US Highway 93
Corridor Area Plan
Draft: June 23, 2009

U.S. Highway 93 Corridor Area Plan

Prepared by Mohave County Development Services in association with
two citizen committees comprised of residents and land owners

June 23, 2009

Draft: 6/23/2009

i

Executive Summary
The purpose of the US Highway 93 Corridor Area Plan, or the Area Plan, is to recognize the
unique character of the highway corridor and to encourage land use patterns that are consistent
with the goals of the General Plan, the residents and the property owners.
The US Highway 93 Corridor Area Plan, a component of the General Plan, covers approximately
430 square miles of unincorporated land in Mohave County. The Area Plan, like the General
Plan, is a flexible guide for land use and development for decision-makers. It is a statement of
community values, ideals and aspirations about the best management of the natural and built
environments. In addition to defining the County’s view of the future, the Area Plan describes
actions to be taken to achieve a desired future. The Area Plan uses text and diagrams to establish
policies and programs to address those issues facing the highway corridor. The Area Plan is,
thus, a tool for managing community change to achieve the desired quality of life.
In order to provide an overall guiding principle to develop the Area Plan, a vision statement was
produced to read as follows:
™ Water and other vital natural resources shall be protected and conserved to allow for the
creation of a self-sustaining and vibrant economy in perpetuity.
™ To create communities that will provide both needed neighborhood and regional services
while minimizing the change to the rural lifestyle of those currently living in or adjacent
to the Corridor.
™ Strive to preserve the rural and agricultural lifestyle of the area and provide protection
and stewardship of the natural environment while allowing controlled, measured growth.
The Area Plan includes three major sections. Section I introduces the Area Plan’s purpose,
content and effect, and describes the process used in preparing the Area Plan. Section I also
presents the vision statement, and summarizes past, existing and anticipated conditions,
including population growth trends affecting US Highway 93 Corridor.
Section II, the essence of the Area Plan, establishes goals, policies and implementation
techniques for the three major elements:
1.
2.
3.
4
5.
6.

Natural Resources
Water Resources
Public Safety
Economic Development
Transportation
Land Use and Housing

Draft: 6/23/2009

ii

Each Area Plan Element begins with a statement summarizing the most important information
gleaned from the base study research, public meetings with the Area Plan Committee, and other
sources and is combined with the key planning issues relating to the Element.
The Natural Resources Element looks to preserve the natural resources in US Highway 93
Corridor. Key goals of the Natural Resources Element are as follows:
♦ Designate wildlife corridors going underneath Highway 93 as more commercial
development comes into the area.
♦ Encourage the maintenance of and designate open space areas and landscape buffers.
♦ Learn to co-exist with and have good stewardship of native vegetation, significant
landscape features, rock formations and wildlife with an emphasis along the base of
mountains, foothills, slopes, and washes.
♦ Maintain air quality, desert views and scenic vistas.
♦ Limit exterior lighting and preserve dark skies.
♦ Minimize noise levels in a manner that is reasonable to both the local residents and the
proposed development.
♦ Protect the historical, cultural, and archeological resources of the area.
The Water Resources Element looks to preserve the water supplies in US Highway 93 Corridor
to comply with Growing Smarter Plus laws (ARS 11-821). Key goals of the Water Resources
Element are as follows:
♦ Businesses should be required to use native vegetation and water conserving landscaping.
♦ Require or preserve native landscaping to be kept throughout the Corridor.
♦ Encourage and increase low-water use activities for conservation and encourage industries
and businesses with limited water use.
♦ Require public agencies and public facilities to utilize water conservation and water saving
devices.
Ensuring for adequate public services and mitigating fire hazards and enhancing emergency
response is the focus of the Public Safety Element. Goals are as follows:
♦ Provide adequate sheriff and fire protection to all residents within the planning area,
including transient services at travel centers.
♦ Decrease emergency response times.
Providing local employment opportunities at commercial centers is the key to the Economic
Development Element. The region’s natural attributes, including solar, should also be viewed a
resource for a future green economy. Goals are as follows:
♦ Support commercial development that is determined by the local residents and local
government to serve the needs of the residents and tourists.
♦ Encourage economic development activity at existing and planned traffic intersections
along the corridor.

Draft: 6/23/2009

iii

♦ Support organized recreation and tourists activities at appropriate locations.
♦ Recognize and maintain open space and vistas as an essential part of the community’s
attractiveness to residents and tourists.
♦ Allow only a limited amount of environmentally responsible industrial development.
♦ Allow only environmentally responsible development

Providing easy access to public facilities and private properties is the key to the Transportation
Element. The low population density makes use of the private automobile the primary means of
transportation. Goals are as follows:
♦ Maintain a reasonable free-flow of traffic along all County Maintained within the Planning
Area.
♦ Reduce automobile dependency for short trips less than one mile.
♦ Improve existing roadways connecting to US Highway 93 to serve as access or frontage
roads to avoid unnecessary highway trips and to provide an alternate access for those
properties fronting along the highway.
♦ Upgrade roadway network to meet County design criteria for safe travel.
♦ Preserve and enhance existing trails and establish new trails throughout the Planning Area
to create a comprehensive trail network.\
♦ Encourage telecommuting to reduce single occupancy vehicular trips to and from work.
The Land Use Element seeks to preserve a rural community atmosphere by maintaining the
natural amenities that have attracted many buyers to area by focusing development around the
highway intersections and areas facing growth pressure. Goals are as follows:
♦ Create commercial centers extending up to one mile along the highway from either end of
the Traffic Interchanges and up to one half mile off of the highway fronting along the cross
roads.
♦ Provide for highway-serving as well as general and neighborhood-serving commercial
businesses at locations along the Corridor where similar land uses are established and in
operation.
♦ Commercial development should have architecture that is aesthetically compatible with the
natural environment.
♦ Establish Renewable Energy projects appropriate to and respectful of the land’s carrying
capacity.
♦ Create commercial recreational areas to serve local residents and tourists alike.
♦ Maintain the rural, low-density atmosphere in the planning area.
♦ Preserve the integrity of ranches and farms within and adjoining the planning area.
♦ Preserve the Rural to semi-Rural lifestyle for homes on smaller lots and parcels.
♦ Provide for higher density residential development in areas that are experiencing growth
pressure.
♦ Create a diversified mix of quality, affordable housing to serve all members of the
community.
♦ Establish Sufficient Public Facilities to Serve the Community.

Draft: 6/23/2009

iv

♦ Ensure Infrastructure Concurrency in all Development Areas.
To ensure the goals and policies of the Area Plan are considered for each development proposal
requiring review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approval by Board of Supervisors,
a final goal was added to establish a citizen advisory committee, with the County being
responsible to do as follows:
9 Notify the advisory committee of all development proposals within or adjoining the area
plan boundary that involve a plan amendment, rezone, zoning use permit, or subdivision
plat.
9 Coordinate neighborhood meetings with the committee as needed that involve plan
amendments, rezones, zoning use permits, or subdivision plats.
9 Include the advisory committee’s formal recommendation for each such proposal to the
Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors.

Section III provides, in tabular form, a brief overview of the key tools that can be used to
implement this plan. This section is intended to give citizens and public officials a single
reference source for information about the tools available to the County and other agencies in
carrying out the plan.
The Area Plan is a guide to action. It is not, in itself, an implementation tool. By ensuring that
individual County actions are consistent with the policies of the Area Plan, the community can
effectively achieve its goals. For example, the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of
Supervisors will use the Plan’s policies and Land Use Diagram to decide whether to approve a
proposed rezoning or zoning use permit.
The Area Plan should be used to prepare road improvement plans, and other facilities and
improvements. The Plan should be a dynamic document, subject to periodic modification when
conditions within US Highway 93 Corridor change significantly. Periodic review and
amendment of the Plan will be needed to ensure that it continues to address the needs of the
community.

Draft: 6/23/2009

v

Vicinity Map

Northwest
Corridor

Southeast
Corridor

Draft: 6/23/2009

vi

Table of Contents
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
List of Tables, Maps and Diagrams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Introduction
Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Content and Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Area Plan Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vision for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Natural Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Land Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Community Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2000 Census Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Households. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Employment and Poverty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1
1
1
2
3
3
4
5
5
7
8
8

Natural Resources Element
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Biotic Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Mohave Desert Biotic Community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Apache Highlands North Biotic Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Sonoran Desert Biotic Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Arizona Native Plant Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Habitat Stressors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Wildlife Linkage and Fracture Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Linkages within the Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Prioritization of Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table of Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Need for Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Corridor Crossing Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Mitigation Measures for Urban Barriers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Goals and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Implementation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Draft: 6/23/2009

vii

Water Resources Element
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Detrital Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sacramento Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hualapai Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Big Sandy Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bill Williams Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Five Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Stressors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Projected Water Use and Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Goals & Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Implementation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35
35
40
45
48
53
57
59
60
63
65

Public Safety Element
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fire Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Road Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mohave County Sheriff’s Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Goals & Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Implementation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66
66
75
76
78
79

Economic Development Element
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Findings of the North River Economic Region Economic Development Plan. . . . . . . . .
Labor Force, Industry, Occupation and Poverty Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Enterprise Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CANAMEX Trade Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Solar Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wind Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Goals & Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Implementation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81
81
85
90
91
93
96
96
98

Transportation Element
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
US Highway 93- Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ADOT Access Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Northwest Corridor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Southeast Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Redesign of I-40/US 93 West Kingman Traffic Interchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Joshua Forest Scenic Road Corridor Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Overview of Mohave County Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Draft: 6/23/2009

viii

100
100
100
103
104
114
114
115

Design of Existing County Roadway System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Journey to Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Alternative to the Single-Occupancy Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Off-Road Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Wildlife Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Goals & Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Implementation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Land Use Element
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Division of Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Existing Development and Property Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Development Area And Land Uses Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
General Plan Land Use Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Proximity to New Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Relationship to other Area Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Creation of the Land Use Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Buildout Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Goals & Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Implementation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Detailed Land Use Diagrams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . following

Draft: 6/23/2009

ix

128
131
133
134
138
143
148
149
154
155
156
160
161

List of Tables, Maps and Diagrams
Table of Stressors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table of Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table of Buffers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Water Wells by Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Water Wells by Depth to Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Population Projections and Water Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison of Population Growth in Five Basins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cumulative Risk Levels in Wildland Urban Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Site Selection Factor Rating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Road Types along Northwest Corridor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Maintenance Status of Roads within Northwest Corridor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Maintenance Status of Roads within Southeast Corridor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Road Types along Southeast Corridor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Significant Bridges and Structures along Highway 93. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Existing Land Ownership along Northwest Corridor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Existing Land Ownership along Southeast Corridor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Existing General Plan Land Use Designations along Northwest Corridor. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Existing General Plan Land Use Designations along Southeast Corridor. . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Ranch White Hills Land Use Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Villages at White Hills Land Use Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Silverado Land Use Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Buildout Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Land Use Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . following

Implementation Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix A: Species of Concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix B: Hydrographs and Water Adequacy Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix C: Access to Highway and Property Purchase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix D: Proposed and Existing Land Uses by Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix E: Entitlement Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Draft: 6/23/2009

x

18
25
27
58
58
60
62
74
84
117
118
119
120
125
130
130
140
141
145
147
148
156
161

Acknowledgments
Board of Supervisors
Gary Watson, District I, Vice-Chair
Tom Sockwell, Chair, District II
Buster Johnson, District III
County Manager
Ron Walker
Planning & Zoning Commission

Ad Hoc Committee Members

Earl Hamlyn, Chairman, District I
Carl E. Flusche, Vice-Chairman, District III
Kenneth White, District III
Joseph Morabito, District II
Bill Abbott, District I
Mehdi Azarmi, District II
Kristal Gibson, District II
Rick Sherwood, District I

Patti Walrod, Chair (Southeast)
Mary Clark, Chair (Northwest)
Anita Waite, Vice-Chair (SW)
Jim Kanelos, Vice-Chair (NW)
Bill Barnes
Elizabeth Barnett
Sue Baughman
Ron Bowen
Carol Ann Bump
Wendy Cavalliere
Paul Clark
H.R. Dennett
Jack Ehrhardt
John Gall
Mike Gibelyou
Mike Hofstadter
Carol Moreno
Laura Pulvermacher
Patricia Rowe
John Ruger
Jeff Sayre
Judi Scaliatine
John Scaliatine
Mark Shaver
Mercedes Stout
Krystal Symonds
Kathy Tackett-Hicks

Development Services Department
Nicholas S. Hont, Director
Christine Ballard, Planning & Zoning Manager
Karl Taylor, Planning Manager
Kevin Davidson, Planner II
Rosevelt Arellano, Planner I
Mark Millner, Planner I
Amber McGuire, Office Assistant
Public Works Department
Mike Hendrix, Deputy County Manager
Steve Latoski, Director
Arizona Department of Transportation
Mike Kondelis, District Engineer
Michele Beggs, Public Information Officer
Bureau of Land Management
John Reid, Right-of-way Specialist
Jackie Neckels, Assistant Field Manager
Arizona Game and Fish
Janice Stroud, Biologist

Draft: 6/23/2009

xi

Section I

Introduction to the US Highway 93 Corridor Area Plan
Purpose
The proposed US Highway 93 Corridor Area Plan was recommended by the 2005 General Plan
Update Committee to be one of staff’s high priorities for area plan development after the readoption of the General Plan and as a response to several requests for highway-serving
commercial development along the corridor received by staff since 2005, many of whom are
anticipating an increased use of the highway following the completion of the Hoover Dam
bypass bridge at the end of the decade. The Area Plan seeks to balance the anticipated growth
along the Corridor as well as preserve the rural life style enjoyed by the existing resident
landowners.
Contents and Organization
The Area Plan includes three major sections. Section I introduces the Area Plan’s purpose,
content and effect, and describes the process used in preparing the Area Plan. Section I also
presents the vision statement, and summarizes past, existing, and anticipated conditions,
including population growth trends affecting those lands adjacent to the US Highway 93.
Section II, the essence of the Area Plan, establishes goals, policies, and implementation
techniques for the six major elements:
1.
2.
3.
4
5.
6.

Natural Resources
Water Resources
Public Safety
Economic Development
Transportation
Land Use and Housing

Each Area Plan Element begins with a statement summarizing the most important information
gleaned from the base study research, public meetings with the Area Plan Update Committee,
and other sources to uncover key planning issues relating to the Element. This introduction gives
the reader an understanding of the basis of the goals and policies which will be used by the
County in making decisions on development approvals, public infrastructure financing, and other
issues.
Section III provides, in tabular form, a brief overview of the key tools that can be used to
implement this plan. This section is intended to give citizens and public officials a single
reference source for information about the Area Plan's implementation process.
Effect
Planning is an on-going process, involving various players in the County, and does not “end”
with the adoption of a particular document. As conditions change, there may be request to
amend the Area Plan to take advantage of new opportunities as well as deal with new risks

Draft: 6/23/2009

-1-

arising along the Corridor. The Area Plan is not intended to be a static document, but a dynamic
guide to help citizens shape the future of the community; however, any amendment must be in
accordance with the guiding vision as further described and developed in more detail elsewhere
in the planning document.
Goals are used to describe a desired state of affairs in the future. They provide a broad statement
to which policies and programs may be directed and need not be tied to specific time lines.
Goals in the Area Plan have been written to finish the sentence “Our goal is . . .”
Policies are statements of intent against which individual actions and decisions are evaluated.
Policies are phrased as a sentence, with the agency responsible for implementing the policy
clearly identified as an implementation measure. The Mohave County Departments of
Development Services and Public Works are the main implementing agencies unless otherwise
specified. The wording of policies conveys the intended level of commitment to action. For
example, policies which use the word “shall” are mandatory directives, while those using
“should” are statements to be followed unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise.
Implementation techniques are actions recommended to carry out policies and procedures. They
are not exhaustive, but give the Area Plan an initial agenda and means of implementation. The
County will need to adopt future budgets, consider new ordinances, and provide staff resources
to implement some of the Area Plan’s goals.
The Area Plan is a guide to action. It is not a direct implementation tool such as an ordinance or
regulation. The Area Plan should be used in evaluating rezoning and zoning use permit cases by
staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors, and to prepare road
improvement plans and other facilities and improvements which can be created with a general
improvement district, if any. The Area Plan should be a dynamic document, subject to periodic
modification when conditions along the Corridor change. Periodic review and amendment of the
Plan will be needed to ensure that it continues to address the needs of the community.
Area Plan Development
Notification letters were initially sent to 321 randomly selected landowners within one-half-mile
of the highway right-of-way, plus another 38 properties with commercial improvements,
covering all known businesses at the time of the sample. 1 Mail and e-mail notifications of the
initial Area Plan meeting were sent to those with “interest” in the US Highway 93 Corridor,
members of the public who participated in the 2005 General Plan update process and government
agencies and service providers. Additional public notification was performed through the local
newspaper in the form of display advertisements and special articles. Posters, noticing the first
meeting, were placed along major thoroughfares. The first meeting was held in October, 2007,
at the Board of Supervisors Auditorium where over 70 members of the public attended. Two
Area Plan Committees were tentatively formed at this time to address the Northwest and
Southeast portions of the Corridor. The two Committees met at least once a month for the next
14 months individually and five months jointly to discuss the issues faced along the Corridor and
to develop the Area Plan. During this time, meeting minutes were mailed or e-mailed to
1

A five percent sample was randomly selected from 6,428 Assessor parcels within the survey area.

Draft: 6/23/2009

-2-

interested individuals, most of whom were resident landowners. Meetings were typically
attended by County officials, representatives from guest agencies such Arizona Department of
Transportation and Arizona Department of Water Resources, realtors, residents, and others
owning property within the study area. Northwest Committee meetings were held on weeknights
at the Dolan Springs Community Center and in Chloride either at the local church or the Town
Hall. The Southeast Committee meetings alternated between the Cedar Hill School and the
Arizona Department of Transportation facility in Wikieup. Joint meetings were held at the
County Administration building.
Vision for the Future
In order to provide an overall set of guiding principles to develop the Area Plan, a three-part
vision statement was produced to read as follows:
™ Water and other vital natural resources shall be protected and conserved to allow for the
creation of a self-sustaining and vibrant economy in perpetuity.
™ To create communities that will provide both needed neighborhood and regional services
while minimizing the change to the rural lifestyle of those currently living in or adjacent
to the Corridor.
™ Strive to preserve the rural and agricultural lifestyle of the area and provide protection
and stewardship of the natural environment while allowing controlled, measured growth.
Each idea has been used by the Committee to guide the development of the goals and policies of
the six Elements that constitute the Area Plan.
Natural Setting
The Mohave Desert Ecoregion, covering most of the
Northwest Corridor, is a transitional region situated
between the higher and cooler Great Basin Desert to the
north and the warmer Sonoran Desert to the south (Lowe
1985). Elevation ranges from about 3,000 to 4,000 feet.
This ecoregion features Basin and Range topography, with
the broad Detrital and Sacramento Valleys separated by the
Black and Cerbat Mountain ranges that trend from north to
south. Precipitation ranges from about 5 to 11 inches per
year, with slightly more winter than summer precipitation
(CWCS).
The Apache Highlands North Ecoregion is largely
comprised of grasslands, chaparral, and pinyon/juniper
woodlands (Marshall and others 2004). Elevation ranges
from about 3,000 to 6,000 feet within the planning area.
Precipitation ranges from 10 to 18 inches in this ecoregion,

Draft: 6/23/2009

-3-

with approximately equal portions falling in winter and summer. Drought is a large source of
negative impact on the habitats and wildlife (CWCS). This ecoregion begins just east of the
community of So-Hi and continues eastward along the Highway 93 Corridor to Round Valley
and then south to Wikieup where it gives way to the Sonoran Desert. The dissected nature of the
terrain causes differences in elevation, slope and aspect. Due to the highly dissected nature of its
topography, the more rugged areas contain relatively low rural populations (CWCS).
The Sonoran Desert ecoregion is dominated by Desert Scrub communities (Marshall and others
2000, Phillips and Comus 2000). Elevation ranges from about 2,500 to 3,500 feet in the planning
area. The ecoregion features Basin-and-Range topography, with the broad Big Sandy Valley
separated by the Hualapai Mountains and Aquarius Mountains. Annual precipitation in the
ecoregion ranges from about 3 to 17 inches, with slightly more annual rainfall within higher
elevation inclusions of other vegetation types (CWCS).
Land Tenure
With nearly 430 square miles and over
8,500 individual parcels, the planning area
encompasses a diverse and intermingled
group of federal, state, and private land
ownerships, each having unique and
sometimes competing goals and aspirations
for the land they own or manage on behalf
of the public. Private land is primarily
checker-boarded with BLM land along the
Northwest Corridor as can be seen in the
following diagram. Of the 168 square
miles in this part of the Corridor, 100
square
miles
are
under
federal
management. However, some 15,848 acres
have been identified for disposal for private
use potentially adding 25 square miles for
development. Within the 259 square mile
area of the Southeast Corridor, over 27,000
acres of Arizona State Trust lands are
present, often interspersed with private land
in a checkerboard pattern. These offer a
challenge to management since access and
control are often limited. The BLM also
manages a significant portion of lands
south of Cane Springs (see diagram) and
has identified 6,350 acres of private land
with valuable habitat for acquisition. The
Hualapai Nation also has tribal lands
adjoining the Southeast Corridor.

Draft: 6/23/2009

-4-

Adopting Resolution when available

Draft: 6/23/2009

xii

Community Background
Mining and livestock grazing were historically the primary land uses in these ecoregions and
continues to a lesser extent today. Livestock grazing is common in the higher precipitation areas,
which are typically in the foothills, higher basins and the mountain ranges with less activity at
lower elevations where grazing is generally confined to ephemeral vegetation that is made
possible by good winter rains. The rich gold, silver, and copper ore deposits that brought
industry to Mohave County in the latter half of the 19th century have mostly been depleted.
However, with the recent demand for copper and molybdenum, the Mineral Park Mine, located
just east of the planning area, is beginning operations. Numerous abandoned mines and mining
claims are scattered throughout all of the mountain ranges. Agriculture became established
where water was available and is limited to flood plain areas of the Big Sandy. In most of the
Big Sandy Valley, the primary river system, large tracts of desert remain, and plant and animal
communities are relatively intact (CWCS).
Following the initial settlement of Mohave County, which has been mostly small town and rural
in nature, and the various levels of natural resource development and extraction associated with
this low-intensity settlement pattern, the next type of development is expected to be residential
growth in the form of new urban housing tracts and town centers along US Highway 93.
Migrating baby-boomers and retirees that are attracted by the mild climate of the area, some
looking to live in the exurbia of Las Vegas, will be competing with new businesses along US
Highway 93, all made possible by the construction of the Hoover Dam Bypass.
2000 Census Population
The majority of the planning area traverses regions of
the County with fewer than six persons per square mile,
the traditional definition of the American Frontier, ca.
1890. Areas where the population reaches 50 persons
per square mile occur at the intersection of White Hills
Road and the highway, So-Hi and vicinity, east of the
highway, the neighborhoods of Cedar Hills and Cedar
Mesa and the greater Wikieup area.
The total
population estimate for census blocks within the
planning area was 1,399 in 2000 resulting in 3.25
persons per square mile. Annual population increases
of approximately five percent per year may be assumed
based on the growth in the Kingman area. The City of
Kingman falls mid-way along the Corridor and is the
primary population center with some 35,000 people in
the city and the adjoining New Kingman/Butler area.
Along the Northwest Corridor four Census Block
Groups representing, 1) Dolan Springs/White Hills and
points
north
of
Cottonwood
Road,
2)
Chloride/Grasshopper Junction, the area between

Draft: 6/23/2009

-5-

Cottonwood Road and Jurassic Drive, 3) northern Golden Valley bounded by Jurassic and Agua
Fria Drives and 4) eastern Golden Valley
located generally east of Bacobi Drive,
contained 5,283 persons (see Block Group
map). Along the Southeast Corridor, 1,945
persons resided within Census Block Groups
for, 1) Cedar Hills/Round Valley, covering the
area southeast of Kingman to nearly Cane
Springs, and 2) Wikieup/Cane Springs
including all land to the Yavapai County line
along the highway. Population ranged from a
high of 2,293 persons in Dolan Springs/White
Hills to low of 423 persons in Wikieup/Cane
Springs or less than one person per five square
miles in the latter instance.
A review of the population distribution by age
and gender shows a dearth of persons aged 20
to 34 along the Corridor. This is not unusual
in Mohave County which has only 14 percent
of its population within this age group. This
statistic is indicative of young people leaving
the county after high school for college and
other pursuits in larger metropolitan areas. By
contrast, the 55 to 69 year old cohort
comprises 20 percent of the population.
For the Northwest Corridor, this missing
young adult demographic is even more pronounced with only eight percent of the population in
the 20 to 34 age group (see Population Tree chart). This is made up mostly in the larger
percentage of persons aged 55 to 69 that comprise 28 percent of the population. Along the
Southeast Corridor, the young adult population comprises nine percent of the population.

However, fewer seniors aged 55 to 69 are present as compared to the Northwest Corridor.

Draft: 6/23/2009

-6-

Only 12 percent of those persons living in the four Census Block Groups along the Northwest
Corridor were born in Arizona. Most, some 41 percent, have come from another western state,
typically California. Midwesterners make up 24 percent of the population. For birth places of
those living along the Southeast Corridor, 28 percent call Arizona their home state with 35
percent being born in another western state and 20 percent hailing from the Midwest.
This highly transient population is also reflected in place of residency five years prior to the
Census. Over one fourth of the Northern Corridor’s population lived in another state in 1995
greater than the number who moved from all parts of the country or other places in Arizona
combined. Less than 50 percent of the population lived in the same house as they did in 1995.
In comparison, mobility along the Southeast Corridor is somewhat less with over 50 percent of
all persons living in the same house as five years previous and only 13 percent having lived in
another western state in 1995. Nearly one fourth of residents did, however, relocate from
another part of Mohave County to live in this environment as compared to about one eighth who
relocated to the Northwest Corridor.
Households
The distribution of households shows that
the traditional married couple headed
household, with or without children, is still
the majority along the Northwest Corridor
making up 51 percent of the 2,441
households in the four Census Block Groups
(see chart).
Single parent households
comprise 11 percent of all households and
fairly evenly divided between male and
female headed households. There where
slightly more single male headed
households than single female headed
households.
With 852 households, the Southeast Corridor contains just over one third the number found
along the Northwest Corridor. Married
couples with children comprise a substantial
plurality at 43 percent of all households with
another 19 percent of households headed by
married couples without children (see chart).
Single parent households make up eight
percent of the households with single
mothers being more prevalent than single
fathers. Single male headed households out
number single female headed households by
a margin of two to one at 16 percent and
eight percent of all households, respectively.

Draft: 6/23/2009

-7-

The highest percentage of seniors reside in the communities of Dolan Springs and White Hills
where over half of all households are headed by persons aged 65 or more. Seniors represent at
least 40 percent of the households in the Chloride/Grasshopper Junction and eastern Golden
Valley. By contrast, senior-headed households in the Cedar Hills/Round Valley area account for
less than 25 percent.
Housing
In 2000, the County’s median home value was $95,300, with median monthly rent at $560.
Rental housing is considered affordable if it does not consume more than 30% of gross annual
household income. Most households can afford rental units in Mohave County.
In the
Northwest Corridor, median household income for the four Census Block Groups in 2000,
including lands outside of the planning area, ranged from $17,358 in Dolan Springs/White Hills
to $31,875 in northern Golden Valley. A cluster of homes priced between $50,000 and $90,000
provided an opportunity for the average household to purchase the median priced home of
$65,000. These homes were mostly owner-occupied single-family detached dwellings many of
which were manufactured homes dating from the late 1970s.
Median incomes in 2000 for Cedar Hills/Round Valley Area and Wikieup/Cane Springs were
$25,455 and $35,833, respectively. Unlike the Northwest Corridor, where a normal distribution
curve is found, most homes are valued above $100,000 with median value of $135,000, making
these homes less affordable to area households.
Employment and Poverty
The civilian labor force participation rate of those 16 years of age and older varied from a low of
34 percent in the Dolan Springs/White Hills Area to a high of 56 percent in the Cedar
Hills/Round Valley Area. As a comparable, labor force participation in the City of Kingman
stood at 57 percent with the County being somewhat lower at 52.8 percent. This variation may
be explained by a larger percentage of senior citizens in the outlying communities and the level
of disability among those 16 to 64 years of age which was several percentage points higher for
the Northwest Corridor (19.4 percent) and the Southeast Corridor (22.9 percent) when compared
to Kingman at 18.75 percent.
Over one-eighth of the Northwest Corridor’s 1,685 person workforce is engaged in the arts,
entertainment and recreation industry. Other industries of note included education, hospitality
management, retail trade and health and social services. Construction and manufacturing jobs
combined make up over 15 percent of jobs in the area. Employment in mining, although only
constituting 3.68 percent of the jobs along Southeast Corridor, was significant with the arts,
entertainment and recreation industry employing some 2.5 percent of the labor force. Retail
trade workers amounted to 15.54 percent of the 859 person labor force. Other significant
industries included hospitality management, construction, agricultural and forestry and fishing,
and civil service.
Generally, the unemployment rate is greater along the Northwest Corridor with a high of 18
percent in eastern Golden Valley. Greater Wikieup and Cane Springs had an unemployment rate

Draft: 6/23/2009

-8-

of three percent, the lowest of the six Census Block Groups. On the other hand, poverty levels
are lower for those areas nearest to Kingman with eastern Golden Valley reporting 20 percent of
persons in poverty and northern Golden Valley having some 16 percent of its population living
in poverty. Only Cedar Hills/Round Valley, at 10 percent, had a lower poverty rate than the City
of Kingman and Mohave County. Chloride/Grasshopper Junction reported the highest level of
poverty at 31 percent with Dolan Springs/White Hills and Wikieup/Cane Springs reported
poverty levels and 26 percent and 24 percent, respectively.

Draft: 6/23/2009

-9-

Section II

Natural Resources

Natural Resources Element
Introduction
The Natural Resources Element addresses issues relating to the three biotic communities that
constitute the physical environment for the 427-square-mile planning area running some 130
linear miles along US Highway 93 within Mohave County and includes sections on native plants,
air quality, noise, and scenic resources. Water resources will be addressed in a separate Element.
Each section includes an overview of existing conditions, trends, goals and policies to guide the
community’s approach to maintain or improve their environment and a list of implementation
techniques assigning tasks to various groups and/or government agencies.
Biotic Communities
The planning area traverses the Mojave Desert, the
northern Apache Highlands and the Sonoran Desert as
defined by the Arizona Game and Fish Department
recently
published
Comprehensive
Wildlife
Conservation Strategy (see Exhibit). Each community
contains various habitat types and will be discussed
after a brief introduction to each biotic community. A
list of species of greatest concern found at four wash
crossings along the highway corridor and a list of
habitat stressors is also provided in Tables 1 and 2.
Mohave Desert Biotic Community
The Mohave Desert Ecoregion is a transitional region
situated between the higher and cooler Great Basin
Desert to the north and the warmer Sonoran Desert to
the south (Lowe 1985). Elevation ranges from about
3,000 to 4,000 feet. This ecoregion features Basin and
Range topography, with the broad Detrital and
Sacramento Valleys separated by the Black and Cerbat Mountain ranges that trend from north to
south. Precipitation ranges from about 5 to 11 inches per year, with slightly more winter than
summer precipitation (CWCS).
Mining and livestock grazing were historically the primary land uses in the area and continues to
a lesser extent today. Livestock grazing is common in the higher precipitation areas, which are
typically in the foothills, higher basins and the mountain ranges with less activity at lower
elevations where grazing is generally confined to ephemeral vegetation that is made possible by
good winter rains. The rich gold, silver, and copper ore deposits that brought industry to
Mohave County in the latter half of the 19th century have mostly been depleted; however, with
the recent demand for copper and molybdenum, the Mineral Park Mine, located just east of the
planning area, is beginning operations. Numerous abandoned mines and mining claims are
scattered throughout all of the mountain ranges.

Draft: 6/23/2009

10

Following the initial settlement of Mohave County, which has been mostly rural in nature, and
the various levels of natural resource development and extraction associated with this lowintensity settlement pattern, the next type of development is expected to be residential growth in
the form of new urban housing tracts and town centers for migrating baby-boomers, some
looking to live in the exurbia of Las Vegas, and the coming of international trade along US
Highway 93, both made possible by the construction of the Hoover Dam Bypass. Accordingly,
this development will further the exploitation of natural resources that this plan seeks to
minimize.
Mohave Desert Scrub
The majority habitat is Mohave Desert Scrub
which predominates the northern corridor
portion of the area plan and is a transitional
habitat between the Great Basin Desert Scrub
and the Sonoran Desert Scrub habitats which
are found along the eastern and southern
extent of the planning area, respectively (see
exhibit).
The creosote bush is the dominant species on
the sandy flats with white bursage and other
grasses and forbs intermixed. Catclaw acacia
and smoketree are found in the hills and along
washes. The region is rich in ephemeral
plants. Cacti are also common within this
zone with blackbrush and Joshua trees
emerging in the northern part.
Plants
associated with these areas include galleta
grass, bush muhley, white burrobush, ephedra,
and banana yucca (CWCS).
The sandy flats are mostly composed of the
Latene-Nickel-Pinaleno (Thermic Semiarid 9)
soil association. These soils are well drained,
deep, gravelly, limy, moderately coarse to
moderately fine-textured, nearly level to very
steep soils on dissected alluvial fan surfaces
with soil temperatures between 59° to 72° F (see exhibit). Factors limiting the potential of these
areas for urban development are the excessive slope and high gravel and lime content in the
lower horizons. These limitations have been partially overcome or compensated for by proper
engineering design and construction techniques (Hendricks).
Drought is a major stressor to wildlife and wildlife habitat in this area. Rainfall is often
unpredictable and some areas may go without measurable precipitation for long periods of time.

Draft: 6/23/2009

11

Year-round grazing by livestock and feral animals such as burros and horses has led to a loss of
native grasses with subsequent increase in shrub density (CWCS). These plant communities are
in disclimax state. The native bunch grasses, not generally tolerant of grazing, sustained high
mortality when grazed heavily in spring. Wildfires, once common in these grasslands, are far
less frequent today as grazing has left less residual grass to carry fires and land management
agencies maintain fire suppression policies (Hendricks). Native plant communities do not appear
to be recovering within these areas. The condition of this habitat type will continue to show a
decreasing trend due to population growth in the region and associated human impacts.
Semidesert Grassland
A small portion of the planning area between Mineral Park Road and Chloride Road, generally
east of Highway 93 is populated by perennial bunch grasses interspersed with low shrubs and
bare ground due to lower precipitation (10 inches per year) than other grasslands. Overgrazing
and fire suppression have compromised the condition of these grasslands by reducing bunch
grasses and contributing to their replacement with annual grasses, forbs, scrubby trees, and
shrubs similar to the disclimax plant communities noted in Desert Scrub above. In climax
communities, three-awn and tobosa together
with grama species are the dominant grasses.
Galleta, bush muhley, fluffgrass, vine
mesquite, and hairy tridens may also be
present. Other common species in this zone
include acacias, prickly pear cactus, cholla,
and yucca. This habitat type has seen major
downward trends due to drought, continued
year-long
grazing,
nonnative
plant
encroachment, losses to urbanization and rural
development, and associated human impacts.
Native grass communities have been reduced
or eliminated over most of the valley and
nonnative grasses and weeds have become
dominant (CWCS).
The grasslands are underlain in part by the
Cabezon-Thunderbird-Springerville
(Mesic
Semiarid 7) soil association. These soils are
shallow to deep, gravelly, cobbly and stony,
fine-textured, nearly level to very steep soils
on basaltic plains, mesas and hills with soil
temperatures between 47° to 59° F. This
association consists of well-drained soils on
plains, mesas, hills and very steep
escarpments. The principal factors limiting
the potential of these soils for development of
homesites and recreation sites are high shrink-swell, clay textures, slow to very slow
permeability and excessive rock fragments on the surface (Hendricks).

Draft: 6/23/2009

12

The planning area south of So-Hi also contains the Torrifluvents (Hyperthermic Arid 1) soil
associations which are deep, stratified, coarse to fine-textured, nearly level to gently sloping soils
on floodplains and lower alluvial fans. Soil temperatures are between 45° to 90° F. This
association consists of well-drained to somewhat excessively drained soils formed in sandy to
clayey recent mixed alluvium on the floodplains. All of the soils in this association are subject to
seasonal, brief flooding unless protected. Runoff is slow and the hazard of erosion is usually
slight except along entrenched streams where soils are subject to bank cutting, piping and
gullying. Flooding potential is the major limitation of these soils. The permeability of the soil is
too limited for septic tank disposal fields. The excessive permeability of most of the soils in this
association prohibits their use for water retention structures (Hendricks).

Apache Highlands North Biotic Community
The Apache Highlands North Ecoregion is largely comprised of grasslands, chaparral, and
pinyon/juniper woodlands (Marshall and others 2004), but also contains significant mixed stands
of Madrean evergreen oak woodlands in the
foothills. Elevation ranges from about 3,000
to 6,000 feet within the planning area.
Precipitation ranges from 10 to 18 inches in
this ecoregion, with approximately equal
portions falling in winter and summer
(CWCS). This ecoregion begins just east of
the community of So-Hi and continues
eastward along the Highway 93 Corridor to
Round Valley and then south to Wikieup
where it gives way to the Sonoran Desert (see
exhibit). The dissected nature of the terrain
causes differences in elevation, slope and
aspect that often result in a striking variety of
habitat type and associated wildlife. Great
Basin Coniferous Woodland, Semidesert
Grassland, and associated riparian and aquatic
habitats may be found in close proximity.
Due to the highly dissected nature of its
topography, the more rugged areas contain
relatively low rural populations (CWCS).
Although the ecoregion is relatively wellwatered and much of that runoff flows
through the streams and washes, the western
third of the ecoregion, comprising the
planning area, is less well-watered. The upper
portion of the Big Sandy River is the significant surface water. Many of the smaller tributaries of
the Big Sandy have perennial or intermittent flow, providing aquatic habitat, support for riparian

Draft: 6/23/2009

13

communities and water for wildlife consumption. Additionally, private landowners and livestock
operations have constructed numerous water impoundments that are of value to wildlife
(CWCS).
Mining, livestock grazing, and timber harvesting have been the dominant human economic
activities. These activities have been a source of significant impacts on the biotic environment.
Agriculture is limited to flood plain areas of the Big Sandy. Some mining structures provide
habitat for bats and other wildlife with special habitat requirements. Today the ecoregion is
facing pressure from an increasing human population comprised of retirees who seek the mild
climate of the area and those who can afford the time and expense to recreate in the outdoors
(CWCS).
Drought is a large source of negative impact on the habitats and wildlife. In winter 2005-06
Arizona found itself in an extensive period of severe drought, with little germination of winter
annual vegetation and perennial vegetation dramatically reduced in vigor. Much of the existing
vegetation had been severely over-utilized, in places due to wildlife use, but more extensively as
a result of livestock grazing. Visual observations indicate severe loss of rangeland biomass,
many springs and cattle tanks without water, and high levels of impact to vegetation and soils
due to livestock that remain on rangelands (CWCS).
Semi-Desert Grassland
This habitat type has probably diverged most significantly from its native condition. The
landscape, which extends from the City of Kingman’s eastern border to Blake Ranch and then
again from Round Valley to Wikieup, was historically dominated by perennial bunch grasses
such as three-awn, tobosa and grama species interspersed with low shrubs and bare ground.
Because of lower precipitation than other grasslands, and human activities such as intensive
livestock grazing, fire suppression, and growing human settlements, the current condition of this
habitat type is that it has been degraded throughout, followed by invasion of Great Basin Conifer
and/or Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub communities similar to the Desert Grass land described in
the Mohave Desert Ecoregion (CWCS).
Current drought, and expectation that it may continue for a significant period into the future,
creates a mixed prognosis for this habitat. Increases in fire on this landscape offer an opportunity
for the perennial grass community to reestablish a favorable equilibrium with the invading
shrubs communities. However, without normal or near normal precipitation, grasses are unlikely
to thrive. In addition, non-native grasses and forbs are mostly annual species which react quickly
to favorable conditions, sequester nutrients, and out-compete the native perennial grasses, at least
in the short-term (CWS).
Soils include the Latene-Nickel-Pinaleno (Thermic Semiarid 9) soil association described above,
which occurs along the Big Sandy River floodplain and in the DW Ranch Road vicinity of the
planning area, and the Lithic Torriorthents-Rock Outcrop-Lithic Haplargids (Thermic Arid 3)
soil association. The latter are shallow, gravelly and cobbly, moderately sloping to very steep
soils with rock outcrop on hills and mountains. Soil temperatures are between 62° to 72° F.
This association consists of well-drained, shallow soils and rock outcrop on hills and low

Draft: 6/23/2009

14

mountains. The major soils of the association are severely limited for use as building sites due to
excessive slopes and shallowness to bedrock with areas of high shrink-swell potential
(Hendricks).
Great Basin Conifer Woodland
This habitat type, characterized by alligator and one-seed juniper, exists throughout middle
elevations of the ecoregion. This landscape is the dominant vegetation east of Blake Ranch to
Round Valley and then south to the Windmill Ranch. The condition of Great Basin Coniferous
Woodland is that it is increasing in extent within this ecoregion at the expense of Semidesert
Grassland and riparian habitats. This reflects the combined impacts of altered fire regimes and
intensive domestic livestock use over the past 100 years. Over the last 10 years, portions of this
habitat type have been treated by various means to reduce overstory vegetation and to restore
grassland. The resulting vegetative communities vary in composition, stability and productivity
depending on restoration techniques employed and subsequent management practices. Presence
of undesirable invasive plants has resulted in much of the treated acreage failing to be properly
restored to the intended grasslands (CWCS).
Sonoran Desert Biotic Community
The ecoregion is dominated by Desert Scrub communities (Marshall and others 2000, Phillips
and Comus 2000). Elevation ranges from about 2,500 to 3,500 feet in the planning area. The
ecoregion features Basin-and-Range topography, with broad Big Sandy Valley separated by the
Hualapai Mountains and Aquarius Mountains. Annual precipitation in the ecoregion ranges from
about 3 to 17 inches, with slightly more annual rainfall within higher elevation inclusions of
other vegetation types (CWCS).
Biodiversity of the Sonoran Desert is among the highest of any desert in the world (Phillips and
Comus 2000) and can be manifested here in surprising ways. The most striking feature of this
ecoregion is the cactus-dominated vegetation communities, with giant saguaros and chollas being
the most conspicuous. In terms of breeding bird diversity and productivity, the Sonoran Desert's
riparian habitats are among the richest in all of North America (Nabhan and Holdsworth, 1999).
The majority of land uses have historically been agriculture, urban and rural settlement, livestock
grazing, and mining. Agriculture became established where water was available. In most of the
Big Sandy Valley, the primary river system, large tracts of desert remain, and plant and animal
communities are relatively intact (CWCS).
Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub
This habitat occurs at the higher elevations of the Sonoran Desert Ecoregion, where slightly
cooler temperatures and increased precipitation result in more verdant and diverse vegetation.
The Big Sandy Valley is the furthest northern extension the Sonoran Desert Ecoregion in
Arizona. Strips of riparian habitat exist along this main drainage and others with perennial or
near-perennial flows. These riparian deciduous woodlands and marshlands were formerly much
more extensive and their decline represents a significant loss to wildlife. Trees, typically in the

Draft: 6/23/2009

15

paloverde-mixed cacti (Brown 1982) community and ironwoods are less confined to drainages
giving this habitat a greater overall arboreal diversity. Ironwood is of particular importance
because it functions as a habitat-modifying keystone species, influencing the health of associated
species (CWCS).
Wildfire in this vegetative community is increasingly common, but was not so formerly. Many
native plants are not adapted to fire and where it occurs, type conversion to a community more
similar to the Lower Colorado River Sonoran Desert Scrub, augmented with nonnative grasses
and forbs, is often the result. Threats are more diverse and immediate private lands, including
current and future urban and rural development, agricultural development, overgrazing, and
increasing recreational pressure. Ecosystem integrity and connectivity should be a high priority
(CWCS).
The Anthony-Vinton-Agua Soil Association (Thermic Arid 2) soil association is a deep, medium
to coarse-textured, nearly level to gently sloping soil on floodplains and low alluvial fans. Soil
temperatures are between 59° to 72° F. This
association consists of well-drained soils on
the floodplains of intermountain valleys and is
found on both sides of Highway 93 generally
south of Wikieup. These soils are subject to
brief flooding during wet seasons and can be a
severe limitation for homesites and many
other community uses. If protected from
flooding, these soils are suitable for use as
homesites and sanitary facilities. These soils
are somewhat droughty for growing lawns and
landscape plants (Hendricks).
The second soil type, found typically east of
Highway 93 between the Cane Springs Ranch
and Signal Road and in the Blake Ranch area,
is the Laveen-Carrizo-Antho Association
(Hyperthermic Arid 7). These are deep,
medium-textured,
limy
and
gravelly,
moderately coarse and coarse-textured, nearly
level to moderately sloping soils on
floodplains and dissected alluvial surfaces.
Soil Temperatures between 72° to 80° F. This
association consists of well-drained and
excessively drained soils on dissected old
alluvial fans and sandy floodplains. The
Laveen and Antho soils are good for
homesites and other community uses, if protected from flooding but tend to be somewhat dusty.
Carrizo soils have very rapid permeability and are subject to flooding and excessive seepage
prohibits their use for sanitary facilities. They are good potential sources of sand and gravel
(Hendricks).

Draft: 6/23/2009

16

Great Basin Conifer Woodland
There is one small inclusion of this habitat type in the ecoregion in the Poachie Range north of
Alamo Lake which touches the southern end of the planning area south of Nothing. The area is
within BLM jurisdiction and relatively sequestered due to terrain and limited access. This is the
southern extremity of Great Basin Conifer Woodland and may be vulnerable to any increase of
aridity through drought or warming. Larger patches of this habitat type are found in neighboring
Apache Highlands North and in the Mohave Desert ecoregions noted above (CWCS).
Wetlands/Springs/Seeps
Wetlands, springs, and seeps are rare in the Sonoran Desert but are critical to a number of rare
species. They are of critical importance to many marsh species. Most springs and seeps are
located in mountains or other areas of rugged terrain and remain largely intact. These areas are
administered primarily by the BLM which has afforded protection in the past and should
continue to do so. Some springs and seeps in the Sonoran Desert have been degraded or lost
completely due to development or diversion for use by livestock or crops or groundwater
pumping, particularly those in flatter topographies. An increase in aridity, should it occur, would
obviously have severe impacts to many springs and seeps in the Sonoran Desert (CWCS).
Streams/Rivers
The Big Sandy River is the stream in the ecoregion. The natural functions of this system have
been seriously altered and degraded by human activities in most areas with the lowering of
ground water levels, by diversion, mostly from ground water pumping, and by invasion of
nonnative plants. Extended drought will result in continued loss of in stream flows and further
degradation of riparian and aquatic habitats (CWCS).

Arizona Native Plant Law
The Arizona Department of Agriculture is responsible for enforcing the State’s native plant law
(ARS §3-903). The protected plant groups include any native plant growing wild on any
property, public or private; manmade landscapes are exempt. Native plants include all cacti,
ocotillo, yucca, Ironwood, Palo Verde and Mesquite and 16 other federally listed threatened or
endangered species. Under Arizona State law it may be illegal to destroy these plants without
following the necessary notice procedures.

Draft: 6/23/2009

17

Table of Stressors
As part of Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, several dozen habitat
stressors were listed in ten broad categories ranging from systemic changes in the ecology and
the effects of climate change including drought to the conversion and use of the land caused by
human settlement patterns and transportation networks resulting in various types of pollution

Altered river flow regimes
Habitat degradation/shrub invasions
X
X
Habitat fragmentation/barriers
X
X
Insect Infestation
X
Changes in
Loss of keystone species
Ecological Processes
Game animal & sport fish management
Soil erosion
X
X
Streambank alteration/channelization
Unnatural fire regimes
X
X
Drought
X
X
Climate Change
Shift to warmer climate
X
Source: Arizona's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Startegy, 2005-2015

X
X
X

X
X
X

Seeps and Springs

Rivers and Streams

Riparian

Great Basin Conifer
Woodland

Upland Sonoran
Desertscrub

Semi-Desert
Grassland

Great Basin Conifer
Woodland

Stressor

Apache
Sonoran Desert
Highlands North

Semi-Desert
Grassland

Category

Mohave Desert

Mohave Desert
Scrub

Ecological Region

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

Habitat degradation and fragmentation are the two most significant stressors in seven of the eight
habitat types under Changes in Ecological Processes category. This mainly caused by the
increased presence in the human activities which bisect the landscape with an interconnected
network of barriers that may restrict wildlife movement and migration, increase mortality, alter
fire regimes (see Public Safety Element), degrade available habitat or resources, and alter
community composition. Gori and Enquist (2003) documented a substantial decline in the area
of grasslands throughout the Apache Highlands. Approximately 37% of historical grasslands
have undergone a cover-type conversion to shrub lands including juniper, mesquite, and catclaw
acacia, and an additional 32% will likely be converted to shrub land in the near future due to
current land management practices. Conservation of grasslands is needed to maintain many
grassland species, particularly wide-ranging species such as pronghorn. Habitat degradation and
shrub invasions may cause species to specific to that habitat to be extirpated or even to go extinct
(CWCS).
Soil erosion is also of concern. Hydrological changes will cause shifts in vegetative cover
necessary for maintaining intact ecosystems. Erosion due to wind and water action will increase
salutation, decrease water quality, and lead to loss of riparian habitat diversity and complexity.
Grazing has also increased soil erosion by altering plant communities resulting in decreased
biomass and cover increasing the impacts from precipitation. Rapid runoff from watersheds
stripped of plant biomass increases stream velocities, leading to erosive down-cutting and lateral
destabilization. These down-cut channels leave banks above the wetted zone, eliminating their
suitability for riparian habitat. Closely related to erosion is streambank alteration/channelization
to reduce the risk from flooding, with some plans being implemented on a landscape scale. The

Draft: 6/23/2009

18

results of these changes include loss of riparian habitat, drying of natural springs and seeps,
modification of springheads, and depletion of groundwater supplies. Both wildlife and plant
species experience severe habitat degradation and loss and may be unable to reproduce or persist.
These altered ecosystems may promote nonnative species invasions or encroachment by nonriparian species (CWCS).
Drought and shift to a warmer climate will also impact most of all of the planning area. While
the effects of drought will be discussed with the Water Resource Element, a shift to a warmer
climate will only exacerbate adapting to a drier climate. The Southwest has been subject to a
slight warming trend over the last 100 years that is expected to continue into the current century.
According to climate prediction models, temperatures are expected to rise 4-5 °F by 2030 and 712 °F by 2090 (Sprigg and others 2000). Effects may include increased surface temperatures,
changes in the amount, seasonality, and distribution of precipitation, more frequent climatic
extremes, and a greater variability in climate patterns. Such changes may affect vegetation at the
individual, population, or community level and precipitate changes in ecosystem function and
structure (Weltzin and McPherson 1995). They will likely affect competitive interactions
between plant and animal species currently coexisting under equilibrium conditions (Ehleringer
and others 1991).

Grazing by ungulates
X
X
Consumptive use of
Harvesting/collecting animals
biological resources
Harvesting/collecting plants
Agricultural conversion
Dams/reservoirs/impoundments
Livestock management
X
X
Habitat conversion
Recreational sites/facilities
Rural development
X
X
Urban growth
X
X
Bait-bucket dumping/illegal stocking
Disease/pathogens/parasites
Feral animals
X
Invasive species Invasive plants
X
Nuisance animals
X
Nuisance plants
Nuisance plants
X
Source: Arizona's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Startegy, 2005-2015

X

X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Seeps and Springs

Rivers and Streams

Riparian

Great Basin Conifer
Woodland

Upland Sonoran
Desertscrub

Semi-Desert
Grassland

Great Basin Conifer
Woodland

Stressor

Apache
Sonoran Desert
Highlands North

Semi-Desert
Grassland

Category

Mohave Desert

Mohave Desert
Scrub

Ecological Region

X

X

X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X

X

X

Plants respond differently to changes in atmospheric gases, temperature and soil moisture, in part
based photosynthetic pathways (Bazzaz and Carlson 1984, Patterson and Flint 1990, Johnson and
others 1993). For example, increases in winter precipitation favor tree establishment and growth
at the expense of grasses. Increases in temperature and summer precipitation favor grasslands
expanding into woodlands (Bolin and others 1986). In coming decades, such changes are
expected to produce major shifts in vegetation distributions at unprecedented rates (IPCC 1998).
Recent research has shown that considerable vegetation changes have occurred in the past and
can be expected in Arizona’s future (Betancourt 1990, Brown and others 1997, Allen and
Draft: 6/23/2009

19

Breshears 1998, Sprigg and others 2000). Often, these changes were a result of widespread
mortality due to secondary effects such as insect infestations and fire.
The primary stressor for consumptive use of biological resources in the planning area is the
grazing of ungulates or cows and other hoofed animals. Unrestricted grazing by domestic
livestock as well as wildlife in grasslands and along riparian areas has resulted in the reduction of
long-term plant and animal productivity and alteration of plant communities. The change
towards more weedy, unpalatable plant species decreases the availability of forage for animals as
well. The preference of livestock and other grazers to feed on riparian plants along with the
cooler nature of the riparian zone and the presence of drinking water also leads to direct impacts
to riparian zones. The ecological impacts of grazing are magnified in riparian systems, where
livestock tend to congregate (Fleischner 1994). Livestock management practices are also a
significant stressor for the category of habitat conversion. The area plan will not address farming
activities in detail because commercial farms or ranches with five or more contiguous acres are
exempt from local planning and zoning land use regulations. 1 Ranchers in the Cane Springs are
have been credited with good stewardship often land by rotating pasture land, maintaining water
supplies away from riparian areas and working with local agencies.
Urban and rural development is occurring at a rapid rate within the planning area and will
eventually affect of the of the habitat types. Please see the later discussion on wildlife fracture
zones and the Land Use Element for a full discussion.
Nuisance plants and animals are the primary stressor within the non-native and invasive species
category. Many ecologists have acknowledged the problems caused by invasion of nonnative
species into communities or ecosystems and the associated negative effects on global patterns of
biodiversity (Stohlgren and others 1999). Once established, invasive species have the ability to
displace native plant and animal species (including threatened and endangered species), disrupt
nutrient and fire cycles, and alter the character of the community by enhancing additional
invasions (Cox 1999, DeLoach and others 2000, Zavaleta and others 2001, Osborn and others
2002). As of 1998, nonnative species have been implicated in the decline of 42% of species
federally listed under the Endangered Species Act (Center for Wildlife Law 1999). Invasive
nonnative species in Arizona have a variety of impacts on native biodiversity, and can affect
native species through competition, predation, introduction of disease and parasites,
hybridization, and others (Tellman 2002)
Among the most serious nuisance plants in southern Arizona are African bufflegrass
(Pennisetum ciliare), red brome (Bromus rubens) and Saharan mustard (Brassica tournefortii),
All of these plants, and several others, tend to grow in high densities and to carry wildfires in
desert habitats, resulting in wholesale changes in the vegetative communities (McAuliffe 1995,
Esque and Schwalbe 2002). The Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum refers to Saharan mustard as
"the worst invasive plant in the Sonoran Desert," primarily because of its competitive effects on
other plants or its ability to carry fire. For animals, near urban areas, at landfills, in recreational
areas, etc, starlings, cowbirds, and ravens may displace native bird species (Kristan and Boarman

1

See ARS 11-380, Restriction on regulation and ARS 42-12152. Criteria for classification of property used for
agricultural purposes

Draft: 6/23/2009

20

2002). Nonnative bees are also replacing native pollinators and potentially impacting vegetative
communities (Schaffer and others 1983).
Although only listed an issue for the Mohave Desert Scrub habitat feral animals that include
escaped or abandoned domesticated pets, farm stock, and equines are severely impacting wildlife
and wildlife habitats from hunting and grazing. Horses, burros, goats, domestic sheep, and hogs
may overgraze or trample native plant species, thus increasing erosion, compacting soil through
frequent trail usage, and polluting aquatic systems through waste accumulation (CWCS).

Groundwater depletion & spring use
X
X
Abiotic resource use Mining
X
Water diversion/water catchments
Creation of roads & trails by illegals
Border issues
Motorized recreation off-trail
X
X
Non-consumptive Non-motorized recreation off-trail
X
Unauthorized roads & trails
resource use
Watercraft operation
Waste water and runoff contaminants
X
Illegal dumping/littering
Light pollution
Pollution
Noise pollution
Pesticides/herbicides
Sediment/ash flows
Air traffic corridors/overflights
Power lines/wind-harnessing turbines
X
X
Transportation and Right-of-way fencing along roadways
infrastructure
Roads for motorized vehicles
X
X
Telephone lines/cellular phone towers
X
X
Unauthorized roads & trails
X
X
Source: Arizona's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Startegy, 2005-2015

X

X
X

X

X
X

X

X

X
X

X
X

Seeps and Springs

Rivers and Streams

Riparian

Great Basin Conifer
Woodland

Upland Sonoran
Desertscrub

Semi-Desert
Grassland

Great Basin Conifer
Woodland

Stressor

Semi-Desert
Grassland

Category

Mohave Desert
Apache
Sonoran Desert
Scrub
Highlands North
Mohave Desert
Scrub

Ecological Region

X

X

X

X
X
X

X
X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X

X

X
X

X
X

X

X

X
X
X

X
X

X

Abiotic resources use, namely groundwater depletion, will be discussed in the Water Resource
Element. Mining, an activity exempt from most state and local laws, being regulated by the
1872 Mining Act, has significant impact in both the upper Sacramento Valley and the lower Big
Sandy Valley.
Off-trail use, especially by motorized vehicles, affects all of the habitat areas. The state’s
growing population, mild winter climate, and many open spaces lend themselves to hiking,
camping, mountain biking, hunting, fishing, sightseeing, wildlife-watching, off-highway vehicle
use, and other recreational and wildlife-oriented pursuits. Off-road vehicle travel can cause
damage to soils and vegetation (Holechek and others 1998) and impact wildlife by destroying
and fragmenting habitat, causing direct mortality of wildlife, or altered behavior through stress
and disturbance (Busack and Bury 1974, Brattstrom and Bondello 1983, Brooks and Lair 2005).
Impacts to individual species has been documented (Swarthout and Steidl 2003), but the overall
impact of these activities is not fully understood, nor is there a full understanding of how much

Draft: 6/23/2009

21

recreational use can be tolerated before there is an adverse effect on wildlife or wildlife habitat.
However, recreational activities are increasing and their potential effects on habitats and species
should be considered in conservation planning (Conner and others 1990, McClaran and others
1992).The increasing population and dwindling amount of open land have increased the amount
of recreational pressure on the areas that remain undeveloped (CWCS).
Illegal dumping or “wild cat” dumping in the desert has been an issue for Mohave County for
several decades. This occurs due to several factors including a lack of access to trash collection
services, the cost of such services when available, the great distance many rural residents must
travel to county landfills, negligence by those who are paid to haul trash to a landfill but do not
do so and carelessness by residents and transient populations. The introduction of nonbiodegradable and other harmful materials through illegal dumping and littering may negatively
impact species of greatest concern and their habitat. Wildlife may alter their foraging behavior
or experience mortality as the result of ingesting the disposed materials.
The impact from light pollution varies from species to species, but has been shown to alter
behavior of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and insects (Longcore and Rich 2004,
Rich and Longcore 2005). Within cities and urban areas, street lamps and construction zones
provide continuous ambient light which may attract insects and thus those species that prey on
them. Light from vehicle headlights may temporarily blind wildlife foraging along roadsides and
thus increase the chances for wildlife/vehicle collisions. Bird kills at lighted towers have been
documented for at least 50 years. Lighting of towers in both urban and rural settings increases
the density of birds at the hazard area causing impacts with guy wires (CWCS). Artificial night
lighting can impair the ability of nocturnal animals to navigate (Beier 2006) and may negatively
affect reptile populations (Perry and Fisher 2006). Light pollution also reduces the nighttime
aesthetic of the desert and mountains for residents, tourists, astronomers and others looking to
experience the undeveloped landscape.
Noise pollution from vehicle traffic along roadways, all terrain vehicles and off-road driving,
construction work, shooting ranges, recreation areas, farming and mining pursuits, city and urban
activities, aircraft over flights and motorized watercraft is present at various levels throughout
the planning area. Noise disturbances may lead to altered behavioral patterns in wildlife,
affecting their overall fitness (Weisenberger and others 1996) by presenting a barrier to
movement (Minton 1968, Liddle 1997). Noise pollution, akin to light pollution, also degrades
the natural sounds and silences of undeveloped places and hampers those seeking the solace of a
rural environment.
In light of the recent policy decisions at the local, state and federal level to curb carbon emissions
and reduce dependency on fossil fuels, renewable energy technology will become more prevalent
in the rural landscape where large tracts of land are available at low ground lease rates. The
most obvious of these technologies are wind turbine fields occupying several miles for any one
project. Wind turbines do impact avian and bat populations, although new wind turbines with
slower blade rotations tend to mitigate the direct loss of birds and bats due to collisions. Wind
technology also requires significant site preparation for both construction and access for
maintenance. Other Transportation and Infrastructure stressors will be discussed in the
Transportation Element.

Draft: 6/23/2009

22

The Issue of Wildlife Linkages and Fracture Zones
The phenomenal growth of Arizona’s human population, economy, and infrastructure present
challenges to maintaining natural ecosystems and wildlife populations that constitute an
important part of Arizona’s wealth. In the planning area, roads, urban and rural growth, energy
corridors and occasional illegal immigration activities and smuggling both destroy habitat and
create barriers that isolate wildlife populations and disrupt ecological functions such as gene
flow, predator-prey interactions, and migration. It is critical that linkages between habitats be
conserved and restored so wildlife and natural ecosystems continue to benefit Arizona’s residents
and visitors. The most telling evidence of habitat fragmentation is wildlife road kill that can also
result in human deaths and injuries, property damage, and liability (Arizona Wildlife Linkages
Assessment, Exec Sum).
To address linkages, the Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup (AWLW), a collaborative effort
between public and private sector organizations, formed to address habitat fragmentation. A
statewide assessment was conducted to identify large blocks of protected habitat, the potential
wildlife movement corridors between as well as through them, and the factors threatening to
disrupt these linkage zones. The potential linkage zones represent areas that are important to
Arizona’s wildlife and natural ecosystems. Linkages should be incorporated into regional
planning frameworks (AWLA, Exec Sum).
The area plan process provides an opportunity Wildlife Linkage Map for Mohave County
for government agencies and citizens to work
together to create a comprehensive,
landscape-scale plan that can achieve these
conservation goals while accommodating the
growth of the County’s population, its
expanding
economy,
and
associated
infrastructure.
Linkages within the Planning Area
The planning area passes through five
linkages as shown on the referenced map.
The Mount Tipton – Mount Perkins linkage
(10) along the northern side of the Corridor
north of milepost 20 and the Hualapai
Mountain – Bagdad linkage (33) from mile
post 120 to the County line have been
identified by the Arizona Wildlife Linkage
Assessment as having the highest priority
when ranked by the Biological Resource
Value and Threat and Opportunity Value.
Linkage No. 18 provides connection between
the Black and Cerbat Mountains with
intermittent fracture zones of urban and rural
development along the highway from White

Draft: 6/23/2009

Source: Arizona’s Wildlife Linkages Working Group, 2006

23

Hills to So-Hi. However, the habitat blocks on either side of the highway are large and relatively
undisturbed. Linkages 20 and 21 connect the Hualapai and Cerbat Mountains and the I-40/US
93 intersection at Round Valley to Kingman, respectively. These two linkages have significant
fractures from Kingman eastward to Round Valley and then south to Silverado. This area,
beginning east of DW Ranch Road, also offers a large potential linkage zone where wildlife
crossing between habitat blocks can be re-established and kept intact.
Prioritization of Links
The Mount Tipton – Mount Perkins linkage (10) and Hualapai Mountain – Bagdad linkage (33)
received Biological Resource Value scores of 77 and 78, respectively, of a total possible score of
120 points. Eight criteria were used to assess biological importance. Three of the criteria relate
to the habitat blocks and include 1) size of the blocks, with larger block scoring higher, 2) quality
of existing habitat of the smaller habitat blocks, and 3) presence of linkage dependent species.
Larger blocks are important because they preserve habitat for mountain lions and bobcats. In
addition to being among the most area-sensitive species in an ecoregion, these high-level
carnivores can be considered important regulators of ecosystem function (Terborgh et al. 1999).
The quality of the smaller habitat blocks was ranked as “unimpacted,” “readily restorable,”
“impacted” and “severely impacted” based on the ratio of native vegetation to invasive plants,
level of habitat fragmentation caused by roadways and urban/rural development activities
including agriculture, diversity of species and habitat block area to perimeter ratios. Higher
numbers of linkage dependent species, especially those with threatened or endangered status or
with migration patterns increased the score (AWLA).
The remaining five criteria assessing the biological value focused directly on the potential
linkage zone itself and include 1) importance as a seasonal migration corridor, 2) contains
significant riparian areas, 3) conservation ownership such as State Land Trust or BLM, 4)
number and status of species living within the potential linkage, and 5) the degree to which the
potential linkage zone is essential to the utility of the overall network of linkages. In other words,
will one or more linkages become non-functional if the linkage being evaluated is lost (AWLA).
The Mount Tipton – Mount Perkins linkage (10) and Hualapai Mountain – Bagdad linkage (33)
received a Threat and Opportunity Value score of 98 and 92, respectively, of a total possible
score of 140 points. Highways and urbanization represent the greatest threats to maintaining
linkages. However, opportunity is created if there is an active effort to conserve the linkage
through land acquisition, easements, zoning, or other means such as drafting specific goals and
polices during area plan development. Other opportunities include planned projects that include
mitigation measures to promote connectivity such as those roadway projects which are part
capital improvement programs at the state and local level as well as the current conservation
climate within the linkage zone such as landowners who are known to be receptive to conserving
the land.

Draft: 6/23/2009

24

Table of Species

Bird
American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
Bird
Common Black-hawk Buteogallus anthracinus
Bird
Gambel’s Quail Callipepla gambelii
Bird
Golden Eagle
Bird
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus
Bird
Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni
Bird
Western Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia hypugaea
Bird
Yuma Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris yumanensis
Bird
Zone-tailed Hawk Buteo albonotatus
Mammal
Allen’s Big-eared Bat Idionycteris phyllotis
Mammal
Bighorn Sheep Ovis canadensis
Mammal
Bobcat Lynx rufus
Mammal
California Leaf-nosed Bat Macrotus californicus
Mammal
Cave Myotis Myotis velifer
Mammal
Elk Cervus elaphus
Mammal
Fringed Myotis Myotis thysanodes
Mammal
Greater Western Mastiff Bat Eumops perotis californicus
Mammal
Javelina Tayassu tajacu
Mammal
Kit Fox Vulpes
Mammal
Long-legged Myotis Myotis volans
Mammal
Mountain Lion Felis concolor
Mammal
Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus
Mammal
Pale Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens
Mammal
Pocketed Free-tailed Bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus
Mammal
Pronghorn Antilocapra americana
Mammal
Ringtail Bassariscus astutus
Source: Arizona Wildlife Linkage Assessment, Section VII, 2006

Hualapai Mtns Bagdad

I-40 and US 93
– Kingman

and culvert structures along Highway 93

Hualapai Mtns
– Cerbat Mtns

Species Name: those indicated as (X) have noted within bridge

Black Mtns –
Cerbat Mtns

Class

Mt Tipton - Mt
Perkins

Several species of concern, as noted by the Arizona Wildlife Linkage Assessment, occur within
these habitats as shown in the referenced tables. Those species marked (X) within the tables
have also been observed by local biologists as using the several bridge crossings along Highway
93 to traverse between their habitats lying on either side of the roadway. These observation
points include the Detrital Wash at mile post 35.8, the Number Two Tributary of the Thirteen
Mile Wash west of So-Hi at mile post 64.6, the Cane Springs Wash south of Windmill Ranch at
mile post 108.6 and Tompkins Canyon north of Wikieup at mile post 120.3 (see Appendix A for
complete list of species found at these locations).

No. 10 No. 18 No. 20 No. 21 No. 33
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
X
X
X
X
(X)
(X)
X
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
X
X
X
X
(X)
X
(X)
X
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
X
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
X

Various mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and even fish may be found at these crossings
within the southern part of the planning area (Link Nos. 21 and 33) having a higher number of
different animal crossing. The Desert Rosy Boa (snake), the American Peregrine Falcon, the
Greater Western Mastiff Bat, as well as Kit Foxes and Mountain Lions can be expected to be
found in all habitats and making use of these crossings as part of their wide ranging habitats.
Mule deer are also listed in all habitats but have not been directly observed crossing Highway 93
at these four locations, possibly due to the underpasses not offering a welcoming appearance.
The Southwestern Willow Flycatcher also can be found in the Wikieup area and further south
along the Big Sandy River.

Draft: 6/23/2009

25

Fish
Desert Sucker Catostomus clarki
Fish
Longfin Dace Agosia chrysogaster
Fish
Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen Texanus
Fish
Roundtail Chub Gila robusta
Fish
Sonora Sucker Catostomus insignis
Fish
Speckled Dace R
Amphibian Chiracahua Leopard Frog
Amphibian Lowland Leopard Frog Rana yavapaiensis
Amphibian Relict Leopard Frog Rana onca
Amphibian Arizona Toad Bufo microscaphus
Amphibian Riparian Obligates
Reptile
Arizona Chuckwalla Sauromalus ater
Reptile
Banded Gila Monster Heloderma suspectum cinctum
Reptile
Desert Rosy Boa Charina trivirgata gracia
Reptile
Mohave Desert Tortoise Gopherus agassizii
Reptile
Speckled Rattlesnake Crotalus mitchellii
Source: Arizona Wildlife Linkage Assessment, Section VII, 2006

Hualapai Mtns
- Bagdad

I-40 and US 93
– Kingman

Hualapai Mtns
– Cerbat Mtns

bridge and culvert structures along Highway 93

Black Mtns –
Cerbat Mtns

Species Name: those indicated as (X) have been noted within

Mt Tipton - Mt
Perkins

Class

No. 10 No. 18 No. 20 No. 21 No. 33
(X)
(X)
(X)
X
X
X
X
(X)
X
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Need for Mitigation
Loss of connectivity is by no means inevitable, and the outcome of human population growth
does not have to result in a proliferation of barriers. Although road-widening projects generally
increase vehicle traffic, these need not to result in more wildlife/vehicle collisions, or a decrease
in animal movements. Road-widening projects present the greatest opportunity to provide
crossing structures to accommodate wildlife movement. Because most of Arizona’s roads were
not originally designed to accommodate wildlife movement, current road improvement projects
can dramatically restore permeability. Although the issue is much broader than a “highway
problem,” in many areas, design of new highways or modification of old highways will be an
essential part of conserving connectivity. Investing in wildlife connectivity is not only
advantageous to wild populations, but also provides direct benefits to humans. Integrating
wildlife crossing structures with roadside fencing have been found to minimize the ability of
larger ungulates, such as elk, to gain access to highways. Taking advantage of opportunities to
conserve and restore connectivity in Arizona will require collaboration among city and county
planners, state and federal agencies, non-governmental conservation organizations, academic
researchers, wildland user groups, developers, and others to negotiate strategies for regional
protection and conflict resolution of this collective concern (AWLA, Intro).
Corridor Crossing Design
No single crossing structure will allow all species to cross a road. For example rodents prefer to
use pipes and small culverts, while bighorn sheep prefer vegetated overpasses or open terrain
below high bridges. A concrete box culvert may be readily accepted by a mountain lion or bear,
but not by a deer or bighorn sheep. Small mammals, such as deer mice and voles, prefer small
culverts to wildlife overpasses (McDonald & St Clair 2004). Some mammals avoid crossing 2lane roads with less than 100 vehicles per day (McGregor et al. 2008); thus crossing structures
are needed to provide connectivity even on lightly-used small roads. Because most small

Draft: 6/23/2009

26

mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and insects need vegetative cover for security, bridged under
crossings should extend to uplands beyond the scour zone of the stream, and should be high
enough to allow enough light for vegetation to grow underneath (Beier et.al.).
Suggested design criteria for the approaches to crossing are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Suitable habitat for species should occur on both sides of the crossing structure,
Fencing should never block entrances to crossing structures, and instead should direct
animals towards crossing structures,
Manage human activity near each crossing structure,
Retain natural water flows and maintain groundwater levels within the natural
tolerance ranges of native plant species,
Maintain or improve native riparian vegetation and eradicate non-native invasive
plants and animals, and
Where possible, protect or restore a continuous strip of native vegetation at least 200
meters wide along each side of the channel.

Buffer strips can protect and improve water quality, provide habitat and connectivity for many
species, improve quality of life for human neighbors, and increase nearby property values (Fisher
and Fischenich 2000, Parkyn 2004, Lee et al. 2004). Recommended buffer widths to sustain
riparian plant and animal communities vary from 30 meters to 500 meters (Wenger 1999, Fisher
and Fischenich 2000, Wenger and Fowler 2000, Environmental Law Institute 2003). At a
minimum, buffers should capture the stream channel and the terrestrial landscape affected by
flooding and elevated water tables (Naiman et al. 1993). Wider buffers are needed to protect
edge sensitive bird species from nest predation and parasitism. Delineating a buffer that extends
200 meters beyond the annual high water mark on each side of the channel is recommended
(Beier et.al.).
Where buffers of an eight of mile wide are not feasible due to multiple small, private land
holdings along washes and other highway crossings, the Guidelines and Performance
Benchmarks, published by the American Society of Landscape Architects as part of the
Sustainable Sites Initiative offer some guidance as shown in the referenced table below.

Suggested design criteria for road crossings will be further discussed in the Transportation
Element.

Draft: 6/23/2009

27

Mitigation Measures for Urban Barriers

The primary tool for local jurisdictions is to integrate the linkage design concepts into local land
use plans. Specifically, use zoning ordinances and other local laws such as subdivision
regulations to retain open space and natural habitat and discourage urbanization of natural areas
in the designated linkage areas. For example, where development is permitted within the linkage
design, encourage small building footprints on larger parcels, such un-subdivided lands
containing parcels greater than 36 acres, with a minimal road network (Beier et.al.).
Where human residences or other low-density urban development occurs within the linkage
design or immediately adjacent to it, encourage landowners to be proud stewards of the linkage.
Specifically, encourage residents to landscape with natural vegetation, minimize water runoff
into streams, limit the use of pesticides and herbicides, manage fire risk with minimal alteration
of natural vegetation, install wildlife-friendly fencing and direct outdoor lighting toward houses
and walkways and away from the linkage area. These requirements may also be part of the
Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions recorded with developments (Beier et.al.).
Encourage conservation easements or acquisition of conservation land from willing landowners
in the linkage design. Encourage innovative cooperative agreements with landowners and
combine habitat conservation with compatible public goals such as recreation and protection of
water quality (Beier et.al.).

Goals and Policies for Natural Landscape Conservation
Goal 1

Designate wildlife corridors going underneath Highway 93 as more commercial
development comes into the area.

Policy 1.1 Housing shall not be built in the flood hazard zone (7/15/2008).
Policy 1.2 Encourage the BLM and Arizona State Trust to designate lands for conservation
and possible acquisition as permanent open-space (7/15/2008).
Policy 1.3 Provide buffers wider than wash for wildlife corridor and trail use as determined
by the appropriate regulatory agency (10/21/2008).
Policy 1.4 Existing wildlife corridors, flood plains and riparian areas shall be incorporated
into public open space and trail systems for all new developments. Structures for
human habitation shall be located on the portions of property outside of delineated
floodplains (10/21/2008).

Goal 2

Encourage the maintenance of and designate open space areas and landscape
buffers.

Draft: 6/23/2009

28

Policy 2.1 Clear only that vegetation which is required to build a home or business
(7/15/2008).
Policy 2.3 Leave all native habitats along the boundary and within new housing tracts to the
fullest extent possible (7/15/2008).
Policy 2.3 Lots and parcels should not be graded/grubbed until construction is ready to
proceed (7/15/2008).
Policy 2.4 Conservation design practices will be required when new developments are
proposed in areas designated for preservation (7/15/2008).

Goal 3

Preserve Native Vegetation (5/15/2008 & 6/19/2008)

Policy 3.1 Maintain native vegetation, except to the extent necessary to accommodate site
access, parking areas, fire breaks, and structural improvements during the
development of new housing tracts and businesses requiring rezone actions and to
require re-vegetation of disturbed areas using native or drought tolerant species
(6/19/2008).
Policy 3.1 Flood plains and riparian areas shall be incorporated into public open space and
greenway systems to create a continuous corridor for all new developments.
Structures for human habitation shall be located on the portions of property
outside of delineated floodplains (6/19/2008).

Goal 4

Learn to co-exist with and have good stewardship of native vegetation,
significant landscape features, rock formations and wildlife with an emphasis
along the base of mountains, foothills, slopes, and washes (7/17/2008).

Policy 4.1 Protect washes and unique, rare, and significant geological features identified as
wildlife corridors by incorporating them as buffers between developments
(7/17/2008).
Policy 4.2 Maintain native vegetation, except to the extent necessary to accommodate site
access, parking areas, fire breaks, and structural improvements during the
development of new housing tracts and businesses requiring rezone actions and
require re-vegetation of disturbed areas using native or drought tolerant species
(7/17/2008).
Policy 4.3 Provide conservation easements on newly created lots and parcels where native
habitat, unique plants and significant landscape features have been identified for
preservation (7/17/2008).

Draft: 6/23/2009

29

Policy 4.4 Conservation design practices, such as greenway dedication and conservation
subdivisions, will be required of new developments proposed in areas designated
for preservation and shall be tailored to minimize the alteration of natural
landforms and native vegetation and to enhance distinctive natural features.
Green-belting shall also be used to buffer adjoining development (7/17/2008).
Policy 4.5 Flood plains and riparian areas shall be incorporated into public open space and
greenway systems to create a continuous corridor in all new developments.
Structures for human habitation shall be located on the portions of property
outside of delineated flood hazard zone (7/17/2008).
Policy 4.6 Encourage the BLM and Arizona State Trust to designate lands for conservation
and possible acquisition as permanent open-space (7/17/2008).

Goal 5

Establish a nursery for vegetation disrupted during land clearing to be used for
replanting (11/20/2008)

Policy 5.1 Commercial and industrial developers shall replant native plants on-site or make
plants available to a nursery for re-vegetation (11/20/2008).
Policy 5.2 Encourage individual property owners to replant native vegetation on-site
(11/20/2008).

Goals and Policies for Air Quality
Goal 6

Maintain Air quality (5/15/2008 & 6/19/2008)

Policy 6.1 Mohave County shall encourage the use of renewable energy with minimal water
usage (6/19/2008).
Policy 6.2 Re-vegetation of disturbed areas with drought tolerant plant material shall be
encouraged (6/19/2008).
Policy 6.3 Limit the clearing of vegetation on individual parcels to maintain native
vegetation and improve air quality, except to the extent necessary to
accommodate site access, parking areas, fire breaks, and structural improvements
during the development of new housing tracts and businesses requiring rezone
actions (10/16/2008).
Policy 6.4 There shall be no clearing of the site until development plans have been approved
by Mohave County (4/23/2009). 2

2

Limited to “development plans” that require review and approval under the Zoning Ordinance, or Land Division
Regulations, or the International Building Code (IBC) and successors.

Draft: 6/23/2009

30

Policy 6.5 In multiple-phase projects, site clearing will be permitted when development
plans for each phase have been approved by Mohave County (4/23/2009).2

Goals and Policies for Visual Resources
Goal 7

Maintain the desert views.

Policy 7.1 Preserve native plants such as Joshua trees, yuccas, & Arizona birds of paradise,
along hillsides and mountains (7/15/2008).
Policy 7.2. Structures, if required to be placed on hillsides, ridge lines or mountain peaks,
shall be finished with a neutral color scheme which blends with the natural desert
color (7/15/2008).
Policy 7.3. Structures should use landscaping to minimize or soften their visual impact
(7/15/2008).
Policy 7.4. Encourage development practices which integrate building foot prints and facades
with the site’s natural terrain and color palette (7/15/2008).

Goal 8

Maintain Scenic Vistas (5/15/2008 & 6/19/2008)

Policy 8.1 Limit new development on hillsides by placing development on the site’s lower
elevations and on more gentle slopes (6/19/2008).
Policy 8.2 Encourage development practices which integrate building footprints and facades
with the site’s natural terrain and color palette which would not be offensive to
the existing area and would be in harmony with the Northern Arizona history and
cultural heritage (6/19/2008).
Policy 8.3 Encourage land owners, the State and BLM to use conservation land trusts to
acquire developments rights to preserve hillsides from development (6/19/2008).

Goal 9

Limit exterior lighting.

Policy 9.1 Street lights and building exterior lighting shall be focused downward and inward
(7/15/2008).
Policy 9.2 To minimize adverse impacts on astronomical observations, lighting installations
for commercial and other non-residential uses as well as public facilities shall be
low-pressure sodium whenever possible with high-pressure sodium lights used
only when necessary – no mercury vapor lights (7/15/2008).

Draft: 6/23/2009

31

Policy 9.3 Install solid walls instead of chain-link fences with view-obscuring slats around
truck stop parking lots (7/15/2008).
Goal 10

Preserve Dark Skies (5/15/2008 & 6/19/2008)

Policy 10.1 The use of “dark skies” approved exterior lights, operating with motion detectors
from dusk to dawn, in lieu of street lights in new developments shall be
encouraged (6/19/2008).

Goals and Policies for Noise and Quiet Enjoyment
Goal 11

To minimize noise levels in a manner that is reasonable to both the local
residents and the proposed development(s). And, to provide a noise sensitive
environment that allows local residents the opportunity to enjoy a peaceful
environment that is receptive to new development. And, to ensure all proposed
development provides or supports a noise-sensitive environment that is
appropriate to the surrounding area (8/21/2008).

Policy 11.1 The County shall support new developments designed to reduce noise emissions
(8/21/2008).
Policy 11.2 The County shall support new developments that emit a reasonable noise
emission (8/21/2008).
Policy 11.3 The County shall support new development that is appropriate to the
surrounding area and whose noise emission is fifty-five (55) decibels or less
(8/21/2008).
Policy 11.4 The County shall support proposed noise buffers that are both adequate and
pleasing to the eye (8/21/2008).

Goals and Policies for Cultural Preservation
Goal 12

Protect the historical, cultural, and archeological resources of the area
(7/17/2008).

Policy 12.1 Mohave County shall require a cultural assessment survey of all new
developments to identify cultural, historical, and archeological resources
(8/21/2008).
Policy 12.2 Mohave County shall publish an educational pamphlet to be made available to
the public to identify and protect historical, culture and archeological resources
(8/21/2008).

Draft: 6/23/2009

32

Implementation Measures for Natural Resources
N1.
Underpasses along US Highway 93 have been identified in the Transportation Element.
Areas along washes or stream beds within the 100 flood plain shall be protected from
encroachment by development. For crossing along the Big Sandy and its major tributaries, the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. §§1271-1287 (1968) and 36 CFR 251, 297 and 43 CFR
8350 shall be used to protect these areas for the enjoyment of future generations.
N2.
Maintaining native plant material will be done under the guidance of each new
development’s private Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.& Rs.). Mohave County
does not possess a landscape ordinance or hillside development ordinance at this time. Until
such time as the County sees fit to adopt these ordinances, the Area Plan will be used to guide
development that requires rezone action. Cluster development practices will also be used to
preserve native habitat and landscape.
N3.
Mohave County does not have an aesthetic design review section in its Zoning
Ordinance. However, the County does condition zoning use permit or rezone approvals for
public utility assets, such as water tanks, with a neutral color scheme to blend in with the natural
setting. This condition should be placed in all applicable rezoning and zoning use permit
resolutions granted by Mohave County. Color schemes may also be regulated by private C.C.&
R.s for new developments.
N4.
Grading permits are typically required by the Building Division when grading exceeds
100 cubic yards. Grading plans will be reviewed according to these guidelines. Grading permits
(specify cu. yd. amount) will be accompanied with a dust mitigation plan based upon the
International Building Code guidelines. The Arizona Ambient Air Quality Guidelines will be
referenced by staff during development approval process (see also A.R.S. 49-401-593, A.A.C.
Title 18, Chapter 2). Clearing and grubbing a site may require notification to the State to comply
with the Arizona Native Plant Law A.R.S. §§ 3-901-934. Each new development’s private
C.C.& R.s should also address the clearing and grubbing of a site.
N5.
Scenic routes can be adopted by Mohave County after research has been done.
Neighborhood groups, using the help of the Development Services Department, will petition the
Board of Supervisors for additional roadway and scenic vistas. Signs designating scenic
roadways and vistas will be processed through the Department of Public Works or the developer,
depending upon the status of the roadway. These signs will be funded by the private sector. The
impact of new buildings on scenic vistas and hillsides can be addressed through the Zoning
Ordinance and Land Division Regulations when new housing developments and master planned
communities are reviewed and approved by the County.
Promote landscaping and highway development to accommodate the traveling public
N6.
according to the Highway Beautification Act, 23 U.S.C. 131, 136, 319 (1965), 23 CFR 750-752.
The night sky is also a resource making country lifestyle attractive. Increasing
N7.
urbanization in the planning area is slowly degrading the darkness of the night sky. Even though
the darkness of the night sky is also impacted by adjacent city development, the ambient glow of

Draft: 6/23/2009

33

outside lighting placed in the public and private domain within the planning area should be
mitigated.
N8.
Mohave County currently uses Ordinance 87-1 to preserve “dark sky.” This ordinance is
designed to protect astronomical observatories rather than residents. Non-single-family
residential development will require a site plan review by County staff. Lighting will be
evaluated prior to approval. Regulations of lighting for individual residents can be accomplished
with private C.C.& R.s. An improvement district, if formed, will design and regulate the
operation of any street lighting district. See also Arizona Light Pollution Law, A.R.S. §§ 491101-1106.
N9.
Most noise emissions from a 36-acre-plus residential parcel will be muffled to meet the
60-65 dBA criteria measured at the property line. Smaller parcels may require screening to some
extent. These noise criteria would also tend to encourage home builders to place their homes in
the center of the property. Developers of non-residential sites will have their properties rezoned
and subsequent site plans reviewed by County staff prior to construction. The appropriate
buffers will be required at that time. Screening will be constructed by new development.
N10. Developers of 36-acre plus properties are encouraged to provide building setback
dimensions within their C.C.& R.s beyond the County’s minimum as prescribed in the Zoning
Ordinance. Conservation easements will be asked for by the Development Services Department
when rezoning action occur on environmentally sensitive lands with natural vegetative screening.
Prohibit excavating or stealing objects from historic or prehistoric ruins under the American
Antiquities Act, 16 U.S.C. 431 et. seq. as amended (1906) and Arizona Antiquity Act, Arizona
Revised Statutes 41-841 et seq.
N11, Prevent disturbance of nesting sites and possession of birds protected by the Migratory
Bird Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 703-711. Coordinate with Arizona Game and Fish Conservation and
Management, Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 17-101-605.
N12. Require consideration of cultural resources determined eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places prior to project implementation per the National Historic Preservation
Act, 16 U.S.C. 470 et. seq. as amended (1966),36 CFR 60, 36 CFR 63, 36 CFR Part 800 and
Arizona Historic Preservation Act, Arizona Revised Statutes 41-861, et seq.

Draft: 6/23/2009

34

Water Resources

Water Resources Element
The 130-mile-long planning area spans the Detrital, Sacramento, Hualapai, Big Sandy and Bill
Willams watersheds. The geography, water quality, estimated size of the aquifers, and cultural
demand will be reviewed for each basin. In addition, a summary of the five basins will be
presented as well as a list of common stressors. Goals, policies and implementation measures to
maintain water resources complete the element. All five basins are outside of an Active
Management Area (AMA) as defined by the Groundwater Management Act of 1980. 1
Detrital Basin
Geography
At 892 square miles, the Detrital
Valley Basin is the smallest of the
five basins in the planning area.
However, approximately one-eighth
of the basin (109 sq. mi.) is within the
boundary of the area plan. The basin
is characterized by a wide valley with
the Detrital Wash at its center
running south to north into Lake
Mead, the northern boundary. The
Cerbat and Black Mountains bracket
the valley to the east and west,
respectively. Sacramento Valley
forms the southern boundary of the
basin.
Precipitation data shows rainfall as
high as 12 inches in the southern
portion of the basin in the Cerbat
Mountains near Grasshopper Junction
and as low as four inches in the
northern portion of the basin. In
general, precipitation increases as
altitude increases in this basin. This
basin is one of three basins in the
planning area with a range of eight
inches between areas of highest and
lowest average annual precipitation, the lowest in the planning area (Water Atlas).

1

See Title 45, Chapter 2, Arizona Revised Statutes for limitations on development activity within Active Management Areas as
compared to few restrictions outside of AMAs.

Draft: 6/23/2009

35

Surface Water Conditions
There are no perennial or intermittent
streams in this basin nor is there
stream flow data for the basin.
Average annual runoff is 0.5 inches
per year in the center of the basin
around Dolan Springs and decreases
to 0.1 inch on the edges of the basin.
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater occurs mostly in the
basin-fill material and in alluvial
deposits along mountain washes with
the direction of sub-surface flow
generally from the south to the north.
Intermediate and younger basin fill
are above the water table in most
areas so the older basin fill aquifer is
the primary water supply. In the
northern part of the basin, the basin
fill includes weathered (clastic)
sediments, limestone, and basalt
flows of the Muddy Creek and
Chemehueve Formations (USGS,
2006). Depth to bedrock may exceed
6,000 feet at the deepest point in the
Valley near Dolan Springs.
A
recently discovered clay unit in the central portions of the basin area may extend from 600 to
1,400 feet below land surface and acts as an impediment to groundwater flow, reducing the
amount of recoverable groundwater due to
Generalized cross-section through the Detrital Valley Ground-water Basin
its low specific yield. The clay unit is
Source: Open File Report No. 9, ADWR
approximately 16 miles long and 3 to 4
miles wide (OFR No. 9). The estimate of
natural recharge for this basin is 1,000
acre-feet per year (Water Atlas).
There are four storage estimates for this
basin, ranging from one million acre-feet to
seven million acre-feet. The most recent
estimate, from a 2006 preliminary ADWR
study, indicates the basin has between 1.38
and 3.68 million acre-feet in storage to a
depth of 1,200 feet. The predevelopment

Draft: 6/23/2009

36

storage estimate is one million acre-feet to a depth of 1,200 feet (Water Atlas).
Well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gallons-per-minute (gpm) to 500 gpm. One
source of well yield information, based on six reported wells, indicates that the median well yield
in this basin is 31.5 gpm. Well yields are similar throughout the basin with the highest well
yield, between 100 gpm and 500 gpm, occurring near Temple Bar. The deepest recorded water
level in the basin is 597 feet west of Dolan Springs and the shallowest is 68 feet west of Temple
Bar. The Department annually measures four index wells in this basin (see Appendix B and
Water Atlas).
Open File Report
The Detrital Valley is expected to undergo rapid residential development in the near future.
Updated information about the region’s water resources and a more refined estimate of
groundwater availability for the
Assured and Adequate Water Supply
Program administered by Arizona
Department of Water Resources is
required. The program determines
whether an aquifer has sufficient
groundwater in storage to a depth of
1,200 feet below land surface after
100 years of use. In association with
the U.S. Geologic Survey, ADWR
has the estimated groundwater in
storage for areas within the alluvial
portion of the Detrital Valley, via a
detailed gravity survey of the basin
and a basin-wide water-level sweep
beginning in 2005. The results of
the USGS study are expected to
supplant these estimates.
The geologic model developed by
ADWR shows a more shallow depth
to bedrock in the southern third of
the basin as compared to previous
models. Conversely, the central and
northern third of the basin have
shown to have a greater depth to
bedrock than previous reports.
Estimating
the
amount
of
groundwater
in
storage
is
complicated by the presence of the
clay unit that reduces the amount of

Draft: 6/23/2009

37

recoverable groundwater because it is generally reported as non-water bearing in well logs. The
specific yield values are slightly lower than estimated regional specific yield values used by
other investigators. The lower specific yield values were used to present a conservative estimate
of the volume of groundwater in storage.
Caution should be exercised when utilizing the estimates for proving physical availability for
water supply calculations. Not all of the estimated groundwater may be available for withdrawal
from wells due to the location of future production wells, localized variations in the saturated
thickness of the regional aquifer, and other localized hydrogeologic conditions.
Water Quality
Drinking water standard exceedences
of the Safe Drinking Water Act were
shown in 23 wells in the basin, of
which 13 wells exceeded the arsenic
standard. Arsenic exceedences are
scattered throughout the basin. Wells
6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 20 within the
area plan boundary exceeded the
arsenic standard (See Figure).
Other drinking water standards
exceeded in the planning area include
radio-nuclides (Well No. 19),
nitrate/nitrite (Well Nos. 7, 8 and 19),
and total dissolved solids (Well No.
22). Total dissolved solids generally
impair the aesthetic quality of the
water (Water Atlas).
Cultural Demands
Population in this basin is small but
has almost doubled since 1980,
increasing from 757 in 1980 to 1,347
in 2000. Projections suggest a similar
rate of growth through 2050.
Groundwater pumping is minimal in
this basin. Current pumping is
comparable to historic pumping with an annual average of less than 300 acre-feet per year from
2001-2003. Most municipal and industrial demand is around Dolan Springs at this time. There
are, however, a number of proposed residential developments in this basin east of Highway 93
and north of Pierce Ferry Road. Municipal groundwater demand has remained consistently less
than 300 acre-feet per year since 1991. There are no recorded industrial or agricultural water

Draft: 6/23/2009

38

demands in this basin. There is, however, a small mine or quarry north of Grasshopper Junction
(Water Atlas).
As of 2003 there were 142 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35
gallons-per-minute and 12 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons-per-minute in
the Detrital Valley. A review of ADWR’s Wells “55” data set for November, 2007 show 95
registered wells within the area plan boundary of which 58 were exempt. Exempt wells have a
pumping capacity of less than 35 gallons-per-minute and typically include private, domestic
wells and small production wells for commercial and stock pond uses.
Water Adequacy Reports and Analysis of Adequate Water Supply
A total of 31 water adequacy
determinations have been made in
this basin through December, 2008
(see Appendix B).
Thirty one
determinations of inadequacy have
been made; these determinations are
found in the southern and central
portions of the basin. The most
common reason for an inadequacy
determination was because the
existing water supply is unreliable or
physically unavailable. Other reasons
for an inadequacy determination
included insufficient data, insufficient
infrastructure, failure to demonstrate
a legal right to use the water and
water quality. No lots received an
adequate water supply designation in
this basin (Water Atlas).
Two analyses of adequate water
supply for two master planned
communities have been issued for
this basin. The first analysis was for
25,000 lots and is located across a
broad disconnected area. (Section 4,
Water Atlas). The second analysis
for water adequacy for 25,953 homes is for a master planned community along White Hills
Road, east of Highway 93 which adjoins the area plan boundary. Together, ADWR estimates
these two projects would require 25,000 acre-feet of water (ADWR File No.23-401674).

Draft: 6/23/2009

39

Sacramento Basin
Geography
The Sacramento Valley Basin is the
third largest basin in the planning
area at 1,587 square miles; however,
only 59 square miles of the basin is
within the area plan boundary. The
base of the Cerbat Mountains marks
the easterly side of the basin. The
Sacramento Wash running north to
south to Yucca and then running east
to west to the Colorado River, is the
primary drainage feature of the basin.
Precipitation data shows rainfall
generally falls at a higher rate east of
Highway 93 at 10 to 12 inches per
year than west of Highway 93 where
rainfall is from 8 to 10 inches per
year.
Altitude is a factor in
precipitation with the highest
precipitation in the Hualapai
Mountain range and the lowest near
the Colorado River. The range of
annual precipitation within the basin
is 12 inches, which is typical of other
basins in the planning area (Water
Atlas).
Surface Water Conditions
Average annual runoff is 0.5 inches per year in the northeastern portion of the basin and
decreases to 0.1 in the vicinity of Sacramento Wash. There are 15 major springs with a
measured discharge of 10 gallons-per-minute (gpm) or greater at any time, but none over 100
gpm. Listed discharge rates may not be indicative of current conditions. All measurements were
taken during or prior to 1965 and a number of measurements were taken in 1943. All springs are
located in the northern half of the basin. The Grapevine Spring is located on the very
southeastern edge of the planning area and is noted as having a flow of 35 gpm. There are 42
minor springs identified in this basin (Water Atlas).
Groundwater Conditions
Older alluvium is the principal aquifer in the Sacramento Valley Basin. Aquifer recharge is from
infiltration of runoff in washes and along mountain fronts. The direction of subsurface flow is

Draft: 6/23/2009

40

from the north to the south in the northern portion of the basin and away from the base of the
mountains. There are fractured and faulted volcanic rocks in the vicinity of Kingman that
separate this basin from the Hualapai Valley Basin to the east. Little water is pumped from wells
located in these volcanics. The
fractured granite aquifer beneath the
community of Chloride is insufficient
to meet its needs and water must be
hauled from Kingman. There are two
estimates of natural recharge for this
basin ranging from 1,000 acre-feet
per year to 4,000 acre-feet per year.
Most of the recharge in this basin
comes from infiltration along the
mountain fronts (Section 4.0, Water
Atlas).
There are four storage estimates for
this basin, ranging from 6.5 million
acre-feet (to 1,500 feet) to 14 million
acre-feet (to 1,200 feet). The most
recent estimate, from a 1994 ADWR
study indicated that the basin has
between 7 and 8.3 million acre-feet in
storage to a depth of 1,200 feet. The
predevelopment estimate of storage
for this basin is 11 million acre-feet
to a depth of 1,200 feet (Water Atlas).
Well yields in this basin range from
less than 100 gallons-per-minute
(gpm) to 2,000 gpm. Based on 36
reported wells, from one source of information, the median well yield in this basin is 100 gpm.
The deepest recorded water level in the basin is 1,062 feet near Highway 68 and the shallowest is
38 feet east of Topock. The Department annually measures 11 index wells in this basin (see
Appendix B and Water Atlas).
Open File Report
To update and improve the groundwater data available for the Sacramento Valley, ADWR
conducted a basin-wide water-level sweep and a detailed gravity survey of the basin in 2006.
This open-file report is intended to present a preliminary estimate of groundwater in storage in
the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, and is part of the broader USGS study to estimate the
amount of groundwater in storage for areas within the alluvial portion of the basin. As with the
study of the Detrital Valley, this analysis was undertaken to meet ADWR’s immediate need for a
more refined estimate of groundwater availability for the Assured and Adequate Water Supply
Program (AWS) with the results of the USGS study expected to supplant these estimates.

Draft: 6/23/2009

41

The depth-to-bedrock model developed is significantly different from historical models and
shows bedrock to be much shallower in the area of the northeast corner of Township 21 North,
Range 19 West, to the center of Township 21 North, Range 18 West, or the center of Golden
Valley.
The area plan
boundary, however, is
along the base of the
Cerbat Mountains where
depth-to-bedrock is less
than in the central part of
the valley’s basin fill
alluvium.
The specific
yield values are slightly
lower than the estimated
regional specific yield
values used by other
investigators, as noted in
the Detrital Valley study
mentioned above.
The
lower specific yield values
present a conservative
estimate of the volume of
groundwater in storage
(OFR No. 10).
Caution
should
be
exercised when utilizing
the estimates for proving
physical availability for
water supply calculations.
Not all of the estimated
groundwater
may
be
available for withdrawal
from wells due to the
location
of
future
production wells, localized
variations in the saturated
thickness of the regional
aquifer, and other localized
hydrogeologic conditions
(OPR No. 10).
In summary, the updated water-in-storage volume for the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin
is similar to previous estimates.

Draft: 6/23/2009

42

Water Quality
Drinking water standard exceedences in wells, springs and mine sites have been reported for 62
sites in the basin. The drinking water standards for arsenic, fluoride and radio-nuclides were the
most frequently exceeded standards at sites in this basin, with concentrations of radio-nuclides in
Chloride exceeding the Safe Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant levels (City of
Kingman, 2003). Arsenic and radio-nuclide exceedences are found throughout the basin and
fluoride exceedences are found in the central and southern portions of the basin. Other drinking
water standards exceeded in this basin include beryllium, cadmium, copper, chromium, lead,
nitrate/nitrite and total dissolved solids. Only one well within the boundary of the Area Plan
north of So-Hi exceeded drinking water standards for nitrate/nitrite. Otherwise, groundwater
quality is generally good in the basin except along the base of the mountains where waters of
high mineral content are common (Water Atlas, Section 4.0).
Cultural Demands
Population in this basin has more
than doubled since 1980, increasing
from 7,245 in 1980 to 16,276 in
2000. Projections suggest a similar
rate of growth through 2050.
Groundwater use in this basin
decreased from 1971-1990. Between
1991-2003 groundwater demand has
increased, with an average of 3,700
acre-feet pumped per year from 20012003. Most municipal and industrial
demand in this basin is in the vicinity
of Kingman and around Highway 68
west of Kingman in the Golden
Valley
unincorporated
area.
Municipal groundwater demand has,
however, increased from an average
of 1,500 acre-feet per year in 1991 to
an average of 2,000 acre-feet per year
in 2003. Groundwater use declines in
the 1970’s and 1980’s can be
attributed to the declining use of
water by the Mineral Park Mine
located south of Chloride. Industrial
groundwater use has increased in
recent years from an average of less
than 300 acre-feet per year in 1991 to
an average of 1,700 acre-feet per year in 2003 (Water Atlas).

Draft: 6/23/2009

43

As of 2003 there were 905 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35
gallons-per-minute and 61 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons-per-minute in
the Sacramento Basin. A review of 2007 data shows 47 registered wells within the area plan
boundary of which 44 were exempt; 15 of the exempt wells were used for exploration or
monitoring use.
Water Adequacy Reports and Analysis of Adequate Water Supply
A total of 32 water adequacy determinations have been made in this basin through December
2008 (see Appendix B). Twenty determinations of inadequacy have been made. The most
common reason for an inadequacy determination was based on the applicant’s decision not to
submit necessary information and/or available hydrologic data was insufficient to make a
determination. Other reasons for an inadequacy determination were insufficient supply,
insufficient infrastructure and water quality. Of the 4,083 lots in 27 subdivisions, 1,012 lots or
25% were adequate. Two analyses of adequate water supply have been issued for this basin with
development for 32,000 lots, scaled back to 17,544 lots in 2008, and the other for 33,500 lots
(Water Atlas). Neither of these master planned communities are within or adjacent to the area
plan boundary.

Draft: 6/23/2009

44

Hualapai Basin
Geography
The Hualapai Valley Basin is the
second smallest basin in the central
part of the planning area at 1,212
square miles. Only 30 square miles
of the drainage basin is within the
area plan boundary. The basin is
characterized by the wide north-south
trending Hualapai Valley running
through the center of the basin with
the Hualapai, Cerbat, Peacock and
Music Mountains along the margins.
Average annual precipitation is as
high as 14 inches at the southernmost tip of the basin in the Hualapai
Mountains located just south of the
area plan boundary. Average annual
precipitation in the planning area
along I-40 is between 10 to 12 inches.
In general, precipitation increases as
the elevation increases in this basin
(Water Atlas).
Surface Water Conditions
Stream flow was not measured in this
basin. Average annual runoff is 0.5
inches per year in the southwest corner of the basin around New Kingman-Butler and decreases
to 0.1 inches in the northern and eastern portions of the basin. There are three major springs with
a measured discharge of 10 gallons-per-minute (gpm) or greater at any time. Listed discharge
rates may not be indicative of current conditions. Two of the major springs in this basin were
measured before 1997. Major springs are found on the edges of the basin. All major springs
discharge less than 50 gpm. There are 19 minor springs identified in this basin. However, there
are no measured springs within the area plan boundary (Water Atlas).
Groundwater Conditions
The Hualapai Valley Basin has relatively deep, basin fill sediments categorized into three units.
The younger alluvium unit includes recent streambed deposits in the Hualapai Valley and in
mountain canyons. This unit yields small volumes of water to stock and domestic wells. The
intermediate alluvium, which is composed of coarse-grained sands, silts and clays, is a
dependable aquifer only along the valley margins where the unit intersects the water table. The

Draft: 6/23/2009

45

older alluvium is the primary water supply and includes clastic sediments, limestone and basalt
flows of the Muddy Creek and Chemehueve Formations within the basin fill (USGS, 2006). Subsurface flow direction is from the
south to the north in most of the basin
and east to west near New KingmanButler. Recharge to the aquifer comes
primarily from streambed infiltration.
There are two estimates of natural
recharge for this basin ranging from
2,000 acre-feet per year to 3,000
acre-feet per year (Water Atlas).
There are four storage estimates for
this basin, ranging from three million
acre-feet to 5.3 million acre-feet to a
depth of 1,200 acre-feet. The most
recent estimate, from a 1994 ADWR
study, indicates the basin has
between five and 5.3 million acrefeet in storage to a depth of 1,200
feet. The USGS (1971) estimates the
basin has between 10.5 and 21
million acre-feet of water in storage
to a depth of 1,500 feet.
The
predevelopment storage estimate is
five million acre-feet to a depth of
1,200 feet (Water Atlas).
Well yields vary from less than 100
gallons-per-minute (gpm) to greater
than 2,000 gpm. One source of well yield information, based on 33 reported wells, indicates that
the median well yield in this basin is 900 gpm. The deepest recorded water level in the basin is
924 feet east of New Kingman-Butler and the shallowest is 257 feet east of Stockton Hill Road
in the center of the basin. Hydrographs show a decline in water level in the Kingman area of
approximately 18 inches per year due to groundwater pumping. 2 The Department annually
measures seven index wells in this basin (see Appendix B and Water Atlas)
Water Quality
Drinking water standard exceedences in wells and springs have been reported for 31 sites in the
basin. The drinking water standards for fluoride and radio-nuclides were the most frequently
exceeded standards at sites in this basin. Most fluoride exceedences are in the northern portion
of the basin. Radio-nuclide exceedences are scattered throughout the basin. Other drinking
water standards exceeded in the basin include antimony, chromium, lead and nitrate/nitrite.
Groundwater is highly mineralized in some areas near the base of mountains. Chromium has
2

See well in T22N, R16W, Section 28, located east of Castle Rock Road and north of Thompson Avenue.

Draft: 6/23/2009

46

been detected in some wells in the basin. Only one well within the area plan boundary has
exceeded standards for radio-nuclides. (Water Atlas, Section 4.0).
Cultural Demands
Population in this basin has almost tripled since 1980, increasing from 11,361 in 1980 to 31,543
in 2000. Projections suggest the population will more than double by 2050. Groundwater use
has increased in this basin since 1971, with an average of 3,850 acre-feet pumped per year from
1971-1975 to an average of 8,450 acre-feet pumped per year from 2001-2003. Most of the
municipal and industrial demand is in the vicinity of New Kingman-Butler. Municipal
groundwater demand has grown from 5,500 acre-feet per year on average in 1991 to 8,300 acrefeet per year on average in 2003. The City of Kingman, in the Sacramento Valley Basin, obtains
most of its water from well fields in this basin, with recent reports showing the City of
Kingman’s use of over 10,000 acre-feet in 2007. Industrial groundwater demand is minimal in
this basin at less than 300 acre-feet per year from 1991-2003 (Water Atlas).
In 2003, 725 registered wells in the
basin had a pumping capacity of less
than or equal to 35 gpm and 41 wells
had a pumping capacity of more than
35 gpm. In 2007, there were 58
registered wells within the area plan
boundary of which 51 were exempt.
Water Adequacy Reports and
Analysis of Adequate Water
Supply
Fifty water adequacy determinations
have been made in this basin through
December, 2006 (see Appendix B).
Forty
two
determinations
of
inadequacy have been made. The
most common reason for an
inadequacy determination was based
on the applicant’s decision not to
submit necessary information and/or
available hydrologic data were
insufficient to make a determination.
Other reasons for an inadequacy
determination included insufficient
supply and insufficient infrastructure.
Of the 17,632 lots in 39 subdivisions
for which lot information is available, 10,969 lots, or 62% were determined to be adequate. Six
analyses of adequate water supply for six master planned communities have been issued for
259,966 lots and located across the basin (Water Atlas).

Draft: 6/23/2009

47

Big Sandy Basin
Geography
The Big Sandy Basin, situated in the
central and southern part of the
planning area, is the second largest
basin at 1,988 square miles and has
the largest land area within the area
plan boundary at 178 square miles.
The basin is characterized by a large
valley,
and
by
mid-elevation
mountain ranges and plateaus.
Surrounding the Big Sandy Valley
are the Aquarius Mountains to the
east of the Big Sandy River, the
Cottonwood Mountains to the north
and the Hualapai Mountains along
the western, which also contains the
highest point in the basin, Hualapai
Peak at 8,417 feet.
Riparian
vegetation is found along streams
such as the Big Sandy River that runs
north to south through Cane Springs
and Wikieup. The lowest point in the
basin, about 1,650 feet, is south of
Wikieup along the Big Sandy River.
Trout Creek, a major tributary to the
Big Sandy River, flows east to west
in the middle of the basin, draining
the Aquarius Mountains.
Precipitation data shows rainfall as high as 22 inches at the southeastern-most tip of the basin
(T18N, R7W in Yavapai County) in the Juniper Mountains and as low as eight inches in the
areas south of Wikieup. Rainfall within the area plan boundary is typically 10 to 12 inches per
year. In general, precipitation increases as altitude increases in this basin. This basin has one of
the highest average annual precipitation rates in the planning area and the highest average low
precipitation rate in the planning area.
Surface Water Conditions
The Cottonwood Creek Station is located just east of the area plan boundary and lends some
insight to the frequency and volume of surface hydrology. The average seasonal flow is highest
in the summer (July-September) when 44% occurs at the Cottonwood Wash station. The average
seasonal flow is lowest in the spring (April-June) and the fall (October-December). Maximum
annual flow was 8,326 acre-feet in 1976. Minimum annual flow was 601 acre-feet in 1975. The

Draft: 6/23/2009

48

gauging station was discontinued in 1978 Average annual runoff is one inch per year in the
south-central portion of the basin near Cow Creek and decreases to 0.1 inches to the north and
west.
There are three perennial streams
located in the center of the basin,
Cottonwood Creek, Big Sandy River
and Trout Creek.
Numerous
intermittent streams are located
throughout the basin with a large
concentration of intermittent streams
along the western basin boundary.
Reaches of the Big Sandy River and
Trout Creek in this basin are both
perennial and intermittent. There are
six major springs with a measured
discharge of 10 gallons-per-minute
(gpm) or greater at any time. Listed
discharge rates may not be indicative
of current conditions. All of the
measurements were taken during or
prior to 1982. Major springs are
found in the vicinity of perennial and
intermittent streams. The greatest
discharge rate was measured at the
beginning of an intermittent reach of
the Big Sandy River south of Cane
Springs (No. 1) at 1,600 gallons-perminute (gpm). The Cofer Hot Spring
(No. 5), east of Wikieup, discharges
200 gpm. All but one of the major
springs discharges at least 200 gpm. There are 11 minor springs identified in the basin. The
total number of springs identified by the USGS varies from 165 to 179, depending on the
database reference. Some springs and seeps in the Sonoran Desert, of which this part of the
planning area is a part, have been degraded or lost completely due to development or diversion
for use by livestock or crops or groundwater pumping (CWCS).
Groundwater Conditions
With the exception of its northeastern portion (Fort Rock sub-basin), most of the Big Sandy
Basin was categorized as a “Southeast” basin by Anderson, Freethey and Tucci (1992). This
area generally corresponds to the Wikieup sub-basin south of Interstate 40. Southeast basins are
characterized by moderately thick pre-Basin and Range sediments and an overlying layer of
lower basin fill to depths of over 1,000 feet. Aquifers generally consist of two or more waterbearing units separated by a fine-grained unit that forms a leaky confining layer over the lower
basin fill. Primary water development in the Big Sandy Basin is along the central valley,

Draft: 6/23/2009

49

primarily in the upper basin fill that varies from loosely consolidated silty gravel to sandy silt.
The floodplain alluvium in the central valley is 30-40 feet thick and is an unconsolidated deposit
of gravel and sand. In the Wikieup area, wells greater than 40 feet in depth tap the upper basin
fill, which is estimated to be 300 feet deep in that area. North of Wikieup, the upper basin fill is
estimated to be 150 to 200 feet deep.
In addition, sedimentary rock (R
Aquifer) also serves as a water
bearing unit.
Sub-surface flow
direction is generally from the north
to the south. The estimate of natural
recharge for this basin is 22,000 acrefeet per year (Water Atlas, Section
4.0).
There are three storage estimates for
this basin, ranging from 9.5 million
acre-feet to 21 million acre-feet. The
most recent estimate, from a 1990
ADWR study, indicates the basin has
9.5 million acre-feet in storage to a
depth of 1,200 feet.
The
predevelopment storage estimate is
10 million acre-feet to a depth of
1,200 acre-feet.
Well yields range from less than 100
gallons-per-minute (gpm) to greater
than 2,000 gpm. One source of well
yield information, based on 87
reported wells, indicates that the
median well yield in this basin is 300
gpm but vary throughout the basin. The deepest recorded water level in the basin is 488 feet
near the northeastern basin boundary and the shallowest is 15 feet south of Wikieup. The
Department annually measures eight index wells in this basin. The hydrograph for an index well
located in T13N, R16W, Section 36, south and east of Wikieup along the big Sandy River shows
some four feet of decline from 1975 to 2005 (see Appendix B).

Draft: 6/23/2009

50

Water Quality
Drinking water standard exceedences
in wells and springs have been
reported for 64 sites in the basin. The
drinking water standard for radionuclides, fluoride and lead were the
most frequently exceeded standards
at sites in the basin. The largest
clusters of radio-nuclide exceedences
is east of Highway 93 and south of
Interstate 40 and include well nos.
27, 28 and 56 within the area plan
boundary. The largest cluster of lead
exceedences is around Highway 93
north of Wikieup within the area plan
boundary and includes well nos. 45,
46, 48 through 52, 54, 55 and 58.
Well no. 13 just east of mile post 67
along I-40 also exceeds the standard
for lead. Fluoride exceedences are
scattered throughout the basin, but
well nos. 8, 11, 12, 13, 22, 44, 57, 60,
63 and 64 are included within the
area plan boundary. Other drinking
water standards exceeded in this
basin include arsenic (well nos. 12,
13, 15, 22, 42, 43, 59 through 62 and
64), antimony (well no. 22),
beryllium and cadmium. The last two exceedences were not found for wells listed within the
area plan boundary.
Cultural Demands
Population in this basin is minimal but has almost tripled since 1980, increasing from 434 in
1980 to 1,178 in 2000. Projections suggest a similar rate of growth through 2050. Groundwater
use has increased in this basin since 1971, with an average of 2,500 acre-feet pumped per year
from 1971-1975 and an average of 15,600 acre-feet pumped per year from 2001-2003. There are
no reported surface water diversions in this basin. There is minimal agricultural use in this basin,
with less than 300 acre-feet per year from 1991-2003. Agricultural demand centers are located
south of Cane Springs and south of Wikieup along Highway 93. Municipal groundwater demand
is also minimal in this basin, with less than 300 acre-feet per year on average from 1991 to 2003.
Municipal demand centers are located in the vicinity of Wikieup and north of Wikieup along
Highway 93. There is significant industrial groundwater demand in this basin. 15,600 acre-feet
per year on average from 2001-2003 was pumped and transported, via pipeline to the Bagdad
Mine in the Bill Williams Basin.

Draft: 6/23/2009

51

As of 2003, there were 1,145 registered wells in the basin with a pumping capacity of less than
or equal to 35 gallons-per-minute and 137 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35
gallons-per-minute. In 2007, 568 wells had been registered within the boundary of the area plan,
of which 396 were exempt wells, including 16 exploration wells and eleven piezometer wells
used to measure the compressibility of a material or fluid under pressure.
Water Adequacy Determinations
A total of four water adequacy
determinations have been made in
this basin through December, 2008
(see
Appendix
B).
Three
determinations of inadequacy have
been
made;
all
of
these
determinations are in the northern
portion of the basin. All inadequacy
determinations were based on the
applicant’s decision not to submit
necessary
information
and/or
available hydrologic data was
insufficient to make a determination.
608 lots have received an inadequate
determination; data on the number of
lots with an adequate determination
was not available to the Department.

Draft: 6/23/2009

52

Bill Williams Basin
Geography
Covering some 3,350 square miles, the Bill Williams Basin is the largest basin in the planning
area. Approximately 51 square miles fall within the southerly part of the area plan boundary.
The basin is characterized by hilly terrain in much of the basin and by several major river
drainages. Riparian vegetation is found along streams including cottonwood/willow, mesquite
and tamarisk along the Bill Williams, Big Sandy and Santa Maria Rivers and mesquite,
cottonwood/willow and mixed broadleaf along sections of Burro Creek flowing through the
center of the area plan boundary.

Rainfall is as high as 24 inches northeast of Skull Valley approaching Granite Mountain,
elevation 7,626. This is the highest average annual precipitation of all five basins. Annual
precipitation within the area plan boundary is generally 10 to 12 inches with 12 to 14 inches at
higher elevations near the Yavapai County line.
Surface Water Conditions
Gauging stations are located on Burro Creek and Big Sandy River. The average seasonal flow
for these stations is highest in the winter (January-March) when 80% of the annual average
seasonal flow occurs. The average seasonal flow is lowest for Burro Creek in the spring when
only three percent of the annual flow occur and for the Big Sandy River in the summer when
only four percent of the annual flow can be expected.

Draft: 6/23/2009

53

Average annual runoff is 0.5 inch per year is typical along Highway 93 with higher runoff
northeast of the highway decreasing to 0.2 inches to the southwest.

There are numerous perennial streams located throughout the basin. Numerous intermittent
streams are also located throughout the basin with the largest concentration of intermittent
streams in the northeastern portion of the basin. Significant perennial reaches include sections of
the Bill Williams River, Santa Maria River, Big Sandy River and Burro Creek. All of these
waterways also have reaches that are intermittent. There are six major springs with a measured
discharge of 10 gallons-per-minute (gpm) or greater at any time. Listed discharge rates may not
be indicative of current conditions. For example, Kaiser Hot Spring (No. 3) 40 gpm discharge
rate was last recorded in 1980 and marks the last year in which measurements were taken for all
springs. Major springs are found in the eastern and north central areas of the basin. All but one
of the major springs discharge 200 gpm or less. There are 13 minor springs identified in this
basin. The total number of springs identified by the USGS varies from 249 to 303, depending on
the database reference (Water Atlas). Natural functions of these hydrologic systems have been
seriously altered in most areas by lowering of groundwater levels, by diversion and
channelization, by dam building and resulting inundation and cessation of flood cycles, and by
invasion of nonnative plants. Extended drought will result in continued loss of instream flows
and further degradation of riparian and aquatic habitats (CWCS).
Groundwater Conditions
The area plan boundary is within the Burro Creek sub-basin, one of five in the groundwater
basin, Groundwater in this area occurs primarily in younger alluvial deposits and in basin-fill
with fractured volcanic rock providing additional water sources. The water-bearing ability of
Draft: 6/23/2009

54

these units varies within the basin. The younger alluvium consists of gravel, sand and silts along
the Bill Williams River and its major tributaries. The main water-bearing unit is the basin fill.

Recharge is from stream flow and mountain front precipitation. The estimate of natural recharge
for this basin is 32,000 acre-feet per year. The direction of sub-surface flow is generally from
east to west (Water Atlas, Section 4.0).
There are three storage estimates for this basin, ranging from 10 million acre-feet to 23 million
acre-feet. The most recent estimate, from a 1990 ADWR study, indicates the basin has 23 million
acre-feet in storage to a depth of 1,200 feet. The predevelopment storage estimate is 10 million
acre-feet to a depth of 1,200 feet (Water Atlas).
Well yields in this basin range from less than 100 gallons-per-minute (gpm) to greater than 2,000
gpm. One source of well yield information, based on 195 reported wells, indicates that the
median well yield in this basin is 280 gpm. Well yields vary throughout the basin with the
majority of the highest well yields, greater than 2,000 gpm, occurring in the western portion of
the basin along the Bill Williams River. The deepest recorded water level in the sub-basin is over
2,500 feet. The Department annually measures 21 index wells in this basin (see Appendix B and
Water Atlas).
Water Quality
Drinking water standard exceedences in wells and springs have been reported for 60 sites in the
basin. The drinking water standards for fluoride and arsenic were the most frequently exceeded
standards at sites in this basin. The largest cluster of fluoride exceedences is north of Highway
93. Arsenic exceedences are scattered throughout the basin. Other drinking water standards
Draft: 6/23/2009

55

exceeded in this basin include cadmium, copper, lead, nitrate/nitrite, total dissolved solids and
radio-nuclides. Only one well (No. 40) within the area plan boundary exceeded arsenic
standards. Water quality within this aquifer unit is generally good (Water Atlas).
Water quality standards were exceeded in two reaches of Boulder Creek, located upstream of the
area plan boundary, and one reach of Burro Creek within the area plan boundary. The mercury
drinking water standard was exceeded in these impaired streams. Arsenic, copper and zinc were
exceeded in Boulder Creek. The longest impaired reach was 17 miles of Boulder Creek.
Boulder Creek is part of the ADEQ water quality improvement effort called the Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) program. The final TMDL report has been completed for Boulder Creek
and an implementation plan is underway. Burro Creek is not part of the TMDL program at this
time (Water Atlas).

Cultural Demands
Population in this basin has decreased slightly since 1980, from 5,532 in 1980 to 4,691 in 2000.
Projections suggest a small increase in growth through 2050. Groundwater use has decreased in
this basin since 1971, with an average of 18,000 acre-feet per year from 1971-1975 and an
average of 3,880 acre-feet pumped per year from 2001-2003. Municipal groundwater demand is
minimal, between 500 and 600 acre-feet per year on average from 1991 to 2003 and occurs
beyond the area plan boundary. Although there is one large mine, the Bagdad Mine, and a
number of small mines or quarries in the basin, industrial demand is minimal because the Bagdad
Mine receives water from the Big Sandy Basin, via pipeline. The primary water demand in this
basin is agricultural but also occurs beyond the area plan boundary (Water Atlas).

Draft: 6/23/2009

56

As of 2003, there were 1,565 registered wells with a pumping capacity of less than or equal to 35
gallons-per-minute and 243 wells with a pumping capacity of more than 35 gallons-per-minute
in the basin. In 2007, the area plan boundary included 37 wells, 23 of which were exempt.
Water Adequacy Determinations
A total of eight water adequacy determinations have been made in this basin through December,
2008 (see Appendix B). All lots received an adequate determination. All lots receiving an
adequacy determination are in Yavapai County (Water Atlas).
Summary of the Five Groundwater Basins

Acre Feet

The following chart
Groundwater Storage Estimates to 1,200 Feet Below Land Surface
shows the estimated
25,000,000
amount of water in
20,000,000
storage
for
each
groundwater basin. As
15,000,000
noted in the above
10,000,000
review of each basin, the
5,000,000
estimated amount of
0
water in storage varies
Detrital
Sacramento
Hualapai
Big Sandy
Bill Williams
by 100 percent or more
Basin Name
depending
on
the
ADWR, 2006-07 (3% yield)
ADWR, 2006-07 (6% yield)
ADWR, 1990-94
hydrological
analysis
Freethey & Anderson, 1986
Arizona Water Commission, 1975
with assumption that
newer investigations yield a more accurate picture of the groundwater conditions. Older studies,
typically showing more groundwater available also may track pre-development conditions within
the basin.

Acre Feet

The following chart
Annual Natural Recharge Estimates
shows natural recharge
35,000
for each basin. These
30,000
values are related to the
25,000
areal extent of the
20,000
ADWR, 1981-91
drainage basin and the
Freethey & Anderson, 1986
15,000
amount
of
annual
10,000
rainfall, with the Detrital
5,000
Valley
being
the
0
Detrital
Sacramento
Hualapai
Big Sandy Bill Williams
smallest and driest of the
Basin
Name
basins having the least
amount
of
aquifer
recharge and the Bill Williams being the largest and rainiest having the most recharge.
The flowing table shows the number of wells by type for each portion of the drainage basins
within the area plan boundary. Private domestic wells, most of which are exempt (pump rate of
35 gpm or less), make up 57 percent of the wells. The Big Sandy basin possesses 71 percent of

Draft: 6/23/2009

57

42

40 359 312

10

Exempt

26

Total

Total

26

Exempt

Exempt

42

Total

Bill Williams
Basin

Exempt

50

Total

Total

Big Sandy
Basin

Hualapai
Valley Basin

Exempt

Sacramento
Valley Basin

Total

Detrital
Valley Basin

Exempt

Domestic

Total

Total Wells by Type
& Exempt Status
within Area Plan
Boundary

all wells The Big Sandy also contains the largest number of industrial wells many of which are
believed to be used to
support mining activity.
Those wells noted as
“Other” are typically
monitoring
or
exploration wells that do
not produce a water
supply.
9 487 429

Draft: 6/23/2009

Water Depth

Well Depth

Water Depth

Average

Bill Williams
Basin

Well Depth

Water Depth

Well Depth

Water Depth

Big Sandy
Basin

Hualapai
Valley Basin

Well Depth

Water Depth

Sacramento
Valley Basin

58

Well Depth

Water Depth

Detrital
Valley Basin

Well Depth

Well Types by Depth
within Area Plan
Boundary

Private, domestic wells Commercial
11
1
0
0
2
1 12
4
7
0
32
6
2
1
3
0
0
0 14
8
0
0
19
9
are shallower than the Mining
1
0
1
1
0
0 63
4
6
0
71
5
Industrial
commercial, and mining Stock
13
9
2
2
10
10 37
25
7
7
69
53
wells located nearby Irrigation
9
3
0
0
0
0 42
5
0
0
51
8
(see table). Domestic Other
18
4 15 15
5
5 83
80
7
7 128 111
104
60 47 44
59
56 610 438
37 23 857 621
wells penetrate the water Total
Source: Wells 55 Database, November, 2007
table by an average of
120 feet as compared to other wells such as commercial and industrial wells which have some
425 feet and 230 feet of penetration, respectively, allowing for a more robust water supply in
case of aquifer dewatering or drawdown
from competing wells.
Non-domestic wells also
typically have a larger
casing diameter (12
inches or more) than
domestic wells (6 to 7 Domestic
650 557 283 150 695 506 359 246 132
63 424 304
inches). As mentioned in Commercial 1,091 471 775 366 552 211 553 225 743 318
443 226 2,360 1,259
673 148
- 1,158 544
the introduction, these Mining
305
70
147
44 580 229 344 114
Industrial
five basins are outside of Stock
620 276 114
43 192
77 316 212 220 100 292 141
664 573
0
0
0
0 189
66
427 128
the Active Management Irrigation
Other
Area. This precludes the Average
693 421 612 304 415 237 373 154 371 154 565 258
regulation of water by Source: Wells 55 Database, November, 2007
the State of Arizona to
great extent. It should be noted that mining activity, and the use of water for such industrial
uses, is also exempt from much State oversight as well given the permissive language of the
1872 Mining Act.

Stressors
Water Use - Groundwater levels in Arizona have dropped considerably due to pumping for
agricultural and urban needs. The surface water loss resulting from the water withdrawal and
dewatering necessary to support anthropocentric water needs, exacerbated by drought conditions,
will continue to influence habitats in Arizona. Lowered water tables affect all of Arizona’s
habitats, but can have considerable affects on small cienegas, springs, seeps and marshes and
their associated species. Spring “improvement,” that is, capturing spring output in collection
structures and either exporting the water or making it available to human determined uses, has
significantly affected a large proportion of the springs around Arizona. This limits the extent of
the wetted zone around the spring, the associated riparian plant community, and the associated
wildlife community (CWCS).
Wastewater runoff - Aquatic systems are inundated by contaminants in wastewater with
sources including, but not limited by, water treatment plant releases, roadways, gas stations,
storm drains, septic tanks, industrial runoff, and feedlots. Wildlife may be affected through
ingestion, exposure and bioaccumulation. Contaminants decrease water quality and alter water
chemistry, which may increase stress or mortality of species. They may also increase the
susceptibility of species to disease, pathogens or parasites. Ultimately, accumulation of
contaminants may lead to severe habitat loss or degradation and eventually changes in
community composition (CWCS).
Sediments and Ash - The institution of fire suppression during the early 1900s and land use
practices (for example grazing) have led to unnatural fire regimes and higher than normal fuel
loads across Arizona. Altered river and stream flows carry and deposit sediment in ways that can
harm species and alter the habitat. In the past, more frequent, low-intensity fires provided
occasional sediment deposition required by some wildlife species. However, increased fire
intensity and occurrence during different times of the year may produce more ash which may
then inundate aquatic systems during periods of high runoff. Accumulation of sediment alters
habitat and may reduce water quality.
Altered river flow regimes - River flow regimes may experience severe alterations from
upstream dams, reservoirs, and impoundments. Altered flows change the physical parameters of
rivers and streams such as temperature, salinity, nutrient loading, and sediment transport, which
often then favor nonnative rather than native aquatic or riparian species. Reduced scouring
frequency or intensity may allow increased sedimentation and accumulation of salts in the soils
lateral to the channel, thus lowering water quality and riparian habitat viability. Riparian
vegetation dependent on water and nutrient availability and on reduction in salinities through soil
leaching will recede, allowing further encroachment by non-riparian species. Nutrient regimes
will also change within downstream aquatic and riparian communities. Unnaturally large flow
events may cause flood pulses that exceed historical peaks, severely scouring channels and
floodplains, causing direct mortality of plant and animal community elements, and sometimes
resetting the successional scheme over vast extents of river and stream channels (CWCS).

Draft: 6/23/2009

59

Projected Water Use and Budget
The projected population growth estimates and water use for the five basins through which the
area plan traverses is presented in the following table. Population projections are based on
Department of Economic Security (DES) projections taken from the Water Atlas through the
year 2050 as referenced in Section 4 of the Water Atlas. Water usage has been estimated at
approximately 0.2 acre-feet per capita per year. This amount of water usage equates to
approximately 65,000 gallons per year and takes into account the individual’s use of water in
their culture which includes recreational, commercial and industrial processes such as
maintaining landscape, car washing, and use of water at place of work.
Population Projections* & Water Use**
Year
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050

Detrital Valley Basin
Sacramento Vly Basin Hualapai Valley Basin Big Sandy Basin
Bill Williams Basin
Population Ac. Ft. Use Population Ac. Ft. Use Population Ac. Ft. Use Population Ac. Ft. Use Population Ac. Ft. Use
1,374
275
16,276
3,255
31,543
6,309
1,178
15,236
4,691
3,938
1,599
319
19,498
3,891
43,688
8,728
2,543
15,509
4,705
3,941
1,831
367
22,774
4,578
52,993
10,640
3,235
15,651
4,714
3,943
2,003
396
25,234
5,057
60,465
12,081
3,798
15,737
4,724
3,945
2,114
426
26,796
5,342
65,725
13,083
4,288
15,835
4,733
3,947
2,200
447
28,031
5,615
70,425
14,168
4,687
15,945
4,738
3,948

Cummulative
19,050
Water Use
* Department of Economic Security
** 0.2 acre-foot per-capita

237,607

558,317

798,581

201,122

Projected water demands for individuals and agriculture (3,000 acre-feet per year) within the Bill
Williams Basin until the year 2050 is estimated to be 201,122 acre-feet respectively, and should
not deplete the water supply given the amount of natural recharge. However, new urban
developments proposed in the Big Sandy Basin (see Land Use Element) and the increasing
presence of industrial wells used for mining, estimated at 15,000 acre-feet per year, may cause
significant impact on groundwater and on the productivity of adjoining wells, many of which are
for private domestic use.
The Sacramento and Hualapai Valleys are projected to witness the majority of the population
growth and water use with some 28,000 and 71,000 inhabitants by 2050, respectively. Estimated
annual water use in the Hualapai Valley will be over 14,000 acre-feet per year and exceed
natural recharge placing the aquifer under stress from depletion. The Sacramento Valley’s
annual water use is projected to be 5,600 acre-feet per year which may also exceed natural
recharge. These two estimates may under represent the future population and water demand
based upon recently approved master plans in the basin as noted above.
The Detrital Valley, assumed to be a future metropolitan extension of Las Vegas, has a relatively
diminutive population projection of 2,200 persons by 2050. Estimates of total cumulative use
(19,000 acre-feet) and some 450 acre-feet of annual use in 2050 do not agree with land use plans
approved and recent analyses of adequate water supply performed by ADWR. To account for
the above discrepancies, a second population projection and water use table is offered below.
These projections are based on historic growth trends from 1980 to 2000, with the historic rate
based blended with the DES logarithmic growth curve which decreases over time. The

Draft: 6/23/2009

60

projections extend to 2100; however, growth projections beyond twenty years are typically
speculative works of statisticians.
Population Projections* & Water Use**
Year
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100

Detrital Valley Basin
Sacramento Vly Basin Hualapai Valley Basin Big Sandy Basin
Bill Williams Basin
Population Ac. Ft. Use Population Ac. Ft. Use Population Ac. Ft. Use Population Ac. Ft. Use Population Ac. Ft. Use
1,374
275
16,276
3,255
31,543
6,309
1,178
15,236
4,691
3,938
2,393
479
26,884
17,377
44,193
8,839
1,764
15,353
7,024
4,405
17,695
3,539
48,291
21,658
67,973
13,595
2,495
15,499
9,131
4,826
39,480
7,896
70,946
26,189
100,031
20,006
5,216
16,043
11,050
5,210
62,158
12,432
90,204
30,041
138,843
27,769
8,052
16,610
12,532
5,506
85,531
17,106
108,097
33,619
178,881
35,776
11,114
17,223
13,983
5,797
112,116
22,423
127,007
25,401
218,480
43,696
14,464
17,893
15,526
6,105
142,810
28,562
147,768
29,554
265,490
53,098
18,185
18,637
17,240
6,448
178,253
35,651
170,642
34,128
322,614
64,523
22,316
19,463
19,144
6,829
219,180
43,836
195,844
39,169
392,030
78,406
26,903
20,381
21,257
7,251
266,439
53,288
223,609
44,722
476,382
95,276
31,997
21,399
23,604
7,721

Cummulative
2,006,282
2,724,369
4,001,810
Water Use
* 1980-2000 historic trend blended with Department of Economic Security growth curve
** 0.2 acre-foot per-capita

1,771,858

587,863

Under this new projection the Big Sandy basin will see approximately a ten percent increase in
water use by 2050 and over 17,000 acre-feet of annual water use. This acceleration accounts for
the beginning of the development of Silverado master plan by the year 2020 with some 200
homes per year from that point forward. The population estimate is based on 2.5 persons per
dwelling unit. This amount of water use will begin to reach the annual recharge rate 20,000
acre-feet per year for the entire basin adding additional stress to the system.
The Bill Williams basin is also projected to significantly grow more than earlier estimates;
however, growth within the area plan may be limited to a few hundred people even by 2100
given the large amount of public lands.
The historic growth curve for the Hualapai Valley and the new 2005 DES population projection
were nearly identical, so the latter has been used. Even so population growth in the Hualapai
Valley is expected to severely deplete the aquifer by 2100. The basin has been in a state of
ground-water mining as noted above and this trend is expected to accelerate.
The Sacramento Valley will also experience an increase in groundwater use with Mercator Mine
expected to consume some 12,000 acre-feet year. This has been projected until the year 2050.
The creation of a new master planned community is also expected to begin as soon as 2012 with
some 300 homes added per year for the duration of the projection. This will also place the basin
in a state of groundwater mining.
For the Detrital Valley, it is estimated approximately 500 homes will be constructed per year in
the vicinity of White Hills Road and points east. Housing starts should begin in 2012 with
opening of the new Hoover Dam Bypass bridge completed in late 2010. The Detrital Valley is
projected to be in state of groundwater mining by 2020 and accelerate. By 2100, it is estimated
some 2 million acre-feet of water will be consumed which is nearly equal to the latest estimate of
water in storage for the basin.

Draft: 6/23/2009

61

The following chart shows the trend lines for population growth (upward trend) and water
consumption (downward trend) for each basin. The trend lines are exponential in nature based
upon the annual growth rate. Those trend lines with near straight-line projections indicate the
presence of a steady draw such as agricultural or mining demand; the mining demand is
projected to terminate in the Sacramento Valley by 2050.
Comparison of Population Growth & Water Use in the Five Basins
500,000

0

Acre Feet (-) & Population (+)

-500,000

-1,000,000

-1,500,000

-2,000,000

-2,500,000

-3,000,000

-3,500,000

-4,000,000

-4,500,000

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

Hualapai Valley Cummulative Water Use
Sacramento Valley Cummulative Water Usage
Detrital Valley Cummulative Water Use
Sacramento Valley Population Projection
Detrital Valley Population Projection

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

Big Sandy Cummulative Water Use
Bill Williams Cummulative Water Use
Hualapai Valley Population Projection
Bill Williams Population Projection
Big Sandy Population Projection

As noted on the Open File Report Exhibits, approximately 900,000 acre-feet of water is in or
near the Area Plan boundary within the Detrital Valley, most of which is located in the Dolan
Springs and Temple Bar Road areas. By contrast, a mere 13,000 acre-feet is estimated to be
available in that portion of the Sacramento Valley covered by the Highway 93 Area Plan
boundary. The amount of water in storage has not been defined for those portions of the
Hualapai, Big Sandy and Bill Williams basins through which the area plan passes. Given these
unknowns and the anthropogenic demands, already entitled in many instances, goals and policies
must be as water conservative as possible.
Draft: 6/23/2009

62

Goals & Policies for Water Conservation
Goal 13

Businesses should be required to use native vegetation and water conserving
landscaping.

Policy 13.1 Limit use of grass in new development and encourage businesses to use recycled
effluent or gray water to irrigate the landscaping (7/15/2008).
Policy 13.2 Limit parks and golf courses to those that use less turf and to use recycled
effluent or gray water to irrigate the landscaping (7/15/2008).
Policy 13.3 Re-vegetation of disturbed areas with drought tolerant and/or native plant
material shall be encouraged (7/15/2008).

Goal 14

Require or preserve native landscaping to be kept throughout the Corridor
(8/21/2008, 9/18/2008).

Policy 14.1 Maintain natural “desert pavement” and native plant material (9/18/2008).
Policy 14.2 Limit land divisions in flood plains (9/18/2008).
Policy 14.3 Preserve washes as open-space within planned residential developments
(9/18/2008).
Policy 14.4 Limit development along mountain fronts and washes to prevent recharge areas
from being covered and to protect these areas from point-source and non-point
source pollution (9/18/2008).
Policy 14.5 Allow only low intensity agricultural-residential use or recreational activities
adjacent to or within washes (9/18/2008).

Goal 15

Encourage and increase low-water use activities for conservation (8/21/2008,
revised) and encourage industries and businesses with limited water use
(8/21/2008, 9/18/2008).

Policy 15.1 Limit the increase in residential density when new development is proposed on
bedrock or outside the regional aquifer unless the development is served by a
water company with an ADWR certified 100-year supply (9/18/2008).
Policy 15.2. Require new development to use mechanisms such as catch basins and flood
control devices along washes and mountain fronts to increase aquifer recharge
and reduce runoff and loss of surface water through evaporation (9/18/2008).
Policy 15.3. Encourage the use of effluent, gray water and rainwater harvesting in new
housing and commercial developments (9/18/2008).
Draft: 6/23/2009

63

Policy 15.4. Encourage the use of environmentally sensitive water-softening devices
(9/18/2008).
Policy 15.5. Minimize turf on new housing developments and supplement with native plant
materials or xeriscaping (9/18/2008).
Policy 15.6. Attract new businesses that do not require water as a main part of their
production process (10/16/2008).
Policy 15.7. Encourage rainwater harvesting and recycling of grey water for on-site irrigation
of landscaping and other non-potable uses (10/16/2008).
Policy 15.8 Minimize turf on new housing developments and supplement with native plant
material or xeriscaping (10/16/2008).
Policy 15.9 Require commercial and industrial uses to reuse grey water; the landscape
irrigation budget will be based on net water usage (11/20/2008).
Policy 15.10 Provide proof of 100-year water adequacy prior to approval of large-scale
residential developments (5/14/2009).
Policy 15.11 Provide proof of adequate water supply based on projected water consumption
and known supplies prior to approval of large-scale commercial or industrial
development in areas where monitoring of water wells has shown decline from
year to year (5/14/2009).

Goal 16

Require public agencies and public facilities to utilize water conservation and
water saving devices (8/21/2008).

Policy 16.1 Require rainwater harvesting and recycling of grey water for on-site irrigation of
landscaping and other non-potable uses (10/16/2008, revised).
Policy 16.2 Minimize turf and supplement with native plant material or xeriscaping
(10/16/2008, revised).

Implementation Measures for Water Resources
W.1 Hydrologic studies will be required for developments in Urban and Suburban
Development Areas. These studies should be available with the initial proposal. In lieu of a
formal hydrological analysis, County staff will prepare a water budget using the ADWRsupplied generic demand calculator. This will ensure that Arizona water supplies are not
threatened and that development activity will not do substantial injury to the general economy or
to the welfare of the state and its citizens, A.R.S. §§ 45-101.A.

Draft: 6/23/2009

64

W.2 Developments with housing densities with more than one unit per acre will be required to
treat effluent to A+ Standard (per ADEQ Rule R18-11-303, Class A+ Reclaimed Water), provide
a non-potable water system for landscaping and common greenspaces throughout the
development.
W.3 When subdivision and parcel plats are recorded, note their geographic location in relation
to the regional aquifer and not if they are outside the regional aquifer or on bedrock.
W.4 The Mohave County Development Services Department, in association with the Mohave
County Flood Control Department, will review rezone and plat submittals to ensure that future
residential and non-residential building sites will be designed to avoid flood hazards and
preserve washes as open space.
W.5 The Development Services Department (Building Division) will review grading permits
with consideration on preserving as much of the site's natural landscaping as possible.
W.6 The Development Services Department will continue to make available to the public
Arizona's Native Plant Law brochure.
W.7 The Mohave County Development Services Department and local economic development
authorities will encourage non-water-intensive businesses.
W.8 The Development Services Department (Building Division) will review and permit the
use of grey water recycling for on-site irrigation.
W.9 The Development Services Department, in association with monitoring data supplied by
ADWR and the USGS, will track well depths.
W.10 Arizona’s groundwater resources will be protected according to the Arizona Aquifer
Protection Program, A.R.S. §§ 49-241-252., A.A.C. Title 18, Chapters 9 and 11 and the Arizona
Drinking Water rules, A.R.S. §§ 49-351-360, A.A.C. Title 18, Chapter 4. In addition, Mohave
County will continue to require new development to address amendments to the County’s
adopted “208” Water Quality Plan (Section 208 of the Clean Water Act, EPA).

Draft: 6/23/2009

65

Public Safety

Public Safety Element
Introduction
Planning for public safety should take into consideration of existing conditions within the
community ranging from crime rates to traffic hazards to natural occurrences such as fires and
flood hazards. These hazards are generally anthropogenic in nature in that the human presence
causes or exacerbates the hazards. The goals and polices presented should mitigate to a
reasonable extent the imprint of society’s impact upon the landscape.
Fire Protection
The need for fire protection in the desert may seem to be less of a need than in other environs;
however, naturally occurring fires and those caused by human agency can lead to significant
damage and loss of life as has been witnessed with the onset of drought and the increased
habitation of lands in previously undisturbed habitats. Response to medical emergencies is also
related to fire protection and should be considered as an integral part of public health, safety and
welfare.
Mohave County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
The Mohave County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (MCCWPP) was developed in
response to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) for the at-risk communities and
unincorporated areas located in and around public lands administered by the US Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Healthy Forests Restoration Act
established incentives for communities to develop comprehensive wildfire protection plans and
this legislation gives direction to the BLM to address local community priorities in fuel reduction
treatments, even on nonfederal lands. Mohave County adopted the Community Wildfire
Protection Plan (CWPP) in September 2008. This allows local communities to acquire federal
funding and other grant monies for fire preparedness and planning (MCCWPP).
A primary objective of a CWPP is to help local governments, fire departments, and residents
identify at-risk public and private lands to better protect those lands from severe wildfire threat.
Additional functions of the plan are to improve fire prevention and suppression activities, as well
as to identify funding needs and opportunities to reduce the risk of wildland fire and enhance
public and firefighter safety. The plan identifies natural values at risk, such as watersheds, as
well as community values at risk. Strategies are provided to improve watershed, rangeland, and
community health through fuels reduction projects. Economic development and stability that
support local industry and economies through fuels reduction, as well as protection of the
riparian and rangeland ecosystems, are encouraged (MCCWPP).
Assessment
The second part of the plan covers the methods used in community assessments and
identification of the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and hazard area maps. Environmental
elements used to identify the WUI include wildland vegetative fuel hazards, consideration of

Draft: 6/23/2009

66

local topography, historical fire occurrence, and ignition potential. These environmental factors
are coupled with community-based characteristics and values, such as local fire resource
preparedness, infrastructure, evacuation routes, and desired municipal watershed protection. An
external element, the Fire Insurance Service Organization (ISO) rating, was also used in creating
the WUI boundary. Hazard areas are divided into groups according to high, moderate, and low
fuel hazard. Several components, including slope, aspect, vegetation type, vegetation density,
ground fuel loads, and treated areas, were used to make fuel hazard determinations (MCCWPP).
Mitigation
Part three prioritizes the areas in need of wildland fuel mitigation and recommends the types and
methods of treatment and management necessary to mitigate the potential for catastrophic
wildland fire in the WUI. One hundred and one wildland fuel treatment areas within the WUI
are identified. These treatment areas were analyzed and categorized according to potential risk
for wildfire. Each area was also ranked and described along with a recommendation for its
preferred treatment type and method. Preferred treatments were recommended for treatment
management areas that were found to be high risk. These treatments are designed to meet the
fuel reduction and modification objectives of the plan. Also described are recommendations for
enhanced wildland fire protection capabilities, public education, information, and outreach; and
support for local wood product, woody biomass, and wildland vegetative fuel management
businesses and industries. Recommendations were also made to encourage activities that will
promote watershed and rangeland health (MCCWPP).
Implementation
The first action recommendation in part four of the plan is to identify priority treatment areas for
fuel reduction projects. Treatment areas were identified within the WUI to create defensible
space through treatments within the home ignition zone, the use of strategically placed fuel
breaks, and the modification of hazardous wildland fuels. The objective of a fuels reduction
project is to create an acceptable vegetation condition class for community and infrastructure
protection. Completion of these projects will result in safer evacuation routes, which provide for
firefighter and public safety. Priority treatment management areas were designated in areas
identified as high risk. The second action recommendation is to reduce structural ignitability.
Reduction of structural ignitability is achieved through evaluation; maintenance; and, at times,
upgrades to community response facilities, capabilities, and equipment. The third action
recommendation is the promotion of community involvement; action items include community
education, information, and outreach (MCCWPP).
Monitoring
The Mohave County Fire Officers Association, Mohave County Office of Emergency
Management, and BLM will be mutually responsible for implementing and monitoring the
MCCWPP.

Draft: 6/23/2009

67

Creation of the Wildland Urban Interface and Delineation Process
According to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, an “At-risk” community is an area that is
comprised of a wildland interface community or a group of homes and other structures with
basic infrastructure and services within or adjacent to Federal land. At-risk communities also
have conditions conducive to a large-scale wildland fire disturbance event and pose a significant
threat to human life or property as a result of a wildland fire disturbance event (Sections
101.1.A.i–ii, 101.1.B, and 101.1.C of the Act). This characterization is also consistent with the
Arizona State Forester’s (2007b:1) definition of an intermix or interface community as follows
The Intermix Community exists where structures are scattered throughout a wildland area.
There is no clear line of demarcation; wildland fuels are continuous outside of and within the
developed area. The developed density in the intermix community, ranges from structures
very close together to one structure per forty acres. Local fire departments and/or districts
normally provide life and property fire protection and may also have wildland fire protection
responsibilities.
The Interface Community exists where structures directly abut wildland fuels. There is a
clear line of demarcation between wildland fuels and residential, business, and public
structures. Wildland fuels do not generally continue into the developed area. The
development density for an interface community is usually three or more structures per acre,
with shared municipal services. Fire protection is generally provided by a local fire
department with the responsibility to protect the structure from both an interior fire and an
advancing wildland fire.
In addition to a community’s listing status, the current condition of the wildland fuels within and
adjacent to at-risk communities significantly contributes to the possibility of a catastrophic
wildfire that has the potential to damage or destroy community values, such as houses,
infrastructure, recreational sites, businesses, and wildlife habitats.
The WUI is commonly described as the zone where structures and other features of human
development meet and intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. Communities
in the WUI face substantial risk to life, property, and infrastructure. The plan is for reducing
wildland fire risk by placing a priority on working collaboratively with communities in the WUI
to reduce their risk from large-scale wildfire. The process of delineating WUI boundaries for atrisk communities involved collaboration among local, state, and federal government
representatives as well as interested individuals within the communities. The MCCWPP WUI is
the minimum area needed to provide protection to each community and its surrounding
community values. The identified WUI includes a total of 3,044,059 acres composed of a mix of
private, county, state, and federal lands.
General elements used in creating the WUI for Mohave County at-risk communities include the
following: 1) fuel hazards, consideration of local topography, vegetative fuels, and natural
firebreaks, 2) historical fire occurrence, 3) community development characteristics, 4) local
firefighting preparedness, 5) Infrastructure and evacuation routes, and 6) recreation and wildlife
values.

Draft: 6/23/2009

68

Communities of Concern
The following map delineates the extent of the WUI boundary and Sub-WUI boundaries (1-14)
in relation to the area plan boundary. Lake Mohave Ranchos (5), Chloride (6), Golden Valley
(8) and Kingman (9) are along the Northwest corridor, beginning at approximately mile post 26,
north of White Hills Road, and continuing to the City of Kingman’s western boundary. Pinion
Pines (10) and Wikieup (12) comprise the Southeast corridor. Those areas north of mile post 26
and south of mile post 142, between Signal Road and Nothing, are considered wild lands because
little to no private land is present or contains significant development.
Twenty two communities in
Mohave County were included
in
the
Arizona-Identified
Communities at Risk (Arizona
State Forester 2007a) and
given a WUI risk rating for
catastrophic wildland fire. Of
these, the six communities,
identified above, have been
designated by the Mohave
County Community Wildfire
Protection Plan as having
various levels of fire risk and
proximity to wildland urban
interface. Fire districts that
serve
these
communities,
within or adjacent to the
Northwest planning area, are
Lake Mohave Ranchos (Dolan
Springs), Chloride and Golden
Valley,
including
So-Hi,
Kingman, Pinion Pines and
Wikieup are along the
Southeast part of the planning
area.
The Insurance Services Office
(ISO)
has
conducted
assessments
and
rated
communities on the basis of
available fire protection. The rating process grades each community’s fire protection on a scale
from 1 to 10 (1 is ideal and 10 is poor). Five factors make up the ISO fire rating: water supply
(40%), type and availability of equipment, personnel, ongoing training, and the community’s
alarm and paging system account for the remaining 60 percent of the rating. Most of the land
within the area plan boundary/WUI is not within a fire district. The ISO rating for these areas is

Draft: 6/23/2009

69

10. Other communities with fire districts have ISO ratings ranging from 3 to 9; these areas are
included in the overall risk analysis as reducing potential of catastrophic wildland fire. The ISO
ratings will vary within a fire district depending on housing densities and distance of structures
isolated from (usually 3 to 5 miles) a fire station (MCCWPP).
The cumulative risk analysis synthesizes the risk associated with fuel hazards, wildfire ignition
points, wildfire occurrence, and community values. For example, valued at-risk community
resources include private and community structures, communication facilities, power lines, local
recreation areas, cultural and historic areas, sensitive wildlife habitat, watersheds, natural
resources, and air quality. In areas where community values occur within or adjacent to areas of
high risk due to the fuel hazards of vegetation associations, a cumulative risk from catastrophic
wildland fire was also created.
Riparian corridors, shrublands, and vegetative associations occurring in steep slopes with a south
or southwest aspect are the greatest wildland fuel hazards. Shrubland areas constitute the next
greatest wildland fire risk, in relation to high slopes and south or southwest aspects. In riparian
vegetation associations where riparian deciduous tree species are located, total wildland fuels can
exceed 20 tons per acre and
produce flame lengths greater
than 6 feet above the overstory.
In addition, some shrublands
with
heavy
invasions
of
nonnative grasses can produce
wildfires of high intensity and
high rates of spread that are
capable of igniting adjacent
overstory vegetation. Moderate
wildland fuel risk is associated
with the ecotone of the riparian
and desert upland vegetation
associations. Lower wildland
fire risk occurs in desertscrub
communities in which total fuel
loading is low with no
continuous
arrangement
of
ground or aerial fuels.
Because of the combination of
current drought conditions and a
regional history of fires, there
will be wildland fire ignitions
within the WUI that must be
suppressed. The fire history of
the planning area, including
recent large wildfires that have
occurred within or close to the

Draft: 6/23/2009

70

WUI, has been included in this analysis to determine the most likely areas for wildland fire
ignition by either natural or human ignition. The areas with the greatest potential for fire
ignition, either from natural (lightning strike) or human (though unplanned) causes, are located
along the eastern portion of the WUI, with other fires occurring in the xeririparian corridors
within and adjacent to the WUI. The following map shows the cumulative risk to each
community (MCCWPP).
Lake Mohave Ranchos
The Lake Mohave Ranchos response area includes the communities of Dolan Springs and other
rural areas in the vicinity. Dolan Springs, about 30 miles from Kingman, is primarily a
residential and retirement community and has a population of 1,867, with over 1,311 housing
units, of which 802 are owner occupied (2000 Census). The only major transportation route in
the area is Highway 93. Pierce Ferry Road provides connectivity between Highway 93 and Lake
Mead as well as to Grand Canyon West and should be considered an evacuation route. Private
and BLM lands are scattered across the WUI, with larger concentrations of private land
ownership around Dolan Springs and Pierce Ferry Road.
The areas of highest risk for wildland fire occur within the higher elevations of the Cerbat
Mountains and White Hills where Mogollon Chaparral, Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland,
and the Sonoran Mid-elevation Desert Scrub vegetation associations are prevalent. These areas
lie east of Highway 93 and generally outside of the area plan boundary. However, these
vegetation types also occur on private lands around Dolan Springs and adjacent to Pierce Ferry
Road placing them under high risk for wildland fire. Fire-start data indicates that the majority of
the WUI has a low level (0–1 per 1,000 acres) of occurrences with some medium-level (2–3 per
1,000 acres) activity scattered throughout (MCCWPP).
Chloride
The Chloride response area includes the community of Chloride and other rural areas along
Highway 93 between Kingman and Dolan Springs. Chloride is located at the base of the Cerbat
Mountains, and the primary economic base for this area is tourism and recreational activities
such as hiking, camping, mountain biking, and rock hounding. According to the 2000 Census
data for the zip code (86431) that includes Chloride, the population is 352, with 283 housing
units, of which 171 are owner occupied. BLM is the major landowner within the WUI, and
privately owned lands are primarily located south of Chloride and west of Highway 93 in the
Sacramento and Detrital Valleys. The Chloride Fire Department has recently combined with the
Northern Arizona Consolidated Fire District for enhanced administration and fire response.
The areas of highest risk for wildland fire occur within the higher elevation of the Cerbat
Mountains and Black Mountains where the Mogollon Chaparral, Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper
Woodland, and the Sonoran Mid-elevation Desert Scrub vegetation associations are prevalent.
These areas generally lie east of Highway 93. High-risk areas include lands adjacent to Highway
93, which has been identified as a primary evacuation route. Fire-start data for the last 28 years
indicates that most of the WUI has a relatively low occurrence (0–1 per 1,000 acres) of fire

Draft: 6/23/2009

71

starts, with scattered medium-level (2–3 per 1,000 acres) activity in the southern WUI
(MCCWPP).
Golden Valley
The Golden Valley response area includes the community of Golden Valley and other rural areas
along Highway 68 and within the Sacramento Valley east of the Black Mountains and west of
Kingman. In 2000, Golden Valley’s population was 4,515, with 2,175 housing units, of which
1,552 are owner occupied. Highway 68 and Highway 93 are the primary transportation corridors
in the vicinity and have been identified as evacuation routes for the area. Lands within the WUI
are primarily owned by private entities, with BLM-owned lands occurring along the western and
eastern edges of the WUI at the base of the Cerbat Mountains.
The areas of highest risk for wildland fire occur within the higher elevations of the Cerbat
Mountains where the Mogollon Chaparral, Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland, and the
Sonoran Mid-elevation Desert Scrub vegetation associations are prevalent, and within the
developed areas adjacent to Highway 68 and Highway 93. Fire-start data indicates that the
majority of the WUI has a relatively low occurrence (0–1 per 1,000 acres) of fire starts, with
slightly higher or medium levels (2–3 per 1,000 acres) of activity scattered throughout the
foothills of the mountain ranges (MCCWPP).
Kingman
The Kingman response area primarily serves the community of Kingman. The Kingman subWUI does include some residential development outside but adjacent to the municipal
boundaries in which the Kingman Fire Department responds to both structural and wildland fire
initial attack. Kingman is situated in the Hualapai Valley between the Cerbat and Hualapai
Mountains and is a regional trade, service, and distribution center for northwestern Arizona. The
population for the city was 20,069, with 8,604 housing units, of which 5,604 are owner occupied
in 2000. Lands near Kingman are predominantly privately owned, with BLM owning most of the
lands to the south near the Hualapai Mountains. Major transportation routes into Kingman
include Interstate 40 and Highways 66, 68 and 93; these routes have also been identified as
evacuation routes.
Most of the WUI is under high risk for wildland fire, including the higher elevations of the
Hualapai Mountains where the Mogollon Chaparral, Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland, and
Sonoran Mid-elevation Desert Scrub vegetation associations are prevalent; within the developed
areas of Kingman. Fire-start data for the last 28 years indicates that a high number of
occurrences (<4 per 1,000 acres) are located along I-40 and near other developed areas within the
WUI. The Kingman Fire Department has 55 line personnel with various levels of wildland
firefighting training and experience. The KFD maintains a mobile command post that may be
used in extended major fire events. Since 2000 the Kingman FD has responded to an average of
50 wildland fires annually, with less than 20 percent of the response outside the district
boundary. The Kingman FD has an ISO rating of 4 (MCCWPP).

Draft: 6/23/2009

72

Pinion Pines
The Pinion Pine response area includes the communities of Pinion Pines and other rural areas
north and south of Interstate 40 and Highway 93 east of Kingman, including those in the Peacock
and Cottonwood Mountains. Population and housing-unit data was not readily available for Pine
Lake/Pinion Pine but is estimated at several hundred persons. Lands south of I-40 near the
Hualapai Mountains are primarily owned by BLM; most of the lands in the middle of the WUI
are owned by private entities or State Land. Interstate 40 and Highway 93 have been identified as
evacuation routes for the area. Many areas of the WUI have limited access, and evacuation of
residents and access into the area by first responders and wildland firefighters is a concern. The
Pinion Pine Fire District has an ISO rating of 9. BLM in association with the local fire
department does implement prescribed fire for resource benefit and wildland vegetative fuel
management.
The areas at highest risk for wildland fire occur in the higher elevations of the Hualapai,
Peacock, and Cottonwood Mountains where the Mogollon Chaparral, Great Basin PinyonJuniper Woodland, Sonoran Mid-elevation Desert Scrub, Pine Woodland, and Colorado Plateau
Pinyon-Juniper Woodland vegetation associations are prevalent. This includes much of the
privately owned parcels along I-40. Fire-start data for this area, however, is relatively low in
occurrence at 0–1 instance per 1,000 acres (MCCWPP).
Wikieup
The Wikieup response area includes the community of Wikieup and other rural areas along
Highway 93 and south of Interstate 40. These major routes have been identified as evacuation
routes for the area. Many areas of the WUI have limited access, and evacuation of residents and
access into the area by first responders and wildland firefighters is a concern. According to the
2000 census data for the zip code (85360) that includes Wikieup, the population is 305, with 190
housing units, of which 94 are owner occupied. Lands in the vicinity of Wikieup are owned by
BLM, with privately held lands scattered throughout. North of Wikieup in the Aquarius
Mountains lands are either privately owned or owned by State Land. The communities in this
area are not within an organized fire district and must rely upon other districts for assistance.
Most of the WUI is at a high level of risk for wildland fire, especially in the higher elevations of
the Aquarius Mountains and Hualapai Mountains where the Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper
Woodland, Mogollon Chaparral, and Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-desert Shrub Steppe
vegetation associations are prevalent and in areas with a high density of residential communities.
These higher elevations generally occur outside of the area plan boundary. Fire-start data
indicates that most of the area has had a relatively low number (0–1 per 1,000 acres) of fire
occurrences in the last 28 years, with higher occurrences (2–3 per 1,000 acres) occurring along
Highway 93 (MCCWPP).

Draft: 6/23/2009

73

Summary of Wildfire Risks
The communities along the Northern corridor typically have a lower percentage of high risk
wildfire acreage than those along the southeast corridor (see table). High risk areas along the
Cumulative Risk Levels by Percentage of the WUI Area
Community
Lake Mohave Ranchos
Chloride
Golden Valley
Kingman
Pine Lake/Pinion Pine
Wikieup
Total

% High
Acres
% Moderate Acres
% Low
Acres
Total Acres
33.0%
115,248
19.0%
67,115
47.0%
163,479
345,842
36.0%
46,953
21.0%
27,257
42.0%
54,594
128,804
22.0%
42,396
50.0%
96,336
28.0%
54,414
193,145
48.0%
32,413
28.0%
18,569
24.0%
16,446
67,428
62.0%
263,211
17.0%
71,623
22.0%
92,383
427,217
64.0%
244,798
15.0%
56,218
21.0%
79,637
380,652
745,019
337,118
460,953
1,543,088

Northern corridor are generally confined to the eastern side of the highway, in the higher
elevations where rainfall is more frequent and vegetation more plentiful. The high risk areas
predominate west of Chloride and in the So-Hi vicinity.
High fuel loads occur along the south side of Interstate 40, moving up towards the Hualapai
Mountains, in Windmill Ranch east of the Highway 93 and south of Wikieup on either side of
the highway. Lands directly adjoining the highway generally have a low risk along the Southeast
corridor, with a high risk area crossing the highway in the vicinity of Signal Road. Fire risks
along the Northwest corridor vary from, low along the portion of roadway from Chloride Road to
mile post 26, with most moderate risk areas from Chloride Road to So-Hi. High risk areas are
found from So-Hi to the City of Kingman boundary. Residential community development is
occurring throughout the WUI in a mix of high-density, single-family, and multi-acre parcels.
Structures associated with housing and commercial development located in isolated subdivisions
and in more dispersed areas of the WUI are also at high risk (MCCWPP).
Mitigation and Implementation Plan
Residential treatments, firebreaks, and fuel mitigation treatments for undeveloped landscape
areas have been divided into nine categories suitable for both public and private lands to allow
treatments to be continuous across property boundaries, establishing the most effective
protection from wildfires.
For small, privately owned parcels under two acres in size, fuel reduction should be considered
within 100 feet of the residence and includes tree trimming, elimination of insect-infested,
diseased, and dead trees, brush thinning, mowing of grasses and removal of dead plant material.
Between 100 to 600 feet around the home, trees may be thinned to achieve an average tree
density of 100 per acre. Parcels which contain two or more acres, either developed or
undisturbed, should follow the general guidelines for smaller developed parcels, with an
emphasis on defensible space for wildlife preservation and groundwater protection. Most all of
the privately held lands within the area plan boundary are at least two acres in size. Fire breaks
are advised for grasslands and Oak/pinyon/juniper and shrublands with wider fire breaks on
steeper slopes in excess of 20 percent.

Draft: 6/23/2009

74

Mohave County should advise and assist developers and land owners in the establishment of fire
districts within new or existing developed areas of the county. New residential and commercial
developments in high-risk areas within the WUI should not be approved by the Mohave County
Planning and Zoning Commission unless the developers provide prior written commitment to
obtain and financially support fire protection services or fire district formation or annexation into
an existing fire district before a pre-agreed phase of project build out. In addition, adequate road
conditions and water supplies for emergency services shall be provided for each project and
developer agreements shall be secured to establish and fund fire services and equipment in
residential and commercial developments as a condition of approval of such entitlements by the
Mohave County Planning and Zoning Commission (MCCWPP).
Road Hazards
Over 90 percent of the road miles within the area plan boundary are unpaved and many of these
native material roadways (natural soil) are not maintained as noted in the Transportation
Element. In addition, roadways on the tertiary maintenance schedule are accepted by the County
at their original level of improvement and are not further modified leaving some roadways with
deficient travel lane construction, narrower shoulder widths, and shorter sight distances along
curves and over steep terrain. This may lead to accidents if motorists are not aware of these
design limitations and exceed speed limits.
The road network is also incomplete in many areas reducing connectivity and requiring a more
circuitous route to access property. Roadways may end at washes, steep terrain and other wise
cease to exist where maintenance stops and historical paths become less traversable. These
obstacles pose challenges to both residents and emergency responders alike that are not familiar
with the particulars of road system causing frustration and possibly loss of life due to increased
travel times.
Additional signage may be one technique to mitigate these problems. Placing road name signage
on county maintained roadways and noting “dead-end” or “un-maintained” roads that intersect
would help with way-finding and safety. For roadways maintained by homeowners associations,
signage should follow County standards for design and location. Where roadways intersect the
wildland urban interface, evacuation routes should be clearly marked.
Local residents may also petition Mohave County to maintain roadways. Typically, roadways
must be built to a County standard prior to acceptance into the County’s road maintenance
system. Construction is the responsibility of the petitioners; however, roadways serving a broad
population base may also be petitioned to become County Highways. If the roadway is
designated a County Highway, then the County may expend public funds to construct the
roadway since it is in the public interest to do so.

Draft: 6/23/2009

75

Mohave County Sheriff’s Office
Incident reports for 2008 were collected for the areas in and around the communities of Dolan
Springs, Chloride, Cedar Hills and Wikieup. The geographic extent of these areas is as follows:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Dolan Springs, the largest reporting area, includes White Hills and the Cottonwood Road
area.
Chloride contains the town site and the lands between Grasshopper Junction and Mineral
Park Road along Highway 93.
Cedar Hills includes areas along the north and south side of I-40 east of Kingman – the
Blake Ranch Road area – east to the freeway’s intersection with Highway 93.
Wikieup covers that part of Highway 93 south of I-40 to the Yavapai County line,
including Windmill Ranch, Cane Springs and the Wikieup town site.

There were 2,861 incident reports in five broad categories as follows:
o Animals (45), relating to noise and control,
o Persons (1,311), including assault, citizens disputes, substance abuse, medical
emergencies and suspicious activity reports,
o Property (489), burglary, theft and vandalism,
o Traffic (493), typically automobile accidents, moving violations, abandoned vehicles and
assisting motorists,
o Miscellaneous (523), such as assisting citizens and other agencies.
Incidents Involving Persons Reported to Sheriff's Office in 2008

Weapons
Warrants/Arrests
Threats
Suspicious Per/Circ

Type of Incident

A review of incidents involving
persons shows that a majority of
occurrences were within the Dolan
Springs reporting area. This can be
expected because the area also
possesses the majority of the
population within the planning area.
The most prevalent type of incident
was related to medical emergencies
and welfare checks, typically on the
elderly. This category also includes
coroner responses in cases where
dead bodies were found at a
residence.

Suicide
Substance Use
Sex Offense
Miscellaneous
Medical
International
Identity Theft
Domestic
Assault
0

50

Dolan Springs

100

150

Chloride

200

250

Cedar Hills

300

350

400

450

Wikieup

Reports of suspicious persons,
activities and circumstances accounted for some 260 incidents with about seventy percent
occurring within the Dolan Springs reporting area. These reports were typically made by
residents concerned about the safety of their neighborhoods.
A majority of domestic incidents ranged from verbal disputes to orders of protection against one
member of the family. Miscellaneous incident reports were typically non-violent in nature such

Draft: 6/23/2009

76

as citizen disputes, disorderly conduct, juvenile problems and loud parties. Sixty warrants and/or
arrests were reported, including interfering with a judicial procedure. Reports of violence
included 42 assaults, most of which were not committed with a weapon, and one attempted
murder. Five suicides were also reported. No homicides occurred within the plannning area in
2008.
It should be noted that one instance of human smuggling on one illegal alien were detected in
Chloride and Wikieup, respectively. Although not a significant level of activity was reported in
these two categories it does indicate that communities along the corridor, far from the
international borders, are also subject to these types of illegal immigration activities.
Incidents Involving Property Reported to Sheriff's Office in 2008

Vandalism
Trespassing
Theft/Vehicle

Type of Incident

Incidents regarding property were
dominated by theft with the number
of thefts in Cedar Hills (52) being
only 20 fewer in number than the
much larger reporting area of Dolan
Springs. These thefts also included
shoplifting, auto burglary and taking
of cacti and cattle.

Theft
Other
Fraud
Found/Recovered

Fire/Hazard
Other crimes against property such
Burglary & Attempt
as attempted burglary (10), burglary
Bomb Threat
(90) and vandalism (60) may be
Alarm
indicative of rural isolation where
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
patrols are less frequent and human
population densities less prevalent
Dolan Springs Chloride Cedar Hills Wikieup
giving perpetrators a sense of free
reign. This may also be seen by the large number of alarms reported (63), possibly aborted
attempts at burglary. There were six reports of littering and public health violations.

Over one third of traffic related
reports involved use of the road
right-of-way
and
involved
abandoned vehicles, traffic hazards
and reckless driving.
Officers

Draft: 6/23/2009

Incidents Involving Vehicles Reported to Sheriff's Office in 2008

Violation

Type of Incident

Of the 493 traffic related reports,
only two involved fatalities. Twenty
three accidents reported injuries and
another 40 vehicular incidents
reported damage to the vehicle.
Thirty four of the 41 accidents on
private property occurred in the
Cedar Hills area. This may be
attributed to off-highway vehicle
use on challenging terrain.

Service

Right-of-Way

Off Roadway

Accident

0

20

40

Dolan Springs

77

60

80

Chloride

100

120

Cedar Hills

140

Wikieup

160

180

200

assisting motorists occurred on 104 occasions such as giving directions and helping with
vehicular repair and changing of tires. Nearly all commercial vehicle inspections, under Service
category, occurred in the Dolan Springs area.
Animal issues, totaling 45, related mostly to noise and trespassing dogs without a lease.
Community service, such as giving information to citizens over the telephone or in person (360)
and assisting other agencies (105) including Game and Fish and the local fire districts shows the
Sheriff’s Office to be co-operative with various the communities and jurisdictions.
From these statistics, sufficient and safe access is necessary to aid in emergency response times
and possibly increased patrols to check on elderly residents and also help reduce the prevalence
of petty theft and burglaries.

Goals and Policies for Public Safety
Goal 17

Provide adequate sheriff and fire protection to all residents within the planning
area, including transient services at travel centers.

Policy 17.1 Create defensible space through treatments within the home ignition zone via
strategically placed fuel breaks and the modification of hazardous wildland fuels
(11/18/2008).
Policy 17.2 Encourage the maintenance of defensible space through individual education and
personal responsibility (11/20/2008).
Policy 17.3 Each new commercial and residential development shall be provided with an
adequate level fire protection (10/16/2008, see Northwest Committee
10/18/2008).
Policy 17.4 Ensure adequate road conditions and water supplies for emergency services and
secure developer agreement to establish and fund fire services and equipment in
residential and commercial developments as a condition of approval of such
developments by the Mohave County Planning and Zoning Commission
(10/16/2008).
Policy 17.5 Establish fire services in grandfathered developments when residential and
commercial densities and vegetation and fuel load factors approach a threshold
correlating to high risk to public and fire fighter safety, and private property
protection (10/16/2008).
Policy 17.6 No new residential subdivisions and commercial developments in high-risk areas
within the Wildland Urban Interface will be approved by the Mohave County
Planning and Zoning Commission unless the involved developers provide prior
written commitment to obtain and financially support fire protection services or

Draft: 6/23/2009

78

fire district formation or annexation into an existing fire district before a preagreed phase of build-out (12/16/2008).
Policy 17.7 Designate Recreation and Public Purpose sites in the White Hills, Cottonwood
Road and Cane Springs areas along Highway 93 (12/16/2008).

Goal 18

Decrease emergency response times.

Policy 18.1 Work with the BLM to designate Recreation and Public Purpose sites along
Highway 93 for future fire and sheriff stations in the White Hills, Cottonwood
Road and Cane Springs areas (11/18/2008 & 12/16/2008).
Policy 18.2 No new residential subdivisions and commercial developments in high-risk areas
within the Wildland Urban Interface will be approved by the Mohave County
Planning and Zoning Commission unless the involved developers provide prior
written commitment to obtain and financially support fire protection services or
fire district formation or annexation into an existing fire district before a preagreed phase of build-out (12/16/2008).

Goal 19

Decrease emergency response times through better way-finding

Policy 19.1 Place road name signs on legacy rights-of-way and roadway easements that are
in use (11/20/2008).
Policy 19.2 Locate signage at the entrance to dead-end and non-passable roadways
(11/20/2008).

Implementation Measures for Public Safety
P.1
Each new development will be reviewed with the provision of adequate fire protection as
required by the Mohave County Land Division Regulations and Zoning Ordinances. These
official County documents should be amended to reflect the policy advice provided by the
Mohave County Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
P.2
The County may consider development clustering and open space design as part of the
subdivision, minor land division and site plan review process as way to mitigate fire threats.
P.3
Become actively involved with the revision and re-adoption of the Bureau of Land
Management’s Resource Management Plan for the Kingman Field Office, with an emphasis on
establishing lands along the Highway 93 Corridor for Recreation and Public Purpose uses for
emergency responders

Draft: 6/23/2009

79

P.4
The Mohave County Sheriff’s Department should look at the feasibility of extending
patrols within the planning area and increasing its presence in general via the construction of
substation within the boundary of the planning area. Capital improvement plans developed by the
Sheriff's Department should prioritize public facility improvements in the planning area, such as
Recreation and Public Purpose sites.
P.5
“All-weather roadways” and better signage will be constructed via developer exactions,
building permit impact fees, or through HURF monies, provided the roadways are designated
County Highways.

Draft: 6/23/2009

80

Economic Development

Economic Development Element
Introduction
Economic development strategic planning has never been more important to the future success of
communities, regions, states or even nations than it is today. The speed of socioeconomic change
and technological advances is increasing around the world, and therefore having a plan in place
that provides solid footing to address these changes is important. The challenge that economic
development faces today is providing value and remaining relevant in this changing world
(NRER). The Highway 93 Area Plan offers such an opportunity for the creation of economic
development activities that offer employment to local residents, provide support services for
trade activities along the corridor and allows for the establishment of renewable energy
technology and production. In addition to the vision statement, the guiding philosophy of the
plan is to “ensure a clean bright future for Mohave County residents where the air is not fouled,
the land is not trashed and our water resources are not wasted.” (County Manager, April 17,
2007).
This element will review key findings of recent studies for the region, 2000 Census data related
to the labor force, the existing enterprise zone, the implications of the CANAMEX Corridor, the
potential of the corridor to support renewable energy and a set of goals, policies and
implementation measures to bring the plan to fruition.
Findings of the North River Economic Region Economic Development Plan
The North River Economic Region Economic Development Plan, published in 2005, was the
result of a collaborative effort of educational institutions, business leaders, workforce
development agencies, government officials and other decision-makers in both Mohave County
and La Paz County. The plan combined previous studies and plans, analyses of wage and labor
as well as the region’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT), a visioning
exercise and suggested protocols for various agencies to follow when working together to ensure
implementation. Findings in seven areas, including strategic priorities, are discussed as follows:
Economic Development
The region lacks large, fully improved sites that are ready for construction, and available
buildings that meet current industry standards. Communities who are successful at recruitment
and retention have an adequate supply of fully improved land and vacant buildings. There are
however many large sites without infrastructure and many small sites that are ready for
construction. Ways to develop basic infrastructure to key parcels and creating a fast track
building program will encourage economic development by reducing amount of time needed to
begin operations.
Education
More than one-half of the jobs created in the U.S. between 1984 and 2005 required some
education beyond high school. In 2000, nearly 24 percent of the region’s population 25 and

Draft: 6/23/2009

81

older did not have a high school diploma, and only 15 percent had an Associate’s Degree or
higher, as compared to Arizona’s 19 percent and 30 percent, respectively. The next generation
does not appear to be changing this trend of lower educational achievement. In the North River
Region, 7.7 percent of students dropped out in the 2003-2004 school year compared to 5.8
percent in the State.
Labor Force
Labor is the single largest expense for most businesses. The skills of the existing labor pool,
expected employee turnover, and work ethic have huge impacts on corporate location decisions.
It is not always the place with the lowest cost of labor, but rather the place that provides the best
match of skill sets, company needs, productivity and overall quality of environment that allow
businesses to compete in the marketplace. Workforce development must focus on assuring a
minimum level of basic skills, develop appropriate training programs for new sectors and
encourage participation in these programs.
Skilled and semiskilled labor is in very short supply in the North River Region. Local training
providers are tailoring training programs at the request of area businesses; however, a
comprehensive workforce assessment and specialized training programs must be completed and
implemented, respectively. In addition, identifying occupations that are currently in short supply
and recruiting this labor force to the area will help diversify the labor force.
Infrastructure
Investments in roads, bridges, communication systems and other public resources allow an
economy to be more productive. In the North River Region, the transportation infrastructure has
not kept pace with growth. The two key issues/opportunities relating to transportation are
planning for growth and financing growth. The second major constraint within the North River
Region is the large holdings of State Trust and Federal lands which are not presently available
for development. Public land ownership makes land assemblage for development particularly
difficult within the region. Given the mission/policy of the State Land Department, the sale of
State Trust lands within the North River Region may not happen until the value is determined
“optimal” for a trust land sale. The North River Region needs to maximize the potential of
public lands and work with the State Land Department to identify key parcels for conceptual
land use planning.
Tourism
In Arizona, tourism accounts for $16 billion in direct spending, with the majority of this coming
from out-of-state visitors. This export industry, the strength of the North River Region, outcompetes and brings more income to area residents than traditional base industries. The North
River Region is well positioned geographically within the tri-state area of Arizona, California
and Nevada to benefit from the tourist trade. Outdoor recreation is abundant and is ranked high
as a quality of life amenity with area employers. The North River Region boasts several tourist
attractions, with annual visitations of well over one million people. In addition, the region is rich
with Native American culture and includes the scenic attractions of the Colorado River, Lake

Draft: 6/23/2009

82

Mead National Recreation Area and the Hualapai Tribal attraction of Grand Canyon West. The
current coalition of chambers of commerce is one of cooperation; however, expanding this
coalition to include Tribal governments will broaden its base and tap other resources.
Leadership and Collaboration
The North River Region has had an influx of new residents, primarily from California and from
empty-nesters, who have excess equity and are purchasing homes in the region. The housing
demand on the part of this affluent population is driving up the housing prices. However, with
recent collapse of the housing market, demand has lessened and values have reduced to
approximately 2003 levels. While on the one hand an influx of people with disposable income
stimulates the economy, the somber reality is that these people are equity refugees with no real
stake in the community and little interest in becoming involved. The result is a populace who is
less inclined to support bond issues for education and infrastructure improvements for the region.
Welcoming these new residents and encouraging them to become a part of the “social fabric” of
the community is critical for the future economic success of the region.
Strategic Priorities
To help advance the vision of creating a vibrant and diverse regional economy that provides
economic and educational opportunities for all residents, the North River Region Economic
Development Plan lists eleven areas to focus policy efforts. Those recommendations that are
best considered by the Economic Development Element of the Highway 93 Area Plan are
described as follows:
1

Retain key existing businesses and assist in their expansion and continued economic
viability by focusing on industries that create local value, economic growth and are part
of a business/industry cluster (p. 58).

2.

Document skill sets among local residents, with an emphasis on those skill sets which are
transferable among industries, match jobs with the abilities of the underemployed, and
identify skill gaps, training opportunities and skill deficiencies in the existing workforce
(p. 69).

3.

Take advantage of tourism amenities to enhance the tax base and improve the image of
North River Region by pursuing regional recreation opportunities in partnership with
local communities, identifying additional workforce training needs and developing new
programs to foster the growth of the industry (p. 61).

4.

Facilitate access to building and site information to meet the needs of business by
developing support for local efforts to increase the supply of land and buildings in the
communities and gather information on existing sites and buildings (p. 57).

Draft: 6/23/2009

83

SWOT Analysis
Companies choose to expand and locate in communities that are strong in the site selection
criteria most important to their success. North River Economic Region ranked employer
interview results and averaged all the responses to create an index which measures labor
availability and other factors on a one to ten point scale (1=poor; 5=average; and 10=excellent).
Generally, scores of 3 to 4 are below average, 5 to 6 are average; 6 to 7 above average; 7 to 8 are
good, and 8 to 9 are very good.
Site Location Factor

Rating Assessment

Labor force
Wages
5
Average
Availability
4 to 7 Below average to good
Quality
5 to 7 Average to good
Education
Local Schools
3
Below average
Training Providers
6
Slightly above average
Transportation/Market Access
Interstate Access
4 to 5 Below average to average
Commercial Air Service
3
Below average
Rail Service
7
Good
Sites and Buildings
Availability
3
Below average
Incentives
3
Below average
Utility/Municipal Services
Water and sewer capacity
8
Very good
Electric and Gas
8
Very good
Telecommunications
6
Slightly above average
Quality of Life
Medical Services
6
Slightly above average
Housing
5
Average
Recreation
7
Good
Cultural Facilities
4
Below average
Source: Table 22 - Site Selection Factor Rating Summary Checklist, NRER

In summary, the SWOT
analysis shows mixed results
with workforce availability,
primary education, commercial
air service, availability of
building sites and incentives,
and certain aspects of quality
of life being less than regional
competitors such as Coconino,
Maricopa, Pinal and Yuma
Counties. The availability of
the workforce was good for
semi- and unskilled workers
and for clerical workers, the
latter indicating a positive
environment for office/service
employers.
Utility services
and recreation were given
good to very good ranking.
Transportation,
while
a
regional issue, is less so within
the planning area given close

proximity to Highway 93.
To conclude, several visioning exercises expounded the realization “that clean air, spectacular
views, good schools, nice parks, and clean, safe neighborhoods need to be part of the economic
development strategy,” and be “able to provide good quality of life for its residents to include
affordable housing, living wages for its workers, quality businesses in the area.” Other visioning
exercises asked that “all industries be ‘clean’ and low-water users, have a diversified
industrial/distribution base with fully integrated freight logistics, utilize the NAFTA corridor,
and be supported by locally owned retail/trade establishments, with up-scale tourism sector
developed, and be nationally recognized for its development of abundant alternative energy
sources, while also retaining a rural community look and feel.” All this, of course, is dependent
on a youthful population as one vision exercise noted as follows: “Young professionals are
attracted to the area, knowing there are educational opportunities for their children that will
create the future workforce.”

Draft: 6/23/2009

84

Demographics Relating to Labor Force, Industry and Occupation, Income and Poverty
Rate from the 2000 Census
To specifically discuss those most likely to be
affected by the economic development activities
along the Corridor, several Census Block Groups
have been reviewed using 2000 Census data. Even
though this information has aged over nine years
since it was first collected, it gives valuable insight
into the nature of the two segments of the corridor,
how they compare to each other, and to the County
averages.
The civilian labor force participation rate of those
16 years of age and older varied from a low of 34
percent in the Dolan Springs/White Hills Area
(Block Group 9504-2) to a high of 56 percent in
the Cedar Hills/Round Valley Area (Block Group
9508-01).
As a comparable, labor force
participation in the City of Kingman stood at 57
percent with the County being somewhat lower at
52.8 percent. This variation may be explained by a
larger percentage of senior citizens in the outlying
communities and the level of disability among
those 16 to 64 years of age. For example, along
the Northwest Corridor, 19.42 percent of the labor
force had a work related disability and nearly 23
percent of the labor force along the Southeast Corridor had a work related disability. The level
of work related disabilities for the County was 17.46 percent with the City of Kingman’s
percentage at 18.75 percent. Physical disabilities predominated as compared to sensory, mental
or self-care disabilities.
The Northwest Corridor had
1,685 persons working in 20
industries ranging from less than
one percent in mining to over
one-eighth of the workforce
engaged
in
the
arts,
entertainment and recreation
industry. Other industries of
note
included
education,
hospitality management, retail
trade and health and social
services.
Construction and
manufacturing jobs combined to
make up over 15 percent of jobs

Draft: 6/23/2009

85

in the area.
By contrast, mining employment
comprised 3.68 percent of
employment along the Southeast
Corridor
with
the
arts,
entertainment and recreation
industry employing some 2.5
percent of the labor force.
Retail trade workers amounted
to 15.5 percent of the 859 strong
labor force. Other significant
industries included hospitality
management,
construction,
agricultural and forestry and
fishing, and civil service.
Both Kingman and Mohave County have lower rates of employment in the mining, and the
agricultural and forestry and fishing industries. However, with 24.8 percent of County workers
employed in arts, entertainment and recreation industry and related industries and only 9.5
percent of City of Kingman’s talent pool involved in such pursuits, it may be said that the rural
environment is attractive to such endeavors. Retail trade activities for both the City of Kingman
(13.2%) and the County (13.8%) fall between the lower levels encountered along the Northwest
Corridor (9.5%) with the higher percentage along the Southeast Corridor as noted above.
Along
the
Northwest
Corridor, sales and office
support
occupations
combined for over 28
percent of all occupations.
Transportation
and
production
workers
accounted for approximately
half this amount at 14.18
percent.
Construction,
extraction and maintenance
workers were 14.29 percent
of the occupations. The
area had fewer managerial,
professional and technical employees (19.58 percent) when compared to Mohave County (20.4
percent) and City of Kingman (28.5 percent).
The Northwest Corridor’s percentages of managerial, professional and technical employees were
also substantially less than the percentages found along the Southeast Corridor where the rates
tend to mimic the City of Kingman at 27.59 percent. The Southeast Corridor’s sales and office
support occupations were less dominant at 15.95 percent of the labor force. Transportation and

Draft: 6/23/2009

86

production workers were
also fewer in number at
12.69
percent
when
compared to the Northwest
Corridor.
Construction,
extraction and maintenance
workers made up 21.42
percent, some fifty percent
more than that found along
the Northwest Corridor and
nearly twice as many found
in the City of Kingman
(11.2 percent).
In addition to labor force participation, industry and occupation, the unemployment rate should
be reviewed along the Corridor. Generally, the unemployment rate is higher along the Northwest
Corridor with Block Group 9504-2 reaching 17 percent and Block Group 9506-01, lying just
south of Highway 68 and east of Bacobi Road at 18 percent. In contrast, Block Group 9508-02
which includes greater Wikieup and Cane Springs had an unemployment rate of three percent.
The Wikieup area is also more likely to have mining and agriculturally related employment.
Other areas of moderate to high unemployment include
Cedar Hills/Round Valley Area (Block Group 9508-01)
and Chloride/Grasshopper Junction (Block Group 950501) with rates of six percent and nine percent,
respectively. Unemployment levels in northern Golden
Valley, north of Highway 68 and generally south of
Jurassic Drive were five percent. Three of the six Block
Groups have lower unemployment rate than the County
as a whole which stood at seven percent in 2000. This
statistic is also true when compared to the City of
Kingman which had an unemployment rate at 6.1
percent. Recently, unemployment rates have climbed
several percentage points in Arizona with the Lake
Havasu City-Kingman metropolitan statistical area
(Mohave County south of the Colorado River) rate at
9.3 percent.
In a review of job loss and creation between February
2008 and February 2009, total employment remains
down in every sector except the leisure and hospitality
industry and government which witnessed increases of
100 and 300 jobs, respectively in the first two months of
2009. Construction sustained the worst losses proportionally, with employment down 14.3
percent between February 2008 and February 2009. Since the collapse of the housing
construction boom, the industry has lost nearly half its workforce (3,700 jobs), which peaked in
June 2006 at 7,900. The trade, transportation and utilities sector, however, have lost the most

Draft: 6/23/2009

87

jobs by sheer numbers, having shed 1,000 workers over the same period. There were also were
100 fewer professional and managerial jobs in the region.
A discussion of income levels,
although from 1999, will give a
relative comparison between the two
parts of the Corridor and with the City
of Kingman and Mohave County.
Along the Northwest Corridor,
household income is generally
clustered at the low-end of the
spectrum, with over one fifth of all
households having an income of less
than
$10,000
(un-adjusted
for
inflation) and nearly half of all
households having an income of less
than $20,000. Median income for the
four block groups ranged from
$17,358 in Dolan Springs/White Hills (Block Group 9504-02) to $31,875 in northern Golden
Valley (Block Group 9506-01). Only 3.3 percent of households along the Northern Corridor had
incomes exceeding $75,000. Family household income is somewhat higher ranging from
$22,500 in Dolan Springs/White Hills to $34,375 in northern Golden Valley. This comparison is
important because it indicates the living conditions of children, those often most affected by
poverty. Median incomes peak at $39,706 for householders between 35 and 44 years of age.
The household annual income
distribution along the Southeast
Corridor is somewhat bimodal with a
cluster of 30 percent having under
$20,000, akin to the Northwest
Corridor, and then a moderate to highincome cluster of 29 percent earning
over $50,000 per year. The latter
distribution is similar to residents in
Mohave County and Kingman where
27 percent and 32 percent of
households had incomes of $50,000 or
more, respectively. Median income
for Cedar Hills/Round Valley Area
(Block Group 9508-01) was $35,833, the highest in the planning area. Median income for
Wikieup/Cane Springs (Block Group 9508-02) was $25,455. Over 14 percent of households
along the Southern Corridor had incomes exceeding $75,000. Family household income is
significantly higher than household in Cedar Hills/Round Valley at $45,298; however, the
increased income level for family households in Wikieup/Cane Springs is only about $1,500
more, or $27,000. Median incomes peak for householders between 55 and 64 years of age at
$35,590.

Draft: 6/23/2009

88

A review of persons in poverty reveals that most all Block Groups along the Corridor have
poverty rates exceeding the City of Kingman (11.6 percent) and County (13.9 percent) values.
Chloride/Grasshopper Junction (Block Group 9505-01)
reported the highest level of poverty at 31 percent. Dolan
Springs/White Hills (Block Group 9504-02) and
Wikieup/Cane Springs (Block Group 9508-02) reported
poverty levels and 26 percent and 24 percent,
respectively. Poverty levels are lower for those block
groups nearest to Kingman with eastern Golden Valley
(Block Group 9506-01) reporting 20 percent of persons
in poverty and northern Golden Valley (Block Group
9506-01) having some 16 percent of its population living
in poverty. Only Cedar Hills/Round Valley (Block
Group 9508-01), at 10 percent, had a lower poverty rate
than the City of Kingman and Mohave County.
The poverty rate can also be analyzed by depicting the
magnitude of poverty those individuals are surviving on
with fifty percent of the poverty level being considered in
extreme poverty. Over nine percent of persons along the
Northwest Corridor are in extreme poverty. Less than six
percent of individuals along Southeast Corridor are so
economically challenged. Looking at the opposite side of
the spectrum, approximately 50 percent of all persons along the Northwest Corridor have income
levels affording them a relative level of affluence at 200 percent of the poverty rate. The
percentages are higher along the Southeast Corridor where 63 percent of persons are enjoying
incomes raising them to at least 200 percent of poverty.

The distribution of persons in poverty shows that 27.1 percent of children (under 18 years old)
are in poverty along the Northern Corridor. Along the Southern Corridor, the rate for child
poverty is approximately half at 12.57 percent. The percentage of seniors in poverty is also
sharply contrasted between the Northwest Corridor and Southeast Corridor where 19.66 percent

Draft: 6/23/2009

89

of persons are impoverished in the former and only 4.71 percent are so challenged in the latter.
For the City of Kingman child poverty (15.3 percent) and senior poverty (7.9 percent) falls in the
middle of the two extremes along the Corridor, with the County levels of poverty for these two
age cohorts being at 20.4 percent and 7.7 percent, respectively.
Enterprise Zones
As established under A.R.S. §41-1521, et. seq.,
enterprise zones may be designated by the
Arizona Department of Commerce to improve
the economies of areas in the state with high
poverty or unemployment rates. The program
does this by enhancing opportunities for private
investment in certain areas that are called
enterprise zones. Increased investments in such
areas tend to strengthen or stabilize property
values and encourage quality job creation to
promote the vitality of the local economies. The
program focuses on income/premium tax credits
and property tax credits.
Income/Premium Tax Credits
Credit for net increases in qualified employment
positions at a site located in an enterprise zone
are qualified except for those at a business
location where more than 10% of the activity is
the sale of tangible personal property.
Exceptions include: a) food and beverages for
consumption on the premises solely by
employees and occasional guests of employees
at the location, b) promotional products
displaying the company logo or trademark, c)
products sold to company employees.
Credits may total up to $3,000 per qualified employment position over three years for a
maximum of 200 employees in any given tax year. Qualified employment positions are as
follows: 1) a full-time permanent job (1,750 hours per year), 2) pays an hourly wage above the
“Wage Offer by County” (currently between $7.64 and $15.93 depending on the county in which
the business is located), 3) offers health insurance to employees for which the employer pays at
least 50 percent, 4) must work at least 90 days in the first tax year, and 5) cannot have worked
for the employer within 12 months from current date of hire.
Credits for qualified employment positions in the first year are equal to: one-fourth of wages
paid to an employee up to $500. In the second year, credits are one-third of wages paid to each
previously qualified employee up to $1,000. In the third year the amount increases to one-half of

Draft: 6/23/2009

90

wages paid to each previously qualified employee up to $1,500. At least 35 percent of the net
new eligible employees on whom the business is claiming a credit must live within an enterprise
zone in the same county as the business on the date of hire (Arizona Dept. of Commerce).
Property Tax Credits
Property reclassification is available for qualified manufacturing businesses that fabricate,
produce or manufacture products, wares or articles for use from raw or prepared materials or
commercial printing businesses which include a lithographic, flexographic or other mechanical
process in an enterprise zone. A manufacturer or commercial printer in an enterprise zone is
eligible for an assessment ratio of five percent on all personal and real property (for primary tax
purposes only) in the zone for five years if it meets all the criteria as follows:
1) A minority-owned, woman-owned or small business (a small business has fewer than 100
employees or gross sales of $4 million or less), and
2) Independently owned and operated (not owned more than 50 percent by another company
unless the ultimate ownership is primarily family-owned or closely held), and
3) Makes an investment in fixed assets at the zone of $500,000, $1 million or $2 million,
depending upon the location of the facility. The investment can be aggregated from 1/1/2001 as
long as the zone was in place during that time (ADoC).
The enterprise zone within Mohave County covers most of the rural areas, beyond city
boundaries, and certain Census Designated Places that have urban-like population densities and
qualities. The program is designed to encourage small businesses who hire local employees.
Currently, the poverty rate within the 6,532 square zone is 22.94 percent.
CANAMEX Trade Corridor
In 1995, Highway 93 was
designated as one of several High
Priority Corridors under Public
Law 104-59 traversing the United
States. The corridor was also
reconstituted under Executive
Order 2008-08 by then Governor
Napolitano. The corridor links
Canadian, American and Mexican
markets and is designed for the
seamless
and
efficient
transportation of goods, services,
people and information between
these three nations.
With the
implementation of North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),

Draft: 6/23/2009

91

the CANAMEX Corridor will begin to fully realize the benefits of increased trade, tourism and
economic activity within the region. The Corridor provides many opportunities to create safer
and more efficient transportation, improvements to telecommunication, and ostensibly a better
quality of life through a shared commitment to the region. Attributes are as follows:
Smart Freight Corridor - The ability for states to operate on shared Information Technology
Systems (ITS) with the same information would enhance the safety and efficiency of the
Corridor for both freight and tourists by providing information to the public, enforcement
agencies, and to emergency medical, fire, and hazardous material teams. A recent report found
that Arizona generates an estimated $340 million in container based exports each year from the
trade through LA/Long Beach. Nearly 4,300 jobs in the State and approximately $27 million in
State and Local taxes are generated annually from such trade activity.
Smart Tourist Corridor -Tourism is an important component in the economics of all five
CANAMEX States (Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Idaho and Montana). Information Technology
Systems improvements could provide considerable opportunity for a robust tourism business and
enhanced traveler safety. ITS systems could help tourists in an emergency by creating quicker
responses and allowing full cellular coverage by eliminating dead spots.
Telecommunications Access for Rural Areas - The essential infrastructure for economic growth
for the early part of the 21st century will be telecommunications infrastructure. Main elements
are: a) using government authority to leverage telecom companies to install broadband service b)
deployment of fiber optics, and c) a north-south broadband backbone for Information
Technology Systems.
Corridor Highway Improvements - In urban areas, approximately $4 billion of highway
improvements are already planned and programmed for the Corridor. The Hoover Dam Bypass
Project and the widening Highway 93 to the approaches are vital to the safety and efficiency
goals of the CANAMEX Corridor. The CANAMEX Corridor is likely to experience congestion
in and around major urban centers over the next 30 years. The plan proposes approximately $2
billion (in Year 2000 dollars) in additional funds. Over the next five years, the State
programmed over $1.3 billion to improve segments of the corridor. In addition, the federal
government has committed nearly $60 million to redesign and construct border stations.
Smart Process Partnerships - The Corridor Plan advances three ideas in e-commerce and egovernment to facilitate the work of these partnerships including: a) license renewals and
business registration, b) creation of a "borderless economy,” and c) develop a common system
and a single set of standards for secure electronic commercial transactions.
Multi-state and international partnerships will be used to identify initiatives to support trade and
job growth. CANAMEX also seeks to identify funding and initiatives that enhance the safety,
security and efficiency at the border and along the corridor. These concerns must be addressed
to maintain and enhance the relationship between the five western states and Canada that
supports 309,000 jobs and $13 billion in annual trade. Canadians made more than 2.4 million
visits to the region, spending some $1.5 billion.

Draft: 6/23/2009

92

Recently, with the exporting of American manufacturing jobs to Mexico and Canada, and the
resulting loss of higher income jobs for the traditional industrial labor force, NAFTA, and, by
extension CANAMEX, have drawn criticism from various groups such as labor unions and those
seeking traditional American independence. Concerns raised during the area plan’s creation are
as follows: 1) condemnation of private property along the CANAMEX super-highway, 2)
increase in illicit trade causing more criminal activity within the County, 3) lower wages and
standard of living, 4) more illegal immigration and 5) first step in the creation of a North
American Union, ultimately leading to loss of US sovereignty. Items one and two will be
discussed in the Transportation and Public Safety Elements, respectively. The lowering of the
standard of living, however, at least for the existing residents of Mohave County, may not be an
issue given the high levels of unemployment and lower incomes with the planning area.
Developing tourism, commercial businesses and limited amounts of light industrial activity,
including renewable energy projects, along the corridor is designed to support the local labor
force. Addressing illegal immigration moves beyond the scope of a typical county-level
planning document and is part of the state and national debate. Loss of national sovereignty is
also part of the national debate, but at a more existentially philosophical level.
Solar Resources
Arizona is often called the “solar capital” or the “Saudi Arabia” of solar insolation (incoming
solar radiation) for the United States. Despite the state’s tremendous solar and other renewable
resources, Arizona lags behind the rest of the region with only a dozen megawatts of installed
renewable energy capacity. However, with the approval of a Renewable Energy Standard and
Tariff rules by the Arizona Corporation Commission in 2006 designed to boost the development
of renewables, especially solar, to 15 percent of the state’s energy portfolio by 2025, a number of
new large-scale solar projects are now under construction or contemplated on private and public
lands. The new tariff will help ensure the electricity produced in Arizona will stay within the
state and be sold by local utilities such as UniSource Energy Services and Arizona Public
Service.
Energy from the sun is converted to electricity using a variety of technologies described as
follows:
Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) is electricity generated from mirrors to focus sunlight onto a
receiver that captures the sun’s energy and converts it into heat that can run a standard turbine
generator or engine. These systems range from remote power systems as small as a few kilowatts
up to grid-connected power plants of 100’s of megawatts (MW). The systems work best in
bright, sunny locations like the Southwest. Because of the economies of scale and cost of
operation and maintenance, CSP technology works best in large power plants. Compared to
fossil-fueled power plants, CSP power plants generate significantly lower levels of greenhouse
gases and other emissions. A typical solar plant requires approximately five acres of land per
MW of installed capacity. Enough suitable land is available in the Southwest to generate six
times the current U.S. demand for electricity. However, CSP plants use approximately 0.83
gallons of water per kWhr of output, of which 0.76 gallons is used for cooling (Last Straw). This
amount of water is similar to conventional fossil fuel power plants. Wet/Dry cooling technology

Draft: 6/23/2009

93

has been employed at a CSP plant in Mammoth, California. The energy payback time of CSP
systems is about five months.
The most common CSP technology is the parabolic trough
collector where the sun’s energy is concentrated on an oil-filled,
solar absorbing transparent glass tube running along the focal line
of the parabolically shaped trough. The fluid inside the tube is
heated to create superheated steam that powers a turbine
generator to produce electricity.
Another CSP technology being developed is the Solar DishEngine System. Here an electric generator that uses sunlight
produces electricity. The dish, a concentrator, collects the sun’s
energy and concentrates it onto a receiver. A thermal receiver
absorbs the concentrated beam of solar energy, converts it to heat,
and transfers the heat to the engine/generator. Unlike parabolic
trough collectors, these system do employ water as part of the process.
Photovoltaics (PV) technology converts sunlight into electricity and is also known as solar
electricity. The most common solar cell material is crystalline silicon, but newer materials for
making solar cells include thin-film materials such as cadmium telluride, copper indium
diselenide, and amorphous silicon. Solar technology has been developing for over 50 years with
application ranging from the mundane hand held battery charger to the exotic power source such
as space stations and ETVs. Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions range from about 25-32
g/kWh and are expected to decrease to 15 g/kWh in the future. (A coal-fired power plant emits
some 915 g/kWh.) Using renewable power for manufacturing and transportation could drop
emissions to close to zero. Photovoltaic power stations located in the desert Southwest use
relatively small amounts of land with approximately 10 acres of land per MW of installed
capacity; however, improvements in solar cell efficiency are reducing the amount of land needed
for each MW. Arrays also provide shading for wildlife. Utility-scale PV systems can be placed
over existing land used for parking lots and commercial buildings. Water use is typically none
aside from cleaning as necessary in dry climates without significant rainfall.
A PV module pays for itself in terms of energy in a few years (1-5 years). With life expectancies
of 30 years, 87 percent to 97 percent of the energy produced by a PV system will be free of
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Concentrator PV energy payback is estimated at eight
months on a site having a good solar resource because they use more common materials such as
steel and plastic and their production plant costs are low.
Flat-plate PV panels convert sunlight into electricity. Flat-plate panels
do not require direct sunlight and they generate energy regardless of
where the light source is located. They can be fixed in place or allowed
to track the sun with solar trackers. A single-axis array tracks the sun
from East to West during the day, which provides 30 to 40 percent
more energy than a fixed array. Output power is also more uniform.
They use light sensors or computer programming to avoid unnecessary

Draft: 6/23/2009

94

tracking movement.
Concentrator photovoltaics (CPV) uses inexpensive materials such as mirrors or plastic lenses to
capture the sun’s energy and focuses it onto PV solar cells. CPV technology differs from flatplate PV modules in
several ways: they are
usually made using highefficiency,
multijunction PV solar cells
and they use mirrors or
lenses to concentrate
sunlight onto the solar
cells. The primary reason
for using concentrators is
to be able to use less
solar
cell
material.
Concentrator
systems
increase
the
power
output while reducing
the size or number of
solar cells needed.
Siting criteria for solar
arrays include high solar
insolation
values,
typically expressed in
kilowatt hours of electricity that may be converted from a single square meter of land on a
typical day, having few cloudy or overcast days, occupying a large level site, preferably less than
a three percent slope over several square miles, being close to a major transmission line with
available capacity, and, in the case of concentrating solar parabolic troughs, an adequate supply
of water.
Mohave County has several sites that
meet most or all of the above criteria,
several of which occur along the
Highway 93 Corridor. Applications
with the BLM are pending on two
sites along the northern corridor
between Pierce Ferry and White Hills
Roads. Additional solar parabolic
trough power plants on private land
may also be proposed along the
corridor where transmission and
sufficient flat and open land of two or
more contiguous square miles is
available.

Draft: 6/23/2009

95

Wind Resources
Wind resources vary along the Corridor from poor to marginal (Northern Arizona University).
Wind resources are mostly dependent upon terrain with broad valleys having less wind force
than mountain ridges.
Land categorically excluded from
wind development are as follows:
National Park Service Land, U.S. Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
lands,
Congressionally Specially Designated
Areas such Wilderness Areas,
inventoried road less areas, State and
other environmental lands such as
wetlands and water bodies, certain
BLM lands, urban developed areas
including airports, non-ridge crest
forests, and steep slopes greater than
20 percent.
Developable wind energy potential in
the County is estimated to be 1,100
megawatt hours. The majority of
developable windy land, 88 percent, is
Class 3, which is considered to be
“fair.’ Assuming 5 mWhrs of output
per square kilometer, 220 square
kilometers
(hectares)
or
approximately 89 square miles of
Mohave
County
can
support
commercial-scale
wind
farm
development with most of this area
residing outside the planning area.
Goals and Policies for Economic Development
Goal 20

Support commercial development that is determined by the local residents and
local government to serve the needs of the residents and tourists

Policy 20.1 Identify areas designated for future commercial development on the land use
diagrams.
Policy 20.2 New locations for economic development activities should be considered once a
need can be demonstrated by the community.

Draft: 6/23/2009

96

Policy 20.3 Encourage private and quasi-public entities, such as the North River Economic
Region Coordinator, local chambers of commerce, and other economic
development organizations to engage in the creation of employment
opportunities for local residents.

Goal 21

Encourage economic development activity at existing and planned traffic
intersections along the corridor

Policy 21.1 Support the retention and expansion of existing businesses at these locations.
Policy 21.2. Encourage the establishment and/or relocation of commercial and light industrial
developments at traffic intersections or interchanges along Highway 93.
Policy 21.3. Provide for economic development activities along the Highway 93 Corridor that
create sufficient jobs for the local labor force.
Policy 21.4. New locations for economic development activities must be able to be supported
by existing or developer-provided infrastructure.

Goal 22

Support organized recreation and tourists activities at appropriate locations

Policy 22.1 Identify areas designated for future recreational development on the land use
diagrams.
Policy 22.2 New locations for recreational development activities should be considered once
a need can be demonstrated by the community.
Policy 22.3 New locations for recreational development activities must be able to be
supported by existing or developer-provided infrastructure.
Policy 22.4 Encourage recreational activities that are less fossil fuel intensive and leave
fewer impacts on the environment.

Goal 23

Recognize and maintain open space and vistas as an essential part of the
community’s attractiveness to residents and tourists

Policy 23.1 Encourage economic development at existing and planned traffic intersections or
interchanges along Highway 93.
Policy 23.2 Encourage development activities that blend into the natural desert aesthetic and
have low-profiles.

Draft: 6/23/2009

97

Policy 23.3 Preserve existing Rural Development Area land use designations along Highway
93 between roadway intersections or interchanges.

Goal 24

Allow only a limited amount of environmentally responsible industrial
development

Policy 24.1 Pursue and support industries that consume less water and non-renewable energy
resources than traditional industry.
Policy 24.2 Pursue and support industries that create fewer emissions than traditional
industry with zero-net-emissions as the preferred standard.
Policy 24.3 Pursue and support industries that reduce and/or offset greenhouse gas emissions
from traditional industry.

Goal 25

Allow only environmentally responsible development

Policy 25.1 Pursue and support development activities that consume less water and nonrenewable energy resources.
Policy 25.2 Pursue and support development activities that have zero-net-energy
consumption as the preferred standard.
Policy 25.3 Pursue and support development activities that have smaller environmental
footprints in regard to clearing of the land’s vegetation, terrain modification, and
use of sustainable building materials.

Implementation Measures for Economic Development:
E1.
Establish a regular schedule of meetings between County representatives, the Mohave
County Economic Development Coordinator, the Arizona Department of Commerce’s North
River Economic Region coordinator, the chambers of commerce and other economic
development organizations. Use these meetings for communication and coordination regarding
issues such as recent economic trends, cooperative programs, alternative economic development
projects, marketing efforts, and development opportunities occurring along the US Highway 93
Corridor.
E2.
The Mohave County Economic Development Coordinator, the Arizona Department of
Commerce’s North River Economic Region coordinator and the private sector will review
possible new economic development programs, such as economic gardening, which focuses on
building the economy from the inside out, and establish an action agenda for cooperative
economic development efforts emphasizing business activity along the Corridor.

Draft: 6/23/2009

98

E3.
Establish regular monitoring programs to evaluate the Corridor’s employment growth, by
job type and location, and the jobs-to-resident worker ratio for the planning areas. Develop
periodic outreach to businesses along the Corridor to identify skill gaps, training opportunities
and skill deficiencies in the existing workforce. Also, identify jobs that match the abilities of the
underemployed. Report this information and consider policy changes as part of the Area Plan’s
10-year review.
E4.
Develop information on the skills and experience of the resident labor force along the
Corridor and collect this information in a report available for use in economic development
efforts. Work with leaders in the travel and tourism industry to identify workforce training needs
and fine-tune existing programs or develop new programs as needed to foster the growth of the
industry.
E5.
Conduct a business retention survey, in cooperation with the Mohave County Economic
Development Coordinator, the Arizona Department of Commerce’s North River Economic
Region Coordinator, chambers of commerce and other economic development organizations to
identify the needs of Corridor businesses.
E6.
Together with the private sector, conduct a study to identify particular goods or services
desired by local residents and businesses, to shape the focus of efforts to attract new firms to the
Corridor.
E7.
Evaluate opportunities to obtain economic development funding from state, federal or
other sources that are available and appropriate, such as infrastructure development, to support
business retention and growth along the Corridor.

Draft: 6/23/2009

99

Transportation

Transportation Element
Introduction
Transportation infrastructure and economic development are two regional issues which are
intrinsically linked. An efficient transportation system is required to move employees between
home and work, to link their communities, to import materials and export finished goods, and all
the while increasing safety, reducing pollution and generally increasing the quality of life. Given
the cost of improvements in creating an interconnected transportation network to facilitate the
access to land and to allow for economic activity to occur, both must be addressed regionally.
The Highway 93 Area Plan allows for such regional planning to occur. The Element will
discuss the status and future plans of the dominant traffic artery for which the Area Plan is
named, a review of access management for state highways, a review of Mohave County’s
roadways as they relate to the highway, their traffic volumes and maintenance status,
identification of major wash crossings for wildlife protection, locations of trails for motorized
and non-motorized uses and a series of goals, policies and implementation measures to solve the
issues and bring the ideas and concepts to fruition.
US Highway 93 - Overview
US Highway 93 is an Arizona state highway that runs generally north/northwest from US 60 in
Wickenburg to the Nevada border at Hoover Dam. Highway 93 serves as the primary surface
route between Phoenix and Las Vegas, two of the fastest growing cities and metropolitan areas in
the United States. As noted in the Economic Development Element, the highway is an important
link in the CANAMEX commercial corridor defined by the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA). Traffic volumes are expected to grow as the communities served by the
route expand, and as both general and commercial traffic increase—the latter largely due to
NAFTA. Corridor highway improvements have begun which include the Hoover Dam bypass
project, a new four-lane bridge over the Colorado River allowing through traffic to bypass the
slow and circuitous route across Hoover Dam, and the four-lane 15-mile approach through Lake
Mead National Recreation Area which are both scheduled for completion in late 2010 and 12
other projects further south along the Corridor to date (ADOT, DMJM).
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) envisions the US 93 study corridor
ultimately as an Interstate-type facility with full access control, at which time access will be
provided only at grade-separated traffic interchanges (TI). This is consistent with ADOT’s vision
for the entire extent of the US 93 Highway in Arizona (ADOT, DMJM).
Review of ADOT Access Management
Purpose of Access Management
The purpose of access management is to preserve the capacity of public highways, maintain or
enhance safety for motorists, and maintain access to private land in a manner that serves the
public interest. Access is managed through the regulation of vehicular access to public roadways
from adjoining property—and through legislative acts and administrative permits available to

Draft: 6/23/2009

100

political jurisdictions under their police powers which further the health, safety, and welfare of
their residents (ADOT, DMJM).
Need for Access Management
The primary function of major transportation corridors is to allow the safe and efficient
movement of people and goods with minimal delay or interference from conflicting vehicle
movements. The addition of more traffic signals, intersections and driveways reduces the
corridor’s efficiency and safety. Land uses along a corridor having no internal circulation
systems or County roadway access forces more trips onto major highways. This is particularly
true of “legacy lots” which existed prior to a highway’s creation, many of which have been
bisected by the highway.
The projected year 2022 traffic volumes on US 93 are estimated to be approximately 65 percent
higher than current volumes on this segment of the route, with roughly 21,000 vehicles per day
(vpd) projected in the Kingman area. The construction of the Hoover Dam Bypass will
reintroduce truck traffic on the route. Given the heavy volumes of high-speed through-traffic on
this highway, a strong need exists to establish access control. Otherwise, the combination of
slow turning vehicles such as trucks with high-speed through traffic will create an increasingly
unsafe and inefficient operating environment. Businesses may begin to feel the effects due to a
deterioration of access. Potential customers are deterred by delays in leaving and re-entering the
highway, or if they perceive a safety risk in making difficult turning movements. In response,
some businesses may relocate to areas that offer better accessibility (ADOT, DMJM).
Goal of Access Management
The goal of an access management program is to successfully balance roadway operational needs
with land development needs. The main benefits of an access management plan are the
preservation of safety and service. With an adopted plan in place, zoning and permitting agencies
have a blueprint that will provide guidance in permitting access to a roadway, regardless of
ultimate roadway build-out conditions. Proposed developments can be required to provide
internal and parallel circulation, as well as driveway/access point design that conforms to the
adopted plan (ADOT, DMJM).
Statewide Access Management Program and Policies
The State Transportation Board 1 has established a “State Highway System Priorities Policy.”
This policy implements “an integrated statewide transportation system by placing priority on
state highways that:
1. “Connect Arizona’s regions and population centers by an efficient network of highways
to carry travelers and commerce throughout the state;
2. “Connect Arizona, its regions and population centers with other states of the United
States and Mexico; and
1

Under the authority ARS 28-304 et. seq.

Draft: 6/23/2009

101

3. “Connect major population centers and through routes within urban areas with high
volume routes that increase mobility of people and goods.”
The “Access Management Policy,” still development by the State Transportation Board, is
designed to preserve the functional integrity of the State Highway System through the
development and implementation of a comprehensive access management program by:
1. Directing ADOT to develop an access management classification system for the State
Highways with appropriate access management standards for each access management
classification.
2. Directing ADOT to develop a comprehensive access management manual to guide the
uniform application of access management throughout the state.
3. The Board and ADOT shall work closely with regional planning agencies and local
governments to encourage early notification to ADOT of zoning and other land use
decisions…that will impact the State Highway System in order to coordinate system
planning.
4. Purchasing access rights to highways, where appropriate and feasible.
5. Maintaining that the approximate minimum spacing between interchanges…be three (3)
miles in rural areas, two (2) miles in suburban or transitional areas, and one (1) mile in
urban areas.
6. Considering ramifications to the corridor, and its future use, when access is granted.
7. Reassessing road segments as demand changes over time.
Under Title 28 of Arizona Revised Statutes the ADOT director may exercise complete, exclusive
and operational control and jurisdiction over the use of state highways and routes; coordinate the
design, right-of-way purchase, and construction of controlled-access highways, etc; and exercise
other duties or powers necessary to carry out efficient operations. 2 The director may acquire any
interest in real property the director considers necessary for transportation purposes and the state
may exercise eminent domain to acquire property or an interest in property necessary for
transportation purposes. 3
Owners of property abutting a public highway have a private right of easement for the purpose of
ingress and egress to and from the property, subject to regulation. This right may not be taken
without compensation. Along state highways, ADOT is the regulating agency. Direct access
between a property and a highway may be closed and replaced with alternative access, via an
access road or another public road abutting the property (ADOT, Jacobs). No access will be
granted where access control rights has been established by deed or judgment unless waived by
2
3

See ARS 28-332 and 28- 363.
See ARS 28-7093

Draft: 6/23/2009

102

the State Engineer in accordance with Federal Highway Administration standards (ADOT,
DMJM). Direct access to US 93 is currently allowed through permit application to the ADOT
Kingman District Office. 4 The number and spacing of access points are approved by the District,
subject to providing adequate traffic engineering criteria (ADOT, Jacobs).
Other methods to control access along a highway include zoning and subdivision approval and
site plan review through local government ordinances, adopted by various jurisdictions along the
ADOT right-of-way (ADOT, DMJM).
Determining Future Traffic Interchange Locations
The major factors warranting a future traffic interchange (TI) are roadway and intersection crash
rates, heavy traffic volumes projected on the mainline and cross road, and heavy left turn
volumes at the intersection. Adequate spacing between TIs is also important to maintain a free
flow of traffic. In rural areas, ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines recommend a desirable
spacing of five miles and a minimum spacing of two miles (ADOT, DMJM).
The most desirable traffic interchange locations will have little to no impact on existing drainage
channels or drainage patterns. An ideal TI location will also minimize impacts to the existing
ground, balance earthwork quantities, and maintain the aesthetics of the surrounding
environment. The existing topography should provide adequate sight distance on the cross road
and allow the cross road profile to reach the existing ground level quickly. A cross road
alignment at 90 degrees to the highway mainline will provide the most desirable ramp design,
accommodate intersection sight lines between ramp and cross road, and minimize bridge
construction costs (ADOT, DMJM).
For potential future traffic interchange locations, existing and future land ownership and land use
within the study area are evaluated for potential trip generators and destinations in association
with the existing and proposed road networks outside of the ADOT right-of-way to avoid
unreasonable trip lengths to and from the TI locations (ADOT, DMJM).
Northwest Corridor – Lake Mead National Recreation Area to Kingman
In January 2006, Mohave County adopted the US Highway 93 Access Management Study,
Milepost 17 to 68. 5 The study corridor traverses federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), state trust lands administered by the Arizona State Land Department
(ASLD) and private lands and also provides access to several recreational sites within Lake
Mead National Recreation Area. The purpose of the US Highway 93 Access Management Study
is to provide ADOT, Mohave County and other jurisdictions with a cost-effective plan to manage
access on this route and provide guidance for future development adjacent to US Highway 93.
Through appropriate access management, the highway’s principal function of providing mobility
for long distance through traffic can be maintained in the future as development occurs along the
corridor (ADOT, DMJM).
4

Under the authority of ADOT Administrative Rule R-17-3-702, Encroachment in Highway Rights-of-Way
Published in November 2004. The shorter segment of US Highway 93 from the State Route 68 TI to the Kingman
city limit was addressed in a previous access management study prepared for State Route 68.

5

Draft: 6/23/2009

103

Corridor Description
The US Highway 93 corridor study area
has been defined as a two-mile-wide strip
centered on the existing roadway centerline
(see map). US Highway 93 has been
improved to a four-lane divided rural
principal arterial roadway throughout the
study area (ADOT, DMJM).

8,100

Given the corridor’s strategic location
between Las Vegas and Phoenix, its
proximity to I-40 and the Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Railroad, undeveloped
land, and nearby recreational activities that
attract retirees and others, there is interest
in the eventual development of this area.

7,700

All travel lanes of the four-lane divided
facility are 12 feet wide. Roadway grades,
alignments, cross slopes and shoulder
2002
widths on the new northbound lanes meet
X,XXX ADT Vol 2007
8,900
modern design criteria. However, the
original two-lane roadway now serves as
the
highway’s
southbound
lanes.
Dedicated turn lanes are provided Source: DMJM/Harris, US Highway 93 Access Study
northbound and southbound at many median crossover locations. All intersections are controlled
with STOP signs on the minor cross road or access driveway (ADOT, DMJM).
Peak hour traffic counts were taken in June 2002 at several major cross roads along US Hwy 93,
including Temple Bar Road, White Hills Road, Pierce Ferry Road, Chloride Road, Colorado
Road, and Agua Fria Road. Additional 24-hour directional counts were taken in August 2002
near Temple Bar Road and Pierce Ferry Road. The current 24-hour data collected for this study
resulted in a ratio of peak hour volume to daily traffic volume (K-factor) of approximately 8.5
percent and a directional distribution (D-factor) of 54 percent. The existing intersections operate
at level of service (LOS) B or better during the peak hours (ADOT, DMJM).
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, commercial trucks have been prohibited from
using the US 93 crossing of the Colorado River at Hoover Dam. Therefore, the traffic counts
obtained in June and August 2002 reflect a decrease in traffic volumes over Hoover Dam.
Historical traffic counts on US 93 showed truck traffic at 15 to 20 percent of the total volumes.
Currently, trucks on the route constitute approximately five percent of the total traffic. Therefore,
previous traffic data was referenced to estimate what the current traffic volumes on US 93 would
be without the truck restrictions and to project future traffic volumes (ADOT, DMJM). Traffic
counts at the end of 2007 show approximately a 25 percent decrease in traffic volume (ADOT,

Draft: 6/23/2009

104

Kingman). This may be due to recent increases in gasoline prices and a tapering off of the
economy in general.
US 93 Interim Access Management
Prior to the funding of the ultimate access plan, an interim access management plan has been
developed to address access and safety needs for the existing at-grade facility. Implementation
of the interim plan is expected to evolve over time, as funding becomes available and traffic
volumes increase. Implementation of the interim plan should also incorporate the background
roadway system that will be needed to facilitate the future construction of TIs on US Highway 93
(ADOT, DMJM).
The following criteria are recommended for the US Highway 93 Interim Access Management
Plan:
1. Maintain existing median crossover locations.
2. Provide acceleration and deceleration lanes on US Highway 93 at intersections with
heavy traffic volumes and turning movements.
3. Provide dedicated turning lanes on the cross roads at their intersections with the highway.
4. Acquire access rights at selected locations along the route that are currently undeveloped.
5. Develop frontage roads or alternative access ways to reduce direct access to the highway
and provide access to US Highway 93 at identified major access points.
6. The minor street approach to each intersection should provide one shared through/left
turn lane and one right turn lane.
7. To avoid the construction of new driveways to US Highway 93, require the use of access
points identified in the plan.
To provide for efficient intersection operations and to accommodate future growth in the area,
dedicated turn lanes are recommended on minor cross roads approaching US Highway 93.
However, it should be noted the proposed location of future full access points is based on the
recommended minimum spacing and sight distance requirements, and does not reflect an
intention to promote development in any particular areas (ADOT, DMJM).
Installation of traffic signals at intersections is not an access management recommendation at
this time. It is the intent and desire of ADOT to maintain this segment of US Highway 93 as an
un-signalized route. Preliminary traffic projections and signal warrant evaluations indicate that
traffic signals will likely be warranted at the intersections of Pierce Ferry Road and Agua Fria
Road within the next 20 years. Traffic signals are undesirable on this route; therefore, it is
important that access control be implemented and funding be identified for the final design of the
ultimate facility (ADOT, DMJM).

Draft: 6/23/2009

105

Access/Frontage Roads
The
following
table Frontage Roads for Interim Highway Access
Permit No. Recommendations
summarizes
the Mile Post Access Type/Cross Road
Remove Access - Use Existing Reverse Access Road to Access US 93 at
MP 37.52
37.0 NB
Residential Access
50781
recommendations
for
Remove Access - Use Existing Reverse Access Road to Access US 93 at
MP 37.52
37.19 NB Residential Access
43043
frontage/access roads as
Remove Access - Use New Reverse Access Road to Access US 93 at MP
37.52
N/A
part of the interim access 37.3 SB Ramos Ranch
Remove Access - Use New Reverse Access Road to Access US 93 at MP
37.52
37.32 SB Troy Larabee - Business Access 43043
plan.
All proposed
Remove Access - Use New Reverse Access Road to Access US 93 at MP
37.52
37.35 SB Business Access (Evangillista)
13738
Remove Access - Use New Reverse Access Road to Access US 93 at MP
improvements
to
be
37.52
37.38 SB Business Access
N/A
Maintain Access - Construct New Access for SB Lanes and Construct New
implemented as warranted 37.52 NB Graded Section Line Road
Reverse Access Road from MP 37.30 to MP 37.52 (west side)*
34916
by future traffic are noted 57.64 SB Business Access
Remove Access - Construct Reverse Frontage*
N/A
with an asterisk. Access 58.00 NB Unknown
Construct Reverse Frontage Road to Serve Adjacent Parcels
N/A
between mile posts 37 and 58.00 SB Hermit Drive
Construct Reverse Frontage Road to Serve Adjacent Parcels
N/A
37.52 in the vicinity of Source: ADOT/DMJM US Highway 93 Access Management Study
Eleventh Street in Dolan Springs and between mile posts 57.64 and 58 near Hermit Road are
recommended for frontage roads on both sides of the highway.
Acceleration and Deceleration Lanes
The
following
table Decelerations Lanes for Interim Highway Access
Permit No. Recommendations
summarizes
the Mile Post Access Type/Cross Road
Construct NB Accel Lane (outside) and SB Accel Lane (inside)*
8908
recommendations
for 19.17 NB Temple Bar Road
Construct NB Right Turn Decel Lane, NB Accel Lane (outside) and SB
Accel Lane (inside)*
69009
22.10 NB Canyon Sand Access Road
acceleration
and
Construct NB Right Turn Decel Lane, NB Accel Lanes (inside & outside)
and SB Accel Lanes (inside & outside)*
43.21 NB First Street
NA
deceleration lanes as part of
NA
Construct SB Accel Lane (outside)*
the interim access plan. 45.33 SB Cottonwood Road
Construct NB Right Turn Decel Lane and NB Accel Lane (outside)*
45.50 NB Unknown
NA
These lanes may occur
Construct NB Accel Lane (outside)*
52.73 NB Chloride Road
46484
Construct NB Right Turn Decel Lane, Construct NB Accel Lanes (inside &
inside or outside the
outside) and Construct SB Accel Lanes (inside & outside)*
58.00 NB Unknown
NA
Construct Reverse Frontage Road to Serve Adjacent Parcels and
existing ADOT right-of- 58.00 SB Hermit Drive
Construct SB Right Turn Decel Lane*
NA
Construct NB Right Turn Decel Lane, NB Accel Lane (outside) and SB
way and occur from 58.68 NB Mineral Park Road
Accel Lane (inside)*
14493
Developer should be responsible for constructing SB Right Turn Decel
Temple Bar to Sundown 62.06 SB Legend Ranch Road
Lane and SB Accel Lane (outside)*
86348
Construct NB Accel Lane (inside & outside) and SB Accel Lane (inside &
Drive. Eight of the twelve 65.01 NB Sundown Drive
outside)*
12091
lanes serve north bound 65.82 SB Residential/Business Access NA
Construct SB Right Turn Decel Lane and SB Accel Lane (outside)*
traffic.
All
proposed Source: ADOT/DMJM US Highway 93 Access Management Study
improvements to be implemented as warranted by future traffic are noted with an asterisk.
Recent Projects
Along US Highway 93 north bound from mile post 2 to 17, the project is under construction to
widen the 15-mile section to a four-lane divided highway. ADOT will maintain security during
construction and minimize traffic delays throughout the project. Completion is scheduled for Fall
2010.
In FY 2008 the Pierce Ferry Road intersection lighting project was completed to improve the
safety of the intersection.

Draft: 6/23/2009

106

Recommended Locations for Future Traffic Interchanges
Temple Bar Road is an existing two-lane rural roadway that extends east of US Highway 93 and
serves lands managed by ASLD, BLM and National Park Service. The road is primarily used to
access Lake Mead National Recreation Area. It is recommended that a future TI be provided at
existing Temple Bar Road to serve Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Constructing the TI on
the existing roadway alignment will reduce impacts to the environment and aesthetics of this
mountainous area. This is a lower priority project for the acquisition of access rights and rightof-way (ADOT, DMJM).
White Hills Road also know as Mohave County Highway 145 serves the community of White
Hills, located on the east side of US Highway 93. This roadway is located approximately 9.7
miles south of Temple Bar Road. It is recommended that a future TI be located to access White
Hills Road, which will serve the existing developments east of US Highway 93 as well as
expected future master planned development such as the Villages at White Hills and the Ranch at
White Hills. The recommended TI location will cross US Highway 93 approximately one-fourth
mile south of existing White Hills Road in order to avoid any impacts to existing buildings and
development in this area. This project has a high priority for the acquisition of access rights and
right-of-way (ADOT, DMJM).
Pierce Ferry Road begins at US 93 and extends east to Lake Mead. It serves the communities of
Dolan Springs and Meadview and provides access to recreation areas at Lake Mead. Pierce Ferry
Road is the only all-weather roadway to provide access from US Highway 93 to Dolan Springs
and Meadview. Pierce Ferry Road is located approximately 13 miles south of White Hills Road.
It is recommended that a TI be located in this area to serve Dolan Springs and Meadview. The
proposed location for this TI follows the existing Pierce Ferry Road alignment. This project has a
high priority for the acquisition of access rights and right-of-way (ADOT, DMJM).
Cottonwood Road is less than four miles south of Pierce Ferry Road and currently serves the
privately owned parcels west of US Highway 93, which are primarily residential land uses. The
existing distance between Pierce Ferry Road and Cottonwood Road is 3.7 miles, which provides
adequate TI spacing on US Highway 93. It is recommended that a TI be located at the existing
Cottonwood Road alignment. This TI will serve the BLM lands east of the TI and the private
development near the highway. West of US Highway 93, this TI will serve a large area of
privately owned lands. This project has a high priority for the acquisition of access rights and
right-of-way (ADOT, DMJM).
Chloride Road extends east from US Highway 93 and serves the small community of Chloride,
as well as Lake Mohave Vista Estates, which begins approximately one-fourth mile east of US
Highway 93. Although very few of these parcels have been developed, the section has been
subdivided for future residential development and could generate large peak period traffic
volumes when built out. A TI at this location will serve the developments likely to occur on the
State land in the future, and on the lands south and west of the TI. The west side of US Highway
93 also has the potential to develop with the disposal of BLM lands in this area. It is
recommended that a TI be located at the existing Chloride Road junction, providing access to US
Highway 93 near Chloride. Existing Mohave County Highway 125, Old Boulder Dam Highway,

Draft: 6/23/2009

107

will serve as a background roadway that runs parallel to US Highway 93 and can provide an
alternative route for vehicles making short trips between locations served by Mineral Park Road
and Chloride Road. This project has a high priority for the acquisition of access rights and rightof-way (ADOT, DMJM).
Mineral Park Road provides access from US Highway 93 to the County landfill east of the
highway. The BLM traded approximately 20 sections of land in this area west of the highway in
2002, with the majority of this land to be developed as “Legend Ranch,” an “un-subdivided
development” of lots 36-acres and greater in size. The land within Legend Ranch will be sold for
residential development. It is recommended that a TI be located at the existing Mineral Park
Road alignment. This location will serve the community of Santa Claus and Legend Ranch, as
well as the existing privately owned parcels west and north of Legend Ranch. This project has a
high priority for the acquisition of access rights and right-of-way (ADOT, DMJM).
Ranch Road, accessing So-Hi Estates, is located on the east side of US Highway 93 and links the
highway at So-Hi Road, which aligns with Agua Fria Road. The latter provides access to
businesses and residences west of US Highway 93. This proposed TI location will provide
access to the homes and businesses that now use So-Hi Road and Agua Fria Road. By
constructing the TI at Ranch Road, however, construction and right-of-way impacts will be
significantly less than those that would occur with the TI at the existing Agua Fria Road
alignment. This is a lower priority project for the acquisition of access rights and right-of-way
(ADOT, DMJM).
Developer Funded TIs - two additional future TI locations have been identified at MP 24.5 and
MP 38.0. These locations are based on potential future developments that may occur. Both of
these areas have a substantial amount of private land that may develop in the future. If a TI is
warranted at these locations in the future, it would be driven by private development. Therefore,
the developer(s) would be required to fund the design and construction of the TI (ADOT,
DMJM).
These locations do not preclude additional TIs within this corridor, if they are warranted at some
future date. Additional TI locations may be needed if a master-planned community or other large
development in this area generates the traffic volumes to warrant a TI (ADOT, DMJM).
Ultimate Access Implementation
The ultimate access management plan for US Highway 93 recommends maintaining a minimum
two-mile spacing between grade-separated TIs and the purchase of access rights and right-ofway, where feasible, at the locations of the proposed TIs. The interim access management plan
provides guidance to begin implementing the background roadway network necessary for
implementation of the ultimate plan (ADOT, DMJM). The potential locations for future full
access points connect to County section-line roadways that have existing public roadway
easements or rights-of-way. Using these roadways will help establish the secondary or
background roadway network and reduce direct driveway access to the highway (ADOT,
DMJM).

Draft: 6/23/2009

108

It is recommended that ADOT work with Mohave County to establish access control along this
route and develop the background public roadway as part of the Mohave County’s General Plan
and area plans for this segment of US Highway 93.
South Corridor – City of Kingman to Yavapai County
The US Highway 93/I-40 to Wikieup Location Design and Concept Report published January
2006 and the Santa Maria River to Wikieup Full Access Control Plan published in May 2004
provide a similar set of design and operation polices and procedures for ADOT and the County
to follow when approving new access point and projects along the right-of-way. Access points
to comply with interim access control are being built as part of the reconstruction of the highway
to provide a four-lane divided highway, such as the road widening in the Windmill Ranch area
and points south; however, these access points will removed when the TIs are constructed.
Corridor Description
The portion of US Highway 93 starting at the intersection of Interstate 40 (mile post 91) and
extending to the Yavapai County line (mile post 149) contains approximately 58 miles of twolane and four-lane highway - the two-lane portion, much of it constructed in the 1950s, has been

A

B

C
A = New Cedar Hills Access Road
B & C = Wikieup Bypass

widens south of Wikieup, between mile posts 91 - 102 and 119 - 121. The highway traverses
large areas of State Trust and BLM holdings and well as numerous private parcels. Modern
developments such as Windmill Ranch and Cedar Hills have access to County roads and do not
rely on the highway for direct access. The community of Wikieup, settled in the late 19th century,
has numerous access points on the highway. Interstate 40 is an example of a full access
controlled roadway (freeway) with traffic interchanges giving access to adjoining lands via a
system of frontage roads and County access roads.
Draft: 6/23/2009

109

Interim Access Management
Direct access to US Highway 93 is currently allowed through permit application to the ADOT
Kingman District. There are no restrictions on the number of turnouts requested or the distance
between turnouts, as long as adequate stopping sight distances for entering or leaving the
highway is present. Properties fronting on US Highway 93 will continue to have reasonable
access to the new highway. Direct access turnouts will be right-in/right-out only, spaced no
closer than 1/4 mile on four-lane sections. At this time properties fronting on US Highway 93 are
large enough that the 1/4 mile spacing provides reasonable access. At-grade median crossovers
will be provided at major intersections. Additional median crossovers will be provided as
requested by the Arizona Department of Public Safety and to provide reasonable access from all
directions to right-in/right-out turnouts, subject to a minimum one mile spacing. Access roads
will be constructed as part of the reconstruction to serve as collector roads in areas that cannot
meet the 1/4 mile minimum spacing. However, once the highway is reconstructed to a four-lane
divided roadway, and as the volume of traffic and the proportion of commercial and recreational
vehicles increase, some form of access control will be needed as a matter of highway operation
and safety (ADOT, Jacobs). Traffic volumes at the end of 2007 along this portion of the
highway were 6,700 annual average trips per day which gives the roadway a level of service B or
better for light to moderate traffic volumes.
It is anticipated that the recommended improvements for US Highway 93 will be accomplished
over an extended period of time, perhaps 15 or more years, and will involve numerous
reconstruction segments. As a practical matter, applying full access control to individual
segments as they are reconstructed is not realistic. Applying full access control would also
require that additional traffic interchanges and associated access roads be constructed as part of
the corridor reconstruction. This would be a significant, additional investment in the corridor
improvement program, which cannot be justified at this time. Given these limitations, an interim
form of partial access control will be used initially with the provision that full access control will
be implemented later as conditions warrant. The access management plan makes
recommendations for changes to the current permitting requirements, recommendations for
interim (partial) access control and ultimately, full access control (ADOT, Jacobs).
No new interim access roads connecting directly to US Highway 93 will be allowed unless they
provide access directly to future interchange locations. In those areas where the current property
is located adjacent to a future interchange location, no additional access points will be allowed.
If, however, an existing property parcel is ultimately provided access to US Highway 93 via an
access road that must cross over several adjacent private property parcels, the Department may
consider allowing an interim connection directly to US Highway 93, if the access road is not
constructed as part of the initial roadway widening project. New permit applications for direct
access onto the highway are subject to revocation when access provisions are converted to full
access control (ADOT, Jacobs).
If future subdivision of adjacent properties results in frontages along US Highway 93 that cannot
meet the minimum one quarter mile spacing, they will be interconnected by access roads to a
common entrance onto the highway, with all costs borne by the property owner(s). In these
instances, the access roads will be constructed outside the highway’s right-of-way. Mohave

Draft: 6/23/2009

110

County, the platting authority for such developments, will cooperate with ADOT to ensure that
access to the highway will meet the one quarter mile access point spacing, sight distance
requirements, and safety requirements. Under full access control exceptions would be granted
where existing, contiguous properties could not meet these criteria due to narrow frontages along
the highway. The exception would not be granted to accommodate the future subdividing of
existing large properties into smaller parcels fronting the highway and where gated and locked
access may be allowed by permit to provide access for utility companies or public agencies for
intermittent use only (ADOT, Jacobs).
ADOT Responsibility for Interim vs. Ultimate Design Improvements
Interim Conditions: If a public road that is maintained by the County is displaced by the
construction improvements, it will be relocated using County standards. Adjustments to existing
facilities, such as Cedar Mine Road near Wikieup or the facilities providing access to BLM and
Arizona Game and Fish access roads, will remain as gravel surfaces. The only exception is the
construction of the new access road to the Cedar Hills Interchange. That access road, as
specifically agreed to during public meetings, will be paved upon construction, as it will provide
access to a large community. Access to individual properties will be relocated as needed.
Private roads, such as the parallel facility on the Windmill Ranch, will be relocated in-kind.
Similarly, extensions of private roads or drives will be replaced/realigned in-kind. All turnouts
and crossroads perpendicular to the mainline will be paved to the right-of-way limits (ADOT,
Jacobs).
Ultimate Conditions: When the highway becomes access controlled, access to the highway will
be restricted to the interchange locations. Access that is allowed for the interim condition will be
consolidated in some cases using frontage roads. These roads will be constructed following
County standards, and will be paved facilities due to the amount of traffic that will be using
them. In the negotiations of acquiring the access rights to the corridor, some private driveways
that currently have direct access to US 93 will be consolidated, and not use dedicated public
roadway easements. If a private property owner must jointly use a new access road with several
other property owners, ADOT may have negotiated with the property owners to pave that access
road as part of the Right-of-Way Cost-to-Cure Agreement. (ADOT, Jacobs).
Full Access Management
Full access control will be implemented along any portion of the reconstructed US Highway 93
at such time when traffic volumes and safety issues justify the cost of conversion. All turnout
permits in effect when full access control is implemented will be revoked and access roads will
be provided to ensure that properties fronting on the highway will have reasonable access to the
highway via the nearest traffic interchange. Those parcels where access does not appear to be
reasonable to maintain are shown in the Appendix C. However, if access is not feasible then
ADOT will purchase the property. The funding of traffic interchanges and access roads required
to implement full access control will be determined by new demand. For an example, if full
access control is required by a combination of increased traffic on US Highway 93 and new
development along the highway, then ADOT and the developers may share funding of required
improvements. If multiple access points are desired by property owners, or if properties are later

Draft: 6/23/2009

111

subdivided and require new access, the cost for the additional access roads will be borne by the
property owners alone (ADOT, Jacobs).
Ten future traffic interchanges are recommended for conversion of US 93 to a full-access
controlled facility (see above). An additional four TIs are proposed between the Big Sandy
River and the Yavapai County line. Generally, new grade-separated interchanges will be located
near major intersections that have at-grade intersections under the partial access control
provisions. Access roads will be extended or added to ensure that properties fronting on US
Highway 93 at the time of conversion have access to the nearest traffic interchange if terrain
permits (ADOT, Jacobs).
Access Consistent with the Adjacent Land Requirements
Cedar Hills Community: There are several homes located north of the US Highway 93/Interstate40 interchange that currently gain access directly from the interchange ramp. Direct access to the
interchange from this gravel road will be eliminated, and diverted to a new interchange that will
be constructed on I-40 approximately 1.75 miles to the west near mile post 70. As this new
access road will carry a large volume of local traffic, it will include drainage improvements and
be surfaced when it is constructed (ADOT, Jacobs).
Hidden Valley Road: This gravel road currently ties directly into US Highway 93 south of the
Round Valley Interchange. It will remain a gravel road to a paved turnout with an interim
median crossover until the roadway becomes fully access controlled. When this occurs, a new
frontage road will be required from the new interchange at MP 93.1. As this frontage road will
provide access to this community as well as several other access points, it will be constructed as
a local County road complete with paving (ADOT, Jacobs).
General Improvements south of Windmill Ranch to Wikieup: Access rights will or have been
acquired for the entire corridor in preparation for the interim improvements. Access to many
local roads will be maintained in many locations as interim access points until the entire corridor
becomes access controlled. When the corridor becomes access controlled, all of the permitted
interim access points will be terminated, and access will only be granted at the interchange
locations. To consolidate the many access points, frontage roads may be necessary as shown in
the Design Concept Report plans to provide access to these properties. These roads, if
constructed by ADOT with the final improvements, will be paved to County standards. All other
interim connections will be adjusted as necessary to maintain access for the interim condition
(ADOT, Jacobs).
Design and Construction of Frontage Roads or Alternative Access Ways
Access or frontage road facilities may be constructed parallel to and adjacent to the highway
facility or can be constructed on independent alignments. They may be improved, public roads
with dedicated right-of-way, or may be unimproved roads on privately or publicly owned
property to replace current access roads (ADOT, Jacobs).

Draft: 6/23/2009

112

Much of the property adjacent to US Highway 93 south of Cane Springs Wash within the project
limits is public land managed by BLM. Where the public land abuts the highway, access is
currently on primitive roads. New or relocated facilities will be constructed to match the size and
general design of existing access roads. After construction, ADOT's responsibility for the access
road will end and the transfer of improved access road right-of-way and maintenance
responsibilities to Mohave County may be initiated in accordance with the State’s “Turn back of
State Routes Policy.” ADOT will work to assist the County with the financial and administrative
impacts of the changes on the affected jurisdiction.
If crossing public lands is necessary to access lands beyond, the acquisition process is the same
as acquiring access on private lands. Where access must cross private land or across public land
to access private lands where the owner or manager objects to such crossing, ADOT will acquire
right-of-way immediately adjacent to US Highway 93 for an access road and construct an
improved road to provide access (ADOT, Jacobs).
Recommended Access Roads

Proposed
Frontage Road

Proposed
Frontage Road

Between the future Upper Trout Creek Interchange at mile
post 107.4 and the unnamed TI to its north (mile post
104.4), lies Section 9, T18N, R13W (APN 252-05-070).
This 640 acre parcel is bordered on the north and the south
by State Lands. A frontage road can be constructed
parallel along the east side of the highway from one of the
future interchanges. Coordination with State Lands will
be necessary in developing this road (ADOT, Jacobs).

Two parcels east of the unnamed Traffic Interchange at
mile post 104.4 are lacking adequate access to the
crossroad. Building a road south from the crossroad along
the mid-section line that forms the eastern boundary of
parcel 252-08-004 will provide that parcel with adequate
access to the cross road for the nearby TI. Parcel 253-26038 can be provided with access by building a road north
from the crossroad along the property line running along
the eastern edge of the parcel (ADOT, Jacobs).

Draft: 6/23/2009

113

Proposed
Access Road

Proposed
Access Road

Several parcels (APNs: 252-23-023, 252-23-026, 25223-028, 253-26-018, 253-26-031, 253-26-033 and 25326-036) between mile posts 103 and 104, west of US
Highway 93 and south of the "Antelope South" TI at MP
102.6 will have inadequate access. Access can be
provided by a new frontage road built on the section line
running along the western border of these properties.
Given further analysis, this frontage road may be
extended to the unnamed interchange to the south at mile
post 104.4 in order to give access to parcel 253-26-013
(ADOT, Jacobs).

Future Projects
Several additional four-lane improvements to US Highway 93 are as follows:
1. South Bound Antelope Wash from mile post 101.8 to 104.1, with design scheduled for
Fiscal Year 2010 and construction in Fiscal Year 2012
2. South Bound Ranch Road from mile post 104.1 to 106.0, with construction scheduled in
Fiscal Year 2009
3. Cane Springs from mile post 106.0 to 108.9 with construction pending.
4. South Bound Wagon Bow Ranch Road from mile post 108.9 to 113.0, with construction
pending
5. South Bound Deluge Wash from mile post 113.0 to 116.3, with construction pending.
6. Carrow-Stephens frommile post 116.3 to 119.7 with construction scheduled for FY 2013.
Redesign of Interstate 40/US Highway 93 West Kingman Traffic Interchange
Alternatives for improving traffic flow at the Interstate 40/US Highway 93 traffic interchange in
west Kingman are also under analysis by ADOT. Although not within the area plan boundary
these improvements are necessary to provide a free-flow connection between the two routes.
This intersection, along with the Hoover Dam Bypass and the Wickenburg bypass that connects
the Highway 93 to Highway 60, are the last remaining bottlenecks in the roadway system
connecting Arizona to Nevada. With traffic volumes expected to double in the next twenty
years, based upon a 2009 feasibility study, these portions of the highway will become more
hazardous to motorists and reduce the value of the roadway to interstate commerce.
Joshua Forest Scenic Road Corridor Management Plan
As part of the planning process to designate that portion of US Highway 93 between Wikieup
and Wickenburg a National Scenic Corridor, a Corridor management plan is being completed to
create a vision for the byway, inventory its unique characteristics, features and resources,
develop strategies to enhance the natural views and scenery and secure new funding sources.
Such a designation will not affect surrounding land uses and will only regulate land within the
ADOT right-of-way.

Draft: 6/23/2009

114

Overview of Mohave County Public Works Department
The Public Works Department is responsible for the maintenance and operation of all roadways,
bridges and related drainage structures which have been accepted by the Board of Supervisors
for such maintenance. In addition to roadway maintenance, the Department provides for the
design and construction of new roadway projects which are scheduled on the Five-Year Capital
Improvement Plan through the Mohave County Transportation Commission and approved by the
Board of Supervisors. Additional functions relating to roadway operations include traffic control
such as signage and pavement marking installation and maintenance and traffic data collection
and studies. Public Works administers improvement districts, many of which are established by
landowners within a community to improve roadways and construct and operate other civil
infrastructure.
Operating Revenue
Mohave County receives revenue for the operation, maintenance, and improvement of County
maintained roads and County highways through a distribution from the Arizona Highway User
Revenue Fund (HURF). The County’s HURF distribution funds Public Works personnel and
equipment resources, materials, contracts, and direct costs supporting (1) rights-of-way
acquisition and (2) construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair, and roadside development
of roads, streets, and bridges. Sources of state HURF collections primarily include gas tax, use
fuel tax, registration, motor carrier fee, operator licenses, and vehicle license tax. Trucks
account for the largest contribution to HURF through diesel purchases and fees.
Funding Capital Road Improvements
The Mohave County Transportation Commission, appointed by the Board of Supervisors, makes
recommendations to the Board on how to prioritize projects on the Five Year Capital
Improvement Road Program. The projects are re-evaluated each year. The Western Arizona
Council of Governments (WACOG) receives monies via the Local Transportation Assistance
Fund, not inclusive of HURF. These are typically grant allocations that fund a partial amount of
the construction project. The creation of roadway infrastructure is also development-driven by
the County’s development codes, including the Land Division Regulations and Traffic Impact
Analysis Standards. This requires developers to fund their share of the infrastructure
improvements, particularly roadways that provide access to subdivision or commercial site
generated ingress and egress traffic.
Road Maintenance Policies
There are three categories of roadways maintained by the County. County highways established
by the Board of Supervisors such as Pierce Ferry Road, can be improved and maintained. Newly
dedicated roads that are built in accordance with the County specifications are maintained to
their original level of construction, such as an asphalt or hard-surfaced roadway. Unpaved, or
native material roadways accepted for maintenance are maintained to a “non-structural”
improvement standard; this would include chip-sealed and soil-stabilized roadways. All
candidate roadways for regular maintenance must, at no cost to the County, connect to a state or

Draft: 6/23/2009

115

other County maintained road and have adequate right-of-way of 50 feet or more and sufficient
roadway cross-section.
Roads dedicated for use prior to June 13, 1975, not meeting the County standards may be
maintained to preserve the status quo. Roads not meeting a County design standard may be
petitioned for acceptance into the County Road Maintenance system for tertiary maintenance.
The candidate roadway must, at no cost to the County, connect to a state or County maintained
road, contain minimum 30-foot right-of-way width, provide a minimum 24-foot-wide rough
graded travel way with adjoining 2-foot shoulders (28-foot roadway) plus a drainage ditch to
accommodate a 2-wheel-drive subcompact automobiles and be free of brush and large
boulders/rocks.
Traffic Control
Approximately 25,000 traffic control devices are placed on County streets and highways. The
Department installs and maintains pavement markings in accordance with policies relative to
area and roadway characteristics. The Mohave County Traffic Safety Committee, made up of
representatives from Engineering, Traffic Control, Road Maintenance Divisions, Risk
Management and the Sheriff’s Office, considers requests for traffic control devices. In all, the
County maintains some 2,028 centerline miles of roadways of which over one third are paved.
Design of Existing County Roadway System
County roadways within and providing links to other communities outside of the area plan
boundary, have their origins, in some cases, pre-dating statehood such as Hackberry Road and
Pierce Ferry Road which were used to connect the ranches in the Big Sandy Valley to the rail
head in Hackberry and to provide ferry boat access across the Colorado River, respectively.
Other roadways, for example those in Windmill Ranch and So-Hi Estates, have been established
relatively recently by Record of Survey and subdivision plat, respectively. These roads have
adequate rights-of-way, connect to other public roads to provide legal access, and may be
improved to a native material or a paved standard acceptable for maintenance by the County
depending upon the size of the lot created and under which set of design regulations were in
force at the time lots were recorded. However, a large number of roadways in the planning area,
many occurring only on paper, are the result of “legacy subdivisions” that were created for
purposes of land liquidation from the 1920s up until 1965. In some instances, the roadways do
not provide access to other public roads and may be land-locked by BLM and State Trust land.
These roadways often have substandard width rights-of-way and poorly constructed travel
surfaces, if at all, making them difficult to be accepted even for tertiary maintenance by the
County. On occasion, land owners will form improvement districts and vote to incur cost to
pave roadways and then have them accepted by the County for regular maintenance.

Draft: 6/23/2009

116

Roadway Inventory and Maintenance Status along Northwest Corridor

Total Miles*

%
Unmaintained

UnMaintained
Miles

Total
Maintained
Miles

Unpaved but
Maintained
Miles

% Paved

Paved and
Maintained
Miles

There are over 14 miles of
paved and maintained major Mohave County Road
ypes in Northwest
County
roads
within
or TCorr
idor
connecting to the lands within
29.50
8.91 31.99%
18.95
27.87
1.63 5.54%
the Northwest Corridor. These County Road
Line Road
0.00 0.00%
1.87
1.87
9.09 82.97%
10.96
include portions of Temple Bar, Section
Local Street
5.45 19.30%
22.78
28.22 180.35 86.47% 208.58
14.36 24.78%
43.60
57.96 191.08 76.73% 249.04
White Hills, Pierce Ferry, Totals
Chloride, Mineral Park and Ranch Roads as well as certain roadways within the community of
So-Hi. These roads serve communities on the east side of the highway, exclusively (see map on
following page). The county also maintains nearly 19 miles of native material major roadways
including Cottonwood Road, of which 13 miles is outside of the planning area, accessing Lake
Mohave, and Old Boulder Dam Highway between Chloride Road and Mineral Park Road. Old
Boulder Dam Highway, paralleling US Highway 93, may be improved to relieve traffic volume
on US Highway 93 in the future. County designated roads account for roughly 30 miles of the
249 centerline miles of roadway within or adjoining the planning area.
Agua Fria Drive is an example of a section line road which is maintained by the County. Given
their one mile spacing, section line roads may serve as major collector or arterial roadways and
can be considered major roads when traffic volumes increase.
Nearly all of the local streets that are paved lay within the So-Hi community. Some 23 miles of
local streets are maintained to a native material standard and can be found in the greater Dolan
Springs area and west of the highway providing access for residents in the northern part of the
Sacramento Valley. Colorado and Hermit Roads are two such local streets which exclusively
serve the sparsely populated areas west of the highway. However, an 86 percent majority of
local streets are un-maintained within the planning area. These 180 plus-miles of roadway are
typically serving “legacy subdivisions” on either side of the highway. Such roadways typically
have rights-of-way of 40 feet or less with some having only 30 feet of roadway easement. Travel
surfaces may or may not be established or have been created by residents taking it upon
themselves to create and then maintain to some extent access to their property.

Draft: 6/23/2009

117

Draft: 6/23/2009

118

Draft: 6/23/2009

119

Roadway Inventory and Maintenance Status along Southeast Corridor

Total Miles*

%
Unmaintained

UnMaintained
Miles

Maintained
Miles

Unpaved but
Maintained
Miles

% Paved

Paved and
Maintained
Miles

Of the 171 miles of major
County roads within and along Mohave County
the Southeast Corridor, 10.7 Road Types in
Southeast Corridor
miles are paved to some
standard and include portions of County Road
10.67 7.31% 135.19 145.86
25.34 14.80% 171.20
0.00 0.00%
5.62
5.62
1.33 19.18%
6.95
DW Ranch, Blake Ranch, Section Line Road
Local Street
6.73 26.44%
18.72
25.44 167.78 86.83% 193.22
Chicken Springs and Cholla Totals
17.39 9.83% 159.52 176.92 194.45 52.36% 371.37
Canyon Roads. Some three
fourths of a mile of Old Highway 93 is also surface treated. These roadways are spread along
the Corridor to serve residents from Cedar Hills to Wikieup. Over 135 miles of native material
County roads are also maintained along the Corridor. Upper Trout Creek, Huffrider Crossing,
Old Burro Creek and Signal Roads are among these whose intersection with the highway has
been designated for future traffic interchanges. Approximately one half (87 miles) of the County
maintained roads connect to destinations outside of the area plan boundary.
Several maintained roadways within the Cedar Hills area
have been identified as having deficient design causing
potential safety hazards for motorists not familiar with
the roadways. For example, sight distances on Blake
Ranch Road at Stephan Road and Blake Ranch Road at
Summerson Road require caution when approaching.
Due to the current low traffic volumes, motorists
typically do not encounter on-coming traffic in these
curves; however, as traffic volumes increase due to
increased housing densities, the current design will
become more problematic.
In some instances, maintained roadways serving these
large parcels established by Record of Survey, and
subsequent rezone activity to create up to five smaller
parcels from the single parent parcel, also have roadbeds
which have driving surfaces impeded by the underlying
rock base found near the surface. These obstacles may
have the unintended consequence of slowing traffic
speeds, but also increase the chance of mechanical
failure and driver stress as additional vehicles use the
roadways.
Knight Creek Road, a section line road, is also maintained by the County to a native material
standard and connects the planning area with new the master planned community of Silverado.
This roadway is expected to see significant increases in traffic volume as the community is built
out over the next several decades.

Draft: 6/23/2009

120

Local streets such as Nellie and Dubois Drives are frontage roads on the north and south side of
I-40 and serve to access commercial centers and residential homes sites east of the Blake Ranch
Road TI, respectively. Hackberry Road is also a residential street which has been surface treated
and provides access to the highway for residents living in the northeastern part of the planning
area. Other County maintained native material local streets cover some 19 miles of roadway and
are distributed along the length of the corridor. Similar to the Northwestern portion of the Area
Plan, nearly 87 percent of local streets (168 miles) are un-maintained. These streets occur
generally north of Odles Ranch Road (mile post 106) and serve new developments of large
parcels established by Record of Survey such as Windmill Ranch and Cedar Hills, “legacy
subdivisions” predating County review and historic uses such as ranches and mining sites.
Traffic Volumes along the Northwest Corridor
A 2008 traffic count of major
2008 Average Daily Vehicle Trips at Highway 93
Source: Mohave County Department of Public Works, 2008
roadways
intersecting
US
Highway
93
along
the 2,000
1,884
Northwest Corridor showed that 1,750
1,500
Pierce Ferry Road carried nearly 1,250
as much traffic as the other six 1,000
743
750
540
439
roadways combined for which
500
188
141
131
250
traffic count data was available.
0
These 1,884 trips, which were
Temple Bar White Hills Pearce Ferry Cottonwood Chloride Rd Mineral Park Agua Fria Dr
Rd
Rd
Rd
Rd
Rd
actually some 650 less than
counted in 2007, were made by
the residents of Dolan Springs, those living further north along the route in the Greg’s Hideout
and Meadview, and the tourists accessing the newly completed Grand Canyon West facility on
the Hualapai Indian Reservation. Tourists generally arrive via shuttle bus, jeep or in private
automobiles. The 25 percent reduction in traffic volume between 2007 and 2008 may be
attributed to increased gasoline prices, a general falling off of the economy and the possibility of
increased use of tour buses and local residents car-pooling to save on fuel costs.
White Hills Road, with a traffic count of 439, has the potential to carry some 10,000 or more
trips per day with recent entitlements given to the Ranch at White Hills for 25,167 homes and the
Villages at White Hills (20,049 homes). These are multi-decadal master planned communities.
However, for every 1,000 single-family homes constructed, an estimated 9,500 trips are
generated and include commutes, shopping trips, visitation, mail delivery, trash pickup and other
activities. When daily traffic volumes exceed 10,000 vehicles per day, additional lanes may be
added to White Hills Road to accommodate the traffic flow. Such volumes may also require the
construction of a traffic interchange at the highway intersection.
Cottonwood Road (131 average daily trips) and Agua Fria Drive (188 average daily trips) have
the lowest traffic counts and will likely remain unpaved for the foreseeable future. Roadways
are considered for paving when traffic volumes reach 400 to 500 trips per day, with heavy truck
or bus traffic justifying the lower trip count because of the severe impact of their increased axle
weights on native material road surfaces.

Draft: 6/23/2009

121

Traffic Volumes along he Southeast Corridor
With the exception of Blake
2008 Average Daily Vehicle Trips at I-40 & Hwy 93 to Old Hwy 93
Source: Mohave County Department of Public Works, 2008
Ranch Road, serving the
commercial uses along I-40 and 600
529
the residents north and south of 500
442
the freeway, traffic volumes on 400
these roadways were less than 300
203
171
400 average trips per day in 200
74
2008. DW Ranch Road, at 203 100
average daily trips serves
0
DW Ranch Rd
Blake Ranch Rd, S Blake Ranch Rd, N
McCarral Rd
Old Hwy 93
primarily
the
commercial
activity adjoining the interstate
and residents living along the base of the Hualapai Mountans. Aside from McCarral Road, all
these roads or surface treated.
Along the southern portion of
the Corridor, south of Old
Highway 93, traffic volume on
County maintained roads is
neglible with only Chicken
Springs Road having over 100
average daily trips.
These
roadways will likely remain in
their native material state of
maintenance for many decades
to come.

2008 Average Daily Vehicle Trips at Highway 93
Source: Mohave County Department of Public Works, 2008
200
155
150
100
53
50
5

8

24

31

50
28
10

0
Chicken
Low er
Blake
Upper Trout
Low er
Ranch Rd
Creek Rd Trout Creek Trout Creek Springs Rd
Rd, S
Rd, N

Signal Rd
Old Burro
Cholla
Creek
Canyon
Ranch Rd Crossing Rd

Seventeen
Mile Rd

The largest significant traffic generator along the highway will be the master planned community
of Silverado lying in and around the intersection of Old Highway 93. Nearly 12,000 residential
dwelling units are proposed, all of which will access US Highway 93. Akin to the master
planned communities in White Hills, this will be a multi-decadal project.
Journey to Work
As part of the transportation demand and needs of local residents, an evaluation of their
commuting patterns or journey to work is performed. A review of 2000 Census data revealed
that most residents along the corridor work in Mohave County. Along the Northwest Corridor,
over one fourth of employed persons commuting worked out-of-state. Given the relative close
proximity to the Las Vegas/Henderson metropolitan area, Nevada is the state they are driving to
and from. It is anticipated that this percentage will substantially increase with the completion of
the Hoover Dam Bypass. Along the Southeast Corridor, nine percent of commuters work in
another Arizona county. Given the proximity to the Bagdad Mine, just beyond the planning
area’s boundary, workers will be most likely commuting to Yavapai County. Interesting to note
is that six percent of workers journey out-of-state for employment from this more distant area.

Draft: 6/23/2009

122

Commuting times for those
residents along the Northwest
Corridor show a bimodal split,
with one cluster under 25
minutes and another over 45
minutes. This pattern is not
atypical with the average
commute time of US workers
being some 21 minutes. US
Highway 93 facilitates those
seeking employment outside of
their communities, with over
370 workers driving for at least
45 minutes. Of the 1,430
workers, 58 worked at home.

Travel Time to Work for Commmuters along Northwest Corridor
Source: US Census, SF3

Less than 5 minutes
5 to 9 minutes
10 to 14 minutes
15 to 19 minutes
20 to 24 minutes
25 to 29 minutes
30 to 34 minutes
35 to 39 minutes
40 to 44 minutes
45 to 59 minutes
60 to 89 minutes
90 or more minutes

0

50

100

150

200

250

Commuters
58 worked at Home

A slightly different distribution
Travel Time to Work for Commmuters along Southeast Corridor
Source: US Census, SF3
of commute times is found for
those workers residing along the
Less than 5 minutes
Southeast Corridor. Over half of
5 to 9 minutes
10 to 14 minutes
the 774 workers have commute
15 to 19 minutes
20 to 24 minutes
times under 25 minutes. On the
25 to 29 minutes
other hand, the largest single
30 to 34 minutes
35 to 39 minutes
group of commuters spend at
40 to 44 minutes
45 to 59 minutes
least one half hour behind the
60 to 89 minutes
wheel. This could indicate
90 or more minutes
people driving to Kingman or to
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Bagdad
Mine
for
the
Commuters
52 worked at Home
employment. Over 150 people
spend 45 minutes or more
commuting to work, a smaller percentage than those living along the Northwest Corridor;
however, a higher percentage of employed persons (52 of 774) worked from home.
The most common method of travel for these 2,200 commuters was the single-occupancy
vehicle. Over 1,700 workers drove to work alone. With a dearth of alternate means of
transporation due to remoteness from employment centers, much of it caused by a rural density
development pattern, difficult terrain, requiring four-wheel-drive vehicles, and varied work
hours, single occupancy vehicles may be the only realistic option. Given the above constraints,
the next most popular form of transportaion was carpooling. Over 300 persons living along the
Northwest Corridor and nearly 150 persons living along the Southeast Corridor carpooled to
work. Over 130 people walked to work with 68 along the Northwest Corridor doing so and 64
along the Southeast Corridor following close behind. Given the size of the Census Block Groups,
these persons were most likely walking to an employment center in Chloride and central Dolan
Springs, both outside of the area plan boundary. However, commercial centers along the
Southeast Corridor such as those at DW Ranch, Blake Ranch and Wikieup could be expected to
generate most of the pedestrian traffic and reflect a more realistic jobs-to-housing balance.

Draft: 6/23/2009

123

An Alternative to the Single-Occupancy Vehicle
Providing alternative means of travel to and from communities along the highway, especially for
residents in the greater White Hills and Dolan Springs area, who seek employment in southern
Nevada, may lie in the creation of a park-and-ride rapid transit system connecting Mohave and
Clark Counties. Such a system would most likely employ public bus service with the possibility
of a light rail system by the mid 21st Century. Another approach would be to lessen the need for
interstate commuting by establishing a sufficient job base in each community to reduce commute
distances, making walking and bicycling a more attractive option in a future carbon-constrained
economy.
Off-road Vehicles
Off-highway vehicle use and uncontrolled recreation traffic represent some of the greatest threats
to sensitive elements of the ecoregion such as the desert tortoise and other reptile, amphibian and
small mammal populations. Unauthorized roads and trails are a serious threat in the southern
portion of the ecoregion in the Big Sandy Valley. Off-road recreational use is increasing and
many people travel from adjoining states to participate in these activities (CWCS).
Vehicular traffic on roads, tracks and trails creates disturbance to natural wildlife behaviors and
movements. Lakeshores and stream sides have high levels of human presence during day use
and overnight camping. Off-road travel by four-wheel drive vehicles, quads and dirt bikes has
caused habitat damage to plants and soils and high levels of disturbance to wildlife. The trend
for all these types of disturbances continues to be on the increase (CWCS).
Off-road vehicles currently use a well developed trail system that links the planning area to many
sights and destinations beyond the plan boundary. It is recommended that off-road vehicles
obtain permission of the land owners, including State Trust Land, limit hours to daytime (after
sunrise and before sunset) operation and keep to designated paths and outside of washes and
streams to minimize negative impacts on habitat.
Wildlife Crossings
In recognition of the wildlife occurring on both sides of the highway and the need to
accommodate some type of wildlife linkage across this major route during future development,
over three dozen locations along the 130-plus-mile route have been identified (see table). The
criteria for selection included any wash or stream that required a bridge structure, any reinforced
concrete box (RCB) structure that conveyed a named wash such as Caterpillar, Dead Rat and
Dead Man, monikers indicative of both habitat and flood volumes, structural width of 40 feet or
more and/or connectivity via the median to the adjacent structure traversing the opposing traffic
lanes. These crossings occur on State Trust, BLM and private lands and provide 13,709 feet of
crossing potential with structural span length, measured parallel to the roadway ranging from 10
feet for most RCBs to 700 feet at the Burro Creek Bridge. Further identification of setbacks
from such crossings will be identified in the Land Use Element.

Draft: 6/23/2009

124

Significant Bridges and Structures at Wash Crossings along Hwy 93

Southeast Corridor

Northwest Corridor

Area

Route
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
I-40
I-40
I-40
I-40
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Hwy 93
Average

Draft: 6/23/2009

Mile
Post
20.47
20.50
23.70
23.70
35.80
35.80
39.30
51.50
51.50
54.80
59.15
59.15
60.24
60.24
60.80
64.63
64.63
60.11
60.11
65.29
65.29
94.60
96.09
96.13
97.50
97.55
99.56
100.34
102.17
100.25
102.73
103.41
108.63
112.63
114.41
115.15
115.67
118.00
121.48
122.74
124.78
125.95
125.95
126.80
127.00
127.63
127.63
128.63
128.63
130.10
130.12
131.80
131.81
135.00
135.21
139.07
139.07
144.20
144.20
Total

Bridge/Stucture Name
Un-Named RCB EB
Un-Named RCB WB
Un-Named RCB EB
Un-Named RCB WB
Detrital Wash Bridge NB
Detrital Wash Bridge SB
Tex Ring Gulch RCB
Big Wash Bridge SB
Big Wash Bridge NB
Dead Rat Wash RCB
Bismark Canyon Bridge SB
Bismark Canyon Bridge NB
Cerbat Wash Bridge SB
Cerbat Wash Bridge NB
Caterpillar Wash RCB
Wash Bridge SB
Wash Bridge NB
Frees Wash Bridge EB
Frees Wash Bridge WB
Un-Named RCB EB
Un-Named RCB WB
McGarry's Wash RCB
Un-Named RCB
Bottleneck Wash RCB SB
Kabba Wash Bridge NB
Kabba Wash Bridge SB
Wheeler Wash RCB
Wheeler Wash Bridge SB
Antelope Wash RCB
Un-Named RCB
Bat Wash RCB
Dead Man Wash RCB
Cane Springs Bridge
Un-Named RCB
Un-Named RCB
Un-Named RCB
Deluge Wash Bridge
Un-Named RCB
Natural Corral Bridge
Un-Named RCB
Un-Named RCB
Bronco Wash Bridge SB
Bronco Wash Bridge NB
Big Sandy River Bridge SB
Big Sandy River Bridge NB
Sycamore Creek Bridge NB
Sycamore Creek Bridge SB
Gray Wash Bridge NB
Gray Wash Bridge SB
Un-Named RCB WB
Wash Bridge SB
Box Canyon Wash Bridge SB
Box Canyon Wash Bridge NB
Kaiser Springs Bridge SB
Kaiser Springs Bridge NB
Burro Creek Bridge SB (orig)
Burro Creek Bridge NB
Un-Named RCB EB
Un-Named RCB EB

Bridge
No. of Max. Span Structure Roadway Year
Sufficient
Spans Length Ft. Length Ft. Width Ft. Built
Rating
3
10
32
61
1936
95.0
5
10
53
40
1982
97.8
2
10
21
72
1936
87.4
4
10
43
38
1982
97.8
13
30
382
42
1982
97.7
14
30
412
42
1982
97.7
3
10
32
73
1935
70.0
5
35
164
44
1972
80.0
5
35
166
40
1992
80.0
3
10
32
42
1937
65.0
5
35
164
44
1972
80.0
5
35
167
42
1994
80.0
4
30
111
44
1972
79.7
4
35
132
42
1994
80.0
2
10
24
30
1938
65.0
3
30
81
42
1961
73.7
4
35
132
42
1994
80.0
5
30
141
38
1965
97.2
5
30
141
38
1965
97.2
4
10
49
76
1966
65.0
4
10
49
76
1966
65.0
80.0
5
10
53
40
1965
3
10
37
30
1957
85.1
4
10
53
40
2005
97.8
5
30
141
30.1
1958
57.2
3
89
273
42
2005
97.8
2
10
21
35.2
1957
78.9
3
100
302
42
2005
97.8
8
10
86
28
1956
83.9
4
10
43
28
1956
83.9
2
10
21
28
1956
83.9
8
10
86
28
1956
83.9
1
35
235
31.8
1961
70.2
6
10
64
41
1954
79.9
4
10
43
72
1954
80.9
6
10
64
36.5
1954
78.9
7
30
202
32
1961
62.5
4
10
43
33
1954
78.9
6
30
172
32
1961
71.7
4
10
43
85
1953
77.0
5
10
54
40
1968
80.0
3
61
186
32
1961
95.8
3
100
304
42
2003
97.8
7
125
878
42
2003
97.8
7
125
881
44
1993
97.8
6
30
172
32
1961
84.4
3
100
304
42
2003
97.8
4
30
112
36
1961
86.4
3
80
244
42
2003
97.8
4
10
43
40
1962
83.9
3
80
244
42
2001
97.8
3
125
378
42
2001
97.8
3
125
378
42
2001
97.8
8
230
1646
41.4
2001
92.7
7
213
1318
43.8
2002
97.8
1
680
965
30
1965
54.9
1
700
986
42
2006
97.8
53
42
1999
83.9
4
12
4
12
53
42
1999
83.9
4.51
63.93
13,709
42.40
1974
84.50

125

Goals and Policies for Transportation
Goal 26

Maintain a reasonable free-flow of traffic along all County Maintained within
the Planning Area.

Policy 26.1 Reduce trip generation by limiting higher density development in the planning
area where the developer is exempted from roadway exactions (5/14/2009).
Policy 26.2 The developer or land owner will provide roadway improvements in proportion
to the demand created by the new development, including the improvement of
off-site roadways such as arterials, major collectors and frontage roads
(5/14/2009).

Goal 27

Reduce automobile dependency for short trips less than one mile.

Policy 27.1 Incorporate trail systems into the design of new subdivisions and work with
existing property owners to preserve existing trails with easements when
crossing private lands (5/14/2009).
Policy 27.2 Expand shoulder widths on paved roadways to accommodate bicycle and
pedestrian traffic (5/14/2009).

Goal 28

Improve existing roadways connecting to US Highway 93 to serve as access or
frontage roads to avoid unnecessary highway trips and to provide an alternate
access for those properties fronting along the highway.

Policy 28.1 Designate County-maintained roads to serve as arterials (5/14/2009).
Policy 28.2 Prioritize unpaved, arterial-designated county highways for paving within the
next 10 years (5/14/2009).

Goal 29

Provide Safe and Efficient Access to US Highway 93 (5/12/2009).

Policy 29.1 Develop frontage roads or alternative access ways to reduce direct access to the
highway and provide access to US Highway 93 at identified major access points.
Policy 29.2 Construct dedicated turning lanes on the crossroads at their intersections with the
highway (5/12/2009).
Policy 29.3 The minor street approach to each intersection should provide one shared
through/left turn lane and one right turn lane (5/12/2009).

Draft: 6/23/2009

126

Policy 29.4 Locate Traffic Interchanges in accordance with the access needs of residents
(5/12/2009).
Policy 29.5 Frontage Road design should respect natural terrain (5/12/2009).

Goal 30

Upgrade roadway network to meet County design criteria for safe travel.

Policy 30.1 Identify roadways with substandard design characteristics (5/14/2009).
Policy 30.2 Petition the Mohave County Transportation Commission to designate identified
roadways as County Highways to have them improved (5/14/2009).

Goal 31

Preserve and enhance existing trails and establish new trails throughout the
Planning Area to create a comprehensive trail network.

Policy 31.1 Identify existing walking and equestrian trails for non-motorized recreational use
(5/14/2009).
Policy 31.2 Identify existing jeep trails for motorized recreational use (5/14/2009).
Policy 31.3 Provide reasonable accommodation of existing trails within new development
proposals (5/14/2009).
Policy 31.4 Establish new trails within new developments that link to the existing trail
system as occurs (5/14/2009).

Goal 32

Encourage telecommuting to reduce single occupancy vehicular trips to and
from work.

Policy 32.1 The county shall provide incentives to local cellular service providers to equip
their towers with current data transmission technology and to upgrade that
technology as necessary.
Policy 32.2 Encourage employers to allow employees to work from home as practicable.

Draft: 6/23/2009

127

Implementation Measures for Transportation:
T1.
Petition the Mohave County Transportation Commission to designate roadways for
regular or tertiary maintenance as necessary.
T2.
Petition the Mohave County Transportation Commission to designate certain roadways
currently under regular maintenance for County Highway status as necessary.
T3.
Collaborate with ADOT on the location of new traffic interchanges along US Highway
93 to ensure each location serves the needs of current residents and projected traffic demands
from adjoining land uses and access roads.
T4.
Coordinate ADOT and Public Works capital improvement plans to jointly fund new road
projects.
T5.
Use an improved soil stabilization technique as part of the maintenance program for
native material roadways accepted by the County.
T6.
The Mohave County Trails Association should contact existing land owners and ask for
conservation easements.
T7.
Plan for new trails within newly proposed subdivisions by providing for easements and/or
open space.
T8.
New rezones and site plans for development along the highway will be designed for
primary access onto adjacent cross-streets and frontage roads as occurs. When the only available
access is directly onto highway, provide right-turn only exiting and acceleration/deceleration
lanes as prescribed in the interim access management plans.
T9.
Require Traffic Impact Analysis for projects that generate 500 or more automobile trips
per day or a have a large number of heavy axel weight vehicles accessing the site.
T10. Encourage the use of wildflowers in highway landscaping following the Surface
Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act, Wildflowers, 23 U.S.C 319 (B) (1987),
23 CFR 752.
T11. New developments requiring developer-funded Traffic Interchanges to access US
Highway 93, for example those proposed in the W ½ of Section 26, T24N, R19W, will be
required as part of the rezone action and conditions of approval to have a Joint Project
Agreement with ADOT, funding in place and construction of the interchange in progress prior to
the issuance of building permits. The interchange must be constructed to the satisfaction of
ADOT prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first building.

Draft: 6/23/2009

128

Land Use

Land Use Element
Overview
With over square miles and over 8,500 individual parcels, the planning area encompasses a
diverse and intermingled group of federal, state, and private land ownerships, each having unique
and sometimes competing goals and aspirations for the land they own or manage on behalf of the
public. Private land is primarily checker-boarded with BLM land along the Northwest Corridor
as can be seen in the following diagram. Of the 168 square miles in this part of the Corridor, 100
square miles are under federal management; however, some 15,848 acres have been identified
for disposal for private use potentially adding 25 square miles for development. Within the 259
square mile area of the Southeast Corridor, over 27,000 acres of Arizona State Trust lands are
present, often interspersed with private land in a checkerboard pattern. These offer a challenge
to management since access and control are often limited. The BLM also manages a significant
portion of lands south of Cane Springs (see diagram) and has identified 6,350 acres of private
land with valuable habitat for acquisition. The Hualapai Nation also has tribal lands adjoining
the Southeast Corridor.
A review of ownership patterns by location of
the land owner’s or manager’s mailing address
shows that within the Northwest Corridor less
than one third of the owners receive their tax
bill at an Arizona address with local residents
living in the Kingman, Dolan Springs,
Chloride and Golden Valley areas owning one
fifth of the parcels. Nearly half of the 5,931
parcels are owned by those residing in
California (18%) or Nevada (31%). A large
number of absentee owners typically reflect a
more speculative market for land use decisions based on the area’s perceived growth potential.
Land owners residing in the 47 other states and foreign countries account for the remaining 20
percent.
A higher percentage of local land ownership is
prevalent within the Southeast Corridor, with
45 percent of land owners residing either in the
Kingman or Wikieup areas.
Arizona
ownership accounts for nearly three-fourths of
the 2,575 parcels. By contrast, land owners in
California and Nevada make up just nine and
six percent of parcels, respectively. Foreign
ownership and those in other states accounts
for approximately one-eighth or 308 parcels.

Draft: 6/23/2009

128

Draft: 6/23/2009

129

Draft: 6/23/2009

130

Similar to the wide variety land ownerships along the 130-mile-long planning area are the
disparate physical characteristics including topography, depth-to-water, type of vegetation,
access to roadways and access to public utilities, which may both limit or enhance various
aspects of each parcel’s development potential. For example, one parcel located near a major
electrical transmission line with sparse vegetation and great depth to groundwater may not be
ideal for residential development but may be ideal for a renewable energy project such as a
photovoltaic power plant which requires good access to transmission lines, little vegetation to
clear and negligible water to operate.
The Division of Land
In the early part of the 20th Century, the US government deeded alternate odd numbered 640 acre
sections of land to the Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company as part of land grants issued as
incentive and compensation for building the railroad. This created a “checkerboard” land pattern
of federal and private land for a distance of 40 miles on either side of the railroad track that
crosses northern Arizona. The pattern is predominating in the central part of the planning area
between White Hills and Cane Springs where, in the later instance, the “checkerboard” is one of
State Trust with private parcels. When the Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company and other private
land owners divested themselves of these properties, they were typically divided sections into
smaller parcels and lots for individual sale to buyers throughout the nation if not the world. In
Mohave County, up until 1965, and in many
places in Arizona as well, this parcelization
occurred only on “paper.” For example,
roadways were depicted but not put in place
by the developer. In selling a “home site,”
community services accepted as a necessity to
our modern standard of living were typically
not provided. These lots and parcels are our
legacy and the subdivisions which created
these lots and parcels are classified as legacy
subdivisions.
Along the Northwest Corridor, some 86 percent or 5,297 lots and parcels were created with
legacy subdivisions such as various units of Gateway Acres (1,666 lots) platted between 1930
and 1965. These lots are typically five acres in size and have been arranged in a regular grid
pattern of 128 lots per square mile. Other
legacy lots such as those found in Lake
Mohave Highlands and Lake Mohave Knolls
Estates have further divided a square mile
into more 500 one-acre-plus lots. This
distribution of lots and parcels by size within
the Northwest Corridor shows that more than
one-half of lots and parcels contain less than
two acres, making some residential
development possible if enough land area can
be found to drill a well, place a septic tank

Draft: 6/23/2009

131

and site the home. These small lots pose a considerable challenge for future development
because they do not have the requisite public infrastructure, in many cases, and are difficult to
consolidate to create larger scale projects due to the sometimes speculative aspirations of the
multiple owners making raw land assembly costly.
Whereas legacy lots and parcels are dominate
within the Northwest Corridor, they play a
much less significant role within the
Southeast Corridor comprising only 18
percent of all lots and parcels. The largest of
these legacy subdivisions is Trout Creek with
187 lots on 400 acres creating lots from one
to ten acres in size. The most prevalent form
of land division is by Record of Survey, for
example, Cedar Hills Ranches and Windmill
Ranches.
Being a product of Arizona
Revised Statutes, ca. 1986, parcels that contain at least 36.00 acres are considered “unsubdivided” land and may be created without a formal subdivision reviewed and approved by
local jurisdictions. These “exempt” parcels are surveyed, staked, title insured and have some
form of legal access which makes for a better
product than some lots created in legacy
subdivisions; however, infrastructure and
roadway improvements may or may not be
present. Given the large number of exempt
parcels (1,169), over 55 percent of the parcels
contain 10 acres or more. Land assembly for
development, if not constrained by topography
and access to roadways and utilities should be
less of a factor when compared to the
Northwest Corridor.
Regulation subdivisions, reviewed and approved under the County’s oversight authority, make
up less than ten percent of all lots along the Corridor. So-Hi Estates Units 3 & 4 and Triangle
Park represent the two such developments along the Northern Corridor. The Orchards in
Wikieup and Silverado Acre Estates, north of Windmill Ranch, occur within the Southern
Corridor. The subdivisions have met with various levels of success, but the levels of
improvement are nearly indistinguishable when compared to development occurring on less
regulated neighboring lands.
In addition to the three methods of dividing land described above, occurs the fourth category of
“other.” Included are large tracts of land that have not been formally divided since their original
Government Land Office survey of century or more ago and parcels which are created through
the County’s minor land division process. The latter process typically occurs on exempt or
legacy lots and parcels which are divided, via a rezoning process, to create as many as five
additional parcels. In areas with limited services, un-maintained roadways, challenging terrain,
excessive depth to groundwater, or poor well yields, and other factors which keep typical

Draft: 6/23/2009

132

residential development from occurring, creation of additional parcels should only occur when it
is a benefit to the buyer’s welfare and safety and not when it furthers the legacy of creating a
substandard product. This division of land into small parcels for residential purposes is uniquely
a part of the development of the United States and enables most to own land rather than rent.
The division of land into multiple parcels is one of the most permanent and irreversible actions in
our society. The type of land pattern that is established today will affect the rate and direction of
growth and nature of land development along the Corridor for decades to come. When the
County approves the parcelization of a property it is recording new potential home sites and, in
effect, assuring the purchasers that what is shown on the recorded parcel map is true, and fit for
normal use regardless of other State assurances or disclaimers.
Existing Development and Property Uses
The built environment of the planning area is most readily described in its land uses and how
these uses are placed on individual sites. As noted above, topography, access to roadways,
utilities and water, and the desires of the individual owner determine what types of uses are
constructed on each site. Even though the planning straddles the highway, the land is mostly
undeveloped, vacant land.
Within the
Northwest Corridor, there are 487 owner
occupied homes and 20 rental homes. Only 14
parcels, comprising 49 acres, have commercial
improvements. The 91 percent majority (5,410
parcels) is classified as agricultural/vacant by
the County Assessor (March, 2009). Further
analysis shows that only four percent of the
land has some type of residential or
commercial improvements. These are typically
manufactured homes of various vintage and
small commercial businesses fronting directly
onto the highway and serving both local and transient needs, respectively. Agricultural land
comprises about one and a half percent of the acreage. Vacant private land accounts for just over
one fourth of the planning area with State and BLM holdings making up over two thirds of the
land area.
For the Southeast Corridor, 469 parcels have residential structure of which a dozen are for rental
purposes. Commercial businesses can be found on 25 parcels. These land uses, although similar
in number to the Northwest Corridor,
comprise a larger percentage of the planning
area with only 80 percent of the parcels
classified agricultural/vacant by the County
Assessor (March, 2009). Residential and
commercial uses comprise four percent of
the land area with homes being a mix of
traditional site built structures and
manufactured homes. Commercial business
fronts along the highway; however, many are

Draft: 6/23/2009

133

located around traffic interchanges including travel centers and truck stops. These businesses
serve both local needs and those of highway travelers. Over one-fifth of the acreage is used for
agricultural and mixed uses that combine residential and business operations on the same site.
This is indicative of sole-proprietors who live on-site. Vacant private land (16%), State Trust
(16%) and BLM (43%) properties make up the balance of the planning area.
Development Area and Land Use Definitions
The following development area and land use definitions, selected from the General Plan, are
provided to familiarize the reader with land terms used in the following pages of the document
and represent all land uses which are contained within the planning or are shown adjacent to the
planning area on the land use diagrams.
Rural Development Area (RDA) - This is an area where residents presently enjoy a rural
lifestyle, wide-open spaces and few neighbors. Generally, properties in these areas are at least
five (5) acres in size and many are much larger than this.
Uses include:
Rural Residential (RR): All RDAs are designated Rural Residential, permitting singlefamily development on lots of five (5) or more acres. Larger lot sizes may be appropriate
to accommodate environmental concerns such as steep slopes and washes. The existing
rural/agricultural character of these areas should be maintained. Residents in these areas
are able to keep their own livestock. Land uses may be served by septic systems, private
wells and other services planned at rural levels such as native material roadways.
Non-residential uses may be permitted in Rural Residential areas through the rezoning
process. These include Public Parks, Public Lands used for open space and Rural
Industrial.
Public Parks (PP): Local, State and National Parks that are publicly owned and managed
for the benefit of the general public are included in this category.
Public Lands (PL): This category is used to indicate land in rural areas that is owned by a
public agency, but is not primarily devoted to parks and recreational use. Lands owned
by the BLM, Bureau of Reclamation and Arizona State Land Department are included in
this category.
Rural Industrial (RI): This land use category provides for industrial activities in rural
areas. Sand and gravel mining, timber harvesting and renewable energy projects would
be considered Rural Industrial activities.
Depending on the location and proximity to improved roadways, other infrastructure,
natural features and surrounding land uses, other non-residential land use categories
which may be consistent with this planning area include, Neighborhood Commercial,

Draft: 6/23/2009

134

Commercial Recreation, Light Industrial, Heavy Industrial, Airport Industrial, and Public
Facilities/Institutions.

Suburban Development Area (SDA) - This is an area intended for development of lower
density residential neighborhoods, but with many of the amenities of urban areas. Suburban lot
sizes range from one to five acres in size with a typical lot size of 2.5 acres. Neighborhood
commercial uses will be permitted at appropriate locations where they are compatible with
adjacent uses and infrastructure.
Uses Include:
Suburban Estates (SE): This suburban land use is characterized by single-family lots
ranging from two (2) to five (5) acres in size. Non-residential land uses are not the
primary uses in a Suburban Estate area. Septic systems will be the primary means of
wastewater disposal. Many lots will use well water, but this will vary based on
groundwater conditions and proximity to existing organized water systems.
Suburban Residential (SR): This is the highest density, non-urban land use category, with
densities ranging from less than one-half dwelling unit per acre to a maximum density of
one dwelling unit per acre. These densities result in lot sizes of one (1) to two (2) acres.
While Suburban Residential areas will be mostly single-family, some neighborhood
commercial development will be permitted as part of a planned development. Suburban
service requirements generally will be lower than in urban areas, but will vary as dictated
by site conditions. Septic tanks will generally be permitted, but soil conditions,
groundwater quality concerns, proximity to existing utilities and other factors may create
the need for urban sewer systems. Minimum road or water system improvement
requirements may also vary from one site to the next.
Non-residential uses may be permitted in SDAs through the rezoning process. These
include Public Parks, Public Lands used for open space and Public Facilities/Institutions
(see below).
Public Facilities (PF): This category includes such public and quasi-public institutional
uses such as schools, colleges, fire stations, libraries, government buildings and hospitals.
Depending on the location and proximity to improved roadways, other infrastructure,
natural features and surrounding land uses, other non-residential land use categories
which may be consistent with this planning area include, Neighborhood Commercial,
Commercial Recreation, Light Industrial, Heavy Industrial, and Airport Industrial.

Draft: 6/23/2009

135

Urban Development Area (UDA) - This area is intended to provide for more intense residential
and non-residential development near cities and in outlying communities. While residential
densities typically will range from two (2) to five (5) dwellings per acre, high density
development of up to 25 units per acre may be permitted. Urban services and facilities will be
required for both residential and non-residential development in this area.
Residential Uses Include:
Low Density Residential (LR): This is the lowest density residential development
planned within urban areas. It is designed to reflect development between one (1) and
five (5) units per acre. This category is used only in UDAs. Since the lot sizes are less
than one acre, community sewer or ADEQ approved on-site sewage disposal and water
systems are needed, as are other urban services. Low density residential areas will be
developed exclusively with single family homes, except where planned developments
permitting neighborhood commercial uses are approved.
Medium Density Residential (MR): This urban land use category is used to show areas
with five (5) or more dwellings per acre, but less than twelve (12) dwellings per acre.
Typical residential uses in these areas are patio and zero-lot-line homes, mobile home
parks, mobile home subdivisions, duplexes, some multi-family projects, and, where
specifically approved as part of a planned development, neighborhood commercial
development. Full urban services are required for medium density residential
development.
High Density Residential (HR): This urban residential category is used to show the
highest density planned in Mohave County. Development could range from twelve (12)
to a maximum of twenty-five (25) dwelling units per acre. Higher density areas provide
opportunities to develop uses such as town homes, apartments or condominiums. Mixed
use developments incorporating office and retail space may be approved in High Density
Residential areas through the planned development process. High Density Residential
uses can serve as an effective buffer between non-residential development and lower
density residential neighborhoods. Full urban services are required for High Density
Residential development.
Non-Residential Uses Include:
Neighborhood Commercial (NC): Neighborhood Commercial uses are those that meet the
needs of residents in the adjacent neighborhood. Small-scale retail and service
establishments, as well as small office buildings, will be permitted in this land use
category.
General Commercial (GC): This land use category is used to indicate locations for retail,
service and office uses that serve an entire community or region. Major retail centers,

Draft: 6/23/2009

136

fast food restaurants, service stations, multi-story office buildings and other intensive
commercial uses should be located in areas designated for general commercial uses.
Commercial Recreation (CR): This land use category encompasses a broad range of
privately owned or leased facilities for active recreation, where the primary activity
occurs outside of buildings. Uses include golf courses, equestrian centers, small and
large-scale amusement parks, as well as recreational vehicle parks and campgrounds
providing sites for temporary habitation.
Light Industrial (LI): This land use category is intended for a variety of lighter industrial
uses. These uses typically involve fewer impacts on the surrounding areas, in terms of
noise, fumes, nuisances and hazards, than do the uses described under Heavy Industrial.
This category includes uses such as warehousing, wholesale sales and distribution, and
light manufacturing. Some related office uses also occur in this category. Most activities
associated with uses in this category take place within buildings.
Heavy Industrial (HI): This land use category allows for a relatively wide range of
industrial uses, including heavy manufacturing, construction yards and support retail
commercial. These uses may have safety, nuisance or environmental effects which make
them undesirable neighbors to residential areas. They should be located near or adjacent
to major transportation facilities (such as rail lines, airports or freeways). Design
standards focus on minimizing the effects of these uses on surrounding development.
This land use is generally confined to the I-40 Industrial Corridor, south of the planning
area.
Depending on the location, natural features and surrounding land uses, other residential
land use categories which may be consistent with this planning area, depending on the
location, natural features and surrounding land uses include, Rural Residential, Suburban
Estates, and Suburban Residential.

Draft: 6/23/2009

137

General Plan Land Use Inventories
Commercial & Industrial
Northwest Corridor: As mentioned above, the existing 49 acres of commercial development is
arrayed along both sides of the highway, typically clustered at the major intersections. The
General Plan currently designates 866 acres for General Commercial land uses located at various
points along the highway between White Hills Road and Mineral Park Road, the most recent
entitlement being over 500 acres
designated for a distribution warehouse
in and around the legacy subdivision
Santa Claus (see land use diagram). A
review of commercial zoning districts
shows that over 440 acres have
commercial zoning (C-2 or C-2H) along
the highway. With only one tenth of the
commercially designated land developed
for a commercial use, there remains a
considerable supply for future growth.
Light Industrial land uses account for a mere two 92) acres within the planning area; however,
some 65 acres have Commercial Manufacturing or General Manufacturing zoning. These land
uses and zoning districts have been allowed in Urban Development Areas which account for
1,625 acres. These properties are mainly located at the intersection of the highway and White
Hills Road. The latter allows for more intense uses that may take place beyond the confines of a
building.
Southeast Corridor: Of the 310 acres designated for General Commercial land use, only those
parcels located at the DW Ranch interchange have been developed with a commercial use (see
land use diagram). Other significant commercial developments not having a commercial land
use designation, due to their being established prior to the adoption of the updated General Plan
land use diagram in 1995, but having a
commercial zoning district, include the
highway serving commercial businesses
at Blake Ranch Road and the various
businesses in Wikieup and vicinity,
many of which predate the establishment
of the County’s Zoning Ordinance in
1965.
Wikieup is considered an
“Outlying Community” which allows
zoning activity to occur if the proposed
land use is compatible and is a logical
extension of the town’s current development pattern. In all, 218 acres have commercial
improvements and nearly 800 acres of land have a commercial zoning designation. Over 200
acres of General Commercial land uses and nearly 600 acres of commercially zoned land is
available for future growth.

Draft: 6/23/2009

138

Draft: 6/23/2009

139

Draft: 6/23/2009

140

Residential
Northwest Corridor: The Rural Development Area land use designation covers nearly 40,000
acres, the majority of the private lands within the planning area. All of these lands fall within the
Rural Residential land use sub-category
which covers most all legacy subdivisions
regardless of lot size.
The Suburban
Development Area comprises a mere 640
acres and is located solely in Section 29,
T27N, R20W, a section containing the legacy
subdivision of Flannery and Allen lying just
east of the US Highway 93/White Hills Road
intersection. Recorded in 1930, fewer than a
dozen of the original 128 five lots have been
improved. All Urban Development Area
land uses are also located in the vicinity of this intersection and include another 640 acre unit of
the Flannery and Allen in Section 19, with half a dozen improvements, and portions of Section
24 and 25, T27N, R21W west of the highway. These lands have seen various levels of
improvement but have not maximized their land use or zoning potential, the latter being typically
“A,” allowing for a general set of land uses ranging from single-family homes to small business
ventures, or “AR” that entitles the land owner to pursue agricultural pursuits and homesteads.
The residential build out potential ranges between 16,000 and 49,000 dwelling units depending
on whether or not the Urban Development Areas seek the highest development density allowed.
Southeast Corridor: Similar to the Northwest Corridor, the Rural Development Area/Rural
Residential designation dominates the land uses at 78,623 acres. The Suburban Development
Area, covering all of T20N, R13W and the
southern eleven Sections in T21N, R13W,
excluding Section 24, was created with the
1995 update of the General Plan. Many
residential parcels have been created from
parent parcels that contain 36-plus acres such
as Cedar Mesa Ranches. These large lot
developments,
exempt
from
County
subdivision regulations requiring developers
to build infrastructure up-front, have seen
infrastructure improvements only by chance
or when the land owners have invested time and money to extend utility lines. These larger
parcels are routinely divided, via a rezone (from AR/36A to AR/5A, for example) into smaller
lots without improvements because land divisions that create fewer than six (6) lots also do not
require improvements from the developer. The General Plan allows for the creation of five-acre
minimum lots in Rural Development Areas regardless of how they are developed. This policy
has created de-facto subdivisions over time that remain unimproved in many instances. No
Urban Development Area designations exist within the bounds of this part of the planning area.
The residential build out varies from 22,000 to 29,000 dwellings units.

Draft: 6/23/2009

141

Public Facilities
Northwest Corridor: Fire stations, Sheriff sub-stations, schools, libraries, and parks do not fall
within the boundary of this portion of the planning area. Currently, residents rely upon the Lake
Mohave Ranchos Fire Department, the Golden Valley Fire Department and the Chloride division
of the Northern Arizona Consolidated Fire District No.1 for fire and other emergency response
services. The community of Dolan Springs provides a library, public school and park located
three to six miles from the Corridor.
Southeast Corridor: The Cedar Hills School, located east of the Blake Ranch Road intersection
on Interstate-40, and the Owens-Whitney School, situated in downtown Wikieup provide
education through the eighth grade. The Pinion Pines Fire District, serving the far western part
of the planning area in and around DW Ranch Road, does provide limited service along the
highway as other demands within the district permit.
State Trust and Public Lands
For both the Northwest and Southeast Corridors, State and federal lands dominate the landscape.
As noted by the North River Economic Region (NRER) Economic Development Plan these
lands are not presently available for development. The Arizona State Land Department’s mission
is to “enhance the value and optimize the economic return for the Trust beneficiaries.” Under
current legislation state trust lands cannot be exchanged with other private or federal lands.
Given the mission of the State Land Department, the sale of state trust lands within may not
happen for many years until the value is determined “optimal” for a trust land sale. In addition,
an abundance of federal lands occur. This public land ownership also makes land assemblage for
development particularly difficult, unless the Resource Management Plan designates adjoining
parcels for disposal or sale to the public (NRER, p. 71). The NRER plan also asks local planning
officials to identify within their general land use plans Bureau of Land Management lands for
recreation and public purposes (NRER, p. 73).
Vacant land
Although not a formal land use designation, vacant or undeveloped land is abundant within both
portions of the planning area and serves as de-facto open space. Over four-fifths of the planning
area consists of unimproved land. These mostly consist of Federal and State Trust lands;
however, as noted above, speculative land divisions and marketing plans have dispersed the
ownership of myriad privately held lots throughout the country to owners looking for investment
or retirement property. Over the decades, these lands have been used for open space, hiking,
horse back riding, off-road driving and, unfortunately, wildcat trash dumping. Even so, these
vast areas of relatively undisturbed land provide a glimpse into the once undeveloped Southwest
and provide some aesthetic value to both residents and visitors alike.

Draft: 6/23/2009

142

Proximity to New Cities
The Ranch at White Hills Area Plan, adopted in 2004 and later modified and expanded in 2006,
encompasses 25,167 acres of privately owned lands in and around the White Hills and northern
Dolan Springs area (see diagram). 1 The vast holdings involve over 43 different sections of
property located east of U.S. Highway 93 an may contain up to 35,000 dwelling units varying in
density from one (1) house per two acres to over ten (10) dwellings per acre (see table). In
addition to these sections, the project also identifies 80 acres of proposed commercial
development at White Hills Road and Highway 93, and further site-specific commercial
development property along Pierce Ferry Road. These Area Plan properties can be accessed
directly from U.S. Highway 93 at four (4) major routes including White Hills Road, Pierce Ferry
Road, the proposed Mardian Parkway at mile post 24.5, and from Temple Bar Road to the north.
The Area Plan is intended to develop in a staged manner, with varying densities, varying
development standards, environmentally sensitive recreational and transportation alternatives
and opportunities, and responsible natural resource management and use. The long term vision
of The Ranch at White Hills will emphasize dynamic quality standards and the development of a
“Sense of Community” – a place where people can work near where they live (Ranch at White
Hills Area Plan, 2004).
The Area Plan is divided into four (4) distinct sub-areas. The majority of the project density
proposed in this area plan is to be located within the White Hills Central region. This sub-area
will be urban in nature with plans for required infrastructure, public sites, recreational and
commercial opportunities. The second planning area, the Ranch at Temple Bar, includes the
northern most Ranch properties and is accessed by Temple Bar Road. The central feature of this
planned area includes a 220-acre guest ranch site. The third development area includes the
properties within the Ranch at Red Lake plan area. These properties constitute the eastern half of
the overall Ranch at White Hills Area Plan, and have additional access directly from Pierce Ferry
Road. The plans for the Ranch at Red Lake area include site-specific commercial development
along Pierce Ferry Road, which also supports the adjacent Dolan Springs Area Plan service area.
Access to the sub-area will be from either White Hills Road or Pierce Ferry Road. The fourth
planning area, the Table Mountain sub-area encompasses the entire southern region of The
Ranch at White Hills and is intended to be used specifically for renewable energy opportunities.
solar, wind, and water recharge opportunities (Ranch at White Hills Area Plan, 2004).

1

Major General Amendments and Area Plans adopted per BOS Resolution Nos. 2004-536 & 2004-537 and 2006648 & 2006-649.

Draft: 6/23/2009

143

The Ranch at White Hills

The Ranch ar White Hills - 2004
Land Use Designation
Open Space
Parks
Commercial Recreation
Public Facilities
Suburban Estate
Suburban Residential
Low Density Residential
Medium Density
Residential
High Density Residential
Neighborhood/General
Commercial & Industrial
Renewable Energy
Roads
Total

Draft: 6/23/2009

Description
Natural areas and preserves
Neighborhood and community parks and trails
Guest ranches and golf courses
Schools, police & fire, stations, utility facilities,
civic buildings and churches
Suburban style lots of 2 acres
Suburban style lots of 1 acre
Single family homes
Single family, patio homes, manor homes and
town homes.
Condominiums and apartments.
Retail, services and offices oriented to meeting
the local/sub-regional neighborhood needs.
Wind, solar, water recharge
Rights-of-way

144

Acreage Percent Dwellings Dwellings/Acre
2,511 10.0%
NA
NA
1,008
4.0%
NA
NA
552
2.2%
NA
NA
680
4,090
4,060
2,290

2.7%
16.3%
16.1%
9.0%

NA
2,045
4,060
7,353

NA
0.5 units per acre
1 unit per acre
1-5 units per acre

2,496
547

10.0%
2.2%

15,799
5,470

5-10 units per acre
10+ units per acre

1,201
4,584
1,148
25,167

4.7%
18.2%
4.6%

NA
NA
NA
34,727

NA
NA
NA
2.58 per acre

The Villages at White Hills Area Plan, approved by Mohave County in 2005, is designed to serve
as Arizona’s residential and commercial gateway to the Las Vegas metropolitan area. 2 The site
encompasses the area east of U.S. Highway 93 on either side of White Hills Road, including
Sections 20, and 23, and portions of Sections 16, 21, and 30, for a total of 2,727 acres (see land
use diagram). The site is designed to be a self-contained community providing affordable homes
for commuters to the Las Vegas metropolitan area. This community will serve the housing needs
of residents who work in Las Vegas by providing up to 20,042 dwelling units of various
densities (see table). A commercial area is planned at the entrance of The Villages at White Hills
along U.S. Highway 93. This commercial area, which could include retail establishments such
as outlet malls, will draw not only residents of The Villages of White Hills but also travelers
between Phoenix and Las Vegas.
Both residential and commercial developments along U.S. Highway 93 will benefit from the
scheduled completion of the Hoover Dam Bypass, which is expected to reduce commuting times
from the Las Vegas Valley to White Hills from an hour to about 45 minutes. In addition, the
U.S. Highway 93 Corridor will serve international trade. Commercial areas along the corridor
are expected to benefit as logistics and trade centers arise.
The growth of The Villages of White Hills assumes that large numbers of families, working
single people and retirees will choose a location that places them within close proximity to the
vibrant Las Vegas metropolitan area, but allows them to live a more rural lifestyle in homes they
can afford. Eventually, The Villages at White Hills will investigate incorporating as a city under
applicable state law, as population growth justifies incorporation.
Silverado, the last new city approved by Mohave County in 2006, is planned to be a gateway to
the eastern part of the County and the first major city encountered for those traveling from the
Phoenix metro area. 3 The Area Plan includes approximately ten (10) square miles in T20N,
R13W, situated around the intersection of U.S. Highway 93 and Old Highway 93, south of
Interstate-40 (see diagram). The Area Plan designates over 3,000 acres for low, medium and high
density residential development (see table). In addition, 113 Suburban Estate lots are planned on
284 acres. Commercial uses will utilize 390 acres and parks and open space will comprise 386
acres. Silverado will offer affordable housing and amenities for those wishing to retire to the
Southwest and for those who wish to commute to the Kingman area.
Current status of the Silverado Area Plan (pending after 6/10/2009 Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting). 4

2

Major General Amendment and Area Plan adopted per BOS Resolution Nos. 2005-607 & 2005-608.
Major General Amendment and Area Plan adopted per BOS Resolution Nos. 2006-650A & 2006-651A
4
On May 1, 2009, the original applicant requested the Silverado Area Plan be expanded to add Section 20 and
approximately 480 acres of Section 17 to the Area Plan. In addition, the applicant would also remove the golf course
and adjoining residential uses in Section 29. The additions and modifications are necessary to accommodate a 200
megawatt concentrating solar parabolic trough power plant. A new light industrial land use on 124 acres in Section
28 will also replace the remaining part of the golf course. With the reduction of residential dwellings from 12,048 to
11,215 and the removal of the golf course, over 1,000 acre-feet of water could then be allocated to the solar power
plant.
3

Draft: 6/23/2009

145

The Villages at White Hills

The Villages at White Hills - 2005
Land Use Designation
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Parks
W astewater Treatment
Roadways
Total

Draft: 6/23/2009

Description
Single Family detached homes
Townhomes and Garden Apartments
Apartments and Condominiums
Serving neighborhoods and the region
Organized Open Space
Mechanical Plant
Rights-of-Way

146

Acreage Percent Dwellings Dwellings/Acre
1,281 47.0%
6,400
1 - 5 per acre
643 23.6%
7,708
5 - 12 per acre
238
8.7%
5,934
12 - 25 per acre
104
3.8%
NA
NA
150
5.5%
NA
NA
5
0.2%
NA
NA
306 11.2%
NA
NA
2,727
20,042 9.27 per acre

Silverado, revision pending approval by Mohave County

Silverado - 2006, revised 2009
Land Use Designation
Parks & Open Space
Public Facilities
Suburban Estate
Low Density Residential
Medium Density
Residential
High Density Residential
Neighborhood/General
Commercial
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Roads
Total

Draft: 6/23/2009

Description
Acreage Percent Dwellings Dwellings/Acre
Natural areas, Neighborhood and community parks
and trails
386
NA
NA
Schools, police and fire, stations, utility facilities,
civic buildings and churches
63
NA
NA
Suburban style lots of 2 acres
284
113
0.4 units per acre
Single family homes
2,218
6,654
1-5 units per acre
Single family, patio homes, manor homes and town
homes.
359
2,157
5-10 units per acre
Condominiums and apartments.
164
2,291
10+ units per acre
Retail, services and offices oriented to meeting the
local/sub-regional neighborhood needs
389
NA
NA
Light manufacturing performed within a building
124
NA
NA
Concentrating solar parabolic trough power plant
1,748
NA
NA
Rights-of-way
243
NA
NA
5,977
11,215 3.71 per acre

147

Relationship to Other Area Plans
The Dolan Springs Area Plan, adopted in 2003, is unique in that it was initiated, written and
facilitated by the Dolan Springs Area Plan Committee, ad-hoc group of local residents. 5 The 126
square mile planning area covers all lands east of U.S. Highway 93, flanked by First Street to the
south and Twenty Third Street to the north with small portions of land west of the highway near
Seventh Street designated for General Commercial uses. The Plan is designed to allow for the
orderly development of Dolan Springs to prevent the over-extension of County services into
rural areas and to comply with new Growing Smarter Plus legislation. To achieve this purpose,
elements for Water Resources, Public Safety, Circulation, Land Use and Economic Development
elements were developed. To conform to the existing residential lot sizes, mostly the result of
legacy subdivisions, appropriate land use designations including Rural Residential, Suburban
Estate and Suburban Residential were assigned to conform to the existing lot sizes. However,
even with the residential low-densities shown on the Area Plan land use diagram, buildout
projections range as high as 40,000 dwelling units. General Commercial and Light Industrial
land uses have been designated along the highway between First Street and Seventh Street.
Additional commercial uses extend along Pierce Ferry Road and cover the existing business
operations.
The Golden Valley Area Plan, updated in 2002, encompasses an 84 square mile area bounded by
Shinarump Drive, Bapchule Road, Chinle Drive, Teddy Roosevelt Road, Agua Fria Drive, U.S.
Highway 93 and Tooman Road. 6 The Plan allows for the orderly development of Golden Valley
and prevents the over-extension of County services into rural areas. To achieve this purpose,
elements for Water Resources, Public Safety, Circulation and Land Use were developed. To
promote a more centralized and a less sprawl-like development pattern, 22 sections of land
changed from an Urban Development Area to Suburban Development Areas beyond the
Highway 68 corridor. This redistribution of land uses, by reserving higher density development
to the central part of the Planning Area and reducing leap-frog development, is in accord with
good planning practice as embodied in Arizona’s Growing Smarter legislation. The buildout
projection ranges between 21,000 and 124,000 dwelling units. The Area Plan abuts U.S.
Highway 93 between State Route 68 and Agua Fria Road and then west on Agua Fria Drive a
distance of some three miles. Residential uses are prevalent and range from Rural Residential
densities along Agua Fria Drive to Low Density Residential at the intersection of the two
highways. A small commercial area also exists at the intersection of U.S. Highway 93 and Agua
Fria Drive.

5
6

Major General Amendment and Area Plan adopted per BOS Resolution Nos. 2003-451 & 2006-452
Major General Amendment and Area Plan adopted per BOS Resolution Nos. 2002-401 & 2002-402

Draft: 6/23/2009

148

Housing
Up until 2007, the average price of a home was quickly outpacing the affordability range. With
the influx of Californians with equity to invest, the price of a home has increased substantially
within the planning area. Based on the 2000 Census the median household income for the region
was $28,680. In terms of affordability a person making this income could qualify for a $131,548
home (NRER), a home equal in value to approximately 460 percent of the person’s annual gross
income. However, with the recent bursting of the housing bubble and deflation of prices to
approximately 2002 levels, homes are once again becoming affordable. In 2000, the County’s
median home value was $95,300, with median monthly rent at $560. Rental housing is
considered affordable if it does not consume more than 30% of gross annual household income.
Most households can afford rental units in Mohave County. Between 1990 and 2000, Mohave
County’s population increased by nearly 65% from 93,500 persons to an estimated 155,000
persons, one of the fastest growth rates in the State. The Department of Economic Security
(DES) estimates that Mohave County’s population will grow to well over 200,000 by 2010. The
County’s population is somewhat older than the State’s average with 46% of the population 45
years of age or older.
Affordability by Type of Dwelling
In
the
Northwest
Corridor,
median
household income for
the four block groups in
2000, including lands
outside of the planning
area,
ranged
from
$17,358
in
Dolan
Springs/White
Hills
(Block Group 9504-02)
to $31,875 in northern
Golden Valley (Block
Group 9506-01). The block groups contained 324 households and 423 dwelling units. A review
of home values shows a cluster of homes priced between $50,000 and $90,000 providing an
opportunity for the average household to purchase the median priced home of $65,000.
In 2009, the number of
dwellings within the
Northwest portion of the
planning
area
had
increased to 548. These
homes occur on 2,767
acres with an average parcel size of 5.05 acres. The dominant housing type was the traditional
single-family detached dwelling situated on a 2.93 acre site, indicative of the typical legacy lot or
split of a larger legacy lot. Most of these site built homes occurred in So-Hi and Chloride. Only
20 homes were classified as rental property. The average full cash value of site built homes was

Draft: 6/23/2009

149

$87,193, substantially higher than 2000 Census values, showing that continued affordability is
contingent upon at least 25 percent increase in median household income over the past nine
years.
Median incomes in 2000
Distribution of Home Values along Southeast Corridor
for Cedar Hills/Round
Source: 2000 Census, SF3
Valley Area (Block
Group 9508-01) and
Wikieup/Cane Springs
(Block Group 9508-02)
was
$25,455
and
$35,833, respectively.
These block groups
contained
265
households and 359
dwelling units. Unlike
the Northwest Corridor, where a normal distribution curve is found, most homes are valued
above $100,000 with median value of $135,000, making these homes less affordable to area
households.
60
50

Homes

40
30
20
10

Le
ss

th
an
$1
00
$1
0
0
$1 0 to 000
50
$
00 149
9
$2
to
00
$1 9
99
0
99
$2 0 to
50
$2
0
4
$3 0 to 9 99
00
$2
0
9
$3 0 to 9 99
50
$
00 349
9
$4
to
00
$3 9
99
0
99
$5 0 to
00
$4
0
9
$6 0 to 9 99
00
$5
0
9
$7 0 to 9 99
00
$
00 699
9
$8
to
00
$7 9
99
0
99
$9 0 to
0
$
$1 0 00 899
00
9
t
00 o $9 9
0
$1
99
25 to
9
00 $12 9
0
4
$1
50 to $ 999
14
0
99
$1 00
99
75 to
$1
0
74
$2 00
99
00 to
00 $19 9
0
9
$2
50 to $ 999
24
0
99
$3 00
99
00 to
$2
0
99
$4 00
99
00 to
$
0
39 9
$5 00
99
00 to
9
00 $49 9
0
99
$7
t
o
99
50
00 $74
0
99
99
$1 to
00 $9
00 9 9
00 99
or 9
m
or
e

0

By 2009, the number of
dwellings within the
Southeast portion of the
planning
area
had
increased to 480. These
homes occur on over
17,500 acres with an average parcel size of 36.45 acres. The most prevalent housing type was
the traditional single-family detached dwelling situated on a 15.75 acre site, reflective of the
large number of homes sited on “exempt” developments created by Record of Survey and further
divided via a parcel plat. Only a dozen homes were classified as rental property. The average
full cash value of site built homes was $107,273, but less than 2000 Census values, showing that
housing may be more affordable than in 2000 assuming that household incomes have not
decreased.
Moving from an urban setting to a rural environment in search of lower home prices may also
bring hidden costs. A private well, possibly 700-feet or more deep, an alternate septic system, a
new solar powered electric system with backup generator and other country accouterments may
make building a home in the countryside as expensive as one constructed on an urban lot. These
additional factors in housing affordability caused by living wholly or even partly “off the grid”
are not always taken into account by land owners when they purchased the land for future
development.

Draft: 6/23/2009

150

Senior Households
As noted in the introduction, Mohave County has a
higher median age than the balance of the State. This is
also reflected in the high percentage of seniors living
along the Corridor. The highest percentage of seniors
reside in the communities of Dolan Springs and White
Hills where over half of all households are headed by
persons aged 65 or more. Seniors represent at least 40
percent of the households in the Chloride/Grasshopper
Junction and eastern Golden Valley. By contrast,
senior-headed households in the Cedar Hills/Round
Valley area account for less than 25 percent. This block
group also has the highest median income and highest
median home values. Some of these home sites are
remote and may not have supporting infrastructure,
including access over challenging terrain, than many
seniors are comfortable in negotiating daily. Remote
areas also isolate homeowners who, as they age, may
want to be connected to a closely knit community that is
easily accessible. Housing affordability for seniors on
fixed incomes will become an increasing concern as
more individuals reaching retirement age relocate to the
Southwest.
Another indicator of senior households is the number of
persons per household. In 2000, the County saw 2.45
persons per household. Only the Cane Springs/Wikieup
block, with 2.56 persons per household, exceeded that
value. The communities of Dolan Springs and White
Hills had 1.99 persons per household with
Chloride/Grasshopper Junction having 2.09 persons per
household. This indicates that seniors may also be
living in single person households, increasing their need
for homes in good working order and having good
access to services. As the population continues to age,
most single occupants will be women.
The Cedar Hills/Round Valley and Golden Valley block
groups were slightly under the County average ranging
from 2.24 to 2.40 persons per household. As noted
above, these block groups have a lower percentage of
senior headed households.

Draft: 6/23/2009

151

Age and Condition of Structures
The highest value homes occur in the Cedar Hills and Cedar Mesa communities, with lower
home values found in the Chloride/Grasshopper Junction vicinity. This may be attributed in part
to the age of the housing stock with those homes east of Kingman being constructed or placed
on-site, in the case of manufactured homes, at much latter date than the establishment of
dwellings in Chloride which date back a century or more.
A distribution of the year the
homes were built along the
Northwest Corridor shows that the
median home was constructed or
placed on-site in the late 1970s.
Many of the manufactured homes
established in this time period have
Pre-HUD status in that they were
not constructed to a standard
accepted by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development,
causing some concern as to quality
and fire safety in some instances.
Along the Southeast Corridor, the
median age of homes dates from
the early 1980, with a large
number of new homes being
placed just prior to the Census.
These two facts increase the
probability that manufactured
homes are built to a HUD standard
and also explain the increased
value of homes in part and the
popularity of homes being placed
in exurban areas, further from
established urban centers.
One indicator of the fitness for a house to support its habitants is the presence of complete
plumbing facilities. For Mohave County, 1.1 percent (876 of 80,062 dwellings) lacked complete
plumbing facilities. In a review of block groups along the Corridor (see map next page) these
percentages ranged from zero percent in Eastern Golden Valley to as high as 17.4 percent in
Cedar Hills/Round Valley. The percentage of homes lacking complete plumbing facilities in
Chloride/Grasshopper Junction was 11.5 percent. This wide variation may be attributed not just
to the state of repair or the age of the building, with Chloride having a large number of homes
built before the Second World War, but the presence or not of the Urban Building Overlay zone
for building code enforcement. Initiated in 1984, the Overlay zone required that all structures be
built to current building code standards, including the requirement for indoor plumbing for all

Draft: 6/23/2009

152

habitable structures. The Overlay zone was recently
replaced in 2007 when the County began enforcement
of building for codes throughout its jurisdiction. As
new buildings are placed along the Corridor, the
percentage of homes without plumbing facilities should
decline.
Northern Golden Valley, Cane Springs/Wikieup and
Dolan Springs/White Hills ranged from 2.1 percent to
5.0 percent, higher than the County. Northern Golden
Valley was also covered in most part by the Overlay
zone.
Impressions and Conclusion
The desert southwest has seen experimentation in many
types of non-conventional housing types almost since
its first settlement. These homes typically do not
conform to a preset “plan” and are as unique as the
people who live in them. Housing should be safe,
decent, energy efficient and affordable to help maintain
and promote the quality of life that new and existing
residents require and make the southwest attractive to residents. To further this, an objective of
the North River Economic Region plan is to “ensure that affordable housing is readily available
within the region.” This can be measured by the increase in homeownership for low and
moderate income residents. Strategies include completion of a housing plan for the region,
inclusionary zoning, and/or the establishment of a housing trust fund similar to the recently
adopted program in Pima County. The Area Plan encourages a diversity of housing types to
serve all its residents.
Land owners along the Corridor have expressed a desire for various types of housing, ranging
from the conventional site built homes, manufactured home to non-conventional forms of
construction. Manufactured housing and homes constructed by owner-builders in legacy
subdivisions will most likely be the affordable home of choice for those living in rural parts of
the planning area. Single-family housing may be developed on all private property throughout
the planning area.
Today, the planning area is facing pressure from an increasing human population that finds the
area’s scenic desert settings and warm, sunny climate as well as its higher elevations and forests
to be a very desirable area to live and to recreate. Indeed, this recreational use has an
increasingly dominant impact on the landscape in this ecoregion. Many parts of the planning
area, including the adjoining Lake Mead National Recreation Area, receive heavy recreational
use from residents of nearby metropolitan areas. The burgeoning retirement communities
associated with the mild climate of the area create a population that is able to afford the time and
expense to recreate in the outdoors. Human presence on the landscape is significant in all but the
most inaccessible areas (CWCS).

Draft: 6/23/2009

153

Creation of the Land Use Diagram
To implement many of the goals and policies of the Area Plan, the Land Use Diagram has been
proposed (see Exhibits following Goals and Policies). The current General Plan land use
diagram would allow for at least 38,000 to as many as 78,000 dwellings in the nearly 430 squaremile planning area.
The land use diagram is molded on the vision statement that declares “new residential
development proposals will be similar to existing residential densities, shall promote
neighborhood stability and protect and sustain existing lifestyles.” Also used in formulating land
use diagram are the concepts of: 1) economic use of the land; in other words, would someone
contest a taking of property value due to excessive government regulation, 2) investment-backed
expectations when the property was purchased, for example, what are my neighbors doing with
their property and can I do something similar, and 3) furthering a legitimate government interest
through regulation. The concerns of individuals in items one and two are balanced against the
role of government in item three as defined by the Area Plan Committee as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.

Preserving hillsides, washes, native vegetation.
Establishing a transect model of planning which clusters development around nodes to
establish vibrant economic centers.
Preserving air quality and ground water resources.
Following the “current pattern of development” to maintain neighborhood stability and
lifestyles.

To help understand what a land buyer might anticipate as part of the “investment-backed
expectations,” the County’s zoning map, overlaid with aerial photography, was consulted to
determine the existing development pattern of neighboring parcels. For example, if adjacent lots
had seen significant rezoning to a higher density, then the land use density was adjusted to meet
the expectations. However, properties located on hillsides, within washes or otherwise
encumbered, such as being on bedrock were assigned a lower density land use designation.
Using the concept of maintaining proposed land uses similar to existing residential densities, the
land use diagram radiates land use densities from highest to lowest densities and attempts to
avoid the juxtaposition of disparate uses.
Bureau of Land Management lands have been designated as Public Lands based upon the
General Plan’s definition. Recreation and Public Purpose sites are recommended along the
highway in the vicinity of White Hills Road, Cottonwood Road and near Tompkins Canyon.
Exact locations will be determined with aid of the BLM. For State Trust lands, the policy of the
State Land Department is to have a similar land use applied to their holdings as those adjacent
and not be solely identified as open space.
Legacy plats have been generally designated Rural Residential, Suburban Estate or Suburban
Residential to preserve the integrity of the original development pattern and not overburden the
supporting and usually underdeveloped infrastructure.

Draft: 6/23/2009

154

Commercial areas have been located around existing commercial development and at the traffic
interchanges planned at the major crossroads. Sites for Rural Industrial have been located along
the highway where terrain is generally level and access to major transmission lines is available.
It should be noted that the land use diagram represents the ultimate development density for the
life of the plan – some 10 to 20 years. To achieve the maximum density on the land use diagram,
each proposal must meet a series of performance criteria. For example, several sections have
been designated for Suburban Residential which allow for lot sizes of one acre. To achieve this
density the developer of a new subdivision must provide infrastructure for paved roadways to
each lot, including off-site roadway improvements as required by the County Engineer, water
service to each lot, fire hydrants, electricity to each lot, and be annexed into a fire district.
Parcels that are created via a minor division and companion rezone to allow for smaller lots will
be evaluated based on the availability of these services to the site to ensure infrastructure
concurrency and prevent the over extension of County services.
Buildout Projections
The buildout potential for the
166 plus square miles in the
Northwest Corridor is nearly
58,000 homes, an increase of
over 8,500 dwellings as
compared to the existing
General Plan. This is largely
due to the conversion of
Rural Development Area
land use designations to
Suburban Development Area land use designations allowing up to five times the number of
homes.
The 255 plus square miles
comprising the Southeast
Corridor has a buildout
potential of 22,627 homes.
This represents a reduction
of over 5,500 housing units
from the current General
Plan use designations. This
is largely the result of redesignating several sections
of the land west and south of
the proposed 200 megawatt concentrating solar parabolic trough power plant from a Rural
Development Area to a Suburban Development Area to reduce water demand in the area in light
of the power plant’s expected 2,000 acre feet of annual consumption and to provide a low
residential density buffer around the facility (land use is pending County action on the 200 MW
solar power plant).

Draft: 6/23/2009

155

Goals and Policies for Land Use and Housing
Goal 33

Create commercial centers extending up to one mile along the highway from
either end of the Traffic Interchanges and up to one half mile off of the highway
fronting along the cross roads (4/23/2009, 5/12/2009 and 5/14/2009).

Policy 33.1 Designate areas for Neighborhood and General Commercial at these locations.
Policy 33.2 Designate areas for Commercial-Recreation and Light Industrial at these
locations to act as buffer between General Commercial and residential uses along
the perimeter.

Goal 34

Provide for highway-serving as well as general and neighborhood-serving
commercial businesses at locations along the Corridor where similar land uses
are established and in operation (6/2/2009).

Policy 34.1 Retain the General Plan's existing land use designations for highway serving
commercial adjoining the highway, concentrated at major roadway intersections.
Policy 34.2 Encourage the expansion of commercial land use designations only at established
business locations and at planned Traffic Interchanges.

Goal 35

Commercial development should have architecture that is aesthetically
compatible with the natural environment (approved on 4/23/2009, edited
5/12/2009).

Policy 35.1 Each development’s color scheme should be based on the site’s unique color
palette.
Policy 35.2 Structure design should reflect the Southwestern or rustic vernacular.

Goal 36

Establish Renewable Energy projects appropriate to and respectful of the land’s
carrying capacity (5/14/2009).

Policy 36.1 Give preference to Renewable Energy projects that do not require mass grading
or otherwise scarify the land.
Policy 36.2 Support Renewable Energy projects whose design does not impede wildlife
movement.
Policy 36.3 Encourage Renewable Energy projects whose design does not dominate the view
from the highway.

Draft: 6/23/2009

156

Policy 36.4 Give preference to Renewable Energy projects whose use of water will not drawdown adjacent wells or threaten the natural flow of seeps, springs, or streams.
Policy 36.5 Encourage the use of effluent or brackish water in lieu of pristine groundwater
for Renewable Energy projects.
Policy 33.6 In areas where the aquifer is being mined, only approve Renewable Energy
projects that do not rely upon groundwater as an integral part of their operation.

Goal 37

Create commercial/recreational areas to serve local residents and tourists alike
(5/14/2009).

Policy 37.1 Allow commercial/recreational uses on land that has not been assigned a specific
land use sub-category, with preference to those proposals which have access to
the highway at ADOT designated access points.
Policy 37.2 Develop commercial/recreational uses on flood-prone properties which will set
aside these sensitive areas for less intensive uses and/or open-space.

Goal 38

Establish Sufficient Public Facilities to Serve the Community (5/14/2009).

Policy 38.1 Identify locations for Schools when new housing developments are proposed.
Policy 38.2 Establish locations for Fire Stations within new housing developments, as
needed.
Policy 38.3 Establish locations for County and State Offices within new housing
developments, as needed.

Goal 39

Encourage the use of previously identified 'Disposal Lands' for Recreation and
Public Purposes upon disposal from public ownership (6/2/2009).

Policy 39.1 Mohave County will coordinate with the BLM in its planning efforts to identify
those lands within the US 93 Mohave County Planning Corridor that are suitable
for disposal that could be used for public purposes.

Goal 40

Ensure Infrastructure Concurrency in all Development Areas (5/14/2009).

Policy 40.1 Each new development proposal must have adequate infrastructure, namely, but
not limited to improved roadways, either in place or provided by the developer.

Draft: 6/23/2009

157

Goal 41

Maintain the rural, low-density atmosphere in the planning area (5/14/2009).

Policy 41.1 Retain existing Rural Residential land use designations for properties adjoining
other Rural Residential land uses beyond the Area Plan boundary.
Policy 41.2 Discourage the increase in density, the over-extension of County services, and
loss of rural atmosphere during development review.
Policy 41.3 Maintain the attractiveness of the rural environment which the landowner bought
into by preventing encroachment of dissimilar uses, within or immediately
adjacent to Rural Residential areas.

Goal 42

Preserve the integrity of ranches and farms within and adjoining the planning
area (5/14/2009).

Policy 42.1 Retain the Rural Residential land use designations adjoining ranches and farms.
Policy 42.2 Discourage the rezoning of land adjacent to ranches and farms that results in
higher than Rural Residential density development.
Policy 42.3 Maintain the attractiveness of the rural environment which the landowner bought
into by preventing encroachment of dissimilar uses, within or immediately
adjacent to ranches and farms areas.

Goal 43

Preserve the Rural to semi-Rural lifestyle for homes on smaller lots and parcels
(5/14/2009).

Policy 43.1 Create Suburban Development Areas to preserve integrity of “legacy”
subdivisions.
Policy 43.2 Establish Suburban Development Areas as a buffer between Urban and Rural
Development Areas.
Policy 43.3 Require a feathering of lot sizes when adjacent to lower density development on
the periphery allowing similar lots to front each other while placing smaller lots
in the center of the development.
Policy 43.4 Designate Suburban Development Areas only where adequate facilities and
infrastructure occur or will be provided.
Policy 43.5 Maintain the attractiveness of the rural and semi-rural environment which the
landowner bought into by preventing encroachment of dissimilar uses within or
immediately adjacent to areas designated for Suburban Estate or Suburban
Residential.

Draft: 6/23/2009

158

Goal 44

Provide for higher density residential development in areas that are
experiencing growth pressure (5/14/2009).

Policy 44.1 Designate Urban Development Area land use designations adjoining new master
planned communities.
Policy 44.2 Designate land uses that are a logical extension of the planned or existing
development pattern.
Policy 44.3 Designate additional Suburban Development Area land use designations adjacent
to legacy subdivisions experiencing build out pressure.
Policy 44.4 Encourage Low Density Residential land uses as a buffer between Suburban
Development Areas and proposed Commercial areas.

Goal 45

Create a diversified mix of quality, affordable housing to serve all members of
the community (5/14/2009).

Policy 45.1 Encourage a diversified mix of housing types to serve all segments of the housing
market.
Policy 45.2 Provide for the housing needs of senior citizens.
Policy 45.3 Encourage the use of environmentally responsible building practices in new
housing developments.

Goal 46

Create a Citizen-based development review advisory committee to achieve the
goals of the Area Plan (6/2/2009).

Policy 46.1 Notify the advisory committee of all development proposals within or adjoining
the area plan boundary that involve a plan amendment, rezone, zoning use
permit, or subdivision plat.
Policy 46.2 Coordinate neighborhood meetings with the committee as needed that involve
plan amendments, rezones, zoning use permits, or subdivision plats.
Policy 46.3 Include the advisory committee’s formal recommendation for each such proposal
to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors.

Draft: 6/23/2009

159

Implementation Measures for Land Use and Housing:
L1.
Individual landowners will apply with the Mohave County Development Services
Department for building permits, and rezone/zoning use permits (if needed) to establish
residential uses.
L2.
The Development Services Department will develop a “policy a procedure”
memorandum highlighting the key aspects of the Land Use Element to use when evaluate zoning
use permit, minor land division and subdivision proposals.
L3.
Individual landowners will coordinate site plan review with the Mohave County Public
Works Department in designing the access to their site in accordance with any adopted Access
Management Plan.
L4.
Public purpose uses are allowed under the current zoning district, hence only an
administrative review of the development is required. Each proposal will be reviewed by the
County for site design, including drainage, grading, septic disposal, etc. Each structure will also
be reviewed by the County in accordance with the Building Codes. The need for these facilities
will be determined by the Mohave County Sheriff’s Department, the fire district, the Kingman
Unified School District and the Mohave County Parks Department, respectively.
L5.
Conversion of prime farmland to non-farm uses will be in accordance with Farmland
Protection Act, 7 USC 4202 et. seq. seq. (1981).
L6.
The Mohave County Building Division shall provide technical assistance to the public for
non-conventional housing and provide a trained staff versed in non-conventional building
techniques to help owner/builders construct their homes.
L7.
Adopt the International Energy Conservation Code. Also, when reviewing large-scale
residential developments of 200 or more homes consider the adoption of Water Wise and Energy
Star standards with the aim of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
certification for at least 10 percent of the new homes.
L8.
Develop project siting criteria in accordance with Section 27.S of the Mohave County
Zoning Ordinance that also addresses impacts on surface hydrology, wildlife corridors, cultural
resources, visual resources, evaporation ponds and draw down on existing wells located outside
of the project boundary.
L9.

Amend Section 27.S to apply to projects entitled with a Zoning Use Permit.

L10. The Mohave County Development Services Department will notify, inform and seek
advice from the Citizen-based development review advisory committee for plan amendments,
rezones, zoning use permits, or subdivision plats that occur with or adjoin the Area Plan
boundary.

Draft: 6/23/2009

160

Detailed Land Use Diagrams

Northwest Corridor
Temple Bar Road
White Hills
Dolan Springs
Cottonwood Road/Chloride
Mineral Park/Golden Valley
So-Hi Detail

Southeast Corridor
Kingman/Round Valley
Silverado
Cane Springs
Wikieup
Signal/Nothing
Wikieup Detail

Draft: 6/23/2009

161

Developer-Funded TI to
be approved by ADOT

Section III

Natural Resources Element
Goals
Implementation Technique
1
Building Permit, Rezone,
Subdivision Plat, Site Plan &
BLM designation
2
Grading Permit, Site Plan,
Building Permit, Landscape Ord
3
Building Permit, Grading Permit,
Site Plan, Rezone
4
Building Permit, Rezone,
Subdivision Plat, Site Plan, BLM
designation, Landscape Ord
5
Rezone, Site Plan
6
7

8

9
10
11
12

Grading Permit, Site Plan,
Building Permit, Landscape Ord
Rezone, Zoning Use Permit, Site
Plan, Building Permit, Landscape
Ord & Hillside Development Ord
Rezone, Site Plan, Building
Permit, Hillside Development
Ord & BLM designation
Dark Sky Ordinance & Building
Permit
Dark Sky Ordinance & Building
Permit
Rezone, Zoning Use Permit, Site
Plan & Building Permit
Rezone, Subdivision Plat & Site
Plan

Water Resources Element
Goals
Implementation Technique
13
Rezone, Site Plan & Landscape
Ordinance.
14
Rezone, Subdivision Plat, Site
Plan & Grading Permit
15
Rezone, Subdivision Plat, Site
Plan, Building Permit &
Landscape Ordinance
16
Site Plan, Building Permit &
Landscape Ordinance

Draft: 6/23/2009

Responsibility
Mohave County Development Services Dept,
Mohave County Public Works, Mohave
County Flood Control District & BLM
Mohave County Development Services Dept,
Mohave County Public Works
Mohave County Development Services Dept,
Mohave County Public Works.
Mohave County Development Services Dept,
Mohave County Public Works & BLM
Mohave County Development Services Dept,
& Property Owners
Mohave County Development Services Dept
& Mohave County Public Works
Mohave County Development Services Dept

Mohave County Development Services Dept
and BLM
Mohave County Development Services Dept
Mohave County Development Services Dept
Mohave County Development Services Dept
Mohave County Development Services Dept

Responsibility
Mohave County Development Services Dept.
Mohave County Development Services Dept.
& Mohave County Public Works
Mohave County Development Services Dept,
Mohave County Public Works, & Mohave
County Environmental Heath Dept.
Mohave County Development Services Dept.

Public Safety Element
Goals
Implementation Technique
17
Rezone, Subdivision Plat,
Building Permit, Fire District
Annexation, General Fund &
Landscape Ordinance
18
Rezone, Subdivision Plat, BLM
designation & Fire District
Annexation.
19
Capital Improvement Program
and Road Maintenance Fund.

Economic Development Element
Goals
Implementation Technique
20
Plan Amendment & Rezone

21

22

23

24
25

Responsibility
Mohave County Development Services
Dept., Mohave County Sheriff's Office, Fire
Departments, BLM and Land Owners.
Mohave County Development Services Dept.
& Mohave County Public Works & Fire
Departments.
Mohave County Public Works.

Responsibility
Mohave County Development Services Dept.
and Citizen Advisory Committee (see Goal
46)
Plan Amendment, Rezone, Active Mohave County Development Services Dept.
Recruitment, Small Business
and Mohave County Community and
Development Loan Program
Economic Development Dept.
Plan Amendment & Rezone
Mohave County Development Services Dept.
& Mohave County Community and
Economic Development Dept.
Plan Amendment, Rezone, Site
Mohave County Development Services Dept.
Plan, Building Permit &
Landscape Ordinance.
Rezone, Site Plan and Building
Mohave County Development Services Dept.
Permit.
Rezone, Site Plan and Building
Mohave County Development Services Dept.
Permit.

Draft: 6/23/2009

Transportation Element
Goals
Implementation Technique
26
Rezone, Zoning Use Permit,
Subdivision Plat & Exactions
27
Rezone, Subdivision Plat &
Capital Improvement Program
28
Road Maintenance and Capital
Improvement Program
29
Rezone, Subdivision Plat, Site
Plan, Exactions & Capital
Improvement Program
30
Road Maintenance and Capital
Improvement Program
31
Rezone, Subdivision Plat & Site
Plan
32

Zoning Use Permits

Draft: 6/23/2009

Responsibility
Mohave County Development Services
Dept., & Mohave County Public Works.
Mohave County Development Services
Dept., & Mohave County Public Works.
Mohave County Public Works
Mohave County Development Services
Dept., Mohave County Public Works &
ADOT.
Mohave County Public Works & Individual
land owners.
Mohave County Development Services Dept.
& Mohave County Public Works and
Mohave County Trails Association
Mohave County Development Services Dept.
& Individual Employers

Land Use Element
Goals
Implementation Technique
33
Land Use Diagram, Plan
Amendment & Rezone
34
Land Use Diagram, Plan
Amendment & Rezone
35
Rezone, Zoning Use Permit, Site
Plan & Building Permit
36
Land Use Diagram, Rezone,
Zoning Use Permit & Site Plan
37
38

39
40

41
42
43
44
45

46

Land Use Diagram, Plan
Amendment, Rezone, Site Plan
Rezone, Subdivision Plat & Site
Plan.
Land Use Diagram, Plan
Amendment & Rezone
Rezone, Subdivision Plat, Site
Plan and Building Permit
Land Use Diagram, Rezone &
Subdivision Plat
Land Use Diagram, Rezone &
Subdivision Plat
Land Use Diagram, Rezone &
Subdivision Plat
Land Use Diagram, Rezone &
Subdivision Plat
Subdivision Plat, Rezone,
Building Permit, Community
Development Block Grant
Notification to Committee.
Establish organization, possibly
as a “Non-Profit” per the Internal
Revenue Code: 26 U.S.C. §501(c)

Draft: 6/23/2009

Responsibility
Mohave County Development Services Dept.
Mohave County Development Services Dept.
Mohave County Development Services Dept.
Mohave County Development Services Dept
& Mohave County Public Works, School
Districts, Fire Districts, & Sheriff’s Office.
Mohave County Development Services Dept,
& Mohave County Public Works
Mohave County Development Services
Dept., Mohave County Public Works, School
Districts & Fire Districts
Mohave County Development Services Dept.
and BLM
Mohave County Development Services Dept,
Mohave County Public Works, ADOT &
Utility Service Providers
Mohave County Development Services Dept.
Mohave County Development Services Dept.
Mohave County Development Services Dept.
Mohave County Development Services Dept.
Mohave County Development Services Dept.
& Mohave County Community Development
Dept.
Mohave County Development Services Dept.
& Citizens living along the Corridor

Appendix A
Species of Concern

Tompkins
Canyon

Cane Springs
Wash

13-Mile Trib
Wash (So-Hi)

Amphibians, Fish &
Invertebrates of Concern

Detrital Wash

Appendix of Arizona Game and Fish Animals found within the Planning Area

Species Specific
Stressor

Tompkins
Canyon

Cane Springs
Wash

13-Mile Trib
Wash (So-Hi)

Mammals of Concern

Detrital Wash

Arizona Toad
X
X
Canyon Tree Frog
X
X
Lowland Leopard Frog
X
X
X
Desert Sucker
X
X
Longfin Dace
X
X
Roundtail Chub
X
X
Sonora Sucker
X
Speckled Dace
X
Kingman Springsnail
X
Source: T. Buhr, Arizona Game & Fish Dept., Region III, December, 2008

Big Free-tailed Bat
X
X
X
X
California Leaf-nosed Bat
X
X
X
X
California Myotis (bat)
X
X
X
X
Greater Western Mastiff Bat
X
X
X
X
Mexican Free-tailed Bat
X
X
X
X
Spotted Bat
X
X
X
X
Western Pipistrelle (bat)
X
X
X
X
Western Red Bat
X
X
Jaguar
X
Common Muskrat
X
X
Hualapai Mexican Vole
X
X
Mogollon Vole
X
X
X
Southwestern River Otter
X
X
Spotted Ground Squirrel
X
X
X
Source: T. Buhr, Arizona Game & Fish Dept., Region III, December, 2008

Species Specific
Stressor

Pesticides/Alt Rivers

Livestock/Harvesting
Recreational Sites

Tompkins
Canyon

Cane Springs
Wash

13-Mile Trib
Wash (So-Hi)

Detrital Wash

Reptiles of Concern

Tompkins
Canyon

Cane Springs
Wash

13-Mile Trib
Wash (So-Hi)

Game Species

Detrital Wash

Hernandez's (Greater) Short-horn Lizard
X
X
X
Yucca Night Lizard
X
X
X
Desert Rosy Boa (snake)
X
X
X
X
Mexican Rosy Boa (snake)
X
Mojave Shovel-nosed Snake
X
X
X
X
Smith's Black-headed Snake
X
X
X
X
Western Black-necked Gartersnake
X
X
Sonoran Desert Tortoise
X
X
X
X
Sonoyta Mud Turtle
X
Sonoran Mud Turtle
X
Source: T. Buhr, Arizona Game & Fish Dept., Region III, December, 2008

Mamals
America Pronghorn
X
American Beaver
X
Beaver
X
Black Bear
X
Desert Bighorn Sheep
X
Elk
X
X
X
Javelina
X
X
X
Kit Fox
X
X
X
X
Mountain Lion
X
X
X
X
Birds
Gambel's Quail
X
X
X
X
Turkey
X
X
Whitewing Dove
X
X
X
X
Source: T. Buhr, Arizona Game & Fish Dept., Region III, December, 2008

Species Specific
Stressor

Transportation/Poach

Species Specific
Stressor

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Species Specific
Stressor

Multiple Stresors

Livestock/Camping

Wetland Filling

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X

X

X
X
X
X
X

Wetland Filling
X
X
X
X

Nesting Habit

Cane Springs
Wash

X
X
X
X
X
X

Tompkins
Canyon

13-Mile Trib
Wash (So-Hi)

American Bittern
American Peregrine Falcon
American Pipit
American Wigeon
Bald Eagle
Belted Kingfisher
Blue-throated Hummingbird
Blue-winged Teal
Canada Goose
Canvasback
Common Black-Hawk
Common Merganser
Eared Grebe
Ferruginous Hawk
Gilded Flicker
Golden Eagle
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Great Egret
Green-tailed Towhee
Indigo Bunting
Le Conte's Thrasher
Lincoln's Sparrow
Marsh Wren
Northern Harrier
Northern Pintail
Northern Shoveler
Orange-crowned Warbler
Red-naped Sapsucker
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Sage Thrasher
Savannah Sparrow
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
Western Burrowing Owl
Western Grebe
Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo
White-crowned Sparrow
Wilson's Snipe
Winter Wren
Wood Duck

Detrital Wash

Birds of Concern

Ground
Cliff
Ground
Ground
Cliff
Ground
Tree
Ground
Ground
Ground
Tree
Tree
Water
Tree
Cactus
Cliff
Tree
Tree
Ground
Shrub
Cactus
Ground
Marsh
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Tree
Tree
Shurb
Ground
Tree
Ground
Water
Tree
Ground
Ground
Ground
Tree

Appendix B
Hydrographs and Water Adequacy Determinations for:

Detrital
Sacramento
Hualapai
Big Sandy
Bill Williams

Appendix – Detrital, Groundwater

Appendix – Detrital, Hydrographs

Appendix – Detrital, Exceedences

Appendix – Detrital, Cultural Demand

Mohave

Mohave

County

Gateway Acres 8

Gateway Acres 9

Gateway Acres Tract 11

Gateway Acres Tract 11A

Gateway Acres Tract 12

Gateway Acres 13

9

10

11

12

13

14

24

Lake Mohave Ranchos A

23

B&C

Lake Mohave Ranchos

Lake Mohave Ranchos

Unit 4 and Unit 6

Ranchos, Unit 1, Unit 3,

Unit 4 and Unit 6
Golden Horseshoe

Ranchos, Unit 1, Unit 3,

Ranchos Unit 5
Golden Horseshoe

17,27,240,242, 275,276
Golden Horseshoe

Ranchos Unit 4 lots

Ranchos Unit #5
Golden Horseshoe

Ranchos Units 3 & 4
Golden Horseshoe

Ranchos #2
Golden Horseshoe

Ranchos #1
Golden Horseshoe

22

21

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

Mohave

Gateway Acres Tract 06A

8

Golden Horseshoe

Mohave

Gateway Acres Tract 06

7

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Gateway Acres 3&4

Gateway Acres Tract 05

Mohave

6

1,2,7 & 8

Gateway Acres, Tracts,

Gateway Acres, Tract One Mohave

Flannery & Allen

White Hills, Tract 3816

Equestrian Estates at

Subdivision Name

5

4

3

2

1

Map Key

A. Water Adequacy Reports

1

26 North

25 North

25 North

27 North

27 North

27 North

27 North

27 North

27 North

27 North

27 North

25 North

24 North

24 North

24 North

25 North

25 North

24 North

24 North

24 North

25 North

25 North

25 North

27 North

27 North

Township

20 West

18 West

19 West

20 West

19 West

19 West

19 West

19 West

19 West

19 West

20 West

20 West

19 West

19 West

19 West

19 West

19 West

20 West

20 West

20 West

19 West

20 West

20 West

20 West

19 West

Range

5

31

5

Section

35

7

1, 11, 23, 27

9

9, 17, 21

19

17

19

9, 17

7

9

31

19, 31

9

7

5,7,9,17,19,21,29

1, 13

11

11

23, 25

5,9, 7,17,29

15, 17, 21, 23

3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 14,

Location

642

NA

NA

376

376

283

6

375

192

540

98

NA

340

NA

186

NA

642

49

340

205

352

237

55

116

No. of
Lots

53-500888

53-500884

53-500885

53-700285

53-700285

53-401884

53-700533

53-400274

53-300196

53-300222

53-500718

53-500693

53-500700

53-500699

53-500698

NA

53-500692

53-500697

53-500696

53-500695

53-500694

53-401105

53-700289

53-400912

53-700573

ADWR File
No.2

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

ADWR Adequacy
Determination

A2,A3

A2,A3

A2,A3

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1,B,C

A2

A1,A2

A1

D

A2,A3

A1,A2,A3

A2,A3

A2,A3

A2,A3

A2,A3

A1,A2,A3

A2,A3

A2,A3

A1,A2

A1

A1,A2

A1

Reason(s) for
Inadequacy
Determination3

Table 4.3-9 Adequacy Determinations in the Detrital Valley Basin

11/23/1977

11/23/1977

11/23/1977

06/19/2007

06/19/2007

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

06/20/2008

10/06/2005

White Hills Water
Company

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

None

Dry Lot Subdivision

Individual Wells

Cooperative

White Hills Water

Equestrian Estates

Water Provider at the
Time of Application

04/07/2000

09/26/1996

11/07/1996

12/31/1992

07/29/1993

08/27/1984

06/30/1992

03/14/1984

11/24/1977

11/23/1977

03/14/1984

08/13/1982

08/27/1984

08/29/1985

05/07/2004

04/19/2007

04/10/2003

10/16/2008

Date of Determination

Appendix – Detrital, Adequacy Determinations (2008 update)

#2

Western Horizon Estates
Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

The Ranch At White Hills

The Villages at White Hills

28

29

Mohave

Mohave

County
Range
20 West
19 West
20 West
21 West
19 West
20 West

19 West

20 West
19 West
21 West
20 West
21 West

24 North
25 North
25 North
25 North
28 North
28 North

27 North

27 North
29 North
27 North
27 North
27 North

17, 19, 21, 23
35
9, 15, 17, 19, 21,
27, 29, 31, 33, 35
23, 25, 35

13, 33, 35
6, 8, 18, 30
3, 5, 7, 9, 11-15,

Section

27

24

4

13

7

25

16, 20, 21, 23, 30

1, 9, 13, 25, 31,
35
21, 29, 33
13, 25

19, 21, 23, 25, 27,
29, 31, 33, 35

1, 3, 9, 11, 13, 15,

Location

19 West

21 West

19 West

20 West

18 West

Township

24 North

27 North

25 North

28 North

25 North

25,953

25,000

No. of
Lots

80

35

10

546

9

43-401674

43-401774

ADWR File
No.2

53-501670

53-501581

53-401293

53-402260

53-401802

07/18/2007

04/11/2006

Date of
Determination

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Undetermined

Utilties

Double Diamond

Water Provider at the
Time of Application

A1,A2,A3

A1,A2,A3

A1,A2

A2

A1

01/24/1984

Dry Lot Subdivision

NA
Dry Lot Subdivision

05/07/2004

07/13/1992

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

08/25/2006

07/14/2005

1

Notes:
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
2
Prior to February 1995, ADWR did not assign file numbers to applications for adequacy determination.
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 unavaible; 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

Subdivision Name

Map Key

B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply

31

Sunset Vista

Triangle Air Park

30

Unit 16
Sunny Lakes Ranchos
Unit 1

Lake Mohave Ranchos

27

26

25

Appendix – Detrital, Adequacy Determinations (2008 update

Appendix – Sacramento, Groundwater

Appendix – Sacramento, Hydrographs

Appendix – Sacramento, Exceedences

Appendix – Sacramento, Exceedences

Appendix – Sacramento, Cultural Demand

Mohave
Mohave

Black Hills Ranchos Tract 3301

Desert Shadows Ranchos

Desert Shadows Ranchos of Az #02

Friendly Golden Valley #1

Golden Valley Ranchos

2

3

4

5

7

Mohave

Lake Havasu Estates Unit 9

Lake Havasu Estates Unit 13

Lake Havasu Estates Unit 14

Lake Havasu Estates #15

Lake Havasu Heights

Lake Mohave Heights Estates

Lake Mohave Knoll Estates

Last Lap Subdivision

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Pioneer Valley

Ranchos Havasu Tract 3705

Sagebrush Trails Estates

Santa Claus Acres #2

Sawmill Creek Tract 3049

Walnut Creek Estates #1

Walnut Creek Estates #2

27

29

30

31

33

34

Walnut Creek Subdivision

Walnut Creek Unit 2, Tract 3043-A

Yucca Vista #2

36

37

38

3043-B

Walnut Creek Estates Unit 3 Tract

Rancho Verde Estates #2

26

3802

Pioneer Valley and Paradise Trail's Tr.

Rancho Verde Estates

35

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Paradise(Units)/Sun West(Unit 3)Acres Mohave

25

23

22

21

Mohave

Lake Havasu Estates Unit 9

12

Mohave

Holiday Shores #7

Lake Havasu Estates #08

10

11

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

AZ Gateway

1

County

Subdivision Name

Map Key

A. Water Adequacy Reports

1

16 North

20 North

20 North

20 North

20 North

20 North

20 North

23 North

14 North

15 North

21 North

21 North

18 North

18 North

20 North

15 North

23 North

23 North

15 North

17 North

17 North

17 North

17 North

17 North

17 North

20 North

20 North

21 North

17 North

17 North

21 North

16 North

Township

19 West

17 West

17 West

17 West

17 West

17 West

16 West

18 West

17 West

19 West

18 West

18 West

18 West

18 West

18 West

17 West

18 West

19 West

19 West

16 West

16 West

16 West

17 West

17 West

17 West

18 West

19 West

18 West

17 West

17 West

19 West

20 West

Range

Location

11

7

7

7

7

7

2

19

3

5

17

17

25, 35

35

31, 33, 35

19, 21, 27, 29,

31

21

25

7

17

29

31

25

25

35

18

23, 35

17

31

9, 15, 25

14

13

Section

55

43

73

44

109

42

13

64

97

188

263

60

232

64

862

23

127

83

21

NA

372

184

27

120

NA

92

61

63

12

947

23

51

No. of
Lots

53-501709

53-501661

53-400727

53-400258

NA

53-501662

53-300039

53-501369

53-401821

53-700429

53-501274

53-501273

53-401816

53-401383

53-300149

53-400014

53-401592

53-700265

53-400745

53-500874

53-400428

53-400427

53-401941

53-400425

53-500873

53-500801

53-500005

53-500688

53-500584

53-500582

53-500340

53-400703

ADWR File
2
No.

Adequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Adequate

Inadequate

Adequate

Adequate

Inadequate

Adequate

Adequate

ADWR Adequacy
Determination

A1

D

A1

A1

A1

A1

A2, A3

A1, A2

A1

D

A1

A2, B, C

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1,A3

Reason(s) for
Inadequacy
3
Determination

Table 4.9-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Sacramento Valley Basin

02/21/1992

11/30/1994

05/29/2002

03/28/2000

03/14/1988

02/22/1985

08/04/1995

09/10/1992

10/06/2005

11/09/2007

02/05/1988

08/11/1986

08/15/2005

08/02/2004

06/25/1996

02/22/1999

12/07/2004

03/19/2007

08/16/2002

10/21/1993

11/21/2000

11/21/2000

12/13/2005

11/21/2000

10/14/1993

07/29/1977

02/13/2007

09/14/1993

08/23/1991

05/20/1988

03/15/1995

06/11/2002

Date of Determination

Dry Lot Subdivision

Walnut Creek Water Co.

Walnut Creek Water Co.

Walnut Creek Water Co.

Walnut Creek Water Co.

Unformed Water Company

Dry Lot Subdivision

Water ID
Dry Lot Subdivision

Company
Ranhos Havasu DWID
Sagebrush Trails Domestic

Company
Valley Pioneer Water

Inc.
Valley Pioneer Water

Double R Water Distributors,

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Water ID
Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision
Havasu Heights Domestic

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Oasis Utility Company

Dry Lot Subdivision

Company

Dry Lot Subdivision
Valley Pioneer Water

Dry Lot Subdivision

Improvement District #1

Company (Citizens)
Golden Valley County

Arizona American Water

Water Provider at the Time
of Application

Appendix – Sacramento, Adequacy Determinations (2008 Update)

Golden Valley 5800

Golden Valley South

Golden Valley South 2

Rancho Havasu

Sacramento Centre & Apache Centre

Sterling Arizona Villages I, II, III and IV

6

8

9

24

28

32

Mohave

City of Kingman

Valley Pioneer Water Company

Walnut Creek Water Company

b

c

d

e

40-401425.0000

40-900015.0000

40-900007.0000

41-500088.0000

40-300106.0000

Designation
No.

10/14/2006
NA
NA
07/24/2004

5332
No amount designated
844
376.86

NA

43-300230

43-700514

43-700286

43-700253

43-402190

43-401823

ADWR File
No.

882

33500

640

189

17544

26433

32000

No. of
Lots

Date Application
Received

18

4
25

5

27, 33, 34, 36

26, 28
26, 33
22, 23, 24, 26,

6, 13, 22, 24,

3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 16

11, 14, 16
34

2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10,

Section

Projected or Annual
Estimated Demand (af/yr)

19 West

18 West
18 West

19 North
20 North
16 North

19 West

18 West

21 North
15 North

19 West

20 North

18 West

20 North

18 West

21 North
18 West

18 West

20 North

20 North

Range

Location
Township

06/27/2005

02/01/1995

05/17/1973

01/22/2008

06/14/1998

Date Application
Issued

11/08/2006

07/10/2008

05/25/2007

10/10/2007

08/14/2006

10/19/2005

Date of
Determination

2015

NA

No data, hydrologic
study needed

2017

NA

Year of Projected or
Annual Demand

Sterling Water
Company

NA

NA

NA

Undetermined

NA

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 determination.
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 unavaible; 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

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Cerbat Water Company

Golden Valley Water Improvement
District

County

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

County

a

Water Provider Name

Map Key

C. Designated Adequate Water Supply

Subdivision Name

Map Key

B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply

Appendix – Sacramento, Adequacy Determinations (2008 Update)

Appendix – Hualapai, Groundwater

Appendix – Hualapai, Hydrographs

Appendix – Hualapai, Hydrographs

Appendix – Hualapai, Exceedences

Appendix – Hualapai, Cultural Demand

24

23

22

21

20

19

Lake Mead Rancheros

18

4

3
Lake Mead Ranchos Unit

2
Lake Mead Ranchos Unit

Units 3, 8, 14, 16
Lake Mead Ranchos Unit

Unit 1
Lake Mead Rancheros,

12
Lake Mead Rancheros,

Lake Mead Rancheros #1-

Lake Juniper Estates

Lake Juniper

15

Lake Mead Rancheros

Joshua Park Unit No. 1

14

17

Joshua Park Unit 1

16

Joshua Park Unit #1

13

Tract 3811

Hualapai Vista Estates,

Hillview Ranches

Industrial Park B

Industrial Park
Greater Kingman

Greater Kingman

Fountain Hills Estates

12

11

10

8

7

6

Acres/Sunward Ho!

Esmeralda

Cedar Ridge Estates

Cerbat Ranches Unit 1

3

4

5

Arizona West Tract 1112

Ho! Rn

Amatista Acres, Sunward

Subdivision Name

2

1

Map Key

A. Water Adequacy Reports

22 North

15 West

25 North

Mohave

Mohave
28 North

28 North

28 North

25 North

Mohave
Mohave

25 North

18 West

18 West

18 West

15 West

15 West

15 West

15 East

25 South

25 North

15 West

17 West

17 West

17 West

17 West

17 West

16 West

16 West

15 West

15 West

17 West

16 West

17 West

17 West

15 West

16 West

Range

Location

25 North

22 North

22 North

28 North

28 North

28 North

22 North

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

23 North

Mohave
Mohave

22 North

22 North

23 North

22 North

22 North

23 North

23 North

Township

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

County

1

11

13

5, 9, 17, 27

13

27, 29, 31

19

21

3

11, 14

11,14

9

9

9

12, 13

7

5, 17

5, 17

13

31

12

11, 14

11

29

Section

491

592

95

332

121

1,606

324

259

197

16

80

141

48

41

9

19

200

66

19

125

38

256

17

No. of
Lots

53-500020

53-300328

53-700458

53-700401

53-700390

53-500880

53-500061

53-500036

53-500876

53-400872

53-500019

53-402005

53-300558

53-400832

53-400741

53-300156

53-500728

53-300087

53-500619

53-500434

53-300512

53-500295

53-500264

ADWR File
No.2

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Adequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Adequate

Adequate

Inadequate

Adequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

ADWR Adequacy
Determination

1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1, A2

A1

A1

A1,A2

A1

A1

A2

A1, A2

A1, A2

A2

A1

A2

A1

A1

Reason(s) for
Inadequacy
Determination3

Table 4.4-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Hualapai Valley Basin

03/14/2007

07/23/1997

12/31/2007

10/03/2007

08/09/2007

02/13/1986

03/12/2007

11/30/2006

02/22/1991

01/31/2003

06/11/2007

01/26/2006

10/29/1998

10/17/2002

07/02/2002

06/14/1996

07/27/1973

09/26/1996

09/19/1991

11/14/1980

09/04/1998

09/17/1987

09/19/1991

Date of Determination

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Lake Juniper HOA &
Mohave County
Lake Juniper Water
Company

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Cerbat Water
Company, Inc.

Dry Lot Subdivision

Cerbat Water
Company, Inc.

Dry Lot Subdivision

Truxton Canyon
Water Company

Dry Lot Subdivsion

Water Provider at the
Time of Application

Appendix – Hualapai, Adequacy Determinations (2008 update)

Pinion Pines Estates #2

Quail Valley Estates

39

40

Ranchettes Units

Sunward Ho! Ranches

56

55

Ranches

1907
Zafiro Acres-Sunward Ho

1078,1709, 1631, and

1200, Lots 860, 861, 999,

1204
Valle Vista Unit 2 Tract

Valle Vista Unit 3- Tract

Valle Vista #1A,3A

53

54

Valle Vista

#2

52

51

Turquesa Acres
Toro Acres, Sunward Ho!

Sunward Ho! Ranches

48

Sunward Ho! Ranches #2

Sunnyvale Acres,

Lots

Tract 1132, Phase 1-20

Unit Two & Three
Sunny Highlands Estates,

Shadow Mountain Acres

Sunrise Mountain Estates

49

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Red Wing Canyon Estates Mohave

1,3,4,6,7,8, and 9

47

46

45

44

43

41

Mead-O-Rama #4

35

Realsite Arizona

Mead-O-Rama #2

Mead-O-Rama #3

33

34

Mead-O-Rama

Unit 6

Lake Mohave Ranchos,

Lake Mohave Ranchos D

Unit 10

7
Lake Mead Rancheros

7
Lake Mead Ranchos Unit

6
Lake Mead Ranchos Unit

5
Lake Mead Ranchos, Unit

Lake Mead Ranchos Unit

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

22 North

23 North

24 North

23 North

23 North

23 North

23 North

23 North

23 North

23 North

23 North

24 North

23 North

26 North

25 North

22 North

20 North

29 North

29 North

29 North

29 North

26 North

26 North

25 North

29 North

29 North

29 North

29 North

16 West

15 West

16 West

15 West

15 West

16 West

16 West

16 West

16 West

16 West

14 West

14 West

17 West

15 West

16 West

17 West

15 West

17 West

18 West

19 West

18 West

19 West

18 West

15 West

18 West

18 West

18 West

18 West

5

3

34

10, 15

34

18, 19

30

19, 30, 31, 33

33

9

3

27, 35

23

19, 31

1, 11, 23, 25, 35

12

6

31

35

27

35

25

13, 15

1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11,

31

23

23

27

25

7

7

10

8,728

1,200

31

35

430

35

22

20

93

30

252

32

21

441

141

221

421

6

NA

39

569

567

402

541

53-400065

53-500096

53-400514

53-501597

53-501596

53-501567

53-501527

53-300439

53-501511

53-300075

53-700505

53-400424

53-501292

53-700403

53-501241

53-501174

53-500944

53-500943

53-500942

53-401651

53-401294

53-500886

53-700278

53-402007

53-400714

53-402006

53-400713

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Adequate

Adequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Adequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Adequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1

A1,A2,A3

A1,A2

A1

A1,A2

A1

A1

A2,A3

A2,A3

A2,A3

A2,A3

D

A2,A3

A1

A1

A1,A2

A1

A1, A2

05/11/1999

01/24/2007

07/10/2001

03/19/1975

06/07/1973

09/19/1991

09/19/1991

04/03/1998

01/14/1992

11/12/1995

04/14/2008

11/29/2000

05/04/1989

10/18/2007

11/24/1981

03/01/1977

08/31/1984

08/31/1984

08/31/1984

03/04/2005

04/26/2004

11/23/1977

04/18/2007

01/26/2006

05/21/2002

01/26/2006

05/21/2002

Dry Lot Subdivision

Company

Truxton Canyon Water

Company

Company
Truxton Canyon Water

Company
Truxton Canyon Water

Truxton Canyon Water

Dry Lot Subdivsion

Dry Lot Subdivsion

Dry Lot Subdivsion

Dry Lot Subdivsion

Dry Lot Subdivsion

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Company, Inc.

Dry Lot Subdivision
Cerbat Water

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

NA

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Dry Lot Subdivision

Appendix – Hualapai, Adequacy Determinations (2008 update)

Hafley Ranch

Nugent Ranch

Peacock Highlands

Peacock Vistas

Red Lake

The Mardian Ranch

9

36

37

38

42

50

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

Mohave

County

Location

18 West

27 North

17 West
19 West

28 North
27 North

18 West

17 West

28 North

28 North

17 West

27 North

18 West

26 North

16 West

17 West

26 North

27 North

17 West

25 North

16 West

15 West

26 North

14 West

23 North

14 West

22 North

23 North

16 West

25 North

15 West

16 West

22 North

15 West

24 North

Range

24 North

Township

1, 13, 25, 35

33

35
7, 19, 21, 29, 31,

35
13, 23, 25, 31, 33,

23, 25, 29, 31, 33,

13, 15, 17, 19, 21,

1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11,

23, 25, 27, 35

31, 35

19, 21, 23, 25, 29,

1, 3, 13, 15, 17,

31

5, 7, 17-20, 28- 31

13, 23, 25, 35

31, 33, 35

19, 21, 23-27, 29,

19, 21, 28-31
3, 5, 7, 9, 13-17,

1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 15, 17-

1, 11, 13, 14

7

29, 31, 33, 35

1, 19, 21, 25, 27,

19, 21, 29-31

4

3, 5, 9

19, 30, 31

Section

23,000

155,236

9,012

39,397

19,328

13,993

No. of
Lots

43-402028

43-402285

43-402286

43-402287

43-402288

43-402284

ADWR File No.

01/08/2007

11/02/2007

08/18/2007

08/17/2007

08/17/2007

08/17/2007

Date of
Determination

Undetermined

Undetermined

Undetermined

Undetermined

Undetermined

Undetermined

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 determination.
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 unavaible; 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= not currently available to ADWR

Subdivision Name

Map Key

B. Analysis of Adequate Water Supply

Appendix – Hualapai, Adequacy Determinations (2008 update)

Appendix – Big Sandy, Streamflows

Appendix – Big Sandy, Springs

Appendix – Big Sandy, Groundwater

Appendix – Big Sandy, Hydrographs

Appendix – Big Sandy, Exceedences

Appendix – Big Sandy, Exceedences

Appendix – Big Sandy, Cultural Demand

Appendix – Big Sandy, Adequacy Determinations

Appendix – Bill Williams, Streamflows

Appendix – Bill Williams, Springs

Appendix – Bill Williams, Groundwater

Appendix – Bill Williams, Hydrographs

Appendix – Bill Williams, Hydrographs

Appendix – Bill Williams, Exceedences

Appendix – Bill Williams, Exceedences

Appendix – Bill Williams, Cultural Demand

Pinon Estates #1

Pinon Estates #2

Rolling Hills

Shawnee Hills

3

4

5

6

7

La Paz

Yavapai

Yavapai

Yavapai

Yavapai

Yavapai

Yavapai

Yavapai

County

11 North

11 North

13 North

11 North

11 North

11 North

11 North

14 North

Township

18 West

5 West

5 West

5 West

5 West

5 West

5 West

3 West

Range

Location

15

23

25, 26, 35, 36

14, 15

14, 15

14, 15

22, 23

33, 34

Section

35

17

41

59

49

49

NA

14

No. of
Lots

53-401879

53-300210

53-300123

53-501189

53-501188

53-501187

53-501138

53-500204

ADWR File
No.2

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

Adequate

ADWR Adequacy
Determination

Reason(s) for
Inadequacy
3
Determination

1

01/18/2006

10/24/1996

03/20/1996

03/10/1986

03/21/1986

07/16/1980

12/03/1987

12/16/1974

Date of Determination

Improvement District

Domestic Water

Subdivision wells
Peeples Valley Water
Company
Peeples Valley Water
Company
Peeples Valley Water
Company
Dry Lot Subdivision
Peeples Valley Water
Company
Springs Del Sol

Subdivision wells

Water Provider at the
Time of Application

1

Notes:
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 determination.
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 unavaible; 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

Condominiums

Springs Del Sol

Pinon Estates #1

2

8

Highland Pines

Peeples Valley #2

1

Subdivision Name

Map Key

Table 4.2-10 Adequacy Determinations in the Bill Williams Basin

Appendix – Bill Williams, Adequacy Determinations (2008 update)

Appendix – Bill Williams,

Appendix C
Access to Highway and Property Purchase

Appendix for ADOT 2004 Location and Concept Design Report for Highway 93, I-40 to
Wikieup – Reasonable Access vs. ADOT purchase of property.

Parcel Number
203-03-008
203-02-021 & 023
203-02-024
203-03-001
203-03-004
202-07-028
202-07-026 & 027
252-05-010
252-05-070
202-10-004
202-34-015
202-34-013
202-34-011
202-34-018
202-34-027
202-34-009
202-34-008
202-33-010
202-33-005
202-33-004
202-77-011
202-76-012
202-76-010A
202-76-009
202-76-005
202-76-004

Owner
David Moraan
Wildlife Wavstation
James Withrow
Ravmond & Ida Reves
Jane Imeila
Bvner Cattle Comeanv
Marvin and Treena Black
Anita M. Waite
Sherwood L. Koehn & Anita M. Waite
Roberta A. Nielsen
Anthonv J. & Mildred F. Rizzo
Fred H. & Earline Faris
HR Investments
BV & CY Familv Trust
Shirlev & Bobbv Loftin
Robert G. & Pamela M. Whitham
James E. Polston
Pamela Marie Sutter
Frank W. & Lisa A. Mueller
Debra Zozava
Roadrunner RealwCoro.
Roadrunner RealwCoro.
Dan M. & Janas B. Barrett
Dan M. & Janas B. Barrett
Silver Ranch CorD.
David & Jane Foat

Alterative A1-3: Of these properties, it is recommended that ADOT purchase parcels 203-02021, 203-02-023, 202-02-024, 203-03-0 I and 203-03-04. These parcels are located relatively far
from the future interchanges to their north and south, and are adjacent to the Big Sandy River
bed, making any frontage roads difficult and costly to construct (ADOT, Jacobs).
Alternative B-3: There are several parcels that will not need to be acquired based on the
assumption that a parcel has access if it is adjacent to another parcel with the same owner that
has access. For instance, near milepost 118.6, parcels 203-27-5 and 203-27-2 do not have direct
access to a frontage road, but they are adjacent to parcel 203-27-6, which has access to Cyprus
Bagdad Copper Road. Byner Cattle Company owns all three of the parcels, so access can be
provided to parcels 203-27-5 and 203-27-2 through parcel 203-27-6 (ADOT, Jacobs).
Alternative C1-1: Approximately four miles north of the southern end of Alternative C-I, at MP
108.7 is parcel 202-07-28. This parcel, owned by Byner Cattle Company, is located just south of

Cane Springs Wash. The topography of the wash would make a frontage road from the future TI
at Upper Trout Creek Road impractical. Building a frontage road from the "Tribe South" Tl
would involve crossing through approximately two miles of BLM land. Both of these options
would outweigh the cost of purchasing the parcel (ADOT, Jacobs).
In order to provide access to parcels 202-07-026, 202-07-027 and 252-05-10 (located on the east
side of US 93 near MP 108.5), a road can be constructed from the northern boundary of parcels
202-07-026 & 027 (MP 108.5) north along the section line to Upper Trout Creek Road (MP 108)
(ADOT, Jacobs).
Between the future Upper Trout Creek Interchange and the unnamed TI to its north, from MP
106.3 to 105.3, lies parcel 252-05-070. This parcel encompasses an entire section, and is
bordered on the north and the south by State Lands. In order to access this parcel, it is
recommended that a frontage road be built from one of the future interchanges. Coordination
with State Lands will be necessary in developing this road (ADOT, Jacobs).
Two parcels east of the unnamed TI (MP 104.4) are lacking adequate access to the crossroad.
Building a road south from the crossroad along the midsection line that forms the eastern
boundary of parcel 202-10-4 will provide that parcel with adequate access to the cross road for
the nearby TI. Parcel 202-34-15 can be provided with access by building a road north from the
crossroad along the property line running along the eastern edge of the parcel (ADOT, Jacobs).
Between MP 103 and 104, several parcels west of US 93 and south of the "Antelope South" TI at
MP 102.6 will also be left without adequate access if a frontage road is not built. Access to
parce1s 202- 34-11,202-34-18,202-34-9,202-34-8,202-33-10, 202-33-5, and 202- 33-4 can be
provided by a new access road built on the section line running along the western border of these
properties. Further analysis by the designer and R/W Group will be needed to determine whether
this frontage road should be extended to the unnamed interchange to the south in order to give
access to parcel 202-34-13 (MP 104.3) (ADOT, Jacobs).
Alternative D1-1: In this segment, there are several parcels without access. Just to the south of
the McGarry's Wash TI, from MP 94.3 to 93.3, is parcel 202-77-011, owned by Roadrunner
Realty Corp. This parcel exists on both the east and west sides of US 93. The portion of the
parcel on the west side of US 93 can be provided with access along the section line that forms
the western border of Section 9. Access can be provided to the portion of the parcel on the east
side of the highway by building an access road along the eastern edge of Section 5 south to the
northwest comer of Section 9. The road can be extended eastward along the northern border of
Section 9 if necessary (ADOT, Jacobs).
Parcel 202-76-012, which currently has access to US 93 at MP 92.6, can be provided with access
to the ultimate TI crossroad by extending the road westward along the southern edge of Section
5. The road can then head north along the western property line of parcel 202-76-012 to connect
with the proposed frontage road at MP 92.5, thus providing access to parcel 202-76-0 l0A
(ADOT, Jacobs).

Parcels 202-76-009 (MP 92.5 to 93) and 202-76-005 (MP 92.5) on the east side of US 93 can be
provided with access by building a frontage road north from the end of the McGarry's Wash TI
crossroad along the eastern edge of section 5 to the midsection line. When the road reaches the
midsection line, it will head west to connect with the proposed frontage road, thus providing
access to both parcels. The frontage road itself, which has been proposed for the interim
condition, will then provide adequate access for parcel 202-76-004, at the northern end of the
McGarry's Wash project (MP 92.2 to 92.4) (ADOT, Jacobs).

Appendix D
Proposed and Existing Land Uses within US Highway 93 Area Plan

Proposed and Existing Land Uses within Northwest Corridor of US Highway 93 Area Plan
Proposed Land Use
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Suburban Estate
Suburban Residential
General Commercial
General Commercial
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Rural Development Area
Suburban Estate
Suburban Residential
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
General Commercial
Rural Development Area
Rural Industrial
Rural Industrial
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Industrial
General Commercial
General Commercial
Light Industrial
Rural Industrial
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Industrial
Rural Development Area

Acres
661
658
40
377
36
30
145
223
77
105
61
635
624
127
468
42
637
625
587
471
147
2
6
11
305
144
64
65
1
9
1
3
4
4
6
7
8
8
8
15
417
34
72
638
687
678
3
200
5
441
668
671
640
398
244
113
117
317
49
641
658
45
641
73
200
337
640

Twn
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N

Rng
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
17W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W

Sect
4
5
6
6
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
16
17
17
17
20
21
19
29
29
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
32
2
3
4
4
4
4
5
6
8
9
9
10
10
10
10
11
13
13
14
15
15
15
16

Portion

SE 1/4 SE 1/4
Portion
Port NW 1/4
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

Portion
Portion
Portion

E 1/2, NW 1/4
SW 1/4
Portion
Portion
Portion
N 1/2
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

Portion
Portion
Portion

Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

1

Exist General Plan Land Use
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Industrial
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area

Tenure
BLM
BLM
BLM
Private
Private
BLM
BLM
BLM
Private
State Trust
State Trust
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
Private
Private
Private
Private
BLM
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
BLM
BLM
BLM
State Trust
State Trust
Private
State Trust
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
BLM
Private
Private
Private

Proposed and Existing Land Uses within Northwest Corridor of US Highway 93 Area Plan
Proposed Land Use
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Industrial
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Industrial
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
General Commercial
Public Lands
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
General Commercial
Public Lands
Suburban Estate
Suburban Residential
Public Lands
Suburban Residential
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Suburban Residential
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Public Lands
General Commercial
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Suburban Residential
Public Lands
Suburban Development Area
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
Light Industrial
Light Industrial
Suburban Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
General Commercial
Light Industrial
Light Industrial
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands

Acres
639
642
620
20
84
312
206
711
763
642
640
641
642
3
642
209
417
2
310
325
632
656
660
651
640
647
642
72
523
39
645
126
504
635
318
331
368
286
1
3
4
9
9
12
14
26
314
1
2
218
640
640
593
77
629
40
637
641
17
1
11
140
403
613
635
640
624

Twn
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N
23N

Rng
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W

Sect
17
21
22
22
23
23
23
24
24
25
26
27
34
35
35
35
35
36
6
6
7
8
17
18
19
20
21
27
27
27
28
29
29
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
34
1
2
2
3
3
10
11
12
12
12
12
12
13
14
23
24

Portion

Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
W 1/2
E 1/2

E 1/2 NE 1/4
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
W 1/2
E 1/2
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

S 1/2 NW 1/4
Portion
SW 1/4 SW 1/4

Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

2

Exist General Plan Land Use
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
General Commercial
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
General Commercial
General Commercial
Rural Development Area
Light Industrial
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands

Tenure
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
State Trust
BLM
State Trust
State Trust
State Trust
BLM
Private
Private
BLM
Private
State Trust
Private
BLM
Private
BLM
Private
Private
BLM
Private
Private
BLM
Private
Private
BLM
State Trust
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
BLM
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
Private
BLM
BLM
State Trust
State Trust
State Trust
State Trust
State Trust
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM

Proposed and Existing Land Uses within Northwest Corridor of US Highway 93 Area Plan
Proposed Land Use
Suburban Residential
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Suburban Estate
Suburban Estate
Suburban Estate
General Commercial
Public Lands
Suburban Development Area
General Commercial
General Commercial
Rural Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Suburban Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
General Commercial
General Commercial
Light Industrial
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Suburban Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
General Commercial
Light Industrial
General Commercial
Suburban Development Area
General Commercial
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Estate
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Suburban Estate
Commercial Recreation
Suburban Estate
Public Lands
Suburban Estate
Public Lands
Suburban Estate
Suburban Estate
Public Lands
Suburban Development Area

Acres
625
642
634
496
495
491
464
602
37
367
234
1
10
521
26
69
641
481
158
639
559
81
642
641
604
642
643
481
159
482
158
629
640
20
70
201
318
17
482
158
641
638
323
315
639
157
480
557
29
97
126
357
33
162
446
474
162
643
303
641
151
487
334
307
574
4
64

Twn
23N
23N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
24N
25N
25N
25N
25N
25N
25N
25N
25N
25N
25N
25N
25N
25N
25N
25N
25N
25N
25N
25N

Rng
19W
19W
18W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
20W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
19W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W

Sect
25
36
31
3
4
5
6
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
10
11
11
14
15
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
22
23
23
24
25
26
26
26
26
26
27
27
28
33
34
34
35
36
36
1
19
19
30
30
31
31
31
32
32
33
2
3
4
4
10
10
11
12
12

Portion

Port of NE 1/4
Portion
Port of N 1/2
Portion
Port of NW 1/4
Portion
Port of NW 1/4
Port of NW 1/4
NW 1/4, S 1/2
NE 1/4
Portion
W 1/2 SW 1/4

N 1/2, SW 1/4
SE 1/4
S 1/2, NW 1/4
NW 1/4

Port W 1/2
Port W 1/2
Port W 1/2
E 1/2
Port W 1/2
W 1/2, SE 1/4
NE 1/4

S 1/2
N 1/2
N 1/2 N 1/2
S1/2, N1/2 S1/2
Port SW 1/4
Port W 1/2
Port of SE 1/4
Portion
Portion
SE 1/4
Portion
N 1/2, SW 1/4
SE 1/4
Portion
SE 1/4
SW 1/4, N 1/2
N 1/2
S 1/2
Portion
Port of NW 1/4
Port of SW 1/4

3

Exist General Plan Land Use
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
General Commercial
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area

Tenure
Private
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
Private
Private
Private
Private
BLM
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
BLM
Private
State Trust
Private
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
Private
BLM
Private
BLM
BLM
Private
Private
Private
BLM
Private
BLM
Private
BLM
Private
BLM
Private
Private
BLM
State Trust
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
BLM
State Trust
Private
State Trust
Private
BLM
Private
BLM
Private
Private
BLM
Private

Proposed and Existing Land Uses within Northwest Corridor of US Highway 93 Area Plan
Proposed Land Use
Suburban Estate
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Estate
Public Lands
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Estate
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Suburban Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Urban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Public Lands
Urban Development Area
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
Rural Industrial
Rural Industrial
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Urban Development Area
Urban Development Area
Urban Development Area
Urban Development Area
Urban Development Area

Acres
644
638
248
641
329
315
641
630
650
386
632
228
38
576
637
641
640
355
155
625
645
640
636
578
29
637
639
633
636
638
632
9
642
193
66
0
2
10
16
27
29
34
35
36
36
36
314
641
647
632
627
629
639
643
638
640
644
641
637
26
158
163
136
160
161
83
452

Twn
25N
25N
25N
25N
25N
25N
25N
25N
25N
26N
26N
26N
26N
26N
26N
26N
26N
26N
26N
26N
26N
26N
26N
26N
26N
26N
26N
26N
26N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N

Rng
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
21W
21W
21W
21W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
20W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W

Sect
21
22
23
23
24
24
25
26
36
6
7
8
16
17
18
19
20
21
27
28
29
32
33
34
35
1
2
12
13
18
19
29
29
30
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
32
1
2
3
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
23
24
24
24
24
24
24
25
25

Portion

Portion
W 1/2
E 1/2

Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

Portion
Portion
Portion

Portion
Port of SW 1/4

Port of S 1/2
Port N 1/2
Port of W1/2
W 1/2
W 1/2
W 1/2
W 1/2
W 1/2
W 1/2
W 1/2
W 1/2
W 1/2
W 1/2
E 1/2

Port SW 1/4
NE 1/4
SE 1/4
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

4

Exist General Plan Land Use
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Urban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Public Lands
Urban Development Area
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Urban Development Area
Urban Development Area
Urban Development Area
Urban Development Area

Tenure
Private
Private
Private
Private
BLM
Private
Private
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
Private
Private
Private
BLM
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
State Trust
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private

Proposed and Existing Land Uses within Northwest Corridor of US Highway 93 Area Plan
Proposed Land Use
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Industrial
Public Lands
Rural Industrial
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Industrial
Rural Industrial
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
General Commercial
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands

Acres
646
643
40
79
524
327
317
641
624
233
168
236
646
636
646
7
247
369
633
639
643
635
645
625
638
637
635
638
642
628

Twn
27N
27N
27N
27N
27N
28N
28N
28N
28N
28N
28N
28N
28N
28N
28N
28N
28N
28N
28N
28N
28N
28N
28N
28N
28N
28N
28N
28N
28N
28N

Rng
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W
21W

Sect
26
35
36
36
36
5
5
6
7
8
8
8
9
15
16
17
17
17
18
19
20
21
22
26
27
28
29
33
34
36

Portion

NE 1/4 NE 1/4
S 1/2 SW 1/4
Portion
W 1/2
E 1/2

Port of W 1/2
Port of S 1/2
Port of E 1/2

Port NW 1/4

5

Exist General Plan Land Use
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands

Tenure
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
State Trust
BLM
State Trust
BLM
BLM
BLM
State Trust
State Trust
State Trust
BLM
State Trust
State Trust
State Trust
State Trust
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM

Proposed and Existing Land Uses within Southeast Corridor of US Highway 93 Area Plan
Proposed Land Use
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
General Commercial
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands

Acres
170
656
633
6
163
154
11
637
641
163
659
661
664
662
663
638
640
641
635
637
642
589
593
640
638
640
596
595
638
639
639
640
638
639
595
597
639
640
641
641
529
111
642
642
645
304
338
640
630
39
607
641
638
627
621
41
639
638
639
632
656
641
642
640
523
104
597

Twn
13N
13N
13N
13N
13N
13N
13N
13N
13N
13N
13N
13N
13N
13N
13N
13N
13N
13N
13N
13N
13N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
14N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N

Rng
10W
10W
10W
10W
10W
10W
10W
10W
10W
10W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
11W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W

Sect
5
6
7
8
8
17
17
18
19
20
1
2
3
4
5
9
10
11
12
13
14
6
7
8
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
1
1
2
3
4
5
5
9
10
11
11
12
13
14
15
15
23
24
25
6
7
8
16
17
18
18
19

Portion
Portion

Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

Portion

Portion
Portion
Portion

S 1/2
N 1/2

SW 1/4 SW 1/4
Portion

10, 11 & 14

Portion
Portion

6

Exist General Plan Land Use
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands

Tenure
BLM
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
Private
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
Private
BLM
BLM
Private
Private
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
Private
BLM
BLM
Private
Private
Private
Private
BLM
Private
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
Private
BLM

Proposed and Existing Land Uses within Southeast Corridor of US Highway 93 Area Plan
Proposed Land Use
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Commercial Recreation
Commercial Recreation
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Suburban Development Area
Commercial Recreation
Commercial Recreation
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial

Acres
635
639
636
640
638
641
640
631
639
639
637
641
643
639
640
641
642
637
398
238
484
155
638
596
41
635
160
234
242
627
636
8
81
40
504
599
285
38
40
312
312
639
642
599
38
643
559
78
78
489
149
322
54
241
637
640
640
634
2
3
4
7
9
10
12
15
20

Twn
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
15N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N

Rng
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
12W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
12W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W

Sect
20
21
22
26
27
28
29
30
32
33
34
35
36
1
2
3
4
10
11
11
12
12
13
14
14
23
24
24
24
31
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
8
9
9
10
11
11
11
14
14
15
15
15
16
17
20
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22

Portion

Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
S 1/2
S 1/2
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

7

Exist General Plan Land Use
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area

Tenure
BLM
Private
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
Private
Private
Private
BLM
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
Private
Private
BLM
Private
BLM
BLM
BLM
Private
Private
BLM
Private
Private
BLM
Private
Private
BLM
Private
Private
Private
Private
BLM
BLM
BLM
Private
Private
BLM
Private
Private
BLM
Private
Private
Private
Private
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private

Proposed and Existing Land Uses within Southeast Corridor of US Highway 93 Area Plan
Proposed Land Use
Light Industrial
Light Industrial
Light Industrial
Public Facilities
Rural Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Commercial Recreation
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
Public Lands
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Public Lands
Suburban Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
General Commercial
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
General Commercial
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands

Acres
1
3
6
4
301
9
11
29
171
524
37
78
482
156
309
330
120
4
4
6
9
11
13
14
74
6
12
21
40
51
55
76
79
632
3
638
636
640
640
477
160
557
326
231
410
143
550
643
517
123
16
359
122
146
642
643
6
495
142
201
440
643
156
79
165
223
313

Twn
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16N
16.5N
16.5N
16.5N
16.5N
16.5N
16.5N
16.5N
16.5N
16.5N
16.5N
16.5N
16.5N
16.5N
16.5N
16.5N
16.5N
16.5N
16.5N
16.5N
16.5N
16.5N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N

Rng
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W

Sect
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
25
25
26
26
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
28
28
29
33
34
35
36
36
20
21
21
22
22
23
26
27
27
28
28
28
28
29
32
33
33
33
34
34
35
2
2
2
2
3

Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
NW 1/4
W 1/2 SW 1/4
SE 1/4
S 1/2, NW 1/4
W 1/2

8

Exist General Plan Land Use
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands

Tenure
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
BLM
Private
Private
BLM
Private
BLM
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
BLM
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
BLM
Private
BLM
BLM
Private
Private
BLM
Private
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
Private
BLM
BLM
BLM
Private
Private
BLM
Private
Private
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
Private
BLM
Private
BLM
BLM
State
State Trust
Private
BLM

Proposed and Existing Land Uses within Southeast Corridor of US Highway 93 Area Plan
Proposed Land Use
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
General Commercial
Light Industrial
Light Industrial
Light Industrial
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area

Acres
310
620
618
637
461
172
204
433
642
236
405
471
169
640
640
642
642
639
641
156
487
640
640
636
75
319
240
641
319
14
39
324
560
642
634
634
640
641
641
80
643
639
633
640
644
40
600
565
65
79
499
642
641
640
639
639
641
80
565
638
23
34
45
57
88
285
638

Twn
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
17N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
18N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N

Rng
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W

Sect
3
4
5
9
10
10
11
11
13
14
14
15
15
16
21
22
23
24
25
26
26
27
28
34
35
35
35
36
3
4
4
4
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
22
23
26
26
26
27
28
29
32
33
34
35
35
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5

Portion
E 1/2

Portion
E 1/2 E 1/2
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

Portion
Portion

Portion
Portion
Portion
E 1/2
Portion
Portion
W 1/2
Portion

NW 1/4 NE 1/4

Portion
Portion
Portion

Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

9

Exist General Plan Land Use
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area

Tenure
Private
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
Private
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
Private
BLM
BLM
Private
Private
BLM
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
Private
Private
Private
Private
State Trust
Private
State Trust
Private
State Trust
Private
State Trust
Private
State Trust
Private
State Trust
State Trust
Private
Private
State Trust
Private
BLM
BLM
Private
Private
Private
Private
State Trust
BLM
BLM
BLM
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private

Proposed and Existing Land Uses within Southeast Corridor of US Highway 93 Area Plan
Proposed Land Use
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
General Commercial
Light Industrial
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Suburban Estate
Suburban Estate
Suburban Residential
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
Suburban Estate
Suburban Residential
Suburban Residential
Light Industrial
Suburban Estate
General Commercial
General Commercial
Suburban Residential
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
Suburban Residential
Suburban Residential
Suburban Residential
Suburban Estate
Suburban Residential
Suburban Residential
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area

Acres
627
629
165
419
640
642
312
328
173
406
640
630
632
641
180
392
641
639
153
391
638
631
632
641
12
39
8
79
429
642
634
316
319
2
19
64
70
73
73
211
622
634
1
35
591
11
41
57
9
225
231
640
642
641
631
631
642
628
628
642
141
640
640
628
628
625
646

Twn
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
19N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N
20N

Rng
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W

Sect
6
7
8
8
8
10
15
15
16
16
17
18
19
20
21
21
22
27
28
28
29
30
31
32
33
33
33
33
33
34
3
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
16
17
18
19
20
30
31
32
33
34
1
2
3
4
12

Portion

Portion
Portion

W 1/2
Portion
Portion
Portion

Portion
Portion

Portion
Portion

Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

N 1/2
S 1/2
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

Portion

10

Exist General Plan Land Use
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
General Commercial
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
General Commercial
General Commercial
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area

Tenure
State Trust
State Trust
Private
Private
State Trust
State Trust
State Trust
Private
Private
Private
Private
State Trust
Private
State Trust
Private
Private
State Trust
Private
Private
Private
Private
State Trust
Private
State Trust
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
State Trust
Private
State Trust
State Trust
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
State Trust
Private
State Trust
State Trust
State Trust
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
State Trust
State Trust
Private
State Trust
Private
State Trust
State Trust
Private
State Trust
Private
State Trust
Private
State Trust
Private
State Trust
State Trust

Proposed and Existing Land Uses within Southeast Corridor of US Highway 93 Area Plan
Proposed Land Use
Rural Development Area
Suburban Estate
Suburban Estate
Light Industrial
Light Industrial
Light Industrial
Light Industrial
Light Industrial
Suburban Estate
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Commercial Recreation
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
General Commercial
General Commercial
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
General Commercial
General Commercial
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
Rural Development Area
General Commercial
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands

Acres
635
641
639
6
256
293
641
199
403
640
642
136
454
639
640
640
639
638
637
565
155
426
56
1
2
8
10
11
20
66
1
33
36
46
75
177
638
638
170
469
644
38
639
5
7
41
548
6
8
157
429
637
642
638
643
640
633
637
15
16
37
522
16
604
639
637
4

Twn
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N

Rng
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
13W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
14W
15W
15W
15W
15W
15W
15W
15W
15W
15W
15W
15W
15W
15W
15W
15W
15W

Sect
28
29
30
31
31
31
32
33
33
17
18
19
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
28
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
31
32
32
33
34
34
35
35
35
35
36
36
36
36
7
8
9
13
14
15
16
17
17
17
17
18
18
19
21
22

Portion

Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

Portion
Portion

Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

NW 1/4

Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion

Portion

11

Exist General Plan Land Use
Rural Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands

Tenure
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
State Trust
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
State Trust
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
State Trust
Private
State Trust
State Trust
State Trust
State Trust
Private
Private
Private
Private
State Trust
State Trust
BLM
BLM
BLM

Proposed and Existing Land Uses within Southeast Corridor of US Highway 93 Area Plan
Proposed Land Use
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Neighborhood Commercial
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area

Acres
606
38
565
639
165
475
640
638
568
70
483
157
319
318
10
628
166
300
640

Twn
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N
21N

Rng
15W
15W
15W
15W
15W
15W
15W
15W
15W
15W
15W
15W
15W
15W
16W
16W
16W
16W
16W

Sect
22
23
23
24
25
25
26
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
12
12
13
13
24

Portion
Portion

Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
Portion
N 1/2
S 1/2
Portion
Portion
Portion

12

Exist General Plan Land Use
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Public Lands
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Public Lands
Rural Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area
Suburban Development Area

Tenure
BLM
BLM
BLM
State Trust
BLM
Private
BLM
BLM
BLM
Private
BLM
State Trust
BLM
State Trust
Private
Private
BLM
BLM
BLM

Appendix E
Status of Entitlement Requests

Request
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Total Granted
Total Modified
Total Denied
Grand Total

APN
340-26-001
308-20-008
339-22-003 & 004
339-31-012
339-31-013
339-31-015
339-32-003
339-32-004
339-32-012
339-39-010
339-40-001
339-40-002
339-40-003
339-40-006
339-40-007
253-13-018
253-13-025
253-13-026

Parcel
Portion of W1/2
Portion of NW 1/4 NE 1/4
Section 10 except Hwy 93
Parcel 182, Legend Ranch
Parcel 183, Legend Ranch
Parcel 185, Legend Ranch
Parcel 192, Legend Ranch
Parcel 193, Legend Ranch
Parcel 269, Legend Ranch
Parcel 270, Legend Ranch
Parcel 271, Legend Ranch
Parcel 272, Legend Ranch
Parcel 273, Legend Ranch
Parcel 283, Legend Ranch
Parcel 284, Legend Ranch
Parcel 10, Windmill Ranch
Parcel 24, Windmill Ranch
Parcel 25, Windmill Ranch

Twn
24N
23N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
22N
19N
19N
19N

Rng
19W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
18W
13W
13W
13W

Sect
26
19
10
9
9
9
15
15
15
15
23
23
23
23
23
4
4
4
863.0
495.8
122.0
1,480.8

Acres
287.0
25.0
576.0
42.6
42.6
42.7
42.2
41.8
41.0
41.0
41.0
40.6
40.5
40.0
40.0
26.8
35.1
35.2

Requested Land Use
General Commercial, Light Industrial
General Commercial
Gen Comm, Light Ind, Solar
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Commercial
General Comm, Comm Recreation
General Comm, Comm Recreation

Existing Land Use
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area

Land Use Requests for new Entitlements to be considered as part of the US Highway Corridor Area Plan
Area Plan Land Use
General Commercial, Light Industrial
Rural Development Area
Gen Com, Light Ind, Rural Ind
Rural Industrial
Rural Industrial
Rural Industrial
Rural Industrial
Rural Industrial
Rural Industrial
Rural Industrial
Rural Industrial
Rural Industrial
Rural Industrial
Rural Industrial
Rural Industrial
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area
Rural Development Area

Status
Granted
Retain existing land use
Granted
Modified to RI
Modified to RI
Modified to RI
Modified to RI
Modified to RI
Modified to RI
Modified to RI
Modified to RI
Modified to RI
Modified to RI
Modified to RI
Modified to RI
Retain existing land use
Retain existing land use
Retain existing land use

Abbreviated Bibliography
North River Economic Region Economic Development Plan, ESI Corporation, 6/2005
Mohave County Community Wildfire Protection Plan, Logan Simpson Design, Inc., 7/2008
US Highway 93 Access Management Study, Milepost 17 to 68, DMJM-Harris, 12/2004
US Highway 93/I-40 to Wikieup Location Design and Concept Report, Jacobs Civil, Inc., 1/2006
Santa Maria River to Wikieup Full Access Control Plan, Jacobs Civil, Inc., 9/2006
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, Arizona Game and Fish Dept., 5/2006
Arizona Wildlife Linkages Assessment, Arizona Wildlife Linkages Working Group, 12/2006
Best Management Practices for Wildlife Corridors, Beier, Paul, et. al., 1/2008
Sustainable Sites Initiative: Guidelines and Performance Benchmarks, American Society of
Landscape Architects, 2008
Guidelines for Bridge Construction or Maintenance to Accommodate Fish & Wildlife Movement
and Passage, Arizona Game and Fish Dept., 11/2008
Arizona Water Atlas, Arizona Department of Water Resources, Volume 4, 2006 to present
Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Bureau of Land Management, in progress
The Ranch at White Hills Area Plan, Rick Harrison Site Design, et. al., 2004
The Villages at White Hills Area Plan, RNM Architecture and Stanley Consultants, 2005
The Silverado Area Plan, PMA Design, et. al. 2006
The Golden Valley Area Plan, Mohave County, 2002
The Long Mountain Area Plan, Mohave County, 2006