2015 Arizona Drought Preparedness Annual Report Acknowledgements The Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan was adopted in 2004 and its continued implementation ordered in 2007 (EO 2007-10). The Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) prepares the report each year based on updates from the Drought Monitoring Technical Committee, Interagency Coordinating Group, Local Drought Impact Groups and others. The 2015 Drought Preparedness Annual Report covers the drought conditions and preparedness activities for the 2015 water year, from October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015. ADWR acknowledges and thanks all who contributed to this report. Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Drought Status Summary A. Winter Precipitation- 2014/2015 B. Monsoon Precipitation - 2015 C. Cumulative Precipitation and Streamflow Summary D. Drought Index Wells E. Drought Status Changes F. Outlook for 2015/2016 3. Drought Declarations 4. Drought Designations 5. Drought Preparedness Plan Implementation Highlights A. Water Supply Status B. Drought Planning for Community Water Systems C. Local Drought Impact Group Activities D. State Monitoring Technical Committee Efforts E. Interagency Coordinating Group Efforts F. ADWR Outreach and Assistance 6. Resource Needs Appendices A. B. C. D. E. F. G. 2015-2016 El Niño Fact Sheet Mohave County Local Drought Impact Group 2015 Report Pima County Local Drought Impact Group 2015 Report Arizona State Park Managers’ Drought Ratings Arizona Natural Resources Conservation Services Drought Report ADWR Testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee of Energy and Natural Resources ADWR Monitoring Well Network Optimization Plan 1 2015 Arizona Drought Preparedness Annual Report 1. Introduction Arizona has been in a state of long-term drought for approximately 21 years. Although Arizona’s long-term drought status has improved significantly compared to last year, more than two thirds of the state is abnormally dry or in moderate drought. Furthermore, major reservoirs are only approximately 50% full, and every county had a United States Department of Agriculture disaster designation due to drought this water year. Enhanced chances for above normal winter precipitation due to El Niño could help alleviate drought conditions even more, however, extended years of normal or above normal precipitation are needed to alleviate the long-term drought and recharge aquifers as their recovery tends to be relatively slow. Arizona’s drought preparedness plan activities continue to provide a framework to monitor drought, improve understanding of drought impacts, and determine mechanisms for limiting future vulnerability. 2. Drought Status Summary A. Winter Precipitation: October 2014 – April 2015 The winter of 2014 (Fig. 1) was the 4th consecutive dry winter in Arizona. By comparison, the winter of 2015 was significantly wetter in all areas of the state except extreme northern Mohave County (Fig. 2). The Navajo Nation and Cochise County received near- or aboveaverage precipitation, while the rest of the state was slightly drier than normal. Through April, the Upper Colorado River Basin was generally at or below 70% of normal precipitation. Both winters, 2014 and 2015, were neutral years in terms of El Niño/La Niña, but 2015 managed to be significantly wetter than 2014 for Arizona. Figure 1. Precipitation Oct. 2013 – Apr. 2014. Figure 2. Precipitation Oct. 2014 – Apr. 2015. Similar to last year, snow accumulation during the winter season was well below normal across the state (Fig. 3). An early March storm brought the snowpack up somewhat, however, snow water equivalent levels remained well below the 30-year median. 2 Figure 3. 2015 Arizona statewide snowpack summary as of Sep, 30, 2015, Natural Resources Conservation Service. B. Monsoon Precipitation: July – September 2015 Both the 2014 and 2015 monsoon seasons were wetter than normal (Fig. 4 and Fig.5). The very wet summer of 2014 was due to very warm water off the coast of Mexico that led to a series of tropical storms that brought several record rain events to central and southern Arizona, causing widespread flooding to the Phoenix area as well as to Nogales, Douglas and other southern communities. The hurricanes that developed off of Mexico tended to move north along the coast, and the southeasterly flow brought the moisture into the state. Since the warm water off the Mexican coast continued through the summer of 2015, similar storm patterns were expected. However, the hurricanes and tropical storms that did develop tended to move to the northwest toward Hawaii rather than move up the coast. Therefore, Arizona had a lot less moisture than in 2014, and few record rain events. The 2015 monsoon was much more localized with central Arizona receiving slightly below average monsoon precipitation. Figure 4. 2014 Monsoon precipitation. Figure 5. 2015 Monsoon precipitation. 3 C. Cumulative Precipitation and Streamflow Summary  Precipitation Cumulative precipitation for water year 2015 ended up at near normal levels throughout the mountainous areas of Arizona, ranging from 90% to 94% of average in the major river basins. A well below normal winter was followed by a wetter than normal monsoon which resulted in the near normal conditions for the water year (Table 1). Table 1. Water Year 2015 Mountain Precipitation (as of September 30, 2015) Major Basin Percent of 30-year Average Precipitation Salt River Basin Verde River Basin San Francisco-Upper Gila River Basin Little Colorado River Basin 92% 94% 90% 90%  Streamflow Overall drought status as indicated by streamflow data shows a slight decrease in drought severity from 2014 to 2015 (Fig. 6). Additionally there is less variability in drought conditions during 2015 than in 2014 (most basins in 2015 were defined as showing no drought or abnormally dry). Basins that increased drought status did so by only one drought category; those that decreased drought status did so by one or two categories. Out of the 26 basins; eight remained at the same level, fifteen decreased, and three increased in drought severity. There was a trend during the fourth quarter of the 2014 water year defined by decreasing drought conditions due to significant streamflow related to monsoon season precipitation. This trend was temporarily suspended due to below average streamflow in November 2014, but during the winter season streamflow was above average and drought conditions for several basins showed no drought. For the rest of the 2015 water year, a number of basins had a slight increase in drought conditions, but overall the magnitude of drought was less than 2014. 2014 2015 Category No Drought D0 - Abnormally Dry D1 – Moderate Drought D2 – Severe Drought D3 – Extreme Drought D4 – Exceptional Drought Figure 6. Overall drought condition from 2014 to 2015 improved from moderate drought to abnormally dry, as determined by USGS stream gages. 4 D. Drought Index Wells Two ADWR groundwater index wells located in the southeastern part of the state serve as a qualitative supplement to existing drought indicators. The water level monitoring results below are expressed as depth to water below land surface, i.e., DTW.  Lower San Pedro Watershed Groundwater Index Well Continuous water level monitoring of this well began in June 2007 with a DTW of 32.21 feet. Since that time, the lowest DTW recorded was 26.23 feet on September 20, 2014. The second lowest DTW was on August 7, 2007 at 29.11 feet. The greatest DTW was also recorded this past year on July 4, 2014 at 33.89 feet, and previously on July 4, 2013 at 33.85 feet. The 2015 groundwater level trend for this well site (Fig. 7) correlates with decreasing drought severity over the past year, showing an overall slight increase in water levels when compared to the previous year. When compared to the water level spike of 26.23 feet DTW on September 20 water levels have decreased to more normalized conditions. The seasonality patterns observed this year are similar to water level variation seen in previous years. Annual fluctuations are observed with increases in water levels typically during summer precipitation events. Figure 7. Continuous groundwater levels for drought index well in the Lower San Pedro Watershed (D-15-20 09AAB2).  Whitewater Draw Watershed Groundwater Index Well Continuous water level monitoring of this well began in April 2009 with a DTW of 4.76 feet. Since this time, the highest water level recorded was on December 18, 2014 at a DTW of 1.45 feet while the lowest DTW at this site was recorded on September 13, 2012 at 18.35 feet. Groundwater levels at this site increased overall, gradually throughout the year from a DTW of 7.81 feet on July 9, 2014 to an all-time high of 1.45 feet DTW on December 18, 2014. Following the all-time high water level, water levels started to continually decline to the latest DTW measurement of 5.57 feet on October 5, 2015. As indicated by the hydrograph (Fig. 8), one significant spike in water level occurred (probably a precipitation event) during the year which did not alter the declining water levels for the time period following December 18, 2014. Overall water levels have increased from the previous year 5 correlating with improvements in long-term drought conditions from moderate to abnormally dry. Figure 8. Continuous groundwater levels for drought index well In the Whitewater Draw Watershed (D-21-28 21BCB). E. Drought Status Changes Arizona’s drought status is continually monitored and updated. The short-term drought status is updated weekly and monthly. The long-term drought status is updated seasonally at the end of each quarter.  Short-term Drought Status Due to the moderate winter and wet summer, the current short-term drought (Fig. 11) is significantly better than a year ago (Fig. 9). The change from October to April (Fig. 9 to Fig. 10) shows that the winter did provide some short-term relief, particularly in central Navajo County, northern Coconino County and Pinal County. Yuma and La Paz counties also benefitted from some wet winter storms, improving from moderate drought and abnormally dry to no drought. Further improvement was seen through the monsoon as much of southern Arizona also improved from moderate drought to abnormally dry or no drought. Severe drought has all but disappeared from the state, and no part of the state is in extreme drought. Level Description Percentile Color No Drought >30 D0 Abnormally Dry 21-30 D1 Moderate 11-20 D2 Severe 6-10 D3 Extreme 3-5 D4 Exceptional 0-2 Figure 9. October 28, 2014 short-term drought status. Figure 10. April 28, 2015 short term drought status. Figure 11. October 27, 2015 short-term drought status. 6  Long-term Drought Status For the long-term, 2015 brought significant improvement to most of the watersheds relative to a year ago (Fig. 12). Only the Verde is still at D1, moderate drought. The rest of the state is either abnormally dry or has no drought (Fig. 13). While the winter of 201415 was relatively dry in much of the state, it was wetter than all of the previous four winters, and was followed by a relatively wet spring and a very wet monsoon. The monsoon was particularly wet in the upper and lower Gila River watersheds as well as the Santa Cruz, San Pedro and Willcox Playa watersheds, areas that had been very dry. The wet spring was very helpful as the rainfall was frequent and tended to soak into the ground rather than run off. Last summer’s intense monsoon also provided significant relief as the longterm conditions are based on the previous 24-, 36-, and 48-month intervals, so each successive wet season is replacing a very dry season from two, three and four years ago. The number of watersheds in each drought category over the last three years, as of October, can be seen in Table 2. Arizona has been easing out of drought for the past two years, moving from several watersheds in extreme drought in 2013 to several watersheds in severe drought in 2014 to one watershed in moderate drought this year. However, while the drought appears to be easing, it is not over, since Roosevelt Reservoir is only 50% full, and Lakes Mead and Powell on the Colorado River System are also only near 50% full. Since Arizona relies on both groundwater and these surface water reservoirs, the drought is definitely not over. Also, the rate of groundwater recharge varies around the state, so some aquifers are improving, but their recovery tends to be relatively slow. Though the long-term maps incorporate streamflow, not all watersheds have sufficient streamflow data to be included, so they are depicted based solely on the standardized precipitation index. Category No Drought D0 - Abnormally Dry D1 – Moderate Drought D2 – Severe Drought D3 – Extreme Drought D4 – Exceptional Drought Figure 12. Long-term drought status as of Oct. 2014. Figure 13. Long-term drought status as of Oct. 2015. Table 2. Number of Watersheds in Each Drought Category Category 2013 2014 No Drought 0 1 D0 - Abnormally Dry 3 2 D1 – Moderate Drought 6 7 D2 – Severe Drought 3 5 D3 – Extreme Drought 3 0 D4 – Exceptional Drought 0 0 2015 6 8 1 0 0 0 The Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) graph (Fig. 14) shows the changes in drought over time: Short-term drought conditions (0 – 15 months) are at the bottom, and longer term drought conditions (48 – 60 months) are near the top. The bottom bar graph shows 7 the monthly anomalies with green being wetter than average and brown being drier than average. Across the top of the SPI graph there are two wet long-term periods, the first from 1981 through spring of 1988, followed by a short abnormally dry period from spring 1990 through the summer of 1992. The second wet period began in the winter of 1992 and continued through the winter of 1994 when the current long-term drought began. The most intense period of the current drought for Arizona was 2002 through 2004, however, the long-term drought continues in the state. For more information about how the graph can be used to correlate precipitation and drought impacts, visit the Climate Science Application Program website at http://cals.arizona.edu/climate/misc/spi/spicontour.png. Figure 14. Standardized precipitation index and precipitation anomalies. F. Outlook for 2014 - 2015  Winter 2015-2016 Sea surface temperatures across the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean (a proxy for El Niño/La Niña) have warmed substantially during the spring and summer months of 2015. We are now in the midst of a strong El Niño episode, and in fact, one of the strongest recorded since 1950. Figure 15 depicts recent sea surface temperature anomalies, and the classic strong El Niño signature featuring a tongue of very warm water straddling the equator. There is better than a 95% chance that these El Niño conditions will persist through the winter season. Strong El Niño has the most predictable and consistent signal for wet weather in Arizona during the winter months. (Appendix A). 8 Figure 15. Sea surface temperature anomalies – September 2015. The official outlook from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center depicts the chances of temperatures and precipitation being in the above normal, near normal, or below normal categories. The outlook for January-March 2016 (Fig. 16) shows about equal chances for above, below, or near normal temperatures. The precipitation outlook is consistent with strong El Niño seasonal composites and shows significantly better odds that totals will fall in the above normal category (50-65% chance of above normal versus only 5-15% chance of below normal). Figure 16.January – March 2016 outlooks for temperature (left) and precipitation (right). Shading indicates the percentage of increased chances for being above or below normal. (Climate Prediction Center)  Summer 2015 The Climate Prediction Center’s outlook for June-August 2016 (Fig. 17) shows better chances that the average temperature during these three months will be above normal statewide. This outlook is based primarily in recent trends over the past 10 years (climate change) versus the longer term 30-year average. The precipitation outlook shows no discernible signal during this period. That is, there are equal chances for the 2016 monsoon season to have above, below, or near normal rainfall. This is very typical for our monsoon 9 season where thunderstorm activity is usually localized, and not influenced by larger scale climate signals (the most likely outcome is for El Nino to weaken and head towards a neutral state during spring-summer 2016). Figure 17. June – August 2016 outlooks for temperature (left) and precipitation (right). Shading indicates percentage increased chances of being above or below normal. (Climate Prediction Center) 3. Drought Declarations A Drought Emergency Declaration has been in effect in Arizona since 1999. The current declaration, PCA 99006, was issued by the Governor in June 1999 and continued by Executive Order 2007-10. The declaration maintains the state’s ability to provide emergency response if needed, and enables farmers and ranchers to obtain funding assistance through the Farm Service Agency if they experience significant production losses due to drought. The Drought Interagency Coordinating Group (ICG) is responsible for providing recommendations to the Governor regarding drought declarations based on presentations and discussions at the spring and fall ICG meetings. 4. Disaster Designations A disaster designation from the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is necessary for farm operators in both primary and contiguous disaster areas to be considered for assistance from the Farm Service Agency. The USDA uses the U.S. Drought Monitor to help determine designations. Extreme (D3) or Exceptional (D4) drought conditions qualify as automatic designations, while severe (D2) drought for eight consecutive weeks during the growing season qualifies for nearly automatic designation. This “Fast Track” authority designation process delivers fast and flexible assistance to farmers and ranchers. The following disaster designations by the U.S. Department of Agriculture occurred this water year:  February 4, 2015: Five counties (Apache, Cochise, Gila, Graham and Pinal) were designated as primary disaster counties; the seven contiguous disaster counties (Coconino, Greenlee, Maricopa, Navajo, Pima, Santa Cruz and Yavapai) also received disaster designations. 10          February 4, 2015: One county (Apache) was named as a contiguous disaster county, which was the result of the designation of Colfax, McKinley, Quay, San Juan and Union counties in New Mexico. February 4, 2015: One county (Mohave) was named as a contiguous disaster county, which was the result of the designation of Churchill, Emeralda, Humbolt, Lander, Lyon, Mineral, Nye, Pershing, Washoe and Carson City counties in Nevada. February 4, 2015: Two counties (La Paz and Mohave) were named as contiguous disaster counties, which was the result of the designation of 55 counties in California. February 25, 2015: Two counties (Coconino and Mohave) were designated as primary disaster counties; the four contiguous disaster counties (Gila, La Paz, Navajo and Yavapai) also received disaster designations. March 4, 2015: Four counties (Greenlee, Navajo, Pima and Yavapai) were designated as primary disaster counties; the eleven contiguous disaster counties (Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Graham, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Pinal and Santa Cruz) also received disaster designations. March 4, 2015: Two counties (La Paz and Yuma) were named as contiguous disaster counties, which was the result of the designation of Imperial County in California. March 4, 2015: Two counties (Apache and Greenlee) were named as contiguous disaster counties, which was the result of the designation of nine disaster counties in New Mexico. April 8, 2015: One county (Maricopa) was designated as a primary disaster county; the six contiguous disaster counties (Gila, La Paz, Pima, Pinal, Yavapai and Yuma) also received disaster designations. April 22, 2015: One county (Mohave) was named as a contiguous disaster county, which was the result of the designation of Beaver, Iron, Millard, and Washington counties in Utah. 5. Drought Preparedness Plan Implementation Highlights A. Water Supply Status  2015 Colorado River Basin and Reservoir Status1 Near average stream flows were observed throughout much of the Colorado River Basin during water year 2015. Unregulated inflow2 to Lake Powell was 10.17 million acre-feet (MAF), or 94% of the 30-year average3 (10.83 MAF). Unregulated inflow to Flaming Gorge, Blue Mesa, and Navajo Reservoirs was 106, 105, and 84% of average, respectively. Precipitation in the Upper Colorado River Basin was below average during the first part of water year 2015 and above average during the second part. On September 30, 2015, the cumulative precipitation received within the Upper Colorado River Basin was 91% of average. Snowpack conditions trended below average across most of the Colorado River Basin throughout the snow accumulation season. The basin-wide snow water equivalent 1 The source of the information in this section is taken from the United States Bureau of Reclamation’s August 2016 draft “Annual Operating Plan for Colorado River Reservoirs 2016.” The information has been updated to the end of the 2015 water year, where appropriate. 2 Unregulated inflow adjusts for the effects of operations at upstream reservoirs. It is computed by adding the change in storage and the evaporation losses from upstream reservoirs to the observed inflow. Unregulated inflow is used because it provides an inflow time series that is not biased by upstream reservoir operations. 3 All unregulated inflow, precipitation, and snowpack statistics are based on the 30-year period 1981-2010. 11 measured 62% of average on April 1, 2015. Total seasonal accumulation peaked at approximately 74% of average on March 9, 2015. On April 1, 2015, the snow water equivalents for the Green River, Upper Colorado River Headwaters, and San Juan River Basins were 74, 81, and 47% of average, respectively. During the 2015 spring runoff period, inflows to Lake Powell peaked on June 15, 2015 at approximately 53,100 cubic feet per second (CFS). The April through July unregulated inflow volume for Lake Powell was 6.71 MAF, which was 94% of average. Lower Basin tributary inflows above Lake Mead were below average for water year 2015. Tributary inflow from the Little Colorado River totaled 0.093 MAF, or 64% of the long-term average. Tributary inflow from the Virgin River totaled 0.092 MAF, or 51% of the long-term average. Tributary inflows in the Lower Colorado River Basin below Hoover Dam were below average during water year 2015. Total tributary inflow from the Bill Williams River was 0.021 MAF, or 22% of the long-term average, and total tributary inflow from the Gila River was 0.004 MAF. The Colorado River total system storage experienced a net increase of 0.385 MAF in water year 2015. Reservoir storage in Lake Powell increased by 0.302 MAF. Reservoir storage in Lake Mead decreased by 0.272 MAF. At the beginning of the water year (October 1, 2014), Colorado River total system storage was 50% of capacity. As of September 30, 2015, total system storage was 51% of capacity. At the beginning of calendar year 2015, the probability of Lower Colorado River Basin shortage declaration in 2016 was 21%. Due to the low runoff into Lake Powell during January through March 2015, US Bureau of Reclamation’s April projections for a shortage in 2016 increased to 33%. Because of the unusually high precipitation in the Upper Colorado River Basin in May, runoff forecasts for unregulated inflow into Lake Powell increased markedly and Reclamation’s projection of a Lower Colorado River Basin shortage decreased to 1%. The official operational forecast for 2016 made by Reclamation in August shows a 0% chance of shortage in 2016 and 18% chance of a shortage declaration in 2017.  2015 Salt – Verde Reservoirs This is the fifth consecutive year that the Salt and Verde watersheds experienced below median winter runoff. Even so, the Salt and Verde reservoirs have remained at the same levels as this time last year, approximately 49% full. This is due to the continued use of groundwater to meet demand, a fairly active monsoon season, and a general decrease in demand over historical norms. If projections for very low inflow hold, this consecutive five year period will be the driest five year period on record (1913-2015). Even if this record is set by the end of the year, projections for this winter are much more promising with very strong El Niño conditions present in the tropical Pacific. Arizona typically benefits from increased winter storms during these events. Forecasts call for Arizona to have a greater likelihood of wet weather from now through spring of 2016.  Rural Areas While the most populated areas of the state are subject to stringent groundwater management, have mandatory water conservation requirements and have access to diverse water supply portfolios, most of rural Arizona relies exclusively on groundwater as its primary water source, and lacks comprehensive groundwater management regulation. The lack of targeted groundwater management along with the effects of the ongoing drought can result in water supplies being more stressed in some areas of rural Arizona. Willcox Basin Since September 2014, ADWR has been working with water users in the Willcox Basin, at their request, to develop water management strategies to ensure that the necessary water supplies are available to meet their current and future water demands. Through this 12 process the water users in the Willcox Basin have developed a new water management concept to address the unique management issues in the Willcox Basin. The Groundwater Conservation Area (GCA) concept (which is still in draft form and is still in flux) is the result of collective inputs from the various water users in the Willcox Basin. The intent of the GCA is to limit, but not eliminate, the growth in groundwater pumping and minimize negative impacts to groundwater users by maximizing conservation of water use with minimal regulatory footprint. More information regarding this matter is available at: http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/PublicInformationOfficer/SEArizonaInformation.htm Currently, there are only two water management tools available that were designed to directly manage groundwater withdrawal and use. These tools are Active Management Areas (AMAs) and Irrigation Non-Expansion Areas (INAs). Groundwater withdrawn from inside of an AMA can be subject to withdrawal fees, metering, annual reporting, conservation requirements, and other provisions, while groundwater withdrawn from inside of an INA can be subject to metering and reporting. San Simon Valley Sub-basin In the spring of 2015, ADWR received a petition for the initiation of procedures to designate the San Simon Valley Sub-basin of the Safford Groundwater Basin as an INA. Within an irrigation non-expansion area there is a prohibition on irrigating new acres, as well as metering and reporting requirements for most wells that pump over 35 gallons per minute. Arizona law provides that the Director of ADWR can designate an area as a subsequent INA if both the following apply: 1) there is insufficient groundwater to provide a reasonably safe supply for irrigation of the cultivated lands at current rates of withdrawal and 2) the establishment of an AMA is not necessary. After holding a public hearing, reviewing the factual data in ADWR’s possession, and considering public comments, the Director made and filed his Decision on August 12, 2015 determining that the San Simon Valley Sub-basin should not be designated as an INA. On September 25, 2015, a party filed a timely motion for rehearing or review of the Director’s Decision. The Director denied the motion on October 9, 2015. The Director’s Decision is now a final administrative decision and may be subject to judicial review. For more information, visit: http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/SanSimonValley.htm B. Drought Planning for Community Water Systems Drought planning requirements and water use reporting regulations were recommended in the 2004 Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan and established by the state legislature in 2005 for the purpose of reducing community water systems’ vulnerability to drought and providing a means for the state to gather water use data to provide assistance. All community water systems in the state (approximately 800) are required to submit a Drought Preparedness Plan to ADWR every five years. The Drought Preparedness Plan is part of the required System Water Plan, which also includes a Water Supply and Conservation plans. The drought plan requires water systems to describe their drought stages and triggers, emergency sources of water, customer communication strategies, and other planning actions. ADWR provides assistance to water providers in meeting these requirements through webbased resources, online reporting tools and phone or in-person consultations. To date, ADWR has received 670 initial and 461 updated System Water Plans. The number of annual water use reports received from systems located outside the state’s AMAs can be seen in Table 3. (Annual water reports have been required for systems inside the AMAs since the passage of the 1980 Groundwater Act.) 13 Table 3: Annual Water Use Reports Received from CWS Located Outside Active Management Areas 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 (1st yr) Number of reports received out of total CWS for that year: Percent of population represented by reports received: 383/462 382/468 382/461 394/461 390/469 383/484 396/481 387/463 97% 96% 93% 97% 96% 95% 96% 97% C. Local Drought Impact Group Efforts Local Drought Impact Groups (LDIGs) participate in monitoring, education and local mitigation, mainly through cooperative extension and county emergency management programs. Initial planning efforts included ten LDIGs, and as many as eight LDIGs have been active in the past. Since 2008, LDIG focus has been entirely on drought impact monitoring and reporting in response to local fiscal and staffing limitations. At the present time, only Mohave County and Pima County are active. See Appendix B for the Mohave County LDIG report and Appendix C for the Pima County LDIG Report. D. State Drought Monitoring Technical Committee Efforts The State Monitoring Technical Committee (MTC) is responsible for gathering drought, climate, and weather data, and disseminating that information to land managers, policy-makers and the public. Specifically, the MTC prepares the short- and long-term drought status reports, briefs the ICG on drought conditions, and provides assistance to Local Drought Impact Groups. The two co-chairs are Nancy Selover, State Climatologist, and Mark O’Malley, National Weather Service, Phoenix Office.  Communicating Drought Status The MTC and ADWR coordinate to achieve the primary goal of improving the accessibility of drought information to resource managers, state decision-makers and the public. To further communication, information is updated on the ADWR Drought Status webpage on a weekly, monthly and quarterly basis as follows: Weekly - The MTC confers weekly with the National Weather Service offices that cover Arizona, Flood Control Districts, LDIGs, water and rangeland managers, agricultural extension and others who observe and report drought impacts, to advise the U.S. Drought Monitor authors on the current conditions in Arizona, and makes recommendations about the position of the drought boundaries for Arizona. The U.S. Drought Monitor is the official record of drought for Federal drought relief claims. Information used by the MTC in advising the Drought Monitor authors includes numerous drought indices, precipitation and stream flow data, and impacts data. Every Thursday, the ADWR Drought Status webpage automatically updates with the latest U.S. Drought Monitor map of Arizona. Monthly - At the end of each month, the MTC produces a web-based, short-term drought status update based on U.S. Drought Monitor’s maps for the past four weeks. An email with the latest map and summary is sent to interested parties. 14 Quarterly - The MTC meets on a quarterly basis and produces a long-term drought status map and summary report. This report incorporates the 24-, 36- and 48-month precipitation and streamflow percentiles for major Arizona watersheds (i.e., 4-digit U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)). Vegetation indices, snowpack, temperature, reservoir levels, and county-scale drought impact information are used to verify or modify the result of the calculations. The long-term drought status reports are posted on the ADWR website and disseminated via email seasonally: in May (for January – March), August (for April – June), November (for July – September) and February (for October – December). The monthly and quarterly reports serve as an information resource for the public and as a planning tool for resource managers developing mitigation and response strategies.  Arizona DroughtView DroughtView, a new University of Arizona program that replaced DroughtWatch, is an online tool for collecting drought impact data that incorporates several remote sensing and climate drought monitoring products. For more information, visit the DroughtView website at http://droughtview.arizona.edu  Community Collaborative Rain Hail and Snow (CoCoRaHS) Network The CoCoRaHS network of citizen precipitation observers in Arizona continues to expand. A drought impacts reporting tool enables the 1002 observers in Arizona to efficiently add their drought impact observations to their precipitation observations. An online Drought Impacts Reporting Guide explains drought and its impacts as well as how to report various impacts. Drought data is intended to go directly to the Drought Impacts Reporter. The data collected are important in Arizona’s drought monitoring as well as flood warning. There is at least one observer in every county.  ADWR Drought Index Wells ADWR’s Field Services Section collects groundwater levels statewide from approximately 1,800 index wells, including the state’s two drought index wells. ADWR also monitors aquifer storage and maintains a statewide network of roughly 120 automated groundwater monitoring sites and an ORACLE database that contains field-verified data including discrete water level measurements, location, and other well specific information. In 2015, ADWR staff developed a Monitoring Well Network Optimization Plan, which in part will focus on the identification of additional drought monitoring index wells within the state. Water level data from continuous monitoring sites statewide will be reviewed and evaluated with respect to meeting criteria for the USGS Climate Response Network. Drought index wells identified will be integrated with USGS Climate Response Network monitoring sites in Arizona.  Calculating the Standardized Precipitation Index The MTC is experimenting with the use of gridded precipitation data to create gridded standardized precipitation index (SPI) maps and a gridded drought status map, using the same calculations for drought status currently used for watershed level mapping. The gridded maps will provide smoother transitions across the state rather than the abrupt watershed boundaries. The results should be more reflective of the Drought Monitor maps and will facilitate internal decision making. Even though drought declarations may be made at the county level, the higher resolution data will provide better information about which parts of individual counties are having the worst drought problems.  Drought Impact Reports from State and Federal Agencies Drought impact data is used by the Drought MTC in its efforts to correlate drought conditions with precipitation and streamflow data. Impact information is received from hydrologists, researchers and other field staff from the Bureau of Land Management, United States Geological Survey, U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Services, Arizona 15 Forestry Division, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Arizona State Parks, Native American Communities and other state and federal groups. Arizona State Park Managers have been asked to rate drought conditions from 1 to 10 and provide comments for more than 30 individual state parks. (Appendix D). Compared to last year, this year saw improvements in most of the ratings. The U.S.D.A. Arizona Natural Resources Conservation Service submits a water year report (Appendix E) about the impacts of drought on range and farmland. The 2015 survey sent to all NRCS field offices in the state describes drought impacts on dryland farming, irrigation water supply, rangeland water supply, rangeland forage supply, and rangeland precipitation. Losses of crop production, shortages of water supply, and shortages of forage were reported.  Presentations and Workshops Western Governors’ Drought Forum, October 2014 and July 2015 Arizona is an active participant in the Western Governors' Drought Forum initiated by Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval in September 2014. The forum fosters a regional dialogue in which states share best practices on drought policy, preparedness and management. The forum hosts meetings that focus on specific sectors and is creating an online resource library with drought resources such as webinars, Science Briefs and drought tools. Dr. Nancy Selover, Arizona State Climatologist and Drought MTC co-chair, presented at the October 8-9, 2014 meeting in Tempe. Einav Henenson, ADWR conservation specialist, participated in the July 2015 meeting in Seattle, which focused on the roles of drought coordinators and emergency managers in drought preparedness and response. Climate Prediction Applications Science Workshop (CPASW), March 24-26, 2015 Dr. Michael Crimmins, University of Arizona, presented at the 13th annual CPASW workshop at New Mexico State University, Las Cruces. The workshop theme was “Climate and Drought Information for Food Resilience, Agriculture, and Water Resources”. The presentation was titled Exploring Summer Season Precipitation Monitoring Strategies for Arizona Ranchers and Range Managers. Arizona Hydrologic Society Presentation, September 16-18, 2015 Mark O’Malley, State Monitoring and Technical Committee co-chair, provided the keynote luncheon address focusing on how drought is measured and determined in Arizona’s arid climate; and potential effects of the upcoming 2015-16 El Nino on water resources. The theme of this year’s symposium was “Where Did the Water Go?”. Not only was statewide drought a focus, but legal frameworks and water rights between sectors and municipalities were also studied and discussed. The goal of this year’s symposium was for sponsors and hydrologists to have a better understanding of water storage and routing, and provide a basis for future discussion and planning of water resources for Arizona. E. Interagency Coordinating Group Efforts The Interagency Coordinating Group (ICG) has met biannually since 2006 and advises the Governor on drought status, impacts, and any necessary preparedness and response actions. The meetings include a review of statewide monitoring efforts and drought status, water supply updates, rangeland conditions, forest health, and the impacts of drought on wildlife. At both the November 2014 and May 2015 meetings, the ICG recommended continuation of the Drought Declaration for the State of Arizona (Executive Order 2007-10) and the Drought Emergency Declaration (PCA 99006). The presentations and subsequent decisions are on the ADWR web site. In 2015, ADWR director Thomas Buschatzke replaced Michael Lacey as ICG cochair and Wendy Smith Reeve, Arizona Department of Emergency Management director, replaced Chuck McHugh as co-chair. 16 F. ADWR Outreach and Assistance ADWR promotes and encourages efficient use of water throughout Arizona by developing conservation tools and resources, assisting Arizona communities and water providers, presenting on conservation issues and solutions, collaborating with regional and national partners, and participating in outreach activities. Staff provides materials and answers inquiries from the general public, the press, water professionals, students, researchers, and others about water conservation and drought. Staff also administers the Arizona Water Awareness website, ArizonaWaterAwareness.com, a central source of information for all Arizonans about water, including current conservation events and activities, regional and seasonal tips, and resources about a variety of conservation topics.  Colorado River Shortage Preparedness Workshop, April 22, 2015 In an effort to provide stakeholders with the most relevant and timely information available related to current Colorado River conditions and possible shortage impacts to Arizona, ADWR and Central Arizona Project co-hosted a Colorado River Shortage Preparedness Workshop. Nearly 300 individuals participated in the event, including US Congressional and Senate staff, the Governor's Office, State legislators, tribal leaders, representatives from California and Nevada, cities, industrial and agricultural water users, on-river water users and members of the media and the public. ADWR created the following webpage dedicated to Arizona’s efforts to respond to a potential Colorado River shortage declaration: http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/ColoradoRiverShortagePreparedness.htm  Testimony to the U.S. Congress, June 2, 2015 Thomas Buschatzke, ADWR Director, provided testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee of Energy and Natural Resources in support of additional opportunities for federal support of programs to conserve water that are equitable, consistent with the Law of the River, do not impinge on Arizona’s efforts to deal with the drought, and that will benefit the entire Colorado River system rather than any one particular Colorado River water user (Appendix F).  Water Awareness Month, April 2015 ADWR has coordinated Arizona’s Water Awareness Month campaign since the Governor’s executive order in 2008. In 2015, ADWR conservation personnel participated and exhibited Water Awareness Month and conservation information as well as distributed free educational materials at the SRP Water Conservation Expo on March 7th and the Fix A Leak Week 4 Miler Run on March 21st. For more information, visit http://www.waterawarenessmonth.com/. 6. Resource Needs A. Develop a strategic plan to identify data gaps and monitoring needs. Arizona's current network of meteorological and hydrological observations for drought monitoring lacks sufficient spatial resolution to accurately characterize drought status at the local level requested by stakeholders throughout the state. Improving the spatial, temporal and altitudinal resolution of Arizona's drought monitoring network will improve the MTC's ability to serve the needs of Arizona stakeholders, including the LDIGs. In particular, Arizona faces the following conspicuous data gaps:  Absence of soil moisture monitoring  Few high elevation meteorological monitoring stations  Constantly decreasing network of streamflow gages Although the MTC has identified these data gaps in general terms, it is imperative to conduct a systematic evaluation in order to characterize and prioritize these identified data and observation gaps. A strategic plan, with carefully considered criteria for prioritization, is essential for making state funding requests and for taking advantage of Federal funding opportunities. The MTC recommends funding to develop a strategic plan, conduct data and 17 observation gap analyses, and document priority locations using geographic information system technology. Total cost: $9,000 B. Incorporate groundwater data for drought status determination. ADWR evaluates groundwater level changes around the state, however, further analysis is needed to determine what role drought plays in these observed changes. Drought index wells serve as a qualitative supplement to existing drought indicators and help establish drought status for watersheds where either precipitation or stream flow data are lacking. The Basic Data Unit of the Field Services Section is exploring the use of groundwater data in a more quantitative manner, perhaps by a modified Palmer index. As the groundwater level signature may include influences other than a climate response, such as pumping or artificial recharge, additional research is needed to determine the suitability of each well site with regards to percentile analysis. The MTC plans on further assessment of statewide groundwater index wells to identify and incorporate data that meet the criteria for drought index wells. Incorporating groundwater level trend data will be critical in determining future drought conditions and impacts on water supply. Funding is needed to implement the Monitoring Well Network Optimization Plan (Appendix G) which was developed last year and integrates many of ADWR ORACLE databases, thus allowing for drought monitoring well identification. Total cost: $138,000 per year.  18 Appendix A El Niño Fact Sheet 2015-2016 El Niño Fact Sheet What we know: El Niño is a prolonged period of unusually warm Pacific waters that influence weather patterns  Strong El Niño conditions will exist through winter 2015-16  This will be one of the strongest recorded El Niño episodes since 1950  Strong El Niño’s lead to the most predictable outcomes of increased rainfall in AZ and SoCal  Odds clearly point towards a wetter than average winter - especially the latter part of the season Uncertainties:  Each El Niño is slightly different and there are other weather influences to consider  There have only been 6 recorded strong El Niño events and only 3 as strong as this year since 1950  The small sample size of comparative El Niño events limits more certainty in specific winter predictions What we don’t know:  Even though odds strongly point towards a wet winter, we do not know whether it will be just above average or much above average  Mountain snowfall may or may not be above average depending on snow levels during the winter Appendix A - 1 El Niño Fact Sheet While strong El Niño’s provide little predictive skill regarding temperatures, there is an excellent correlation to wetter than normal winters in Arizona and southern California—particularly later in the winter (Jan-Apr). The Climate Prediction Center forecasts better than a 60% chance of a wetter than normal Jan-Mar (leaving only a 5% chance of below normal). However, each El Niño has a somewhat different “flavor” and even among the strongest episodes, there are notable differences in precipitation amounts and placement . Fortunately, despite typical greater than average precipitation, past strong El Niño events have not produced significant flooding events in Arizona and Southeast California (not saying that it couldn’t happen this year). Seasonal mountain snowfall also carries considerable uncertainty, though all the 3 strongest events led to above average snow in Arizona (not shown). Number of rainfall days during an average winter (Oct-Apr) versus the average during 6 strong El Niños (* Moderate = 0.25 inches ** Heavy = 0.50 inches) October-April Percent Normal Precipitation from last 3 Strongest El Niño Episodes (1972-73, 1982-83, and 1997-98) Appendix A - 2 Appendix B Mohave County Local Drought Impact Group (LDIG) 2015 Annual Report Mohave County Local Drought Impact Group Annual Report 2015 Introduction. This report summarizes the Local Drought Impact Group activities conducted in Mohave County in 2015. The established drought monitoring network continued to function efficiently with monitors providing monthly impact information to the County Emergency Management Technician, who compiles and files the report information. The LDIG continues to function as an informal advisory body to the Mohave County Division of Emergency Manager and the County Extension Office. Status of Drought. As of the time of this report (mid-October, 2015), all of Mohave County is experiencing moderate drought conditions. For the most part, conditions this year have been in the moderate range. Drought Impacts. No severe impacts have been reported from the agriculture sector. Drought conditions in some areas of the county were edging more toward the severe range in early spring after several small precipitation events earlier in the year. However, the county experienced several periodic rounds of isolated rainfall events that moderated conditions enough that implementation of fire restrictions were never seriously considered. This was in contrast to 2013 and 2014, where extreme fire hazard conditions caused restrictions to be imposed. Monsoon rainfall, although spotty as usual, impacted widespread areas in August and September. This was a mixed blessing, because lightning caused several small snag fires in the Hualapai Mountains, and the Willow Fire in Mohave Valley, which destroyed 11 homes and forced the temporary evacuation of 900 residences. This fire rapidly spread due to thick salt cedar fuels, dry conditions, and a 25 mph wind. In addition, an extremely intense but isolated thunderstorm created flash flooding on September 14, 2015, in Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Arizona, twin cities that straddle the Mohave County/Washington County (Utah) line. Fourteen lives were lost, and infrastructure damage in Colorado City was estimated at $490,000. Due to continued low snowpacks in the Rocky Mountains, the Colorado River has experienced no recovery in streamflow volume. Lake Mead water levels at one point this year approached the level for mandatory implementation of water conservation measures for jurisdictions that tap into the river. However, the Bureau of Reclamation released upstream water that brought the lake level to a point that the mandatory conservation implementation level will likely not be reached in 2015. Mandatory conservation measures would potentially impact Lake Havasu City, Bullhead City, and unincorporated areas south of Bullhead City, although much of the water supply in these areas comes from wells in aquifers fed by the river rather than the river itself. The populated areas from Wikieup north through Kingman and the Hualapai Mountains and extending northwards to the Arizona Strip and Colorado City are dependent on monsoon and winter rainfall and aquifers generally not associated with the Colorado River. Drought Related Actions. No drought response or mitigation measures are currently in effect. The Mohave County Alert Flood Warning System, which has expanded to 177 weather stations across the county, continues to provide near real time precipitation and stream flow information. Valuable impact information continues to be provided by the BLM, State Game and Fish, and other agencies, as well as ranchers. Work continues on developing trigger points for implementing the general mitigation and conservation measures identified for a countywide Mitigation Plan. Distinct population density/elevation zones and maps delineating these zones along with vegetative overlays were developed in 2012 to assist monitoring efforts. Specific impact indicators, particularly regarding vegetation impacts, have been difficult to directly associate with activation of specific mitigation measures in rural areas. Appendix B - 1 Appendix C Pima County Local Drought Impact Group (LDIG) 2015 Annual Report Pima County Local Drought Impact Group (LDIG) 2015 Annual Report The Pima County Local Drought Impact Group (LDIG) has been an active component of county operations since 2006 when the Board of Supervisors adopted the Drought Response Plan and Water Wasting Ordinance (Chapter 8.70). LDIG consists of water providers and local, state and federal agencies that have an interest in the cause and effect of drought conditions in Pima County. LDIG meets bimonthly to monitor the short-term and longterm drought status, discuss drought impacts and coordinate drought declarations and responses. The County’s Drought Response Plan and Water Wasting Ordinance established a four stage trigger category that corresponds to the Arizona Drought Monitor Report and their declaration of a watershed drought conditions. Each “Stage” declaration within the county triggers drought stage reduction measures. LDIG explores the impacts of drought on various sectors in Pima County including agricultural water use, ranching, wildfire, hydrology, and flooding. Because many water providers depend on Central Arizona Project water, LDIG also monitors the status of the Colorado River, the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and other climate weather patterns in relation to their effect on drought conditions and climate variability in the southwest. LDIG also monitors the status of the summer monsoon season and convenes roundtable discussions of drought and water conservation outreach programs. For a list of presentations and agendas, please visit Pima County’s LDIG website1. DROUGHT STATUS  Weather (NWS Data) In Tucson, the first half of the 2015 calendar year (January 2015 to June 2015) was the 2 nd warmest on record with an average yearly temperature to date of 3.0°F above normal. 2 The summer of 2015 was the 2nd warmest on record (tied with 2013) with an average temperature of 88.3°F, 2.6°F above normal (85.7°F). January through April was the warmest quarter on record, surpassing the same period in 2014; 4.3°F above normal. February was easily recorded as the hottest documented with 6.8°F above normal February temperatures. The warm quarter of 2015 was compounded by a very warm end of the year 2014 winter season; average low winter temperatures were 4.5°F above normal. A cooling period began in April (18th warmest) and continued in May, which was the coolest May since 1998 accompanied by the longest stretch of recorded below normal highs and lows since the 1970’s. In May, average high temperatures were 3.9°F below normal and average temperature down 2.6°F. The reprieve from record warm months proved temporary- despite a tropical moisture surge and early start to the monsoon, heat waves in June pressed that month to the 4th warmest. While July’s monsoon pattern brought temperatures down to near normal, August was the 3rd warmest (+3.7°F) and contributed to another record warm summer, 2nd warmest, while pushing 2015 to the warmest year to date on record, tied with 2014. While January through April was only an average wet period, the 2014-2015 winter season was the wettest since a strong El Niňo event in 1997-1998 and the 14th wettest overall with 5.12” of rain, 2.39” above normal. In terms of the 2015 water year, February was the wettest since 2000-2001 with 6.45”. Drier conditions set in as spring was the 10th straight spring with below normal rainfall. In June, Pacific storm systems began pushing tropical moisture into southern Arizona jumpstarting an early monsoon season mixed with high pressure heat waves. However, local storms were sporadic and precipitation for the summer remained just below average, 60th driest on record. The monsoon season, continuing into a wet September with 2.40” rain (+1.11”), concluded just above normal with 6.63” of rain (normal is 6.08”). In summary, Pima County has experienced record above average temperatures and mixed rainfall with strong single storm events able to push precipitation just above average. 1 2 LDIG website: http://webcms.pima.gov/cms/one.aspx?portalId=169&pageId=70243 http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/twc/climate/monthly/jun15.php Appendix C - 1  Drought (NDMC and Arizona MTC Data) Pima County benefitted from a wet 2014-2015 winter season and an average 2014 monsoon season that brought some strong storm events. Prior to last year’s monsoon, the majority of Pima County was in severe drought (moderate in western portions, extreme in the northeast corner). Conditions eased to the majority of the county being in moderate drought (abnormally dry in the west, and severe drought in the northeast) and remained going into the winter season. A wet December brought the January 2015 status of moderate drought in eastern Pima County and no drought to abnormally dry in the western half. The January status remained unchanged into September, which then improved in the eastern portion of the county to abnormally dry leaving a central ribbon of moderate drought, a result of the strengthening El Niño and southeastern rainfall. Pima County’s long term drought status improved during last year’s winter season following the monsoon, from severe to moderate drought in the Santa Cruz and San Simon watersheds and from abnormally dry to no drought in the Lower Gila River watershed Winter and spring precipitation slowly improved conditions in eastern Arizona and by July Pima County recovered to abnormally dry in the Santa Cruz and San Simon watersheds; no drought in the Lower Gila. In summary, drought in Pima County has improved beginning with an adequate 2014 monsoon and following a wet winter. Drought conditions remained stable, moderate, through much of 2015 with incremental improvement through the monsoon season to an increasingly abnormally dry condition.  Colorado River Basin & Central Arizona Project (CAP) Several water providers are taking delivery of water from the Central Arizona Project. Tucson Water has the largest CAP annual municipal allocation in the state: 144,172 acre-feet. Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District, the Town of Oro Valley and others have smaller CAP allocations. Agricultural users and the Tohono O’Odham Nation in Pima County also have access to and use CAP water. Consequently, the drought status of the Colorado River and the potential for a shortage declaration is of interest to these sectors. Unregulated inflow into Lake Powell for water year 2015 was just below average, at 95% or 10.34 million acre feet; water year 2015 precipitation for the Upper Colorado Basin was just below average as well, at 92%. Every month the Bureau of Reclamation releases their 24-Month Study which provides operational announcements and near-term projections. The study released in August 2015 stated, most importantly, that there will be no shortage in 2016 and that the water release from Lake Powell to Lake Mead for water year 2016 (October 2015 to September 2016) will be 9.0 million acre feet. Lake Mead elevation is projected to be just above 1075’ in both 2016 (1083.92’) and 2017 (1081.09’) though a 15% chance of shortage is forecast at this time. A significant probability exists for shortage in 2018. Significant uncertainty of future snowpack and inflow to Powell is evident in the minimum and maximum probable projections. Next year’s inflow could be as high as 16.9 million acre feet (maf) or as low as 6.4 maf. The most probable is 9.54 maf, or 88% of average. Should minimum inflow occur, release to Lake Mead would be reduced and storage in Powell would decline to 43%. In the event of maximum inflow, release to Mead would increase to 11.4 maf and storage in Powell would rise to 70%. Upper Basin reservoirs are mostly full, able to send substantial river flows to Powell. On June 26, 2015, the water level elevation of Lake Mead was at its lowest (1,074.71’) since being filled in the 1930s. Even with the increased water releases from Lake Powell, the Lake Mead water level is projected to decline in 2016. Based on the Bureau of Reclamation’s projections the most probable (50th percentile) Lake Mead inflows and resulting water levels in January 2017 are six feet above the first shortage trigger of 1075’; the minimum probable (10th percentile) projected water level is three feet above 1075’. The earliest likelihood of a shortage declaration is 2018. This shortage declaration is not expected to reduce deliveries of CAP water to Native American or municipal and industrial users. Outflow from Lake Mead has been exceeding the inflow since 2000, except in 2004 and 2010 when there was significant snowpack in the Colorado River Basin. The flow imbalance, referred to as a structural deficit, is lowering the elevation of Lake Mead. At the current rate of decline, Lake Mead’s elevation could fall below Appendix C - 2 1000 feet in five to eight years unless equalization or corrective action is taken. The consequences could reduce diversions of CAP water to municipal and industrial users and Indian users. The CAP, Arizona Department of Water Resources and Colorado River basins states are evaluating options for corrective action to reduce the declining water elevation in Lake Mead.  El Niňo The current El Niňo advisory predicts a greater than 95% chance El Niňo will continue through the 20152016 winter season and an 85% chance it will last into early spring 2016. The Climate Prediction Center has repeatedly forecast chances for above average precipitation for Pima County; a 40-50% chance exists for September through October. While indication is of a strengthening El Niňo, any probable impact to Lake Mead and Colorado River water supply is guarded. CAP officials warn El Niňo is a poor predictor of streamflow conditions in the Colorado River Basin and correlations between El Niňo and inflow to Lake Powell are weak. Past instances have contributed to local reservoir replenishment (Salt River system). A possible indirect benefit to Pima County could be reduced demand as increased rainfall might result in less CAP ordered, for the agriculture sector as an example, stalling a shortage.  “Miracle” May Upper Colorado River Basin precipitation in May was 205% of average with some sub-basins inundated with 230-330% of average rainfall. This unexpected reversal of the normal precipitation pattern provided sufficient inflow to forestall shortages perhaps for two years, eliminating increasing chance of shortage in 2016 and 2017, though concern remains for 2018. The weather pattern did not impact Pima County, rainfall was 0.14” below average with 0.09” received during this typically dry month. IMPACTS IN PIMA COUNTY The 32 shallow groundwater areas in Pima County are important for riparian areas that are dependent on groundwater. Sustained drought conditions can adversely impact groundwater levels if nearby well owners pump more groundwater to mitigate drought effects on their property. Invasive species like buffel grass and tamarisk and fewer birds, Gila Topminnows and aerial arthropods are still being observed in Pima County. There is also a significant decrease in ephemeral stream flows. Agua Caliente Park, located northeast of Tucson has historic and cultural significance. The park’s focal point is a natural artesian spring that feeds a creek and produces an abundant variety of oasis vegetation and a habitat for native species. The natural spring has been historically pumped to feed a pond which produces a recreational element for neighborhood residents and park visitors. Over the last several years, water levels have decreased to levels where pumping was ineffective, and eventually failed, to keep the pond filled. Summer and winter rains replenished groundwater, allowing sufficient pumping to replenish the pond, though this is not a sustainable source. However, the natural spring flow has not recovered and managers stress short term precipitation gains cannot reverse multi-year drought. Pima County continues to investigate measures to maintain the health and vigor of Agua Caliente Park. Cienega Creek, in eastern Pima County, continues to show the impacts of sustained drought though some improvement has occurred this year. Pima Association of Governments’ (PAG) drought reporting uniquely depicts the localized drought impacts on a shallow groundwater dependent system, important for habitat and rural residents dependent on this water source. Streams and rivers are rare exceptionally productive systems in the arid landscape of Arizona that are especially sensitive to changes in water availability. With long term support and interest from its member jurisdictions, PAG has consistently monitored the shallow groundwater-dependent riparian area of Cienega Creek Preserve on a monthly and quarterly basis since 1989 and reported the findings to ADWR for compilation into state records. This rich dataset is used by numerous entities to track and evaluate the seasonal, annual and cumulative impacts of drought. This Preserve, located outside of Tucson, AZ, is the site of a rare, low-elevation perennial stream that is of regional importance for its environmental and recreational value and has been designated as an “Outstanding Water” by the State of Arizona. In 2015, PAG’s analysis documented water level trends that indicate marginal improvement. June 2015 showed only 0.88 miles of flow, an increase of 0.02 miles from last year, but still just nine percent of the full 9.5 miles of flow extent observed in June of the mid-1980s. In addition, 2015 records showed increases in average annual stream flow, volume not recorded since the wet 2008-2009 period, and a slight rise in Appendix C - 3 average groundwater well levels. Because surface water base flows and groundwater are strongly correlated, these trends parallel each other. Annual reports and studies can be found on PAG’s Cienega Creek web pages. Based on a 2014 Pima County report, precipitation in the Cienega Watershed has been declining in the winter but shows no trend in the summer. PAG’s Cienega Creek monitoring data reflects the lack of winter rains as found in June, which is the season with the most significant decline in stream flow. This delayed seasonal impact can only be recognized by monitoring the creek and tracking long term response in addition to precipitation Erosion is another result of drought in this system. PAG has tracked a major erosion head-cut in the streambed that progressively erodes after major flood events, if those floods are preceded by dry periods. Head cutting in the Cienega Creek watershed is a dramatic demonstration of sediment fluctuation within the stream system. PAG continues to note erosion and sedimentation patterns along the watercourse, but the change of form of erosion makes continued analysis difficult. The head cut has changed from being a nick point with a steep drop in elevation within the three stream channels to a more gradual incline and a destabilized flood plain as it continues to move upstream. PAG recommends further ecological study to track species habitats and water needs in Cienega Creek Preserve in order to establish critical thresholds. Pima County’s preserve has heretofore been a successful safe harbor for threatened and endangered species with few invasive species issues. The impacts of drought – coupled with increased temperatures and groundwater pumping – pose an unprecedented and increasingly serious threat, causing land managers in the region to be concerned about the prospects for long term health of the aquatic and riparian system of Cienega Creek. Ranked conservation strategies from watershed assessments should be considered in the prioritization of management goals and strategies throughout the watershed. Pima County’s current threat assessment process for the watershed will be a key planning effort that will address key data needs and conservation strategies. Data from PAG’s field effort are an invaluable source of information for the threat assessment. Increased coordination with land use planners and well owners to encourage conservation strategies near vulnerable riparian areas is recommended. Monitoring is recommended where groundwater restoration methods are applied to increase stormwater infiltration. PAG’s 2012 report on groundwater use near shallow groundwater areas showed a steady increase of wells drilled near Cienega-Davidson since 1990. Strategic additions of land through open space acquisition and Pima County’s conservation land system should be considered as a means to reduce additional groundwater withdrawals. Outreach, training, and engagement of water users in the Cienega Watershed to conserve, share information, and increase infiltration of stormwater will help create a more resilient landscape. Drought information is primarily disseminated by large municipal water providers in urban areas, and private wells are exempt from coordinated water use tracking requirements. These well owners may not be receiving conservation messaging even though their water use impacts the system and may increase to compensate for the lack of rainfall. DROUGHT RESPONSE ACTIONS Pima County continues its efforts to respond to drought conditions. Several organizations, such as Conserve to Enhance (C2E), urge water conservation that translates into donations to support environmental enhancement. C2E participants have saved 6.9 million gallons (21.35 acre-feet) of water since the program inception in 2011, average gallons per capita savings of approximately 11,474 gallons. C2E has awarded funding to 10 local neighborhood projects totaling $67,000 in investment. School projects offer an opportunity to engage students in continuing water conservation education. The Conservation Effluent Pool (CEP) is an effluent allocation set aside pursuant to intergovernmental agreements between the City of Tucson and Pima County for use in riparian restoration projects. In previous years, a CEP taskforce, coordinated by the Community Water Coalition, identified thirteen candidate projects for CEP effluent allocations. The projects are prioritized into three groups: immediate potential, strong potential, and long-term potential. Three of the projects have been recommended for implementation that all have immediate potential. The first proposed project is a request for several thousand acre feet of reclaimed water to be reserved within the Santa Cruz River along the existing streamflow extent in order to safeguard existing habitat. Both Appendix C - 4 County and City administrations are reviewing the proposal; the request may require some amendment in order to execute within the operational constraints of multiple systems. In 2010, Pima County and the City of Tucson completed the Water & Wastewater Infrastructure, Supply and Planning Study. An important outcome of the study was the 2011-2015 Action Plan for Sustainability. This year is the fifth and final year of the action plan implementation, a final report card itemizing successful completion toward shared goals and recommendations is underway. In addition to the Water & Wastewater Infrastructure, Supply and Planning Study, Pima County adopted the Water Resources Asset Management Plan (WRAMP), a distinct water resource planning process to guide the County in maximizing all its water assets. WRAMP, drafted by the County’s Water Management Committee, is designed to provide direction in executing County Board of Supervisor Policy F 54.9 Water Rights Acquisition, Protection and Management. WRAMP includes directives to maintain an up to date central database of all water rights and wells, map and inspect wells and develop strategic plans for the County’s reclaimed water, long term storage credits and surface and groundwater rights. The County has implemented the following:        The Strategic Plan for Use of Reclaimed Water (SPUR) has been developed and accepted by County Administrator and Board of Supervisors; multiple recommendations supporting the objective of maximize the County’s water resources asset value and the production and use of reclaimed water to sustain and protect the natural environment. Underground Storage Facility (USF) applications have been submitted for two County Water Reclamation Facilities (WRF), Avra Valley and Green Valley, to maximize long term storage credits. Both applications deemed complete, Green Valley process completed, accruing credits. County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (RWRD) is cooperating with CMID, Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to deliver effluent from Tres Rios WRF to CMID agriculture in a Groundwater Savings Facility project. RWRD is partnering with Tucson Water to deliver effluent to a newly constructed USF, the County has 2,000 acre-feet capacity at the South Houghton Area Recharge Project Underground Storage Facility to earn credits. Building an accurate baseline of potable and reclaimed water using EnergyCap (after correction of database) and other methods. Devising methods for flagging high consumption buildings for individual water audits. Preliminary effort underway for formulation of an Energy/Water Master Plan for county operations, building upon the County’s Sustainability program. A well and water rights database has been linked with County GIS mapping and migrated to GIS servers. A database of springs (with points of diversion) links ADWR and County springs. The Lower Santa Cruz Living River Project, funded by an EPA grant, is a monitoring strategy and reporting tool evaluating water quality and environmental improvement along the effluent dependent habitat and wetlands, providing better understanding of beneficial impact from upgraded effluent production. Second year report indicates WRF improvements have had the effect of an increase of 12,000 acre-feet infiltration, with a decrease in flow extent and habitat. A large reduction in ammonia has removed a barrier to increased aquatic life. These benefits and impacts are a result of ROMP project upgrade to metropolitan WRF’s. The Living River report will help inform a Lower Santa Cruz River Management Plan. In August, Pima County approved a new comprehensive plan, Pima Prospers, which includes goals and policies for water resources, including policy and implementation related to the Action Plan for Water Sustainability, water supply including for economic development and conservation, demand management, and groundwater quality. The County continues to enhance Low Impact Development/Green Infrastructure (LIDGI) within the region’s built environment. LIDGI utilizes stormwater as a renewable water resource to irrigate native vegetation, which has an added benefit of providing shade during the higher temperatures associated with drought conditions. The Pima County Regional Flood Control District coordinated the publication of the Low Impact Development and Green Infrastructure Guidance Manual describing stormwater harvesting features effective in a semi-arid climate. The Pima County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed an update to Title 18 (Zoning) to incentivize building stormwater harvesting features and green infrastructure. The newly updated Design Standards for Stormwater Detention and Retention Basins requires the retention of firstAppendix C - 5 flush waters within stormwater harvesting features. A 2015 Low Impact Development (LID) Workshop was organized by the Pima County Regional Flood Control District’s collaborative LID Working Group and Pima Association of Governments. The group held discussions on the future of LID in the Tucson region, field visit experience covered best practices in LID, methods of measuring the economic benefits of LID and strategies for minimizing maintenance issues, among other insights for both public and private sector professionals. The PAG Regional Council passed a LIDGI Resolution in 2015, reaffirming the importance of encouraging stormwater harvesting to reduce irrigation needs and enhance drought resiliency.3 As of now, the region’s water providers and other entities with established drought plans are at Drought Stage 1 or its equivalent (voluntary reductions). Given some incongruity among the various drought plans, Pima Association of Governments has undertaken a local drought plan comparison effort, documenting variances among the plans and issuing a report and recommendations to aid in a more coordinated response and mitigation approach to drought in Pima County. An early draft was presented at the County’s LDIG and a stakeholder comment period is underway. RECOMMENDATIONS In 2015, Pima County recorded some improving conditions as drought impacts eased, a result of last year’s monsoon, a wet winter and a strengthening El Niño effect that has brought slightly above normal precipitation for the calendar year (and water year). However, the cumulative effect of multi-year drought and inherent climate variability require the County to maintain a diligent assessment and response posture; severe and extreme drought conditions could return. As Pima County LDIG monitors local drought, concern remains for the Colorado River Basin water supply. The Tucson Metro region’s past reliance on and overdraft of the groundwater supply has been reined by the importation of CAP water. Pima County’s large municipal & industrial (M&I) sector is reliant on continued delivery of this renewable supply in order to maintain progress toward safe yield and consistency with AMA management goals. Lacking any surface water supply, the only alternative for Pima County is optimizing reuse. In an effort to relieve dependence on CAP supply, the region’s largest water provider has initiated a recycled water plan that includes indirect potable reuse. Pima County’s Strategic Plan for Reclaimed Water supports maximizing the direct reuse of reclaimed supply. In addition to continuing recommendations from last year’s annual report, discussion among Pima County LDIG included the following:  Given increasing demand for long term storage credits (LTSCs) and large reserve deficits of the Arizona Water Banking Authority (AWBA) and the Groundwater Replenishment District (GRD), LDIG supports the development of new “wet” water delivery to the Tucson AMA (TAMA) rather than “paper” water accounting of traded credits. The AMWUA/SAWUA inter-AMA storage agreement is an example of increasing the physical water supply within the TAMA. Regardless, AWBA and GRD efforts to close large gaps in their reserve of LTSCs should be supported but development of physical supplies and recharge of renewable water is more beneficial. M&I Firming by the AWBA for the TAMA is “farther behind than the other AMAs”, with just half of necessary credits accrued to achieve Planning goal (864,000 acre-feet). After AWBA ten year planning period, in 2025, TAMA firming goal will only be 69% completed (596,000 acre-feet). AWBA has given direction to develop as many credits as possible in the Tucson area. Additionally, AWBA staff recommends continued evaluation of the AMWUA/SAWUA inter-AMA storage proposal. AMWUA’s Executive Director has mentioned that “Tucson-area cities are more vulnerable to a water bank supply cutoff because the bank hasn’t met its goal for recharging water to back up this area’s CAP supplies.” GRD has established a Replenishment Reserve subaccount for each AMA to accrue LTSCs that can be applied to replenishment obligations; a “savings account” GRD will use during water supply shortage or infrastructure failure to offset obligations rather than buying “spot‐market water”. A full Reserve Target 3 http://www.pagnet.org/tabid/189/default.aspx Appendix C - 6 volume must be maintained over time, any Replenishment Reserve credits used are to be replaced. The Reserve Target is unique to each AMA based upon projected obligations and available supplies. The target reserve for the TAMA is 112,600 acre-feet but GRD has only 34,818 acre-feet in reserve leaving a deficit of 77,782 acre-feet or 70% of its target reserve unfulfilled. GRD proposes to meet their obligation and the reserve by recharging excess CAP water and purchasing long term storage credits. Another consideration is the growing replenishment obligation. Within the TAMA, GRD supplied 3,000 acre-feet of water to replenish excessive groundwater pumping in 2013. Increasing demand from growth and future enrollment will require an additional 9,700 acre-feet per year by 2034.   Review Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan (ADPP) for update given approaching shortage, determination of Lake Mead structural deficit and to include shortage sharing agreement and its impact to Colorado River water users, information not available at the time of ADPP drafting. Original ADPP tasks included the development of risk-based vulnerability assessments for each basin/watershed. An update to the ADPP could expand risk assessment by providing analysis of the economic impact at each Shortage Tier and CAP reduction. Moreover, a statewide vulnerability assessment could define the potential impacts within all water use sectors of the state’s economy and provide a better understanding of differing mitigation and response needs of each county. Additionally, ADWR could explore options that encourage LDIG formation in non-active counties. LDIG’s serve a key function within the ADPP; inquiring other entities to serve in an LDIG function (i.e., non-profits) could assist in reporting local impacts to the MTC. Rural areas rely on domestic wells and Pima County residents have reported the loss of production from their exempt wells. The private well owner needs tools to assess water availability and make such determinations as to drill deeper or add a new well to supply their property, or reallocate the expense if availability is severely limited to transporting water and haul water. With accurate information of local aquifers and water tables available to this vulnerable sector, the best strategy for water provision can be devised and public health impacts from a sudden lack of water can be avoided. California’s drought experience has necessitated an interim emergency drinking water program providing information and funding of bottled water and water hauling provision. A planning document guiding affected well owners in water hauling practices may be beneficial. At the same time, well owners could be advised of the best conservation strategies and the impact of groundwater pumping to the local environment surrounding their property. The following are continuing recommendations regarding ADWR’s Drought Program:        Arizona and ADWR, in particular, must continue to monitor the status of the Colorado River and work with the Basin States and the Bureau of Reclamation to address the structural deficit in Lake Mead. Failure to take corrective action could have impacts to both agricultural, municipal and industrial CAP deliveries in Southern Arizona in the future Water providers in Pima County have made significant water infrastructure investment to increase the use of renewable water supplies to achieve the groundwater management goal of safe yield. ADWR’s and ADEQ’s regulatory setting should be supportive of adaptive management strategies to develop new and renewable water supplies and innovative demand management ADWR’s Drought Management Program should continue to monitor the status of drought and report statewide drought conditions through the Drought Monitoring Technical Committee and the Interagency Coordinating Group. ADWR should incorporate environmental benefits from recharging and/or reducing groundwater pumping near shallow groundwater dependent ecosystems when designing and developing criteria for special enhancements areas and similar efforts. ADWR should encourage and promote a study evaluating the effectiveness of managed stormwater recharge throughout Arizona, as recommended by the Blue Ribbon Panel, and evaluate potential for recharge credits. Monitoring of riparian areas in other regions for localized drought impact reporting should be encouraged. Drought response resources should be disseminated to exempt well owners not receiving drought alerts from water providers Appendix C - 7         Unique drought response resources should be disseminated to areas of shallow groundwater dependent ecosystems that are sensitive to well impacts and drought. ADWR should improve statewide coordination and information sharing of local drought responses by posting water providers’ drought response plans to ADWR’s Drought Program website. This could assist communities that wish to prepare or update their drought program ADWR should maintain on its website a list of cities and towns where water restrictions are in place. Doing so illustrates the extent and severity of drought on water supplies An annual statewide roundtable of county agencies might reinvigorate the establishment of local drought impact groups. These groups can provide valuable input to the ADWR on drought conditions. They can provide a forum for sharing drought impacts, adaptive management strategies and successful drought preparedness measures for their constituencies. ADWR should encourage coordinated shortage outreach where shared messaging is appropriate across regions as well as continued press releases to national media about Arizona’s preparedness efforts. ADWR should continue to explore ways to account for riparian areas as well as cumulative impacts of exempt wells within groundwater models and water accounting areas efforts to plan for subregional groundwater balance. Due to the history of efforts in our region, to fully utilize reclaimed water and community desire to preserve environmental flows, ADWR should consider special exemptions for full credits for instream recharge of effluent where appropriate. ADWR should provide protocols and criteria for applying for pump tax funds for conservation and drought programs. ### Appendix C - 8 Appendix D Drought Ratings by Arizona State Park Managers Arizona State Parks -- Western Arizona Appendix D - 1 Arizona State Parks -- North-Central Arizona Appendix D - 2 Arizona State Parks -- Eastern Arizona Appendix D - 3 Arizona State Parks -- South-Central Arizona Appendix D - 4 Arizona State Parks -- Far-South Arizona Appendix D - 5 PARK / DATE Nov-13 May-14 Aug-14 Nov-14 May-15 15-Nov ALAMO – nr Parker AZ BTA – nr Superior AZ BUCKSKIN – nr Parker AZ CATALINA – nr Tucson AZ CATTAIL - nr Parker AZ DEAD HORSE – at Cottonwood AZ FOOL HOLLOW – Show Low AZ FT VERDE – at Camp Verde AZ HOMOLOVI – nr Winslow AZ JEROME – at Jerome AZ KARTCHNER – nr Benson AZ LAKE HAVASU at Lake Havasu AZ LOST DUTCHMAN–nr Apache Jctn LYMAN – nr St Johns AZ McFARLAND – in Florence AZ ORACLE – nr Oracle AZ PATAGONIA LAKE – nr Nogales AZ PICACHO PEAK – nr Eloy AZ RED ROCK – nr Sedona AZ RIORDAN MANSION – in Flagstaff RIVER ISLAND – nr Parker AZ Roper / Dankworth – nr Safford AZ SAN RAFAEL – nr Lochiel AZ SLIDE ROCK – nr Sedona AZ SONOITA CREEK – nr Nogales AZ TOMBSTONE – in Tombstone AZ TONTO NATURAL BRIDGE –nr Payson TUBAC PRESIDIO– in Tubac AZ VERDE Riv GREENWAY–nr Cottonwood YUMA QUARTERMASTER DEPOT YUMA TERRITORIAL PRISON 10 8 0 7 0 0 8 5 1 5 6 0 3 8 8 7 5 4 7 7 0 9 6 7 5 6 4 5 0 0 0 10 7 3 8 0 3 7 8 1 5 9 0 4 8 7 8 5 1 8 8 3 8 9 8 5 9 8 5 6 0 0 10 7 3 6 1 8 9 6 0 2 4 3 5 7 4 5 8 10 8 8 3 3 4 10 8 0 7 6 8 2 1 10 6 2 4 0 3 7 7 4 7 5 0 2 6 5 3 1 0 6 0 2 5 3 0 1 0 4 1 3 2 2 10 7 0 7 0 2 8 9 4 6 3 0 3 7 7 8 3 0 5 8 0 3 0 9 3 3 5 3 2 1 1 10 8 0 5 0 1 7 7.5 1 3 6 0 3 5 5 1 1 1 2 0 0 5 0 2 1 3 6.5 1 1 0 0 WESTERN REGION NORTHERN REGION SOUTHERN REGION 0 4 5.5 0 6.5 7.5 3 8 4.5 3 5 3 3 5.5 0 3 2 3 * 0 - 10 Scale = 0=no drought impact; 10=extreme Appendix D - 6 Graph Over Assessment Period: 0 to 10 Scale* Alamo has been ALL 10s since Nov 2013 ALSP BTA BMSP CSP CCSP DHRSP FHLSP FVSHP HSHP JSHP KCSP LHSP LDSP LLSP MSHP* OSP PLSP PPSP RRSP RMSHP* RISP RLSP SR-SNA SRSP SCr-SNA TSHP* TNB TPSHP* VRG-SNA YQSHP* YTPSHP* W.REG* N.REG* S.REG* Appendix E Arizona Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) Drought Report NRCS 2015 DROUGHT REPORT SUMMARY OF SURVEY PROVIDED BY NRCS FIELD OFFICE’S Prepared by E. Carrillo – Acting State Rangeland Specialist General A survey was sent out in late Sept. 2015 to all NRCS Field Office’s in Arizona soliciting feedback on drought conditions in their respective work areas. Responses were gathered and summarized in early October. Results are summarized below. Survey questions were broad and focused on drought conditions relating to; 1) Dryland Farming 2) Irrigation Water Supply 3) Rangeland Water Supply 4) Rangeland Forage Supply 5) Rangeland Precipitation data See attachment 1 for survey questions. Results Of the 24 NRCS Field Office’s (FO’s) in Arizona 16 (67%) responded to the survey. Figure 1 depicts FO’s and the work area they cover that responded (in green) to survey. Although not all offices responded, statewide coverage was attained. All counties at a minimum had some, if not all, portions included in the survey. Of the offices that participated in the survey 25% reported their work areas experiencing drought conditions. Those offices are; - Avondale - Casa Grande - Dilkon - Fredonia - Keams Canyon - Prescott - Safford - Springerville - Tucson - Whiteriver - Willcox Figure 1. Map of FO's responded. Green = responded. Appendix E - 1 Table 1 NRCS Field Office's and counties in work area. Field Office Avondale Reported drought Yes County(ies) covered Field Office County(ies) covered Prescott Reported drought Yes Safford Yes Graham, Greenlee Casa Grande Chandler Dilkon Fredonia Yes La Paz, Maricopa, Yavapai Pima, Pinal Yes Yes Yes Gila, Maricopa, Pinal Coconino, Navajo Coconino, Mohave Shiprock Springerville Tucson No Yes Yes Keams Canyon Kingman Parker Yes Apache, Coconino, Navajo Coconino, Mohave La Paz Whiteriver Yes Apache Apache, Greenlee Cochise, Gila, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz Apache, Gila, Navajo Willcox Yuma Yes No Cochise, Graham, Pima La Paz, Yuma No No Yavapai Dryland Farming Three Office’s with land in dryland farming reported effects of drought. These offices are located on Indian Reservations. Crops reported to be affected are; corn, sorghum, squash, melons and fruit trees. Table 2 - Dryland Farm FO's Field Office Dilkon Acres of cropland affected 500 % loss of crop production expected 50% Keams Canyon Whiteriver 5,000 200 30% 40% Irrigation Water Supply Four Office’s reported water supply shortages. Water sources affected are; wells, surface diversions and the Colorado River diversion. Crops affected are; alfalfa, cotton, tame pasture, corn, beans and milo. Table 3 - Crops affected & acres by FO. Field Office Casa Grande Acres of cropland affected 324,243 % loss of crop production expected 10% Parker Springerville Willcox 4,000 All acres 20,000 <1% 40-50% 25% Appendix E - 2 Rangeland Water Supply Twelve Office’s reported water supply shortage on rangelands. Sources that were affected are; wells, ponds, springs and creeks. Table 4 - Rangeland Water Supply by FO Field Office Avondale Casa Grande Chandler Dilkon 90% 35-45% 50% % of ranchers hauling water 5% 25-30% 35-45% 25% % of wells dry 0% 25-30% 30% 25% % of ponds dry 50% 35-40% 40% 25% 30% 40% 25% 30% 5% 75% Keams Canyon Prescott Safford 60% 35% 10% % of ranchers hauling water 5% 35% 35% 5% % of wells dry 0% 50% 5% 0% % of ponds dry 40% 75% 35% 8% 65% 5% 0% 15% 0% 0% Tucson Whiteriver Willcox 10% 35% 25% 5% 0% 5% % of wells dry 10% 10% 33% 20% % of ponds dry 65% 15% 35% 35% % of springs dry 50% 50% 20% 15% % capacity of all ponds 50% 50% 50% 40% % of area out of water 60% % of springs dry 0% % capacity of all ponds 50% Field Office Fredonia % of area out of water 25% % of springs dry 0% % capacity of all ponds 50% Field Office Springerville % of area out of water 50% % of ranchers hauling water 40% Rangeland Forage Supply Nine Office’s reported shortage of forage for livestock on rangelands. Although rain’s to date are at normal or above average, rains did not occur at the opportune time for forage growth. Many offices Appendix E - 3 across the state reported good rains starting in the spring, but through the months of June and July the rains had stopped. This caused the forage to initiate growth in the spring as normal, but production slowed or ceased when the rains stopped. Rain did not resume until August, which is close to the end of the growing season. Forage growth did resume as well for the months of August and September, however, not enough to make average annual production. Forage capacity is considerably low because of prolonged drought and die off of sod base. Rains have been good the last two summers and have grown excellent grass but, the production is not there as large amounts of perennial forage have died. Most livestock reductions are not necessarily due to this year’s lack of forage production, but are carry over from the long term drought. Table 5 - Forage production by FO Field Office Avondale % of normal year 30% production at spring Casa Grande 40% Chandler 35% 45% 35% % of normal livestock 60% numbers being grazed Decreased by 25% 35% % of ranchers feeding 65% supplemental forage 40% 35-45% Keams Canyon 90% Prescott 100% % of normal year 75% expected at end of growing season 65% 50-75% % of normal livestock 60% numbers being grazed 85% 50% % of ranchers feeding 0% supplemental forage 15% 20% Springerville 60% Tucson 40% 60% 80% 60% 70% % of normal year 25% expected at end of growing season Field Office Dilkon % of normal year 60% production at spring Field Office Safford % of normal year 100% production at spring % of normal year 75-80% expected at end of growing season % of normal livestock 100% numbers being grazed Appendix E - 4 % of ranchers feeding 5% supplemental forage 0% 1% Ranch Precipitation This year an additional question regarding ranch precipitation was added to the survey completed by the FO’s. More and more ranchers are installing rain gauges across their ranches and many are coupled with monitoring sites. This information gives us a better picture of spatial variability of rainfall events and amounts. Seven Offices reported their ranchers keeping rainfall data. Table 6 - Ranch precip. by FO Field Office Chandler % of ranchers that keep 95% rainfall data % below average 65% precipitation Did rain occur at the yes right time and amount for forage growth? Field Office Safford % of ranchers that keep 65% rainfall data % below average 25% precipitation Did rain occur at the yes right time and amount for forage growth? Dilkon 50% Fredonia 15% Prescott 10% 50% 1% 50% yes yes no Tucson 100% Willcox 80% 40% 50% yes yes Note – Many FO’s reported June and July as below average precipitation. April, May and August, September reported as good rain’s. Appendix E - 5 2015 NRCS Field Office Drought Report September 2015 FIELD OFFICE: CLICK HERE TO ENTER TEXT. CONSERVATIONIST: CLICK HERE TO ENTER TEXT. GENERAL Is the Field Office work area experiencing any drought conditions? ☐YES ☐ NO ☐YES ☐ NO ☐YES ☐ NO If yes, answer the following questions. Discuss with some key producers before responding. DRYLAND FARMING Is there dryland cropland in the work area being affected by the drought? If yes, answer the following questions. What crops are affected? How many acres of cropland are being affected? What % loss of crop production is expected? IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY Are there irrigation water shortages in the Field Office work area? If yes, answer the following questions. What water source is affected (well, surface diversion etc)? What crops are being affected? How many acres of cropland are being affected? What % loss of crop production is expected? Appendix E - 6 RANGELAND WATER SUPPLY Is there a shortage of livestock water in the Field Office work area? ☐YES ☐ NO ☐YES ☐ NO ☐YES ☐ NO ☐YES ☐ NO If yes, answer the following questions. What % of the work area is out of livestock water? What water sources are affected (well, dirt ponds, etc)? What % of ranchers are hauling water? What % of livestock wells are dry? What % of dirt ponds are dry? What % of springs are dry? What % of capacity is available in all ponds? RANGELAND FORAGE SUPPLY Is there a shortage of livestock forage in the Field Office work area? If yes, answer the following questions. What % of normal year forage production was available this past spring? What % of normal forage production is expected by the end of this year’s growing season? What % of normal livestock numbers are currently being grazed? What percent of ranchers are feeding supplemental forage (due to forage loss)? RANCH PRECIPITATION DATA Do key producers keep rain gauge data? If yes, answer the following questions. What % of producers keep precipitation records? What % of producers recorded below average precipitation? Did precipitation occur during the opportune time and at sufficient amounts for forage production? (i.e. avg. precip for the growing season) MORE COMMENTS? Please expand upon your assessment. Add any additional information you feel is pertinent to drought conditions in your work area. 2 Appendix E - 7 Appendix F ADWR Testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee of Energy and Natural Resources Testimony of Thomas Buschatzke Director Arizona Department of Water Resources COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES United States Senate June 2, 2015 Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the Committee: I. Introduction My name is Tom Buschatzke and I am the Director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Thank you for providing me an opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the State of Arizona regarding the on-going drought in the western United States, how it is impacting my state, how we have prepared to offset or mitigate those impacts and how the United States may help Arizona meet the challenges presented by continued drought. II. Background The State of Arizona and its water users have a long history of developing water supplies and the necessary infrastructure to deploy those supplies to maximize their benefit to the citizens and businesses in our State. Sound management of those supplies has been a primary focus in our State and the arid nature of Arizona is a constant reminder of the value of every drop of water available to us. Arizona is fortunate to have a diverse portfolio of water supplies. Arizona currently uses about seven million Acre-feet of water per year statewide which comes from the following sources: the Colorado River-40%; Groundwater-40%; in state rivers-17%; and reclaimed water reuse-3%. Arizona has a long history of collaboration and innovation to manage our water supplies. We have participated in interstate and international agreements to protect our Colorado River water supplies, beginning with the Colorado River Compact to recent agreements with Mexico through Minute 319. Arizona has created institutions over many decades that provide certainty for our water users. Some of those success stories include the Salt River Project, the Gila Project, the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District, the Yuma County Water Users’ Association, the Yuma Mesa Irrigation District, the North Gila Valley Irrigation and Drainage District, the Yuma Auxiliary Project-Unit B, the Central Arizona Project, the 1980 Groundwater Management Act, the Underground Storage and Recovery Act and the Arizona Water Banking Authority. Arizona and its water users have taken proactive measures and made hard choices over many decades to insure a high quality of life for our citizens and a vibrant economy and will continue to do so in the face of the on-going drought in the west. Despite the actions and choices made by Arizona uncertainty remains and the vulnerability of our water supplies to drought is the subject of constant attention among water providers, water users and water managers around the state. Flexibility to manage water supplies and adaptation to drought conditions are part of Arizona’s history and will continue to be a key management strategy now and in the future. III. Challenges Imposed by the On-Going Drought Arizona continues to experience drought and more than 85% of the State falls within “Abnormally Dry” to “Severe Drought” conditions. The Salt and Verde River watersheds are in the fifth consecutive year of Appendix F - 1 drought which has reduced the surface water supplies that are used in the Phoenix metropolitan area by municipal water providers and agriculture. That has resulted in an increase in groundwater pumping to backfill the reduction in those surface water supplies. The Salt and Verde River watersheds are also at increased risk to wildfires, as is the Gila River watershed, the other main source of Arizona’s in-state river supplies. Allocations of surface water from the Gila River have also been reduced as a result of the drought. To address drought conditions and the impact on our water supplies and water users the Governor’s Drought Interagency Coordinating Group has recommended that a Drought Declaration be adopted by Governor Ducey. That Declaration will allow aid to flow to farmers and ranchers from the United States Department of Agriculture for loss of production and it also raises public awareness regarding drought conditions affecting the State. The west-wide drought presents some unique challenges for all Colorado River users and the State of Arizona. The Colorado River watershed is entering its 16th year of below average runoff due to drought. Arizona stands to lose 320,000 Acre-feet of its 2.8 Million Acre-feet Colorado River allocation when a Tier 1 shortage is triggered by Secretarial order pursuant to the 2007 Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations of Lake Mead. Under the Interim Guidelines a projection of the elevation of Lake Mead is made in mid-August for the first day of the next calendar year. If that projection shows Lake Mead falling below elevation 1,075 feet then a Tier 1 shortage is put into place starting on January 1 of that year. Today, Lake Mead is at elevation 1,0761 feet. The probability of a shortage declaration in the Lower Basin of the Colorado River has been steadily increasing over the past few years. The probability of a shortage in calendar year 2016 is 33% and that increases to 75 %2 for 2017. It is important to note that a Tier 1 shortage triggers reductions for Arizona, Nevada and the Republic of Mexico but not for California. Arizona shoulders the brunt of the shortage among the three states and Mexico, about 84% of the total. Deeper shortages will occur if Lake Mead’s elevation continues to decline. Between elevation 1,050 feet and 1,025 feet a Tier 2 shortage results in Arizona suffering a reduction of 400,000 Acre-feet and at elevation 1,025 feet Arizona loses 480,000 Acre-feet, a Tier 3 shortage. The probabilities of Tier 2 and 3 occurring have also been increasing as the drought continues. If Lake Mead’s elevation continues to drop and falls below elevation 1,025 feet, the volume of shortage to Arizona is unknown at this time. This uncertainty creates a difficult task for Arizona: how to plan for a shortage that is unquantified but will undoubtedly be greater than 480,000 Acre-feet. As Lake Mead approaches elevation 1,000 feet, the nearterm limit for diversions by Las Vegas, or continues to decline to dead pool at elevation 895 feet draconian shortages are likely to occur. Low reservoir conditions in the Colorado River system impact not only water users, but directly impact the production of hydroelectric power from major dams on the River. For example, if Lake Mead falls below elevation 1,000 feet, the hydropower production from Hoover Dam will be cut in half. Glen Canyon Dam hydropower production is eliminated if Lake Powell falls below elevation 3,490 feet, and United States Bureau of Reclamation has indicated that impacts to power production could occur at elevation 3,525 feet. Lake Mead’s falling elevations are not tied strictly to reductions in flow of the Colorado River due to drought. A “structural deficit” in the water supplies available from Lake Mead to California, Nevada, 1 Based on USBR Lower Colorado River Region's weekly Colorado River water supply report for May 18, 2015. Based on USBR Lower Colorado River Region's Colorado River April 24 Month Study and resulting projections of Lake Mead elevations. 2 Appendix F - 2 Arizona and Mexico exists as an artifact of the “Law of the River”, the complex set of laws, agreements, rules, regulations and operating criteria that govern the storage, use and delivery of Colorado River water. In short, in a normal year a set amount of water flows into Lake Mead but it is not enough water to cover releases for use, evaporation and delivery losses. That structural deficit results in an annual drop of about 12 feet in the elevation of Lake Mead. In wet years high flow in the Colorado River allows more than the normal amount of water to flow into Lake Mead so the elevation of the lake can rise and recover. The drought has limited high flows in the Colorado River so that Lake Mead is not receiving more than its normal annual inflow and water elevations do not have a chance to rebound. The drought also causes other impacts indirectly related to reduced precipitation. The health of the watersheds of the Colorado, Salt, Verde and Gila Rivers is an increasingly important issue in the region. A number of national forests in Arizona were created primarily for watershed protection and are indicative of the fact that forest health and water supply are closely connected. The drought has exacerbated issues associated with poor forest management including fuels and timber management so that the risk to our forests from catastrophic wildfires is increasing. IV. How Arizona Has Prepared For Drought The water development projects put in place over the last century to utilize Colorado River water and in state rivers have created a solid foundation for meeting water demand with renewable water supplies. Yet, Arizona also recognized that reliance upon those renewable supplies made us vulnerable to potential shortages during drought. To address that vulnerability Arizona took a giant leap forward in 1980 with the passage of the Groundwater Management Act. The Act was a hard fought compromise between agriculture, industry, mining interest and municipalities. It established a policy direction for the protection of central and southern Arizona’s abundant groundwater supplies that were being mined at the time at an unsustainable rate. Mandatory water conservation requirements for municipal, industrial and agricultural water users in that part of the state, termed “Active Management Areas” were elements of the Act. Agricultural acreage was capped and no new agricultural land was allowed to be put into production after 1980. New golf courses were limited in size and the amount of water they could use. New housing was required to show that it has a 100-year renewable water supply before it can be built. Community water systems, i.e., municipal providers, are required to have conservation and drought management plans in place. These aggressive water management actions reduced Arizona’s water use over time while its population and economic output have increased. One result is that Arizona’s dependence on groundwater has decreased from 53% in 1980 to 40% today. In addition, case studies included in the Colorado River Basin Study Phase 1 Moving Forward Report prepared by the United States Bureau of Reclamation show agricultural and municipal users in Arizona are some of the most efficient in the West. Arizona irrigation users in central Arizona and the Yuma area, average 80 - 85% on farm irrigation efficiency, while municipal water users in central Arizona have reduced per capita consumption by more than 20% since 2000. The 1980 Groundwater Management Act incentivizes the conservation and conjunctive use of Arizona’s surface water, Colorado River water, reclaimed water and groundwater and helps to protect water levels in aquifers in central and southern Arizona. To accomplish that goal, the Underground Storage and Recovery program was originally added to the Act in 1986 and later restructured in 1996. This suite of statutes allows for water to be stored underground and recovered at a later point in time. The program has resulted in the storage of 9 million Acre-feet of water in our aquifers for Arizona. The Arizona Water Appendix F - 3 Banking Authority, the Arizona Department of Water Resources, and the Central Arizona Project have prepared a plan to recover the water stored underground to further protect Arizona water users from the impact of shortage. The Arizona Water Banking Authority (AWBA), a state agency, was created in 1996 to allow for underground water storage for the specific purposes of supplementing Colorado River water supplies when shortages reduce supplies for tribal, municipal and industrial water users. The Arizona Water Banking Authority has stored 3.4 million Acre-feet of the 9 million Acre-feet total stored in Arizona. The value of underground storage was recognized by other States in the Colorado River Basin through the creation of interstate water banking agreements. Arizona stored 80,000 Acre-feet for California in a pilot program in the 1990’s. That water has been recovered and delivered to California. Arizona stored another 600,000 Acre-feet for Nevada in the 2000’s but that water has yet to be recovered and delivered to Nevada. Arizona’s history also includes a strong commitment to recycling and reuse of reclaimed water. One example of a major reuse program is the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in the Phoenix metropolitan area. The Nuclear Generating Station contracts for 60,000 Acre-feet per year of treated municipal wastewater from the 91st Ave Wastewater Treatment Plant which serves five cities in the region. The 2010 agreement is for a 40 year term and replaces an earlier agreement from 1973. To better monitor and adapt to drought conditions the State created the “Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan, Operational Drought Plan,” in 2004. The plan provides information on drought contingency actions, ways to reduce water use during droughts and is designed to achieve more aggressive water savings as drought persists or worsens. It created a State Drought Monitoring Technical Committee that meets monthly to determine the drought status in Arizona. Local Drought Impact Groups feed information into that Committee. The Drought Interagency Coordinating Group reports annually to the Governor and makes recommendations for a drought declaration to be adopted. The Arizona Department of Water Resources publishes the “Arizona Drought Preparedness Annual Report,” that summarizes drought conditions and drought preparedness activities for the water year. A holistic approach to water management was necessary to create the level of resiliency Arizona enjoys today. The programs authorized under the 1980 Groundwater Management Act and its progeny have left Arizona in a strong position to deal with the on-going drought at this moment in time. However, Arizona must continue to be proactive to insure that its resiliency will continue into the future. That will be a challenge for the State of Arizona. V. The Role of the Federal Government The Secretary of the Interior is the water master in the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and operates the entire Colorado River system pursuant to the “Law of the River” including the decree in Arizona v. California. The Secretary, through the Bureau of Reclamation, has taken preliminary steps to begin to address the Colorado River drought by participating in conservation efforts such as those included in the WaterSmart programs, Pilot System Conservation Agreement, and the Lower Basin Pilot Drought Response Actions Memorandum of Understanding. It is imperative that any actions of the Secretary of the Interior or the United States to aid drought stricken California be consistent with the Law of the River and not reduce the flexibility or impinge on Arizona’s efforts to deal with the drought. Arizona already takes the lion’s share of shortages and it is clear there is an increasing risk of deeper shortages on the River. Secretarial actions that might further impact Arizona are not warranted and would not be equitable. Appendix F - 4 Furthermore, the reliability and sustainability of the Colorado River system is critical to many Arizona Indian tribes and to the United States as trustee for those tribes. In partnership with the United States the tribes, and others, Arizona has settled 13 of 22 tribal water rights claims, in whole or in part. Central Arizona Project water from the Colorado River has been a key component of the water budgets for many of those tribal water rights settlements. Additional Central Arizona Project water is set aside for use in the settlement of the remaining tribal water right claims in Arizona. Insuring that Colorado River water is reliable is a necessity for the successful implementation of exiting settlements and for settling the remaining tribal claims in Arizona. Augmentation of water supplies continues to be a key component for the future of Arizona. The need for augmentation to benefit Arizona was identified in the report entitled “Arizona’s Next Century: A Strategic Vision for Water Supply Sustainability, January 2014.” The December 2012 Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study, a joint effort by the seven Colorado River Basin States and the Bureau of Reclamation, identified augmentation as a potential solution to close a water supply and demand imbalance projected for 2060 in the Colorado River Basin study area. The importance of augmentation for the Colorado River has been recognized for many decades. In the Colorado River Basin Project Act the benefit of augmenting the supply of the Colorado River below Lee Ferry in the amount of 2.5 million Acrefeet was documented. (Public Law 90-537 90th Congress, S. 1004 September 30, 1968.) In summary, Arizona would like to see additional opportunities for federal support of programs to conserve water that will benefit the entire Colorado River system rather than any one particular Colorado River water user. Appendix F - 5 Appendix G ADWR Monitoring Well Network Optimization Plan Monitoring Well Network Optimization Plan Well Matching GWSI Database Structural Modifications Determine what well identifiers match between multiple databases: WELLS55, GWSI, and WELLS35 Develop GWSI ORACLE lithology, geologic, aquifer, and hydrogeologic unit tables and populate from existing ACCESS database structures DB Modify Simultaneously Modify GWSI Database Structure for Lithologic, Geologic, Aquifer, Hydrogeologic Unit Tables Construct Central Well Table by Well Matching ADWR IT & Hydrology staff: 2- 4 months, 3FTE Outsource: Phase 1 – 3.5 months; Phase 2- 4 months; Phase 3 - 13 months Relate Programs & Statutes to Wells Correlate & Assign Aquifer(s) to Wells Determine what aquifer(s) or hydrogeologic unit(s) each well monitors Populate GWSI tables with Aquifer(s) & Hydrogeologic Unit(s) Correlations to Monitoring Well Construction Determine what wells support what programs or statutes ADWR Hydrology staff: 3 months, 2FTE Populate Monitoring Well Table by relating what wells support what programs & ADWR Hydrology staff: 2 months, 2FTE Optimize ADWR’s Monitoring Well Network Does the current network of monitoring wells adequately provide data needed for water management decisions? Optimize Monitoring Well Network by utilizing GIS & database techniques Outsource or ADWR Hydrology staff: 3 months, 2FTE Appendix G - 1 Monitoring Well Network Optimization Plan Tasks The following work flow identifies specific tasks to optimize the statewide monitoring well network. • Construct Central Well Table by Well Matching – (Determine what well identifiers match between multiple databases: WELLS55, GWSI, and WELLS35) • Modify GWSI Database Structure for Geologic, Hydrogeologic, Aquifer Tables – (Lithologic data, geologic contacts, and aquifer/ hydrogeologic units contacts will be populated into existing database structures from ACCESS into ORACLE GWSI) • Correlate Aquifer/Hydrogeologic Units to Monitoring Wells Construction - (What aquifer or hydrogeologic unit does each well monitor?) • Relate Programs and Statutes to Wells - (What wells support what programs or statutes) After the above work flow (process, system) is established and complete an optimization of the network can be conducted. • Optimize ADWR’s Monitoring Well Network – (Does the current network of monitoring wells adequately provide data needed for water management decisions?) Appendix G - 2 Monitoring Well Network Optimization Plan Background ADWR currently measures the depth to water (DTW) statewide in approximately 1,600 wells annually. Groundwater level (WL) measurements are used by a multitude of water resource managers, planners, researchers, government entities, well drillers; real estate industry, and private land owners just to name a few. Of the 1600 wells measured, some are measured on an annual frequency, some semi-annual, some quarterly, and others on a continuous basis by automated monitoring equipment maintained by the Department. Monitoring well objectives include the ability to obtain longterm records of ground water level fluctuations while monitoring specific hydrologic factors statewide. Problem It is uncertain what the current well network monitors with regard to aquifer(s)/hydrogeologic unit(s) and, or regulatory program(s)/statute(s). A comprehensive statewide monitoring well analysis is needed to best optimization a statewide network that would consider what aquifer(s) or hydrogeologic unit(s) each well monitors and the purpose of that monitoring; factors to consider are listed below (see GWSI Index Well Siting Criteria). A critical evaluation of the current monitoring well network is needed to understand the purpose of monitoring the existing network and to identify gaps in the network that additional monitoring maybe needed and, or identify monitoring well sites that are either redundant, ambiguous or fluctuate too widely to discern static conditions. The first step however towards a comprehensive monitoring well analysis is the resolution of well identification and well location discrepancies between the Department’s databases, specifically, WELLS55 and GWSI and to some extent WELLS35. Without proper well matching between databases, well construction and driller log information is unknown and thus it is uncertain what each well is monitoring in terms of aquifer(s) or hydrogeologic unit(s). Currently there are approximately 201,620 well registry IDs in WELLS55. There are 43,181 sites in GWSI of which 20,028 have no registry ID. The need exists to match wells in GWSI without a WELLS55 number. Identification of various multiple well names and locations for the same well listed in both databases is essential to eliminate confusion and uncertainty in using well information. Common links or well ids between GWSI and WELLS55 are needed for the management of well data and to ensure no duplication or redundant wells sites between Appendix G - 3 databases. The need to reference all wells by a single well identifier prompts the need to match wells between databases and develop a central table that links all well IDs. Proposal Well Matching Through well matching techniques, matches can be determined by comparing all records against each other for key fields such as location, well owner, casing depth, hole depth, date drilled, completed water level, casing diameter, well elevation, top of perforations, bottom of perforations, and etc. Drillers/geologic logs are reviewed to substantiate matches found by database informational comparisons. Once wells are matched between and or within databases, the well registration number, WELLS55, will serve will serve as a common link. If it is determined that a GWSI well is not registered and has no WELLS55 number, then a well registry number will be generated by the “Administrative Late Registration” process. The goal is to assure that every well within the state has a 55 number – a single identifier available to link the many databases that exist. The time savings realized from data compilation for any hydrologic project requiring groundwater level data within Arizona will be of immediate notice once the well matching is complete between the WELLS55 and GWSI databases and a central well table is developed. ADWR has conducted numerous well inventories and developed well matching techniques that can be used as examples for outside parties for well matching projects. It is recommended based on the number wells needed to be matched and ADWR current FTE resources that this task be considered for outsourcing. It is also recommended that the project be scoped as one comprehensive (statewide) project to make use of the learning curve necessary to conduct well matching. The length of time estimated to complete the entire project with ten (10) FTE is ten (10) months or approximately 50 wells per week per FTE. A phased approach may be more desirable to adjust the number of FTE and timeframes to accomplished priority well matches. Priority could be given to wells with previous water levels and well matching being focused on those first. The following is a time estimate and recommendation of each phase. First priority would be for those wells with water levels since 2000 of which there are approximately 3,500 GWSI wells without a registry number. With five (5) FTE in 3.5 months approximately 50 wells per week per FTE can be reviewed and Phase 1 completed. Second priority would be those GWSI wells with water levels since 1980 of which there are approximately 4,000 GWSI wells without a registry number. With five (5) FTE in 4 months approximately 50 wells per week per FTE can be reviewed and Phase 2 completed. Third Appendix G - 4 priority would be those GWSI wells with water levels before 1980 of which there are approximately 13,000 GWSI wells without a registry number. With five (5) FTE in 13 months approximately 50 wells per week per FTE can be reviewed and Phase 3 and entire project completed. It should be noted that the administrative late registration process will be handled by ADWR once the well matching is complete. Also, a business process will be developed and implemented in-house to ensure new GWSI Site IDs will not be created without a WELLS55 match or registry number. GWSI Database Modifications (Lithologic/Aquifer/Hydrogeologic Tables) Simultaneously with well matching, the ADWR GWSI database structure will need to be modified to store and manage well lithologic data as well as primary, secondary, and local aquifer or hydrogeologic unit information. As a part of the 3rd Party Water Level Portal, GWSI database modification is already planned but without a specific timeframe for completion. For a comprehensive review of the ADWR Monitoring Well Network, this phase of the GWSI database structure will need increased agency priority and resources to be concurrent with this proposal. Lithologic, geologic, aquifer and hydrogeologic unit code and data tables have already been developed for numerous projects including SRV geology update, Big Chino hydrogeologic conceptual model, WELLS35 database, and WELLS55 WQARF Well inventories all with the same database structure in Microsoft Access databases. Both the database structure and data tables can be transferred into the ORACLE environment for this purpose. It is recommend that this task be conduct by ADWR staff given the expertise needed to be familiar with ADWR ORACLE environment and ADWR lithologic, geologic, aquifer and hydrogeologic unit code and data tables in numerous Access databases on currently stored on multiple ADWR networks/servers. Agency resources would need to be given to the IT Division for the modification of GWSI database structure. Estimates of time required would best be provided by the IT Division. IT has developed much of this in the past and therefore would be a time savings from previous efforts. Previous estimates of time to complete this project have ranged from 2 to 4 months. Correlate Aquifers/Hydrogeologic Units to Monitoring Wells Once well matching and administrative late registration is complete and the central well hub table is integrated into ADWR ORACLE databases, and the database structure has been modified in GWSI for the capture of lithologic, geologic, aquifer, and hydrogeologic data, an evaluation of what wells are constructed within what aquifer(s) or hydrogeologic unit (s) can be conducted. This evaluation can be accomplished through GIS and database techniques utilizing the newly developed central well hub and modified GWSI database tables. An assignment of Appendix G - 5 wells that correlate to specific aquifer or hydrogeologic units will be made and documented within GWSI. It is also recommended that this task be conducted by ADWR staff given the expertise needed to be familiar with ADWR GWSI and Access databases as well as Hydrology Division projects. The length of time to complete this task is estimated to be three (3) months with two (2) FTE. Relate Programs/Statutes to Monitor Wells Once it is known what wells monitor what aquifer(s) or hydrogeologic unit(s) then a relationship can be made between monitoring wells and program or statue support. GWSI already has a data and code table, “GWSI MONITORING”, that begins to document what wells support what programs or statute. The results of the evaluation above regarding what each monitor well monitors with respect to primary, secondary, or local aquifer will populate the GWSI Monitoring table. It is recommended that this task be conduct by ADWR staff given the expertise needed to be familiar with ADWR programs and statutes as well as institutional knowledge of current monitoring well locations and GWSI database familiarity. The length of time to complete this task is estimated to be two (2) months with two (2) FTE. Optimize ADWR’s Monitoring Well Network ADWR’s monitoring well network can begin to be optimized by use of the newly developed central well hub table and GWSI lithologic/geologic/aquifer/hydrogeologic tables and monitoring tables. This task could be conducted by ADWR staff or outsourced for a separate opinion. It is recommended to complete the above tasks before determining the best resources to complete this task. The length of time to complete this task is estimated to be three (3) months with two (2) FTE. Tasks The following work flow identifies specific tasks to optimize the statewide monitoring well network. • Construct Central Well Table by Well Matching – (Determine what well identifiers match between multiple databases: WELLS55, GWSI, and WELLS35) Appendix G - 6 • Modify GWSI Database Structure for Geologic, Hydrogeologic, Aquifer Tables – (Lithologic data, geologic contacts, and aquifer/ hydrogeologic units contacts will be populated into existing database structures in ACESS into ORACLE GWSI) • Correlate Aquifer/Hydrogeologic Units to Monitoring Wells Construction - (What aquifer or hydrogeologic unit does each well monitor?) • Relate Programs and Statutes to Wells - (What wells support what programs or statutes) • Optimize ADWR’s Monitoring Well Network – (Does the current network of monitoring wells adequately provide data needed for water management decisions?) After this work flow (process, system) is established and complete an optimization of the network can be conducted. Optimization techniques can include, contouring of basin sweep water level elevations and comparison with existing index well water level elevation contouring for identification of general pattern differences or spatial gaps in monitoring. Groundwater modeling techniques such as those in PEST can best optimize monitoring locations based on hydrologic conditions within existing models. Other techniques can include GIS/database techniques that consider areas within the state that need monitoring based on critical areas such as Basins with large WL changes (especially those with significantly declining groundwater levels) and Sub-basins with no or low well counts will be considered for additional or increased monitoring. Adequate spatial coverage of basins is only one factor for selecting additional monitoring locations. Understanding what aquifer or hydrogeologic unit a well is monitoring (knowing what intervals are screened) is another critical factor in siting additional monitoring wells. In addition to the data presented in this report, the following criteria are also considered when selecting new monitoring sites: • areas showing an increase in water demand or a decrease in recharge, • areas where wells can be co-located with pre-existing stream and/or precipitation gages, • areas with significant on-going or projected population growth, • areas with land subsidence, • safe yield considerations, • water quality concerns, • riparian and other environmental considerations, and • drought considerations. Appendix G - 7 Monitoring sites may be discontinued if analysis of the existing network reveals that data are either redundant, ambiguous or fluctuate too widely to discern static conditions. For example, several wells may be monitored in the same general area, or wells screened over multiple hydrogeologic units or aquifer systems can exhibit groundwater levels that are not representative of any one particular system. Also, WLs obtained from actively pumping wells may be of marginal value, even if pumping cycles are known. Groundwater levels collected from “static” groundwater conditions (conditions where groundwater is not being stressed by pumpage or artificial influences) provide data that can assist with understanding the nature of aquifer systems. Evaluating WL change data presented in this report with respect to screened intervals in wells and hydrogeologic units or aquifers, along with the other factors described above, would be the next step in improving and optimizing the statewide groundwater monitoring network. Appendix G - 8 GWSI Index Well Siting Criteria Field Services Section Hydrology Division ADWR 7/21/2008 In general, ADWR Index wells historically have been selected to provide good spatial distribution or coverage within a groundwater basin and to assess vertical gradients if possible. ADWR GWSI Index wells are selected based on guidelines developed by the USGS Office of Ground Water for the Collection of Basic Records (CBR) Program: http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/CBR/Guidelns.html Specific criteria for Index well selection can include at a minimum the following: • • • • • • • Open to a single, known hydrogeologic unit Known well construction that allows good water-level measurements Located in unconfined aquifers or near-surface confined aquifers that respond to climatic fluctuations Minimally affected by pumpage and likely to remain so Essentially unaffected by irrigation, canals, and other potential sources of artificial recharge Long-term accessibility Well has never gone dry (not susceptible to going dry) Additional desired characteristics: • Representative of broad area (e.g., a regional aquifer) • Complete characterization of the site is available • A long record of water-level measurements exists • Lithologic and geophysical logs available Please note that selection criteria may vary for GWSI Index wells depending on area specific monitoring objectives. For example, wells may be selected that are located in confined conditions versus unconfined for specific regional data needs. Appendix G - 9