X Year of Record NA X Greenbush Draw Population Not Served P Adv.Trt.I 1,206 2005 Adv.Tr.ll NA 2003 Secondary 1,195 2002 Secondary NA 2000 Secondary 1,190 2007 Adv.Tr.ll 4,800 2002 Secondary NA 2007 Secondary 300 2000 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others Notes: Year of Record is for the volume of effluent treated/generated P = Permited Underground Storage Facility NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTF: Wastewater Treatment Facility WWTP: Wastewater Treatment Plant SD: Sanitation District Adv Tr l: Advanced treatment level l Adv. Tr. ll: Advanced treatment level ll 1 Population varies due to temporary residents 2 Consolidation of the city's 3 WWTF's in 2006 3 Sometime in 2009, approximately 100 AF will be delivered for irrigation Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 503 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 504 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 505 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.13.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Upper San Pedro Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 3.13-9A and B for water reports and analysis of adequate water supply. Designated water provider information is shown in Table 3.13-9C with date of application, date the designation was issued and projected or annual estimated demand. Figure 3.13-12 shows the locations of subdivisions and designated providers keyed to the Table A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • All lots receiving an adequacy determination are in Cochise County. Two hundred and two water adequacy determinations have been made through December 2008. Of the 24,923 lots in 201 subdivisions for which lot information is available, 18,218 lots, or 73%, were determined to be adequate. In 1984, the Department began issuing determinations of inadequate water supply in the Sierra Vista Sub-basin due to lack of legal availability. At that time, the Gila River adjudication drew into question whether water withdrawn from certain wells would be considered groundwater or surface water. In 1993, the Department reexamined its position and determined that legal availability is based on the current legal right to use the water, and not on an adjudication determination that has yet to be made. Therefore, since 1993, the Department has not issued determinations that water supplies are inadequate in the Sierra Vista Sub-basin solely for lack of legal availability related to the possible future decisions in the Gila River adjudication. Other reasons for an inadequacy determination were because the applicant chose not to submit necessary information and/or available hydrologic data was insufficient to make a determination and water quality. Eight analyses of adequate water supply, for a total of 7,220 lots, have been issued in this basin. There are two designated water providers, Bachman Springs Utility Company and City of Benson. Total projected or annual estimated demand for the two providers is 14,686 acrefeet. Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 506 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.13-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Upper San Pedro Basin1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Location Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Township Range Section No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Cochise 21 South 20 East 35 45 53-401926 Adequate Buena Loma #112 Cochise 22 South 21 East 7 7 53-500364 Inadequate B 2/7/1985 Buena Vista Ranchettes Cochise 17 South 19 East 5 20 53-500368 Inadequate B 7/16/1987 Dry Lot Subdivision Campstone Cochise 22 South 21 East 5 84 53-402082 Adequate 9/11/2006 Bella Vista Water Company 6 Campstone Cochise 21 South 20 East 5, 6, 8 900 53-500388 Inadequate 8/17/1987 Town of Huachuca City 7 Campus Drive Business Park Cochise 21 South 21 East 31 18 53-400029 Adequate Map Key Subdivision Name County 1 Bella Sonoma 3 4 5 Date of Determination 8/3/2006 B 3/10/1999 8 Canyon De Flores , Phase II Cochise 22 South 20 East 23, 24 355 53-400908 Adequate 6/2/2003 9 Canyon De Flores Phase 1 - C Cochise 22 South 20 East 24 69 53-400597 Adequate 9/27/2001 10 Canyon De Flores Phase ID Cochise 22 South 20 East 24 64 53-400659 Adequate 1/16/2002 11 Canyon de Flores Phase E Cochise 22 South 20 East 24 52 53-400686 Adequate 5/8/2002 12 Canyon de Flores Phase 1F Cochise 22 South 20 East 24 61 53-400842 Adequate 13 Carmel Cochise 21 South 21 East 31 54 53-500398 Inadequate 14 Casa Antigua Condominiums Cochise 22 South 20 East 12 152 53-402097 Adequate 15 Casitas Place #2 Cochise 22 South 21 East 6 40 53-500421 Inadequate 16 Casitas Place Condominiums Cochise 22 South 21 East 6 40 53-500422 Adequate 5/26/1983 17 Chaparral Village North Cochise 22 South 21 East 5 549 53-400847 Adequate 12/5/2002 18 Charleston Village Cochise 21 South 21 East 29 185 53-500448 Adequate 11/3/1993 19 Cimmaron Place Cochise 21 South 20 East 35 47 53-401496 Adequate 12/6/2004 11/2/2002 B 3/3/1987 9/21/2006 B 6/24/1985 20 Circle G at Ramsey Ranch Cochise 23 South 21 East 6 437 53-500459 Adequate 21 Circle S Ranches Cochise 23 South 21 East 17 36 53-500460 Inadequate B 12/12/1989 2/24/1995 B 3/21/1986 Water Provider at the Time of Application Bella Vista Water Company Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Pueblo del Sol Water Company Pueblo del Sol Water Company Pueblo del Sol Water Company Pueblo del Sol Water Company Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Arizona Water Company Sierra Vista Bella Vista Water Company Southwest Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company East Slope Water Company Horseshoe Ranch Water Company Pueblo Del Sol Water Company 22 Cochise Commercial Center Cochise 22 South 21 East 7 15 53-500476 Inadequate 23 Cochise Terrace Cochise 17 South 20 East 18 308 53-300410 Adequate 1/20/1998 City of Benson 24 Cochise Vista Cochise 20 South 20 East 31 45 53-500478 Adequate 6/25/1973 Town of Huachuca City 25 Cochise Vista Condominiums Cochise 22 South 21 East 7 17 53-500479 Adequate 8/11/1983 Pueblo Del Sol Water Company 26 Compass Point Cochise 23 South 22 East 19 30 53-400685 Adequate 4/2/2002 Dry Lot Subdivision 27 Copper Pointe Estates Cochise 22 South 20 East 12 52 53-400729 Adequate 10/22/2002 Arizona Water Company 28 Copper Sky Estates Cochise 22 South 20 East 11, 12 180 53-400744 Adequate 7/15/2002 29 Corona del Sol Cochise 22 South 21 East 7 9 53-500510 Inadequate B 12/17/1984 30 Coronado Estates Cochise 20 South 20 East 18, 19 7 53-500511 Inadequate B 3/20/1989 507 Arizona Water Company Sierra Vista Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Cochise Water Company Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.13-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Upper San Pedro Basin1 (Cont) A. Water Adequacy Reports No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 A1,B Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 2/1/1994 Dry Lot Subdivision 11/4/1983 Bella Vista Water Company Subdivision Name County 31 Cottonwoods of San Pedro, The 32 Coventry Estates 33 Covey Run Cochise 23 South 21 East 21 26 53-401507 Adequate 34 Crestview Cochise 23 South 24 East 29 54 53-500540 Inadequate 35 Crossroads Commerce Center 2001 Cochise 21 South 21 East 31 19 53-400501 Adequate 36 Deer Ridge Estates Cochise 23 South 21 East 27 20 53-300294 Adequate 37 Desert Mist Commerce Center Cochise 22 South 21 East 5 52 53-500572 Inadequate B 3/9/1989 38 Desert Shadows #2A Cochise 22 South 21 East 5 51 53-500580 Inadequate B 1/7/1993 39 Desert Shadows #2B Cochise 22 South 21 East 5 33 53-500581 Inadequate B 3/15/1994 40 Eagle Ridge #1 Cochise 22 South 20 East 24 59 53-500595 Inadequate B 10/14/1986 Township Range Section Cochise 23 South 22 East 16 90 53-500520 Inadequate Cochise 21 South 20 East 34 20 53-500200 Adequate A1 11/14/2005 Dry Lot Subdivision 6/8/1993 AWC-Bisbee system 5/8/2001 Bella Vista Water Company 5/7/1997 Dry Lot Subdivision Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Pueblo Del Sol Water Company 41 Eagle Ridge #2 Cochise 22 South 20 East 24 155 53-500596 Inadequate B 7/9/1987 42 El Rancho Estates Cochise 23 South 24 East 29 39 53-501727 Inadequate A1 7/10/1989 43 Executive Acres Cochise 23 South 20 East 1 26 53-500627 Inadequate A1 5/2/1985 Dry Lot Subdivision Arizona Water Company 44 Fairway Villas Cochise 22 South 20 East 13 35 53-500637 Inadequate B 4/13/1993 Pueblo Del Sol Water Company 45 Foothills Ranch Cochise 23 South 21 East 7 49 53-500665 Inadequate B 10/28/1992 Nicksville Water Company 46 Foothills Ranch, #4,5,6 Cochise 23 South 21 East 18 53 53-500666 Adequate 1/31/1995 47 Gatewood Cochise 21 South 20 East 35 75 53-401533 Adequate 11/5/2004 Golden Acres Commercial #1 Cochise 22 South 21 East 19 9 53-500709 Adequate 7/22/1976 22 South 21 East 17 27 53-500710 Adequate 7/21/1981 48 49 Golden Acres Mobile Home Park Cochise #2 Golden Acres Mobile Home Park Cochise #3 22 South 21 East 19 278 53-500711 Adequate 6/17/1974 51 Golden Meadows #3 Cochise 22 South 21 East 30 8 53-500719 Adequate 8/9/1979 52 Golden Vistas Cochise 22 South 21 East 30 59 53-300049 Adequate 3/29/1996 53 Golden Vistas, Phases 2 & 3 Cochise 22 South 21 East 29 120 53-400319 Adequate 4/14/2000 54 Grandeur Carmel Cochise 21 South 21 East 31 54 53-500724 Adequate 10/26/1993 55 Greenbriar Estates, Lots 1-32 Cochise 22 South 20 East 13 32 53-300274 Adequate 4/11/1997 50 Section 3.13 Location Map Key 56 Greenways, The Cochise 22 South 20 East 13 21 53-500763 Adequate 57 Heritage Park Cochise 17 South 20 East 4 89 53-500783 Inadequate 58 Highland Park Estates Cochise 22 South 20 East 20 110 53-400710 Adequate 59 Hobby Horse Ranch Cochise 22 South 21 East 23, 26 35 53-300035 Adequate 60 Hodgins Acres Cochise 20 South 20 East 7 129 53-500795 Inadequate Upper San Pedro Basin 11/23/1981 A1,B B Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Southland Utilities Company Southland Utilities Company Southland Utilities Company Southland Utilities Company Southland Utilities Company Southland Utilities Company Bella Vista Water Company Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Pueblo Del Sol Water Company 7/31/1984 Konen Water Company 5/14/2002 Arizona Water Company 7/20/1995 Dry Lot Subdivision Whetstone Water Improvement District 7/17/1990 508 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.13-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Upper San Pedro Basin1 (Cont) A. Water Adequacy Reports Map Key Subdivision Name County 61 Holiday at Pueblo Del Sol 62 63 64 65 66 Location No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Township Range Section Cochise 22 South 21 East 19 191 53-401627 Adequate Horseshoe Ranch Mobile Home Cochise Estates 23 South 21 East 17 68 53-500805 Inadequate Cochise 20 South 21 East 31 NA NA Inadequate D 8/17/1987 Town of Huachuca City Huachuca Commercial Center B Cochise 20 South 21 East 5, 6 47 53-500806 Inadequate D 8/17/1987 Town of Huachuca City Huachuca Commercial Center Huachuca Mountain Estates 6/7/2005 B 10/23/1989 Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Horseshoe Ranch Water Company Cochise 22 South 20 East 10 370 53-500807 Adequate 8/22/1975 Arizona Water Company Huachuca Mountain Village,A&B Cochise 22 South 20 East 25 208 53-500808 Adequate 5/25/1977 Pueblo Del Sol Water Company 6/13/1987 AWC-Bisbee system 67 Huachuca Terrace Cochise 23 South 24 East 29 9 53-500809 Inadequate 68 Ironhorse Village Cochise 17 South 20 East 16 48 53-300394 Adequate A1 12/15/1997 69 Kinjockity Ranch Cochise 23 South 21 East 32, 33, 34 281 53-401824 Adequate 10/7/2005 70 La Marquesa Cochise 23 South 21 East 21 103 53-700214 Adequate 8/10/2007 71 La Pradera Estates Cochise 23 South 21 East 21 26 53-402012 Adequate 7/6/2006 72 La Terraza Phase B Cochise 22 South 20 East 24 33 53-400712 Adequate 8/7/2002 73 La Terraza, Phase C Cochise 22 South 20 East 23 28 53-401003 Adequate 9/17/2003 74 Legends at Valiente I Cochise 21 South 20 East 35 104 53-401337 Adequate 7/7/2004 75 Legends at Valiente II Cochise 21 South 20 East 35 100 53-401583 Adequate 2/4/2005 City of Benson Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company 76 Linda Vista Cochise 23 South 21 East 8 76 53-500908 Adequate 2/27/1996 77 Loma Catarina Cochise 17 South 20 East 15 20 53-500910 Adequate 11/4/1974 City of Benson 78 London Square #2 Cochise 21 South 20 East 34 42 53-500913 Adequate 8/19/1994 Bella Vista Water Company 80 Los Ranchos Subdivision Cochise 23 South 21 East 25, 26 70 53-400238 Adequate 2/15/2000 Dry Lot Subdivision 81 McCormick Place Cochise 22 South 21 East 6 4 53-500941 Adequate 9/13/1983 82 Meadows, The Cochise 22 South 20 East 3 406 53-500946 Adequate 83 Mesa Mountain Northeast Cochise 21 South 21 East 33 20 53-500967 Inadequate 84 Mesa Verde Estates Cochise 22 South 21 East 5 66 53-401257 Adequate 1/25/2005 85 Mesa Verde/Mountain View Cochise 22 South 21 East 5 127 53-500970 Adequate 3/15/1994 86 Miracle Valley Cochise 23 South 22 East 31 23 53-300271 Inadequate 87 Mission Coronado Estates Cochise 22 South 21 East 19 97 53-500988 Adequate 6/12/1974 B C 11/4/1991 6/3/1997 10/23/1979 88 Mission Hills Estates Cochise 22 South 21 East 7 129 53-500990 Inadequate B 4/13/1993 89 Mission Shadows Cochise 22 South 20 East 13 71 53-500991 Inadequate B 3/6/1987 90 Montebello Cochise 21 South 21 East 31 39 53-501008 Adequate 91 Mountain Ridge Cochise 22 South 20 East 24 364 53-501021 Inadequate 509 6/23/1981 B 4/13/1993 Nicksville Water Company Southwest Water Company Southwest Water Company Arizona Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Miracle Valley Water Company Southland Utilities Company Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.13-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Upper San Pedro Basin1 (Cont) A. Water Adequacy Reports Section 3.13 Map Key Subdivision Name County 92 Mountain Shadows Cochise Location Township Range Section 22 South 20 East 24, 25 No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination 244 53-501022 Inadequate B 2/12/1986 93 Mountain Shadows #A Cochise 22 South 20 East 25 82 53-501024 Adequate 7/9/1987 94 Mountain Shadows "F", 1-40 Cochise 22 South 20 East 25, 26 40 53-300253 Adequate 2/19/1997 D 8/12/1987 A1 7/30/1992 Water Provider at the Time of Application Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Pueblo Del Sol Water Company 95 Mountain View Terrace Cochise 22 South 20 East 13, 24 169 53-501036 Inadequate 96 Mustang Heights Cochise 20 South 19 East 14 33 53-501044 Adequate 97 Northpark Cochise 21 South 20 East 35 59 53-501057 Inadequate 98 Oakmont Subdivision Cochise 22 South 20 East 12 87 53-500083 Adequate 99 Oasis Condominiums Cochise 22 South 21 East 6 184 53-501069 Inadequate 100 Ocotillo Terrace Subdivision, 122 Cochise 21 South 20 East 35 22 53-300422 Adequate 5/27/1998 101 Ocotillo Villas Cochise 21 South 20 East 35 28 53-300023 Adequate 6/28/1995 102 Park Place Townhouses Cochise 23 South 24 East 29 36 53-501112 Inadequate 7/17/1985 AWC-Bisbee system 103 Patton Subdivision Cochise 21 South 20 East 8 10 53-501127 Adequate 7/3/1979 Town of Huachuca City 105 Pueblo Las Brisas Cochise 21 South 20 East 35 16 53-401946 Adequate 4/27/2006 106 Pueblo del Sol Cochise 22 South 21 East 7 127 53-501215 Adequate 6/24/1974 107 Pueblo del Sol #5,6 Cochise 22 South 21 East 7 48 53-501217 Adequate 10/15/1974 108 Pueblo del Sol #7 Cochise 22 South 21 East 5, 6 112 53-501218 Adequate 3/12/1976 109 Pueblo del Sol #8 Cochise 22 South 21 East 6, 7 115 53-501219 Adequate 6/21/1977 110 Pueblo del Sol Tract 109 Cochise 22 South 21 East 6, 7 124 53-501220 Adequate 4/18/1980 111 Pueblo del Sol Tract 110 Cochise 22 South 21 East 5, 6, 7 178 53-501221 Adequate 4/23/1982 112 Pueblo del Sol Tract 111 Cochise 22 South 20 East 13 278 53-501222 Adequate 9/8/1981 113 Pueblo del Sol Tract 112 Cochise 22 South 21 East 7 538 53-501223 Adequate 10/15/1982 114 Pueblo del Sol Tract 113 Cochise 22 South 21 East 7 6 53-501224 Adequate 10/15/1982 115 Pueblo del Sol Tract 115 Cochise 22 South 21 East 7 360 53-501225 Inadequate 116 Pueblo del Sol Co. Club Estate Cochise 22 South 20 East 13 1165 53-501226 Adequate 117 Quail Hills Cochise 21 South 20 East 5, 8 50 53-501233 Adequate 3/22/1978 118 Quail Hollow Cochise 21 South 20 East 35 149 53-501235 Adequate 12/30/1982 5/31/1974 8/27/2007 B B B 5/23/1985 11/30/1984 10/23/1974 Mustang Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Arizona Water Company Sierra Vista Southwest Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Southwest Water Company Southwest Water Company Southwest Water Company Pueblo del Sol Water Company Southwest Water Company Southwest Water Company Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Town of Huachuca City Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company 119 Quail Hollow #2 Cochise 21 South 20 East 29 5 53-501236 Adequate 12/8/1993 120 Radine Ridge Cochise 17 South 20 East 15 66 53-501243 Adequate 10/1/1992 City of Benson 121 Ranchitos Los Alamos #2 Cochise 17 South 20 East 4 64 53-501251 Adequate 1/2/1980 K-7 Development, Inc. Upper San Pedro Basin 510 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.13-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Upper San Pedro Basin1 (Cont) A. Water Adequacy Reports Map Key Subdivision Name County 122 Rancho Arizona Subdivision 123 Ranchos Carmela Estates 124 125 126 Location No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application Adequate 12/1/2004 Dry Lot Subdivision Adequate 10/23/1979 53-501279 Adequate 11/3/1993 53-401584 Adequate 2/4/2005 53-400757 Adequate 7/12/2002 Township Range Section Cochise 23 South 22 East 29 48 53-401225 Cochise 21 South 20 East 25 44 53-501277 Ranchos Carmella #3,4 Cochise 21 South 20 East 25 68 Reflections at Valiente Cochise 21 South 20 East 35 146 Remington Park East Cochise 22 South 20 East 11, 12 107 Rincon View Subdivision, Lots 1Cochise 59 Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Arizona Water Company Sierra Vista Mescal Lakes Water Systems Inc 17 South 19 East 5, 8 59 53-400865 Adequate 1/24/2003 128 Rio Corte Estates Cochise 23 South 22 East 17 22 53-700351 Adequate 7/13/2007 Dry lot Subdivision 129 Rio Mesa Cochise 22 South 21 East 5 139 53-700216 Adequate 8/10/2007 Bella Vista Water Company 130 San Pedro Estates Cochise 16 South 20 East 35 36 43-401638 Adequate 5/6/2005 Pomerene Domestic Water Improvement District 133 San Pedro Terrace Cochise 23 South 22 East 7 11 53-300117 Adequate 6/25/1996 134 Sandalwood Cochise 22 South 20 East 2 36 53-501367 Inadequate 135 Seminole Winds Cochise 21 South 20 East 8 93 53-501384 Adequate 4/29/1994 136 Si Tengo Cochise 17 South 20 East 15 6 53-501392 Adequate 12/3/1980 City of Benson 137 Sierra Bonita Estates Cochise 23 South 24 East 28 174 53-501395 Adequate 6/15/1979 AWC-Bisbee system 127 B 3/31/1988 San Pedro Terrace Homeowners Assoc. Bella Vista Water Company Town of Huachuca City 138 Sierra Bonita Estates B Cochise 23 South 24 East 28 50 53-400326 Inadequate A1 4/24/2000 AWC-Bisbee system 139 Sierra Bonita Ranches Cochise 22 South 21 East 11 30 53-400937 Inadequate C 11/3/2003 Arizona Water Company 140 Sierra Carmichael Condos Cochise 21 South 20 East 34 120 53-501396 Inadequate B 3/24/1986 141 Sierra Charles Condominiums Cochise 21 South 20 East 34 120 53-501397 Adequate 142 Sierra Court Cochise 21 South 20 East 34 8 53-501398 Adequate 5/9/1994 143 Sierra Grande Cochise 24 South 21 East 14 2400 53-501401 Adequate 7/18/1973 3/24/1986 144 Sierra Shadows Cochise 17 South 20 East 15 6 53-300563 Adequate 12/8/1998 145 Sierra Springs Cochise 22 South 21 East 6 70 53-501402 Adequate 1/19/1995 146 Sierra Tacoma Condos Cochise 21 South 20 East 34 76 53-501403 Inadequate B 3/24/1986 147 Sierra Vista Estates #2 Cochise 22 South 21 East 31 4 53-501405 Inadequate B 9/13/1989 148 Sierra Vista Industrial Park Cochise 21 South 20 East 31 34 53-501406 Adequate 6/15/1979 11/18/2005 Southwest Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Unformed Company by Developer City of Benson Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company East Slope Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Arizona Water Company Sierra Vista 149 Silverado Cochise 22 South 20 East 11 90 53-401876 Adequate 150 Skov Estates Subdivision Cochise 17 South 20 East 26 85 43-700528 Adequate 7/22/2008 Undetermined 152 Somerset Cochise 22 South 20 East 1 16 53-501434 Inadequate B 4/15/1988 Arizona Water Company 153 Sonora Verde Estates Cochise 16 South 20 East 35 43 53-501440 Inadequate B 12/1/1987 Pomerene Domestic Water Improvement District 511 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.13-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Upper San Pedro Basin1 (Cont) A. Water Adequacy Reports Map Key 154 County St. David Countryside Estates, 1Cochise 28 Location Township Range Section 17 South 21 East 32 No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination 28 53-501448 Adequate Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 B Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 4/2/1997 Saint David Water Association 155 St. David Townsite Cochise 18 South 21 East 16 32 53-501449 Inadequate 2/24/1989 Stratman Water Company 156 Strathan Addition Cochise 18 South 21 East 9 21 53-501460 Adequate 4/1/1975 Saint David Water Association 157 Sulger City (9/1974) Cochise 20 South 20 East 6 13 53-501471 Adequate 9/26/1974 Sulger Water Company 158 Sulger City (1976) Cochise 20 South 20 East 6 10 53-501467 Adequate 1/14/1976 Watermill Water Company 159 Sulger City (1982) Lots 19-32 Cochise 20 South 20 East 6 14 53-501468 Adequate 10/14/1982 Windmil Water Company 160 Sulger City (1993) Lots 1-33 Cochise 20 South 20 East 6 33 53-501469 Adequate 8/30/1993 Dry Lot Subdivision 161 Sulger City Lots Cochise 20 South 20 East 6 30 53-501472 Adequate 7/24/1980 Dry Lot Subdivision 162 Sulger City No. 2 Cochise 20 South 20 East 6 21 53-300306 Adequate 6/24/1997 Sulger Water Company 163 Summit Heights Cochise 22 South 20 East 11 187 53-401877 Adequate 3/14/2006 164 Summit, The/Sierra Vista Cochise 22 South 20 East 11, 12 1499 53-501476 Inadequate D 11/2/1984 165 The Estates at Willow Springs, Lots 1-110 & Tracts A-O Cochise 19 South 22 East 28, 29 110 53-402015 Inadequate A1 9/11/2007 166 The Oaks Cochise 23 South 21 East 20, 29 113 53-700419 Inadequate A1 11/8/2007 167 The Ranch Cochise 21 South 21 East 30 226 53-400537 Adequate 7/20/2001 168 The Ranch at Tombstone Cochise 21 South 22 East 9, 10, 11 516 43-700559 Adequate 9/25/2008 NA 169 Tierra Del Sol Estates Cochise 23 South 22 East 17 8 53-400207 Adequate 12/8/1999 Dry Lot Subdivision A1 Arizona Water Company Sierra Vista Arizona Water Company Sierra Vista Lucky Hills Water Co. Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company 170 Tierra de Las Flores Cochise 23 South 24 East 33 142 53-501545 Inadequate 4/21/1989 AWC-Bisbee system 171 Tombstone Territorial Estates Cochise 20 South 22 East 1 419 53-501562 Adequate 7/26/1973 City of Tombstone 172 Tombstone Territory Estates #1 Cochise 20 South 22 East 1 19 53-501563 Adequate 4/24/1989 City of Tombstone 173 Tombstone Villas Cochise 20 South 22 East 2 114 53-501564 Inadequate 2/25/1986 City of Tombstone A1 174 Town & Country Estates Cochise 22 South 20 East 11 80 53-501568 Adequate 7/18/1973 Arizona Water Company 175 Town & Country Estates #3,4 Cochise 22 South 20 East 11 90 53-501569 Adequate 3/18/1975 Arizona Water Company Town & Country Estates 5,11,12 Cochise 176 Section 3.13 Subdivision Name 22 South 20 East 10, 11 183 53-501573 Adequate 10/26/1976 Arizona Water Company 177 Town & Country Estates #6 Cochise 22 South 20 East 11 99 53-501570 Adequate 6/21/1977 Arizona Water Company 178 Town & Country Estates #7 Cochise 22 South 20 East 11 87 53-501571 Adequate 2/21/1978 Arizona Water Company 179 Town & Country Estates #8 Cochise 22 South 20 East 11 52 53-501572 Adequate 8/4/1976 Arizona Water Company 180 Townsite of Naco Cochise 24 South 24 East 18, 19 443 53-501575 Inadequate 1/28/1985 Naco Water Company 181 Tract 114, Lots 1-35 Cochise 22 South 20 East 13 35 53-501576 Adequate 8/23/1994 182 Tract 117, Lots 1-67 Cochise 22 South 20 East 13 67 53-501577 Adequate 4/13/1994 183 Trinity Terrace, Lots 1-17 Cochise 18 South 21 East 16, 17 17 53-300503 Adequate 184 Villa La Casa Cochise 22 South 21 East 7 4 53-501627 Inadequate 185 Villa del Rio #1 Cochise 22 South 20 East 3 20 53-501620 Adequate Upper San Pedro Basin A1 8/5/1998 B 6/21/1985 11/12/1975 Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Southwest Water Company 512 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.13-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Upper San Pedro Basin1 (Cont) A. Water Adequacy Reports Map Key Subdivision Name County 186 Villa del Rio #2 187 Village Green Location No. of Lots ADWR File No.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Township Range Section Cochise 22 South 20 East 3 68 53-501622 Adequate Cochise 22 South 20 East 1 141 53-501633 Inadequate Reason(s) for Inadequacy Determination3 Date of Determination 12/14/1976 B 11/13/1984 188 Village Park Cochise 22 South 20 East 18 40 53-501635 Adequate 3/12/1976 189 Village, The Cochise 22 South 20 East 2 162 53-501636 Adequate 1/26/1976 190 Villas San Luis Cochise 21 South 20 East 34 28 53-501638 Adequate 2/9/1994 191 Villas de San Andreas Cochise 21 South 20 East 35 79 53-501637 Adequate 6/21/1977 192 Vista Village #2 Cochise 21 South 20 East 35 67 53-501657 Adequate 7/27/1973 193 Vista Village #3 Cochise 21 South 20 East 35 73 53-501658 Adequate 9/16/1976 194 Vista Village #5 Cochise 21 South 20 East 35 122 53-501659 Adequate 9/29/1977 195 Vista Village #6 Cochise 21 South 20 East 35 105 53-501660 Adequate 5/2/1979 196 Vista del Oro Cochise 23 South 21 East 20 44 53-300285 Adequate 5/22/1997 198 Vistaview Estates Cochise 22 South 21 East 5 356 53-400050 Adequate 4/20/1999 200 Walnut Valley Ranch Cochise 19 South 22 East 32 43 53-700361 Adequate 7/11/2007 201 Whetstone Hills Cochise 20 South 20 East 7 38 53-300377 Adequate 11/10/1997 202 Whetstone Mesa Estates #5 (1995) Cochise 20 South 20 East 7 15 53-300040 Adequate 7/24/1995 203 White Wing Cochise 22 South 20 East 35 114 53-501681 Adequate 2/5/1980 204 Wild Horse Cochise 23 South 21 East 29 77 53-300076 Adequate 1/4/1996 205 Wild Horse #2 Cochise 23 South 21 East 28 79 53-300152 Adequate 6/12/1996 206 Windmere Subdivision Cochise 22 South 20 East 2 65 53-501694 Adequate 10/4/1978 207 Windsong Cochise 22 South 20 East 1 158 53-501695 Adequate 10/3/1978 Cochise 22 South 20 East 14 438 53-300166 Adequate 11/4/1996 208 209 210 Winterhaven Country Club Estates Winterhaven, Phases 2E, 3,4A and 5 Y-Lightning Subdividion 513 Cochise 22 South 20 East 14 438 53-401002 Adequate 9/17/2003 Cochise 23 South 21 East 4 30 53-401852 Adequate 11/14/2005 Water Provider at the Time of Application Southwest Water Company Arizona Water Company Sierra Vista Arizona Water Company Sierra Vista Cochise Enterprises, Inc. Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Lucky Hills Water Co. Whetstone Water Improvement District Whetstone Water Improvement District Antelope Run Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Bella Vista Water Company Arizona Water Company Sierra Vista Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Pueblo Del Sol Water Company Dry Lot Subdivision Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.13-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Upper San Pedro Basin1 (Cont) B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply No. of Lots 16 South 20 East 33 208 43-700443 7/28/2008 Undetermined 17 South 20 East 4 43 43-700442 7/28/2008 Undetermined 16 South 20 East 21, 28 637 43-700411 12/4/2007 NA 17 South 19 East 13 850 43-401730 7/13/2005 NA Cochise 17 South 19 East 13 225 43-402189 7/3/2007 City of Benson Cochise 17 South 19 East 14, 15, 22, 23, 26, 27 4859 43-401628 12/12/2005 Smith Ranch Water Co. 2 Benson Farms Estates Cochise 79 Los Ranchitos Estates Cochise Pomerene River Estates Cochise Cochise 104 132 San Pedro Partners Master Planned Community San Pedro Partners MasterPlanned Community 151 Smith Ranch ADWR File No.2 Section Subdivision Name 131 Location Range Map Key County Township Date of Determination Water Provider at the Time of Application 197 Vistaview Estates Cochise 22 South 21 East 4 356 43-300190 10/28/1996 NA 199 Walnut Valley Ranch Cochise 19 South 22 East 32 42 43-402021 5/18/2006 Lucky Hills Water Co. C. Designated Adequate Water Supply Map Key Water Provider Name County Designation No. Date Application Received Date Application Issued Year of Projected or Annual Demand a Bachman Springs Utility Company Projected or Annual Estimated Demand Cochise 40-401893.0000 1,212.62 10/4/2005 6/5/2006 2014 b City of Benson Cochise 41-401803.0001 13,474 4/19/2007 6/14/2008 2021 Source: ADWR 2008a Notes: 1 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA= Data not currently available to ADWR Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 514 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 515 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 516 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Upper San Pedro Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Anderson, T.W. and G.W. Freethey, 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2005a, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005b, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005c, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005d, Effluent dependent waters: GIS cover, received December 2005. (Water Quality Map) _____, 2005e, Impaired lakes and reaches: GIS cover, received January 2006. (Water Quality Map) _____, 2005f, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2004, Water quality exceedences for drinking water providers in Arizona: Data file, received September 2004. (Water Quality Table/Map) Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us. (Cultural Water Demand Map) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2008b, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2008c, Municipal surface water demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005a, Agricultural Surface Water Use Estimates: Unpublished analysis, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005b, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit. _____, 2005c, 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: Data files, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005d, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005e, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. _____, 2005f, Upper San Pedro Basin Active Management Area Review Report. _____, 2005g, Wells55: Database. _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. _____, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 517 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 _____, 1992, Hydrographic Survey Report for the San Pedro Watershed. _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received April 2005. _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/ index.html. _____, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state. az.us/alris/index. html. _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az. us/alris/index.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. B Barnes, R.L. and F. Putman, 2003, Maps showing groundwater conditions in the Upper San Pedro basin, Cochise, Graham and Santa Cruz counties, Arizona, Dec. 2001 – Jan. 2002: ADWR Hydrologic Map Series 34. Brown, D.E., N.B. Carmony and R.M. Turner, 1981, Drainage map of Arizona showing perennial streams and some important wetlands: Arizona Game and Fish Department. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1999, National Conservation Areas: GIS Cover, accessed September 2006 at http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/maps/gis_files.html. C Coes, A.L., D.J. Gellenbeck and D.C. Towne, 1999, Groundwater quality in the Sierra Vista sub basin, Arizona, 1996-1997: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 99-4056, 50 p (Water Quality Table/Map) D Diroll, M. and D. Marsh, 2006, Status of water quality in Arizona-2004 integrated 305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report: ADEQ report. (Water Quality Table/Map) E Environmental Protection Agency, 2005a, Surf Your Watershed: Facility reports, accessed April 2005 at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005b, 2000 and 1996, Clean Watershed Needs Survey: datasets, accessed March 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/ cwns/index.htm. (Effluent Generation Table) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2003, Wastewater systems improvements project environmental assessment, City of Bisbee, Cochise County Arizona. (Effluent Generation Table) 518 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. (Surface Water Conditions Map) M Montgomery & Associates, Inc., 1999, Hydrological investigations of groundwater movement and sources of base flow to Sonoita Creek near Patagonia Arizona, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 1998, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism. P Pope, G.L., P.D. Rigas and C.F. Smith, 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225. U United States Geological Survey, 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 & December 2005 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program - Southwest Regional Gap analysis study- land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu / swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. W Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 519 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Supplemental Reading Anning, D.W., 2003, Assessment of selected inorganic constituents in streams in the central basins study area, Arizona and northern New Mexico, through 1998: USGS Water Resource Investigations Report 03-4063. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2006, San Pedro River Total Maximum Daily Load, ADEQ Fact Sheet 06-14. _____, 1998, Apache Powder Project Summary – St. David, Cochise County, January, 1998: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 7p. ASL Hydrologic and Environmental Services, 1994, Water Supply Report, Whetstone Ranch, Benson, Arizona. Baillie, M.N., J.F. Hogan, B. Ekwurzel, A.K. Wahi, and C.J. Eastoe, 2007, Quantifying water sources to a semiarid riparian ecosystem, San Pedro River, Arizona using geochemical tracers, J. Geophys. Res. – Biogeosciences, 112(G3). Blakemore, T.E., 2005, Trends in streamflow of the San Pedro River, southeastern Arizona: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Brooks, P.D., and K. Lohse, Water quality in the San Pedro River, in Integrating Science and Policy for Water Management, ed. by J.C. Stromberg and B.J. Tellman, Tucson, University of Arizona Press (in press). Browning-Aiken, A., B. Morehouse, A. Davis, M. Wilder, R. Varady, D. Goodrich, R. Carter, D. Moreno and E.D. McGovern, 2007, A climate, water management, and policy in the San Pedro Basin: Results of a survey of Mexican stakeholders near the U.S.–Mexico border, Climatic Change, 85(3-4): 323-341, 2007. Browning-Aiken, A., R.G. Varady, D. Goodrich, H. Richter, T. Sprouse and W. J. Shuttleworth, 2006, Integrating science and policy for water management: A case study of the Upper San Pedro River Basin, in Hydrology and Water Law - Bridging the Gap: A Case Study of HELP Basins, ed. by J. S. Wallace and P. Wouters, 2006. Browning-Aiken, A., H. Richter, D. Goodrich, B. Strain, and R.G. Varady, 2004, The Upper San Pedro Basin: Fostering collaborative binational watershed management, Special issue of International Journal of Water Resources Development 20(3), ed. by L. Andersson and D.W. Moody, pp. 353-367. Browning-Aiken, A., R.G. Varady and D. Moreno, 2003, Water-resources management in the San Pedro Basin: Building binational alliances, Journal of the Southwest 45(4): 611-632. 520 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Bureau of Reclamation, City of Sierra Vista, National Biological Survey, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality,1995, Sierra Vista wetlands and reuse study- final report, January 1995. Braun, D.P., 1992, Waterbud: A spreadsheet-based model of the water budget and water management systems of the upper San Pedro River basin, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Brown, S.G., E.S. Davidson, L.R. Kister and Thomsen, B.W., 1966, Water Resources of Fort Huachuca Military Reservation, southeastern Arizona: USGS Water Supply Paper 1819D, 57 p. Callegary, J.B., D.R. Pool and J. Leenhouts, 2005, Frequency domain electromagnetic surveys to map recharge potential and monitor infiltration and percolation in ephemeral stream channels in the Upper San Pedro sub-watershed basin, SE Arizona: Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Casavant, R.R., 2004, Structure of Karchner Caverns area, Cochise County Arizona: Implications to regional tectonics, cave formation and groundwater exploration: in The Value of Water: Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 3004, Tucson, Arizona. Cella, Barr, Evans and Associates, 1974, Mustang Heights and Mustang Water Company, Subdivision Water Supply Analysis. C M Engineering Associates, 1982, Water Adequacy Report, Tracts 112 & 113, Pueblo Del Sol Water Co. Coes, A.L., 2003, Ephemeral channel and basin floor infiltration in the Sierra Vista subwatershed of the upper San Pedro basin, southeastern Arizona: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. _____, 2001, Investigation of recharge through areas adjacent to and within ephemeral streams, Sierra Vista subbasin, Arizona, 1976-1996: in Abstracts with Programs: Geological Society of America 2001 annual meeting, September 2001, Tucson, Arizona, p. 17-18. _____, 1998, Geochemical processes in the basin-fill aquifer of the southern part of the Sierra Vista sub-basin, Arizona: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p. 16. _____, 1997, A geochemical approach to determine ground-water flow patterns in the Sierra Vista basin, Arizona, with special emphasis on ground-water/surface-water interaction: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 521 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Coes, A.L., D.J. Gellenbeck and D.C. Towne, 1999, Groundwater quality assessment of the Sierra Vista sub basin, Arizona, 1996-1997: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 99-4056, 50 p. Coes, A. L. and D.R. Pool, 2007, Ephemeral-Stream Channel and Basin-Floor Infiltration and Recharge in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro Basin, Southeastern Arizona: USGS Professional Paper 1703-J Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 1998, Sustaining and enhancing riparian migratory bird habitat on the upper San Pedro River: Commission for Environmental Cooperation, public review Draft Report, June 15, 1998, 141 p. Cordy, G.E., D.J. Gellenbeck, J.B. Gebler, D.W. Anning, A.L. Coes, R.J. Edmonds, J.A. Rees \ and H.W. Sanger, 2000, Water quality in the central Arizona basins, Arizona, 1995-1998: USGS Circular 1213. Cordy, G.E., H.W. Sanger and D.J. Gellenbeck, 2000, Radon in groundwater in central and southern Arizona: A cause for concern?: in Environmental Technologies for the 21st Century: Proceedings from the 13th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2000, Phoenix, Arizona, p. 21. Cordy, G.E., J.A. Rees, R.J. Edmonds, J.B. Gebler, L. Wirt, D.J. Gellenbeck and D.W. Anning, 1998, Water quality assessment of the central Arizona basins, Arizona and northern Mexico- environmental setting and water quality over view: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98- 4097, 72 p. Deane, T.C., 2000, Conceptualization of groundwater flow in the shallow aquifer along the Apache reach of the San Pedro River, Cochise County, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Desert State Engineering, 1994, Water Adequacy Investigation for “The Cottonwoods of San Pedro” Lots 1 Thru 90. Dickens, C. M., 2005, Hydrogeologic Conditions & Water Supply Adequacy, San Pedro Estates Project, Cochise County, Arizona. _____, 2004, Supplemental Hydrologic Report, Empirita Water Company, Cochise County, Arizona. Dixon, M., J.C. Stromberg, J.T. Price, H. Galbraith, A.K. Fremier, and E.W. Larsen, Potential effects of climate change on the Upper San Pedro riparian ecosystem, in Integrating Science and Policy for Water Management, ed. by J.C. Stromberg and B.J. Tellman, Tucson, University of Arizona Press (in press). Fleming, J.B., D.R. Pool, and M. Blaylock, 2001, Geophysical investigations of shallow 522 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 structure and lithology to aid in the characterization of stream aquifer interactions in the Upper San Pedro River Valley: in Abstracts from the Geological Society annual meeting, September 2001, Tucson Arizona p. 88-89. Fluid Solutions, 2005, Hydrologic Study, Holiday at Pueblo Del Sol Subdivision. _____, 2003, Hydrologic Study, Canyon de Flores, Phase II. _____, 2002, Hydrologic Study, Chaparral Village North Subdivision. Freethey, G.W., 1982, Hydrologic analysis of the upper San Pedro Basin from the Mexico – United States International Border to Fairbank, Arizona: USGS Open File Report 82-752, 64 p. Gebler, J.B., 2000, Organochlorine compounds in streambed sediment and in biological tissue from streams and their relations to land use, Central Arizona: USGS Water Investigations Report 00-4041. _____, 1998, Water quality of selected effluent dependent stream reaches in southern Arizona as indicated by concentrations of periphytic chlorophyll a and aquatic invertebrate communities: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4199, 12 p. Gellenbeck, D.J. and A.L. Coes, 1998, Groundwater quality in alluvial basins that have minimal urban development, south-central Arizona: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p. 195. Geotrans, Inc., 2004, Hydrologic Study in Support of Application for Water Adequacy, Cimmaron Subdivision, Sierra Vista, Cochise County, Arizona. _____, 2004, Hydrologic Study in Support of Application for Water Adequacy, Mesa Verde Estates Subdivision, Sierra Vista, Cochise County, Arizona. Gettings, M. E. and B.B. Houser, 2000, Depth to bedrock in the Upper San Pedro Valley, Cochise County, southeastern Arizona: Open-File Report 00-138, 39 p. Gillilan, D.M., 1992, Institutional alternatives for managing water resources in the Upper San Pedro River basin, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Goode, T.C., 2002, Using GIS and mudflow to simulate regional groundwater flow and stream aquifer interactions in the Upper San Pedro basin: in Water Transfers: Past, Present and Future: Proceedings from the 15th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2002, Flagstaff, Arizona. _____, 2000, Simulation of groundwater conditions in the upper San Pedro basin for the evaluation of alternative futures: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 523 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Goodrich, D., 2004, Hydrologic impacts of land cover changes at the basin scale: in The Value of Water: Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson, Arizona. Graf, C.,2004, Hydrologic framework of Karchner Caverns State Park: in The Value of Water; Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson, Arizona. Groundwater Resources Consultants, Inc., 1999, Hydrologic Study, Bachmann Springs, Ltd., Cochise County, Arizona. Gungle, B., 2006, Timing and Duration of Flow in Ephemeral Streams of the Sierra Vista Subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro Basin, Cochise County, Southeastern Arizona: USGS Scientific Investigation Report 2005-5190. _____, 2005, Frequency, duration and location of flow in twenty ephemeral streams of the Sierra Vista subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro basin, southeastern Arizona: in Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Haas, P.A., 2003, Changes in concentration and composition of dissolved and particulate organic matter in the upper San Pedro River, Arizona in response to changes in flow regime: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Hamblen, J.M., 2003, Spatial and temporal trends in sediment dynamics and potential aerobic microbial metabolism, upper San Pedro River, Southeastern Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Haney, J., 2002, Hydrology and biodiversity conservation-San Pedro River, Arizona: in Water Transfers: Past, Present and Future: Proceedings from the 15th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2002, Flagstaff, Arizona. Harshbarger and Associates, 1974, Report on the water development in the Fort Huachuca area, Arizona in Report on supply, Fort Huachuca and vicinity, Arizona: Los Angeles, California, US Army Corps of Engineers, 33 p. Hereford, R. and J.L. Betancourt, 1993, Historic geomorphology of the San Pedro River: archival and physical evidence: in The First Arizonans: Clovis Occupation of the San Pedro Valley, eds. Haynes, C.V., and Huckell, B. Henrich, M.J., 1992, Evaluating water management policy options for the upper San Pedro basin of Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Jahnke, P., 1994, Modeling of groundwater flow and surface/groundwater interaction for the San Pedro River basin from Fairbank to Redington, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. 524 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 JE Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc., 1997, Arizona Stream Navigability Study for the San Pedro: Gila confluence to the Mexican border, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. JRL Engineering Inc., 1999, Hydrology Report for Los Ranchos Subdivision, Cochise County, AZ. Kent, G., 2003, Managing water resources for sustainability at Fort Huachuca: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 15th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. King, K. A., D.L. Baker and W.G. Kepner, 1992, Organochlorine and trace element concentrations in the San Pedro River basin, Arizona: USFWS unnumbered report, 17 p. Koehler, R. and G. Ball, 1998, A statistical analysis of low flows on the San Pedro River, Arizona: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p. 216. Lawler, D., 2002, Using the streambed temperature sensors to monitor flow events in the San Pedro River, Southeast Arizona and North-Central Sonora, Mexico: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Lawler, D., S.A. Leake and P.A. Ferre, 2002, Using streambed temperature to identify the onset and duration of ephemeral stream flow in the San Pedro River: in Sustainability of Semiarid Hydrology and Riparian Areas: 2nd annual meeting, February 2002, Tucson Arizona, p. S19. Leenhouts, J.M., J.C. Stromberg and R.L. Scott eds., 2006, Hydrologic requirements of and consumptive ground-water use by riparian vegetation along the San Pedro River, Arizona: USGS Scientific Investigation Report 2005-5163. Leenhouts, J. and T.A. Anderson, 2005, Sustainibility of groundwater use in the Sierra Vista subwatershed, Cochise County, Arizona, 2005: Conservation and Innovation in Water Management: Proceedings of the 18th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, Flagstaff, Arizona, September, 2005. Leenhouts, J, 2003, Stream-aquifer interaction and bank storage along the San Pedro River near Palominas, Arizona: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Leenhouts, J., and D. Pool, 2001, Stream aquifer interactions in the San Pedro riparian National Conservation Area, Cochise County, Arizona: Proceedings from the 14th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2001, Tucson, Arizona, p. 23. Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 525 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Leonhart, L.S., M.C. Coggeshall, E.J. Nelson, T.P. Leo, R.A. Gearheart, A. Benner, and K.M. Alter, 1996, Artificial wetland treatment of nitrate plume Apache Powder Superfund site, Cochise County, Arizona: in Wanted: Water for Rural Arizona: Proceedings from the 9th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1996, Prescott, Arizona, p. 139. Levick, L.R., M. Reed, E. vanderLeeuw, D.P. Guertin and K. Uhlman, 2006, NEMO Watershed Based Plan Middle and Lower San Pedro Watershed, University of Arizona. Lewis, R., P.E., 2004, Hydrology Report for Covey Run Subdivision, Cochise County, AZ. Lite, S.J., K.J. Bagstad and J.C. Stromberg, 2005, Riparian plant species richness along lateral and longitudinal gradients of water stress and flood disturbance, San Pedro River, Arizona, USA. Journal of Arid Environments, 63(4) 785-813 . Liverman, D., R. Meridith, A. Holdsworth, L. Cervera and F. Lara, 1997, An assessment of the water resources in the San Pedro River and Santa Cruz River basins, Arizona and Sonora: A Report to the Commission on Environmental Cooperation, Montreal, Quebec, University of Arizona Latin American Area Center for Studies in Public Policy, 75p. Jacobs, K.L. and L.S. Stitzer, 2006, Water supply and management in rural Arizona, in Arizona Water Policy: Management Innovations in an Urbanizing Arid Region, Resources for the Future Press. MacNish, R.D., T. Maddock and M.P.L. Whitaker, 1998, Groundwater-surface water interactions in the upper San Pedro basin: in Water at the Confluence of Science, Law and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p. 34-35. Manera, P.A., 1973, Hydrologic Investigation of Mescal Lakes Subdivision, Cochise County, Arizona. _____, 1973, Hydrologic Investigation of the Sierra Grande Subdivision, Cochise County, Arizona. Marsett, J.Q., D.C. Goodrich, M.S. Moran, R. Scott, S. Schaeffer, A. Chehbouni, and B.F. Goff, 1998, Evapotranspiration from the riparian corridor, upper San Pedro River: in Water at the Confluence of science, Law and Public Policy: Proceedings from the 11th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 1998, Tucson, Arizona, p. 42-43. Martin-McIntosh Land Surveying and Civil Engineering, 1999, Hydrology Report for Canyon De Flores, Phase 1. Megdal, S., K. Mott Lacroix and A. Schwarz, 2006, Projects to Enhance Arizona’s 526 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Environment: An Examination of their Functions, Water Requirements and Public Benefits: University of Arizona, Water Resources Research Center. Monsoon Consultants, 2005, Hydrologic Study for Kinjockity Ranch Residential Development, Cochise County, Arizona. Montgomery & Associates, Inc., 2005, Hydrologic Study for San Pedro Partners Master Planned Community in Support of an Application for an Analysis of Water Adequacy, Cochise County, Arizona. ______, 2005, Revised Demonstration of Adequate Water Supply for Y-Lightning Subdivision, Cochise County, Arizona. Moote, M.A. and M. Gutérrez, 2001, Views from the Upper San Pedro River Basin: Local Perceptions of Water Issues, Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy 57 p. Nemecek, E.A., 2003, Sustainability of Arizona’s few remaining perennial streams: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Norman, L.M., D.D. Hirsch and A.W. Ward eds, 2008, Proceedings of a USGS Workshop on Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges Along the U.S.-Mexico Border - Monitoring, Modeling, and Forecasting Change Within the Arizona-Sonora Transboundary Watersheds: USGS Circular 1322. Olander, A. F. and P.A. Ferre, 2001 Laboratory methods for calculating the hydraulic and physical properties of alluvial and basin fill sediments, Sierra Vista sub-watershed, Arizona: in Abstracts with Programs from the Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, September 2001, Tucson Arizona, p.128-129. Pool, D. R. and J.E. Dickinson, 2007, Ground-Water Flow Model of the Sierra Vista Subwatershed and Sonoran Portions of the Upper San Pedro Basin, Southeastern Arizona, United States, and Northern Sonora, Mexico: USGS Scientific Investigation Report 20065228. Pool, D. R. and A.L. Coes, 1999, Hydrogeologic investigations of the Sierra Vista sub-watershed of the upper San Pedro Basin, Cochise County, southeast Arizona: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 99-4197, 41 p. _____, 2003, Mapping of extensive silt and clay layers using aerial transient electromagnetic surveys in the Sierra Vista sub-watershed, Arizona: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 527 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Postillion Environmental Resource Consultants Inc., 2004, La Vista Coronado Development Hydrologic Investigation of Adequate Water Supply. Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of groundwater in alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California: USGS Professional Paper 1406-C, 87 p. Saliba, G., 2007, Science, collaboration, and sustainability in the Upper San Pedro Basin: University of Arizona, M.A. Thesis. Santec Consulting and J.E. Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc., 2000, Small and minor watercourses analysis for Cochise County, Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. Schulte, M.A., 1997, Dilution Gauging as a Method to Quantify Groundwater Baseflow Fluctuations in Arizona’s San Pedro River: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Schwartzman, P.N., 1990, A Hydrogeologic resource assessment of the lower Babocomari watershed, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Scott, R.L., 1999, Riparian and rangeland soil-vegetation-atmosphere interactions in Southeastern Arizona: University of Arizona, Ph. D. dissertation. Serrat-Capdevila, A., J.B. Valdes, J. Gonzalez Perez, K. Baird, L.J. Mata and T. Maddock III, 2007, Climate change: Hydrologic impacts in the Transboundary San Pedro Basin, in III TWM: Transboundary Waters Management, ed. by J. Gonzalez, University of CastillaLa Mancha and UNESCO, pp. 311-334. Serrat-Capdevila, A., J.B. Valdes, J. Gonzalez , K. Baird, L.J. Mata and T. Maddock, 2007, Modeling climate change impacts – and uncertainty – on the hydrology of a riparian system: the San Pedro Basin (Arizona/Sonora): J. Hydrol., 347: 48-66, 2007. Sharma, V., R.D. MacNish, and T. Maddock III, 2000, An analysis of the effects of retiring irrigation pumpage in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, Cochise County, Arizona: The University of Arizona, Department of Hydrology and Water Resources Technical Report HWR 00-010 78 p. Sharma, V., 1997, A seasonal groundwater flow model of the upper San Pedro River basin, Cochise County, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Simpson, S., 2007, Modeling stream-aquifer interactions during floods and baseflow: Upper San Pedro River, Southeastern Arizona: University of Arizona M.S. Thesis. Skirvin, S.M., and S.R. Titley, 1990, Contrasting surface hydrologic properties of a geologic triad in the Whetstone Mtns., southeastern Arizona, by use of Landsat in images: annual meeting: Geological Society of America, Cordilleran Section, March 1990, Tucson, AZ, Abstracts with Programs, p. 84. 528 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Stitzer, L., 2003, Arizona Department of Water Resources Upper San Pedro basin study: in Sustainability Issues of Arizona’s Regional Watersheds: Proceedings from the 16th annual Arizona Hydrological Society Symposium, September 2003, Mesa, Arizona. Stromberg, J.C. and B. Tellman, eds, 2009, Ecology and Conservation of the San Pedro River: University of Arizona Press. Stromberg, J.C., S.J. Lite, T.J. Rychenera, L. Levick, M.D. Dixon and J.M. Watts, 2006, Status of the riparian ecosystem in the Upper San Pedro River, Arizona: Application of an assessment model, Env. Moni. Assess., DOI: 10.1007/s10661-006-6549-1. Stromberg, J.C., K.J. Bagstad, J.M. Leenhouts, S.J. Lite,and E. Makings, 2005. Effects of stream flow intermittency on riparian vegetation of a semiarid region river (San Pedro River, Arizona): River Research and Applications, Vol. 21, Issue 8 pp. 925938. Stromberg, J.C., R. Tiller and B. Richter, 1996. Effects of ground water decline on riparian vegetation of semi-arid regions, the San Pedro, AZ: Ecological Applications Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 113-131. Summerside, S.E., 1991, Systems analysis of upper San Pedro River basin conflicts: University of Arizona, M.S.thesis. Thomas, B.E., 2006, Trends in Streamflow of the San Pedro River, Southeastern Arizona: USGS Fact Sheet 2006-3004 _____, 2006, Hydrogeologic investigation of the Middle San Pedro watershed, southeastern Arizona: a project of the Rural Watershed Initiative: USGS Fact Sheet 2006-3034. Thomas, B.E. and D.R. Pool, 2006, Trends in streamflow of the San Pedro River, southeastern Arizona, and regional trends in precipitation and streamflow in southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico: USGS Professional Paper 1712. Tooney, R.S., 2004, Continuing hydrologic studies at Karchner Caverns State Park: in The Value of Water: Proceedings from the 17th annual Arizona Hydrological Society symposium, September 2004, Tucson, Arizona. United States Geological Survey, 2005, Hydrogeologic investigations of the middle San Pedro, Detrital and Willcox basins, Arizona: USGS draft report. _____, 1997, Collection and analysis of ground-water samples in the Sierra Vista Basin, Arizona, 1996: USGS Fact Sheet 107-97. United States Bureau of Reclamation, City of Sierra Vista, 2002, Preservation of the San Pedro River utilizing effluent recharge: Arizona Water Protection Fund Project 95005WPF. Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin 529 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Upper San Pedro Partnership, 2004, Water management of the regional aquifer in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Arizona—2004 Report to Congress: U.S. Department of the Interior, http://www.usppartnership.com/documents/Section321.2004.pdf. _____, 2005, 2005 Water management and conservation plan: http://www.usppartnership.com/ documents/Working%20Plan%202005%20(Final).pdf. Varady, R.G. and A. Browing-Aiken, 2005, The birth of a Mexican watershed council in the San Pedro basin in Sonora, In Pleneación y Cooperación Transfronteriza en la Frontera México-Estados Unidos (Transboundary Planning and Cooperation in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region), ed. by C. Fuentes-Flores and S. Peña-Medina. Ciudaed Juárez, Mexico: El Colegio de la Frontera Norte & Univerdiad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez. pp 165-183. Varady, R.G., A. Browing-Aiken, R. Merideth, B.J. Morehouse, D. Goodrich and C. Conde, 2003, Water and Climate in the San Pedro River Basin of Mexico and Arizona: Pioneering and Informal Binational Dialogue: Final Report to the Dialogue on Water and Climate. Tucson, AZ: Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy. Available at: udallcenter. arizona.edu Varady, R.G., M.A. Moote and R. Merideth, 2000, Water management options for the Upper San Pedro Basin: Assessing the social and institutional landscape, Special issue of Natural Resources Journal 40(2), Spring 2000, pp 223-235. Vionnet, L.B., 1992, Modeling of ground-water flow and surface water/ground-water interactions of the San Pedro River basin, Cochise County, Arizona: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Webb, R.H., C.S. Magirl, P.G. Griffiths and D.E. Boyer, 2008, Debris Flows and Floods in Southeastern Arizona from Extreme Precipitation in July 2006 - Magnitude, Frequency, and Sediment Delivery: USGS Open File Report 2008-1274 Webb, R.H., S.A. Leake and R.M. Turner, 2007, The Ribbon of Green: Change in Riparian Vegetation in the Southwestern United States, University of Arizona Press. Whitaker, M.P.L., 2000, Estimating bank storage and evapo-transpiration using soil physical and hydrological techniques in a gaining reach of the San Pedro River, Arizona: University of Arizona, Ph. D. dissertation. Williams, M.D., 1996, Evapo-transpiration in Southeast Arizona Semi-Arid Watersheds: Walnut Gulch and Cienega Creek: University of Arizona, M.S. thesis. Wynn, J., 2006, Mapping Ground Water in Three Dimensions - An Analysis of Airborne Geophysical Surveys of the Upper San Pedro River Basin, Cochise County, Southeastern Arizona: USGS Professional Paper 1674. 530 Section 3.13 Upper San Pedro Basin Section 3.14 Willcox Basin 531 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.14.1 Geography of the Willcox Basin The Willcox Basin is a medium-size, 1,911 square mile basin in the center of the planning area. Geographic features and principal communities are shown on Figure 3.14-1. The basin is characterized by a large valley surrounded by a series of medium-high to high-elevation mountain ranges. Vegetation is primarily semi-desert grassland with smaller areas of madrean evergreen woodland and Rocky Mountain and madrean montane conifer forest. (see Figure 3.0-9) Riparian vegetation includes conifer oak and mixed broadleaf on Turkey Creek and conifer oak on Rucker Canyon. • Principal geographic features include: o Ash Creek in the northern portion of the basin o Turkey Creek east of Sunizona and Pinery Creek east of Chiricahua National Monument o Rucker Canyon in the southern portion of the basin o Sulphur Springs Valley running north-south through the center of the basin o Willcox Playa south of Willcox o Winchester Mountains on the northwestern, Dragoon Mountains on the central western, Swisshelm Mountains on the southwestern and the Pinaleño Mountains on the northeast boundaries of the basin o Dos Cabezas and Chiricahua Mountains to the east and southeast of Willcox, with the highest point in the basin, Buena Vista Peak at 8,823 feet o The lowest point at 4,100 feet at the Willcox Playa 532 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin 533 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.14.2 Land Ownership in the Willcox Basin Land ownership, including the percentage of ownership in each category, is shown for the Willcox Basin in Figure 3.14-2. Principal features of land ownership in this basin are the abundance of private land and the diversity of land ownership types, seven total. A description of land ownership data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on protected areas is found in Section 3.0.4. Land ownership categories are discussed below in the order from largest to smallest percentage in the basin. Private • 51.1% of land is private. • The majority of the private land is through the center of the basin and is contiguous. • A small portion of private land in the southern tip of the basin remains in private ownership but is managed federally as the Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuge. • Primary land uses are farming, domestic, commercial, mining and industrial. State Trust • 24.2% of land in this basin is held in trust for public schools and thirteen other beneficiaries under the State Trust Land System. • Two large strips of state owned land are located north of Interstate 10 and the remainder of state owned land in the basin is interspersed with private land. • A small portion of state trust land in the southern tip of the basin remains in state ownership but is managed federally as the Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuge. • Primary land use is grazing. National Forest • 19.6% of land is federally owned and managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS). • Although the National Forest land is not contiguous, all lands are within the Coronado National Forest in two ranger districts, Douglas Ranger District south of Interstate 10 and the Safford Ranger District north of Interstate 10. • The basin contains most of the Chiricahua Wilderness area in the southeastern area of forest lands and a portion of the Galiuro Wilderness area in the northwestern area of forest lands. (see Figure 3.0-12) • Primary land uses are recreation, grazing and timber production. U.S. Military • 2.3% of land is federally owned and managed by the U.S. Military. • All military land in the basin is part of the Willcox Range. • Primary land use is for military activities. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • 1.8% of land is federally owned and managed by the BLM. • BLM land is located southeast of Interstate 10 along the eastern basin boundary and in other small parcels scattered throughout the basin. 534 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 • Primary land use is grazing. National Park Service (NPS) • 0.9% of land is federally owned and managed by the NPS. • All park land is within the Chiricahua National Monument. • Primary land use is recreation. Other (Game and Fish, County and Bureau of Reclamation Lands) • 0.1% of land is state owned and managed by Arizona Game and Fish Department. • All Game and Fish land in this basin is within the Willcox Playa Wildlife Area. • Primary land uses are wildlife protection and recreation. Section 3.14 Willcox Basin 535 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 536 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.14.3 Climate of the Willcox Basin Climate data from NOAA/NWS Co-op Network and AZMET stations are complied in Table 3.14-1 and the locations are shown on Figure 3.14-3. Figure 3.14-3 also shows precipitation contour data from the Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University. The Willcox Basin does not contain Evaporation Pan and SNOTEL/Snowcourse stations. More detailed information on climate in the planning area is found in Section 3.0.3. A description of the climate data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. NOAA/NWS Co-op Network • Refer to Table 3.14-1A • There are six NOAA/NWS Co-op network climate stations in the basin. The average monthly maximum temperature occurs in July at all stations and ranges between 74.8°F at Chiricahua N.M. to 79.5°F at Willcox. The average monthly minimum temperature occurs in December or January and ranges between 42.6°F at Cochise Stronghold to 44.9°F at Fort Grant. • Highest average seasonal rainfall occurs in the summer (July - September). For the period of record used, the highest annual rainfall is 20.95 inches at Chiricahua N.M. and the lowest is 10.78 inches at Cochise 4 SSE. AZMET • Refer to Table 3.14-1C • There are two AZMET station in the basin, average annual evaporation ranges from 71.19 inches to 74.11 inches. SCAS Precipitation Data • See Figure 3.14-3 • Additional precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 48 inches in the Chiricahua Mountains at Chiricahua Peak, elevation 9,760 feet. This is the highest average annual precipitation in the planning area. Precipitation is as low as 10 inches in the vicinity of the Pearce Sunsites station. • This basin contains the largest range of average annual rainfall in the planning area with 38 inches separating areas of lowest and the highest precipitation. Section 3.14 Willcox Basin 537 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.14-1 Climate Data for the Willcox Basin A. nOAA/nWS Co-op network: Station name Period of Elevation (in Record Used for feet) Averages Chiricahua N.M. 5,300 1971-2000 Average Temperature Range (in F) Average Total Precipitation (in inches) Max/Month Min/Month Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual 74.8/Jul 44.0/Jan 4.24 1.85 9.86 5.00 20.95 Cochise 4 SSE 4,180 1899-1954 78.5/Jul 42.7/Jan 2.05 0.75 5.98 2.00 10.78 Cochise Stronghold 4,920 1925-1948 77.3/Jul 42.6/Jan 4.27 1.60 9.26 3.71 18.85 Fort Grant 4,830 1900-2004 1 78.9/Jul 44.9/Jan 2.31 1.39 7.33 5.68 16.70 Pearce Sunsites 4,350 1971-2000 78.6/Jul 44.6/Jan 2.19 0.95 7.53 2.54 13.21 Willcox 4,180 1971-2000 79.5/Jul 43.8/Dec 2.74 1.00 6.22 3.39 13.35 Source: WRCC, 2005 notes: Average temperature for period of record shown; average precipitation from 1971-2000 1 B. Evaporation Pan: Station name Period of Elevation (in Avg. Annual Evap Record Used for feet) (in inches) Averages None C. AZMET: Station name Elevation (feet) Period of Record Average Annual Reference Evaportranspiration, in inches (Number of years to calculate averages ) Bonita 4,419 1999 - current 73.59 (9) Kansas Settlement 4,200 2006 - current 71.19 (1) Source: Arizona Meteorological Network, 2007 D. SnOTEL/Snowcourse: Station name Elevation (in feet) Period of Record Average Snowpack, at Beginning of the Month, as Inches Snow Water Content (Number of measurements to calculate average) Jan. Feb. March April May June None 538 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin 539 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.14.4 Surface Water Conditions in the Willcox Basin Streamflow data, including average seasonal flow, average annual flow and other information is shown in Table 3.14-2. Flood ALERT equipment in the basin is shown on Table 3.14-3. Reservoir and stockpond data, including maximum storage or maximum surface area of large reservoirs and type of use of the stored water, are shown in Table 3.14-4. The location of streamflow gages identified by USGS number, flood ALERT equipment, USGS runoff contours and large reservoirs are shown on Figure 3.14-4. Descriptions of stream, reservoir and stockpond data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Streamflow Data • Refer to Table 3.14-2. • Data from three stations on three watercourses are shown on the table and on Figure 3.14-4. Two stations have been discontinued, the remaining one is a real-time station. • The average seasonal flow for all the stations is highest in the Summer (July-September) and lowest in the Spring (April-June). • Maximum annual flow in this basin was 10,787 acre-feet in 1921 on West Turkey Creek and minimum annual flow was 22 acre-feet in 1976 on Leslie Creek. Flood ALERT Equipment • Refer to Table 3.14-3. • There is one station in the basin as of October 2005. Reservoirs and Stockponds • Refer to Table 3.14-4. • Surface water is stored or could be stored in two large and nine small reservoirs in this basin. • There are registered 762 stockponds in this basin. Runoff Contour • Refer to Figure 3.14-4. • Average annual runoff increases from 0.2 inches, or 10.6 acre-feet per square mile, in the center of the basin to five inches, or 266.5 acre-feet per square mile, toward the Chiricahua Mountains in the southeast. 540 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.14-2 Streamflow Data for the Willcox Basin Station number USGS Station name Drainage Area 2 (in mi ) Gage Elevation (in feet) Period of Record 9536500 West Turkey Creek near Light 19 NA 9537000 Whitewater Draw near Rucker 39 9537200 Leslie Creek near McNeal 79 Average Seasonal Flow (% of annual flow) Annual Flow (in acre-feet/year) Years of Annual Flow Record Winter Spring Summer Fall Minimum Median Mean Maximum 8/1919-9/1925 (discontinued) 13 11 53 24 521 (1922) 4,474 5,460 10,787 (1921) 5 NA 8/1919-9/1925 (discontinued) 16 10 39 35 956 (1922) 5,010 4,421 6,342 (1923) 5 4,620 10/1969-current (real time) 16 7 55 21 22 (1976) 746 1,066 3,201 (1984) 25 Source: USGS (NWIS) 2005 & 2008 notes: Statistics based on Calendar Year Annual Flow statistics based on monthly values Summation of Average Annual Flows may not equal 100 due to rounding Period of record may not equal Year of Record used for annual Flow/Year statistics due to only using years with a 12 month record In Period of Record, current equals November 2008 Seasonal and annual flow data used for the statistics was retrieved in 2005 NA = Not available Table 3.14-3 Flood ALERT Equipment in the Willcox Basin Station ID Station name Station Type Install Date Responsibility 3070 Willcox ADOT Weather Station Weather Station 10/1/2001 ADWR Source: ADWR 2005c notes: ADOT = Arizona Department of Transportation ADWR = Arizona Department of Water Resources Section 3.14 Willcox Basin 541 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.14-4 Reservoirs and Stockponds in the Willcox Basin A. Large Reservoirs (500 acre-feet capacity and greater) MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE nAME (name of dam, if different) OWnER/OPERATOR MAxIMUM STORAGE (AF) USE JURISDICTIOn None identified by ADWR at this time B. Other Large Reservoirs (50 acre surface area or greater)1 MAP KEY RESERVOIR/LAKE nAME (name of dam, if different) OWnER/OPERATOR MAxIMUM SURFACE AREA (acres) USE2 JURISDICTIOn 1 Willcox Playa3 US Military 29,500 O Federal Private 309 P Landowner 4 2 Unnamed Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Small Reservoirs (greater than 15 acre-feet and less than 500 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 2 Total maximum storage: 185 acre-feet D. Other Small Reservoirs (between 5 and 50 acres surface area)1 Total number: 7 Total surface area: 182 acres E. Stockponds (up to 15 acre-feet capacity) Total number: 762 (from water right filings) notes: Capacity data not available to ADWR 2 O=other; P=fire protection, stock or farm pond 3 Dry Lake 4 Intermittent Lake 1 542 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin 543 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.14.5 Perennial/Intermittent Streams and Major Springs in the Willcox Basin Minor springs with discharge rates and date of measurement, and the total number of springs in the basin are shown in Table 3.14-5. There are no major springs identified in this basin. The locations of perennial and intermittent streams are shown on Figure 3.14-5. Descriptions of data sources and methods for intermittent and perennial reaches and springs are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • • • There are five perennial stream reaches in this basin, Turkey Creek, Rucker Canyon, Grant Creek, Big Creek and Leslie Creek. Most perennial streams are in the Chiricahua Mountains along the southeastern boundary or the Pinaleño Mountains on the northeastern boundary. A number of intermittent stream reaches are located in these two mountain ranges as well. Springs with measured discharge of 1 to 10 gallons per minute (gpm) are not mapped but coordinates are given in Table 3.14-5. There are eight minor springs identified in this basin. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. All of the minor spring measurements were taken prior to 1985. The total number of springs identified by the USGS varies from 87 to 92, depending on the database reference. 544 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.14-5 Springs in the Willcox Basin A. Major Springs (10 gpm or greater): Map Key Location Discharge Date Discharge Measured Latitude Longitude (in gpm) name None identified by ADWR at this time B. Minor Springs (1 to 10 gpm): Location name Discharge Date Discharge 1 Measured Latitude Longitude (in gpm) Walnut 321228 1093617 3 07/1984 Unnamed 321152 1093413 3 11/1981 Rosemary's2 321228 1093621 2 08/1984 Howard Canyon (left fork) 2,3 321144 1093349 24 08/1984 Howard Canyon2,3 321144 1093357 1 08/1984 Unnamed2 321145 1095543 1 02/1946 Unnamed2 320451 1095543 1 Not available Unnamed2 321259 1093716 1 09/1981 Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others C. Total number of springs, regardless of discharge, identified by USGS (see ALRIS, 2005a and USGS, 2006a): 87 to 92 notes: Most recent measurement identified by ADWR 2 Spring not displayed on current USGS topo map 3 Location approximated by ADWR 4 Most recent measurement < 1 gpm 1 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin 545 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 546 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.14.6 Groundwater Conditions of the Willcox Basin Major aquifers, well yields, estimated natural recharge, estimated water in storage, number of index wells and date of last water-level sweep are shown in Table 3.14-6. Figure 3.14-6 shows aquifer flow direction and water-level change between 1990-1991 and 2003-2004. Figure 3.14-7 contains hydrographs for selected wells shown on Figure 3.14-6. Figure 3.14-8 shows well yields in five yield categories. A description of aquifer data sources and methods as well as well data sources and methods, including water-level changes and well yields are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Major Aquifers • Refer to Table 3.14-6 and Figure 3.14-6. • The major aquifers in the basin are recent stream alluvium from stream and lake-bed deposits and basin fill. • The Willcox Basin is a “closed basin” with no inter-basin groundwater inflow or outflow. • Groundwater flow conditions have been altered significantly in several locations due to groundwater pumping as shown by flow directions on Figure 3.14-6. Historically flows were from the perimeter of the Sulphur Springs Valley toward the Willcox Playa. Well Yields • Refer to Table 3.14-6 and Figure 3.14-8. • As shown on Figure 3.14-8 well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gpm to more than 2,000 gpm. • One source of well yield information, based on 1,007 reported wells, indicates that the median well yield in this basin is 750 gpm. Natural Recharge • Refer to Table 3.14-6. • Natural recharge estimates range from 15,000 acre-feet per year (AFA) to 47,000 AFA. Water in Storage • Refer to Table 3.14-6. • Storage estimates for this basin range from 42 million acre-feet (maf) to 59 maf to a depth of 1,200 feet. Water Level • Refer to Figure 3.14-6. Water levels are shown for wells measured in 2003-2004. • The Department annually measures 47 index wells in this basin. Hydrographs for 12 index wells and four other wells are shown in Figure 3.14-7. Index well hydrographs are: A-E, G-K, M and N. • The Department measures water levels daily at two automated groundwater monitoring sites in the basin. • The deepest recorded water level in 2003-2004 was 431 feet in the vicinity of Highway 191 near the southern basin boundary and the shallowest recorded water level in 2003-2004 was 36 feet in the vicinity of Willcox. Section 3.14 Willcox Basin 547 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.14-6 Groundwater Data for the Willcox Basin Basin Area, in square miles: 1,911 name and/or Geologic Units Major Aquifer(s): Recent Stream Alluvium Basin Fill Well Yields, in gal/min: Estimated natural Recharge, in acre-feet/year: Estimated Water Currently in Storage, in acre-feet: Range 108 - 2,199 Median 621.5 (64 wells measured) Range 2 - 3,500 Median 750 (1,007 wells reported) Measured by ADWR (GWSI) and/or USGS Reported on registration forms for large (> 10-inch) diameter wells (Wells55) Range 50 - 2,000 ADWR (1990 and 1994b) Range 0 - 2,500 Anning and Duet (1994) 47,000 Anderson and Freethey (1995) 46,000 Freethey and Anderson (1986) 15,000 ADWR (1994b) 42,000,000 - 45,300,000 (to 1,200 ft) ADWR (1990 and 1994b) 44,000,0001 (to 1,200 ft) Freethey and Anderson (1986) 59,000,000 (to 1,200 ft) Arizona Water Commission (1975) Current number of Index Wells: 47 Date of Last Water-level Sweep: 2005 (845 wells measured) 1 Predevelopment Estimate 548 6/22/2009 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin 549 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.14-7 WILLCOX BASIN Willcox Basin HYDROGRAPHS SHOWING DEPTH Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells TO WATER IN SELECTED WELLS 200 A basin fill D-09-23 08ABC WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: STOCK Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 250 300 1975 375 B 425 1975 300 1985 1995 basin fill D-10-23 10BBA WELL DEPTH: 705 ft USE: STOCK 1985 C WELL DEPTH: 603 ft USE: IRRIGATION 1975 1985 2005 1995 2004 basin fill D-11-24 18AAA 350 400 1995 2005 YEAR 550 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.14-7 (Cont) WILLCOX BASIN Willcox Basin HYDROGRAPHS SHOWING DEPTH Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells TO WATER IN SELECTED WELLS D WELL DEPTH: 269 ft USE: UNUSED 1975 1985 E WELL DEPTH: 266 ft USE: IRRIGATION 1975 1985 125 basin fill D-12-23 12DBA1 175 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 225 75 125 F 0 50 1975 150 G 1995 2005 basin fill D-13-24 03ADA 1995 WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: UNUSED 2005 basin fill D-13-25 31CAB1 1985 1995 WELL DEPTH: 500 ft USE: IRRIGATION 2005 basin fill D-14-26 18CAA1 200 250 1975 Section 3.14 1985 YEAR 1995 Willcox Basin 2005 551 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Figure 3.14-7BASIN (Cont) WILLCOX Willcox Basin HYDROGRAPHS SHOWING DEPTH Hydrographs Showing Depth to Water in Selected Wells TO WATER IN SELECTED WELLS 25 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 75 H 1975 1985 I WELL DEPTH: 515 ft USE: IRRIGATION 1975 1985 J WELL DEPTH: 100 ft USE: STOCK 1975 1985 175 basin fill D-15-24 08CDA WELL DEPTH: 160 ft USE: STOCK 1995 2005 basin fill D-15-25 25AAD 225 275 25 75 200 K 1995 2005 basin fill D-16-25 16ADD2 1995 2005 basin fill D-16-25 36AAA WELL DEPTH: 940 ft USE: UNUSED 250 300 552 1975 1985 YEAR 1995 2005 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 WILLCOX BASIN Figure 3.14-7 (Cont) HYDROGRAPHS DEPTH WillcoxSHOWING Basin TO WATER SELECTED Hydrographs ShowingIN Depth to Water WELLS in Selected Wells Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface 300 L WELL DEPTH: 940 ft USE: UNUSED 1975 1985 basin fill D-16-26 14DAA 350 400 300 350 400 450 M 1975 N 1975 1995 2005 basin fill D-16-28 04BBB WELL DEPTH: UNKNOWN USE: STOCK 1985 1995 2005 basin fill D-17-24 35DAD WELL DEPTH: 600 ft USE: PUBLIC SUPPLY 1985 1995 2005 YEAR Section 3.14 Willcox Basin 553 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Depth To Water In Feet Below Land Surface WILLCOX BASIN Figure 3.14-7 (Cont) HYDROGRAPHS DEPTH WillcoxSHOWING Basin TO WATER SELECTED Hydrographs ShowingIN Depth to Water WELLS in Selected Wells 175 O basin fill D-17-27 28BAA WELL DEPTH: 701 ft USE: UNUSED 225 275 1975 350 400 1985 P WELL DEPTH: 496 ft USE: DOMESTIC 1975 1985 1995 2005 basin fill D-18-28 17BAA 1995 2005 YEAR 554 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin 555 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.14.7 Water Quality of the Willcox Basin Sites with parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standard(s) (DWS), including location and parameter(s) are shown in Table 3.14-7A. There are no data on impaired lakes and streams in this basin. Figure 3.14-9 shows the location of exceedences keyed to Table 3.14-7A. All community water systems are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and treat water supplies to meet drinking water standards. Not all parameters were measured at all sites; selective sampling for particular constituents is common. A description of water quality data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. Well, Mine or Spring sites that have equaled or exceeded drinking water standards (DWS) • Refer to Table 3.14-7A. • Seventy-three sites have parameter concentrations that have equaled or exceeded DWS. • Frequently equaled or exceeded parameters include arsenic and fluoride. • Other parameters equaled or exceeded in the sites measured in this basin were radionuclides, nitrates, lead, beryllium, antimony and total dissolved solids. 556 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.14-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Willcox Basin1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Spring Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Section 3.14 Township Range Section 10 South 12 South 12 South 12 South 12 South 12 South 13 South 13 South 13 South 13 South 13 South 13 South 13 South 13 South 13 South 13 South 13 South 13 South 14 South 14 South 14 South 14 South 14 South 14 South 14 South 14 South 14 South 14 South 14 South 14 South 14 South 14 South 14 South 14 South 14 South 14 South 15 South 15 South 15 South 15 South 15 South 15 South 16 South 16 South 16 South 16 South 16 South 16 South 16 South 24 East 24 East 24 East 24 East 24 East 25 East 24 East 24 East 24 East 25 East 25 East 25 East 25 East 25 East 25 East 25 East 25 East 25 East 23 East 23 East 23 East 23 East 24 East 24 East 24 East 24 East 24 East 24 East 24 East 24 East 25 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 27 East 23 East 24 East 24 East 24 East 25 East 25 East 24 East 24 East 24 East 24 East 24 East 24 East 24 East 1 27 31 31 32 36 5 21 27 8 12 12 17 19 21 21 29 31 10 12 12 15 1 3 3 8 14 15 17 31 19 18 18 18 25 32 26 6 20 21 13 13 4 5 5 10 10 10 36 Willcox Basin Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 F, Rad F F As NO3 NO3 As, F As As As, F F, NO3 Rad As, F As, F As, F As, F As, F As, F Rad F F F Rad As, F F NO3 As, F F As, Pb F F Pb NO3 As Rad Rad NO3 As, F TDS As, F NO3 NO3 Be Be Be Be Be Be F 557 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.14-7 Water Quality Exceedences in the Willcox Basin (Cont)1 A. Wells, Springs and Mines Site Location Map Key Site Type 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Parameter(s) Concentration has Equaled or Exceeded Drinking Water Standard (DWS)2 Township Range Section 16 South 16 South 16 South 16 South 16 South 16 South 16 South 16 South 16 South 16 South 16 South 16 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 17 South 18 South 18 South 25 East 25 East 25 East 25 East 25 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 29 East 25 East 25 East 25 East 26 East 26 East 26 East 27 East 27 East 27 East 29 East 25 East 26 East 9 10 18 18 23 23 24 24 25 26 35 26 9 9 23 6 11 25 19 19 30 12 5 1 F Sb, NO3 F F NO3 F F F F F F F, Rad NO3 As F F F F F F F F, Rad As F Length of Impaired Stream Reach (in miles) Area of Impaired Lake (in acres) Parameter(s) Designated Use Exceeding Use Standard Standard Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others B. Lakes and Streams Map Key Site Type Site name None identified by ADWR at this time Source: ADEQ 2005f notes: Because of map scale, feature locations may appear different than the location indicated on the table 1 Water quality samples collected between 1981 and 2004. 2 Sb = Antimony As = Arsenic Be = Beryllium F= Fluoride Pb = Lead NO3 = Nitrate Rad = One or more of the following radionuclides - Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Radium, and Uranium TDS = Total Dissolved Solids 558 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin 559 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.14.8 Cultural Water Demand in the Willcox Basin Cultural water demand data including population, number of wells and the average well pumpage and surface water diversions by the municipal, industrial and agricultural sectors are shown in Table 3.14-8. Effluent generation including facility ownership, location, population served and not served, volume treated, disposal method and treatment level is shown on Table 3.14-9. Figure 3.1410 shows the location of demand centers. A description of cultural water demand data sources and methods is found in Volume 1, Appendix A. More detailed information on cultural water demand is found in Section 3.0.7. Cultural Water Demand • Refer to Table 3.14-8 and Figure 3.14-10. • Population has increased by about 3,000 residents from 1980 to 2000. • Total groundwater use decreased from 1971 to 1990 and has increased from 1991 to 2005 due to agricultural pumpage, with an average of 176,300 AFA in the period from 20012005. • All surface water diversions are for municipal demand at Fort Grant, a state prison at the end of Highway 266, with less than 300 acre-feet diverted from 1991 – 2005. • Over 90% of all water use in this basin is for agriculture. • Agricultural demand has increased from 1991 with an average of 167,400 AFA pumped in the period from 2001-2005. • Agricultural demand is widely distributed throughout the Sulphur Springs Valley down the center of the basin. • This basin contains both the most overall groundwater demand in the planning area and the most groundwater demand for agriculture. • Most high intensity municipal and industrial demand is found near Willcox. • Low intensity municipal and industrial demand is located near Willcox and along Highway 191. • Approximately 90% of municipal water supply is groundwater. • There is one large active mine, Johnson Camp Mine, west of Interstate 10. • There is one power plant, the Apache Station Generation Plant, in the vicinity of Highway 191. This is the only power plant in the planning area. • As of 2005 there were 3,150 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35 gpm and 1,873 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gpm. Effluent Generation • Refer to Table 3.14-9. • There are three wastewater treatment facilities in the basin that generate more than 500 acre-feet of effluent per year. • Almost 4,000 people are served by these facilities. • One facility, the Willcox Wastewater Treatment Plant, discharges wastewater for golf course/turf irrigation. 560 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.14-8 Cultural Water Demand in the Willcox Basin1 Year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 2030 Estimated and Projected Population Q < 35 gpm 1,7842 9,064 9,135 9,206 9,277 9,347 9,418 9,489 9,560 9,631 9,702 9,773 10,031 10,289 10,547 10,805 11,063 11,321 11,580 11,838 12,096 12,354 12,656 12,957 13,259 13,560 13,862 15,369 16,973 18,237 WELL TOTALS: Average Annual Demand (in acre-feet) number of Registered Water Supply Wells Drilled Q > 35 gpm Well Pumpage Surface-Water Diversions Municipal Industrial Agricultural Municipal Industrial Agricultural 308,000 NR 214,000 NR Data Source 1,4292 ADWR (1994a) 195 152 117,000 NR 242 111 86,000 NR 205 74 2,600 6,400 123,600 <300 NR NR 331 52 2,700 5,600 123,600 <300 NR NR 393 55 2,700 6,200 167,400 <300 NR NR 3,150 1,873 USGS (2007) ADWR (2008b) ADWR (2008c) notes: NR - Not reported 1 Does not include evaporation losses from stockponds and reservoirs, or effluent. 2 Includes all wells through June 1980. Section 3.14 Willcox Basin 561 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.14-9 Effluent Generation in the Willcox Basin Facility name Ownership City/Location Served Population Served Volume Treated/Generated (acre-feet/year) 512 45 Clear Springs Utility WWTP Clear Springs Utility Co Clear Springs Travel Centers of America LLC Private Willcox Willcox WWTP Town of Willcox Willcox Total Disposal Method Watercourse Golf Evaporation Irrigation Course/Turf Pond Irrigation Wildlife Area X Discharge to Industrial Another Use Facility Infiltration Basins Other Current Population not Treatment Served Level Year of Record Primary NA 2007 Secondary 79 2000 NA 3,355 504 3,867 549 X Twin Lakes Source: Compilation of databases from ADWR & others notes: Year of Record is for the volume of effluent treated/generated NA: Data not currently available to ADWR WWTP: Wastewater Treatment Plant 562 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin 563 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 3.14.9 Water Adequacy Determinations in the Willcox Basin Water adequacy determination information including the subdivision name, location, number of lots, adequacy determination, reason for the inadequacy determination, date of determination and subdivision water provider are shown in Table 3.14-10A. Designated water provider information is shown in Table 3.14-10B with date of application, date the designation was issued and projected or annual estimated demand. Figure 3.14-11 shows the locations of subdivisions and designated providers keyed to the Table. A description of the Water Adequacy Program is found in Volume 1, Appendix C. Adequacy determination data sources and methods are found in Volume 1, Appendix A. • • • All lots receiving an adequacy determination are in Cochise County. Twenty water adequacy determinations for 1,577 lots have been made in this basin through December 2008. Nine hundred and eighty-nine lots, or 62%, were determined to be adequate. All determinations of inadequacy were because the applicant chose not to submit necessary information and/or available hydrologic data was insufficient to make a determination and poor water quality. There is one designated water provider, City of Willcox, with a projected or annual estimated demand of 1,923 acre-feet. 564 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table 3.14-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Willcox Basin1 A. Water Adequacy Reports Map Key 1 2 3 4 5 Subdivision name County Arizona Bell Country Club Cochise #3 Arizona Sunsites Cochise Location no. of Lots ADWR File no.2 ADWR Adequacy Determination Reason(s) for Inadequacy 3 Determination Date of Determination Township Range Section 13 South 25 East 15 154 Adequate 03/11/74 17 South 25 East 18, 19 102 Adequate 07/22/82 16 South 24 East 33 17 South 24 East 4, 9, 10, 15, 16 21, 27, 28, 33, 34 Arizona Sunsites # 1 Cochise NA Arizona Sunsites # 2 Cochise 17 South 24 East Arizona Sunsites # 3 Blks Cochise 330-428 18 South 24 East 1 23 03/14/96 Hidden Valley Water Company Clear Springs Water Company 22-300064 Inadequate Inadequate A1 01/12/93 Dry Lot Subdivision 22-300354 Inadequate A1 09/03/97 Dry Lot Subdivision 65 A1 Water Provider at the Time of Application Dry Lot Subdivision 6 Arizona Sunsites # 4 Cochise 17 South 24 East 13, 14, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 35 216 Inadequate A1 01/12/93 Dry Lot Subdivision 7 Arizona Sunsites # 5 Cochise 17 South 25 East 31 35 Inadequate A1 01/12/93 Dry Lot Subdivision 8 Arizona Sunsites # 6 Cochise 16 South 25 East 22, 23, 26, 27, 28 211 Inadequate A1 01/12/93 Dry Lot Subdivision 9 Arizona Sunsites # 7 Cochise 16 South 24 East 4, 9, 10 NA Inadequate A1 01/12/93 Dry Lot Subdivision 10 Arizona Sunsites # 8 Cochise 17 South 25 East 30 12 Inadequate A1 01/12/93 Dry Lot Subdivision 11 Branding Iron Estates Cochise 13 South 24 East 11 46 Adequate 11/14/78 Dry Lot Subdivision 12 Foremost Subdivision Cochise 17 South 25 East 9 50 Adequate 11/10/99 Dry Lot Subdivision Stronghold Mobile Estates Cochise 11/10/82 Dry Lot Subdivision 13 14 15 16 17 Sunny Acres of Arizona # 1, 2 Sunsite Heights Block 22 Sunsite Heights Blocks 5 & 8 Sunsite Townhouses # 1A 22-400198 17 South 24 East 14 NA Inadequate Cochise 16 South 26 East 31 466 Adequate 10/11/74 Cochise 17 South 25 East 19 45 Adequate 12/15/78 Cochise 17 South 25 East 19 6 Adequate 05/27/94 Cochise 17 South 25 East 19 45 Adequate 12/17/78 22-300037 Inadequate A1 A1 Dry Lot Subdivision Clear Springs Water Company Clear Springs Water Company Clear Springs Water Company 18 Sunsites Ranches Cochise 18 South 24 East 14, 22, 24 26 07/28/95 Dry Lot Subdivision 19 Treasuredale Heights Cochise 17 South 25 East 19 45 Adequate 12/15/78 Clear Springs Water Company 20 Twin Peaks Cochise 14 South 26 East 18 30 Adequate 05/12/80 Dry Lot Subdivision B. Designated Adequate Water Supply Map Key Water Provider name a City of Wilcox County Designation no. Cochise 41-900017.0001 Projected or Annual Estimated Demand (af/yr) Date Application Received Date Application Issued Year of Projected or Annual Demand 1,923 6/10/2008 Pending NA Source: ADWR 2008a notes: 1 Each determination of the adequacy of water supplies available to a subdivision is based on the information available to ADWR and the standards of review and policies in effect at the time the determination was made. In some cases, ADWR might make a different determination if a similar application were submitted today, based on the hydrologic data and other information currently available, as well as current rules and policies. 2 Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy. Between 1995-2006 all applications for adequacy were given a file number with a 22 prefix. In 2006 a 53 prefix was assigned to all water adequacy reports and applications regardless of their issue date. 3 A. Physical/Continuous 1) Insufficient Data (applicant chose not to submit necessary information, and/or available hydrologic data insufficient to make determination) 2) Insufficient Supply (existing water supply unreliable or physically unavailable; for groundwater, depth-to-water exceeds criteria) 3) Insufficient Infrastructure (distribution system is insufficient to meet demands or applicant proposed water hauling) B. Legal (applicant failed to demonstrate a legal right to use the water or failed to demonstrate the provider's legal authority to serve the subdivision) C. Water Quality D. Unable to locate records NA= Data not currently available to ADWR Section 3.14 Willcox Basin 565 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 566 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Willcox Basin References and Supplemental Reading References A Anderson, T.W. and G.W. Freethey, 1995, Simulation of groundwater flow in alluvial basins in south central Arizona and parts of adjacent states: USGS Professional Paper 1406-D. Anning, D.W. and N.R. Duet, 1994, Summary of ground-water conditions in Arizona, 1987-90, USGS Open-file Report 94-476. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2005, Workforce Informer: Data file, accessed August 2005, http://www.workforce.az.gov. (Cultural Water Demand Table) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 2005a, ADEQSWI: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005b, ADEQWWTP: Data file, received August 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005c, Azurite: Data file, received September 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2005d, WWTP and permit files: Miscellaneous working files, received July 2005. (Effluent Generation Table) _____, 2004a, Water providers with arsenic concentrations in wells over 10ppb: Data file, received August 2004. (Water Quality Table/Map) _____, 2004b, Water quality exceedences by watershed: Data file, received June 2004. (Water Quality Table/Map) Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR), 2005, Active mines in Arizona: Database, accessed at http:// www.admmr.state.az.us. (Cultural Water Demand Map) Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), 2008a, Assured and adequate water supply applications: Project files, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2008b, Industrial demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2008c, Municipal surface water demand outside of the Active Management Areas 1991-2007: Unpublished analysis by ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005a, Automated recorder sites: Data files, ADWR Basic Data Unit. _____, 2005b, 2004 rural water provider questionnaire: Data files, ADWR Office of Resource Assessment Planning. _____, 2005c, Flood warning gages: Database, ADWR Office of Water Engineering. _____, 2005d, Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI): Database, ADWR Hydrology Division. _____, 2005e, Registry of surface water rights: ADWR Office of Water Management. (Reservoirs and Stockponds Table) _____, 2005f, Wells55: Database. _____, 1994a, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. I, Inventory and Analysis. _____, 1994b, Arizona Water Resources Assessment, Vol. II, Hydrologic Summary. _____, 1990, Draft outline of basin profiles for the state water assessment: ADWR Statewide Planning Division, Memorandum to L. Linser, January 16, 1990. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), 2005, Arizona Waterways: Data file, received Section 3.14 Willcox Basin 567 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 April 2005. _____, 1997 & 1993, Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: GIS cover. Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), 2005a, Springs: GIS cover, accessed January 2006 at http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/index.html. _____, 2005b, Streams: GIS cover, accessed 2005 at http://www.land.state.az.us /alris/index. html. _____, 2004, Land ownership: GIS cover, accessed in 2004 at http://www.land.state.az. us/alris/index.html. Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), 2007, Arizona climate stations: Pan evaporation date, accessed December 2008 at http://www.ag.arizona.edu/ azmet/locate.html. Arizona Water Commission, 1975, Summary, Phase I, Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory of resource and uses. B Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2005, Springs in the Safford region: Data file received January 2005. (Springs Table/Map) F Freethey, G.W. and T.W. Anderson, 1986, Predevelopment hydrologic conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona and adjacent parts of California and New Mexico: USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas-HA664. G Gebert, W.A., D.J. Graczyk and W.R. Krug, 1987, Average annual runoff in the United States, 1951-1980: GIS Cover, accessed March 2006 at http://aa179.cr.usgs.gov/metadata/ wrdmeta/runoff.htm. (Surface Water Conditions Map) O Oregon State University, Spatial Climate Analysis Service (SCAS), 1998, Average annual precipitation in Arizona for 1961-1990: PRISM GIS cover, accessed in 2006 at www.ocs. orst.edu/prism. P Pope, G.L., P.D. Rigas and C.F. Smith, 1998, Statistical summaries of streamflow data and characteristics of drainage basins for selected streamflow-gaging stations in Arizona through water year 1996: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4225. T Towne, D., 2001, Ambient groundwater quality of the Willcox basin: 1999 baseline study:ADEQ Open File Report 2001-09. (Water Quality Table/Map) U United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006, San Bernardino and Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuges: Accessed August 2006 at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/ arizona/sanbernardino.html 568 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008 & 2005, National Water Information System (NWIS) data for Arizona: Accessed October 2008 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. _____, 2007, Water withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, mining, thermoelectric-power, and drainage uses in Arizona outside of the active management areas, 1991-2005: Data file, received November 2007. _____, 2006a, National Hydrography Dataset: Arizona dataset, accessed at http://nhd.usgs.gov/. _____, 2006b, Springs and spring discharges: Dataset, received November 2004 and January 2006 from USGS office in Tucson, AZ. _____, 2004, National Gap Analysis Program, Southwest Regional Gap - land cover descriptions: Electronic file, accessed January 2005 at http://earth.gis.usu.edu /swgap. _____, 1981, Geographic digital data for 1:500,000 scale maps: USGS National Mapping Program Data Users Guide. W Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005, Precipitation and temperature stations: Data file, accessed December 2005 at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. dll?wwDI~GetCity~USA. Supplemental Reading Anning, D.W., 2003, Assessment of selected inorganic constituents in streams in the central basins study area, Arizona and northern New Mexico, through 1998: USGS Water Resource Investigations Report 03-4063. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2001, Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Willcox Basin: ADEQ 1999 Baseline Study, ADEQ Fact Sheet 01-03. Buck Lewis Engineering Inc., 1981, Report on Adequacy of Water Supply for Arizona Sun Sites. Cordy, G.E., D.J. Gellenbeck, J.B. Gebler, D.W. Anning, A.L. Coes, R.J. Edmonds, J.A. Rees, and H.W. Sanger, 2000, Water quality in the central Arizona basins, Arizona, 1995-1998: USGS Circular 1213. Dickens, C.M., 2004, Hydrogeologic Evaluation & Water Supply Development, Winchester Project, Cochise County, Arizona Duncan, J.T., and J.E. Spencer, 1993, “Uranium and Radon in Southeastern Arizona” in Radon in Arizona: USGS Bulletin 1999 p. 40-42. Gebler, J.B., 2000, Organochlorine compounds in streambed sediment and in biological tissue from streams and their relations to land use, Central Arizona: USGS Water Investigations Report 00-4041. Jacobs, K.L., and L.S. Stitzer, 2006, Water supply and management in rural Arizona, in Arizona Section 3.14 Willcox Basin 569 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Water Policy: Management Innovations in an Urbanizing Arid Region, Resources for the Future Press. Jacobson, J., T. Davis, A. Hinckley, D. Schmerge and S. Flora, 2008,Water Level Change Map Series (WLCMS) No. 1. Maps showing water level change from 1999 to 2005 in the Willcox Basin, Graham and Cochise counties Arizona, Arizona Department of Water Resources. Levick, L.R., M. Reed, E. vanderLeeuw, D.P. Guertin and K. Uhlman, 2006, NEMO Watershed Based Plan Middle and Lower San Pedro Watershed, University of Arizona. Oram, P. III, 1993, Maps showing groundwater conditions in the Willcox basin, Cochise and Graham Counties, Arizona 1989: ADWR, Hydrologic Map Series #25. Robertson, F.N., 1991, Geochemistry of groundwater in alluvial basins of Arizona, and adjacent parts of Nevada, New Mexico and California: USGS Professional Paper 1406-C. Santec Consulting and J.E. Fuller/ Hydrology & Geomorphology, Inc., 2000, Small and minor watercourses analysis for Cochise County, Arizona: Arizona State Land Department, Final Report. United States Geological Survey, 2005, Hydrogeologic investigations of the middle San Pedro, Detrital and Willcox basins, Arizona: USGS draft report. 570 Section 3.14 Willcox Basin Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ADEQ ADMMR ADWR AEPCO af AFA AGFD ALERT ALRIS ANP AMA ASARCO AWPF AZMET BLM BOR CAP CERCLA CLIMAS DES DNT DOD ENSO EPA ESA FCD GIS GRIC gpcd gpd gpm GVID GWSI INA LUST MHP M&I NHD NOAA NPS NRCD NRCS NWIS NWR Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources Arizona Department of Water Resources Arizona Electric Power Cooperative Acre-feet Acre-feet per year Arizona Game and Fish Department Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time Arizona Land Resource Information System Apache Nitrogen Products Inc. Active Management Area American Smelting and Refining Company Arizona Water Protection Fund Arizona Meteorological Network United States Bureau of Land Management United States Bureau of Reclamation Central Arizona Project Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act Climate Assessment for the Southwest Arizona Department of Economic Security Dinitoglycerine United States Department of Defense El Niño-Southern Oscillation Environmental Protection Agency Endangered Species Act Flood Control District Geographic Information System Gila River Indian Community Gallons per capita per day Gallons per day Gallons per minute Gila Valley Irrigation District Groundwater Site Inventory System Irrigation Non-expansion Area Leaking Underground Storage Tank Mobile Home Park Municipal and Industrial National Hydrography Dataset National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration United States National Park Service Natural Resources Conservation District Natural Resources Conservation Service National Water Information System National Wildlife Refuge Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices 571 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Pan ET PDO PCC PWUA SDID SNOTEL SPRNCA SX/EW TDS TNC Pan Evapotranspiration Pacific Decadal Oscillation Program Certificate Conveyence Pomerene Water Users Association Saint David Irrigation District SNOpack TELemetry San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area Solvent extraction/electrowinning Total Dissolved Solids The Nature Conservancy USFS USFWS USGS USPP UVD VRP WIFA WQARF WRCC WWTF WWTP United States Forest Service Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Geological Survey Upper San Pedro Partnership Upper Valley Districts Voluntary Remediation Program Water Infrastructure Finance Authority Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund Western Regional Climate Center Wastewater Treatment Facility Wastewater Treatment Plant TMDL TNT Total Maximum Daily Load Trinitroglycerin 572 Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 APPENDIX A Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices 573 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 APPENDIX A Arizona Water Protection Fund Projects In the Southeastern Arizona Planning Area through Fiscal Year 2008 Groundwater Basin SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA PLANNING AREA AWPF Project Title Grant # Project Category Aravaipa Canyon 96-0014 Klondyke Tailings Response Strategy Analysis (RSA) Research Cienega Creek 95-016 Refinement of Geologic Model, Lower Cienega Basin, Pima County, Arizona Research Cienega Creek 96-0006 Hydrogeologic Investigation of Groundwater Movement and Sources of Base Flow to Sonoita Creek and Implementation of Long-Term Monitoring Program Research Cienega Creek 96-0020 Cienega Creek Stream Restoration Cienega Creek 97-034 Oak Tree Gully Stabilization Cienega Creek 98-049 Empire/Cienega/Empirita Fencing Project Fencing Cienega Creek 99-068 Lower Cienega Creek Restoration Evaluation Project Research Cienega Creek 99-090 Redrock Riparian Improvement Douglas 98-066 Hay Mountain Watershed Rehabilitation Duncan Valley 95-014 Gila Box Riparian and Water Quality Improvement Project Duncan Valley 08-155 Restoration of the Gila River at Apache Grove Lower San Pedro 97-035 Watershed Improvement to Restore Riparian and Aquatic Habitat on the Muleshoe Ranch CMA Lower San Pedro 97-040 Bingham Cienega Riparian Restoration Project Lower San Pedro 97-044 San Pedro River Preserve Riparian Habitat Restoration Project 99-069 Riparian and Watershed Enhancements on the A7 Ranch – Lower San Pedro River Lower San Pedro 574 Stream Restoration & Revegetation Upland Channel Restoration Fencing & Water Developments Watershed Restoration Fencing & Upland Water Developments Stream Restoration Fencing & Watershed Restoration Revegetation Habitat Restoration Fencing & Upland Water Developments Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA PLANNING AREA (Cont) Groundwater Basin AWPF Grant # Project Title Project Category Habitat & Stream Restoration Lower San Pedro 07-142 Reduction of Erosion and Sedimentation along the Lower San Pedro River Through Hydrologic Restoration of Modified Ephemeral Washes Lower San Pedro 00-109 Lower San Pedro Watershed Project Lower San Pedro 00-111 Cooperative Grazing Management for Riparian Improvement on the San Pedro Morenci 99-077 Blue Box Crossing Morenci 00-102 Upper Eagle Creek Restoration on East Eagle Allotment: 4 Drag Ranch Morenci 05-129 Georges Lake Riparian Restoration Project Morenci 06-135 Double Circle Ranch Riparian Fencing Project Morenci 07-145 Kaler Ranch Erosion Control Project, Phase II Safford 96-0012 Eagle Creek Watershed and Riparian Stabilization Safford 96-0018 San Carlos Spring Protection Project Safford 96-0015 Abandonment of an Artesian Geothermal Well Safford 96-0028 Safford 97-036 Safford 98-052 Tritium as a Tracer of Groundwater Sources and Movement in the Upper Gila River Drainage Research Safford 98-054 Fluvial Geomorphology Study and Demonstration Projects to Enhance and Restore Riparian Habitat on the Gila River from the New Mexico Border Research Safford 99-086 Abandonment of Gila Oil Syndicate Well #1 Safford 00-099 Gila Reference Riparian Area, Discovery Park Revegetation San Rafael 97-045 Santa Cruz Headwaters Project Fencing & Upland Water Developments Creation of a Reference Riparian Area in the Gila Valley – Discovery Park Stable Isotopes as Tracers of Water Quality Constituents in the Upper Gila River Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices Feasibility Study Fencing & Upland Water Developments Channel Restoration Fencing & Upland Water Developments Fencing & Habitat Protection Fencing Habitat Stream Protection Fencing & Upland Water Developments Fencing Habitat Protection Habitat Restoration Research Habitat Protection 575 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA PLANNING AREA (Cont) Groundwater AWPF Project Title Basin Grant # Project Category Fencing & Upland Water Developments San Rafael 99-096 Upper Santa Cruz Watershed Restoration Upper San Pedro 95-009 Regeneration and Survivorship of Arizona Sycamore Upper San Pedro 95-005 Preservation of the San Pedro River Utilizing Effluent Recharge Upper San Pedro 95-015 San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area Watershed Rehabilitation/ Restoration Project Upper San Pedro 95-018 Autecology and Restoration of Sporobolus Wrightii Riparian Grasslands in Southern Arizona Upper San Pedro 95-020 Teran Watershed Enhancement Upper San Pedro 96-0013 Happy Valley Riparian Area Restoration Project Fencing Upper San Pedro 96-0001 San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area Watershed Protection and Improvement Project Fencing Upper San Pedro 97-027 Lyle Canyon Allotment Restoration Project Fencing & Upland Water Developments Upper San Pedro 99-070 Lyle Canyon Allotment Riparian Area Restoration Project --- Phase 2 Fencing & Upland Water Developments Upper San Pedro 08-151 Test of Riparian Recovery Following Cessation of Groundwater Pumping Research Willcox 03-116 Cottonwood Creek Restoration 576 Research Constructed Wetland Revegetation & Upland Channel Restoration Research Upland Channel Restoration Upland Channel Restoration Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 APPENDIX B Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices 577 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Appendix B: Community Water System Annual Reports and Submitted Plans PCC FACILITY 91-000518 ARAVAIPA WATER COARAVAIPA 91-000598 CASA ARROYO ASSN INC 91-000592 PATAGONIA WATER DEPT 91-000604 RED ROCK ACRES HOA 91-000602 91-000591 91-000594 91-000065 91-000054 91-000035 91-000038 91-000055 91-000037 91-000057 91-000075 91-000081 91-000080 ROLLING WHEELS MOBILE HOMES SONOITA VALLEY WATER CO SONOITA WATER UTILITY BISBEE DOUGLAS INTL APT COCHISE COLLEGE PARK WATER ASSOC DOUGLAS WATER DEPT ELFRIDA DOMESTIC WATER UTL LACOSTA WATER USERS ASSOC MCNEAL WC MONTE VISTA WATER CO LLC NACO WATER CO LLCBISBEE NTM AVIATION VISION QUEST LODGE MARY 91-000173 DUNCAN, TOWN OF 91-000178 TOWN OF DUNCANHUNTER WTR 91-000179 VALLEY VIEW MHP 91-000176 VERDE LEE WATER CO 91-000123 ASARCO-HAYDEN OPS 91-000025 91-000118 91-000529 AZ WATER CO - SIERRA VISTA AZ WATER CO WINKELMAN BIDEGAIN WATER COMPANY 578 Basin Aravaipa Canyon Cienega Creek Cienega Creek Cienega Creek Cienega Creek Cienega Creek Cienega Creek Douglas 2006 Withdrawn 2006 Diverted 10 10 2006 Received 2006 Delivered to 2007 Withdrawn 20 10 CUSTOMER 6 2007 Diverted 2007 Received 2007 Total Demand 2007 Delivered 2007 Delivered to 10 10 10 CUSTOMER CUSTOMER 5 5 5 CUSTOMER 140 139 CUSTOMER 128 128 129 CUSTOMER 3 3 3 CUSTOMER 3 3 3 CUSTOMER 9 9 7 CUSTOMER 15 15 11 CUSTOMER 401 401 401 CUSTOMER 56 56 CUSTOMER NR 7 NR 7 7 CUSTOMER NR 375 375 375 CUSTOMER NR 3,880 NR 3,880 3,881 1 1 NR CUSTOMER NR Douglas Douglas 2006 Delivered 140 Douglas Douglas 2006 Total Demand 56 2 1 NR CUSTOMER Douglas NR 6 6 6 CUSTOMER Douglas NR 10 10 10 CUSTOMER Douglas 17 Douglas 28 12 CUSTOMER 12 12 12 CUSTOMER 28 28 CUSTOMER 34 34 34 CUSTOMER 2 2 2 CUSTOMER NR Douglas Duncan Valley Duncan Valley Duncan Valley Duncan Valley Lower San Pedro Lower San Pedro Lower San Pedro Lower San Pedro 17 572 572 110 CUSTOMER 689 689 110 CUSTOMER 56 56 15 CUSTOMER 61 61 15 CUSTOMER 65 63 CUSTOMER 11,140 10,243/189 CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM 1,314 1,241 CUSTOMER 112 13 CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM NR NR NR 65 NR 10,906 1,262 1,262 111 111 NR 1,174 CUSTOMER 103/12 CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM 1,314 234 128 128 NR Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 PCC 91-000569 91-000146 91-000532 91-000533 91-000525 91-000579 91-000576 91-000015 91-000001 FACILITY BREEZEWAY TRAILER PARK Lower San Pedro Lower San HAYDEN, TOWN OF Pedro Lower San KEARNY, TOWN OF Pedro Lower San KELVIN-SIMMONS CO-OP Pedro Lower San MAMMOTH, TOWN OF Pedro SAGUARO MOBILE HOME Lower San PARK Pedro STEPHENS TRAILER Lower San PARK Pedro ALPINE ESTATES WATER Morenci COM ALPINE WATER SYSTEM 91-000027 PHELPS DODGE MORENCI WATER & ELEC (CLIFTON) PHELPS DODGE MORENCI WATER & ELEC (MAIN) ASH CREEK WATER COMPANY ASPC SAFFORD/FORT GRANT BOWIE WID 91-000169 CITY OF SAFFORD 91-000174 91-000175 91-000170 91-000171 91-000168 91-000166 91-000167 91-000177 91-000045 91-000172 Basin 2006 Withdrawn 126 274 AZ WATER CO - BISBEE 91-000031 BELLA VISTA CITY NR 78 78 CUSTOMER NR 483 435/190 CUSTOMER/ OTHER 462 780 46 CUSTOMER 240/6 CUSTOMER/ OTHER 240 17 1 CUSTOMER 2007 Withdrawn 2007 Diverted 2007 Received 2007 Delivered 2007 Delivered to 462 411/184 CUSTOMER/ OTHER 815 815 48 CUSTOMER 233 233 233 CUSTOMER 2 2 2 CUSTOMER 6,515 6,515 6,515 CUSTOMER 2007 Total Demand 24 CUSTOMER NR NR NR NR 519 793 739 NR CUSTOMER NR 27 NR 27 27 CUSTOMER 24 24 Safford NR NR Safford NR NR Safford NR Safford 91-000024 CUSTOMER 17 LOMA LINDA WATER CO ASHLEY'S MHP 4 NR 416 91-000073 4 240 Safford ANTELOPE RUN 2006 Delivered to 780 Morenci Safford 2006 Delivered 357 Morenci Morenci 2006 Total Demand 78 Safford 91-000069 2006 Received 4 EDEN WATER COMPANY INC GRAHAM COUNTY UTILITIES GRAHAM COUNTY UTILITIES SAN SIMON WATER IMPROVEME USDJ FBP FED CORR INST 2006 Diverted Safford 4,582 53 51 39 CUSTOMER 416 333/62 CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM 449 43 43 42 CUSTOMER 36 Safford 40 40 39 CUSTOMER NR Safford 122 123 124 CUSTOMER NR 63 63 62 CUSTOMER NR 11 11 11 CUSTOMER NR 1,131 1,131 936 CUSTOMER 51 1 NR Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices CUSTOMER 3,253 70 Upper San Pedro Upper San Pedro Upper San Pedro Upper San Pedro 70 1,329 71 71 44 44 CUSTOMER/ 4,250/197/890 SYSTEM/OTHE R 61 CUSTOMER 39 CUSTOMER 449 425 73 CUSTOMER/ SYSTEM 36 36 CUSTOMER 1,094 1,094 913 CUSTOMER 3,369 3,369 3,154 CUSTOMER 579 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 PCC 91-000028 FACILITY BELLA VISTA SOUTH Basin Upper San Pedro Upper San Pedro 2006 Withdrawn 2006 Diverted 2006 Received 2006 Total Demand 2006 Delivered 2006 Delivered to 2007 Withdrawn 842 2007 Diverted 2007 Received 2007 Total Demand 2007 Delivered 183 176 CUSTOMER 842 759/445 CUSTOMER/ OTHER 183 NR 2007 Delivered to 878 878 762/470 CUSTOMER/ OTHER Upper San Pedro 32 32 32 CUSTOMER 26 26 26 CUSTOMER DESERT WINDS MOBILE PARK Upper San Pedro 6 6 6 CUSTOMER 6 6 6 CUSTOMER 91-000046 EAST SLOPE WATER COMPANY Upper San Pedro 290 290 290 CUSTOMER NR 91-000039 HOLIDAY WATER COMPANY Upper San Pedro 46 46 46 CUSTOMER NR 91-000079 HOLY TRINITY MONASTERY Upper San Pedro 160 160 160 CUSTOMER 161 161 161 CUSTOMER 91-000040 HUACHUCA CITY Upper San Pedro 213 213 213 CUSTOMER 91-000041 INDIADA WATER COMPANY Upper San Pedro 91-000077 KOKOPELLI SPRINGS Upper San Pedro 91-000062 MESCAL LAKES WATER SYSTEM Upper San Pedro 91 91 85 CUSTOMER 67 67 85 CUSTOMER 91-000043 NACO WATER CO Upper San Pedro 83 83 67 CUSTOMER 76 76 65 CUSTOMER 91-000034 NORTHERN SUNRISE WC Upper San - CORONADO Pedro NR 59 59 45 CUSTOMER 91-000063 NORTHERN SUNRISE WC Upper San - MUSTANG/ CRYSTAL Pedro NR 33 33 25 CUSTOMER 91-000064 NORTHERN SUNRISE WC Upper San - SIERRA SUNSET Pedro NR 10 10 7 CUSTOMER 91-000044 PALOMINAS WATER & SEWER C Upper San Pedro 3 3 3 CUSTOMER 91-000033 POMERENE DOMESTIC WATER Upper San Pedro 220 220 223 CUSTOMER 227 227 206 CUSTOMER 91-000058 PUEBLO DEL SOL WATER Upper San CO Pedro 1,501 1,501 1,426 CUSTOMER 1,453 1,453 1,398 CUSTOMER 91-000026 BENSON, CITY OF 91-000030 CLOUD NINE WATER CO INC 91-000078 580 NR 12 NR CUSTOMER NR NR NR Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 PCC FACILITY Basin 2006 Withdrawn Upper San Pedro 50 2006 Diverted 2006 Received 2006 Total Demand 2006 Delivered 2006 Delivered to 2007 Withdrawn 50 50 CUSTOMER 2007 Diverted 2007 Received 2007 Total Demand 2007 Delivered 2007 Delivered to 50 50 50 CUSTOMER 91-000071 SIERRA VISTA MH VILLAGE 91-000032 SOUTHERN SUNRISE WC Upper San - COCHISE /HORSESHOE Pedro NR 156 156 129 CUSTOMER 91-000042 SOUTHERN SUNRISE WC Upper San - MIRACLE VALLEY Pedro NR 35 35 31 CUSTOMER 91-000047 SOUTHLAND UTLGOLDEN ACRES Upper San Pedro 153 153 153 CUSTOMER 160 160 161 CUSTOMER 91-000053 ST DAVID WATER Upper San Pedro 212 212 197 CUSTOMER 213 213 200 CUSTOMER 91-000067 STRATMAN WATER COMPANY Upper San Pedro 13 13 12 CUSTOMER 14 14 12 CUSTOMER 91-000048 SUE JUAN WC Upper San Pedro 54 54 55 CUSTOMER 52 52 52 CUSTOMER 91-000076 SULGER WATER COMPANY 2 Upper San Pedro 3 3 3 CUSTOMER 91-000051 SUNIZONA WATER CO Upper San Pedro NR 16 16 CUSTOMER 91-000070 SUNRISE MOBILE HOME PARK Upper San Pedro NR NR 91-000049 TOMBSTONE, CITY OF Upper San Pedro NR NR 91-000068 US ARMY-FORT HUACHUCA Upper San Pedro NR 1,274 1,414/661 CUSTOMER/ OTHER 91-000072 WHETSTONE VILLAGE MOBILE Upper San Pedro 91-000052 WHETSTONE WD 74 73 CUSTOMER 91-000056 WILLOW LAKES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION Upper San Pedro 91-000029 CLEAR SPRINGS Willcox 168 168 135 CUSTOMER 131 131 116 CUSTOMER 91-000061 CLEAR SPRINGS UTILITY Willcox 5 5 5 CUSTOMER 5 5 5 CUSTOMER 790/168 CUSTOMER/ OTHER 91-000050 WILLCOX, CITY OF 11 Upper San Pedro NR 16 1,274 11 11 CUSTOMER 141 CUSTOMER 0 74 NR NR Willcox NR 987 987 PCC = Program Certificate Conveyance (used as the community water system ID number) Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices 581 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Community Water Systems that have submitted a plan to the Department as of 12/2008 PCC 91-000518 91-000591 91-000592 91-000594 91-000598 91-000604 91-000035 91-000065 91-000075 91-000081 91-000173 91-000176 91-000178 91-000025 91-000118 91-000123 91-000532 91-000533 91-000569 91-000576 91-000579 91-000174 91-000175 91-000167 91-000169 91-000166 91-000168 91-000170 91-000171 91-000177 91-000024 91-000026 91-000031 91-000040 91-000058 91-000028 91-000030 91-000032 91-000033 91-000034 91-000042 91-000043 91-000044 91-000047 91-000049 91-000051 91-000052 91-000053 91-000062 582 nAME Basin ARAVAIPA WATER CO-ARAVAIPA SONOITA VALLEY WATER CO PATAGONIA WATER DEPT SONOITA WATER UTILITY CASA ARROYO ASSN INC RED ROCK ACRES HOA DOUGLAS WATER DEPT BISBEE DOUGLAS INTL APT NACO WATER CO LLC-BISBEE NTM AVIATION DUNCAN, TOWN OF VERDE LEE WATER CO TOWN OF DUNCAN-HUNTER WTR AZ WATER CO - SIERRA VISTA AZ WATER CO - WINKELMAN ASARCO-HAYDEN OPS KEARNY, TOWN OF KELVIN-SIMMONS CO-OP BREEZEWAY TRAILER PARK STEPHENS TRAILER PARK SAGUARO MOBILE HOME PARK PHELPS DODGE - MORENCI WATER & ELEC (CLIFTON) PHELPS DODGE - MORENCI WATER & ELEC (MAIN) GRAHAM COUNTY UTILITIES CITY OF SAFFORD GRAHAM COUNTY UTILITIES EDEN WATER COMPANY INC ASH CREEK WATER COMPANY ASPC SAFFORD/FORT GRANT LOMA LINDA WATER CO AZ WATER CO - BISBEE BENSON, CITY OF BELLA VISTA CITY HUACHUCA CITY PUEBLO DEL SOL WATER CO BELLA VISTA SOUTH CLOUD NINE WATER CO INC SOUTHERN SUNRISE WC - COCHISE/HORSESHOE POMERENE DOMESTIC WATER NORTHERN SUNRISE WC - CORONADO SOUTHERN SUNRISE WC - MIRACLE VALLEY NACO WATER CO PALOMINAS WATER & SEWER C SOUTHLAND UTL-GOLDEN ACR TOMBSTONE, CITY OF SUNIZONA WATER CO WHETSTONE WD ST DAVID WATER MESCAL LAKES WATER SYSTEM Aravaipa Canyon Cienega Creek Cienega Creek Cienega Creek Cienega Creek Cienega Creek Douglas Douglas Douglas Douglas Duncan Valley Duncan Valley Duncan Valley Lower San Pedro Lower San Pedro Lower San Pedro Lower San Pedro Lower San Pedro Lower San Pedro Lower San Pedro Lower San Pedro Morenci Morenci Safford Safford Safford Safford Safford Safford Safford Upper San Pedro Upper San Pedro Upper San Pedro Upper San Pedro Upper San Pedro Upper San Pedro Upper San Pedro Upper San Pedro Upper San Pedro Upper San Pedro Upper San Pedro Upper San Pedro Upper San Pedro Upper San Pedro Upper San Pedro Upper San Pedro Upper San Pedro Upper San Pedro Upper San Pedro Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 PCC nAME Basin 91-000063 NORTHERN SUNRISE WC - MUSTANG/CRYSTAL Upper San Pedro 91-000064 NORTHERN SUNRISE WC - SIERRA SUNSET Upper San Pedro 91-000067 STRATMAN WATER COMPANY Upper San Pedro 91-000071 SIERRA VISTA MH VILLAGE Upper San Pedro 91-000072 WHETSTONE VILLAGE MOBILE Upper San Pedro 91-000073 ASHLEY'S MHP Upper San Pedro 91-000076 SULGER WATER COMPANY 2 Upper San Pedro 91-000077 KOKOPELLI SPRINGS Upper San Pedro 91-000079 HOLY TRINITY MONASTERY Upper San Pedro 91-000050 WILLCOX, CITY OF Willcox 91-000029 CLEAR SPRINGS Willcox 91-000061 CLEAR SPRINGS UTILITY Willcox PCC = Program Certificate Conveyance (used as the community water system ID number) Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices 583 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 584 Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 APPENDIX C Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices 585 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 APPENDIX C SURFACE WATER RIGHT AND ADJUDICATION FILINGS Surface water is defined in Arizona as “waters of all sources, flowing in streams, canyons, ravines or other natural channels, or in definite underground channels, whether perennial or intermittent, floodwaters, wastewaters, or surplus water, and of lakes, ponds and springs on the surface” (A.R.S. § 45-101). In 1864, the first territorial legislature of Arizona adopted the doctrine of prior appropriation to govern the use of surface water. The doctrine is based on the tenet of “first in time, first in right” which means that the person who first puts the water to beneficial use acquires a right that is superior to later appropriators of the water. Since the population and water use were both relatively small at that time, no method was initially specified by the legislature for filing surface water right claims or granting rights. By the late 1800s, rapid development of irrigated agriculture combined with drought years had resulted in severe water shortages along the Salt and Gila Rivers. The territorial legislature responded in 1893 with a requirement that new water appropriations be posted at the point of diversion. However, until 1919, a person could acquire a surface water right simply by applying the water to beneficial use and recording a notice of appropriation at the state and country recorder’s office. There still was not a mechanism for granting surface water rights (ADWR, 1992). On June 12, 1919, the state legislature enacted a surface water code. Now known as the Public Water Code, the law generally requires that a person apply for and obtain a permit in order to appropriate surface water. There is an exception for water use from the mainstem of the Colorado River, which requires a contract with the Secretary of the Interior. In addition, most persons claiming surface water rights prior to the code have been required to file a statement of claim under the Water Rights Registration Act of 1974, although the act did not provide a process for determining the validity of these claims. The legislature also enacted the Stockpond Registration Act in 1977 to recognize certain “unpermitted” stockponds constructed after 1919 that had not gone through the application process. The Public Water Code provides that beneficial use shall be the basis, measure and limit to the use of water within the state. Beneficial uses are domestic (which includes the watering of gardens and lawns not exceeding one-half acre), municipal, irrigation, stockwatering, water power, recreation, wildlife including fish, nonrecoverable water storage, and mining uses (A.R.S. § 45-151(A)). The 586 Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 quantity of water that is reasonable for a particular beneficial use depends on a number of factors, including the location of the use. The Department maintains a registry of surface water right applications and claims filed in Arizona since the Public Water Code was enacted. Each filing is assigned a unique number with one of the following prefixes: • “3R” – application to construct a reservoir filed before 1972; • “4A” – application to appropriate surface water filed before 1972; • “33” – application for permit to appropriate public water or construct a reservoir filed after 1972. In addition to surface water diversions and reservoirs, instream flow maintenance can applied for and is defined as a surface water right that remains in-situ or “in-stream”, is not physically diverted or consumptively used, and is for maintaining the flow of water necessary to preserve wildlife, including fish, and/or recreation; • “36” – statement of claim of rights to use public waters of the state. To make this claim, an applicant or predecessor-in-interest must have initiated a water use based on state law before March 17, 1995; • “38” – claim of water right for a stockpond and application for certification filed for stockponds constructed after June 12, 1919 and before August 27, 1977. To file this claim and application, the stockpond should have been used exclusively for watering of livestock and/or wildlife, have a maximum capacity of 15 acre-feet, and not be subject to water rights litigation or protests prior to August 27, 1977; • “39” – statement of claimant filed in The General Adjudication of the Gila River System and Source (Gila Adjudication) and The General Adjudication of the Little Colorado River System and Source (LCR Adjudication). As explained further below, the department maintains a separate registry of these filings on behalf of the Superior Court of Arizona; and, • “BB” – decreed water rights determined through judicial action in state or federal court. These filings specify the source of water, its point of diversion (POD) and place of use (POU), the type and quantity of water use, and date of first use or priority. If, after moving through a number of administrative steps, an application to appropriate surface water or construct a reservoir (3R, 4A, or 33) is determined to be for beneficial use and not conflict with vested rights or be a menace to public safety or against the interests and welfare of the public, it may be approved and the applicant issued a permit to appropriate. The permit allows the permit holder to construct diversion works, as needed, and put the water to beneficial use. If the terms of the permit are met, the applicant can submit proof of appropriation through an application of Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices 587 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 certification and may be issued a Certificate of Water Right (CWR). The CWR has a priority date that relates back to the date of application and is evidence of a perfected surface water right that is superior to all other surface water rights with a later priority date, but junior to all rights with an earlier (older) priority date. The CWR also specifies the extent and purpose of the right and may be subject to abandonment and forfeiture if not beneficially used. There are currently approximately 850 applications to appropriate pending with ADWR, and approximately 420 permits and over 7,000 certificates have been issued by ADWR or its predecessors. A CWR may also be issued based on a stockpond claim (38) if it is found that the facts stated in the claim are true and entitle the claimant to a water right for the stockpond. The priority date depends on the date that the owner of the stockpond filed the claim. If filed prior to March 17, 1996, the priority date is the date of construction. Otherwise, the priority date is the date of filing the claim. Regardless of the date, the CWR for a stockpond claim is junior to (a) Colorado River and other court decreed rights; (b) other rights acquired prior to June 12, 1919 and registered as a statement of claim; and (c) any other CWR issued pursuant to an application filed before August 27, 1977. To date, nearly 20,000 stockpond claims have been filed of which over 3,000 stockpond certificates have been issued by ADWR or its predecessors. Unlike a CWR, the act of filing a statement of claim (36) does not in itself create a water right, nor does it constitute a judicial determination of the claim. Statements of claim are subject to challenge, but can be admitted “in evidence as a rebuttal presumption of the truth and accuracy of the information contained in the claim” (A.R.S. § 45-185). To date, nearly 30,000 statements of claim have been filed in Arizona. In addition to the applications and claims described above, ADWR’s registry of surface water right filings includes several rights determined through judicial action in state or federal court. These ‘adjudications’, in which a water right is determined by court action, may be initiated when one or more water users seek to know how their rights compare to the rights of other water users and/ or seek judicial relief from alleged interference with their rights by other water users. The court process establishes or confirms the validity of surface water rights and claims, determines whether these have been properly maintained over the years, and ranks them according to their priority. The result is a decree that may, in addition to establishing and confirming rights, specifies terms under which the decreed rights may be exercised if water shortages occur. Court decreed rights are considered the most valued or certain surface water rights because in the absence of abandonment or forfeiture, they are normally accepted as to their validity. More than 1,000 court-decreed rights are listed in ADWR’s registry and given the prefix “BB”. Although several surface water uses 588 Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 have been decreed, many claims and rights established before and after statehood have still not been examined to see if they remain valid. In addition, many water rights established under federal law and claimed by Indian tribes and the United States have not been quantified or prioritized. To better manage water resources in the state, these diverse rights and claims have been jointed into large, comprehensive determinations. Arizona currently has two generalFigure C-1 General Stream Adjudications in Arizona stream adjudications – the Gila Adjudication and the LCR Adjudication. (See Figure C-1) The purpose of these judicial proceedings is to determine the nature, extent, and priority of water rights across the entire river systems. In addition to confirming existing state-based surface water rights, the adjudications will quantify and prioritize reserved water rights for Indian and nonIndian federal lands. The latter include military bases, national parks and monuments, and national forests. The adjudications will also determine which wells are pumping appropriable underground water (subflow) and therefore are subject to the jurisdiction of the court. The Gila and LCR Adjudications are being conducted in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa and Apache Counties, respectively. ADWR provides technical, legal and administrative support to the adjudication court, as described in A.R.S. § 45-256. The Gila Adjudication was initiated in 1974 when SRP filed a petition to determine the water rights in the Salt River Watershed above the Granite Reef Diversion. Since that time, the adjudication area has grown and now covers over 53,000 square miles. It is divided into 7 watersheds and includes 12 Indian reservations and over 24,000 parties. The LCR Adjudication was initiated by a petition filed by Phelps Dodge in 1978. This adjudication now covers 27,000 square miles and Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices 589 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 includes 3 watersheds, 5 Indian reservations, and over 3,000 parties. A party is a person or entity that has filed one or more statement of claimant (SOC) in the adjudication. All parties who claim to have a water right within the river systems are required to file an SOC or risk the loss of their right. Well owners are also encouraged to file an SOC since the adjudication process may include water use from a well depending on the well’s location relative to streams and other factors. However, a person does not obtain a right to use water by filing an SOC nor is an SOC a legal permit to use water. Rights to use water must be acquired in accordance with state or federal law. Each year, ADWR sends summons to new surface water appropriators and well owners in the adjudication areas that direct them to file an SOC. In response, the number of SOCs filed in the adjudications continues to increase as new water uses are initiated. To date, nearly 81,000 SOCs have been filed in the Gila Adjudication and over 14,000 SOCs have been filed in the LCR Adjudication. ADWR maintains a separate registry of these adjudication filings on behalf of the Superior Court and assigns each a unique number with the prefix “39”. Table C-1 summarizes the number of surface water right and adjudication filings for each planning area. The table was generated by querying ADWR’s surface water right and SOC registries in February 2009. Files are only counted in the table if they include sufficient locational information (Township, Range, and Section) to allow a POD and/or POU to be mapped within the planning area. If a file lists more than one POD or POU in a planning area, it is only counted once in the table for that planning area. However, no attempt was made to avoid counting multiple filings for the same POD/POU which can result if a landowner or lessee has two or more filings or if different applicants each have at least one filing. Since many SOCs list surface water right filings as their basis of claim, multiple filings are common and account, in part, for the large number of filings. Sorting through multiple filings is one of the challenges facing the Department and the adjudication courts. Results from the Department’s investigation of surface water right and adjudication filings are presented in Hydrographic Survey Reports (HSRs). Figure C-2 shows the location of surface water diversion points listed in the Department’s surface water rights registry. The numerous points mapped reflect the relatively large number of stockponds and reservoirs that have been constructed across the state as well as diversions from streams and springs. Locations for registered wells, many of which are referenced as the basis of claim in SOCs, are also shown in Figure C-2. Instream flow filings are not shown as these filings do not have points of diversion. 590 Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices 591 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Table C-1 Count of Surface Water Right and Adjudication Filings by Planning Area1 TYPE OF FILInG PLAnnInG AREA TOTAL BB2 3R3 4A3 333 364 385 396 Eastern Plateau 134 163 196 373 3,289 3,275 12,099 19,529 Southeastern 483 395 716 898 8,288 6,415 19,288 36,483 Upper Colorado River 0 224 329 469 2,858 2,084 0 5,964 Central Highlands 1 287 625 897 8,517 3,928 25,443 39,698 Western Plateau 0 415 207 554 1,177 1,270 324 3,947 Lower Colorado River 0 26 48 86 355 304 2,323 3,142 Active Management Areas 1 269 341 687 4,072 2,913 27,134 35,417 Total 619 1,779 2,462 3,964 28,556 20,189 86,611 144,180 Notes: Based on a query of ADWR's surface water right and adjudication registries in February 2009. A file is only counted in this table if it provides sufficient information to allow a Point of Diversion (POD) and/or Place of Use (POU) to be mapped within the planning area. If a file lists more than one POD or POU in a given planning area, it is only counted once in the table for that planning area. Several surface water right and adjudication filings are not counted here due to unsufficient locational information. However, multiple filings for the same POD/POU are counted. 2 Court decreed rights; not all of these rights have been identified and/or entered into ADWR's surface water rights registry. 3 Application to construct a reservoir, filed before 1972 (3R); application to appropriate surface water, filed before 1972 (4A); and application for permit to appropriate public water or construct a reservoir, filed after 1972 (33). 4 Statement of claimant of rights to use public waters of the state, filed pursuant to the Water Rights Registration Act of 1974. 5 Claim of water right for a stockpond and application for certification, filed pursuant to the Stockpond Registration Act of 1977. 6 Statement of claimant, filed in the Gila or LCR General Stream Adjudications. 1 592 Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 APPENDIX D Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices 593 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 APPEnDIx D: RURAL WATERSHED PARTnERSHIPS ISSUE SUMMARY (2008) Watershed Partnership Community Watershed Alliance/ Middle San Pedro Watershed SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA PLANNING AREA Primary Participants Projects & Accomplishments x Cochise County Benson x x J-Six Mescal HOA St. David Irrigation District Pomerene Irrigation District Local Citizenry x x TNC x ADWR ADEQ NRCD Coop Extension USGS USDA/ARS USGS USBoR x Cursory groundwater study completed. AMA evaluation completed. Active agricultural fields identified and surveyed HSR completed 7-year comprehensive groundwater study and numeric model development initiated. Completed Watershed Based Plan Obtained TRIF Grant to conduct groundwater age dating Issues x x x x x x x x x x x x Eagle Creek Partnership Gila Watershed Partnership Local ranchers & special interest groups Stream Reconnaissance completed. study x x x x x x Fluvial Geomorphology Study Completed water demand study Capped several saline wells contributing to the degradation in water quality of the Gila River x x x ADWR Safford Thatcher Pima Graham County Greenlee County Duncan ADWR 594 x AZG&F x Growth proposed in the Benson area Limited groundwater data Different perceptions of issues and goals within the area between Benson, irrigation districts, local citizenry, and the Upper San Pedro Partnership Unable to get principle players to the table to discuss water Unregulated lot splits New arsenic drinking water standard Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies ESA issues Superfund site/poor quality groundwater conditions Potential impact of adjudication court subflow definition Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Mandatory water adequacy required for all new subdivisions Little or no groundwater data available Unresolved Indian water rights settlements Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Indian water rights settlement issues Poor quality surface and groundwater Growth associated with new Phelps Dodge mine and unregulated lot splits ESA issues throughout the watershed, critical Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Watershed Partnership SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA PLANNING AREA Primary Participants Projects & Accomplishments ADEQ Coop Extension x BLM USBoR USFS NRCS/RCD x x x x x Resin bush eradication project completed. Obtained several DEQ 319 grants for Gila River related projects Initiated San Simon legacy database project Completed Watershed Based Plan Completed Point of Pines restoration project Awarded several Water Protection Fund grants Issues x x x x x x x x x x Lower San Pedro Watershed PartnershipRedington NRCD Watershed reconnaissance study completed. Redington Cascabel Local ranchers ADWR x x x x NRCD/RCD x Upper San Pedro Partnership Sierra Vista Cochise County City Bisbee TNC Ft. Huachuca Huachuca Tombstone Huachuca x x x Comprehensive groundwater study Completed numeric groundwater model Decision Support System model completed. Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices x x x x x habitat designation, and mitigation efforts Desire to maintain rural setting and especially maintaining agriculture at current or higher levels Lack of technical data on the groundwater system Invasive species issues impacting the surface water supply (tamarisk) Potential impacts of adjudication court subflow definition New arsenic drinking water standard Drought impacts on surface water supplies, agriculture and cattle ranching Numerous high hazard unsafe dams in area Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Regular flooding in the Duncan-Virden area Unresolved adjudication and Indian water rights settlement issues Little or no groundwater data Opposition to government assistance in obtaining groundwater information Potential impacts of adjudication court subflow definition Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies Impacts on endangered species Federal mandate to achieve sustainability by 2011 Lawsuits from environmental groups Anticipated growth Potential impacts on riparian regime by continuation of current pumping 595 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Watershed Partnership SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA PLANNING AREA Primary Participants Audubon Bella Vista Water ADWR AACD State Land Projects & Accomplishments x ADEQ NRCD USF&W USFS BLM USDA/ARS USGS USBoR Coronado National Monument x x x x x x x x x x Willcox Playa Watershed Group 596 Willcox Cochise County Cooperative Extension Local Citizenry x San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area Water Demand study Recharge study of detention basins completed Engineering design to transfer effluent from Huachuca City to Ft. Huachuca for treatment and recharge completed Bisbee wastewater treatment plant for use by Turquoise Valley golf course completed. Second iteration of water conservation & management plan completed. Section 321 Report to Congress annually submitted. Funded more than $1,000,000 in conservation projects in watershed. Conduct public outreach and educational forums Completed Water Supply Appraisal study. Introduced Congressional Bill to obtain authority to conduct feasibility study Preliminary Upper San Pedro Water District formed Initiated multiple year comprehensive groundwater study Issues x x x x x x x x x x x Political obstacles from potential water augmentation projects Potential loss of Ft. Huachuca Interbasin transfer prohibition Potential impacts of adjudication court subflow definition Pumping impacts by Mexico on the San Pedro River and downstream users Unregulated lot splits Limited funding resources for planning, projects, infrastructure and studies High cost of augmentation projects Mandatory water adequacy required for all new subdivisions Approximately 100,000+ ac-ft of groundwater overdraft annually Potential for subsidence Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 Watershed Partnership SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA PLANNING AREA Primary Participants Projects & Accomplishments x Initiated the collection of relative gravity data Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices Issues x x x x x Limited funding resources Increased agricultural production Little or no groundwater data Water quality concerns Mandatory water adequacy required for all new subdivisions 597 Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3 598 Southeastern Arizona Planning Area Appendices